Staff Complain - WickedCybs

[Fluffy]

BYOND Key: fluffyghost
Staff BYOND Key: Cyberspy (I presume?)
Reason for complaint:

I will try to keep it brief:

I was warned on the forum by the aforementioned secondary administrator with the reason

Quote

Stop derailing your own thread with the focus on a real world medical company and medicine. You can again, make a policy suggestion regarding references if you feel strongly about them.

 

I sustain that:

- This warning has no basis to have been issued:

    - I have not derailed my own thread, I have addressed what someone else was saying, explaining the reason why I thought of adding what was being worked on, inside the thread about the feedback of what was being worked on, as it is clear from the quoting of a question and an "I fail to see how".

    - I have put one correction, after having addressed what someone else said, on what that person was saying. The correction, clearly marked as side note, took a total of perhaps three lines on screen, over two pages of project discussion.

    - Warnings, as defined by our rules, are issued for rules violation

        - Even if somehow that would in some unfathomable way be considered derailing, the rules of said subsection, which is Projects, do not forbid it. The aforementioned secondary administrator have applied the rules of the Suggestions & Ideas subsection on a completely different and unrelated subsection.

 

 

- The aforementioned secondary administrator went out of his way to request a feedback thread himself from my PR, in which he went to post his own opinion on the matter, on which I have replied to address it, and he himself seems to have took the first occasion he could find to punish me to punish me for it.

        - As part of the moderator apps, one of the question that is asked is to see if you would involve yourself in something that you are already directly involved into, and another is about biases. I would expect a secondary administrator to know to avoid the former and try to avoid the later, not sprint into situations where they are very likely to take place.

 

- The aforementioned secondary administrator et al would have derailed the topic under his own interpretation:

    - By talking about the purpose of the system that is already in place, despite the thread clearly stating not to be about it.

    - By talking about the removal of something already present, despite the thread explicitly stating not to be about it.

    - Other users, staff included, under this unreasonable lense of interpretation would have likewise derailed the topic.

        - This is simply not a sensible interpretation, and it was used quite "double-standardly" in my opinion.

Evidence/logs/etc:

Quote

Quote

[ReadThisNamePlz]

Hi, 

 

@Afya, myself and @eddymakaveli will be handling this. To clarify, you want the warning removed as a result?

[Fluffy]

I want a fair decision on the matter, and I'd like the warning removed if the reason behind it will be deemed (decided to be) faulty as I believe it to be for the reasons put forth in the first block of this thread, otherwise, if not, the issuer of the warning to be held to the same standard he himself have put forth for the reasons I have outlined in the last block of the thread, and said rule clearly outlined in the Projects subsection. The former, based on my moral intuition, has a strong preference from my end over the latter.

[WickedCybs]

There's no real way to be any more clear than me saying this on that thread. This was also one of multiple times I stated it, being sure to let you know that the only thing not up for debate was your use of real world terms.

I would have thought this last response was understood finally, given you did not reply. However, you continued on trying to justify it to other people such as Schwan. So if you don't really feel like listening, then there is not much else for me to do.

[Fluffy]

I fail to see how you deliberating that the PR will be put on hold if it contains references and suggesting to make a policy suggestion about references if I disagree with it being kept on hold until they are removed would qualify as me derailing the thread by addressing why I have wrote them, I also fail to see how talking about a proposed change in a project, in the project thread, even if it prevents it from being merged, qualify as derailing the thread either. Likewise, I fail to see how a warning, which is by guidelines used to inform users of rules violation, would be acceptably used for something I didn't do, based on a rule that either does not apply (as it's on a different section) or doesn't even exist. The complain is not about something you (in my opinion) should have done and didn't, it's about something you shouldn't and have. I have made the policy suggestion as you have suggested (the first of, since I believe the first point to clarify is if they are even supposed to cover this to begin with, given the wild range of interpretation they are taken to) and I have addressed the questions/misunderstanding on why I have wrote those laws using those references and not something else. Nothing of that is derailing the topic, you talking about removing other laws already present, or the purpose that the ion laws should have, is right against the 5 bullet points section on what the thread was not about. You are not the only one that have done it either, but I am fairly convinced I was the only one warned about such a thing, which I didn't even do (as above). And, on top of all that, you yourself seem to have sprung into action to do it, on a situation that that there's a very compelling argument to be made for you to be biased towards, with no need for immediate handling. You could have quoted it and simply say "this this and this laws must not be discussed", and I would have abridged, but no, you warned me, with warning points, instead. A tool that is meant to be used to inform users of rules breaking, without a rule that I have broke, and I also very much believe you didn't apply equally to anyone else that talked about it (or any other thing that was marked as the thread not being about) either, in a situation there's a very compelling reason to consider you biased toward. This is what the complain is about.

[WickedCybs]

15 minutes ago, Fluffy said:

You could have quoted it and simply say "this this and this laws must not be discussed", and I would have abridged

I quoted me doing this and you didn't, you continued to fight about it and it is now continuing here. The attempt at pedantry doesn't really work when I know for a fact you're aware of the policy on references given you have a history of making them on the server and being talked to regarding it. I can look at a discord channel like the code dungeon and see your only real response to another developer like Wildkins telling you old ancient references in the code aren't a reason to add more was "Anything is a reference if you look hard enough".

So, I don't think I'm wrong and I do think you made it so there was no other way to get you to stop talking about it. 

[ReadThisNamePlz]

We have come to the conclusion that the decision from WickedCybs is entirely justified as per the forum rules. It is worth noting the definition for a forum warning is -

"the lightest type of punishment we will dispense. Generally, this means you'll be informed of the rule you've broken, and we'll let you resume using the forums after you ensure us you won't break the rule again" - 
So we will not be altering the punishment given.

Cybs communicated to you that the topic needed to stop being derailed and pointed to the ivermectin conversation within the topic as an example. When you did not seem to grasp why it was an issue - We see it as breaking the immersion of the server via ooc memes being incorporated into ic mechanics. Cybs saw the same thing, which is why it was fitting that the warning be issued since it is the lightest punishment we're capable of giving on the forums. Cybs is an admin and is well within their right to warn you for something that they feel violates the rules of the server or forums. We are unable to write down every single instance of what is allowed and isn't allowed by rules.

However, it should be obvious that if an admin tells you to stop derailing a conversation, that it should be done. If you disagree with this, you can make a complaint regarding the outcome and @Garnascus or @Alberyk will have to handle it. 

[Fluffy]

I believe there to be a clear distinction between saying "this will not be merged with references and if you don't agree with it not being merged due to that you should make a policy suggestion instead of arguing about the policy interpretation here" and "you must not talk about why you used those references specifically", I do not possess the capability to mind read what someone means and I am constrained to reading what is written down.

With that said, I am fine with your decision, I have no possible recourse against "the staff is right because it is the staff" and "you should know what is wanted from you beside what what is written means", nor had much hope otherwise given the statistics on staff complains, and it would just be a further waste of time for both me, you, garn/alb and even cybs to proceed hoping on a different outcome on such a premise. I will just take the L, it's not a big deal a warning point that expires in two months, anyways.

From my end, that is all, and this can be archived.