Staff Complaint - DatBerry

[Nikov]

BYOND Key: Nikov

Staff BYOND Key: DatBerry

Game ID: http://forums.aurorastation.org/viewtopic.php?p=70392#p70392

Reason for complaint: Personal attacks, unprofessional conduct in a ban appeal thread, poor moderation philosophy.

Evidence/logs/etc: http://forums.aurorastation.org/viewtopic.php?p=70392#p70392

Additional remarks:

This is a ban appeal regarding a violation of beleivable roleplaying rules. Although I have explained why the actions in question were in character, there has been no apparent effort to evaluate the actions based on the character's frame of mind. Rather, DatBerry has committed the classic fallacy of policing roleplay; he did not see the reason for an action, demanded reasons for the action, did not accept the reason given, and did not attempt to justify the reasoning from the character's point of view. Instead he is pursuing a ban based on a very nebulous reading of the rules, even though the only rule discussed contains a conditional phrase to cover precisely the circumstances in the scenario.

[DatBerry]

Ok so firstly, You are not your own character, attacks on your character's obvious themes are not attacks on you, stop self inserting.

Secondly, i did deem your reason to enter valid, but you did not give any real valid reasons to stay inside, all your arguments about your character only justified going in, which was deemed valid.

[Nikov]

Then why were you making attacks on my character? Why were you unable to at least pretend impartiality?

[Garnascus]

Then why were you making attacks on my character? Why were you unable to at least pretend impartiality?

 

Yeah...still, it was a really silly thing to say datberry. So i do not have to read a novel can datberry please briefly explain why remaining inside was a problem and how long he did.

[DatBerry]

Yeah...still, it was a really silly thing to say datberry. So i do not have to read a novel can datberry please briefly explain why remaining inside was a problem and how long he did.

 

He entered the vented bridge to save someone, but that someone was already saved when he got in, instead of leaving he decided to setup a inflatable wall on a vent and started to fill it, and also reportedly running around while it was still low pressure, even though he was asked to leave multiple times, and yes, you could've left through The conference room or through a firelock on one of your strolls through low prrssure.

[Nikov]

Unfortunately Garn, you'll have to read a novel. DatBerry's "TL;DR" shows that he's still basing his decision on "what I'd do" rather than determining if the character is doing what the character would do, even going so far as to say he should have committed a crime rather than sit still in a 100 kpa shelter, or walked back out through the pain that I was allegedly violating rules to be in. It took one instant to put the inflatable barrier shelter up. That's what inflatable barriers are for. It would have taken ten seconds to climb onto a table (while falling into crit and hopefully not passing out), set up a barrier again, and exit through the firelock.

I considered exiting through the firelocks at the time, I vetoed it because my health was very low, I was in a lot of pain, and I knew it would push my odds to stand still climbing that table again. So I put up the inflatable barrier on an air vent, which trapped the pressure and had me in 100kpa very quickly.

I don't understand how DatBerry can concede I had a reason to go there in spite of the pain RP, which seems to fulfill the "consideration" clause of the pain avoidance rule, then turn around and suggest sucking my thumb in an inflatable barrier shelter isn't how I ought to be roleplaying fear and pain avoidance. How I ought to roleplay fear and pain avoidance is go back into the pain at an even further risk of my life.

If I had done that, I'd be bwoinked for not staying in the corner where I was safe.

Now, with DatBerry pushing the most juvenile possible motive on my character and broadcasting that opinion to the whole forum, he clearly announces his bias. He is not listening to me when I tried explaining Manfred's psychological flaws. He is dismissing all the roleplay I've done here for over a year, declaring he's just trying to get laid, and showing contempt for everything I've said to him. This level of bias being shown in a ban appeal thread toward a player of a year's standing? Toward a player and character in the hall of fame for good roleplaying?

Look, if I were moderating, and some brand-new player was doing this, I'd go over the subject to make sure its clear they need to incorporate pain into roleplaying and not ignore it. That's the conversation I had in 2015, and while I roleplayed pain then, I was still feeling out the server. I decided I'd only explore Manfred's vainglorious self-destruction when it was properly vainglorious and someone was injured. This worked fine for a year, but now UnknownMurder reports 'no pain RP', and DatBerry takes up the case, sees year-old notes, refuses to listen to the context of my character's actions, and insists that because my course of action didn't match what he thinks my course of action could have been, that I deserve a week ban. He compounds on this "multiple attempts to mislead me", when my story held out in cross examination as his witnesses began correcting, clarifying and collaborating their statements. For example, the room wasn't breached when I went in, as Unknown Murder first reported. You called me a liar and carried that prejudice throughtout the rest of our in-game exchange.

So between being called a liar and assuming the lowest possible motives for my character, and feeling the need to insult my character in what should be a somewhat professional, if not courteous exchange? I don't think DatBerry's judgement is impartial. And that's why I called this to your attention, Garn. Because apparently, leaving things lie and taking my ban and notes will only lead to a month's ban in 2017 when someone sees my notes again and decides I didn't avoid pain in the manner they would have. And that's no way to moderate a roleplaying server.

[Synnono]

Hi Garnascus,

I was only nominally a witness to the incident in the ban appeal thread, but I did want to make a short post here in the hopes of getting clarity on staff policy concerning old/expired warnings. I posted in that appeal thread with a quote from you, in the hopes that someone could determine whether or not it applied here:

 

Finally, while not a member of staff, I am capable of shamelessly quoting one from another thread:

 

Having huge sheets of notes and warnings isnt necessarily a bad thing. We look for patterns of consistent behavior when we ban someone. After about three months or so a note or a warning becomes a lot less relevant. Unless you're an odd case where you have months of inactivity and then you go back to being a massive shithead. Cases like that are super rare though.

With the caveat that context in the other thread may be important, and while I obviously don't have access to Manfred's notes, if the connection being made is between this occurrence and an incident from 2015, I would not personally classify that as a pattern of consistent behavior.

I want to be sure I'm not using your words entirely out of context in the appeal thread. Is the philosophy in your quote being applied to this ban, or is this case situationally different in terms of warnings not expiring, the nature of the existing warnings, or in the escalation of discipline staff chose to use?

Thank you for clarifying. I think that's all I have to ask/add to this.

[DatBerry]

Unfortunately Garn, you'll have to read a novel. DatBerry's "TL;DR" shows that he's still basing his decision on "what I'd do" rather than determining if the character is doing what the character would do, even going so far as to say he should have committed a crime rather than sit still in a 100 kpa shelter, or walked back out through the pain that I was allegedly violating rules to be in. It took one instant to put the inflatable barrier shelter up. That's what inflatable barriers are for. It would have taken ten seconds to climb onto a table (while falling into crit and hopefully not passing out), set up a barrier again, and exit through the firelock.

 

we've established your character to be self destructive, he wanted to save a crewmember, all fine and dandy, but then decided to hang in low pressure for extended times outside of his tent that would've been long enough to have him leave, by the time you setup the air vents to fill and moved the nearby vent you could've climbed the table.

but if you're self destructive behavior isn't just geared towards saving people and even fixing the station then ill have to use the awful argument of unbelievable characters that would've died long ago.

 

I considered exiting through the firelocks at the time, I vetoed it because my health was very low, I was in a lot of pain, and I knew it would push my odds to stand still climbing that table again. So I put up the inflatable barrier on an air vent, which trapped the pressure and had me in 100kpa very quickly.

 

its an inflatable wall, not an inflatable room.

 

I don't understand how DatBerry can concede I had a reason to go there in spite of the pain RP, which seems to fulfill the "consideration" clause of the pain avoidance rule, then turn around and suggest sucking my thumb in an inflatable barrier shelter isn't how I ought to be roleplaying fear and pain avoidance. How I ought to roleplay fear and pain avoidance is go back into the pain at an even further risk of my life.

If I had done that, I'd be bwoinked for not staying in the corner where I was safe.

 

no, you would've had the valid reason of wanting to escape death, just like you had the valid reason to enter.

 

Now, with DatBerry pushing the most juvenile possible motive on my character and broadcasting that opinion to the whole forum, he clearly announces his bias. He is not listening to me when I tried explaining Manfred's psychological flaws. He is dismissing all the roleplay I've done here for over a year, declaring he's just trying to get laid, and showing contempt for everything I've said to him. This level of bias being shown in a ban appeal thread toward a player of a year's standing? Toward a player and character in the hall of fame for good roleplaying?

 

in all of my time playing ive only seen manfred hitting on female characters, i'm actually inclined to believe he isn't actually selfless from the times ive seen him reply to crewmembers, one of the most recent one was him ignoring multiple crewmembers asking for the vendors to be fixed, without stating any reason why he cant do it, and in the end telling crewmembers to mess with wires on their own with a multitool. but that doesn't matter. the reason you entered was deemed valid, and thats why the ban was reduced, but witness accounts and your story for why you stayed inside made no fucking sense.

you could've turned back as soon as you saw the captain leave with the officer.

the paramedic/CMO was inside, he could've helped you leave.

you could've escaped to the briefing room to flee death, which wouldn't have landed you a charge because it would fall under self defense.

you could've left when you opened the firelocks multiple times according to witnesses.

you could've used the emergency suits in the lockers, one of the witnesses, i believe it was the CMO mentioned this.

instead of leaving after pressure was settled and bringing atmospheric equipment like pipe dispenser and do your job as an atmospheric technician, instead you started fixing electrical wires and machines like an engineer, but that's off topic.

EVA storage was only like 15 tiles away.

 

Look, if I were moderating, and some brand-new player was doing this, I'd go over the subject to make sure its clear they need to incorporate pain into roleplaying and not ignore it. That's the conversation I had in 2015, and while I roleplayed pain then, I was still feeling out the server. I decided I'd only explore Manfred's vainglorious self-destruction when it was properly vainglorious and someone was injured. This worked fine for a year, but now UnknownMurder reports 'no pain RP', and DatBerry takes up the case, sees year-old notes, refuses to listen to the context of my character's actions, and insists that because my course of action didn't match what he thinks my course of action could have been, that I deserve a week ban. He compounds on this "multiple attempts to mislead me", when my story held out in cross examination as his witnesses began correcting, clarifying and collaborating their statements. For example, the room wasn't breached when I went in, as Unknown Murder first reported. You called me a liar and carried that prejudice throughtout the rest of our in-game exchange.

 

literally the first answer you gave me to why you entered the bridge was along the lines of "i wanted to support the paramedic because he didnt have firelock access and didn't have a suit either" and "is the paramedic being bwoinked about this too?"

 

Hi Garnascus,

I was only nominally a witness to the incident in the ban appeal thread, but I did want to make a short post here in the hopes of getting clarity on staff policy concerning old/expired warnings. I posted in that appeal thread with a quote from you, in the hopes that someone could determine whether or not it applied here:

I want to be sure I'm not using your words entirely out of context in the appeal thread. Is the philosophy in your quote being applied to this ban, or is this case situationally different in terms of warnings not expiring, the nature of the existing warnings, or in the escalation of discipline staff chose to use?

Thank you for clarifying. I think that's all I have to ask/add to this.

 

i can't speak for garn, but the policy i saw getting taken and take myself is, if the warning is old and unrelated, its not taken into consideration.

e.g: two notes and a warning about chucklefucking 4 months ago, now he ganks someone, the notes aren't related and would get a warning.

a note and a warning about gank 7 months ago, now he ganks someone else in the same manner, they get antag banned.

a note about chucklefucking 3 weeks ago, a warning about pain RP 2 weeks ago, 2 other notes last week, and they break another rule? banned. even if its not the same incident.

[incognitojesus]

This level of bias being shown in a ban appeal thread toward a player of a year's standing? Toward a player and character in the hall of fame for good roleplaying?

 

While I'm not part of this complaint or overseeing it, I'd like to mention that this is irrelevant. Your ability to roleplay or how long you've been here has no bearing on the rules, and those rules won't be bent because you've been here for a year.

[Garnascus]

Escalating to a ban simply because someone did a thing X number of months ago is really dumb. Its basically saying you are never allowed to screw up. Examine the incident on its own and if its egregious enough then ban them. Intent is super important here, its incredibly clear from nikov's responses that his intent wasnt to power game. Given that a week ban to start off with was super dumb. At the same time a three bay ban isnt looking like it was out of the question. I understand completely you think your character had a reason to stay inside a depressurized area. You have to understand low pressure isnt really something you fuck around with. its super super SUPER deadly.

On top of that you do have a handful of notes about you doing some questionable or silly things. While not related it does establish of pattern. I think datberry could have handled this a bit better, mostly not starting with the week ban. So, thoughts?

[DatBerry]

When i dropped a week ban what i was seeing was manfred going into a vented place not giving a damn about pressure and fixing it.

After explaining himself better i understood why he did get in, but why and what you did while staying in was looking exactly like your notes from 2015.

You said you were so close to death you couldn't climb over a table, mind you the time it took for you to setup your tent would take longer. After the ordeal was over what did manfred do? Did he go to medbay to check on himself after his near death situation? Nope. He jumped out and started to help with repairs after giving himself minor first aid treatment.

Which paints the picture that he stayed inside waiting till he could start repairing.

[Nikov]

It is super super super deadly, without an oxygen mask. I've read a lot of material on NASA testing and high altitude flight, and I avoid true vacuum if at all possible. However it was at 9kpa, 55 thousand feet's air pressure. Its not impossible to endure for emergencies. I was too lax when I first joined the server (my previous server had less robust code besides), but I took that warning to heart and tightened down my criteria. I don't do non-lifesaving work at pressures lower than a WW2 bomber crew endured in sheepskin coats and goggles. And when I do, its only what work is needed to get pressure restored. Afterwards I play out consequences from injuries when it seems fitting. I also play out pain from more conventional sources.

I've said before, I would have done things differently if I didn't think there were people dying on the bridge. I've been getting in trouble trying to pluck other players out of dying and falling into ghost chat. Its possible to powergame as a protagonist, so I don't want to constantly carry around a hardsuit and every tool I'd need waiting for muh valids. You get pulled in several directions at once making these decisions.

And I've done some questionably silly things. I cut up once in a while, get high spirited, get particularly low spirited. Its human. When I'm in-character I'm not much trouble, though. Its breaking character that amounts to the silliness.

[DatBerry]

i've discussed this with some other staff members and we agree'd the ban is valid. ill give my reasoning in a more detailed and clear version. since i think we've exhausted every discussion point raised, ill leave this to garn to drop his onions and garlic on afterwards.

The reason for staying with a 3 day ban was that a week ban was a bit too much when you did have a reason to enter, but that only covered entering, not staying inside, or what you did do inside.

let me quote forgotten traveler from the unban thread, http://forums.aurorastation.org/viewtopic.php?p=70389#p70389

 

I was the other engineer there In full EVA and brought the barriers to the scene, that no one has mentioned yet. I set up the inflatable doors at the window that let people in and out. Manfred had opened a window hazard lock and caused slight depressurisation. Nothing major. After getting inside to see the CE placing the final panel on the breach while the captain was inside with a teleportal open. When I got in. I made the 4th or 5th person in full EVA gear in the room. And Manfred came in after me following my path in. For the most part I just saw Manfred pulling up floor tiles checking wires like I had done on the other half of the bridge and then seal themselves inside a barrier wall. I continued repairing, and working around the CE, the other atmos tech, the CMO in EVA gear, and at times the captain. During this time Manfred moved from the conference barrier wall to the hazard locks on the windows by where I came in. And remained there until there was enough atmos to start wiring and grilling the windows. Despite multiple requests from myself for one of the two techs present in the area to bring pipes or the pipe dispenser to finish the work. Nor were any portable air pumps brought.

So while can comprehend ignoring pain to rescue someone, the amount of time and the activities undertaken in the area, when he had ample time to get more supplies to go to EVA for the other suit which was 30 second away, or even the other soft suit in the bridge itself, were ignored.

ive highlighted the important parts in the quote, i did not state you were trying to mislead me just because you weren't seeing the full picture, these are your own actions, you only told me you went inside to save the damsel in distress and tried to get in pressurized space till the ordeal was over when she was rescued, nothing else. but witness reports say otherwise, this has nothing to do with perspective, these are your own actions. and none of your character personality traits or psychological issues cover this.

 

It is super super super deadly, without an oxygen mask. I've read a lot of material on NASA testing and high altitude flight, and I avoid true vacuum if at all possible. However it was at 9kpa, 55 thousand feet's air pressure. Its not impossible to endure for emergencies. I was too lax when I first joined the server (my previous server had less robust code besides), but I took that warning to heart and tightened down my criteria. I don't do non-lifesaving work at pressures lower than a WW2 bomber crew endured in sheepskin coats and goggles. And when I do, its only what work is needed to get pressure restored. Afterwards I play out consequences from injuries when it seems fitting. I also play out pain from more conventional sources.

if you want to talk about realism, at the very least roll up your jumpsuit, you were in a tank top at the time, not that the atmospheric jumpsuits actually have any resistant to pressure anyway.

[Nikov]

Well, all I can do is reiterate for the dozenth time. I was stuck on the wrong side of the table, I turned the air on, I put myself under inflatables, the vents got me back to safe pressure, and I stayed put to avoid going through low pressure again. I am almost certain I'd be damned either way. I pulled the floor tiles to check the atmos pipes. There was one pipe laying on the floor and I wanted to be sure it was possilble to squeeze air out of the vent. It was, I holed up. You also keep accusing me of misleading you, when the witness accounts you're comparing me to have been shown as inaccurate by the other witnesses in the cross examination. You also can't say its a lie if I just don't remember everything at once, especially during mid-round bwoinking when many of the other players witnessing to you turn out to remember incorrectly as well. You were told I vented the halls, that was confirmed by someone else to be wrong. You were told the bridge was breached, that turned out to be wrong. I was accused of misleading you when you said it was the CMO and not the paramedic, it turns out there was a paramedic when I said there was. You said I didn't react to my injuries, I explain how I went and curled in in the corner with a first aid kit and got checked over by the CMO. I didn't go get pumps and pipes because I was working on the window and the space was already back to 101kpa because the firelocks were back up.

I don't... see the consistency. What specific rule was broken. Roleplaying pain, and avoiding endangering oneself without due consideration?

Aren't I demonstrating pain and survival-driven decisions more by zipping up a barrier and sitting still, rather than by going back across the room, climbing onto a table, setting up another barrier, and swiping my ID on firelocks?

It feels like this ban is more based on me not doing what you think I should have done, rather than on actually breaking a rule.

[DatBerry]

does the word vicious cycle mean anything to you?

 

I was stuck on the wrong side of the table, I turned the air on, I put myself under inflatables, the vents got me back to safe pressure, and I stayed put to avoid going through low pressure again

let us ignore the part where climbing the table back and going out would've took less time. in the time you were staying put, did you ask the other 2-3 engineers in the room to bring you a hardsuit, maybe even a softsuit from the nearby lockers? no, you ignored them, you didnt tell them anything, you also ignored the CMO, you could've asked them to bring you equipment to help you leave.

what does this tell me? you fully intended to stay. not really caring about the situation.

 

when the witness accounts you're comparing me to have been shown as inaccurate by the other witnesses in the cross examination. You also can't say its a lie if I just don't remember everything at once

 

its why i did not stop at one or two witnesses, i've asked and collected about 4 witness reports and checked what parts were repeated by two or more witnesses and actually made sense.

did manfred have a reason to go in? one said no, you and another did say otherwise, and your story made more sense, which is why entering was deemed valid.

did manfred instantly try to escape to pressure? at first you said you did, about 3 or more said otherwise, and now you've changed your story, again. what am i supposed to think?

did manfred try to get out, look for help to escape? even you said otherwise, you just stood there applying first aid. putting bandages over your whole body swelling up.

what did manfred do when he was able to escape? did manfred go to medbay to check up on himself? or maybe even check on the person he wanted to save? nope, he just started repairs on the scene.

what does this tell me? you not only wanted to stay, you wanted to start repairing as soon as possible.

 

I don't... see the consistency. What specific rule was broken. Roleplaying pain, and avoiding endangering oneself without due consideration?

 

the lack of consistency is due to me not having the full picture at first, and you not being able to convey everything in adminPMs, which lead to me choosing a week ban. thats why i asked you to make an unban appeal because your replies were all over the place and just looked like you trying to make excuses and not arguments.

 

Aren't I demonstrating pain and survival-driven decisions more by zipping up a barrier and sitting still, rather than by going back across the room, climbing onto a table, setting up another barrier, and swiping my ID on firelocks?

 

you're not demonstrating that when you ignored the CMO's attempt to help you leave, and when you ignored your engineering co-workers and never asked them for help.

for a chief engineer, your character severely lacks communication skills, coupled with mental issues, i wonder how even got promoted to chief engineer, but that's a tale for another time.

all your actions point towards you wanting to stay, and wanting to repair as soon as the ordeal was over.

 

we've already gone over the same exact points over, and over and over. i think that's enough for the complaint overseer to put in judgement. i obviously cant put an end to this because the complaint is against me, i've told you why every point you brought didn't make sense to me. while the one that did make sense actually reduced your ban time. i try to be unbiased as much as i can, but you can never be sure, that's why i've been asking for opinions on this in the mod discord, but no one said the 3 day ban was unjustified. nor that your actions were valid, some actually would've went with harsher punishment.

unless you bring new points, ill stop replying and increasing the thread size till garn posts.

[Bedshaped]

I think we should focus on the original appeal, and the conduct by DatBerry.

Garn and DatBerry have both admitted (DB in the thread) that the week ban was excessive, so disputing the exact happenings of the thread is superfluous. The week ban shows DB went nuclear without any fair consideration of his relevant notes being a year old.

The real issue is why was the person who handed out the ban the sole person reviewing the appeal and quietly shuffling it into archives without a higher admin commenting? I am wondering if this is SOP, because it shouldn't be.

This is two counts of unprofessional behaviour in two separate modes of communication for the same issue, very shady behaviour which should be taken seriously.

[Shadow]

The real issue is why was the person who handed out the ban the sole person reviewing the appeal and quietly shuffling it into archives without a higher admin commenting? I am wondering if this is SOP, because it shouldn't be.

This is two counts of unprofessional behaviour in two separate modes of communication for the same issue, very shady behaviour which should be taken seriously.

 

Its SOP that the banning staffmember handles the appeal unless a higher ranking staffmember says elsewise.

[Bedshaped]

I think the procedures need to be re-reviewed then. If you're the one posting an appeal, you're essentially saying that either a mistake was made in interpreting the rules, or some information wasn't given that might change the nature of the punishment dealt out. I don't see how the banning party can effectively review their own judgement.

Also,

unless a higher ranking staffmember says elsewise

 

Was a higher ranking staffmember given a change to have their say in that thread? I felt as though it was being shoved away quite quickly.

Some clarification is very important in my opinion on who can handle an appeal, whether or not a second opinion is available, the procedure in which an admin can sign off or comment on an appeal; publically on the forum, or behind closed doors in the discord.

[DatBerry]

I made a post, it double posted, deleted one and both are gone.

Anyway, i did ask for other staff members' thoughts throughout the ban appeal, after we discussed all the points raised i gave a day opening and then closed.

Ban appeals are for appealing, to show that you understand what you did wrong and wont do it again, or explaining your actions better. Nikov did the latter, after he didn't agree with my judgement he made a staff complaint. Which is the purpose of this forums, if you're disagreeing with a staff members judgement then you make a staff complaint, those forums aren't for just complaining about staff, but for disagreeing with actions or rulings made by staff too.

[Garnascus]

To start off with, i have spoken to datberry about dropping a week ban to begin with. It was really heavy handed and not at all fitting for what you did. That being said i could completely understand rushing into an almost vented room, grabbing someone suffocating, and then rushing out. That does not appear to be what happened here though. You remained inside for a considerable amount of time. That is just not ok.