Jump to content

Staff Complaint - Tablespoon


Recommended Posts

You, as an admin, give a person trying to be treated by a doctor the permission to break their own leg to match a wound they previously received. Within the next 30 seconds, you see said doctor (who you know to be a semi-frequent RP partner of that person) break said person's leg. Wouldn't it be safe to assume these two situations are related in a perfectly reasonable manner?

 

...What?


Okay, so, for the record. As a staff member myself (on another server, mind), I would never give anyone the permission to harm themselves unless they had a very good IC reason to do so such as RPing self-harm or committing suicide. But even then, they would need to escalate up to that point. Still, regarding a mechanic that was not working as intended. I myself would've assisted in giving you sufficient enough brute to break your foot/leg/whatever, since something wasn't working as it should have. I know how to edit variables myself, so it wouldn't be too difficult.


However.


I cannot say I myself would've approved of someone taking matters into their own hands and... well. Getting someone else to beat the shit out of someone's foot without actually communicating in IC (which, to be honest, would've been super freaking ridiculous in IC and any sane person would've been like, "ye-nah. later loser"). Is not exactly a splendid thing either.


I am not an admin here, so it would sound pretentious as fuck if I were to say I would've done things differently in that position. But, people are people and people are different.

 

Even if I did give ffrances permission to hurt her character...that doesn't mean anyone can just go up to her and start hitting her to 'apply the damage'.
This is the part I don't get. That seems arbitrary and I have no idea why anyone would get upset at that (but do try to explain it, rather than simply restating that it is bad).

Well, consider this.


Assume you made the decision to cane your own foot by yourself in order to shatter it rather than having another player do it for you. How do you think this would've played out? Likewise, I'm curious of the opinion of the admin here, if Fran had made that decision rather than bringing in someone else into the mix to... bleh. Anyway, personally, I would've let it go if you shattered your own foot instead, as you would've been the only person having any real affect on the matter. Buuuuut.


What happened was the inclusion of an unnecessary variable, and with that inclusion, come to the conclusion that something fishy was going on.


I think the situation could've been handled a lot better, but you can't have perfect rolls every time.

Link to comment

I don't think the first part of your post is really applicable. I was trying to reproduce a previous injury through OOC means, so trying to find a way to break my leg again IC would've made no sense. In the canon of the roleplay, the leg was broken by the beartrap. I just had to find a way to get it to break in-game.


For the second part of this, I don't exactly see what was wrong with involving the very other person who was roleplaying my leg being broken despite it being fine in-game. That person was obviously in the know, and it had no effect in game. Considering this, how was it different from breaking the leg myself?

Link to comment

You wouldn't get bwoinked for metacommunicating, in that instance?


It's also a lot less difficult to explain why you broke your own leg to an admin, rather than having to explain why you allowed another player who was a close friend to break your leg for you.


I would really recommend you closely review the details of your situation.

Link to comment

Two people are roleplaying treating a broken leg that's not actually broken. The player with the "broken leg" asks if they can break their leg so they actually have something to RP. The other involved player then proceeds to break the leg.


What's the problem, and why is it a problem worth a warning?


Also, for the record, I'm pretty sure I don't have any way of targeting my own body parts.

Link to comment

1807ac2bfe.png

 

566afe4d17.png

 

Metacommunicating is not acceptable. Period. You set a absolutely terrible precedent for thinking you can get away with it in the most minor cases of it.

Link to comment

Well, my mistake for not knowing objects can be self-targeted to body parts (punches can't). That was the only reason why I asked someone else for help.


This is about the smallest possible difference, though, and what you're advocating is blind enforcement of the rules in a pretty stupid way.

Link to comment

141b78049464b0beaa282d7506ddd287.png

 

I see no one has taken the liberty to mention the fact that this is not exactly the first time this happens between you two. See, this incident on its own, I would personally not warn for. This incident following multiple other such incidents, though? I'll stand by my staff's decision.


The only thing I can't understand is why one of you was given a warning and the other a note.

Link to comment

The one thing that keeps being ignored whenever this image is posted is that these messages were said in maintenance, in the presence of no-one, as an attempt to reflect on the humor of a particularly silly situation (needing to "break" someone's leg to simulate a break that would supposedly have happened earlier). So it's not like they were uttered in a room full of people in an attempt at chucklefucking.


Also, aren't you basically saying that you're refusing to look into this issue because of whatever precedent I would have with the staff? Because you have still failed at explaining what exactly I've done wrong here.

Link to comment

You're implying OOC in IC/general chucklefuckery is okay. Sure, I did that once at some undefined point in time, myself. I let it slide as long as people don't make a habit of it, yet I do fondly recall you two telling my MD how you wanted to become Unathi for Jesus.


As for what you did wrong? It's already been explained to you - metacommunication. The severity hardly warrants staff intervention on its own, but when taking into consideration identical priors, yes, we are basing this decision on past behaviour as well as present.

Link to comment

This is about the smallest possible difference, though, and what you're advocating is blind enforcement of the rules in a pretty stupid way.

 

And yet, despite what you think, it's really not that small. It's not about what you or anyone else wants out of this. It's about what's fair.


The level of enforcement of the rules that was applied was fair. Perhaps it doesn't seem like that to you. This is natural, it's what some consider cognitive confirmation bias. Of course it doesn't seem fair to you, but weren't you the one who was at fault in the first place? You broke a rule in a pretty stupid, yet overall minimally harmful way, and you're attempting to... uh. Get out of a warning..? Which basically just says, from the staff point of view. 'Hey. Don't do this again. Carry on.' But, okay. Sure, good luck with that.


Perhaps you would prefer inconsistency, and for the handling staff member to flip a coin to decide whether they're going to be merciful, or perhaps merciless, in their dealings?


As much as I love Taoism, it's simply not a productive method of operation. Inconsistency in methodology tends to lead to a less ideal outcome than what was initially anticipated.


From what I've seen, the staff have always had a zero-tolerance policy on metacommunication and metagaming. I expect it to not change, but there's always room for disappointment.


Since I'm really curious, what do you expect from here? You think you can really gain anything further, Fran?

Link to comment

**apologies for fucked up formatting and such...writing this on my crap phone


Guys, this is all over a warning and a talking to...I really don't understand why this is causing such a giant fuss. This wasn't done to spite ffrances or halo.


With regards to the comments made in the tunnels: just because no one else is around does not mean a person can say anything in ic.


You'll have to ask higher admins why the metacomm rules exists cause it's been there for awhile.


And I don't know why I'm being accused of 'zealously enforcing the rules' when all I've done is given out a warning and two 'talking tos'. As I've said before, the ahelped issue was between myself and ffrances...then out of the blue halo is involved through metacommunication.


Had they maybe used looc (admins see ALL OOC communication), I could've seen that easily and been like 'whoa! Sorry, I meant you can't hurt yourself'. This a part of the reason why we try to keep communication in game (whether ic or ooc). So admins and mods can stay in the loop.


That being said, I'm willing to remove the warning from halo's record. But I stand by my decision regarding the metacommunication.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Had they maybe used looc (admins see ALL OOC communication), I could've seen that easily and been like 'whoa! Sorry, I meant you can't hurt yourself'. This a part of the reason why we try to keep communication in game (whether ic or ooc). So admins and mods can stay in the loop.

There we go.


It took four pages to anyone to explain that, and even Doomberg failed to. I am absolutely flabbergasted by all of this.


Anyway, why not simply say this instead of having a long angry talk and give us both a warning? It's not like we had any malicious intentions.

 



And actually, while we're here, there's a few things I want to sort out.

 

You'll have to ask higher admins why the metacomm rules exists cause it's been there for awhile.

I know why it's there. I wrote it. (And it's technically two rules, metagaming and IC knowledge.) If you don't know why a rule exists yet you're enforcing it, well... that's pretty bad?

 

And I don't know why I'm being accused of 'zealously enforcing the rules' when all I've done is given out a warning and two 'talking tos'.

If you don't know the purpose of a rule, how can you be sure you're enforcing it for its intended purpose and not for an arbitrary reason? My problem is not with the severity of the punishment, but with the presence of a punishment at all.

 

With regards to the comments made in the tunnels: just because no one else is around does not mean a person can say anything in ic.

By that logic people (staff included) will have to stop whispering silly things such as "Ayy Lmao" in escape.

 

You're implying OOC in IC/general chucklefuckery is okay.

Again, me getting my leg broken was a completely OOC action (and something you guys seem to have stated you were okay with.) If you guys have problems with me making funny OOC comments while engaging in an OOC action (that nobody should even be around to see) then you may be a little too strict with your moderation.

 

The severity hardly warrants staff intervention on its own, but when taking into consideration identical priors, yes, we are basing this decision on past behaviour as well as present.

I would like to strongly argue that me trying to get my leg broken for RP has little to do with generic chucklefucking. Yes, I play silly balds and do funny stuff, but if that's what annoys you I'd much prefer you call me out on that than on unrelated rules - much like you did to Cassie.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Guest Menown
Had they maybe used looc (admins see ALL OOC communication), I could've seen that easily and been like 'whoa! Sorry, I meant you can't hurt yourself'. This a part of the reason why we try to keep communication in game (whether ic or ooc). So admins and mods can stay in the loop.

There we go.


It took four pages to anyone to explain that, and even Doomberg failed to. I am absolutely flabbergasted by all of this.

 

If that had done it over LOOC, that'd be better. But, there's really no other difference between setting this up in LOOC and Skype, as both are OOC. The only difference is Admins can see one of them.

 

:C

Link to comment

You guys may not have had malicious intentions but I consider you both veterans or 'experienced' players or whatever...so I expect you both to know the rules. But, like you said, you clearly weren't griefing the server or anything overly serious...so I opted for talking tos and a warning in place of serious punishments.


Assuming halo has been keeping tabs on this though, I'm guessing you both now realize the importance of not metacommunicating (or at least understand why we have the rule), so the warning isn't really necessary anymore.


Plus I think this thread has caused such a disproportionate stink that it's better to just close it, remove the only punishment given and be done with it.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment

It took four pages to anyone to explain that, and even Doomberg failed to. I am absolutely flabbergasted by all of this.

 

I apologize, but since I took over, the staff no longer appears to be a hive mind acting in perfect, unquestioning and unspoken unison, as it had been doing in the past. I am certain that this is a problem you never experienced. Table and I may simply have different interpretations of the incident and why the warning was warranted.


Anyway. As Table's fine with removing the warning, we'll be doing just that and changing it to a note. I'll give this 24 hours before locking it up.

Link to comment
Had they maybe used looc (admins see ALL OOC communication), I could've seen that easily and been like 'whoa! Sorry, I meant you can't hurt yourself'. This a part of the reason why we try to keep communication in game (whether ic or ooc). So admins and mods can stay in the loop.

There we go.


It took four pages to anyone to explain that, and even Doomberg failed to. I am absolutely flabbergasted by all of this.


Anyway, why not simply say this instead of having a long angry talk and give us both a warning? It's not like we had any malicious intentions.

 



And actually, while we're here, there's a few things I want to sort out.

 

You'll have to ask higher admins why the metacomm rules exists cause it's been there for awhile.

I know why it's there. I wrote it. (And it's technically two rules, metagaming and IC knowledge.) If you don't know why a rule exists yet you're enforcing it, well... that's pretty bad?

 

And I don't know why I'm being accused of 'zealously enforcing the rules' when all I've done is given out a warning and two 'talking tos'.

If you don't know the purpose of a rule, how can you be sure you're enforcing it for its intended purpose and not for an arbitrary reason? My problem is not with the severity of the punishment, but with the presence of a punishment at all.

 

With regards to the comments made in the tunnels: just because no one else is around does not mean a person can say anything in ic.

By that logic people (staff included) will have to stop whispering silly things such as "Ayy Lmao" in escape.

 

You're implying OOC in IC/general chucklefuckery is okay.

Again, me getting my leg broken was a completely OOC action (and something you guys seem to have stated you were okay with.) If you guys have problems with me making funny OOC comments while engaging in an OOC action (that nobody should even be around to see) then you may be a little too strict with your moderation.

 

The severity hardly warrants staff intervention on its own, but when taking into consideration identical priors, yes, we are basing this decision on past behaviour as well as present.

I would like to strongly argue that me trying to get my leg broken for RP has little to do with generic chucklefucking. Yes, I play silly balds and do funny stuff, but if that's what annoys you I'd much prefer you call me out on that than on unrelated rules - much like you did to Cassie.

 

Let me clarify some of the things I said before. Again, apologies I'm writing this in my shitty phone:


I personally enforce the metacommunication rule because it a) can give players an unfair advantage (not applicable in this case) and b) because it hides server interaction from administration staff that could be crucial from an admiring perspective.


When I said you'd have to ask admins, I meant for the 'official reason' or the 'original reason'. I'd imagine its something along those lines (that's the gist I've gotten in the past when talking with other admins) but I'm not sure of the 100% original reason for enforcing this.



With regards to the 'ay lmao' whispers in escape...I've never been aware of those, but would poke people to stop if I saw it. I'd also expect staff not to do that same thing. I personally don't do that sort of thing.


I just want to end this with: use looc if you feel like you have to metacommunicate. It prevents things like this from occuring.

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...