Staff Complaint - Lancer and Caelphon

[Zulu0009]

BYOND Key: Zulu0009
Staff BYOND Key: Lancer, Caelphon
Reason for complaint: Round two, I suppose.

The staff complaint against Lancer did not go well. I feel that my explanations for why the whitelist removal is unfair and based on mistakes and misunderstandings were ignored or not taken into account, and the removal was upheld with insufficient evidence and unsatisfactory justifications. In fact, I was not specifically told what the reason was, in one clear and concise sentence, aside from one last post by Caelphon. I will, once again, go into great detail as to why the previous staff complaint was handled below standard and why I believe this removal is still unfair. However, I will still admit that I am satisfied with the fact that the SLT recognizes some mistakes were made, even if that is not enough to warrant this, and hope that the issues brought up will be considered in the future. For reference, I have linked the previous complaint and the Detective IPC character complaint, which proves that the Detective's charge was not canon, in the evidence.

Section 1: Conflict of Interest

From what I can understand, the removal of the whitelist is based on the so-called "sexual objectification" of a character that has been, supposedly, a trend. Regardless of how egregious this claim is, as it is imposing something on a character that is not intended (Mobius is not sexualized and never will be, this is non-negotiable, see Section 3) it conflicts with actual administrative action. If this incident with the dress we keep talking about was so severe, why was the solution a whitelist strip and not an administrative action? Clearly, I must have broken a rule if it was so severe to warrant immediate removal of my whitelist. So why am I still untouched when it comes to administrative warnings? Once again, as stated in my previous complaint, it paints the picture that I can break a rule, a serious one at that, and walk away scot-free because, well, I had a whitelist, so they just removed that. Not only does the removal lessen the impact of what this severe and intolerable action supposedly was, but it makes any real punishment, be it a warning or a ban, seem insignificant. I would rather face administrative action for the dress than this. It is simply more fair and just for everyone involved, and it does not render staff decisions less important than lore team decisions. To furthermore support this point, I find that the removal of the whitelist and the reasons given for it do not align with what the rules for whitelist removal actually are. I quote: if the quality of roleplay a whitelisted player engages in is contradictory to the lore of the whitelisted race, or demonstrates a lack of understanding for the whitelisted race’s lore, their whitelist may be stripped. Once again, there is no indication that a whitelist may be stripped for rule-breaking behavior, and the only case in which that is considered and explicitly stated is the AI whitelist. While a following sentence states that for conduct which is especially egregious, a whitelist may be stripped without prior warning, one is led to believe that this is enclosed within quality of roleplay and understanding of the lore and not behavior that is encompassed within server rules. I would expect to have my whitelist stripped without warning if I made a Hephaestus untagged IPC from Dominia and told everyone I met, then ahelped when I was shot, not for conduct that breaks the server rules and which is to be handled by the administration team. I repeat: I would rather face administrative action for the dress than this.

If anything, one could argue that the SLT overstepped their boundaries by enforcing a makeshift punishment for something that broke a rule, when it was clearly something that an administrator should have gotten involved with in the first place.

Section 2: Bad Conduct

The previous complaint was handled poorly. Most everyone who I have spoken to seems to agree, friends or not, that it could and should have been handled more efficiently and respectfully. Whilst Caelphon seems to have at least made an attempt at justifying their actions, Lancer did not, and in fact, exhibited disrespectful and unconstructive behavior by not reading the complaint and replies. How do I know that the complaint was not read by the main staff member it was addressed to? In my initial post, I fully debunk why the Detective situation was an attempt at bypassing an IC punishment, and in the following replies I provide evidence and further disprove it. However, in Lancer's first and only reply to the post, he simply explains why I made the character of CSSU 33 to bypass a sedition charge on CSSU 32.

First of all, the charge was mutiny, which leads me to believe wholeheartedly that if he had read the post he would've learned this fact. The fact that Lancer, despite being Head of CCIA and having access to the specific round when that charge happened, did not confirm or double-check their claims before submitting them, only reinforced my position in the complaint. But once again, referring back to Section 1: why was that not handled by an administrator? If the SLT believes that I created a character to bypass a charge on another, that is clear rule-breaking behavior, so why was an administrator not contacted and why was I not asked to explain myself when it happened? Why is that (factually incorrect) incident being used as fuel to justify my removal if it was a matter of breaking the rules and not Synthetic roleplay and lore understanding? I am not satisfied with the fact that the Head of the Synthetic Lore Team and Head of CCIA did not take my staff complaint seriously: it paints a picture that staff complaints are not worth opening, since they won't be taken as seriously as they should by the ones involved. I am certain that was not the intent, but it looks like it.

Furthermore, I do not actually believe that Lancer involved the SLT in this decision, and if he did, their inputs may not have been taken into account. Though my justification for this is not very strong, I find it noteworthy enough to mention. Yesterday, I spoke to Stryker about this, and two things seemed to stand out to me. Firstly, their explanation of the Detective situation was not actually the bypassing of an IC punishment, but in fact, "the general lack of deference to authority that should be displayed by an IPC" in their own words. This leads me to believe that Stryker either knew about the supposed bypassing and assumed it was illegitimate, or did not. Both of these possibilities are equally condemning. If Stryker was aware that CSSU 33 was a supposed way for me to bypass a mutiny charge, then they would have told me outright that it was a notable incident leading to this removal, unless they assumed it was not to be considered since the charge was during an antag round. If Stryker was not aware of this, just a few hours before Lancer's response, then I am to assume that Stryker had not been informed of it until yesterday. I highlighted the word mutiny because I told Stryker what the charge was. Stryker was aware of what CSSU 32's charge was, and if Lancer still did not know by the time he posted his response, then either he forgot or didn't think it through, or did not actually consult with his team. Again, both possibilities are equally condemning: either Lancer did not put real effort into the response to my complaint (which I have actually proven just at the start of this Section), or Lancer did not speak with his team.

On a final note, I find it to be unfair and unacceptable that despite disproving what was arguably half of the reasoning for my ban, proving that the warnings I was issued were unclear and not understandable enough, and reporting, to the Head of the Lore Teams, the poor behavior of the staff member directly being questioned in the complaint, my whitelist removal is being upheld for reasons that are unrelated to Synthetic roleplay altogether and fit more with OOC behavior, server rules and administrative action.

Section 3: The Justification

The SLT - the Head of the Lore Teams altogether, in fact - upheld the removal by stating that the character is being pictured as sexually objectified and thus, that is enough to warrant the whitelist strip. This reasoning seems flawed from the beginning. I do not see why or how a staff member or staff team can decide that something a player has done had a specific intention, even when that player specifically explains that it was not the intention they had. If this is the case, it sets the precedent that any statement by a user can be misconstrued as something it is not and the user can be punished for it. I do not assume this is the way the staff team operates, and would rather think this is an isolated incident. This is related to Section 1, and the question still remains about why I was not warned or provided with any administrative actions for any of these incidents, as severe and unacceptable as they were. Why did the SLT wait and let them pile up over a year instead of asking an administrator to punish me for them immediately?

To further explain this supposed "sexual objectification," I find two flaws within this as the main reason of a whitelist removal:
    1. as previously explained in depth, this is not a Synthetic roleplay issue, but rather an OOC issue,
    2. the assumption that the emotes or events performed by me are sexual in nature is wrong, as there was clearly no sexual intent.

I have already explained number one in great lengths, but let us delve into number two, which is admittedly an uncomfortable place to go. The strip-tease incident, firstly, was actually instigated by some players present, and was comedic in nature, with jokes spurred throughout. Though some characters were against it, it was not treated as a serious example of breaking the rules, otherwise an ahelp would have been submitted or an administrator would have stepped in and stopped the scene, and I would have been spoken to or warned by them there and then. Instead, that incident led to a warning by an SLT member, which has since been proven to be not clear enough. A point arises here, then: at the time, I was fully unaware that the incident had been noted as a warning, and did not know until yesterday that it had been considered as evidence for my whitelist removal. I feel I need not explain why this is an unfair and poor way to enforce warnings. To my knowledge, I did not have any warnings, because they were not clear enough, as such, they should not have been used as evidence against me, or if they had been, their severity should have been lessened: this was not done, however, and these ill-submitted and, frankly, invalid warnings were still used as fuel for the fire of my whitelist strip.

Regarding this damned dress, I have concerns about the validity of this, too. Firstly, there were around five people present at the time. One was me, one was the person who complained to me about the incident in my DMs (who, for the record, did not submit a report, as stated directly by them), and one was another character who I know did not find a great issue in it. This leads me to believe that this report was issued by one of the two-three people still there, but the report itself seems to lack any details. As aforementioned, Lancer did not read my initial complaint, otherwise he would have seen that I included the full emote. I will do so again: "Mobius' dress rides up slightly and it pulls it down, then it remembers it's a Synthetic."
I do not see how this emote is sexual in nature. Sure, it is unnecessary, and I should not have performed it, but I would be hard-pressed to find someone who genuinely believes the intent of this emote was... what? To paint Mobius in a sexual light? To entice NSFW behavior? What exactly is the claim with this emote? I did not intend for it to be sexual, it is not sexual, and it is confusing that it is being taken as such. I also find it disappointing - insulting, even - that the SLT would imply that I do not know the rules and that I am not aware that NSFW behavior and ERP are not allowed, or even that the SLT thinks that this character is sexual in nature or sexually objectified. If not rude, this directly breaches entry one of the Code of Conduct by accusing me, disrespectfully, that I am notable for erotic behavior with this character. I find this assumption to be unacceptable. If that was not the SLT's intent, then it certainly has those undertones. I think you can see what I am hinting at with that last sentence: it is frustrating and disrespectful to assume someone's intention despite their specific declaration that the intention was different. It is doubly so, when this assumption is used as way to punish someone, by a staff member who is in a higher position than the player. In my opinion, a staff member should be careful when taking these assumptions, and this care is not being exercised here.

Evidence/logs/etc.:

The previous complaint: https://forums.aurorastation.org/topic/17436-staff-complaint-lancer/

The character complaint regarding the Detective: https://forums.aurorastation.org/topic/17338-120-seconds-to-mutiny-zulus-half-complaint-about-end-of-round-chaos/

The conversation with Stryker. I must remark that being assured an application will be given a "fair read" is not nearly as assuring as Stryker may have thought it sounded like.

The message by the player stating that they did not make a report about the dress, left anonymous for their privacy.

Additional remarks: N/A

Edited August 15, 2022 by Zulu0009

[Arrow768]

To make sure there are no wrong expectations from the start: Any further staff complaints about this issue will be closed immediately.

I will look into it and get back to you once I have gathered some information.

[Arrow768]

It is important to understand, that certain behaviour might not be against our ooc rules, while still violating the expectations put in place for whitelist holders.
Your stripper-incident is definitely toeing the line towards being a ooc issue, but it was determined by administration that it will not be pursued as a ooc issue.

Even if a specific incident is handled by administration, it does not prohibit a whitelist removal.
See the head of staff / AI whitelists where we automatically remove them in case of any ooc punishment.
(So even if the mods/admins had decided to apply a warning/ban a whitelist strip would still be "on the table").
For the species whitelists such a removal is under the purview of the relevant lore teams and can be performed if they think that the relevant conduct is in violation of the whitelist.
Which is the case for the stripper incident, as it directly portrays behaviour that we do not want in IPCs due to the obvious sex-bot cliché. (This is where it becomes a "quality of the roleplay" issue)

We have had issues in the past with synthetic players (IPC and borg) who have skirted the line towards the "sex bot" cliche and therefore have a relatively hard stance when it comes to behavior that skirts the line towards portraying a sex bot.
While it might not have been your intention to portray a sex bot, the following screenshot demonstrates that more than one person thought that you were going in that direction.
You have also continued the "joke" in LOOC instead of distancing yourself from it.

The synthetic lore team has the capability to determine what is and is not acceptable role play for IPCs.
They have determined that this incident is unacceptable roleplay for a IPC and sufficient to strip the whitelist without prior warning.

[Zulu0009]

I feel there is a consistent and frustrating lack of consideration for any of the issues I raise, and I do not believe that just being told what I was already told before is a satisfactory answer. You have cleared the issue of conflict of interest between OOC issues and whitelist issues, as confusing and undetermined as these parameters seem by your description. I am not sure why it can be decided to just not pursue something as an OOC issue. While yes, sure, even if I had received a punishment for it, the removal would have been considered, I am certain that the SLT would have taken into account any warnings or bans related to it, and would have thought twice about twisting the knife in the wound by also stripping the whitelist. In fact, it feels like a direct decision not to pursue administrative action, in order to "give way" to the SLT to have full control over the issue. The implications of this are frightening, and I would like to know why the decision was taken not to pursue administrative action, and when. What led the staff to decide that behavior inching upon NSFW was not an OOC issue, and what is their justification for it? From a different point of view, then, why was I not punished whatsoever for that kind of behavior, when someone else may have been warned or even banned for it? I am sure you see how this specific lack of action in my case can be used by another user to accuse the staff team of incongruence.

But regardless, the question of bad faith has not been answered, and I refuse to move on without it being acknowledged. The behavior that Lancer exhibited is unacceptable, and one additional incident occurred just today, as seen below. In response to my message simply asking if we could talk about the issue, since I believed it would be more productive to do so directly, Lancer replied two days after, specifically telling me that it would just not be productive to talk. If not just a bit rude, this response seems outright aggressive, as if hinting that a discussion between Lancer and I will simply never happen because I cannot talk to him appropriately. That felt like the intention behind their message.

A question arises, then, and I would like an answer: why does the SLT refuse to speak to players? Why are they deathly afraid of messaging a player and talking to them about an issue? Why do they believe that behavior such as the one exhibited against me should be the norm? Surely it would only be more beneficial towards everyone, the SLT, the players and the non-whitelisted players, if the SLT took some of their time to just DM someone and say "hey, could we talk about this and that"?

Going back to bad faith and poor conduct, I also remark that upholding this judgment even with all the mistakes I have exposed in great detail seems like an outright biased decision. I have explained how the SLT's warnings to me were unclear, how they failed to communicate with me before this, how the Head of the Synthetic Lore Team behaved poorly, yet the only note that has been made about the overwhelming amount of evidence against the SLT is that warnings will be clearer in the future. While that is a step in the right direction, it is not nearly enough positive action to outweigh the negative (a throwback to Caelphon's own words). I am not seeking absolute immunity from this, and as I have stated I would rather be warned or banned, I am just pointing out that this is unfair towards players and sets a scary precedent: if the staff can make so many mistakes and still uphold their judgment, what's stopping them from lying or enforcing biased punishments?

2 hours ago, Arrow768 said:

it directly portrays behaviour that we do not want in IPCs due to the obvious sex-bot cliché

Once again, I feel like my complaints do not get read nearly enough. I do not understand how it is acceptable for a staff member, let alone a staff team, to accuse me of partaking in sex-bot cliché while I specifically, outright, directly deny this claim and have continuously stated that this was an isolated incident. If the screenshot is all the evidence against me, I find it frankly baffling that it is enough to construct this image of a sex-bot cliché and that I am partaking in it. In addition, I refuse to keep into consideration the strip-tease thing: it happened in November 2021, and I have explained, and the SLT agrees, that the warning I was issued for the incident was poorly worded. The case made against me is weak and poorly constructed, in addition to the poor behavior used in constructing it. It has been five months since the striptease incident. Would the staff team accuse someone of self-antag behavior if they had an incident regarding it six months before? While the justification that sexual behavior for IPCs is unacceptable and is enforced harshly is understandable, the enforcement of this rule, in this case, has been lackluster and below standard.

Why did it take two complaints and thirteen replies to reach this conclusion, if that was the main issue?

But even putting all of this aside, I have several questions:
1. What took the SLT so long to tell me that the issue was a sex-bot cliché, and why did you have to tell me?
2. Why didn't the SLT inform me that they thought I was playing into this cliché and give me a chance to explain myself?
3. What took the SLT so long since the incident, almost two weeks ago now, to bring it up? Was it reported afterwards?
4. Just who reported this? Why did they wait this long, or why did the team wait this long?

Overall, I find it ridiculous that what is very clearly a joke is being considered as something quite honestly insulting: accusing me of partaking in a sex-bot cliché. As stated several times, it is disrespectful and unacceptable that the SLT believes I am responsible for such behavior, even after directly explaining, over very lengthy and detailed posts, that this is clearly a misunderstanding and has been elevated to an incredible severity by the team, a severity that has not been respected in any way by the staff members who spoke to me.

Let us list the mistakes by me, and the SLT.
By Zulu:
- performing an emote that inches on NSFW behavior.
By the SLT:
- reviewing such a supposedly egregious case almost two weeks after it happened,
- failing time and time again to explain directly what the reason for the whitelist removal was,
- exhibiting unconstructive and rude behavior in a staff complaint, such as not reading it,
- accusing a player of partaking in a sex-bot cliché despite their intentions being otherwise,
- refusing to speak to me whatsoever about this incident and even responding rudely,
- failing to word their warnings in a clear and concise way to make them sound like warnings,
- still using those warnings as actual evidence against me despite agreeing on their uncertainty,
- only reaching the final reason for my whitelist removal after a lengthy staff complaint and involving a Head Administrator.

I would like you, Arrow, in all honesty, to tell me if this is acceptable behavior and all of this should be ignored in order to justify upholding my removal. This should not be the standard for the staff team. I cannot stress enough how disappointing it is that my punishment is being judged as valid after all the discrepancies, mistakes and downright insulting behavior I have exposed from the SLT and Lancer more so. If I had not opened a staff complaint, the reason for my whitelist removal would still be bypassing an IC charge (incorrect claim) and the dress joke, not this supposed sex-bot cliché I am subconsciously taking part in. In my time playing IPC, I have only enhanced the rounds I have played in for everyone, you can ask any player who has interacted with Mobius, this sex-bot and they will confirm it. The fact that despite having only improved the quality of roleplay on Aurora, I am being removed from my place and accused of partaking in NSFW behavior, is absolutely unacceptable. Since, as Caelphon stated to me, negative action often outweighs positive action, the SLT's decision to remove my whitelist despite all the evidence against them is not enough of a positive action to justify their mistakes.

Action should be taken against Lancer regarding their behavior, and the many mistakes and faults that the SLT has exhibited should be taken into consideration before upholding this removal under the banner of a blind crusade against "sex-bots," a crusade which seems to target anyone without consideration or discussion. The enforcement of something this severe should not be performed with a sword, but with a scalpel. Instead, in this case, it was enforced with a sledgehammer. My whitelist was removed using incorrect information, undiscussed issues and invalid warnings, and just reaching the final removal reason took days. Once again, Arrow, how can you seriously support such a decision, with all the evidence I keep bringing forward and the lack of evidence the SLT has? Is this the standard for administrative action you wish to uphold?

[Caelphon]

Hi there. There are several things regarding this complaint that need to be set out.

The decision to uphold the removal was between @Lucaken and myself. I am unsure why Lancer has been mentioned an additional time. 

Quote

But regardless, the question of bad faith has not been answered, and I refuse to move on without it being acknowledged. The behavior that Lancer exhibited is unacceptable, and one additional incident occurred just today, as seen below. In response to my message simply asking if we could talk about the issue, since I believed it would be more productive to do so directly, Lancer replied two days after, specifically telling me that it would just not be productive to talk. If not just a bit rude, this response seems outright aggressive, as if hinting that a discussion between Lancer and I will simply never happen because I cannot talk to him appropriately. That felt like the intention behind their message.

The Synthetic Lore Team was made aware of my request that any interactions be done on the forum for transparency. You are trying to create a problem where there is none. You were also told this in the previous complaint. 

Quote

Going back to bad faith and poor conduct, I also remark that upholding this judgment even with all the mistakes I have exposed in great detail seems like an outright biased decision. I have explained how the SLT's warnings to me were unclear, how they failed to communicate with me before this, how the Head of the Synthetic Lore Team behaved poorly, yet the only note that has been made about the overwhelming amount of evidence against the SLT is that warnings will be clearer in the future. While that is a step in the right direction, it is not nearly enough positive action to outweigh the negative (a throwback to Caelphon's own words). I am not seeking absolute immunity from this, and as I have stated I would rather be warned or banned, I am just pointing out that this is unfair towards players and sets a scary precedent: if the staff can make so many mistakes and still uphold their judgment, what's stopping them from lying or enforcing biased punishments?

The Synthetic Lore Team was compliant with procedure to remove the whitelist. They expanded that they believe the repeated sexual behaviour constituted a removal without the need for prior warning (outlined in your previous complaint). Lore Team Administration (Lucaken and Myself) agreed that the prior warnings, however, were vague enough to not be construed as actual warnings -- which caused confusion to the complainant (you) and that steps had to be taken in order to rectify this situation. 

Quote

Once again, I feel like my complaints do not get read nearly enough. I do not understand how it is acceptable for a staff member, let alone a staff team, to accuse me of partaking in sex-bot cliché while I specifically, outright, directly deny this claim and have continuously stated that this was an isolated incident. 

It does not matter the intentions behind something. Someone can attempt to do something with good intentions that still inadvertedly causes harm to another. Must we ignore it simply because the person had good intentions? No. You need to understand that your intentions are not in question here, but the fact that the behaviour that you engaged in was seen as sexual in nature. Paraphrasing here but: "The skirt rides up Mobius' leg, but they stop it because they remember they're a synthetic" ... so if they were not a synthetic, what would have happened? Would they have exposed their under garments or more? How can this not be seen as sexual in nature? 

Quote

Overall, I find it ridiculous that what is very clearly a joke is being considered as something quite honestly insulting: accusing me of partaking in a sex-bot cliché. As stated several times, it is disrespectful and unacceptable that the SLT believes I am responsible for such behavior, even after directly explaining, over very lengthy and detailed posts, that this is clearly a misunderstanding and has been elevated to an incredible severity by the team, a severity that has not been respected in any way by the staff members who spoke to me.

Regardless if it was misunderstood, the action itself is contrary to the expectations of roleplay in regards to those with a synthetic whitelist. It does not matter whether you intended the action to be construed as humor, it was viewed by several others across the entirety of the Lore Team (and greater) as being conduct that is sexual in nature where it could not be ignored when referencing to the previous incident where your character engaged in a strip tease. Your intentions do not matter when evaluating the behaviour exhibited. 

 

[Zulu0009]

3 hours ago, Caelphon said:

The Synthetic Lore Team was made aware of my request that any interactions be done on the forum for transparency. You are trying to create a problem where there is none. You were also told this in the previous complaint. 

You still have not explained how just talking to the user who has just received a punishment is a breach on transparency. Why did three staff members hit me with complete radio silence when I simply tried speaking to them about this issue? What transparency is there to be achieved here, exactly? People not involved in the issue can't comment on it, and they have no influence on this decision, so who exactly are we being transparent to? Regardless, Lancer is still the subject of the complaint, given his unacceptable behavior against me. The previous complaint did not satisfy me, since absolutely no action was taken and not even any faults were recognized in his behavior.
- Lancer stripped my whitelist basing himself on two incidents, one of which was factually incorrect,
- when faced with a complaint, he refused to read it and simply expounded those same points,
- when asked to simply discuss the issue further so I could understand what it actually is, responded with a simple "It would not be productive."

That is why Lancer was mentioned again. It is not outlandish to request some explanation. I cannot accept that the behavior for the lore teams in these cases is to tell the person why they were punished and then shut themselves in and refuse any further comments, only referring people to the staff complaints. This issue is even more prevalent when the staff member to which the complaint is targeted puts in no effort in even defending their action. Once again, the initial reason for my removal was flawed, and I only wanted to explain why and ask for some explanation, but Lancer refused. Why is this stubbornness the basis of staff decisions? If Lancer had simply accepted to hear me out, he would have learned that the Detective situation was a mistake, and perhaps a better conclusion would have been reached. Instead, he refused any comments, and just sent me to the staff complaints section, where he promptly passed the issue to you, Caelphon. If the SLT and even the Head of the Lore Teams can't see how Lancer's behavior is sub-par if not outright against the Code of Conduct, then these two complaints will have been for nothing.

I did not ask for the moon when I messaged Lancer, then Stryker, then you. I just wanted some explanations, some basic details, which you refused to provide.

3 hours ago, Caelphon said:

The Synthetic Lore Team was compliant with procedure to remove the whitelist. They expanded that they believe the repeated sexual behaviour constituted a removal without the need for prior warning (outlined in your previous complaint). Lore Team Administration (Lucaken and Myself) agreed that the prior warnings, however, were vague enough to not be construed as actual warnings -- which caused confusion to the complainant (you) and that steps had to be taken in order to rectify this situation. 

3 hours ago, Caelphon said:

It does not matter the intentions behind something. Someone can attempt to do something with good intentions that still inadvertedly causes harm to another. Must we ignore it simply because the person had good intentions? No. You need to understand that your intentions are not in question here, but the fact that the behaviour that you engaged in was seen as sexual in nature. Paraphrasing here but: "The skirt rides up Mobius' leg, but they stop it because they remember they're a synthetic" ... so if they were not a synthetic, what would have happened? Would they have exposed their under garments or more? How can this not be seen as sexual in nature? 

I disagree that the procedure was followed, and still, at this point I would request that this assumption about sexual behavior is toned down. If Mobius had not been a Synthetic, I would just not have made the joke? Is this really the hill the entire SLT is willing to die on? Even your paraphrasing is wrong. Yes, it was a bad joke, yikes, but it is a joke. You are refusing to see this from any other perspective than yours and this is not constructive or helpful to the situation. If you are at the point where you are telling me that my intentions do not matter, and using a philosophical excuse to justify it, I would request that the SLT come up with a better whitelist removal reason that does not rely on pondering some thought about intentions. It is not that complicated: I made a joke about the fact that IPCs don't have sexual organs. If it had not been an IPC, I would not have made the joke, because other species do. If we really want to dig into this narrative, since it seems like the main driving force behind this removal, I would love an explanation as to how an IPC that is not written in a sexualized way, is outright aromantic and asexual as stated several times In-Character, specifically has issues during psychological consultations with love and relationships between humans, and is a Synthetic lifeform, can be defined as sexualized because of a joke mocking the fact that people are attracted to robots.

Quite frankly, I could write an essay about how shaky this removal reason is, but it seems nobody would be willing to read it, since in two staff complaints my point of view has been utterly thrown out of the window and ignored every single time. You are imposing your own view of this situation upon me without even considering looking at it from my perspective. This was not sexual in nature or in intention, you and the SLT are the only ones who see it as such. And then, may I ask exactly what "steps had to be taken in order to rectify this situation"? Was my whitelist removal the solution to unclear warnings? I was not aware that the solution to a necrotic finger is cutting off the arm at the shoulder.

3 hours ago, Caelphon said:

Regardless if it was misunderstood, the action itself is contrary to the expectations of roleplay in regards to those with a synthetic whitelist. It does not matter whether you intended the action to be construed as humor, it was viewed by several others across the entirety of the Lore Team (and greater) as being conduct that is sexual in nature where it could not be ignored when referencing to the previous incident where your character engaged in a strip tease. Your intentions do not matter when evaluating the behaviour exhibited. 

If I were in this situation, I would read this last sentence a few times and consider whether it is worth writing it. Does a judge ignore someone's intentions when deciding upon a case? The answer is no, so why do you? Exactly who viewed this conduct as sexual? Why is there a constant lack of this transparency that you keep mentioning, but only when it comes to me being informed? I do not know who reported the dress joke or when, I do not know who viewed this joke as sexual, I was left in silence after Lancer spoke to me, I don't know anything about this and more obscure mentions keep being pulled up. Who is "and greater"? Was the entire staff team polled to see what they thought of a single emote? I don't assume the entire Aurora staff team is involved in this, so was the quote shown to them without context? Can I have any details whatsoever? Or shall I stumble in the dark for a few more replies until you lock it and deny me the chance to pursue this chaos of a whitelist removal any further?

I do not understand how the SLT and you can be so adamant on this issue, even after all the mistakes you have made, which you continue to ignore. I have stated several times that I am willing to receive actual punishment for this action, I have gone against the joke as inappropriate and in bad taste, yet the SLT keeps pushing this narrative further and further into the ground by using a personal view of an issue as the reason for my punishment. I will not accept someone's own view of my actions, as biased and opinionated as it could be, as the reason for the destruction of the hard work I have spent over more than a month to build this character. I have been told that someone mentioned, in-game that Mobius was destroyed, and there seems to be a perception that the character is gone forever. The unproductive and unheard responses to my issues, related to this exceedingly long whitelist waiting period, have directly affected my ability to play this character - or play again in the first place. If anything, given the amount of incongruities and mistakes in the way this was handled, I would request that the whitelist waiting period be shortened or that I be allowed to reapply immediately. If not even that is acceptable, then I would like to be able to send a post in the Relay to at least explain why a character beloved by many is suddenly gone.

Has anyone in the people who have agreed with this decision ever interacted with Mobius, this supposed egregiously sexual robot who likes to show off their non-existent sexual organs? Are any of them aware of the effort and advancements I have provided to the server? The Psychology 101 guide I submitted, together with an accurate form for psych evals? The fact that during my period as arguably the only psychologist player, several users added psychiatric notes to their records and sought an evaluation or a consultation? The many instances of high-quality roleplay related to the Trinary Perfection involving even Command members, during which some users stated that they would have preferred to participate in a mass arrest by the ISD as Trinary supporters rather than partake in the antag round? I stated this in my first complaint, but was any of this considered before labelling the character a sex-bot and telling me I like to engage in sexual behavior? Is that really the bar that the SLT has for characters?

This marks the fourth or so time that my valid concerns are ignored or shut down by the staff. I would like there not to be a fifth.

[Arrow768]

I would appreciate it, if you keep your replies concise and to the point.
Having to comb through essays is not conductive to a efficient resolution of this staff complaint.

Regarding your intentions.
The matter of intention vs effect has already been explained by caelphon (and to some extend by myself).
While your intention might not have been to engage in behavior unbecoming of a IPC whitelist holder, the effect of your actions was that you did.

Regarding the unwillingness to discuss this issue via DM.
When you choose to open the staff complaint you choose to try and resolve this matter on the forum in the form of a staff complaint.
I have personally made the experience that if you communicate with someone that has a (staff-)complaint open, there is a possibility that they will (un-)intentionally misinterpret anything you tell them via DM and then try to "use" that on the (staff) complaint.
For the people handling the complaint verifying any "they said via DM" claims makes it more difficult to resolve the (staff-)complaint.
This is why I personally refuse to communicate with anyone that has a staff complaint open regarding the matter of that staff complaint via DM.
It is also why I fully understand (and support) the decision of the relevant staff members to not communicate with you via DM until the relevant complaints are resolved.

Regarding the ooc aspect.
It would not have mattered if you had been noted/warned/banned for the incident in the screenshot.
The lore team does not have to, is not expected to (and in most cases cant due to a lack of access) take warnings/bans into account when deciding if they should remove a whitelist or not.
Getting a warning/ban for this incident would not have made a difference.

I am still in the process of establishing a timeline and checking some logs.
Once I have done that I should have answers to the list of questions/mistakes you have mentioned above.

Edited August 16, 2022 by Arrow768
Edited the DM section

[Zulu0009]

I either give concise answers, or vague and unclear ones, but I will try.

9 hours ago, Arrow768 said:

While your intention might not have been to engage in behavior unbecoming of a IPC whitelist holder, the effect of your actions was that you did.

I am not sure that I quite understand this, but it seems nobody is willing to budge on this matter of intentions, so it's a lost cause to keep explaining and trying to make my point of view understood.

9 hours ago, Arrow768 said:

When you choose to open the staff complaint you choose to try and resolve this matter on the forum in the form of a staff complaint.

The issue here is that Lancer specifically told me that the only way to discuss the issue was through a staff complaint. It's not a decision I took, it was the only option I could choose. If there had been a different one, I would have taken it. Sure, I could have chosen not to open a complaint, but as stated a hundred times by now, half the reason Lancer gave me was incorrect, so I had to point that out and the only place I was told I could do that was here. Is there actually another way to solve this issue, or is a staff complaint really the only one? I understand the issues you remarked on, but the thought that I might have acted in bad faith when DMing people seems weird. If I quote something that was said via DMs, as I have a few times, then you have a chance at explaining what you said as much as anyone else. I must remark that I find it humorous that the staff is worried about misinterpretation, when this entire whitelist removal is basically based on the staff misinterpreting my intentions and using their own view of it as a reason to remove my whitelist.

9 hours ago, Arrow768 said:

Getting a warning/ban for this incident would not have made a difference.

I would tend to disagree and hope that the staff team keeps other punishments in mind, but I have no way to confirm or deny that, so touché. I have to remark how this complaint chain feels like a lost cause, how I feel like my concerns are being shrugged off, and how there seems to be a lack of recognition for the mistakes made so far aside from the most evident one, that being the warnings. The interactions with you, Arrow, have been the most productive, and I am saddened that it took this long to reach that point. I will wait for any updates.

[Arrow768]

Sorry, it took me a while to get back to that complaint.
I had to handle some obligations outside of SS13.

In the meanwhile I have checked the relevant logs to establish a timeline of the events. (Times: UTC+1)

2022-07-09 12:29.13: Character CSSU 32 Created & First Played
2022-07-15 12:29.13: Character CSSU 32 Last Played
2022-07-17 21:06:38: Character CSSU 33 Created & First Played
2022-08-02 07:34:27: "Skirt-Incident"
2022-08-10 20:05:59: Character CSSU 32 Deleted
2022-08-13 10:28:42: Removal of the whitelist
2022-08-13: Informed about the whitelist removal via discord by Lancer
2022-08-13: Staff Complaint against Lancer opened
2022-08-14: Staff Complaint against Lancer resolved
2022-08-15: Staff Complaint against Lancer and Caelphon opened

Regarding your list of questions.
1. What took the SLT so long to tell me that the issue was a sex-bot cliché, and why did you have to tell me?
They have told you that the sexual nature of your behaviour was unacceptable. (In the discord messages immediately following the whitelist strip)
You have received sufficient information by them to avoid this behaviour in the future.
I only provided some historical context why there is a strong stance against sexualized behaviour (from ipc players), that is not strictly necessary.

2. Why didn't the SLT inform me that they thought I was playing into this cliché and give me a chance to explain myself?
They have determined that the incident in the screenshot is behaviour unbecoming of a IPC whitelist holder and decided to remove the whitelist as a result.
The lore teams can remove whitelists on the first offense if they deem a incident severe enough.

3. What took the SLT so long since the incident, almost two weeks ago now, to bring it up? Was it reported afterwards?
According to the timeline I have established, it took 11 days to look into that.
In my opinion this is not a major issue, as it can take some time to properly investigate a incident, discuss it with the rest of the team and come to a decision.
If the whitelist removal would have happened months after the incident, I would concur with you that this took too long, but in this case I think the timeframe is reasonable.

4. Just who reported this? Why did they wait this long, or why did the team wait this long?
We never inform the person on the end of any administrative action who has ahelped them, as this can easily lead to harassment of the reporter.
The same thing applies to lore complaints.
If the lore team is supplied with information of unwanted behaviour, they investigate it and if needed apply corrective actions.
But they never inform the person on the receiving end of corrective actions who reported it to them.

[Zulu0009]

I appreciate the answers, and I would go on with this, but it has been too long, and I am too tired, so I suppose you guys win.

I'd like to just mention that I feel like nothing of what I said against Lancer has been taken into consideration, like the fact that he refused to acknowledge his mistake in the past complaint, which I backed up with actual evidence, or the fact that he didn't read the complaint lodged specifically against him. The SLT's behavior in all of this also feels very detached and uncaring, and Caelphon's answers were only partially satisfactory for the standards the staff sets. It took two complaints to find out the specific reason the whitelist was removed, and the first one was utterly inconclusive.

I will reapply when I feel the SLT has changed, or has actually changed its members partially or completely. I would just wait two months, but I see no point in that. How are you supposed to check that I behave well in two months if you only receive the negative input? And how am I supposed to trust you in not twisting a single ahelp, warn or tempban as a way to prevent me from applying again? How can I trust that you won't just type "known sexbot player, denied" and move on? In fact, how can any of the dozens of people who read these complaints trust you when this is the behavior a valuable player receives? Frankly, this is more of a loss for the staff team than for me. I had been offering valuable and loved services as ship's psychologist, improving the rounds of dozens of people and helping with character development, but apparently that is simply not enough to warrant this outrageous and disgusting sexual act. I just hope that someone in the team thinks about what happened with these complaints. Am I angry, unconstructive and rude? Yes, absolutely, but seeing that I've essentially been accused of being a pervert who likes to do IPC ERP, I think I have the right to be a little ticked off, especially when I'm told, to my face, that my intentions simply do not matter, that the rules are absolute and that every mistake made by the team just does not matter: my punishment remains.

I would request that I be allowed to send a message in Mobius' blog on the Relay, to tell people where Mobius went, since several people seem to think he was killed.

[Arrow768]

Alright, to bring this to a resolution.

• The lore masters have been required to establish a procedure for warnings so it is clear in the future what is and is not a warning.
  • This has already happened. (Currently in the form of a internal topic; The lore procedure page on the wiki will be updated soonish)
• The whitelist strip is being maintained.
  • I concur with the synth team and caelphon that the skirt-incident has portrayed behaviour that we do not want.
• You may use the relay to resolve events that have been interrupted by the whitelist strip.
  • This has to happen in a timely manner.
  • The established server rules on the relay have to be respected.
• The re-application period of 2 months is being removed.
  • The lore team procedures currently only require a wait time for whitelist applications that have been denied (and not removals).
  • Given that Lancer did not specify a wait time in the whitelist strip, I do not see the need to apply one now.
  • This means that you could reapply instantly.
• The synth team will have to make a reasonable effort to work with you and establish requirements that you should fulfill before re-applying.
  • You should contact lancer regarding this after this complaint has been resolved.

[Arrow768]

I will close this within 48 hours unless there are any further concerns that have not been addressed or questions about the resolution.

[Zulu0009]

I'm pleasantly satisfied with the resolution. I might reconsider my previous post and reapply sooner, apologies if it came off rude, you did not deserve that. Thank you, I have nothing to add.