Staff Complaint-BakaGaijin

[Frances]

I believe this is an abuse report and not a ban appeal, so screeching about the bans isn't really doing anything but derailing the thread.

The issues you quoted were actually answered fairly extensively throughout the thread. They're also very much related to the final ban, as Smiley claims he was punished for a case against him (the pAI) while he was actually punished solely for multikeying (with the case not even being considered at that point - it was a case against him so arguing that it should be examined more doesn't really do him any favors.)

For the general accusations of hasty judgement calls from Baka, Baka went and explained her reasoning and general modus operandi for each case in this post, and she repeatedly mentions Doomberg being involved in complaint decisions whenever a judgement is submitted (I'm simply assuming she tends to post the final rulings more often than he.)

So in this particular instance, I believe the user's points were considered and then dismissed, as he was found in breach of the rules in every incident mentioned.

I get what you're trying to do but sometimes I feel like you don't fully read the threads you post in :/

[EvilBrage]

I don't usually agree with Chaz, but Smiley/Bygone did say something about not playing even if their ban was lifted - which it shouldn't any time soon, because:

 

All attempts to evade a temporary ban (e.g. by multikeying) will result in the ban being made permanent.

 

That said, I've seen Baka jump the gun a few times, sure - but if I felt so strongly about it, I'd have brought up a complaint myself. If you don't feel like you're being treated fairly, I guarantee you'll find more sympathy by privately discussing the issue with the head administrators and/or developers as they're available, rather than tossing the case out into the public arena. From everything that you've thrown out there (which I will freely admit I haven't read all of,) it sounds like you might have a case, or at very least you think you have one. Problem is - you chose the wrong way to go about rectifying wrongs, perceived or otherwise. If you disregard multikeying rules so carelessly, how are we supposed to look favorably on your intent, here?

There's a right and a wrong way to go about all of this, and I don't believe you've gone about the former.

[Frances]

Brage, some of what you say is right, but some of it I don't fully agree with.

Yes, breaking the rules, and specifically breaking them out of disregard for the administration really doesn't help your case, even if you believe you were in the right. (And most of the time, people who do that just end up looking like idiots, regardless of if they were right or not.)

However, while bringing up your case with the admin/headmin/Skull/whatever can achieve certain effects, it's not guaranteed to be any more effective than simply outing it publicly. Sure, you'll have extra noise from third parties (both good and bad), but as a whole you'll get a much better guarantee /people/ (and specifically multiple staff) will hear of it and get involved. I've seen a few loose cases get swept under the rug in the absence of a headmin, simply because there tends to be poor communication among the staff sometimes (and a lack of specifically designated people to "deal with things").

[Skull132]

The hallmark of a command structure stretched to its limits is a delay in action. In which case, public moves are actually more fruitful in gaining a return, as they are easier to remember.

Anyways, I had real life functions creep up on me, and was unable to keep to the deadline I noted earlier. I will try and tend to this tomorrow morning, however.

[Skull132]

Hokay. So, my current MO: since you raised effectively three points for review, I will go through each of them individually, and dispense thought on the matter. Once done, I'll take a step back and review the matter in general.

Incident one, ruling one

The issue itself is valid enough to be raised by a player. And it can be deserving of administrative oversight. The complaint was two-fold:

• Disgusting IC behavior
• disobedience/tip-toeing around orders as a lawed synthetic.

My own investigation into the matter shows that both points are valid, both took place. To these was added the charge of metagrudge, as per your own admission. The punishment was a week ban from all synthetic roles. The alternative punishment for this would have been a warning, and a heavier punishment later down the line, if the actions in question were not ceased (the warning not heeded).

Why was the matter deserving of any administrative action? Point one: the very specific way you chose to go about your business (that is to say: submissive behaviour, with innuendo hinting quite obviously at BDSM type tendencies) is something that we do not wish to subject our players to. It is the one type of potentially discomfort creating behaviour that we would very much wish to avoid seeing on our server. Agree with our stance on this or not, but this is a blanket policy: any reports about this will be managed by administration as immediate issues, no exceptions.

Further, the actions in general were quite childish (annoying someone through IC means, going as far as making them uncomfortable with a very specific selection of innuendo), and deserved attention.

Was the matter resolved in accordance with our rules, standards and already developed MO? Yes. Mind you, my personal preference would have been on a warning, followed by a heavier ban if not heeded. However, at the time, the warning system was not as annoying as it is now, and so, Baka most likely felt that something more tangible will serve the point better. A judgement call, yes, but a fitting one in this case.

ADDENDUM: You had 24 hours to raise any issues with the proposed resolution. Had you proposed alternatives, they would have been reviewed and, if deemed as actionable, executed on. It is not required for an Administrator to raise up for review every single possible course of action. Some do it, but it is not a requirement.

---

---

Incident two:

Whether or not they would have changed anything is irrelevant, the mere fact he dismissed it without even considering my argument is reason enough for me to think he's unfair. He didn't even leave the thread open for final comments, just locked and put away.

 

Yes, this is a legitimate conclusion to draw from what was posted on the complaint in question. It is an error of communication and clarity/transparency. However, for the record, all action required was taken: Doomberg reviewed the server logs themselves with Baka, as he promised, and Baka reviewed Hycinth's logs. As a result, the issue was deemed as IC, and dismissed from the OOC viewpoint. Unfortunately, this was not communicated too well.

---

---

Incident three: complaint in question, ruling in question.

The nature of the complaint shifted immediately upon the suspicions of multikeying being used as a measure to bypass a ban issued. Upon confirmation of this violation, the outcome of the specific complaint was deemed irrelevant and Smileydemon banned from the server.

This policy is non-negotiable, and is enforced without exception. Multikeying is something that we crack down upon very heavily, as the wild goose chases that it puts (usually) me and Scopes on is not something we enjoy. Further, we expect all players to be mature and manage their issues upfront and in an honest fashion, and multikeying is the ultimate violation of that trust.

---

---

In summary, the largest error made by administration that I see on this issue is the failure to properly and clearly communicate with reference to incident two. All other rulings and courses of action adopted are valid, for the reasons outlined above.

If there are questions, comments or concerns regarding this matter, then please, do share them.

Skull132,

Head Developer/Interim Head Administrator

[SmileyDemon]

I didn't know we could suggest alternative punishments but thank you for investigating my issue. As I said previously, I had asked Doomberg for the logs concerning the second incident, but he never gave me them. Anyway, I think all of my issues were addressed. I think this issue of communication starts with that one admin is responsible for all the complaints and bans it seems. If the incident involves more than one admin, us as players only ever see one admin actually address our concerns on the forums. As for the trust placed into the players, I know I broke that trust but it was frustrating considering that I've only played synthetics for the longest time and given what I perceived was unfair punishment in favor of well established players on this server, I elected to ignore it. I did try to play other things, that was when I tried to play a Unathi, but I just wanted to play synthetics in the end so I thought it was no significant thing to play a second account. As for the behaviors in question in the first incident, if that is primarily the cause for the complaint, I think it's hypocritical to punish it when not just innuendo both in good and bad taste is rampant on the server and if it's the culture of the server, shouldn't be punished as severely as it was. I could list double standards with this ruling to you in a private message if you so desire as doing it here would probably start unnecessary flame wars. As right now it seems that Innuendo and supposed ERP is only a problem when someone complains about it, which is fundamentally different than it being against the rules.

[Guest Menown]

Smiley, you were punished in the first incident for you metagruding, which you admitted. You went around your laws, breaking them to metagrudge. That's why you were punished for that. Don't try to make it about something else.

[Frances]

Okay, I thought I'd write a little about favoritism and regulars/"established" players on the server. Mostly because I dunno if the staff will talk about that. They can answer the other points you brought up better than I.

I actually think there is some favoritism on Aurora. I also think it's fairly minor, and not something to really worry about.

Let's look at the concept of a regular. What's a regular? It's just someone who's played for a while, and made a name for themselves. Right? We can agree on that?

By that reasoning, you're a regular. At least, I consider you one. You've been with us for a while, I've seen you around a few times, heard about you from several people, and your name ranks among those most people could recognize from the server's Who list. Yet I believe if I asked you, you'd say you feel like you haven't been getting the same treatment as some other players. Why is that?

Attitude might be an answer. Just recently, you created a BDSM cyborg to metagrudge against a player you disliked, got yourself synthbanned for all-around poor synthetic RP, and then decided to multikey to bypass the ban because you didn't like it, while flatly and copiously lying to the admins. And that might explain quite reasonably why your rep isn't, really... great, here. In comparison, none of the "well-established" players you refer to have engaged in such behavior.

Yet their names do come up, don't they?

This leads us to two possible scenarios, in which a regular is accused of having done something bad, but sees no action taken against them. Either:

• 1. The regular hasn't done anything bad after review, and the complaint against them is dropped by staff, or
  
  2. The regular actually fucked up, and staff fucked up by dismissing the case.

2 is bad. 1 isn't. And I believe part of what's been happening is we've been seeing a lot of 1, and confusing it for 2.

Like, by virtue of simply playing, especially with specific playstyles (antagging, playing in combat-heavy departments, not shying away from confrontation), users encounter an increasing risk of getting involved into disagreements of issues as their time spent on the server increases. This does not mean by default that they are troublemakers, or even doing anything bad. A careful review of a player's incident history is needed to understand their role on the server - you can't just glance at the length of the list and decide they're an unchecked baddie for that. Some prime examples of this are Sue catching flak simply for being into fights a lot (when she had reasons for it), or Nursie vivisecting/dissecting a lot of antags (when they were brought to her and she had proper clearance to do so).

But what do you do when you think 2, not 1, is happening? Well, simple. You make a thread, like you did here, and people review all the issues using logic and reasonable observations. And yes, it's quite possible that admins could be garbage, but are they actually? Because one piece of advice I can give you is that you should never head into an argument with the sole objective of convincing your opponent - you must also remain open to the possibility that they may be right, and your point might be one you'll have to consider. Cause this isn't congress - we're just a bunch of people trying to get together to find a solution to a problem.

tl;dr, I'm not trying to put you down by saying any of this, but there are two major things you need to consider while looking at the issue of favoritism:

 

• If you constantly pick fights, try to get on people's nerves on purpose, refuse to listen to others in favor of only doing things your way, break server rules, and so on, people won't be receptive to you, and you'll pretty much be treated the way you treat them. When other people get treated nicely, it's usually because they act nicely, too.
• Yes, even if you misbehave, good admins should treat you fairly. It's basically the "right to a fair trial". However, you're expected to use logic and remain open to the possibility that you might be the one in the wrong. Sometimes, people do actually get what they deserve, good and bad. And if not, well, make a new thread, expose everybody's lies, and start a revolution. But you need to make sure your arguments have substance to do that first.

[Doomberg]

Alright. Since the poster seems satisfied with the given explanation, I'll be locking and archiving this in 24 hours unless anyone has anything to add.