Staff Complaint: Gollee ; DO Corps

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

BYOND Key: Jackboot

Staff BYOND Key: Gollee ; DO Corps

Reason for complaint: Lack of communication ; poor use of administrative power. I was fired today for things I did months ago that were never brought to my attention.

Evidence/logs/etc:

Initial communication with Gollee. Full context provided.

Additional remarks:

This conversation came completely out of the blue. The day before I was discussing a case in the DO chat and listening to the orientation of the new Duty Officers. I went to bed discussing lore developments with Gollee himself, and suddenly over my lunch break at work I was terminated.

I had no idea about anything bad being filed against before being terminated. I spent literally my entire tenure communicating as much as possible and sharing my every step in every case with the DO chat. Every so often I got a talking to (usually by Scopes) and for these I was thankful, and I adjusted my behavior and moved on to do my best.

But I was still terminated without any dialogue. Even my later conversation with Gollee provided absolutely nothing fruitful. I spent the rest of my day at work convinced that Tishinastalker and Skull had pressured Gollee to fire me for bizarre reasons, and was originally prepared to file this complaint on all three of them. Especially since, only a few days before, these two tried to pressure me to resign because they were concerned that Gollee being a loredev as well as the leader of the DO Corps would make people accuse of of bias or favoritism. (We had a thoughtful discussion on that and it yielded 'me not being fired')

However, I spoke to Skull, and the conversation with him revealed that he and Tish had literally nothing to do with it. There were elements of the organization that were angry that I remained inside it because of things that happened months ago - but these same people never brought it up and I was never confronted in these months and months following.

I refuse to accept this behavior. I would be completely satisfied if we had sat down, talked about it, then decided if the infractions I'm accused of these months ago justifies a termination. That would be better and more satisfying than being shitcanned during my lunch break with no warning, and having to spend the rest of the day just figuring out the why.

If I can spend all this time demanding people give me feedback, and begging people to tell me when I'm doing something wrong, and there are still these problems that remain hidden until they're used as a reason to terminate me suddenly and with no warning, what possible justification can I give myself to put in the effort?

I had really strong faith in the organization and really strove to improve it where I could, but this really destroyed all my investment in it.

[Guest]

This is the first that I've ever heard of this ever being an issue. I don't remember the specifics, but I faintly remember being told by either Tish or Doomberg to not bother with an interview, though I don't know for what case. I feel this detail may or may not relevant to that, but it's just conspiratory spitballing at this point.

Given that I have a new computer and a fresh hard drive (since the last one got corrupted), I wouldn't have the case notes for anything Safiya-related, so all of the context I remember finding would be locked behind a board I have no access to.

Although I don't outright recall the circumstances from so long ago, if Jackboot had ever 'influenced' me in such a way, I sincerely doubt it was because of bias. He (and Serv, too) was the senior DO and he looked like at the time that he knew how to do things right, and I do recall asking for tutoring from him and Serveris6 at the time to make my DOing more refined and professional. There was dumb stuff about how he responded to command staff over faxes, but that's an issue with tone and not really relevant in this case.

I'd say more things, but I should really talk to certain people before making any claims or accusations.

[Gollee]

Discussion with Scopes

[09:24:45] Scopes: Well now you have it direct from me, I do not want Jackboot on the DO's.

My main reasoning for this is his attitude of I can do whatever because I'm the loremaster. His latest request (excpet for the lawyer thing he's been asking for months) is we remove the admin armoury because it doesn't coinside with the lore."

"[09:25:08] Scopes: I have at points, and noticed that he seems to turn up when ERT are called to give a "briefing" even when he wasn't connected for them to be called. He also picks his own assignments/investigations and in previous cases didn't finnish them or asked others to do his work for them.

Sierra had to ask meny times for him to do something on the forums regarding a case and he never did."

[09:25:17] Jackboot: ??????????? why does me thinking the admin armory needs to go away have anything to do with do's?????????????????????????/

[09:25:22] Scopes: I did, a lot of people did, Witt and Sierra did apparently.

[09:25:32] Gollee Truesight: Still a lot more logs to go

[09:25:42]Scopes: I was always told to go through Doom or Tish, so I directed all of my focus on them and I got fucknig pissed that I was being directed to loads of different people.

I NEVER complained in DO chat

[09:25:51] Scopes: I told them meny times to direct their fustration to where is needed to go (you)

I have no idea about how the old chat worked, I wasn't allowed near it because I guess Doom was worried I would freak out.

[09:25:54] Jackboot: the work references when before you talked to me when I work and school

[09:26:25] Gollee Truesight: yup

[17/12/2015 15:19:43] Gollee Truesight: It was just meant to be a general discussion chat related to opinions on how to handle things.

[17/12/2015 15:20:13] Gollee Truesight: Rather than complaining to me about each other in front of each other.

[17/12/2015 15:20:18] Scopes: It turned into the focus point, and by the sounds of it turned into the mess of offtopic

[17/12/2015 15:20:34] Gollee Truesight: yup

[17/12/2015 15:32:06] Scopes: But this,

[23 November 2015 19:14] Gollee Truesight:

<<< You three are the only three that don't need to reapply, and Boot is a forummy/Fax responderThis is the first thing I saw when the revamp was done, then this pops up.[11 December 2015 08:08] Gollee Truesight:

<<< Jackboot can take IRs and start investigations now that his exams are over, and he is less stressed; provided he doesn't answe his own faxes again.This is missleading. As I said I have no idea what happened in the other chat, however I said to Skull way before the revamp was done that I did not want Jackboot on the DO's.

Hearing that he was a forum person I was eh, but since Sierra was also a Forum person I thought it would be ok. What is Sierra to the DO's, what did you guys agree?

But then to find out that he asked to investigate someone due to records that HE looked into.

I had decided that I was not going direct to you at that point because I was pissed from being told to go here and there and back again just to get one thing done, or being stonewalled because I see something that needs to have something done but the people "like" them too much or are scared of doing it because everyone has to answer for something, or community backlash.

[17/12/2015 15:33:28] Gollee Truesight: That was a miscomm from me; I told Boot that he could be back after his workload abated, but it didn't go along the line to everyone else.

[17/12/2015 15:34:04] Gollee Truesight: As for people not talking to me, this is exactly like how I nearly got fired from Loremaster, because [REMOVED] complained to Skull constantly in Msay without telling me squat.

[17/12/2015 15:36:58] Scopes: Well now you have it direct from me, I do not want Jackboot on the DO's.

My main reasoning for this is his attitude of I can do whatever because I'm the loremaster. His latest request (excpet for the lawyer thing he's been asking for months) is we remove the admin armoury because it doesn't coinside with the lore.

I have at points, and noticed that he seems to turn up when ERT are called to give a "briefing" even when he wasn't connected for them to be called.

[09:26:34] Jackboot: I have never briefed ert

[09:26:40] Jackboot: ever

[09:26:45] Gollee Truesight: That was from Scopes

[09:26:47] Gollee Truesight: All of that was

[09:26:50] Jackboot: i know

[09:26:55] Jackboot: and he's mistaken.

[09:26:57] Jackboot: i don't brief erts.

 

 

Talk with Serveris

 

[17/12/2015 15:56:06] Gollee Truesight: Jackboot

[17/12/2015 15:56:10] Gollee Truesight: And them later

[17/12/2015 15:57:07] Serveris: Sure?

[17/12/2015 15:57:23] Gollee Truesight: Opinions on him and his behaviour.

[17/12/2015 15:59:30] Serveris: Professionally, in character?

[17/12/2015 15:59:36] Gollee Truesight: Yeah

[17/12/2015 15:59:40] Gollee Truesight: Professionally

[17/12/2015 15:59:43] Gollee Truesight: In the DOs

[17/12/2015 16:00:08] Serveris: He's usually very mellowed out. Good with working most of the time, though.

[17/12/2015 16:00:45] Serveris: I know most of his energy goes into his staff department.

[17/12/2015 16:01:18] Serveris: Answers faxes, conducts interviews.

[17/12/2015 16:01:50] Serveris: From what I've seen, he does what's expected of him.

 

Talk with Witt

[17/12/2015 15:00:32] Gollee Truesight: Jackboot, opinions

[17/12/2015 15:01:06] Wittly: well clearly tish told you my thoughts, but lets start from the begining

[17/12/2015 15:01:13] Gollee Truesight: mmm

[17/12/2015 15:01:38] Wittly: remeber some months back when i told you he asnd nursie were an anchor ddragging us down with inactivity?

[17/12/2015 15:01:49] Gollee Truesight: Nope

[17/12/2015 15:02:33] Wittly: really, well i did i complained about the fact that they did jackshit, and honestly jackboot hasn't really done much since

[17/12/2015 15:02:59] Wittly: why did you keep him during the revamp?

[17/12/2015 15:03:02] Gollee Truesight: He told me in September that he was going to be unable to do much.

[17/12/2015 15:03:42] Gollee Truesight: Because at that time, he was reduced to a forum organiser and fax answer due to his RL workload, so the build up of IRs that triggered the revamp wasn't related to him

[17/12/2015 15:05:12] Wittly: Anywho, at revamp you told us he was staying on purely to do faxs and replies (which whatever), during that time he went on station as a DO in code blue or higherr no less than twice, atleast once he started ordering the ERT around.

[17/12/2015 15:05:27] Gollee Truesight: I wasn't told about this

[17/12/2015 15:06:44] Wittly: then there is the whole your his boss but not really issue. meaning you are incharge here but he is incharge of you on lore. and in my view (and aprently sierras and a few others) that takes away any credibility towards your leadership overhim

[17/12/2015 15:07:00] Gollee Truesight: Yeah, I can see that

[17/12/2015 15:07:08] Wittly: exspecially if you care about lore

[17/12/2015 15:07:09] Gollee Truesight: I wasn't told about thisWhy wasn't I told about that?

[17/12/2015 15:08:07] Wittly: not sure, i know scopes found him once and when i saw it i told tish since you were offline due to timezones

[17/12/2015 15:08:32] Gollee Truesight: Always come to me. Tish is an overseer, not the head DO.

[17/12/2015 15:08:54] Wittly: Yes he is and when you arent on he is who we should see.

[17/12/2015 15:09:05] Gollee Truesight: I still need to be informed

[17/12/2015 15:09:11] Gollee Truesight: Because he didn't pass that info on.

[17/12/2015 15:10:49] Wittly: Lets move to the furry incident, the one where delta ran point and only interviewed jackboots HoP and then took jackboots orders on punishment without talking to anyone

[17/12/2015 15:11:18] Gollee Truesight: What was the punishment?

[17/12/2015 15:11:37] Wittly: permanit ban form ever bing in the same room as any tajarain

[17/12/2015 15:11:55] Gollee Truesight: Against Travis... Right... That was a looooong time ago? Right?

[17/12/2015 15:12:07] Wittly: it was early october

[17/12/2015 15:12:18] Gollee Truesight: Oh, with Ana?

[17/12/2015 15:12:22] Wittly: the point is jackboot manipulated the situation

[17/12/2015 15:12:26] Wittly: and yes

[17/12/2015 15:12:34] Gollee Truesight: Right, and yeah

[17/12/2015 15:12:52] Wittly: Doom ordered me to relaunch and unfuck that entire incident

[17/12/2015 15:13:06] Wittly: the furry left the server shortly after that

[17/12/2015 15:13:17] Gollee Truesight: Was I told about that?

[17/12/2015 15:13:20] Wittly: yes

[17/12/2015 15:13:27] Gollee Truesight: Are you sure?

[17/12/2015 15:13:31] Wittly: yes

[17/12/2015 15:13:33] Gollee Truesight: Or is my memory completely shit..

[17/12/2015 15:13:45] Gollee Truesight: Was it only said in the DO chat?

[17/12/2015 15:14:06] Wittly: it was said on the old DO chat you and doom agreed that it was dumb

[17/12/2015 15:14:17] Gollee Truesight: Right

[17/12/2015 15:15:40] Wittly: As a note, the jackboot and nursie incident was sent to you,scopes,doom tish and jenna via forum PM

[17/12/2015 15:16:06] Gollee Truesight: Checking

[17/12/2015 15:17:11] Wittly: dates are oct 14th and 15th

[17/12/2015 15:17:29] Gollee Truesight: Thanks, I didn't like the idea of looking through 12 pages of PMs

[17/12/2015 15:30:19] Gollee Truesight: Furry's issue was something I overlooked during the revamp.

[17/12/2015 15:31:27] Gollee Truesight: Huh, he thought you were head DO at some point, heheh

[17/12/2015 15:31:40] Wittly: who did?

[17/12/2015 15:31:47] Gollee Truesight: Furry

[17/12/2015 15:33:19] Wittly: thats probably cause i told him to ignore that dumb ass punishment and told him to tell keks HoP to fuck off if an issue arose

 

Talk with Sierra

[16/12/2015 21:15:13] Gollee Truesight: Jackboot, opinions.

[16/12/2015 21:19:23] Sierra "KOMODO" Brown: Oh, there's a few things I can say here

[16/12/2015 21:19:52] Gollee Truesight: Shoot

[16/12/2015 21:19:57] Sierra "KOMODO" Brown: First off, he's both the head loredev, and a duty officer. This puts him in a weird position of being both above and below you in certain areas

[16/12/2015 21:20:22] Gollee Truesight: Yup

[16/12/2015 21:20:42] Sierra "KOMODO" Brown: People have voiced concerns there, particularly that you might let him do/get away with things because he might not let you do things as a loredev if you prevent him from doing things as a DO

[16/12/2015 21:21:06] Sierra "KOMODO" Brown: And with the fact I've seen him doing things now and then that I wouldn't have done because I know I'd have been told off for it

[16/12/2015 21:21:32] Gollee Truesight: He did? When? Was I told?

[16/12/2015 21:21:41] Sierra "KOMODO" Brown: Such as sending faxxes to CC that say 'Picture of a penis', taking over for RP-rev directives while also playing a head of staffd

[16/12/2015 21:22:12] Sierra "KOMODO" Brown: I don't remember the exact when and where's of these things; Wittly's probably got more details on that since he's still be around as a DO

[16/12/2015 21:22:20] Gollee Truesight: I know about the latter, or did that happen again?

[16/12/2015 21:22:34] Gollee Truesight: As for the first? I wasn't told.

[16/12/2015 21:22:36] Sierra "KOMODO" Brown: As far as I know it's only happened the one time

[16/12/2015 21:23:02] Gollee Truesight: Right

[16/12/2015 21:23:42] Sierra "KOMODO" Brown: I distinctly remember an issue with him constantly derailing devchat, filling it with lore things and other unrelated banter, then refusing to play by the new guidelines you set up with the separate channel

[16/12/2015 21:24:30] Gollee Truesight: Indeed

 

Jackboot

[09:30:27] Jackboot: i did send cc funny faxes as a command member

[09:30:29] Jackboot: a few times

[09:30:40] Gollee Truesight: Please don't...

[09:30:40] Jackboot: ill do it as not do too, so

 

Partial with Skull

[13/12/2015 19:50:52] Skull: So we've been talking with two DOs. I don't really know why we're talking with them, and not you, but I guess teamspeak's a bitch.

[13/12/2015 19:51:16] Gollee Truesight: I never use TeamSpeak, I have it, never run it up

[13/12/2015 19:51:22] Skull: Yeah. Anyways.

[13/12/2015 19:51:28] Skull: Anyways. The issue they seem to have with Jackboot is the fact that they don't have faith in him as a peer.

 

Logs of the leadup discussions. I will admit I felt that I was pushed to remove Jackboot.

EDIT: All logs in italics are copypasted within the logs. So Scopes logs in the first section are me showing them to Boot.

Edited December 20, 2015 by Guest

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

[09:24:45] Scopes: Well now you have it direct from me, I do not want Jackboot on the DO's.

My main reasoning for this is his attitude of I can do whatever because I'm the loremaster. His latest request (excpet for the lawyer thing he's been asking for months) is we remove the admin armoury because it doesn't coinside with the lore."

I wasn't aware making non-binding game suggestions was an indication of poor DO behavior. It's especially a sign that I'm an entitled tyrant when it's an idea I recognize as a bad idea and admit as such after brief debate. This is just beyond silly that I can't even believe it was uttered or used as reasoning.

"[09:25:08] Scopes: I have at points, and noticed that he seems to turn up when ERT are called to give a "briefing" even when he wasn't connected for them to be called. He also picks his own assignments/investigations and in previous cases didn't finnish them or asked others to do his work for them.

I have maybe briefed ERT twice in my entire tenure in the history of the DO Corps (if at all because if I did this was literally more than 2 months ago), and even then it was never said to be against the rules because I've seen multiple other DO's do it. The only way I've gotten involved with ERT since Gollee took over was arguing against using faxes to activate them. Heads should swipe or be SOL. Scopes-san might be mistaking me for someone else.

He also picks his own assignments/investigations and in previous cases didn't finnish them or asked others to do his work for them.

This I can accept. I had talked to Gollee before the reboot of the DO corps at my incredible IRL workload, and that's why I went into hibernation. I responded to some faxes, but that's all I was capable of. The understanding was that I'd return and resume duties. As for picking my own cases.... Do we not do that? Do I have to wait to be assigned?

[17/12/2015 15:02:33] Wittly: really, well i did i complained about the fact that they did jackshit, and honestly jackboot hasn't really done much since

i've handled three cases since returning to duty. The last three actions in the DO action notice thread are mine. Do we have to compare activity? How many cases has Witt done? Does it matter the number?

[17/12/2015 15:06:44] Wittly: then there is the whole your his boss but not really issue. meaning you are incharge here but he is incharge of you on lore. and in my view (and aprently sierras and a few others) that takes away any credibility towards your leadership overhim

It still blows my mind that there can be this idea that I can order Gollee around as a DO just because I'm the loremaster. Any attempt to do that would be so blatantly obvious it would border a cartoon villain. "YOUR WIZARD LORE, GOLLEE? DELETED UNLESS YOU LET ME FIRE STACY GRACE BECAUSE SHE SAID A MEAN NAME TO ME."

I'd give this a serious response and reference the very insightful discussion Tish+you+Skill+I had on the nature of trust and oversight in cross-department responsibilities but honestly after the initial "he's a bad do for making game suggestions" thing i can barely keep a straight face on this wild ride.

[17/12/2015 15:10:49] Wittly: Lets move to the furry incident, the one where delta ran point and only interviewed jackboots HoP and then took jackboots orders on punishment without talking to anyone

[17/12/2015 15:11:18] Gollee Truesight: What was the punishment?

[17/12/2015 15:11:37] Wittly: permanit ban form ever bing in the same room as any tajarain

Now that I actually know wtf incident is being referenced, I remember part of that. I said "It'd be good if he were just banned from contact with Tajaran, probably." It was a suggestion in the DO chat that then had a discussion about feasibility. I don't remember if I abandoned the idea or not.

[16/12/2015 21:20:42] Sierra "KOMODO" Brown: People have voiced concerns there, particularly that you might let him do/get away with things because he might not let you do things as a loredev if you prevent him from doing things as a DO

There's that flattering idea that I have more power than I actually do. Gollee could complain about this exact situation and I'd be shitcanned as Loremaster in like, a day. And when in my entire history on this server have I attempted extortion?

[16/12/2015 21:21:41] Sierra "KOMODO" Brown: Such as sending faxxes to CC that say 'Picture of a penis', taking over for RP-rev directives while also playing a head of staffd

Okay, I admit that these were bad. The first part was an attempt at jokes with fellow DO's, and they were stopped after it became clear that they weren't appreciated. The second one I was already punished for, so having it factor into a termination is sort of unfair. Double jeopardy sucks.

[16/12/2015 21:23:42] Sierra "KOMODO" Brown: I distinctly remember an issue with him constantly derailing devchat, filling it with lore things and other unrelated banter, then refusing to play by the new guidelines you set up with the separate channel

I've never had access to devchat. I'm going to give Sierra-chan the benefit of the doubt and assume he meant DO-chat. In which case, fair enough. I did frequently drop lore-questions in the DO-chat, mostly to ask for feedback on regulation changes, or other things of 'legal' nature, since it was assumed those present have the most investment in these things. Getting off-topic is something I did do though, and I tried to work on it.

 

[09:24:45] Scopes: Well now you have it direct from me, I do not want Jackboot on the DO's.

My main reasoning for this is his attitude of I can do whatever because I'm the loremaster. His latest request (excpet for the lawyer thing he's been asking for months) is we remove the admin armoury because it doesn't coinside with the lore."

 

Just a reminder that this was used as a reason to have me fired

[Frances]

From having worked with Jackboot on a few lore things, and having the chance to discuss his general outlook on the game (including as a DO), I can say that removing him from the DOs for issues that for the most part were never discussed with him constitutes a gross waste of his talents.

Jackboot is very capable to adapt, discuss, and be reasonable in making efforts to meet other people's desires and expectations. Of the info presented here, most seems to be based on hearsay, non-issues (things that are convention for other DOs to do), or issues that Jackboot was never made aware of and thus couldn't be held responsible for in good conscience.

Some of the evidence contradicts other evidence presented. For example, you're both reproaching Jackboot of having done little work (with DOs having given out roughly three actual punishments since their inception), but also slamming him for bringing up an idea that resulted in the punishment of a character (Travis), which I assume had to be approved by an admin like every other punishment. There's actually several instances in the logs you provided where people seem to find issue with Jackboot for no other reason than because he partook, or wanted to start a neutral, open-ended discussion about something related to the game.

Furthermore, I don't understand the fear of possible conflicts of interests between someone who works into DOs and Lore. A player is much more likely to develop bias through regular play on the server (you know, the thing that people actually get salty about all the time) than they are through whatever lore activities they may engage in, so all of your DOs are already facing a much greater risk (and I'd assume it's being handled just fine.) Furthermore, if Jackboot actually developed a grudge, it would be incredibly easier for him to act as the uncontested authority directly in charge of the lore than as a lowly DO, where he has to answer both to his peers, and to admins. Furthermore, considering that you graciously accepted him into DOs after he was made Loremaster, it would be better to provide actual evidence of bias before bringing this up as an argument.

Lastly, I don't understand why some of these accusations (some of which Jackboot claims are false or misdirected, some of which don't make any sense) weren't brought to him for confirmation before dismissing him. If there was something substantial (let's say there was a scandal because he managed to give an unfair punishment to somebody he admitted to dislike for personal reasons) then character testimony could be useful, but from what I can see he was fired on other people's impressions alone. Without making an effort to verify these impressions, or see how they could be addressed.

This can be summed up by Skull's quote:

[13/12/2015 19:51:28] Skull: Anyways. The issue they seem to have with Jackboot is the fact that they don't have faith in him as a peer.

In my tenure as Headmin, I had to kick roughly three people from our staff. Issues mostly came to me as they were presented by others. However, I always made sure to verify the issues with the people concerned themselves, and try to discuss possible solutions before resorting to expulsion. The only people I kicked out where people that either demonstrated repeatedly they were unable of change, or verbally expressed they had no interest in modifying their behavior.

In comparison, this whole situation seems mishandled. The fact alone that a user's suggestion thread was grossly misinterpreted as an out-of-the-blue abuse of the loremaster's position, and that said misrepresentation was factored in as actual evidence to kick this user from the DO corps (when a quick look at the user's 150-word opening post would be enough to dismiss all misconstrued ideas) goes to show that little to no homework was done before firing this person.

[Chaznoodles]

Since when did Scopes have the power to say 'I don't want this person on the DO list'? Isn't he just a developer?

I've never had any problems with Jackboot in my entire history on Aurora. He handles issues well, communicates, and is extremely polite. This seems as if the people involved have put absolutely zero effort into finding appropriate reasoning for this, as well as completely neglecting to bring up any 'issues' in an attempt to rectify the behaviour.

[hivefleetchicken]

Since when did Scopes have the power to say 'I don't want this person on the DO list'? Isn't he just a developer?

I've never had any problems with Jackboot in my entire history on Aurora. He handles issues well, communicates, and is extremely polite. This seems as if the people involved have put absolutely zero effort into finding appropriate reasoning for this, as well as completely neglecting to bring up any 'issues' in an attempt to rectify the behaviour.

 

Agreed.

Can't say anything else because Jackboot and Chaz have already voiced my opinions better than I could myself.

[the_furry]

Let’s not forget that he apparently said in the “your ss13 confessions” forum that he likes to make sure players he doesn’t like have a terrible time. Which you know, is a kind of metagrudging and something generally looked down upon in DO’s. Though the post was removed shortly thereafter…

Can we get a confirmation on this?

[Frances]

I've seen Houssam act dickish towards characters he (I assume Houssam) didn't like (mostly because said people were being obtuse themselves). It's pretty hard to prove whether such a thing is ICly or OOCly driven, but as long as it's a realistic reaction for the character and doesn't go against the general spirit of roleplay, then I don't see why we should give a damn. Houssam has made some characters miserable, but I don't think he's made players miserable.

Anyway you will probably want actual proof of unfair DO punishments before claiming that Jackboot is biased as a DO (hint: I've been told the DO chat in general loves to trashtalk about people...)

[CakeIsOssim]

I would just like to take a moment here to say that everyone in this topic should read over the sub-forum rules. Specifically, this one:

 

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.

 

Some of this really seems borderline, however, I'm seeing a lot of people who are not actually staff posting without evidence, regardless of their argument. As far as I'm concerned, this is an issue mostly with the head duty officer, and possibly their subordinates, not the lore team. Do keep this, and the rule I've quoted above, in mind before posting in this topic.

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

From having worked with Jackboot on a few lore things, and having the chance to discuss his general outlook on the game (including as a DO), I can say that removing him from the DOs for issues that for the most part were never discussed with him constitutes a gross waste of his talents.

Jackboot is very capable to adapt, discuss, and be reasonable in making efforts to meet other people's desires and expectations. Of the info presented here, most seems to be based on hearsay, non-issues (things that are convention for other DOs to do), or issues that Jackboot was never made aware of and thus couldn't be held responsible for in good conscience.

Some of the evidence contradicts other evidence presented. For example, you're both reproaching Jackboot of having done little work (with DOs having given out roughly three actual punishments since their inception), but also slamming him for bringing up an idea that resulted in the punishment of a character (Travis), which I assume had to be approved by an admin like every other punishment. There's actually several instances in the logs you provided where people seem to find issue with Jackboot for no other reason than because he partook, or wanted to start a neutral, open-ended discussion about something related to the game.

Furthermore, I don't understand the fear of possible conflicts of interests between someone who works into DOs and Lore. A player is much more likely to develop bias through regular play on the server (you know, the thing that people actually get salty about all the time) than they are through whatever lore activities they may engage in, so all of your DOs are already facing a much greater risk (and I'd assume it's being handled just fine.) Furthermore, if Jackboot actually developed a grudge, it would be incredibly easier for him to act as the uncontested authority directly in charge of the lore than as a lowly DO, where he has to answer both to his peers, and to admins. Furthermore, considering that you graciously accepted him into DOs after he was made Loremaster, it would be better to provide actual evidence of bias before bringing this up as an argument.

Lastly, I don't understand why some of these accusations (some of which Jackboot claims are false or misdirected, some of which don't make any sense) weren't brought to him for confirmation before dismissing him. If there was something substantial (let's say there was a scandal because he managed to give an unfair punishment to somebody he admitted to dislike for personal reasons) then character testimony could be useful, but from what I can see he was fired on other people's impressions alone. Without making an effort to verify these impressions, or see how they could be addressed.

This can be summed up by Skull's quote:

[13/12/2015 19:51:28] Skull: Anyways. The issue they seem to have with Jackboot is the fact that they don't have faith in him as a peer.

In my tenure as Headmin, I had to kick roughly three people from our staff. Issues mostly came to me as they were presented by others. However, I always made sure to verify the issues with the people concerned themselves, and try to discuss possible solutions before resorting to expulsion. The only people I kicked out where people that either demonstrated repeatedly they were unable of change, or verbally expressed they had no interest in modifying their behavior.

In comparison, this whole situation seems mishandled. The fact alone that a user's suggestion thread was grossly misinterpreted as an out-of-the-blue abuse of the loremaster's position, and that said misrepresentation was factored in as actual evidence to kick this user from the DO corps (when a quick look at the user's 150-word opening post would be enough to dismiss all misconstrued ideas) goes to show that little to no homework was done before firing this person.

 

I have to agree with you here. Even in follow-up conversations before and during this complaint Gollee kept getting new information and testimony and admitted he may have made a mistake in just taking people's word. I mean, it wasn't enough to get my job back, but one step at a time.

Responses from Scopes, Wittly, Sierra, and Serveris would be extremely helpful because they are the main involved parties.

 

I've never had any problems with Jackboot in my entire history on Aurora. He handles issues well, communicates, and is extremely polite. This seems as if the people involved have put absolutely zero effort into finding appropriate reasoning for this, as well as completely neglecting to bring up any 'issues' in an attempt to rectify the behaviour.

Thanks fam

[SierraKomodo]

Since Jackboot wants the response, everything I feel relevant to this Gollee already shared; He asked me on Skype for my thoughts and I gave them. There were things I thought Gollee was aware of that he apparently wasn't; I also can't speak for how Jackboot's been behaving since I stopped being a duty officer.

However, the key things regarding Jackboot that I had an issue with when I was around:

- His handling of an incident report against Travis Davis, where he outright ordered no contact whatsoever with any Tajaran or he'd be fired if my memory serves correctly (This was awhile ago, and was already addressed and handled)

- The 'joke' faxxes/messages sent to/from CC by him, such as the time he sent a fax that just said 'Image of a penis' or something to that effect to CC. If it wasn't for the 15 or so minute buffer you're forced to wait through between faxxes on the station, I wouldn't have as big an issue with that. Also, this is just something I heard second hand, but supposedly Jackboot sent a fax like this just before an IAA was going to file a complaint via fax about someone and barred that IAA from sending his fax. No idea if JB was aware of that or not.

- The do chat skype group. You have no idea how many times I would log into my computer, and have 100+ messages in that group alone that was stuff completely irrelevant to the duty officers, mostly lore related things or a discussion Jackboot kicked off. While official conversations on matters were supposed to be done in in-game dosay for logging purposes, the skype group was still useful for discussing things, and calling for a DO/Escort if we needed another one. Half the time, when conversations like that were going on, anything on-topic was completely lost/ignored. On top of this? Gollee decided to set up a second DO skype group. The first would be kept for DO/on topic discussions only, and the second would be for whatever people wanted to blabber on about. Jackboot refused to go with this, left the off-topic group, and continued to bring his discussions to the main chat.

- And regarding things not being done, again I can't really speak for after I left, but at the time it'd seemed like I was one of the only people actually putting in an effort. Jackboot was one of those who didn't seem to be getting anything going or done. Especially annoying since he claimed the incident reports I filed, then nothing happened - Didn't even poke me to get an interview in.

So there's my thoughts on the matter.

[Witt]

Sorry for the dalay, I was away on IRL things. Anywho

My initial complaint against jackboot (and in all honesty it was on the entirety of the DO staff at the time, jackboot being the only remaining DO from then) came way back in October (the 14thish); I was annoyed (as was the community if memory serves) with the large amount of IRs building up and the DOs (everyone myself partially included) not doing shit. So I sent a strongly worded PM to gollee and the admin supervisors on the issue. I also addressed the ridiculously large number of posts on the DO Skype (sometimes reaching over 1000 between me logging for sleep and me getting back on) and

his most recent agenda to use DO authority to force medbay neutrality during rounds like nuke and such

I do not remember the quoted part, however it was part of the original complaint so il post it anyways.

Now, as for the Gollee being your boss but not really issue; It started after the original complaint as from my view your behavior hadn't changed despite Gollee assuring me it would be handled. This is also why my most recent complaint went to tish and scopes first.

The furry Issue. I will admit that I accidentally misspoke partially on this issue so let me clarify:

-Both you and Sue filled complaints agaist Travis Davis (The Furry) Links in the spoiler

http://aurorastation.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=90&t=2811 http://aurorastation.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=90&t=1622

-based on DO records only Sue (not you) was interviewed before punishment

-Delta Asked for punishment Ideas, and you post your thoughts

-punishment is delivered before I even had a chance to reply and Travis Davis is banned from talking to any Tajarian ever

Now my issue with this case is the fact that you were suggesting punishments (and a fairly extreme one at that) whilst being a player who is involved in the incidents (and actively reporting one).

The DO team revamp. When Gollee released all the DOs that he (and the admuns?) viewed as not pulling there weight; you were kept on "to answer faxes and man the Odin Desk". Yet during this period you sere seen Spawning in as a DO (presumably to work on one of the three cases you did) Given that Gollee stated that you were around solely to help with faxes, why were you even taking cases? This is part of the reason for my view on the Gollee isn't really incharge of you on the DO staff.

[Guest]

I spent a little time attempting to remember details about the case that led to our decision barring Travis Davis from communicating with Tajara, as we had sufficient evidence to suggest that Davis was acting like a predator. I asked about punishment, as we had enough evidence and testimony at the time to convict them.

Jackboot suggested a no-contact order between Travis Davis and any Tajaran personnel. I, Sierra, and Jackboot initially supported this decision, and it was implemented without a huff. What better way to stop a stalker at your workplace than to order them to stop conversing with Taj altogether, with a threat that if they violate the order, they would be fired for good? It was sensible, though honestly I believed we were being too generous about it, given that actual workplaces can the shit out of employees that sexually harass other employees at their workplace. I asked Jackboot to communicate with TheFurry about the terms and conditions we set, as I was unsure how to word the punishment myself.

If I recall correctly, it was my case (with Jackboot's supervision) to deal with at the time and did not outright warrant intervention until Furry went straight to the admins (And not Hartburry, the head DO at the time) and apparently got them to revert the decision. We were not given a reason why, despite our rather insistent inquiries to explain themselves.

We were told to drop it, even Hartburry told us that there was nothing we could do and that saying anything would only cause more trouble. I kept my silence about it as I didn't feel it was critically stupid at the time.

edit: One more thing though, and that's the subject of agendas. You should never ever ever ever let someone have the responsibility and role of being able to change in-game circumstances on the basis of pushing their own agenda on what they believe the in-game expectations SHOULD BE, and not what the expectations actually are. Jackboot did use his power as both a DO and a lore head in regards to forcing medbay neutrality despite no official statement on what consists as acceptable medbay procedure ever taking place. However, this issue should've been communicated with Jackboot. Staff should've manned up and opened a dialogue with Jackboot on how to proceed.

edit 2: Removed a snark about a certain person not respecting a subforum rule and attempting to detract from the initial conversation.

Edited December 22, 2015 by Guest

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

Thank you Witt, Sierra, and Delta for your prompt replies - with them we now have a full picture and more context to finally move ahead.

But first I want to address who is "involved" (this is in response to posts that were deleted). I would argue that, no, this is not relevant to all players. The underlining point of this complaint is to get an answer to a simple question: Should I have been fired from the DO Corps? The pervasive failures of communication in the Corps is a necessary layer to address in this complaint, but to focus on that would drastically expand this complaint. If you feel strongly invested in this failure but aren't an involved person, you should really create a new thread, or post your feedback in Gollee's "FOR THE LOVE OF GOD TALK TO ME" thread for the Corps.

People who are involved are, I would argue:

• All DO's, past and present, that observed things I did (Sierra, Delta, Witt)
• Staff, former or otherwise, who have had experience working with me and can offer comments on my behavior, agenda, etc (Frances, Chaznoodles, Tishinastalker, Skull, Scopes, Doomburg)
  
• People directly involved in decisions that I made while a DO, or decisions that I heavily influenced as a DO. (The_Furry is a good example, as are anyone else who plays characters I have punished, like McMullen)
  
• People we reference as being involved. (Again, The_Furry)

 

With that addressed let me piece together each accusation of misdoing, and approach them one at a time.

---

---

The Travis Davis Punishment

• Delta is right in his remembering this issue, but he made a small error. My initial proposal was not a total ban from contact with Tajaran. I distinctly remember this now because I actually argued against a total ban. My suggestion to Delta was that Travis Davis be given an injunction that said: "Travis Davis cannot interact with Tajaran personnel in standard operations without an additional adult Tajaran present to supervise the discussion, except in standard workplace requests or radio communication."
  
  
  
  I don't remember the circumstances that lead to this proposal being rejected in favor of the total ban, but Sierra-komodo was one of the DO's supportive of it. So it's a little strange that it's now suddenly a bad thing.
  
  
  
  I was also tasked with presenting the_furry with the explanation of the punishment decided by Delta.

Is It Bias If It's Communication?

• The presents a problem that was actually relevant to some previous circumstances I found myself in:
  
  I remember Nursie once asked how to word a fax that she was responding to in which I was involved, and I offered suggestions in wording to make it official-ese, proofread it when she wrote the initial copy, then presented my proof-read version back to her for approval before she faxed it to the station, and all of this was done in the DO-chat with other DO's present. I don't have any idea what the contents of the fax were, and Nursie would have to be asked if she remembers. What the question I am asking is: Is communicating a decision made by another DO when I'm involved itself a violation? Is only being the messenger or providing proof-reading an issue of involvement when it's a separate DO that is giving the greenlight? If it is a violation, does this justify a retroactive punishment of termination?

Medbay Neutrality - Do No Meme Harm

• This is actually a serious accusation, and I'm glad it was brought up. I admit that I was presenting a "we should have neutral medbay" argument and in my campaigning either came off as enforcing it, or actually enforcing it and being unaware, in a DO capacity. (My medbay characters are genuinely big on the concept of "do no harm" and humanitarianism, and I've always played medical like this.) While I recognize the potential difficulties in pushing this suggestion as Loremaster and as a player (which basically boils down to "doctors shouldn't stab the antag or leave them dying in the lobby because they're so mean guys") without actually enforcing them, I have to ask: Did anyone actually feel coerced in behaving differently as a medbay character by my DO's, or did I make any unintentional official statements on this matter? I don't recall making any official statements as a DO, but I could be mistaken - a log of any decision I made on medbay neutrality would be really appreciated.
  
  If the accusation is true, then we have a genuine breach of conduct, because I was blending the power of Loremaster and Duty Officer together, which should never happen.

ERT Procedure

• Since we're on the topic of agenda's on how to do procedure, one thing that wasn't brought up but I feel important to the discussion, is how I treated faxes to call ERT. Officially, we're supposed to decide if an ERT is required when a fax is sent asking for one, and we kick our suggestion up to the admins. I disagreed with this policy, and in two circumstances refused to make the decision in DO chat as well as in a fax response - in the DO chat, I argued that it was above my responsibility as a DO to sent in an ERT, because 1) I don't have a button for it in the DO tab 2) It's ultimately up to the admins and 3) My purpose as a DO isn't to decide on the feasibility of an ERT. IC'ly, my fax responses amounted to "The procedure to summon ERT's exists for a reason. It is against procedure to summon an ERT via fax and it is not my department. I am loyalty implanted and incapable of violating the procedure unless you face an abhorrently critical loss of Heads of Staff, the spare ID, access to both ID computers, and no feasible way to regain any of these."
  
  Is believing that summoning an ERT being above my power, itself abusing my power as a DO? Did I make mistakes in refusing to make the decision? I won't accept that arguing against the policy is something to get in trouble for, but should I have manned up and made the decision? Does not making the decision warrant termination?

My Activity

• The nature of my activity is a failure in communication on Gollee's end, not my own. I will accept the accusations that I took on cases (one or two I believe) before abandoning them in the previous iteration of the DO's. This was due to a sense of optimism about my time management that turned out to be totally wrong. I spent what little time I had for SS13 managing the lore team. Periodically, I spawned in or observed to respond to the rare fax. I can see how this looks sketchy when there was the expectation that I was just a fax guy. But I actually approached Gollee and said: "I have work, finals, and lore developer work to do. My schedule is completely crap and it will be until school is over. I am still enthusiastic about the DO corps and want to remain on. Will you let me remain on? I'm able to keep Byond open and respond to the occasional fax and might take a single case if I think I have time, but for the future I'm totally swamped." It's a similar deal I try to make with loredevs who are faced with sudden or long-term IRL commitments - if you can communicate with me that you won't be able to participate, we can either decide on a minimum commitment expected from you or a talk about what length of time without participation is acceptable. Gollee sort of did the same thing here - I was still a full fledged DO, but the expectations on me were minimized until I finally returned to active duty.

Miscellaneous Comments

• I was accused of boarding the station during blue alerts. I will comment that each time I boarded the station I ahelped for permission, and each time got an escort or was told "No, stay on the Odin." I will not accept responsibility for what was a moderator/admin decision.
• I wasn't the only one spamming the DO chat. I too kept getting hit by 1,000+ messages. I also wasn't one of the people using it to bad-mouth players, which I will remind you was a thing that kept happening, even after I told them to stop.
  
  EDIT: Actually, the very latest conversation in the sacred official DO-chat just before I was kicked out of it and fired is a conversation about a character's height that then turned into DO's sharing their height.
  
  [12/19/2015 1:54:25 PM] TishinaStalker: Fuck all of you for being tall
  
• I didn't join the 'off-topic' DO chat because there was no point. I didn't want to read irrelevant small-talk. I tried to stay in the chat for awhile, but everytime I tried to read it my eyes would glaze over. I did tone down my off-topic in the DO-chat, unless we decide that asking "What do you think about x regulation" or "What do you think about x lore development" is off-topic enough to be banned. In which case, fair enough!
  
• I am still waiting for Scopes to explain why he demanded I be fired for game suggestions.

 

The full "Medbay Neutrality" thing is summed up with the following:

1) Treat the criticals first regardless of circumstance or job. If the antag is dying, you are expected to treat them. Not doing so would make you a bad person and, in-universe, a bad doctor. (I mean if ISIS showed up and shot up your hospital you'd have qualms in treating them, but someone would have to)

2) Don't extend gunfights to medical, or bomb it, or shoot the doctors. This one is just an informal agreement - it's the "good" thing to do. It wouldn't be bwoinkable or anything. (Armed doctors, or doctors that are a threat to you are fair game for obvious reasons)

3) Don't restrict medical from the wounded. Antags that aren't total scumbags would let a doctor have access to wounded hostages, and security would vice-versa for wounded antags in custody or down the hall. This is, again, an informal agreement - it's the "good" thing to do. (I mean it's a war crime but that's not really enforceable unless for some bizarre reason nuke rounds are made canon and the after-round consequences matter)

Edited December 22, 2015 by Marlon Phoenix

[SierraKomodo]

Jackboot suggested a no-contact order between Travis Davis and any Tajaran personnel. I, Sierra, and Jackboot initially supported this decision, and it was implemented without a huff.

 

I don't remember the circumstances that lead to this proposal being rejected in favor of the total ban, but Sierra-komodo was one of the DO's supportive of it. So it's a little strange that it's now suddenly a bad thing.

 

I want to make a small clarification here, this was likely a misunderstanding - I would have supported a two-way no contact order between Davis as Party A, and Ana/Jawdat as Party B, or something along those lines. I'm not certain where you guys are getting the idea I supported the full on ban from all Tajara. However, that's not really relevant because I distinctly recall making a point of not being a part of the decision because me and Furry are friends which would have influenced my decisions there - At least regarding the incident report between Davis and Ana

[SierraKomodo]

And now for me to briefly address everything else in Jackboot's post before I go to bed:

 

The Travis Davis Punishment

 

This was honestly beaten like a dead horse already and was handled/resolved shortly after it occured, and I'm too tired to go over it again. I'll just say this is one of the incidents I think actually /was/ a problem (And my thoughts on it have already been brought up here)

 

Is It Bias If It's Communication?

 

It's really situational dependent, and dependent on alot of factors. The example given I personally think would have been fine. Had you actually given ideas on what to say/do in response to your own fax or tried to push it in a certain direction, then it'd be a problem.

 

Medbay Neutrality - Do No Meme Harm

 

I didn't even realise you were doing this; Probably because my medbay characters already work under the hyppocratic oath, to varying degrees of zealotry. I don't /think/ I saw anything from your characters, but I also haven't been on as much due to work and other life issues.

 

ERT Procedure

 

I believe when I left we had an 'unwritten' rule, being that if the station is capable of swiping for ERT (Two active/living heads of staff), then we respond to tell them to swipe for ERT. If they are incapable of doing this - And we are made aware of it (I.e., manifest shows one head, or the fax says 'Heads of staff are dead/compromised') then we go to the admins for an ERT call. That's the procedure I worked under, and I believe Wittly also followed this.

 

My Activity

 

The issue here is there /was/ a failure to communicate from you. I had no inkling or hint that you were swamped with school, work, and lore dev things. Wittly also wasn't getting much of anything, if anything at all, done on the incident report side that I was hounding all of you on, but I was fine with that. Why? Wittly made it clear, on many many occasions, that his time was being taken up working on the new map, and other life issues. That's why I always said Wittly has an excuse. As far as I knew, you were just sitting around in dosay/the skype group, not doing anything, because you never communicated this stuff to the rest of us. At least not while I was around.

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

Jackboot suggested a no-contact order between Travis Davis and any Tajaran personnel. I, Sierra, and Jackboot initially supported this decision, and it was implemented without a huff.

 

I don't remember the circumstances that lead to this proposal being rejected in favor of the total ban, but Sierra-komodo was one of the DO's supportive of it. So it's a little strange that it's now suddenly a bad thing.

 

I want to make a small clarification here, this was likely a misunderstanding - I would have supported a two-way no contact order between Davis as Party A, and Ana/Jawdat as Party B, or something along those lines. I'm not certain where you guys are getting the idea I supported the full on ban from all Tajara. However, that's not really relevant because I distinctly recall making a point of not being a part of the decision because me and Furry are friends which would have influenced my decisions there - At least regarding the incident report between Davis and Ana

 

This may have been the case, that it was a misunderstanding, and I'd be willing to run as if this was the case (Just the Davis x Jawdat/ro'hi'tin communication ban) without any specific logs proving otherwise. Any logs are lost to me since we migrated DO chats during the Gollee-Reforms, anyway.

I will offer a small comment that you were willing to bring the Davis-incident up as an issue, and are now considering it a dead-horse that was already settled once I provide my explanation on why it isn't an issue.

On my activity -

Unless I'm mistaken, didn't you complain about my inactivity to Gollee? What was his response? Assuming you didn't know I was inactive for valid reason I imagine it wasn't very informative. Is it my fault that after I went inactive, I didn't announce my inactivity publically, and Gollee didn't offer an explanation to this affect despite me coming to him with the explanation you demanded?

[SierraKomodo]

I will offer a small comment that you were willing to bring the Davis-incident up as an issue, and are now considering it a dead-horse that was already settled once I provide my explanation on why it isn't an issue.

 

It's a dead horse because it's been brought up so many damn times lately, on teamspeak, skype, and everywhere else, without anything other than it being talked about as if someone's going to do something, then nothing. My honest opinion on this right now is 'I dont care anymore'.

 

On my activity -

Unless I'm mistaken, didn't you complain about my inactivity to Gollee? What was his response? Assuming you didn't know I was inactive for valid reason I imagine it wasn't very informative. Is it my fault that after I went inactive, I didn't announce my inactivity publically, and Gollee didn't offer an explanation to this affect despite me coming to him with the explanation you demanded?

 

Honestly I don't think there actually was a response, so I figured he had no idea what was up either,

I'm tired right now and not sure why I'm still up posting here

[Gollee]

So it is known; Jackboot and I are still on friendly terms, infact, when I suggested that I resign from the lore team to help alleviate any tension, he refused it. This issue is currently being discussed.

[the_furry]

Every interaction I’ve had where jackboot was in authority has always been unpleasant. Every decision he’s made concerning me ended up needing to be reverse because of how absurd or bias his ruling was. Starting with travis 12 months ago where he didn’t even interview me, coming to safi 2 months ago where he gave me a warning for saying “what she say is not his business” which is apparently to aggressive for taj to say. Every one of his decisions concerning me has had to be over turned. Whether his decisions and rulings are bias because of metagraduging against me or he’s just inept at making reasonable decisions; either feature is not desired in a DO officer. Now some of these warnings are whitelist warnings coming from his lore master authority but it still highlights a character of bad decision making, not something you’d want as DO.

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

Every interaction I’ve had where jackboot was in authority has always been unpleasant. Every decision he’s made concerning me ended up needing to be reverse because of how absurd or bias his ruling was. Starting with travis 12 months ago where he didn’t even interview me, coming to safi 2 months ago where he gave me a warning for saying “what she say is not his business” which is apparently to aggressive for taj to say. Every one of his decisions concerning me has had to be over turned. Whether his decisions and rulings are bias because of metagraduging against me or he’s just inept at making reasonable decisions; either feature is not desired in a DO officer. Now some of these warnings are whitelist warnings coming from his lore master authority but it still highlights a character of bad decision making, not something you’d want as DO.

 

It was made clear earlier in this thread that I was not the one that investigated Safiya. I couldn't interview you if I wanted to because I wasn't investigating you. I didn't investigate you. I had no investigation on you. There was no investigation from me onto you. That was Delta. Delta investigated you. Delta is the one that opened an investigation on Safiya. Delta is not Jackboot. He is not me and I am not him. I hope this clears up the confusion on this issue.

The only DO decision that I have had reversed (AFAIK Tish or Gollee please correct me if this is wrong) is the Research Director ban on Katelynn Mcmullen. This was reversed by Doomburg because it wasn't meant to be a permanent ban. So it was less of a reversion and more of a sudden time-limit.

I overruled Sue in a whitelist strip that she wanted for you and turned it into a warning. I gave you less of a punishment than was originally intended and have spent a great deal of my time deliberating with you via PM's over how you can better play Safiya to avoid getting in whitelist troubles in the future. I will comment that you repeatedly lace personal insults and questions of my intelligence in your PM's and interactions with me.

[Skull132]

Originally I was going to post this yesterday, but then work happened. Better late than never, hooyah?

Now, where do I begin. Okay. Ideally, I wouldn't even have been involved in this case. The DOs are their own team, and as such, Gollee's jurisdiction until Gollee is deemed unfit. The way myself and Tishina became involved is through complaining we kept hearing. We discussed the issue with Gollee, and pointed some of the people who were complaining about Jackboot to him. At this time, Tishina and I came to the conclusion that the issue is, as I stated, the fact that Jackboot's DO peers had lost faith in him as a DO.

Is the issue valid even if the evidence is not valid? Yes.

Teams operate on a large amount of trust. You trust your teammates to be there when you need them. If there is a member of the team whom the rest do not trust, then it will very quickly turn the environment hostile for everyone involved. Even if the concerns and points against Jackboot are not valid, the issue is valid. And issues like that need to be addressed.

When it comes to doing so, there are a few ways you could go. The first, and probably the method that should have been preferred here, is to escalate your action accordingly. Basically, standing up and dismissing someone on the spot should be reserved for the most severe cases. Where the person has demonstrated complete and utter ineptitude at performing the tasks assigned, and failed to square themselves away. Ideally, all involved parties would be put into one room with the leader too in there, and the issues would be reviewed, discussed, etcetera. After which, the leader would choose corrective action as necessary. If, after a time, this corrective action does not result in the situation improving, then a dismissal would be used.

The unfortunate fact is, if you fail to communicate an issue properly, then you cannot expect action to be taken without escalation later on. It just. Really. does not work like that. And in light of that, I wrote up regulations for future reference that apply to all staff, regardless of their team. This should make sure that issues like this are not repeated. Now, if the involved parties could please continue their dialogue, I'll butt out.

Also. Regarding the TF issue. I could write an entire thesis on how almost everyone was shit at handling that. Almost everyone fucked up on that count. Further more, for the sake of avoiding clashing interests, Jackboot was told to not handle any issues concerning TF's characters. This was one of the first things I did when I became Head Admin. And as far as I know, this ban was kept to after that.

[Guest]

Now, where do I begin. Okay. Ideally, I wouldn't even have been involved in this case. The DOs are their own team, and as such, Gollee's jurisdiction until Gollee is deemed unfit. The way myself and Tishina became involved is through complaining we kept hearing. We discussed the issue with Gollee, and pointed some of the people who were complaining about Jackboot to him. At this time, Tishina and I came to the conclusion that the issue is, as I stated, the fact that Jackboot's DO peers had lost faith in him as a DO.

 

Gollee was not the Chief DO during the TF character investigations. Gollee was not the Chief DO overseeing Jackboot be a dummy in the other circumstances. At the time, Gollee was a peer, who may or may not have felt strongly against Jackboot acting in a certain way as a Duty Officer. Hartburry was the guy I went to if I had issues I deemed too awkward or potentially confrontational to directly discuss with Jackboot to resolve. unfortunately, Hartburry went inactive a lot and ended up quitting SS13 altogether (presumably), so there was a lot of unresolved stuff left over with his departure.

The issue with this, Skull, is that I feel when new management comes up to reign the team in the direction he or she chooses, one of the bigger mistakes one can make is digging up stuff in the past to deal with someone in the present. It's simply not fair because the only case the defendant can make is "That was then, and not now." It's probably just bias speaking, considering I've been in the exact same position before.

 

Is the issue valid even if the evidence is not valid? Yes.

Teams operate on a large amount of trust. You trust your teammates to be there when you need them. If there is a member of the team whom the rest do not trust, then it will very quickly turn the environment hostile for everyone involved. Even if the concerns and points against Jackboot are not valid, the issue is valid. And issues like that need to be addressed.

 

That's definitely not fair at all. How is an issue valid if you can't outright prove an issue exists? Taking action on the basis of 'awareness that an issue exists', without outright having proof for it is just shit. It's plain shit. I would argue that there is even more trust to be lost by taking formal action upon your peers based on a gut feeling, because everybody in the DO Corps would suddenly backpedal from any decisions that have a hint of backlash from a salty roleplayer, for fear of losing their community job.

To be honest with you, I had absolutely no idea what encompassed as the duties and responsibilities of the DO Corps when I first joined up, I was initially relying on more senior members to train me. When I realized there wasn't any reading material or fun little pamphlets, I admit I was really uneasy on being able to administer punishment to the characters that needed it, because I was unsure of how to handle the potential OOC backlash. For TF, for instance, I was curious to what extent our power even encompassed, and I was deliberately pushing the line to see how far we were allowed to go. Because, despite my tutoring, I was never taught what level of action was "Right" or "Wrong". I was only taught to use sense. So I did just that, I inquired with the DO corps and asked what they believed would be the most sensible way to deal with a workplace xeno sexual predator. Everything snowballs from there. And initially, I believed that in making that decision, it was a team-driven decision. I may have been mistaken, but I was within the thought that dealing with workplace stalkers didn't require any bureaucratic mercy.

 

When it comes to doing so, there are a few ways you could go. The first, and probably the method that should have been preferred here, is to escalate your action accordingly. Basically, standing up and dismissing someone on the spot should be reserved for the most severe cases. Where the person has demonstrated complete and utter ineptitude at performing the tasks assigned, and failed to square themselves away. Ideally, all involved parties would be put into one room with the leader too in there, and the issues would be reviewed, discussed, etcetera. After which, the leader would choose corrective action as necessary. If, after a time, this corrective action does not result in the situation improving, then a dismissal would be used.

 

As I stated, most workplaces don't escalate for workplace harassment. They hit the brakes on it immediately, and throw those responsible out of the damn car. It is not acceptable to sexually harass people at your workplace, and the societal standard that many workplaces set is that flirting with other workers at your job, whether it is wanted or not, is not. Acceptable. At all.

I mean, a few weeks ago as an ERT dude with x-ray and remote viewing, I saw two men in the library drinking alcohol and sitting on the lap of the other, from afar. I moved to the library with a fellow trooper, I threw a flashbang in. I mean, I'm not sure what it really looked like, but the fact that whatever they were doing could be taken nothing short of fondling each other. Is just. Yeah, I'm getting off-track here. Public displays of affection while you are at fucking work, regardless of the context, IS NOT OK.

For the sake of Travis, I used the same line of reasoning many of my bosses used: "Either you be a dandy reasonable and professional sort, or you can experience less-than-fair conditions being tailored to you."

 

The unfortunate fact is, if you fail to communicate an issue properly, then you cannot expect action to be taken without escalation later on. It just. Really. does not work like that. And in light of that, I wrote up regulations for future reference that apply to all staff, regardless of their team. This should make sure that issues like this are not repeated. Now, if the involved parties could please continue their dialogue, I'll butt out.

 

Many people do not go out of their way to intentionally repeat what they see as mistakes in a community that has its authoritarian aspects to it. Jackboot has improved much since last year, a time in which I admit that I did not like him too much because of personal disagreements. He does his absolute best to communicate issues with people, he is only really abrasive/meme-y when people are acting retarded. Again, though, I wish to clarify my position on this: The way that Jackboot was dealt, with in itself, did not perceivably facilitate any communications and/or neutralize hostilities. There was simply a quiet, deliberate cloak-and-dagger approach taken dealing with Jackboot.

 

Also. Regarding the TF issue. I could write an entire thesis on how almost everyone was shit at handling that. Almost everyone fucked up on that count. Further more, for the sake of avoiding clashing interests, Jackboot was told to not handle any issues concerning TF's characters. This was one of the first things I did when I became Head Admin. And as far as I know, this ban was kept to after that.

 

And that is your opinion. I felt it necessary for the sake of immersion and practicality, to deal with the TF's characters in the way they were dealt with. My only regret is that I did not outright take responsibility and explain my reasoning to TF himself. At the time, I did not feel Jackboot was in any way biased towards TheFurry, I believe just about everyone in the group took issue with TheFurry's ACTIONS, and not with TheFurry himself.

[Skull132]

I never thought a post that short could be misinterpreted this horribly. Yaaay.

 

Gollee was not the Chief DO during the TF character investigations. Gollee was not the Chief DO overseeing Jackboot be a dummy in the other circumstances. At the time, Gollee was a peer, who may or may not have felt strongly against Jackboot acting in a certain way as a Duty Officer. Hartburry was the guy I went to if I had issues I deemed too awkward or potentially confrontational to directly discuss with Jackboot to resolve. unfortunately, Hartburry went inactive a lot and ended up quitting SS13 altogether (presumably), so there was a lot of unresolved stuff left over with his departure.

The issue with this, Skull, is that I feel when new management comes up to reign the team in the direction he or she chooses, one of the bigger mistakes one can make is digging up stuff in the past to deal with someone in the present. It's simply not fair because the only case the defendant can make is "That was then, and not now." It's probably just bias speaking, considering I've been in the exact same position before.

 

Partially incorrect, partially correct. Yes, it is illadvised for a leader to deal with issues he/she was not present for. This is why I've avoided escalating old issues in favour of establishing a clean slate under my own control. However, it is wrong to completely disregard actions taken beforehand. They can be learned from, taken into account for future reference, etcetera. And as necessary, dismissed in favour of establishing a clean slate. Doing the latter would be in line with this:

Ideally, all involved parties would be put into one room with the leader too in there, and the issues would be reviewed, discussed, etcetera.

 

 

That's definitely not fair at all. How is an issue valid if you can't outright prove an issue exists? Taking action on the basis of 'awareness that an issue exists', without outright having proof for it is just shit. It's plain shit. I would argue that there is even more trust to be lost by taking formal action upon your peers based on a gut feeling, because everybody in the DO Corps would suddenly backpedal from any decisions that have a hint of backlash from a salty roleplayer, for fear of losing their community job.

 

The issue of not trusting your peers is one that requires action regardless of whether or not the reasons for it being there are valid. To say otherwise is to let a team devolve into a mess of backtalk and shittery. Also, the issue was not identified on a gut feeling. Both Wittme and Sierra almost outright said that they do not trust Jackboot with his present role. How much clearer do you need to get? The issue existed, it needed action to be taken. You cannot have a team where 2 people out of 5 do not trust a third. As a leader, you have to address it. How you do it: whether by communication, dismissing the people who complain, or the person who's being complained about, or some fourth way -- that's up to you.

 

To be honest with you, I had absolutely no idea what encompassed as the duties and responsibilities of the DO Corps when I first joined up, I was initially relying on more senior members to train me. When I realized there wasn't any reading material or fun little pamphlets, I admit I was really uneasy on being able to administer punishment to the characters that needed it, because I was unsure of how to handle the potential OOC backlash. For TF, for instance, I was curious to what extent our power even encompassed, and I was deliberately pushing the line to see how far we were allowed to go. Because, despite my tutoring, I was never taught what level of action was "Right" or "Wrong". I was only taught to use sense. So I did just that, I inquired with the DO corps and asked what they believed would be the most sensible way to deal with a workplace xeno sexual predator. Everything snowballs from there. And initially, I believed that in making that decision, it was a team-driven decision. I may have been mistaken, but I was within the thought that dealing with workplace stalkers didn't require any bureaucratic mercy.

 

To be honest, I was not staff when the decision in question was passed. I have my opinions on it, and consider it a failure of two teams, as opposed to simply a few individuals, though.

 

As I stated, most workplaces don't escalate for workplace harassment. They hit the brakes on it immediately, and throw those responsible out of the damn car. It is not acceptable to sexually harass people at your workplace, and the societal standard that many workplaces set is that flirting with other workers at your job, whether it is wanted or not, is not. Acceptable. At all.

I mean, a few weeks ago as an ERT dude with x-ray and remote viewing, I saw two men in the library drinking alcohol and sitting on the lap of the other, from afar. I moved to the library with a fellow trooper, I threw a flashbang in. I mean, I'm not sure what it really looked like, but the fact that whatever they were doing could be taken nothing short of fondling each other. Is just. Yeah, I'm getting off-track here. Public displays of affection while you are at fucking work, regardless of the context, IS NOT OK.

For the sake of Travis, I used the same line of reasoning many of my bosses used: "Either you be a dandy reasonable and professional sort, or you can experience less-than-fair conditions being tailored to you."

 

I mean, that's all fine and dandy, but the quote you're responding to is meant in the context of the present staff complaint. We can discuss the TF issue at great lengths, I'm sure, but it's not what we're here to do.

To further explain, here is how a textbook example of this issue being handled would have gone:

2. Figure out why Wittme and Sierra have formed the opinions that they have: identify the issues they have with Jackboot
4. Review said issues. Figure out whether or not they're still relevant or not
   
6. For relevant issues: discuss them with Jackboot, issue corrective action
   
8. For no longer relevant issues: discuss them with all 3 parties present, and illustrate how they are no longer relevant (Intent is to begin restoring faith in the peer again)

 

I do believe that wraps up all of the relevant points.