Frances Posted September 12, 2015 Posted September 12, 2015 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.
Tainavaa Posted September 12, 2015 Posted September 12, 2015 I learned that phrase a while ago and since then it's been been used for a wide variety of things. Hilarious for something so dramatic to be used for something so domestic, yes, but that's exactly why I use it. It's funny AND accurate. I don't see the issue with how it was worded. That's what happened.
Tainavaa Posted September 12, 2015 Posted September 12, 2015 I learned that phrase a while ago and since then it's been been used for a wide variety of things. Hilarious for something so dramatic to be used for something so domestic, yes, but that's exactly why I use it. It's funny AND accurate. I don't see the issue with how it was worded. That's what happened.
Guest Marlon Phoenix Posted September 12, 2015 Posted September 12, 2015 I'm going to address the two major themes of this thread seperately. The first is the general attitude of administration during the course of this thread. I have to say I agree with Frances-sensei; staff members have been super intimidating and confrontational during this. The OP hasn't shown malice and has been professional and willing to cooperate and establish constructive dialogue at every step of this process. His request to discuss the ruling is a reasonable one, and his statements are worthy of respect because he has provided respect. I'm sure it's not intentional, but the staff members in this thread need to remember that by simple virtue of their position and rank they are inherently intimidating, and you can unintentionally come off as scary or impossible to talk to, especially when a lot of you dogpile in. The main focus of the complaint is the wording of the warning. Everyone, including the OP - unless I've misread - agree that his actions were bad. His worry is that in the future, this incident will only have the context of the note during a future ruling. The way it's worded, it's as if he just EoR grief'd. I don't really think "Well that's what happened." is a good defense, because context is critically important, especially when it involves administrative action. I think it would satisfy all parties, and remain within the desire of staff to keep this incident documented, if the warning itself was just reworded with a brief statement on context. It would be important as a study of the behavior, if it were to happen repeatedly, or some such.
Guest Marlon Phoenix Posted September 12, 2015 Posted September 12, 2015 I'm going to address the two major themes of this thread seperately. The first is the general attitude of administration during the course of this thread. I have to say I agree with Frances-sensei; staff members have been super intimidating and confrontational during this. The OP hasn't shown malice and has been professional and willing to cooperate and establish constructive dialogue at every step of this process. His request to discuss the ruling is a reasonable one, and his statements are worthy of respect because he has provided respect. I'm sure it's not intentional, but the staff members in this thread need to remember that by simple virtue of their position and rank they are inherently intimidating, and you can unintentionally come off as scary or impossible to talk to, especially when a lot of you dogpile in. The main focus of the complaint is the wording of the warning. Everyone, including the OP - unless I've misread - agree that his actions were bad. His worry is that in the future, this incident will only have the context of the note during a future ruling. The way it's worded, it's as if he just EoR grief'd. I don't really think "Well that's what happened." is a good defense, because context is critically important, especially when it involves administrative action. I think it would satisfy all parties, and remain within the desire of staff to keep this incident documented, if the warning itself was just reworded with a brief statement on context. It would be important as a study of the behavior, if it were to happen repeatedly, or some such.
Garnascus Posted September 12, 2015 Posted September 12, 2015 I'm going to address the two major themes of this thread seperately. The first is the general attitude of administration during the course of this thread. I have to say I agree with Frances-sensei; staff members have been super intimidating and confrontational during this. The OP hasn't shown malice and has been professional and willing to cooperate and establish constructive dialogue at every step of this process. His request to discuss the ruling is a reasonable one, and his statements are worthy of respect because he has provided respect. I'm sure it's not intentional, but the staff members in this thread need to remember that by simple virtue of their position and rank they are inherently intimidating, and you can unintentionally come off as scary or impossible to talk to, especially when a lot of you dogpile in. The main focus of the complaint is the wording of the warning. Everyone, including the OP - unless I've misread - agree that his actions were bad. His worry is that in the future, this incident will only have the context of the note during a future ruling. The way it's worded, it's as if he just EoR grief'd. I don't really think "Well that's what happened." is a good defense, because context is critically important, especially when it involves administrative action. I think it would satisfy all parties, and remain within the desire of staff to keep this incident documented, if the warning itself was just reworded with a brief statement on context. It would be important as a study of the behavior, if it were to happen repeatedly, or some such. Â As a fellow moderator in gonna have to 100% agree with this. Our position as moderators is inherently authoritative and intimidating. I think the mark of a good moderator is accounting for this as much as possible so long as the other party is respectful. I also feel context is extremely important here as well and I find a bit of issue with the wording of the warning. If I investigated an issue about this player in the future that note would make me lump him in with other chucklefucks we deal with who use "nobody told me no" or "didn't know I couldn't do it lol". The warning was just and the right decision but I take issue with staff conduct here as well and with the wording of the warning. Also tainavaa asserting facts and data is admirable but it can come off as cold or robotic even when we don't take into account the intent or emotion behind them. Especially when our actions as mods are examined under a microscope as representative of the server. Just the advice of someone who had to learn the hard way the importance of a little empathy.
Garnascus Posted September 12, 2015 Posted September 12, 2015 I'm going to address the two major themes of this thread seperately. The first is the general attitude of administration during the course of this thread. I have to say I agree with Frances-sensei; staff members have been super intimidating and confrontational during this. The OP hasn't shown malice and has been professional and willing to cooperate and establish constructive dialogue at every step of this process. His request to discuss the ruling is a reasonable one, and his statements are worthy of respect because he has provided respect. I'm sure it's not intentional, but the staff members in this thread need to remember that by simple virtue of their position and rank they are inherently intimidating, and you can unintentionally come off as scary or impossible to talk to, especially when a lot of you dogpile in. The main focus of the complaint is the wording of the warning. Everyone, including the OP - unless I've misread - agree that his actions were bad. His worry is that in the future, this incident will only have the context of the note during a future ruling. The way it's worded, it's as if he just EoR grief'd. I don't really think "Well that's what happened." is a good defense, because context is critically important, especially when it involves administrative action. I think it would satisfy all parties, and remain within the desire of staff to keep this incident documented, if the warning itself was just reworded with a brief statement on context. It would be important as a study of the behavior, if it were to happen repeatedly, or some such. Â As a fellow moderator in gonna have to 100% agree with this. Our position as moderators is inherently authoritative and intimidating. I think the mark of a good moderator is accounting for this as much as possible so long as the other party is respectful. I also feel context is extremely important here as well and I find a bit of issue with the wording of the warning. If I investigated an issue about this player in the future that note would make me lump him in with other chucklefucks we deal with who use "nobody told me no" or "didn't know I couldn't do it lol". The warning was just and the right decision but I take issue with staff conduct here as well and with the wording of the warning. Also tainavaa asserting facts and data is admirable but it can come off as cold or robotic even when we don't take into account the intent or emotion behind them. Especially when our actions as mods are examined under a microscope as representative of the server. Just the advice of someone who had to learn the hard way the importance of a little empathy.
Guest Posted September 12, 2015 Posted September 12, 2015 As a fellow moderator in gonna have to 100% agree with this. Our position as moderators is inherently authoritative and intimidating. I think the mark of a good moderator is accounting for this as much as possible so long as the other party is respectful. I also feel context is extremely important here as well and I find a bit of issue with the wording of the warning. If I investigated an issue about this player in the future that note would make me lump him in with other chucklefucks we deal with who use "nobody told me no" or "didn't know I couldn't do it lol". The warning was just and the right decision but I take issue with staff conduct here as well and with the wording of the warning. Also tainavaa asserting facts and data is admirable but it can come off as cold or robotic even when we don't take into account the intent or emotion behind them. Especially when our actions as mods are examined under a microscope as representative of the server. Just the advice of someone who had to learn the hard way the importance of a little empathy. Â We have reached the point of no return in the fight against tone policing.
Guest Posted September 12, 2015 Posted September 12, 2015 As a fellow moderator in gonna have to 100% agree with this. Our position as moderators is inherently authoritative and intimidating. I think the mark of a good moderator is accounting for this as much as possible so long as the other party is respectful. I also feel context is extremely important here as well and I find a bit of issue with the wording of the warning. If I investigated an issue about this player in the future that note would make me lump him in with other chucklefucks we deal with who use "nobody told me no" or "didn't know I couldn't do it lol". The warning was just and the right decision but I take issue with staff conduct here as well and with the wording of the warning. Also tainavaa asserting facts and data is admirable but it can come off as cold or robotic even when we don't take into account the intent or emotion behind them. Especially when our actions as mods are examined under a microscope as representative of the server. Just the advice of someone who had to learn the hard way the importance of a little empathy. Â We have reached the point of no return in the fight against tone policing.
Garnascus Posted September 12, 2015 Posted September 12, 2015 As a fellow moderator in gonna have to 100% agree with this. Our position as moderators is inherently authoritative and intimidating. I think the mark of a good moderator is accounting for this as much as possible so long as the other party is respectful. I also feel context is extremely important here as well and I find a bit of issue with the wording of the warning. If I investigated an issue about this player in the future that note would make me lump him in with other chucklefucks we deal with who use "nobody told me no" or "didn't know I couldn't do it lol". The warning was just and the right decision but I take issue with staff conduct here as well and with the wording of the warning. Also tainavaa asserting facts and data is admirable but it can come off as cold or robotic even when we don't take into account the intent or emotion behind them. Especially when our actions as mods are examined under a microscope as representative of the server. Just the advice of someone who had to learn the hard way the importance of a little empathy. Â We have reached the point of no return in the fight against tone policing. Â Call it what you will but its important to me and i felt strongly enough about it to post about it here.
Garnascus Posted September 12, 2015 Posted September 12, 2015 As a fellow moderator in gonna have to 100% agree with this. Our position as moderators is inherently authoritative and intimidating. I think the mark of a good moderator is accounting for this as much as possible so long as the other party is respectful. I also feel context is extremely important here as well and I find a bit of issue with the wording of the warning. If I investigated an issue about this player in the future that note would make me lump him in with other chucklefucks we deal with who use "nobody told me no" or "didn't know I couldn't do it lol". The warning was just and the right decision but I take issue with staff conduct here as well and with the wording of the warning. Also tainavaa asserting facts and data is admirable but it can come off as cold or robotic even when we don't take into account the intent or emotion behind them. Especially when our actions as mods are examined under a microscope as representative of the server. Just the advice of someone who had to learn the hard way the importance of a little empathy. Â We have reached the point of no return in the fight against tone policing. Â Call it what you will but its important to me and i felt strongly enough about it to post about it here.
Japak121 Posted September 12, 2015 Posted September 12, 2015 1. You have been staff on other servers like Paradise, Pheonix, and now recently Unbound Travels. So I wonder why you would think less than a minute was an appropriate time to wait for an ahelp when you obviously have experience on the staff end of things? I'd think you'd also already know VERY well that no-answer is not an automatic yes. 2. The wording, to me at least, looked extremely matter-of-fact. You did blow up the admin doors and you did ahelp and then not wait for an answer. Those things happened. Unless you bomb something again, this warning's wording shouldn't really matter. If you DID bomb something again, then the fact that you claimed it was a test would be cast in doubt anyway as you've already been told this is a big no-no. If you don't bomb anything again, this warning would likely go un-looked at for a very long time. Based on the above, I have to wonder why this really matters? There tone isn't actually going to affect anything, as you'll either bomb again/break some other rule, which will cast WHATEVER is said in the warning in doubt, or you won't, plenty of time will pass, and no one will care that the warning exists. Side note: I've seen the amount of experience you have on multiple other servers and I think it's really strange you didn't wait very long for an answer before blowing doors clearly marked 'Admin' during a round on a heavy RP server. You've been playing steady since 2013, cmon.
Japak121 Posted September 12, 2015 Posted September 12, 2015 1. You have been staff on other servers like Paradise, Pheonix, and now recently Unbound Travels. So I wonder why you would think less than a minute was an appropriate time to wait for an ahelp when you obviously have experience on the staff end of things? I'd think you'd also already know VERY well that no-answer is not an automatic yes. 2. The wording, to me at least, looked extremely matter-of-fact. You did blow up the admin doors and you did ahelp and then not wait for an answer. Those things happened. Unless you bomb something again, this warning's wording shouldn't really matter. If you DID bomb something again, then the fact that you claimed it was a test would be cast in doubt anyway as you've already been told this is a big no-no. If you don't bomb anything again, this warning would likely go un-looked at for a very long time. Based on the above, I have to wonder why this really matters? There tone isn't actually going to affect anything, as you'll either bomb again/break some other rule, which will cast WHATEVER is said in the warning in doubt, or you won't, plenty of time will pass, and no one will care that the warning exists. Side note: I've seen the amount of experience you have on multiple other servers and I think it's really strange you didn't wait very long for an answer before blowing doors clearly marked 'Admin' during a round on a heavy RP server. You've been playing steady since 2013, cmon.
Jennalele Posted September 12, 2015 Posted September 12, 2015 Everyone please refer to subforum rules.
Jennalele Posted September 12, 2015 Posted September 12, 2015 Everyone please refer to subforum rules.
Frances Posted September 12, 2015 Posted September 12, 2015 Everyone please refer to subforum rules. Staff included :T You guys should really be focusing on the actual complaint (the wording of the warning) rather than dogpiling on the OP and I feel ashamed having to tell you this.
Frances Posted September 12, 2015 Posted September 12, 2015 Everyone please refer to subforum rules. Staff included :T You guys should really be focusing on the actual complaint (the wording of the warning) rather than dogpiling on the OP and I feel ashamed having to tell you this.
Jennalele Posted September 12, 2015 Posted September 12, 2015 Everyone please refer to subforum rules. Staff included :T You guys should really be focusing on the actual complaint (the wording of the warning) rather than dogpiling on the OP and I feel ashamed having to tell you this.  "Only post if involved. If you are not a moderator or administrator and were not involved in the incident(s) referred to, you may not post or reply to a staff complaint regarding said incident(s). It is permissible, however, to provide testimony regarding a staff member's behavior backed by proof, in the form of screenshots or logs." Enough.
Jennalele Posted September 12, 2015 Posted September 12, 2015 Everyone please refer to subforum rules. Staff included :T You guys should really be focusing on the actual complaint (the wording of the warning) rather than dogpiling on the OP and I feel ashamed having to tell you this.  "Only post if involved. If you are not a moderator or administrator and were not involved in the incident(s) referred to, you may not post or reply to a staff complaint regarding said incident(s). It is permissible, however, to provide testimony regarding a staff member's behavior backed by proof, in the form of screenshots or logs." Enough.
Jennalele Posted September 12, 2015 Posted September 12, 2015 Additionally, the warning has since been changed by Doomberg to reflect the circumstances present. In the future, please wait for a staff reply beforehand, or simply fork a test server for yourself, please, to avoid this. If you have no further issues with this, the complaint will be closed in 24 hours.
Jennalele Posted September 12, 2015 Posted September 12, 2015 Additionally, the warning has since been changed by Doomberg to reflect the circumstances present. In the future, please wait for a staff reply beforehand, or simply fork a test server for yourself, please, to avoid this. If you have no further issues with this, the complaint will be closed in 24 hours.
Doomberg Posted September 12, 2015 Posted September 12, 2015 Additionally, the warning has since been changed by Doomberg to reflect the circumstances present. In the future, please wait for a staff reply beforehand, or simply fork a test server for yourself, please, to avoid this. If you have no further issues with this, the complaint will be closed in 24 hours. Â Correction. Warning will be edited for clarification ASAP. Takes a bit, sorry. As a note: I take no issue with the initial wording of the warning, nor do I take any issue with Tainavaa's replies or conduct in this situation. However, you've requested more details/context to be added to your warning for the sake of future evaluation, and I see no reason to deny this.
Doomberg Posted September 12, 2015 Posted September 12, 2015 Additionally, the warning has since been changed by Doomberg to reflect the circumstances present. In the future, please wait for a staff reply beforehand, or simply fork a test server for yourself, please, to avoid this. If you have no further issues with this, the complaint will be closed in 24 hours. Â Correction. Warning will be edited for clarification ASAP. Takes a bit, sorry. As a note: I take no issue with the initial wording of the warning, nor do I take any issue with Tainavaa's replies or conduct in this situation. However, you've requested more details/context to be added to your warning for the sake of future evaluation, and I see no reason to deny this.
w3bster Posted September 12, 2015 Author Posted September 12, 2015 Thank you for your comprehension. I have no issues with the staff member Tainavaa. Only the wording of said warning. As previously mentionned. I am sorry if i came off rude to any staff members during this incident. I thank all non-staff for chiming in, even though you did not partake to the event/adminhelping/complaint. I believe it is great to have some people help even the field, when the main staff involved uses the terms "closing in, and destroying the enemy" when they describe as to how they deal with such things. I believe that once the Warning is edited, the complaint may be closed. Thanks again.
w3bster Posted September 12, 2015 Author Posted September 12, 2015 Thank you for your comprehension. I have no issues with the staff member Tainavaa. Only the wording of said warning. As previously mentionned. I am sorry if i came off rude to any staff members during this incident. I thank all non-staff for chiming in, even though you did not partake to the event/adminhelping/complaint. I believe it is great to have some people help even the field, when the main staff involved uses the terms "closing in, and destroying the enemy" when they describe as to how they deal with such things. I believe that once the Warning is edited, the complaint may be closed. Thanks again.
Recommended Posts