Staff Complaint - Campinkiller/ Command Whitelist Team

[The_Ill_Fated]

BYOND Key: The_Ill_Fated

Staff BYOND Key: Campinkiller/ Command Whitelist Team

Game ID: N/A

Reason for complaint: Command Whitelist Strip for what I ultimately believe were a series of misunderstandings, miscommunications, and poor recollection on my part.  

Evidence/logs/etc: I do not have screenshots of the in-game events, however I can provide some of discord conversations relevant to the issue at hand.  

Additional remarks:

 

On 5/28/2024 while playing Imogen Janse, Erwin Bauknecht, and Hazel #S-H9.09 entered the Consular’s office to discuss Asylum for Erwin. I did not in this conversation bring up whether the two were engaged in a relationship, however I made the mistake of assuming such, and reported such to Lain over discord. I made this judgement based on Hazel’s presence, and a long history of dealing with Dominians in this situation ICly. This was a bad call on my part, I fully admit that, I should have checked into this prior.   

 

Later in the round, Imogen directly asked,and was told that they were not, but if I am remembering properly, that they were close and still felt Erwin would be in danger as a result. Imogen informed Hazel that she intended, ICly to lie regarding this if it were to come up, which she agreed to, and discussed with Erwin. I did not inform Lain that I had made an error regarding their relationship status immediately as I believe he was offline at that point on discord, but I did inform him If I remember properly the Next day.

 

Erwin’s military service with the Imperial Army was discussed, at this point Imogen approached him outside of her office and broached the issue. Erwin admitted to being in the Imperial Army in Fisanduh, and that he joined as a result of something the 3F did. I believe when reporting this to Lain, I may have misremembered what precisely was said, and entangled it with stuff on the Relationship manifest. If I did so, it was in error and not a result of malicious intent.  

 

I should say that at this point from an IC perspective, Imogen did not harbor positive feelings towards Erwin due to her personal beliefs, something I shared with Lain.  

 

Yesterday, I was approached by Campinkiller on Discord and informed that I “Lied to Lore staff” regarding said Asylum case, and because of that, along with a prior warning I have for ‘Showing insufficient regard for my own personal safety (Paraphrased)’ as a Consular, I was having my whitelist stripped.  

 

I am fully admitting that I made errors in this process, and that I believe a conversation regarding this, or even a warning might’ve been appropriate, however I do not believe that assuming ill-intent, without even offering me a chance to explain anything is an appropriate reason, if anything it is a grossly excessive over-reaction.

Edit: I should note that this entire situation has occured during an egregiously difficult time for me due to a Medical situation IRL.  I am not seeking to use this as a sob story, or an excuse to remove blame for myself, but I have been intensely distracted due to my mind being focused on my current situation, which I believe may have contributed to me misremembering, and confusing a few things. 

Edited June 3 by The_Ill_Fated
Added Edit.

[MattAtlas]

8 hours ago, The_Ill_Fated said:

On 5/28/2024 while playing Imogen Janse, Erwin Bauknecht, and Hazel #S-H9.09 entered the Consular’s office to discuss Asylum for Erwin. I did not in this conversation bring up whether the two were engaged in a relationship

Is this something you are 100% sure of?

[The_Ill_Fated]

1 hour ago, MattAtlas said:

Is this something you are 100% sure of?

Yes, in the initial conversation where they were in Imogen's office, to my recollection it was not discussed at all.  I assumed, told Lain  then went "Fuck I should ask".  Imogen walked into Nines in the hallway in-front of Medical and asked her the nature of their relationship at that point.  Imogen told her despite it seeming Personal, it was relevant, Nines asked why, and Imogen told her that a relationship would put Erwin in Danger and would be a reason the application might be expedited.   Nines said they were not in an 'Intimate' relationship. Imogen told her that ICly, were it to come up, she intended to lie regarding it.  Nines acknowledged that, ran up to infront of the bridge where Erwin was, and whispered to him, presumably about that. 

I informed Lain of their relationship not being romantic in nature the next day on 5/29/24.  I did not mention that Imogen had intended to lie, but Imogen had also began to second-guess that intention,  mainly due to Erwin's military service, and she so she was unlikely to do so.  Had her mind changed where was intended to lie for them again, I would have informed him.  

[MattAtlas]

19 minutes ago, The_Ill_Fated said:

Yes, in the initial conversation where they were in Imogen's office, to my recollection it was not discussed at all.  I assumed, told Lain  then went "Fuck I should ask".  Imogen walked into Nines in the hallway in-front of Medical and asked her the nature of their relationship at that point.  Imogen told her despite it seeming Personal, it was relevant, Nines asked why, and Imogen told her that a relationship would put Erwin in Danger and would be a reason the application might be expedited.   Nines said they were not in an 'Intimate' relationship. Imogen told her that ICly, were it to come up, she intended to lie regarding it.  Nines acknowledged that, ran up to infront of the bridge where Erwin was, and whispered to him, presumably about that. 

I informed Lain of their relationship not being romantic in nature the next day on 5/29/24.  I did not mention that Imogen had intended to lie, but Imogen had also began to second-guess that intention,  mainly due to Erwin's military service, and she so she was unlikely to do so.  Had her mind changed where was intended to lie for them again, I would have informed him.  

As the person that ultimately decided that your whitelist should be stripped, the key thing to understand is that you did not do your due diligence on extremely important matters that involve another player's character. You deciding to lie about Erwin being in a relationship with a Shell to your home nation and also neglecting to tell staff that you were going to lie, are pretty big things to mess up. This goes doubly so when you later change your mind on a dime. These things can have severe effects on a character or even on the player's will to play the character - what you did is going far beyond the rules. To add to this, not telling the Human loredev about something as important as your character lying to their home nation cannot be attributed to a simple misunderstanding or being forgetful. If this weren't your first offense, sure - but this is not your first offense with a command whitelist.

Ultimately, your whitelist was stripped because this isn't the first time you've been talked to about command play by us, and also because this is more severe than a simple in-game rules violation.

[The_Ill_Fated]

13 minutes ago, MattAtlas said:

If this weren't your first offense, sure - but this is not your first offense with a command whitelist.

Ultimately, your whitelist was stripped because this isn't the first time you've been talked to about command play by us, and also because this is more severe than a simple in-game rules violation.

I understand your points about why and how I fucked up, and I do not disagree with them.  As I said, I made errors in the process and I understand these could have a substantial impact.  

I don't really understand your logical leap that because I have a warning for an entirely different aspect of command play, specifically cutting a player's gimmick short, and not displaying an appropriate level of fear-roleplay during an antag situation, means that I intentionally lied and mislead staff to...some sort of end.  The errors are seperate, and virtually unrelated, outside of being a 'command' character.  I admit my faults with this situation, but none of them were maliciously intended. 

I also do not believe the method this was gone about was appropriate either, I was messaged out of the blue with no chance to explain my intentions, why things happened the way they did, or just have a discussion about this.  All of which would've occured had this been a In-game thing.  

[The_Ill_Fated]

Requesting someone take a look at this, it's been two weeks without further reply.  

[Arrow768]

As you have named the entire whitelist team in the complaint and noone else has claimed it so far, I will handle it.
(Please excuse any spelling mistakes as I am writing that on my mobile phone while on vacation)

On 03/06/2024 at 14:42, The_Ill_Fated said:

I understand your points about why and how I fucked up, and I do not disagree with them.  As I said, I made errors in the process and I understand these could have a substantial impact.  

Given that, I will not look into the issues that occured and only the statements you made afterwards:

Regarding: "Unrelated Errors leading to a command whitelist strip"

On 03/06/2024 at 14:42, The_Ill_Fated said:

I don't really understand your logical leap that because I have a warning for an entirely different aspect of command play, specifically cutting a player's gimmick short, and not displaying an appropriate level of fear-roleplay during an antag situation, means that I intentionally lied and mislead staff to...some sort of end.  The errors are seperate, and virtually unrelated, outside of being a 'command' character.  I admit my faults with this situation, but none of them were maliciously intended. 

The current whitelist rules can be seen here: Command Whitelist Rules - Format - Last Update 02/11/2023 - READ BEFORE POSTING - Whitelist Applications - Aurora Station
This is the section on the removal of command whitelists:

On 14/09/2018 at 22:06, MattAtlas said:

• Failure to uphold the standards put in place for a member of command.
• Receiving too many administrative actions. Any temporary ban, job ban or permanent ban will result in the whitelist being removed.

The previous conditions are under the discretion of the team to enforce. If you disagree with the removal, create a staff complaint for others to review.

In Addition the whitelist application format also contains this: "Do you understand your whitelist is not permanent, and may be stripped following continuous administrative action?
[answer here]"

As you have had multiple administrative interactions for failing to uphold the standards put in place for command whitelist holders, the whitelist removal is warranted.
The current whitelist rules do not require that these failures to uphold the whitelist must be incidents that are linked to each other somehow.

Regarding: "Not being able to explain your intentions"

On 03/06/2024 at 14:42, The_Ill_Fated said:

I also do not believe the method this was gone about was appropriate either, I was messaged out of the blue with no chance to explain my intentions, why things happened the way they did, or just have a discussion about this.  All of which would've occured had this been a In-game thing.  

When sufficient information has been gathered to act on that information, staff members do not need to open a conversation with someone to discuss the infractions before applying a appropriate corrective action. (i.e. consider someone welderbombing, they just get instantly banned as griefer; The rest can be sorted out via unban/staff complaint)

Staff Members are required to inform you in some way about actions taken against you. From what has been mentioned here, I believe that this has happened?!

Given that you do agree that you have made a mistake, I do not see a failure to investigate this issue properly on part of the command whitelist team.
(Unless you do want me to look into that closer)

Conclusion:
I do not see an issue with how the command whitelist team acted in this case, as it was covered by the currently established rules regarding whitelists and our general operating procedure.
You are of course free to make a policy suggestion to change either of those.

The "informal" motto of the head of staff whitelist is "easy to gain, easy to loose".
I have inquired with the head of staff whitelist team and been informed that this is still the case and that you have not been banned from re-applying ever again.
Should you reapply after 1 month, I do not forsee any major issues with a reapplication provided that you meet the requirements for a successful application.

If you have any remaining questions/concerns please let me know.

[The_Ill_Fated]

 

7 hours ago, Arrow768 said:

As you have had multiple administrative interactions for failing to uphold the standards put in place for command whitelist holders, the whitelist removal is warranted.
The current whitelist rules do not require that these failures to uphold the whitelist must be incidents that are linked to each other somehow.

 I can entirely understand that, and were it as simple as that, I would disagree, but understand the judgement made.  However that has not been the entirety of what the involved Administrative staff have communicated to me.  

On 03/06/2024 at 08:18, MattAtlas said:

"Cannot be attributed to a simple misunderstanding or being forgetful. If this weren't your first offense, sure - but this is not your first offense with a command whitelist."

 

This is the heart of what has especially made me upset regarding this entire situation.  The allegation that, somehow the fact that I have had a warning for entirely separate aspect of Command Play has guaranteed that I am lying regarding this situation.  Beyond the breadth of this complaint, when and if I re-obtain Command Whitelist, the unsubstantiated allegation that I am OOCly willing to lie in a matter that will endanger other player's characters, is going to remain.  

As prior, I entirely want the Command Whitelist to play a Consular, that and only that.   A CoC consular in particular has, or at least mine has a substantial amount of their Roleplaying and engagement in terms of citizenship, and Asylum, particularly in regards to Dominian players, an action that can put their character in risk of consequences that involve them being removed from the Horizon.   While I believe most players would be willing to understand miscommunications, and misunderstandings, I do think that a repeated allegation of deliberate, and malicious lying for the OOC removal of a character from the game, is something that will not be understood, and will make some players hesitant to engage with me.  
 

I fully admit to having mishandled the Asylum situation, I however categorically deny that I had any intentional misleading, or malicious intent behind those errors, miscommunications, or misunderstandings.  I believe both MattAtlas, and Campinkiller have taken intentionally negative readings of what was said, and gleamed intent behind that, which does not exist.  Beyond anything else, I think this is fundamentally what was performed the most poorly on the part of the Administrative Team, and above anything else needs to be addressed.  

Edited June 20 by The_Ill_Fated

[CampinKiller]

On 19/06/2024 at 19:03, The_Ill_Fated said:

the unsubstantiated allegation that I am OOCly willing to lie in a matter that will endanger other player's characters, is going to remain.  

I don’t believe it is unsubstantiated. There was either a grossly negligent level of miscommunication here with lain, or it was intentional. Neither of which are acceptable from a command whitelisted player. Your past history may not be precisely within this issue, so to speak, but it is a consideration when it comes to either just warning you or taking your whitelist.

I also take issue with saying that myself and Matt have taken “intentionally negative” readings of your actions. I have absolutely no issues with you as a player, and I do not particularly enjoy being accused of essentially targeting you (for whatever reason?)

[The_Ill_Fated]

5 hours ago, CampinKiller said:

I don’t believe it is unsubstantiated. There was either a grossly negligent level of miscommunication here with lain, or it was intentional. Neither of which are acceptable from a command whitelisted player. Your past history may not be precisely within this issue, so to speak, but it is a consideration when it comes to either just warning you or taking your whitelist.

I also take issue with saying that myself and Matt have taken “intentionally negative” readings of your actions. I have absolutely no issues with you as a player, and I do not particularly enjoy being accused of essentially targeting you (for whatever reason?)

At this point, I am not arguing that I shouldn't have lost my whitelist.

As you yourself just said, the possibility exists that I exceptionally poorly worded several important, perhaps in a negligent manner, during this.  That is neither how yourself, nor Matt have addressed me regarding this.  You directly, in your initial discord message said "You lied to the Lore team", as pictured above.  @MattAtlas directly above said that because of prior offenses in unrelated parts of command play it cannot be attributed to a misunderstanding, i.e. I was lying.  

I'm not suggesting that you, or Matt personally have a direct issue with myself, that you are taking out via Administrative action.  I am suggesting that when acting in your administrative role, you assumed the worse of the two options presented to you, and accused me of lying because of my prior poor decisions while in a command role.   In addition 'My past history' is precisely with this issue, as according to @MattAtlas it means my actions can't be attributed to any sort of mistake, or misunderstanding.  

At this point, I really would just suggest a more considered approach to this sort of situation, even if it only amounts to more careful wording.  I did not lie, I will not lie, and I have at no point in time wanted a character to disappear for OOC considerations, nor would I do anything intentionally to cause that.  

[Arrow768]

From the information available to me you have told Lain that the person making the asylum request is in a relationship that is not publicly known.

From the chat logs I can see that Hazel S-H9.09 answered your question about being in a relationship with: “[…] No, but we’re… close enough that I think he’s worried for his life even so, ma’am”

How do you explain the difference between what you have been told ICly and what you OOCly told the human lore staff?

 

[The_Ill_Fated]

10 hours ago, Arrow768 said:

From the information available to me you have told Lain that the person making the asylum request is in a relationship that is not publicly known.

From the chat logs I can see that Hazel S-H9.09 answered your question about being in a relationship with: “[…] No, but we’re… close enough that I think he’s worried for his life even so, ma’am”

How do you explain the difference between what you have been told ICly and what you OOCly told the human lore staff?

 

I informed Lain of that based off an assumption, I assumed that given the circumstances involved (i.e. a Dominian showing up for an Asylum application with an IPC in-tow), and the history of this type of thing with Dominians.   

Later in the round I basically had the thought of "Fuck, I should probably figure out for sure".  

At that point, I ran into Nines in-front of Medical, and directly asked her, she asked why it was relevant, I explained it was a factor that would put Erwin's life at risk, and Nines said the line you quoted.  Imogen said either she would consider lying about it, or would lie it about, I don't remember the exact phrasing it's been a few weeks .  At this point Lain was off-line, and I didn't message him about it then, but I informed him of the fact that they were not in a relationship  the next day when I saw him online.  I made a substantial error in not telling him that Imogen had considered lying, even if she had changed her intentions at that point.  

Edited June 24 by The_Ill_Fated

[Arrow768]

As far as I know discord stores messages sent to a person if they are not online. Once they come back online they can then see the message that was sent.

Why did you wait with sending the correction until lain was back online?

[The_Ill_Fated]

33 minutes ago, Arrow768 said:

As far as I know discord stores messages sent to a person if they are not online. Once they come back online they can then see the message that was sent.

Why did you wait with sending the correction until lain was back online?

Because I didn't think it exceptionally urgent at nearly 11PM at night.  I knew that it would be a continuing topic of discussion, and that I could mention it then.  

On top of that, while me and Lain have gotten fairly friendly, me getting comfortable with him is a recent occurrence.  I didn't want the guy waking up to a bunch of notifications in the morning, and getting annoyed with me messaging him.  

[Arrow768]

It seems I forgot about that complaint.

My conclusion from the post above still stands as I do not see anything that would change the conclusion.

Regarding "not waking up someone with a discord message":
Discord is well established as an asynchronous communication medium, and every user has the option to mute their mobile phone/change their status/... when they sleep/don't want to be disturbed. If they do not do so and are disrupted by a message, they might receive, that is generally on them.
It is definitely not something that a sender is expected to take into account (especially considering that people who play Aurora are spready all over the world and it would be unrealistic to expect or research the time zone the recipient of a message lives in)