Doomberg - Muting OOC over Tajaran discussions or something

[hivefleetchicken]

BYOND Key: Hivefleetchicken

Staff BYOND Key: Doomberg

Reason for complaint: Muting OOC because someone was sharing their opinion about Tajarra (I think). OOC was muted when I asked a question about opinions, which went directly against the policy that Doomberg and Scopes had set up only 6 days earlier. Hypocrism.

Evidence/logs/etc:

"[OOC shouldn't be muted over debates in OOC because if we want to make some ideal utopian server then we'll have to ban and mute everything.]"

Doomberg then proceeded to say this in OOC when Gamegod12 asked a question about why Tajarra are allowed in certain influential positions of power, or something.

I picked the comments that were between me, gamegode12, and the admins.

Can I also add that he put quotations over "critique" and "debate" just to show us how fucking little he respects them?

What a low blow, Doomberg. Truly low.

Additional remarks: Where did we go so wrong that our staff literally locks threads over policies and then breaks said policies not a week later

Also there are no IC events in these logs so I don't consider them to be IC in OOC for posting them during the round.

[hivefleetchicken]

BYOND Key: Hivefleetchicken

Staff BYOND Key: Doomberg

Reason for complaint: Muting OOC because someone was sharing their opinion about Tajarra (I think). OOC was muted when I asked a question about opinions, which went directly against the policy that Doomberg and Scopes had set up only 6 days earlier. Hypocrism.

Evidence/logs/etc:

"[OOC shouldn't be muted over debates in OOC because if we want to make some ideal utopian server then we'll have to ban and mute everything.]"

Doomberg then proceeded to say this in OOC when Gamegod12 asked a question about why Tajarra are allowed in certain influential positions of power, or something.

I picked the comments that were between me, gamegode12, and the admins.

Can I also add that he put quotations over "critique" and "debate" just to show us how fucking little he respects them?

What a low blow, Doomberg. Truly low.

Additional remarks: Where did we go so wrong that our staff literally locks threads over policies and then breaks said policies not a week later

Also there are no IC events in these logs so I don't consider them to be IC in OOC for posting them during the round.

[Doomberg]

"Anything else can and will be dealt with by admins or mods on a case by case basis" applies here. No policy was broken. The thread referred to was in regards to discussions of politics and religion in OOC receiving a blanket ban, which is unreasonable.

Since three or so days ago, we have had a band of disgruntled (for lack of a better word - I mean no offense) former staff and players constantly furthering this so called debate in OOC, being generally passive-aggressive against Tajaran players, and overall making OOC a pretty terrible place to be in/look at. Allow me, then, to announce ahead of time my intent not to back down on this decision nor any further decisions made with the purpose of curbing the aforementioned behavior.

I do not believe my usage of quotation marks twice, with the intent of putting into question whether this is an actual debate or a mess/pointless conflict (regardless of the intent of the participants), warrants a complaint in any way, shape or form.

No formal punishment or reprimand was issued to any player partaking in said activity.

[Doomberg]

"Anything else can and will be dealt with by admins or mods on a case by case basis" applies here. No policy was broken. The thread referred to was in regards to discussions of politics and religion in OOC receiving a blanket ban, which is unreasonable.

Since three or so days ago, we have had a band of disgruntled (for lack of a better word - I mean no offense) former staff and players constantly furthering this so called debate in OOC, being generally passive-aggressive against Tajaran players, and overall making OOC a pretty terrible place to be in/look at. Allow me, then, to announce ahead of time my intent not to back down on this decision nor any further decisions made with the purpose of curbing the aforementioned behavior.

I do not believe my usage of quotation marks twice, with the intent of putting into question whether this is an actual debate or a mess/pointless conflict (regardless of the intent of the participants), warrants a complaint in any way, shape or form.

No formal punishment or reprimand was issued to any player partaking in said activity.

[Frances]

I do not believe my usage of quotation marks twice, with the intent of putting into question whether this is an actual debate or a mess/pointless conflict (regardless of the intent of the participants), warrants a complaint in any way, shape or form.

"We have investigated ourselves and cleared ourselves of any wrongdoing."

[Frances]

I do not believe my usage of quotation marks twice, with the intent of putting into question whether this is an actual debate or a mess/pointless conflict (regardless of the intent of the participants), warrants a complaint in any way, shape or form.

"We have investigated ourselves and cleared ourselves of any wrongdoing."

[Doomberg]

I do not believe my usage of quotation marks twice, with the intent of putting into question whether this is an actual debate or a mess/pointless conflict (regardless of the intent of the participants), warrants a complaint in any way, shape or form.

"We have investigated ourselves and cleared ourselves of any wrongdoing."

 

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.

 

You will note the usage of the words "I believe", not "it is so", nor "we believe". I will request that you adhere to this subforum's rules.

[Doomberg]

I do not believe my usage of quotation marks twice, with the intent of putting into question whether this is an actual debate or a mess/pointless conflict (regardless of the intent of the participants), warrants a complaint in any way, shape or form.

"We have investigated ourselves and cleared ourselves of any wrongdoing."

 

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.

 

You will note the usage of the words "I believe", not "it is so", nor "we believe". I will request that you adhere to this subforum's rules.

[LordFowl]

For testimony's sake, I will add that there in fact was a new player online, trying to use OOC to ask questions, and the flood kind of drowned him out, and he repeatedly expressed discontent over this. Where this fits into the argument, I'm not sure, but to be honest I'm quite tired of the whole OoC rights debate, as its clear the admins will ultimately have their way with it.

The new player's Ckey was TheAlmightRed, I believe.

[LordFowl]

For testimony's sake, I will add that there in fact was a new player online, trying to use OOC to ask questions, and the flood kind of drowned him out, and he repeatedly expressed discontent over this. Where this fits into the argument, I'm not sure, but to be honest I'm quite tired of the whole OoC rights debate, as its clear the admins will ultimately have their way with it.

The new player's Ckey was TheAlmightRed, I believe.

[Frances]

I will request that you adhere to this subforum's rules.

 

It's easy to dismiss criticism by making it so that people can't post. That way you don't even have to think of a reply to it.

Anyway, I do want to participate in this thread by providing testimony. Logs here, here, and here.

From what I've witnessed I think Doomberg is much too aggressive as an admin. I don't know if I can consider him upset or "riled up" (it might just be the way he does business rather than anything emotional), but whenever any sort of debate concerning sensitive topics is brought up he goes all out in protecting his viewpoints with a marked disregard for reason or dialogue.

I remember that during the incident of Cassie's ban, several people were asking for a proper explanation of why she was banned, and Doomberg's response was limited to a "look at her post history" without further explanation (besides him deeming her toxic but not expanding on why he believed that.)

I also made a complaint about another staffmember recently, and Doomberg effectively tried to derail it by bringing up some of my own actions which had little to do with the concerned staff's behavior. This was done in an unmistakably confrontational and clearly spiteful way.

I believe Doomberg's behavior both as described in this complaint and as presented in this very thread is a continuation of this mindset. I am not sure how he's expecting the OP to take his justifications seriously when one of the very first things he says is that he believes this complaint against him has no grounds to exist.

Edited September 16, 2015 by Guest

[Frances]

I will request that you adhere to this subforum's rules.

 

It's easy to dismiss criticism by making it so that people can't post. That way you don't even have to think of a reply to it.

Anyway, I do want to participate in this thread by providing testimony. Logs here, here, and here.

From what I've witnessed I think Doomberg is much too aggressive as an admin. I don't know if I can consider him upset or "riled up" (it might just be the way he does business rather than anything emotional), but whenever any sort of debate concerning sensitive topics is brought up he goes all out in protecting his viewpoints with a marked disregard for reason or dialogue.

I remember that during the incident of Cassie's ban, several people were asking for a proper explanation of why she was banned, and Doomberg's response was limited to a "look at her post history" without further explanation (besides him deeming her toxic but not expanding on why he believed that.)

I also made a complaint about another staffmember recently, and Doomberg effectively tried to derail it by bringing up some of my own actions which had little to do with the concerned staff's behavior. This was done in an unmistakably confrontational and clearly spiteful way.

I believe Doomberg's behavior both as described in this complaint and as presented in this very thread is a continuation of this mindset. I am not sure how he's expecting the OP to take his justifications seriously when one of the very first things he says is that he believes this complaint against him has no grounds to exist.

Edited September 16, 2015 by Guest

[Doomberg]

I also made a complaint about another staffmember recently, and Doomberg effectively tried to derail it by bringing up some of my own actions which had little to do with the concerned staff's behavior. This was done in an unmistakably confrontational and clearly spiteful way.

 

For that instance, yes, you have grounds to complain, as it was a mistake on my part brought on by several weeks of dealing with non-stop drama. I am unfortunately as human as the next person.

 

I remember that during the incident of Cassie's ban, several people were asking for a proper explanation of why she was banned, and Doomberg's response was limited to a "look at her post history" without further explanation (besides him deeming her toxic but not expanding on why he believed that.)

 

I have addressed this several times. I have linked several posts demonstrating the issue with her conduct. It has been explained to several concerned individuals. For the sake of my sanity, I will not open that can of worms again.

 

From what I've witnessed I think Doomberg is much too aggressive as an admin. I don't know if I can consider him upset or "riled up" (it might just be the way he does business rather than anything emotional), but whenever any sort of debate concerning sensitive topics is brought up he goes all out in protecting his viewpoints with a marked disregard for reason or dialogue.

 

The unfortunate fact is that no member of staff has any obligation to be friendly or pleasant, merely polite. In one of the instances you've presented, I was, yes, impolite for the reason I've already mentioned. As said, I am as human as the rest of us. Human condition notwithstanding, I've taken steps to prevent further incidents like this one by simply resorting to being entirely formal when irritated, tired or otherwise exasperated.

Moving on to the issue at hand, in relation to Fowl's statement: I can confirm and pull logs, if necessary.

[Doomberg]

I also made a complaint about another staffmember recently, and Doomberg effectively tried to derail it by bringing up some of my own actions which had little to do with the concerned staff's behavior. This was done in an unmistakably confrontational and clearly spiteful way.

 

For that instance, yes, you have grounds to complain, as it was a mistake on my part brought on by several weeks of dealing with non-stop drama. I am unfortunately as human as the next person.

 

I remember that during the incident of Cassie's ban, several people were asking for a proper explanation of why she was banned, and Doomberg's response was limited to a "look at her post history" without further explanation (besides him deeming her toxic but not expanding on why he believed that.)

 

I have addressed this several times. I have linked several posts demonstrating the issue with her conduct. It has been explained to several concerned individuals. For the sake of my sanity, I will not open that can of worms again.

 

From what I've witnessed I think Doomberg is much too aggressive as an admin. I don't know if I can consider him upset or "riled up" (it might just be the way he does business rather than anything emotional), but whenever any sort of debate concerning sensitive topics is brought up he goes all out in protecting his viewpoints with a marked disregard for reason or dialogue.

 

The unfortunate fact is that no member of staff has any obligation to be friendly or pleasant, merely polite. In one of the instances you've presented, I was, yes, impolite for the reason I've already mentioned. As said, I am as human as the rest of us. Human condition notwithstanding, I've taken steps to prevent further incidents like this one by simply resorting to being entirely formal when irritated, tired or otherwise exasperated.

Moving on to the issue at hand, in relation to Fowl's statement: I can confirm and pull logs, if necessary.

[Frances]

The unfortunate fact is that no member of staff has any obligation to be friendly or pleasant, merely polite.

That's where I believe the problem is here. Some members of staff are toeing the line of politeness by doing the bare minimum needed to not pass as a douche, and it leads to situations where it's way too easy for then to go overboard without realizing it. (Such as when a person makes a staff complaint and various admins remind them of how they've broken the rules instead of addressing said complaint, or when admins come off as very intimidating in PMs simply because they're used to act like Agent Smith.) This actually seems to be drilled in the mind of some admins, perhaps best exemplified when some actively go out of their way to avoid apologizing to users or admitting they've made mistakes. (And the fact that I'm surprised when I have a reasonable conversation with an admin isn't a good sign). Furthermore, I don't understand why it can't be easy for staff to be friendly. It's surely not impossible for volunteer moderators of an online game to enjoy their time moderating and act cordially towards others, no?

Anyway, simply stating why I'm disagreeing with you on this one. Other people are free to pick it up if they want, but I won't be posting again until some discussion gets made because this specific point could result in a lot of back and forth and it's not really the main focus of the complaint (just Doomberg is).

[Frances]

The unfortunate fact is that no member of staff has any obligation to be friendly or pleasant, merely polite.

That's where I believe the problem is here. Some members of staff are toeing the line of politeness by doing the bare minimum needed to not pass as a douche, and it leads to situations where it's way too easy for then to go overboard without realizing it. (Such as when a person makes a staff complaint and various admins remind them of how they've broken the rules instead of addressing said complaint, or when admins come off as very intimidating in PMs simply because they're used to act like Agent Smith.) This actually seems to be drilled in the mind of some admins, perhaps best exemplified when some actively go out of their way to avoid apologizing to users or admitting they've made mistakes. (And the fact that I'm surprised when I have a reasonable conversation with an admin isn't a good sign). Furthermore, I don't understand why it can't be easy for staff to be friendly. It's surely not impossible for volunteer moderators of an online game to enjoy their time moderating and act cordially towards others, no?

Anyway, simply stating why I'm disagreeing with you on this one. Other people are free to pick it up if they want, but I won't be posting again until some discussion gets made because this specific point could result in a lot of back and forth and it's not really the main focus of the complaint (just Doomberg is).

[Doomberg]

Furthermore, I don't understand why it can't be easy for staff to be friendly. It's surely not impossible for volunteer moderators of an online game to enjoy their time moderating and act cordially towards others, no?

 

A fairly simple explanation, in my opinion: The amount of badgering and flinging of feces (so to speak) that this team has endured without snapping is gargantuan. It's pretty difficult to be universally pleasant after your first five or so dramafests. And to clarify, I'm not pointing fingers at anyone in this thread when I refer to these issues.

Anyway, as you said, this isn't about the team as a whole.

[Doomberg]

Furthermore, I don't understand why it can't be easy for staff to be friendly. It's surely not impossible for volunteer moderators of an online game to enjoy their time moderating and act cordially towards others, no?

 

A fairly simple explanation, in my opinion: The amount of badgering and flinging of feces (so to speak) that this team has endured without snapping is gargantuan. It's pretty difficult to be universally pleasant after your first five or so dramafests. And to clarify, I'm not pointing fingers at anyone in this thread when I refer to these issues.

Anyway, as you said, this isn't about the team as a whole.

[Covert0ddity]

Hello.

Perhaps my opinion is moot; due to my time away, but I believe there is something to be said about general administrator behavious as a whole. It doesn't necessarily fit in with Aurora in specific, although there are many cases that could be brought up, but to all forms of Administration-based games.

This issue is the coldness that developes between the administrators and the players. The issue has happened time and time again, and I truthfully don't believe it's out of spite. Admin teams are difficult - You're a bunch of people stuck together moderating a community. Okay. Friendships form, and the warm ties drop from the community. Why? It's either because the admins are 'overwhelmed' with the overall dickbaggery and messing around that comes with SS13, or it's an elitism clique thing. I truthfully hope it isn't the latter.

Politeness is good, okay. But have you ever gone into a resteraunt, or a hotel, where the busboy is amazingly polite, but is also cold and brief? If you have, that busboy should be fired. This is a slightly different scenario, due to an admin's unpaid status, but it's the same point. Being 'polite' but also cold won't garner any new players or respect from the current playerbase.

This was an issue even back when I was administrator, as horrible as that went. I did the same thing, so I know where all you guys float. I'm not calling anyone out, but it would be nice in seeing a change from the cold, robot-like politeness policy that this administration has adopted turn into a more... warm, thing. Actually being helpful, discussing things without bias. Admins are people, but they're people held in a slightly higher regard and should act that way.

You claim to not be robots, but you act like them all the same.

[Covert0ddity]

Hello.

Perhaps my opinion is moot; due to my time away, but I believe there is something to be said about general administrator behavious as a whole. It doesn't necessarily fit in with Aurora in specific, although there are many cases that could be brought up, but to all forms of Administration-based games.

This issue is the coldness that developes between the administrators and the players. The issue has happened time and time again, and I truthfully don't believe it's out of spite. Admin teams are difficult - You're a bunch of people stuck together moderating a community. Okay. Friendships form, and the warm ties drop from the community. Why? It's either because the admins are 'overwhelmed' with the overall dickbaggery and messing around that comes with SS13, or it's an elitism clique thing. I truthfully hope it isn't the latter.

Politeness is good, okay. But have you ever gone into a resteraunt, or a hotel, where the busboy is amazingly polite, but is also cold and brief? If you have, that busboy should be fired. This is a slightly different scenario, due to an admin's unpaid status, but it's the same point. Being 'polite' but also cold won't garner any new players or respect from the current playerbase.

This was an issue even back when I was administrator, as horrible as that went. I did the same thing, so I know where all you guys float. I'm not calling anyone out, but it would be nice in seeing a change from the cold, robot-like politeness policy that this administration has adopted turn into a more... warm, thing. Actually being helpful, discussing things without bias. Admins are people, but they're people held in a slightly higher regard and should act that way.

You claim to not be robots, but you act like them all the same.

[Tainavaa]

It gets muted because the subject always gets brought up and every time, someone's feelings get hurt and they get very defensive and start being aggressive to the offender. The original offender starts to get upset about that and retaliates and it always devolves into the same thing.

It's a game. Seriously. If you don't want it to be hushed before it starts, then don't let it become a subject that reasonably leads the staff to believe "Okay, this is gonna be some shit." the second it comes up. In this case, there are two bad guys out of three and worst case scenario, three bad guys out of three:

 

• The one who brings up the topic, and the ones who get offended by said video game topic
• The ones who get offended by said video game topic, and the staff that try to prevent the hurt feelings
  
• The one who brings up the topic, and the administration that do nothing about their retaliations to the retaliation of hurt feelings
  
• The one who brings up the topic for hurting feelings, the people who get offended by said video game topic for taking thing too seriously, and the administration who does nothing about the shitfest that will almost indubitably ensue.

 

So, I mean. If you've got a solution, I guess we're listening.

[Tainavaa]

It gets muted because the subject always gets brought up and every time, someone's feelings get hurt and they get very defensive and start being aggressive to the offender. The original offender starts to get upset about that and retaliates and it always devolves into the same thing.

It's a game. Seriously. If you don't want it to be hushed before it starts, then don't let it become a subject that reasonably leads the staff to believe "Okay, this is gonna be some shit." the second it comes up. In this case, there are two bad guys out of three and worst case scenario, three bad guys out of three:

 

• The one who brings up the topic, and the ones who get offended by said video game topic
• The ones who get offended by said video game topic, and the staff that try to prevent the hurt feelings
  
• The one who brings up the topic, and the administration that do nothing about their retaliations to the retaliation of hurt feelings
  
• The one who brings up the topic for hurting feelings, the people who get offended by said video game topic for taking thing too seriously, and the administration who does nothing about the shitfest that will almost indubitably ensue.

 

So, I mean. If you've got a solution, I guess we're listening.

[hivefleetchicken]

I've got a solution. Seriously.

And it's not a surprise, but for some reason no one seems to acknowledge it.

 

[hivefleetchicken]

I've got a solution. Seriously.

And it's not a surprise, but for some reason no one seems to acknowledge it.

 

[Tainavaa]

We're not going to ignore the shitfest.

Please refer to my short "bad guys" scenario. If it's not us, it's gotta be someone. What I'm reading here is, you don't have a solution.