Staff Complaint - Lancer

[Zulu0009]

BYOND Key: Zulu0009
Staff BYOND Key: Thelancer
Game ID: N/A
Reason for complaint: Unfair removal of IPC whitelist. Lancer messaged me today informing me that, due to a joke in bad taste about a dress, in addition to a previous issue, my IPC whitelist will be removed, thus (I would assume) deleting all my characters. I cannot but feel outrage at this decision, as it feels extremely biased and one-sided. The specific words used by Lancer are that "we're not satisfied with the quality of your roleplay or the things you've done as a player" so I will refute this and break down exactly why this whitelist strip is unfair.

Section 1: Mistakes

1. The dress: this was, admittedly, a weird joke. The exact words were something like "Mobius' dress rides up slightly and it pulls it down, then it remembers it's a Synthetic." made during a 6-8 crew round at 5 am, while sitting in the bar with a handful of people. One player whose name I will not make complained to me about the joke, we spoke for some time, and I apologized, made it non-canon and we actually continued conversing for quite a while afterwards. While it is a bad joke, it was made in some very extreme circumstances. There were four or so people at the bar, it was late, the round was ending, we had nothing to do. I was not aware that someone reported this, and I am disappointed that this person did not just speak to me like the other player did. The important part that I feel must be highlighted is that I did not try to defend the joke, say that it's harmless, etc. I specifically apologized for the emote and made sure to set my boundaries right. Lancer describes this in a way I'd define as kind of exaggerated. Calling this a "pretty big deal" is honestly just... wrong. As out there and in bad taste as the joke was, I do not believe this should be the leading justification to remove my whitelist.
2. C.S.S.U. 32 and 33: C.S.S.U. 32 was an investigator IPC I had made which was consistently antagonizing towards the heads of security it would work under. During a hectic antag round, it was charged with mutiny (not sedition). Lancer admittedly gets this wrong by assuming that the charge was valid, but since it was a result of an antag's actions it would not have happened otherwise: 32 would not have gotten charged with mutiny if the HOS hadn't thought that 32 released a prisoner early- etc. etc. The complaint by Lancer is that I made a similar character, with the name C.S.S.U. 33, and that looks very suspiciously like I am trying to avoid consequences for my character. This is also wrong on several levels: the charge was invalid, for one, and 33 was a successor of 32, after having its positronic reset and wiped, thus effectively deleting the character. Regardless, I realized after five scattered rounds that this looked weird and unfair, and I stopped playing the character. Lancer, regardless, considers this my mistake and is of the opinion that it should still be accounted for.

Section 2: Unfairness

1. "We're not satisfied with the quality of your roleplay or the things you've done as a player" is the sentence that Lancer uses to summarize the reason why my whitelist is being removed, but I feel this is incredibly unfair and very biased. It seems the Synthetic team only takes into consideration negative action, and not positive action, which is honestly a horrible concept for an otherwise very capable group of people. If two incidents in the past two or so months of playing can permanently remove my whitelist (which we all know will happen, see 2.) then I am disappointed by what the policy is. The quality of my roleplay is not in question. I will not accept this as a justification of the deletion and removal of my characters, period. Anyone reading this can ask someone else - hell, can ask themselves - which interactions they have had with an IPC of mine, mostly Mobius, and can likely say positive things about them; if they are negative things, they are In-Character things that spark controversy, drama, and roleplay. Lancer has highlighted two negative incidents, so I will list several positive instances of my gameplay as IPC, again, mostly Mobius:

• Conducted several psychological evaluations, some of which ended up on characters' records and opened up avenues of discussion to further consultations and appointments. Some of these appointments and talks were crucial points in characters' lives, like someone's last visit before leaving, someone's admission of survivor's guilt, someone's last visit before an important surgery. All of these moments are loved and remembered fondly, at least by myself, and make up Mobius' resume as a psychologist. From an IC standpoint, even, Mobius has submitted several evaluations and has even requested a check-up on a woman on Tau Ceti after the request of another character.
• Hosted two memorial services after the bombing of Orepit, the first of which was quickly turning into a riot against security but was interrupted by mercenaries. Most of the players involved expressed that they would have rather played through the memorial service and the possible arrests and riot than the antag round. People would have rather had their characters arrested standing with Mobius than play an antag round. I would let that sink in, frankly.
• Has assisted at least two or three people who were about to commit violent actions, self harm or worse, convincing them not to, including at least one antag.
• Has, at length, spoken about the Trinary Perfection, written several books about the IPC struggle, and stood their ground when asked to take down their flags. The flags themselves have caused a bit of chaos since the Orepit incident, whereas one Skrell XO consistently attempts to take them down. During an antag round, Mobius was ordered to take them down, refused, and was killed as a result, which prompted another IPC antag to attack security in an attempt to get revenge.

I would argue that all of this, including the many rounds I have not mentioned or even remember, are all examples of quality roleplay and good things I have done as a player. I don't like to brag, but if my whitelist is at stake, I will.

2. In all honesty, the removal of this whitelist feels like an attempt at forcing me not to play IPCs. I was not able to contest this speaking with Lancer, or explain myself, but was just told to open a staff complaint: it seems the decision had been taken promptly, without even attempting to discuss it with me, to see my defense, or to inform me beforehand so I could figure out how to explain the sudden absence of important ship characters like the aforementioned Mobius. I am now left with no characters to play, since all but two were IPCs, and have nothing to tell the players and characters who were looking forward to speaking with Mobius. This is unacceptable. I should have been given, at least, a day or so to try and come up with a way to explain why a character would disappear out of thin air, but I wasn't. In addition, what am I supposed to do now? I was not given a specific timeframe for when I can apply again, I was not told what to do to "make sure the team can trust me again," I was not given any instructions on what I am supposed to expect now. If the team only accounts for negative actions, how can I seriously be told to prove that I can be trusted?! I was simply messaged, told that my whitelist was removed, and to open a staff complaint. The Synthetic team has been outstanding in recent times, and it saddens me to see that this is the standard. Furthermore, what am I supposed to apply for? Nothing has changed since my previous whitelist application: the character is the same, my opinions are the same, my thoughts are the same. Am I supposed to make up a new character to apply with, and somehow rewrite my thoughts so they are not just copy-pasted? Or will I simply be told "this is a copy-paste" and rejected? I feel it will be the latter.

3. The consequences: quite frankly, this is more trouble than it is worth, in my opinion. By removing my IPC whitelist, I have been essentially stripped, within a day, of all my characters, without any previous notice to make something new to "prove my trust to the team" with. VTM-SP-22 Cyclops, an Ace Combat homage bridge crewman. Object 889, a Soviet-inspired but anti-Soviet Himean machinist. C.S. Kerberos, a heavy combat unit repurposed as a cook. Thespian, an actor IPC used for antag play. And, of course, Mobius. I would argue that Mobius has been my best character so far, at all, and removing him entirely from being played is honestly a huge mistake. All because of two incidents, both of which I promptly rectified or tried to rectify, several characters will be without a psychologist, several characters will not have a figure to speak about the Trinary Perfection to. Some characters will not have an IPC to antagonize about their religion, even. As humbly as I can say this: removing Mobius is removing an active and appreciated character, the only psychologist ever on duty, and a person which many characters speak to, look forward to speaking to, have had positive relations with, or rely upon. Is it really worth removing my whitelist and forcing me to play something else for... however long, for two mistakes which I acknowledge, apologize for, and have rectified? I don't like to brag, again, but really, man? Mobius is low roleplay? You have to be kidding. I cannot accept the fact that nothing of what I do on a daily basis, all the effort I put into this character and my characters, is being torn down because of two stupid accidents. Once again, I was not given a time, a way, or a person to speak to - I wasn't told anything about when I would get my whitelist back.

Frankly, if I can't play an established character I love as much as Mobius, I don't think I want to play at all, which I am sure will only factor more into the bureaucratic blacklist I am being put into. If I don't play because I don't like any characters but Mobius, I can't prove myself. If I play a character I don't like or want to play, I can't play well, thus I can't prove myself. I have essentially been thrust into a position where I can no longer play the game, interact with my favorite people, or further a story I enjoy, because of two things I did.

I apologize if this is very lengthy, but I don't think many people understand this: Mobius, and consequently Aurora, is the thing I do. The thing I look forward to. The thing I read books for. The thing I spend money on to enjoy better. I will fight tooth and nail against this whitelist removal - I have nothing else to lose. I don't know if I'm allowed to, but I would encourage people to come forward and give evidence that I am worthy of keeping this whitelist.

Evidence/logs/etc:

Message recapping why the WL is removed:

Mentioned request to tone things down:

 

Additional remarks: N/A

Edited August 13, 2022 by Zulu0009
Added logs

[Melariara]

Please only post if you are involved. Thank you.

[Caelphon]

Hi there. The Lore Team Administration (Myself & @Lucaken) will be handling this complaint. 

21 hours ago, Zulu0009 said:

Section 1: Mistakes

1. There is an incident that allegedly took place on the NSS Aurora, where one of your characters engaged in a "strip tease" whilst performing in a talent show. If true, why do you believe it does not belong under this heading? In addition, , there seems to be a pattern of questionable roleplay that does not adhere to the expectations of the Synthetic Lore Team emerging, if this situation did in fact occur. 

21 hours ago, Zulu0009 said:

It seems the Synthetic team only takes into consideration negative action, and not positive action, which is honestly a horrible concept for an otherwise very capable group of people.

2. When evaluating the behaviour of an individual and how they roleplay, the negative actions often outweigh any positive action, due to the impact that such actions can have. Persons have come forward and felt uncomfortable with the nature of roleplay that you've engaged in. When such behaviour begins to infringe on the enjoyment of others, it needs to be corrected and/or handled. 

21 hours ago, Zulu0009 said:

In all honesty, the removal of this whitelist feels like an attempt at forcing me not to play IPCs. I was not able to contest this speaking with Lancer, or explain myself, but was just told to open a staff complaint: it seems the decision had been taken promptly, without even attempting to discuss it with me, to see my defense, or to inform me beforehand so I could figure out how to explain the sudden absence of important ship characters like the aforementioned Mobius.

3. The Lore Team Rules and Regulations outline that sufficient warning is not required prior to removal of a whitelist should the Synthetic Lore Team ('SLT') believe that the behaviour is egregious enough to warrant such strip. In the evidence you've presented, Lancer gave you a warning that your roleplay did not comply with their expectations of a whitelisted individual, and needed to be corrected. You then further engaged in behaviour that the SLT felt did not comply with their expectations. https://wiki.aurorastation.org/index.php?title=Lore_Team_Rules_and_Regulations 

21 hours ago, Zulu0009 said:

This is unacceptable.

4. The SLT does not have an obligation to justify why a character is absent. A grace period in order for a player to come to terms with the penalities against them is frankly something that will never be explored or be welcomed within the code of conduct, whilst I am the Loremaster. 

21 hours ago, Zulu0009 said:

I was not given a specific timeframe for when I can apply again, I was not told what to do to "make sure the team can trust me again," I was not given any instructions on what I am supposed to expect now.

Quote

Applications that find themselves being denied due to administrative actions, lack of display of the knowledge of a species’ lore, or any other reason must wait a certain amount of time before applying, chosen by respective species' Lore Writers from the following: three days, a week, two weeks, a month, and two months.

5. The SLT will have to adhere to the above, and institute a time frame for when you can reapply for the whitelist, should it be found that the removal of your whitelist was justifiable. 

21 hours ago, Zulu0009 said:

The consequences: quite frankly, this is more trouble than it is worth, in my opinion.

6. This statement confuses me. Do you believe that the SLT should just forgo ensuring the quality of whitelistees simply because "it is more trouble than it is worth"? 

Edited August 14, 2022 by Caelphon
Additional Information & Fixes

[Zulu0009]

1 hour ago, Caelphon said:

1. There is an incident that allegedly took place on the NSS Aurora, where one of your characters engaged in a "strip tease" whilst performing in a talent show. If true, why do you believe it does not belong under this heading? In addition, , there seems to be a pattern of questionable roleplay that does not adhere to the expectations of the Synthetic Lore Team emerging, if this situation did in fact occur. 

Yes, this happened in November of 2021, and is part of the reason I stopped playing for several months. I have rectified that mistake, retconned it and some time on the Aurora, and pondered on it enough; in addition, it was not mentioned by Lancer whatsoever, leading me to believe that it had been left in the past, where it should have been. Actually, since we must bring it up, I was questioned about it when it happened by @kyres1, who cleared it and advised me not to do things of that sort again; I did not assume that this would have been kept on the record since it was cleared and it happened so long ago. It is an incident I am ashamed of and I have to say I do not love that it was brought up again. I apologize for quoting Kyres without permission, but it seems to be necessary to defend myself.

I also do not love the accusation that I have a pattern of questionable roleplay solely based on two incidents, one of which happened last year, and one of which happened two weeks ago by now. If we are to quote the SLT rules: warnings should be issued prior to stripping a whitelist to allow for correction in their behavior. I can only note one warning since I resumed playing at the start of July, and the issue which caused in that warning has been extensively rectified. As such, I most definitely believe the rules were not followed: I was not given a warning that my whitelist may be stripped. And if the incident mentioned is to be taken into account, and is considered the warning, the team should use clearer wording than "you should tone it down" to indicate an official whitelist removal warning, given the severity of such message.

1 hour ago, Caelphon said:

2. When evaluating the behaviour of an individual and how they roleplay, the negative actions often outweigh any positive action, due to the impact that such actions can have. Persons have come forward and felt uncomfortable with the nature of roleplay that you've engaged in. When such behaviour begins to infringe on the enjoyment of others, it needs to be corrected and/or handled. 

I am not sure I can fully accept that, as aforementioned, two or three instances of questionable roleplay, of which all three have been cleared and for which I have taken steps to prevent them, make up enough negative action to outweigh the positive action I have brought forward. I have mentioned several positive interactions in the original complaint which I fully believe outweigh the incidents, which, once again, I myself have taken steps to correct. I did not defend these incidents. I did not wait for a staff member. I decided to reset and mindwipe C.S.S.U. 32 since it had been way too rude to its colleagues, and too human, and I decided to delete C.S.S.U. 33 when I realized the implications that I was avoiding administrative actions that the character presented. I spoke to the person who messaged me, apologized, made the dress thing non-canon, and we came to an agreement. I do not know who persons is and would rather prefer a list of the complaints against me (anonymous, of course) so I may have a chance to explain myself - Mobius has been quite antagonistic against certain characters, and I feel that may have slipped Out Of Character into people thinking I have a grudge against them. Still, I would be open to seeing what these complaints are, since perhaps some may be unfounded or unexplained. I believe it is only fair that my side is heard.

1 hour ago, Caelphon said:

3. The Lore Team Rules and Regulations outline that sufficient warning is not required prior to removal of a whitelist should the Synthetic Lore Team ('SLT') believe that the behaviour is egregious enough to warrant such strip. In the evidence you've presented, Lancer gave you a warning that your roleplay did not comply with their expectations of a whitelisted individual, and needed to be corrected. You then further engaged in behaviour that the SLT felt did not comply with their expectations. https://wiki.aurorastation.org/index.php?title=Lore_Team_Rules_and_Regulations 

I understand the SLT rules, however, I would like an explanation as to why the incident about the dress is the main justification I have been given by two members of the team regarding why my whitelist is being stripped. As bad as the joke was, did it breach a server rule? Why was it specifically related to the SLT and my whitelist, and why was it not considered as an administrative action instead, like a warning or even a tempban? What makes that specific incident the deciding factor in removing my whitelist, despite the explanations I have provided? Relating to the “warning” Lancer gave me, I had not considered it a warning. The wording Lancer used made the message seem like more of a whack on the knuckles about an instance of questionable character interactions (truthfully I still think it was a bad example of a bad character, I have seen plenty of IPCs utter similar sentences as in the screenshot). In the future, I think it may be prudent to use clearer wording for an action as severe as a warning that can affect a whitelist status. As I mention further below in this response, I plan to post a policy change thread, and this clearer wording will be included. But going forward, I am not sure what the behavior mentioned is: is it the dress? Is it the C.S.S.U. thing? Once again as stated in the previous paragraph, I would like examples and explanations so that I may explain or defend myself.

1 hour ago, Caelphon said:

4. The SLT does not have an obligation justidy why a character is absent. A grace period in order for a player to come to terms with the penalities against them is frankly something that will never be explored or be welcomed within the code of conduct, whilst I am the Loremaster. 

I must stray from the cold but constructive tone of my response to state that this is a disappointing mindset to see a staff member, let alone an important one, have. I had thought that Aurora prided itself on characters and story, and that players can expect to have their characters respected and be considered, but apparently not. There is a strict process in acquiring and keeping a whitelist, yet when a character/player is considered not up to standard, it seems they are essentially dumped, not even given ten minutes to send a message on the Relay to say goodbye. I would expect some level of decorum and respect to the players - in fact, I do. Entry one of the Code of Conduct specifically establishes that members of the lore team must maintain civility and respect towards players. I feel that this statement inches very close to breaching this rule. I have great respect for you, Caelphon, but this seems too harsh to be acceptable.

1 hour ago, Caelphon said:

5. The SLT will have to adhere to the above, and institute a time frame for when you can reapply for the whitelist, should it be found that the removal of your whitelist was justifiable. 

Despite the previous entry’s harshness, my respect for you is justified with this. I appreciate this and hope it will be taken into account for future whitelist removals, not only mine. I hope that this, what I would define as “concession” by the team is a sign that I can actually have a conversation with them to sort out this issue in the best way possible.

1 hour ago, Caelphon said:

6. This statement confuses me. Do you believe that the SLT should just forgo ensuring the quality of whitelistees simply because "it is more trouble than it is worth"? 

No, I do not. What I believe is that for a group of players such as the Synthetic players, simple punishment is simply incompatible. The IPC players are a very tight-knit community, perhaps more than any other: most IPC characters know each other, speak to each other frequently, players evolve each other’s characters together. After the Orepit series, Synthetics took a front seat in in-game interactions and IPC characters came even closer together, aside from some which grew more distant. This is why I believe a different approach should be pursued: this complaint is an example of more trouble than the issue is worth. There are not that many IPC players, truthfully: the variety seen in-game is typically the same player with different characters; as such, and as aforementioned, I will post a policy change thread following this. Whatever the outcome of my whitelist removal is, I would like to see a different option for the SLT instead of warnings and removals. Advice should be given to players, instead of warnings, unless the player’s actions are egregious, unexplained or rule-breaking. The team should be in contact with the players and be open to discussion with them about their mistakes or questionable incidents: this way, the players will trust the team more, be more connected, and I can guarantee that the quality of roleplay for Synthetic players would be well respected. Simple punishments such as this one are what cause animosity between the players and the team. I have been told that at least one player is going to quit playing Aurora altogether because of this incident, and as I am sure the staff has seen, several other players have expressed their negative opinions publicly. This is not some kind of attempt at invoking mob rule, but perhaps proof that there could be a better option than this, a better option than messages out of the blue and whitelist removals. I must say that the way Kyres had handled what could have been taken as a very serious action is in line with what I think the team should strive for. If the issue is manpower, there are plenty of users willing to apply to assist, me included.

I would like to end this by requesting that I speak with someone, either @Caelphon, @Lucaken or Lancer about this. As much as the staff complaint is a bureaucratic necessity, I feel it would be more productive to have a discussion over Discord rather than lengthy forum posts like this one. I have attempted to speak to Lancer, but they seemed busy, and both them and Stryker advised me to open a complaint despite my willingness to talk to them rather than do this. I would much rather have a conversation with someone than spend days in this back-and-forth, so that a solution may be reached more hastily. While yes, I am just one person whose whitelist was stripped, I am relying on my belief that the SLT and staff team in general is the best on SS13, and that my doubts and complaints, my ideas for change, will be taken seriously. My DMs are open, and thank you for the response.

Edited August 14, 2022 by Zulu0009

[Caelphon]

4 hours ago, Zulu0009 said:

Yes, this happened in November of 2021, and is part of the reason I stopped playing for several months. I have rectified that mistake, retconned it and some time on the Aurora, and pondered on it enough; in addition, it was not mentioned by Lancer whatsoever, leading me to believe that it had been left in the past, where it should have been. Actually, since we must bring it up, I was questioned about it when it happened by @kyres1, who cleared it and advised me not to do things of that sort again; I did not assume that this would have been kept on the record since it was cleared and it happened so long ago. It is an incident I am ashamed of and I have to say I do not love that it was brought up again. I apologize for quoting Kyres without permission, but it seems to be necessary to defend myself.

Kyres1 was a Synthetic Lore Deputy at the time they approached you, which was sanctioned by Lancer. This is considered the first warning given by the SLT regarding your conduct. 

4 hours ago, Zulu0009 said:

I understand the SLT rules, however, I would like an explanation as to why the incident about the dress is the main justification I have been given by two members of the team regarding why my whitelist is being stripped.

It is my understanding that it is a sign of repeated behaviour, where the SLT had warned you twice prior regarding your behaviour. Essentially, three strikes and you're out, kind of system. Your warnings are detailed as follows: 

1. Kyres1 spoke to you regarding your behaviour in reference to the strip tease. 

2. Lancer spoke to you regarding your roleplay as a synthetic that was far too human. 

This means that the dress incident was the third strike. 

4 hours ago, Zulu0009 said:

I feel that this statement inches very close to breaching this rule.

I am sure you are sick of hearing this, but if you believe I have infringed on the code of conduct, you are free to lodge a staff complaint. It is a right given to players in order for their concerns to be handled, I do not mean this disingeniously. 

4 hours ago, Zulu0009 said:

There is a strict process in acquiring and keeping a whitelist, yet when a character/player is considered not up to standard, it seems they are essentially dumped, not even given ten minutes to send a message on the Relay to say goodbye.

A grace period for players to become acquainted with their penalities is something that is non-existant across the board, not necessarily just for species whitelist removals. The Command Whitelist Team is under no obligation to give a player time to come up with justification for why their character no longer is part of Command Staff. That is unfortunately a result of the removal, that your character is essentially in a status of limbo. 

4 hours ago, Zulu0009 said:

There are not that many IPC players, truthfully: the variety seen in-game is typically the same player with different characters; as such, and as aforementioned, I will post a policy change thread following this.

You are, however, free to post a policy change thread. I cannot promise you that it will be accepted.

4 hours ago, Zulu0009 said:

I would like to end this by requesting that I speak with someone, either @Caelphon, @Lucaken or Lancer about this. As much as the staff complaint is a bureaucratic necessity, I feel it would be more productive to have a discussion over Discord rather than lengthy forum posts like this one. I

This is a formal proceeding, and exchanges between us are recommended to occur in this forum to ensure transparency between all parties. 

@The lancer If you could please outline your team's reasonings for the removal within this complaint, and the justification for such, from your own perspective. 

 

[Zulu0009]

22 minutes ago, Caelphon said:

Kyres1 was a Synthetic Lore Deputy at the time they approached you, which was sanctioned by Lancer. This is considered the first warning given by the SLT regarding your conduct.

22 minutes ago, Caelphon said:

It is my understanding that it is a sign of repeated behaviour, where the SLT had warned you twice prior regarding your behaviour. Essentially, three strikes and you're out, kind of system. Your warnings are detailed as follows: 

1. Kyres1 spoke to you regarding your behaviour in reference to the strip tease. 

2. Lancer spoke to you regarding your roleplay as a synthetic that was far too human. 

This means that the dress incident was the third strike. 

I cannot stress enough how much these do not sound like warnings. If they were, in fact, official, Synthetic Lore Team warnings, as in "Hey, this is strike one and if you do this again you might lose your whitelist," I would have appreciated hearing those exact words. The way Kyres worded their messages to me made it seem like the incident had been cleared up and there was no issue, which is exactly why I had not considered it as one. The way Lancer worded their messages to me made it seem like the incident was a minor mistake and I should just keep a closer eye on how I write IPCs. I don't think I should be expected to decipher these messages to try and understand if they are an official administrative action or advice, since I fully expect to be sent advice my way when playing an IPC, be it from a lore writer or a player. In particular Lancer's message was, in its whole, eight words spoken to me plus a screenshot. I do not understand how these messages can be considered warnings and be upheld as warnings, and I stand by my belief that these messages need to be clearer. In fact, you said it yourself. Kyres spoke to me. Lancer spoke to me. They did not warn me. They did not strike me. They spoke to me and I took it as exactly that: a talk from a lore deputy to a player. I don't assume I am always expected to be afraid of staff members when they message me and assume that every time they talk to me it means an administrative action is coming my way.

22 minutes ago, Caelphon said:

A grace period for players to become acquainted with their penalities is something that is non-existant across the board, not necessarily just for species whitelist removals. The Command Whitelist Team is under no obligation to give a player time to come up with justification for why their character no longer is part of Command Staff. That is unfortunately a result of the removal, that your character is essentially in a status of limbo. 

Perhaps it should be existent across the board, then. Character interactions and relations should not be kept on indefinite hold because of a sudden whitelist removal, perhaps deep into a character arc or halfway through something important. What I am asking and have asked is just more communication with the players, because what happened to me is that I was messaged out of nowhere on a random morning and my whitelist was immediately stripped. It just feels rude, if I'm being honest, to suddenly have your characters ripped away and being told that the only option to get them back is to launch a staff complaint which is likely to take days to solve and very likely to result in your whitelist removal being upheld.

22 minutes ago, Caelphon said:

This is a formal proceeding, and exchanges between us are recommended to occur in this forum to ensure transparency between all parties. 

I have to disagree on this one. If only parties involved can comment on the issue, and so far none have, I don't see why a DM between all parties involved wouldn't instead be quicker and simpler. Again, it would probably bring a quicker end to this instead of the carrier pigeon back-and-forth that is this complaint. I would very happily agree to a group DM, even, with the entire team, with whoever would be appropriate. And I must also note that this detachment from directly speaking to the staff and being pushed onto the forums for any discussion only enhances the possible animosity between the players and the staff. I am not asking for the moon, really, I am just asking to talk more directly: there is no issue of transparency here, since the messages would stay there and provide indefinite logs and evidence, just like this complaint. It definitely seems to me that the forum is preferred to a conversation with users, for some reason.

Not without some dismay that it feels like none of my points have so far been acknowledged or considered, I will wait until Lancer can make theirs.

Edited August 14, 2022 by Zulu0009

[The lancer]

I discussed with my team and we came to the conclusion that the whitelist needed to be stripped. We do not trust the player to continue playing synthetics.

They emoted their character having their skirt come up, a very unnecessary action with clear sexual undertones, leading to at least one person becoming uncomfortable. I am not willing to accommodate this manner of behaviour from synthetic whitelistees. I consider this serious enough to remove their whitelist without prior warning, a thing that the rules do allow, however this is not the only questionable thing they did.

Their previous character, "CSSU Detective 32", exhibited inappropriate behaviour for an IPC that I told zulu to tone down. That character then got charged with sedition or some other transgression of similar gravity that I do not remember of, leading to zulu deleting them and making a new character named "CSSU 33" with the same job. This was obviously a way to clean their record and bypass the logged charge, which is in bad faith and against the rules.

They had also been talked to beforehand by kyres when he was still on the team about the character's previous owner making them strip. This was a bit old and I did not remember it until today, but it does show that they have been talked to more than once about questionable behaviour.

[Zulu0009]

2 minutes ago, The lancer said:

Their previous character, "CSSU Detective 32", exhibited inappropriate behaviour for an IPC that I told zulu to tone down. That character then got charged with sedition or some other transgression of similar gravity that I do not remember of, leading to zulu deleting them and making a new character named "CSSU 33" with the same job. This was obviously a way to clean their record and bypass the logged charge, which is in bad faith and against the rules.

I would appreciate it if my complaint could actually be read before commenting. 32 was not charged with sedition. The charge happened during an antag round, directly as a result of an antag's actions, and directly relating to an antagonist. I have said this already and I am confused as to why it has not been taken into consideration. 32 was charged with mutiny because of a Head of Security's belief that they were working with an antagonist. That means that the charge was null and void and never happened. The reason I made 33, the supposed second version, was because 32 had been, in fact, too inappropriate, so the justification for this new character was that a crew member had reported the IPC's behavior, and its positronic had been wiped to repurpose into another IPC, which, by the way, only shared the name and the fact that it was a Baseline frame; the rest was entirely different, and it was, in fact, a new character. I have explained all of this in a player complaint against the Head of Security which follows. While the charge was deemed justified in the context of the round, it was not canon.

 

8 minutes ago, The lancer said:

They emoted their character having their skirt come up, a very unnecessary action with clear sexual undertones, leading to at least one person becoming uncomfortable. I am not willing to accommodate this manner of behaviour from synthetic whitelistees. I consider this serious enough to remove their whitelist without prior warning, a thing that the rules do allow, however this is not the only questionable thing they did.

While I will agree that the emote was unnecessary, I fervently disagree that it was sexual in nature. I am not stupid, frankly. I know that NSFW content is not allowed, and I would not have performed an emote with sexual undertones. It was a joke, a comedic emote, which was received poorly and for which I have apologized. Once again, I feel like my original complaint has not been read by everyone involved. Furthermore, if you did not remember that I had been talked to before about this behavior, I am to assume that this whitelist removal was entirely based on the dress joke and the Detective situation. I have already explained why one of them is outright wrong and a misunderstanding, and have also explained why the dress seems to be another, much greater misunderstanding.

[Zulu0009]

I apologize for posting right away again, but I must highlight two further points relating to this forsaken dress: if this is such a severe and egregious action, why is the punishment a whitelist removal and not a general ban or a warning? Is it because a Synthetic specifically did it? If that was the case, it would make it seem as if people with a whitelist get a free out of jail card for rule-breaking behavior since their whitelist acts as a "shield" preventing actual punishment. In addition, and my second point, why is the dress being brought up now, almost two weeks since it happened? How many people reported the incident? I have spoken at length to one of them, and only three or four were there, three of which were myself, another person I know who was fine with it, and the one who messaged me with their complaint.

Edited August 14, 2022 by Zulu0009

[Caelphon]

1 hour ago, Zulu0009 said:

While I will agree that the emote was unnecessary, I fervently disagree that it was sexual in nature. I am not stupid, frankly. I know that NSFW content is not allowed, and I would not have performed an emote with sexual undertones. It was a joke, a comedic emote, which was received poorly and for which I have apologized. 

Regardless of the intentions behind such, it has been seen as being sexual in nature by the Synthetic Lore Team. Lancer expressed earlier that they do not believe that such behaviour is congruent with their expectations. Combined with the previous incident regarding your character's previous strip tease incident, it paints a picture of a character that has been sexually objectified, even if it was done so with different intentions. 

I will be conferring with Lucaken, and we will render our decision either today or tomorrow. 

[Zulu0009]

2 minutes ago, Caelphon said:

Combined with the previous incident regarding your character's previous strip tease incident, it paints a picture of a character that has been sexually objectified, even if it was done so with different intentions. 

I find it strange that administrative action is wielded depending on what the lore team feels I did, and not what I did and what the intentions behind that action were, and furthermore I find it unsatisfactory that a punishment so severe as a whitelist removal is being justified with the quoted sentence. I will wait for the decision, but must highlight the poor handling of this complaint and the inconsistencies within the replies.

[Caelphon]

After having spoken to the Deputy Loremaster, we believe that the removal of the whitelist was justifiable. However, we also noted the following: 

Quote

 

1. Warnings / Strikes against a whitelisted individual must be obvious and conspicuous in their nature. We agree that the language used was not sufficient enough, and the Synthetic Lore Team will have to adopt a different approach in the future. We will also be instituting additional measures to prevent any other issues cropping up with other teams. 

2. The complainant can reapply in two months (60 days), and the Synthetic Lore Team will re-evaluate the behavior of the individual in question and either grant / deny the whitelist.

 

If you do not agree with the ruling, I encourage you to appeal it with a staff complaint. Such will be handled by the Head Administration Team.