Staff Complaint - Gollee

[Frances]

BYOND Key: forums

Staff BYOND Key: forums

Reason for complaint: Mindless enforcing of the rules

Evidence/logs/etc: http://aurorastation.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=90&t=3967 , http://imgur.com/a/aHco4

Additional remarks:

Fairly simple situation. A newbie got in trouble because of some age qualifications on the server yesterday, got demoted, and acted out as a result. They were talked to and essentially chastised/provided with guidance via admin-PM. Shortly after that, the HoP who was present during the round submitted an IC complaint about this player.

I attempted to post on said complaint, via ((OOC brackets)), to explain that the incident had already been corrected by admins and was just the fault of a confused newbie (the character's bio had already been changed since then.) My post got promptly deleted for breaking the forum's "No OOC" rule.

Follows this exchange of PMs between me and Gollee, where he asked me to submit a staff complaint if I wished to pursue the issue, so here we are. (Nothing against you, Gollee!)

I believe the PMs explain fairly well my reasoning, and reason to disagree with Gollee's call. As a reply to his last point, I'd like to highlight that I was the one to contact admins to deal with the newbie's situation, and don't really see why we need to go through the DO head, then through the involved mods, just so the simplest OOC information can be made public. (I mean, unless you want to assume that regular users tend to lie for keks. I dunno.)

The concerned IC complaint is also currently sitting locked without any explanation, other than my deleted post.

[Garnascus]

I mean hes not /wrong/ in saying an admin/mod or something should be contacted but... I think its important to examine intent first before you enforce a rule and i really feel like you weren't stepping over the line here.

[Frances]

Let's forget about the last part of this, because I don't see what makes this particular incident special, as far as "user reporting something admins said". Otherwise, we might as well delete all information about the admins which isn't communicated directly by them.

The problem was that the post was OOC. As far as I know, the no-OOC rule was added to the IC complaints forum to prevent debate, such as people coming to say "oh my character did this because of this, and so he/she shouldn't have a complaint". I don't see how communicating basic info, such as: 1. the user being banned 2. the user being an antagonist 3. the user having been punished OOCly, can spark any kind of debate or confusion. And that's my problem with this. I know the information, I can report the information directly, and there's little to no reason why I shouldn't report the information. If you doubt it, just ask the mod concerned. Posting directly on the thread allows me to communicate this to the OP, to the target of the complaint, and to anyone looking at the complaint, whether they be a DO or just an onlooker. It's way more reliable than sending a PM to one of the heads of the DOs and hoping they put up the information themselves (and maybe to prove that point, the thread has been locked without an explanation.)

[Garnascus]

That sounds pretty reasonable to me, lets wait for gollee's reply to see what he has to say.

[Gollee]

My evaluation of the post went like this:

1. Is Frances connected to the report? No.

2. Was Frances the player who talked to or the moderator that talked to them? No.

3. Was Frances able to see the Msay/Asay discussion about the incident? No.

From this synopsis, I decided that Frances did not have sufficient weight to say either way if the complaint was dealt with Adminside, so the post was removed. It's down to the Moderator involved, or someone of a higher rank, to say that the report was dealt with via Ahelps. This is, as I said to Frances, to do with accountability, if I had taken France's post at face value, and locked it, then she turned out to be wrong, it would have been a rather large screw up; and it would have been my fault. So I cleaned the message, posted the specific rule related to OOC discussion, and PMed Frances that her post had been moderated.

When questioned what should be done instead, I directed Frances to speak to myself or Doom, so we could confirm the issue, instead of directly posting on the thread, which can be misleading, if it is wrong.

As I stated in the PMs, this sort of post can spark debates, whether it is from the moderator saying "Uh, no.", the complaintee trying to explain their character's reasoning and backstory OOCly, or the complaintant refuting the original point. It can escalate, quite logically, along any of those lines. It's the same as if someone files a report against someone in a workplace, you don't burst in yelling that they didn't do it, you go to the person in charge, and you explain to them the situation, and allow them to follow procedure.

[Gollee]

In addition, the poster of the complaint was PMed, stating the reasoning for it being locked and archived.

[Frances]

My evaluation of the post went like this:

1. Is Frances connected to the report? No.

2. Was Frances the player who talked to or the moderator that talked to them? No.

3. Was Frances able to see the Msay/Asay discussion about the incident? No.

1. I was playing the IAA mentioned in the report.

2. I was the one who ahelped about the issue. During two different rounds.

3. No, I can't see msay, however when a mod tells me that they've talked to a user I generally assume that they've talked to a user.

I didn't really see the need to specify any of those details, because I assumed that anyone who was confused would simply ask me, and not delete my post while warning me about forum rules. However, when moderating a forum, it's usually best not to assume your posters are utterly retarded, as a default stance.

Apologies for the sass.

[Gollee]

1. Irrelevant, you were not the target, or sender, of the Adminsays.

2. See above.

3. Just because they've spoken, doesn't mean it is going one way or another. That cannot be assumed. Nor was any of this actually in your message, or relayed to me.

Anyone confused should talk to the people in charge, not an arbitary player, that is what the staff are for. You were also not warned. I did not dish out a warning, just a notice.

I did not assume you were stupid, and I am mildly offended that you are assuming that. It's about accountability, a random person does not know you, does not know your relation to the report, or anything else, to see an unknown user posting instead of the staff members that are in charge of that area undermines their authority, which is even worse for the community, if no one has any respect for the staff keeping it running.

[Frances]

It's about accountability, a random person does not know you, does not know your relation to the report, or anything else, to see an unknown user posting instead of the staff members that are in charge of that area undermines their authority, which is even worse for the community, if no one has any respect for the staff keeping it running.

See, I'd be willing to accept that as a justification not to lock the report. That's perfectly reasonable. Put things on hold, wait for confirmation from somebody in the actual staff, and then close the case. That's all I ever wanted, and what I was actually expecting to happen.

I don't see why my post needs to be deleted, though. I'm not asking for it to be taken as word of god. I'm just asking for it not to be deleted.

[Guest Menown]

In the end, Frances, this wasn't handled OOCly by admins. Jun joined as a Warden the round right after it, like nothing happened. So, obviously there needs to be an IC intervention, then an OOC intervention if they continue past a DO telling them to knock it off.

[Frances]

In the end, Frances, this wasn't handled OOCly by admins. Jun joined as a Warden the round right after it, like nothing happened. So, obviously there needs to be an IC intervention, then an OOC intervention if they continue past a DO telling them to knock it off.

I think there's too much of a focus on punishing people ICly when their IC mistakes are due to simple lack of knowledge. There's no fun in spending an entire round being grilled by IAAs as a newbie because you attempted to give your character records and got them wrong. It's just intimidating and anti-fun.

What happened, in this instance, is that the character got in trouble over bad records, got demoted, then threw a tantrum. Since the tantrum was rather ridiculous, I ahelped, in the hope that this could be resolved by the admins rather than station staff, as it was rather obvious the player was new and might've just been unsure what to do.

The next round, they attempted to fix their record, while still unaware of the actual warden qualifications. I noticed this, and ahelped again to make sure the admins talked to them (and linked them to the wiki) before they got grilled by heads again.

I don't think there's a need to force people to roleplay an hour of HR meetings because they haven't read an obscure wiki page. You show them the page, they update their records, and that's it. The mod involved (Japak) even agreed with me. Anyway, sorry about the tangent, but I felt this needed to be said.

[Doomberg]

The rule of "don't post OOCly on incident reports" is pretty elementary. There's nothing discreet or complex about it. I see no fault in Gollee's actions - he enforced a fundamental rule on a subforum he supervises. That is partly his responsibility.

[Japak121]

As the mod in the second ahelp, I did agree. The player was new and I remember even saying in TWO different ahelps that instead of essentially embarrassing the new player about small (1 year difference) age discrepancies and other small qualifications right from the jump, people should attempt to TEACH. I know when I first started out, I never even knew the occupational qualifications page existed because I didn't go to the AURORA Wiki and click the guides there, I simply never thought about it. Then one day, after putting in alot of time and even getting an IC promotion, I get called into a meeting about being a few years too young even though I had applicable college experience and work experience. It was humiliating and the fact is as Jeanette, I still get sass from command occasionally for her age.

The person was talked to about the tantrum from one mod and then linked to the guide (after the second ahelp about the records) by another. They added in the relevant experience but there age was ONE year too young.

As for the forum rules, this does seem a bit picky, but I can also see the whole avalanche effect happening.

For example: On an IC complaint I put up one time, a player who was involved posted on it in an attempt to rebuttle. I can see other new players seeing non-staff posting and thinking it's okay as well, which is really the only real excuse for a blanket ban on this sort of thing, so people can't go "But so-and-so did it!".

[Frances]

I can see other new players seeing non-staff posting and thinking it's okay as well, which is really the only real excuse for a blanket ban on this sort of thing, so people can't go "But so-and-so did it!".

Wouldn't you agree there's a clear difference between arguing and posting this kind of information, though? What prevents admins from just, you know, putting an end to any arguing while allowing this kind of post to stay?

 

The rule of "don't post OOCly on incident reports" is pretty elementary. There's nothing discreet or complex about it. I see no fault in Gollee's actions - he enforced a fundamental rule on a subforum he supervises. That is partly his responsibility.

I'm questioning the validity of enforcing the rule in this particular case, you're doing nothing to explain why it should be enforced -_-

[Japak121]

Wouldn't you agree there's a clear difference between arguing and posting this kind of information, though? What prevents admins from just, you know, putting an end to any arguing while allowing this kind of post to stay?

 

I would agree under normal and intelligent circumstances, but unfortunately I think time and again people have proven that those circumstances don't apply. They see a reply and forget what the post was about or whatever and still point and say "See? They did it. So why can't I? Unfair! Adminabuse!" ect ect.

As for what prevents admins from doing that... see my previous remark, basically. People would then argue and argue about others getting away with things and what constitutes the ADMINS opinion of what is and is not acceptable the correct one and so on... so a blanket ban was put in place instead.

Like now. You believe Gollee made a mistake and here we are discussing it. This rule I don't see an issue with but only because we unfortunately have a lot of newcomers who want to come and exploit whatever loopholes they can to troll and start big arguments. Everything you did, in my personal opinion, should be perfectly acceptable. Then again, if it was just people posting like you did with the intent you did, that rule wouldn't even exist.

[Frances]

Wouldn't you agree there's a clear difference between arguing and posting this kind of information, though? What prevents admins from just, you know, putting an end to any arguing while allowing this kind of post to stay?

 

I would agree under normal and intelligent circumstances, but unfortunately I think time and again people have proven that those circumstances don't apply. They see a reply and forget what the post was about or whatever and still point and say "See? They did it."

As for what prevents admins from doing that... nothing. But if the admins wanted to do it, they could anyway even without the rule, it would just mean they'd have to explain themselves each time instead of simply pointing to the rule and going "that's why, the end." Personally, I trust the admins/forum mods to make the right decisions regarding posts and the handling thereof. That said, people make mistakes, which is exactly why we have a separate section like this for fixing those mistakes.

Like now. You believe Gollee made a mistake and here we are discussing it. This rule I don't see an issue with but only because we unfortunately have alot of newcomers who want to come and exploit whatever loopholes they can to troll and start big arguments. Everything you did, in my personal opinion, should be perfectly acceptable. Then again, if it was just people posting like you did with the intent you did, that rule wouldn't even exist.

Hm.

Maybe this is where our argument is fated to end, then.

I personally don't think that any kind of non-admin reply should be prevented from existing in these forums. We're not a high-traffic, 5000 users/day community. I'd be very surprised if someone used that particular post to spawn OOC arguments just because an exception was given in another case, and in all likelihood, it's not going to happen. And if it did, it wouldn't be terribly hard to explain to that person why their post wasn't acceptable, in comparison to any valid ones they'd try to use as justification.

So the question is, do we need to infringe on reasonable liberties to prevent potential unreasonableness? (And I'm not just speaking of my right to post, me posting that info there would make things easier for everyone involved.)

I say no, others say yes. I don't think people "bending the rules because of conceded precedents" is as grave a threat as some people make it out to be, but in the end, y'all are in charge and I'm not.

[Doomberg]

I'm questioning the validity of enforcing the rule in this particular case, you're doing nothing to explain why it should be enforced -_-

 

Why it should be enforced in this case? Because it's a crystal clear rule that was very clearly ignored. If you disagree with the rule, that's unfortunate, but there are no stated exceptions nor do we have precedent for such an exception, and I would rather not establish a precedent for it without a very good reason. If we've reached the point where I have to justify why my staff are enforcing the rather basic and clearly outlined server/forum rules, there's an issue, and I'm afraid the issue is not with them.

All it would have taken to solve this without any sort of headache? A PM to any of the duty officers with a very brief explanation. I do not see why an exception to a basic rule should be made on the basis of the violator doing it with good intentions. Leniency is another matter, but you were shown leniency in this particular case, extenuating circumstances and all.

As previously stated, I see no problem with Gollee's conduct. Is there anything anyone would like to add, or may I lock this?

[Frances]

What I'm getting from this:

 

Because it's a crystal clear rule that was very clearly ignored. If you disagree with the rule, that's unfortunate, but there are no stated exceptions nor do we have precedent for such an exception, and I would rather not establish a precedent for it without a very good reason. If we've reached the point where I have to justify why my staff are enforcing the rather basic and clearly outlined server/forum rules, there's an issue, and I'm afraid the issue is not with them.

"The rules are the rules! We're enforcing the rules because we have the authority! I don't need to explain myself to you, and you have issues!"

 

I do not see why an exception to a basic rule should be made on the basis of the violator doing it with good intentions.

"Even if the rule accomplishes nothing in a particular case, it should be respected, damned be intents and effects!"

 

Leniency is another matter, but you were shown leniency in this particular case, extenuating circumstances and all.

"You're lucky you didn't face greater consequences!"

 

Is there anything anyone would like to add, or may I lock this?

"I'm not gonna address the last thing you said, but I'd very much like this to be over with!"

I just can't spin any of those things any other way. I don't think anyone can. I'd very much like not to fight with you, I'd love for everyone to get along, and to not constantly be painted as "that subversive element who always disagrees with the rules", but... what the hell, man. Look at how you come off.

[Baka]

Yes, rules are rules. And you're no exception to them, Frances.

[Frances]

Yes, rules are rules. And you're no exception to them, Frances.

I've provided a rather lengthy explanation why I disagree with the enforcement of the rule in this specific case. I actually managed to have a rather civil discussion about it with Japak. And now I'm faced with this one-liner.

What are you hoping to achieve by posting this?

I'm not trying to be confrontational, I genuinely don't understand your aim.

[Baka]

Thou shalt not have OOC discussion in an IC complaint.

You brought OOC into an IC complaint. You weren't even involved into it. You broke the rules. And yet, here you are saying: "The rules are the rules! We're enforcing the rules because we have the authority! I don't need to explain myself to you, and you have issues!"

I clearly don't see a problem with what I said, Frances. OOC in IC complaint is not allowed on that subsection of the forum.

But.

I guess, if you feel like giving the person advice, maybe next time private messaging the player or contacting them on byond. There's a time and a place for everything.

[Frances]

You brought OOC into an IC complaint. You weren't even involved into it. You broke the rules. And yet, here you are saying: "The rules are the rules! We're enforcing the rules because we have the authority! I don't need to explain myself to you, and you have issues!"

I was paraphrasing Doomberg to show the issues I found with his post/judgement.

Is it possible we might have misunderstood each other?

[TishinaStalker]

Yes, rules are rules. And you're no exception to them, Frances.

I've provided a rather lengthy explanation why I disagree with the enforcement of the rule in this specific case. I actually managed to have a rather civil discussion about it with Japak. And now I'm faced with this one-liner.

What are you hoping to achieve by posting this?

I'm not trying to be confrontational, I genuinely don't understand your aim.

 

What Baka is trying to say is that the rule was enforced because it's the rules. There's no OOC to be posted in incident reports and that's that. If you want to notify us about things like that (that being admin action already being taken against the player), then simply PM Gollee, Jenna, and myself. Otherwise, it will be deleted if it goes on an incident report. I'll make sure to explicitly add that into the rules for future, similar situations.

[Frances]

What Baka is trying to say is that the rule was enforced because it's the rules. There's no OOC to be posted in incident reports and that's that. If you want to notify us about things like that (that being admin action already being taken against the player), then simply PM Gollee, Jenna, and myself. Otherwise, it will be deleted if it goes on an incident report. I'll make sure to explicitly add that into the rules for future, similar situations.

You're the second person to explain the argument constructively (and for those who are getting annoyed at the length of the complaint, I think it'd prolly be shorter if we could just focus on that). So anyway, thank you.

My issue (it's been the same from the start) is that this way of thinking sort of overcomplicates things. I've been given a list of four people to PM (Doomberg, Gollee, Jenna and you), and it's hard for anyone to know who will be around (sometimes people go on leaves for weeks, or disappear for even short periods of time for no reason at all.) It would be much easier for me to simply post the information directly. (It'll need to be verified either way, so that particular detail is irrelevant.)

And the argument against this (that other people will see non-mods posting and think they can post for anything as well) seems like a rather weak one, because 1. I think most people would be smart enough to see the difference between the info shared here and any random OOC post and 2. it takes half a second to delete an actual unwanted post.

[TishinaStalker]

it's hard for anyone to know who will be around (sometimes people go on leaves for weeks, or disappear for even short periods of time for no reason at all.)

 

That's why there's lots of us to PM. If one person becomes aware, then the others do too. I check the forums almost everyday, but my tasks have been stalled by not having time set up to be more active in actually posting on threads where I'm required. On the other hand, though, thanks to how mobile technology is now-a-days, I can just message Gollee, Jen or Doom over Skype with my phone, and that way we have things set. Day in and day out, I always see at least one of them on and active on Skype, and admins very rarely go on hiatus without saying anything to other admins, so I believe things should be fine.

 

And the argument against this (that other people will see non-mods posting and think they can post for anything as well) seems like a rather weak one, because 1. I think most people would be smart enough to see the difference between the info shared here and any random OOC post and 2. it takes half a second to delete an actual unwanted post.

 

Right, I should set people like Nursie, Contextual, etc. to have their default group be Duty Officer; similar to Gollee. That should, hopefully, resolve the issue of confusion. I would still prefer to not see OOC information posted on the incident reports though, regardless of what it is, please.