Jump to content

Staff Complaint : Tainavaa


Recommended Posts

Posted

BYOND Key: w3bster

Staff BYOND Key: Tainavaa

Reason for complaint:


First off, context.


It was the end of a nuclear operatives round where i was the sole ERT member called. All operatives were dead, station was messed up and the crew transfer was on the way. I headed back to Central on my shuttle before the transfer due to the nuclear device being on it, and me willing to secure it. Once i arrived at central, with the last few minutes left of the round, i decided to look around. What stood out was the Admin Armory blast doors. About a year ago, when i was a Paradise Server Admin, we had such blast doors in our ERT area for the admin mechs. Now, one round, where staff were quite busy, ERT actually used C4 on that wall and took the mechs without our permission. Which ended up in a load of additional work on the admins and a few reprimands. So when i saw those blast doors to the Admin Armory, i thought they might have the same issue. Since the round was ending and i was 100 % certain it was going to disturb nothing, i was willing to attempt it. Since i am currently making a list of to-fix regarding mapping, that'd come in handy to know now. So i sent an Adminhelp requesting if i could test something. As minutes went by and the shift came close to end, i still had no replies. So i decided to go ahead. As soon as it blew up, i recieved an Admin message.


Message was from Tainavaa, asking me why i did such. To which i replied the above, that i was testing out for mapping issues, and it was in fact an issue as the door blew up and i had access to the armory. To which they replied that i should of not done so, and that if there are no answers to my Adminhelp, that i take it as a "No".


Knowing i was going to get more than an Ahelp for that, i decided to begin contesting that it was in fact for testing, it had No impact on the game whatsoever and i had no malicious intent. To which they did not care, and replied with the fact that "Antags can access central".


Now, correct me if i am wrong, but blast doors to an "Admin Armory" are supposed to be proof of anything, Antags or ERT. So i believe that fact was completely unrelated and an invalid argument.


Hence, i recieved the warning listed in Evidence. Which is why i am writing this complaint. I believe this warning is truly one-sided, and does not value the fact that i had nil intent to cause harm or malice. So if someone of the staff were at a later date to look at this warning, they would most probably believe i did so with malicious intent, and that would be quite severe.


When i brought this up to Tainavaa, they simply stated that it did not matter.




Evidence/logs/etc:

 

87e6832a52.png

 

Additional remarks:


This is a broad overview of the situation. Logs were not gathered as it was end of round. For additional facts and verification, please look at the server's logs.

  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

BYOND Key: w3bster

Staff BYOND Key: Tainavaa

Reason for complaint:


First off, context.


It was the end of a nuclear operatives round where i was the sole ERT member called. All operatives were dead, station was messed up and the crew transfer was on the way. I headed back to Central on my shuttle before the transfer due to the nuclear device being on it, and me willing to secure it. Once i arrived at central, with the last few minutes left of the round, i decided to look around. What stood out was the Admin Armory blast doors. About a year ago, when i was a Paradise Server Admin, we had such blast doors in our ERT area for the admin mechs. Now, one round, where staff were quite busy, ERT actually used C4 on that wall and took the mechs without our permission. Which ended up in a load of additional work on the admins and a few reprimands. So when i saw those blast doors to the Admin Armory, i thought they might have the same issue. Since the round was ending and i was 100 % certain it was going to disturb nothing, i was willing to attempt it. Since i am currently making a list of to-fix regarding mapping, that'd come in handy to know now. So i sent an Adminhelp requesting if i could test something. As minutes went by and the shift came close to end, i still had no replies. So i decided to go ahead. As soon as it blew up, i recieved an Admin message.


Message was from Tainavaa, asking me why i did such. To which i replied the above, that i was testing out for mapping issues, and it was in fact an issue as the door blew up and i had access to the armory. To which they replied that i should of not done so, and that if there are no answers to my Adminhelp, that i take it as a "No".


Knowing i was going to get more than an Ahelp for that, i decided to begin contesting that it was in fact for testing, it had No impact on the game whatsoever and i had no malicious intent. To which they did not care, and replied with the fact that "Antags can access central".


Now, correct me if i am wrong, but blast doors to an "Admin Armory" are supposed to be proof of anything, Antags or ERT. So i believe that fact was completely unrelated and an invalid argument.


Hence, i recieved the warning listed in Evidence. Which is why i am writing this complaint. I believe this warning is truly one-sided, and does not value the fact that i had nil intent to cause harm or malice. So if someone of the staff were at a later date to look at this warning, they would most probably believe i did so with malicious intent, and that would be quite severe.


When i brought this up to Tainavaa, they simply stated that it did not matter.




Evidence/logs/etc:

 

87e6832a52.png

 

Additional remarks:


This is a broad overview of the situation. Logs were not gathered as it was end of round. For additional facts and verification, please look at the server's logs.

Posted

So, yes/no, what I'm understanding from this is you received no response on something that could get you in trouble, but you decided to do it anyway? I don't care for your intent, simply a yes or a no.

Posted

So, yes/no, what I'm understanding from this is you received no response on something that could get you in trouble, but you decided to do it anyway? I don't care for your intent, simply a yes or a no.

Posted

This is a very unreliable complaint for the following reasons:

 

  • I called dibs on the ahelp before the explosion but I changed my initial message to the player since they decided to go ahead and blow it up anyway after they received no response.
  • "Antags can access central" is in response to your "All doors/access can be opened" or some such statement, not the admin armory doors. Which I explained to you in PM's that you decided to ignore for whatever reason.
  • The time between the ahelp asking and me responding was less than a minute.

 

Moreover:

 

  • Your intent is irrelevant here. No "no" does not mean yes.
  • "Knowing I was going to get more than an ahelp for that..." -w3bster
    • You knew this was wrong.

[*]Supporting Tishina's request, your answer to this question is exactly why you got a warning.

 


ADDITIONALLY: A lot of what you posted in here is irrelevant. Please keep in mind that your history not on this server or something you've experienced does not weigh in deciding factors of whether you'll receive reprimand or not.

Posted

This is a very unreliable complaint for the following reasons:

 

  • I called dibs on the ahelp before the explosion but I changed my initial message to the player since they decided to go ahead and blow it up anyway after they received no response.
  • "Antags can access central" is in response to your "All doors/access can be opened" or some such statement, not the admin armory doors. Which I explained to you in PM's that you decided to ignore for whatever reason.
  • The time between the ahelp asking and me responding was less than a minute.

 

Moreover:

 

  • Your intent is irrelevant here. No "no" does not mean yes.
  • "Knowing I was going to get more than an ahelp for that..." -w3bster
    • You knew this was wrong.

[*]Supporting Tishina's request, your answer to this question is exactly why you got a warning.

 


ADDITIONALLY: A lot of what you posted in here is irrelevant. Please keep in mind that your history not on this server or something you've experienced does not weigh in deciding factors of whether you'll receive reprimand or not.

Posted

So. In my understanding. You knew this was probably a bad idea, and you knew people had gotten in trouble for it in the past. You did it anyways, and it does not matter if the round had been at its start, middle, or 5 seconds to the end.


The fact is, it simply isn't allowed. We don't allow it, period. Furthermore, 'testing for mapping issues' is a fairly blatant lie, as you aren't a mapper, and really have no business doing anything like that- especially without an adminhelp for permission beforehand.


As far as I can see, Tain handled this situation very well, and if anything, you're incredibly lucky to have only gotten a warning for this.


Do you understand this, and if so, do you still have a complaint with the way it was handled?

Posted

So. In my understanding. You knew this was probably a bad idea, and you knew people had gotten in trouble for it in the past. You did it anyways, and it does not matter if the round had been at its start, middle, or 5 seconds to the end.


The fact is, it simply isn't allowed. We don't allow it, period. Furthermore, 'testing for mapping issues' is a fairly blatant lie, as you aren't a mapper, and really have no business doing anything like that- especially without an adminhelp for permission beforehand.


As far as I can see, Tain handled this situation very well, and if anything, you're incredibly lucky to have only gotten a warning for this.


Do you understand this, and if so, do you still have a complaint with the way it was handled?

Posted

I think you people are being pretty strict here (not with the original warning, with your replies).


People have tried to C4 into the admin armory for shits and giggles before. It's probably somewhere relatively high on the list of "things not to do on a HRP server people will try to do anyway", and if anything should be relatively risk-free as long as it was done at end of round (doing it during the initial ERT setup period is inarguably worse).


Is it deserving of a warning? Probably. Is it deserving of completely BTFO-ing a user because they had the audacity of making a thread to discuss said warning? Probably not. (And yes, I see some of you trying to set up that sick burn.)

Posted

I think you people are being pretty strict here (not with the original warning, with your replies).


People have tried to C4 into the admin armory for shits and giggles before. It's probably somewhere relatively high on the list of "things not to do on a HRP server people will try to do anyway", and if anything should be relatively risk-free as long as it was done at end of round (doing it during the initial ERT setup period is inarguably worse).


Is it deserving of a warning? Probably. Is it deserving of completely BTFO-ing a user because they had the audacity of making a thread to discuss said warning? Probably not. (And yes, I see some of you trying to set up that sick burn.)

Posted

It doesn't mean you should try to placate someone solely for wanting to discuss a judgement.


I'm under the impression this person doesn't understand why they're being punished, and instead of trying to provide an explanation some of you are taking it as a direct attack on the authority of the staff.


Like, a simple "no, you don't break character to test game mechanics" would've been sufficient, along with a quick explanation of why this was bad (that some people *could* run into it at EoR, and that it's generally a blanket rule because it's easier than to have to analyze every case of people fucking around for fun.) It's pretty obvious the OP did this out of curiosity, and I don't see why they need to be called a liar or be informed they're "lucky to have only gotten a warning".



Edit: Upon rereading the thread, the OP seems to be simply requesting the warning be reworded to take into account the context as to avoid it being confused with intentional grief in the future - which seems like a reasonable request.

Posted

It doesn't mean you should try to placate someone solely for wanting to discuss a judgement.


I'm under the impression this person doesn't understand why they're being punished, and instead of trying to provide an explanation some of you are taking it as a direct attack on the authority of the staff.


Like, a simple "no, you don't break character to test game mechanics" would've been sufficient, along with a quick explanation of why this was bad (that some people *could* run into it at EoR, and that it's generally a blanket rule because it's easier than to have to analyze every case of people fucking around for fun.) It's pretty obvious the OP did this out of curiosity, and I don't see why they need to be called a liar or be informed they're "lucky to have only gotten a warning".



Edit: Upon rereading the thread, the OP seems to be simply requesting the warning be reworded to take into account the context as to avoid it being confused with intentional grief in the future - which seems like a reasonable request.

Posted

I agree that the responses are rather strict. Whether he did it for mapping issues or whatever reason he may have, I don't understand what the problem is. The situation is completely isolated. There's no one there, but himself. The round time is ending. His actions did not affect the round whatsoever.

Posted

I agree that the responses are rather strict. Whether he did it for mapping issues or whatever reason he may have, I don't understand what the problem is. The situation is completely isolated. There's no one there, but himself. The round time is ending. His actions did not affect the round whatsoever.

Posted

" Furthermore, 'testing for mapping issues' is a fairly blatant lie, as you aren't a mapper"


Now, let me clear something up. On previous servers with their own codebase, users could freely contribute by doing pull requests on Github. I did many of those on stations such as Paradise and Phoenix.

I was under the impression it worked as such here, but apparently not. When i did the pull request, the Head of Development told me that i should not be doing that, but instead request on the forums and post issues on the Github ticket system. Of course, to each their own way of doing things. But that really wasn't clear. My sincere apologies for that. I did not intend and harm whatsoever. As a previous administrator on both Phoenix and Paradise, i know full well the bounds and limits, especially of Central. My goal was simply to help. But i understand that was wrong, and i should leave things alone and let the coders/mappers sort out the 73 github issues ticket themselves. Sorry for that again.


Since i knew it would only get me in further trouble to keep arguing in Adminhelp about the situation, i decided to get in on the forums in the most relevant of areas in order to discuss the warning, which as Frances stated, i only wish to be edited so that in the future, if staff look at said warning, i am not taken as some random griffon whom once decided to blow open the admin armory for grief.


I am sorry if i was not clear in the Original Post. But the goal of this is not to come at Tainavaa. I do not question their judgement, nor ability to moderate. If there was issues, they'd be long gone and i know that. The goal of this thread is simply to argue the fact that the warning did not include enough relevant information regarding the situation, and it's context.


Thank you @Frances, @I_speak_money, for your inputs on this thread. It feels rather intimidating to be alone and have staff coming at you from every angle regarding a certain situation.

Posted

" Furthermore, 'testing for mapping issues' is a fairly blatant lie, as you aren't a mapper"


Now, let me clear something up. On previous servers with their own codebase, users could freely contribute by doing pull requests on Github. I did many of those on stations such as Paradise and Phoenix.

I was under the impression it worked as such here, but apparently not. When i did the pull request, the Head of Development told me that i should not be doing that, but instead request on the forums and post issues on the Github ticket system. Of course, to each their own way of doing things. But that really wasn't clear. My sincere apologies for that. I did not intend and harm whatsoever. As a previous administrator on both Phoenix and Paradise, i know full well the bounds and limits, especially of Central. My goal was simply to help. But i understand that was wrong, and i should leave things alone and let the coders/mappers sort out the 73 github issues ticket themselves. Sorry for that again.


Since i knew it would only get me in further trouble to keep arguing in Adminhelp about the situation, i decided to get in on the forums in the most relevant of areas in order to discuss the warning, which as Frances stated, i only wish to be edited so that in the future, if staff look at said warning, i am not taken as some random griffon whom once decided to blow open the admin armory for grief.


I am sorry if i was not clear in the Original Post. But the goal of this is not to come at Tainavaa. I do not question their judgement, nor ability to moderate. If there was issues, they'd be long gone and i know that. The goal of this thread is simply to argue the fact that the warning did not include enough relevant information regarding the situation, and it's context.


Thank you @Frances, @I_speak_money, for your inputs on this thread. It feels rather intimidating to be alone and have staff coming at you from every angle regarding a certain situation.

Posted
  I_speak_money said:
I agree that the responses are rather strict. Whether he did it for mapping issues or whatever reason he may have, I don't understand what the problem is. The situation is completely isolated. There's no one there, but himself. The round time is ending. His actions did not affect the round whatsoever.

Well, yolo-C4ing anything is sorta bad out of principle. We're HRP after all.


I don't think it's a sin, but if people wanna do it a warning seems like a fair punishment. Anyway, the issue here is the wording of the warning/note. AFAIK.

Posted
  I_speak_money said:
I agree that the responses are rather strict. Whether he did it for mapping issues or whatever reason he may have, I don't understand what the problem is. The situation is completely isolated. There's no one there, but himself. The round time is ending. His actions did not affect the round whatsoever.

Well, yolo-C4ing anything is sorta bad out of principle. We're HRP after all.


I don't think it's a sin, but if people wanna do it a warning seems like a fair punishment. Anyway, the issue here is the wording of the warning/note. AFAIK.

Posted

Hi, Mapper person here


Firstly, thank you for submitting the ticket on the mapping issues you located, I will look into them.


Second, you are more than welcome to attempt to make the fix yourself and submit it to Github, these will not be implemented without heavy testing by scopes or myself (mostly by scopes); but we welcome anyone to try there hand at fixing issues.


Thirdly, perhaps you should try testing potential "issues" on a test server. I believe you honestly meant no harm, but I also understand where tainavaa came from with his message and subsequent warning.

Posted

Hi, Mapper person here


Firstly, thank you for submitting the ticket on the mapping issues you located, I will look into them.


Second, you are more than welcome to attempt to make the fix yourself and submit it to Github, these will not be implemented without heavy testing by scopes or myself (mostly by scopes); but we welcome anyone to try there hand at fixing issues.


Thirdly, perhaps you should try testing potential "issues" on a test server. I believe you honestly meant no harm, but I also understand where tainavaa came from with his message and subsequent warning.

Posted

You're right, Frances. It doesn't. But what it does do is give me grounds to defend myself and I won't argue using disorganized thoughts, loosely related points, irrelevant information, talking in circles, and general spaghetti writing. I want to keep my points short, and I want to keep them simple. I am defending myself briefly, and concisely. I used objective facts and I stated them very straightforward. You'll find no personal attack in my messages; no mention or suggestion of the quality of his character or anything of the sort. Nothing personal about him. In doing so and shutting down everything I can, I am only doing what anyone should be doing; closing in, and destroying the enemy so to speak.


And that's what I did. You might not like it, I'm very familiar with how you argue and discuss. That is not me. Do not go into philosophies and the like here, this is not the place for that. I have my philosophies, you have yours. My philosophies are very disciplinarian and straightforward. I don't know what yours are, I don't care; I'm not you, nor am I close to you. This is a very simple matter, with a very simply and short story. I've said all I can say on it. Awaiting admin decision.

Posted

You're right, Frances. It doesn't. But what it does do is give me grounds to defend myself and I won't argue using disorganized thoughts, loosely related points, irrelevant information, talking in circles, and general spaghetti writing. I want to keep my points short, and I want to keep them simple. I am defending myself briefly, and concisely. I used objective facts and I stated them very straightforward. You'll find no personal attack in my messages; no mention or suggestion of the quality of his character or anything of the sort. Nothing personal about him. In doing so and shutting down everything I can, I am only doing what anyone should be doing; closing in, and destroying the enemy so to speak.


And that's what I did. You might not like it, I'm very familiar with how you argue and discuss. That is not me. Do not go into philosophies and the like here, this is not the place for that. I have my philosophies, you have yours. My philosophies are very disciplinarian and straightforward. I don't know what yours are, I don't care; I'm not you, nor am I close to you. This is a very simple matter, with a very simply and short story. I've said all I can say on it. Awaiting admin decision.

Posted
  Tainavaa said:
closing in, and destroying the enemy so to speak.
I understand this is a figure of speech, but there's probably better words for you to use than "destroy the enemy" when referring to your users. Because lmao


Anyway, err, not to tell you how to do your job (as Jenna seems keen on reminding me), but the OP is asking to have the warning rephrased. Shouldn't you post some sort of opinion on that? I believe that point's gone sorta missed so far.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...