[Resolved] Staff Complaint: Juani2400

[EvilBrage]

BYOND Key: EvilBrage

Staff BYOND Key: Juani2400

Game ID: bUlkZf

Reason for complaint: Not so much a complaint against Juani in particular, but an invitation for expanded discussion as to what exactly constitutes a rule breach. People say things all the time, and these things are not necessarily nice, but they don't impact the game whatsoever. I was warned for "being aggressive in OOC" over the OOC logs that took place here. "Don't be a dick" is almost negligently subjective as a rule to issue warnings/punishments over. Am I to understand that all chat interactions that may potentially "offend" someone are subject to warnings and punitive actions?

Help me understand this.

[Chaznoodles]

To further the question here, I was threatened with a permaban over 'let me kys you' said to someone I was friendly with in OOC, because someone took offence to it and blew it out of the water. Do punishments for the "don't be a dick" rule only apply to players that staff dislike, because I've seen some people get away with rather a lot in OOC over others. It seems to be extremely subjective.

[Garnascus]

what exactly constitutes a rule breach?

[23:50:30] b7HWYf OOC: EvilBrage/EvilBrage : Good lord our whitelist standards have dropped

[23:50:30] b7HWYf OOC: LordRaven001/LordRaven001 : and gave you first aid

[23:50:37] b7HWYf OOC: LordRaven001/LordRaven001 : yessir, i'm a bad whitelist player

[23:50:40] b7HWYf OOC: LordRaven001/LordRaven001 : i shoulda executed you :^)

[23:50:59] b7HWYf OOC: EvilBrage/EvilBrage : You shouldn't have won the race to the egg in your mother's womb >

[23:51:27] b7HWYf OOC: LordRaven001/LordRaven001 : hey brage

[23:51:35] b7HWYf OOC: LordRaven001/LordRaven001 : next time i'm going to shoot you and not try to ehlp

[23:51:37] b7HWYf OOC: LordRaven001/LordRaven001 : like a good person

[23:51:38] b7HWYf OOC: LordRaven001/LordRaven001 : :^)

[23:51:45] b7HWYf OOC: LordRaven001/LordRaven001 : also, your egg in the womb theory is wrong.

[23:51:51] b7HWYf OOC: LordRaven001/LordRaven001 : numerous sperm weaken the egg

[23:51:53] b7HWYf OOC: EvilBrage/EvilBrage : Then I'll just complain on the forums until, you know

[23:52:06] b7HWYf OOC: LordRaven001/LordRaven001 : make sure to include the part where i saved your life

That. Thats just a small snippet of the conversation. You both went too far and where both warned for it after a complaint. Moderating OOC can be a bit tricky. A lot of times staff can just be tabbed out or playing and not paying attention to OOC. If someone bothers to ahelp about it we can end up playing catch up. I generally do not mind even heated debates in OOC. We dont have an outright ban on politics/religion or other hotbed topics like some servers do. When it gets to the point of direct attacks against someone else then thats where i draw the line.

[EvilBrage]

I understand where you're coming from in regards to where the line is. What I don't understand is how it negatively impacts gameplay when the option to turn off OOC is ever-present. The rules (and by extension, punishments) enforce a fair playing field and a minimum standard of conduct in order to keep the game rolling in a manner that's enjoyable for everyone.

When you kill someone with no RP, they don't have a button to undo what you did on a whim, and you're therefore ruining their fun and disrupting the game for them.

When you broadcast IC knowledge in OOC, you're disrupting the game by eliminating the fair playing field.

When you make a 17 year-old captain, you destroy the atmosphere of the game, thereby reducing the enjoyment others derive from it.

When you insult someone in OOC chat, they're entirely capable of turning OOC off and ignoring it. Whether or not they can see the message broadcast is utterly and completely in their control and has no negative impact on the game itself whatsoever - what the "spirit of the rules" is meant to protect, as you tend to outline.

Would it have been acceptable had I sent him the same message in BYOND chat instead? What if I told him in real life? You're right about the fact that moderating OOC can get tricky - mostly because it shouldn't be moderated, apart from extremely blatant, deliberate examples (spam, etc.)

[whiterabit]

"Just disable ooc" is a dumb argument and it shouldn't be used here. It works in cases of general ooc discussion where it's like "I don't like this, this isn't what I want to be reading" social or political stuff that other servers might ban outright. You aren't obligated to read it as you can turn off ooc, but they shouldn't be forced to not talk about it simply because some people aren't in the mood for it. By disabling ooc here you're not likely to be missing a conversation you'd be otherwise interested in.

If used in this sort of situation it becomes "who cares if i insult you in ooc you can just turn it off". That's retarded and should continue to be moderated, it's the difference between being disinterested in a discussion or just not wanting to be called a "cock gobbling faggot" when there's other stuff going on that you probably want to see.

Take it private and no one will care.

[Garnascus]

I understand where you're coming from in regards to where the line is. What I don't understand is how it negatively impacts gameplay when the option to turn off OOC is ever-present. The rules (and by extension, punishments) enforce a fair playing field and a minimum standard of conduct in order to keep the game rolling in a manner that's enjoyable for everyone.

When you kill someone with no RP, they don't have a button to undo what you did on a whim, and you're therefore ruining their fun and disrupting the game for them.

When you broadcast IC knowledge in OOC, you're disrupting the game by eliminating the fair playing field.

When you make a 17 year-old captain, you destroy the atmosphere of the game, thereby reducing the enjoyment others derive from it.

When you insult someone in OOC chat, they're entirely capable of turning OOC off and ignoring it. Whether or not they can see the message broadcast is utterly and completely in their control and has no negative impact on the game itself whatsoever - what the "spirit of the rules" is meant to protect, as you tend to outline.

Would it have been acceptable had I sent him the same message in BYOND chat instead? What if I told him in real life? You're right about the fact that moderating OOC can get tricky - mostly because it shouldn't be moderated, apart from extremely blatant, deliberate examples (spam, etc.)

 

We do not, and never have operated from the premise that OOC can simply be turned off. OOC is for socializing with fellow community members. It is not about negatively affecting gameplay its about giving people the base amount of respect they deserve. You do not need to be everyone's friend. Byond and other forms of chat gets even more finnicky. In my tenure as a staffmember here only one person has ever managed to get banned for chat outside of the server. Even then they had a history the size of a football field to go with it. Personally i feel if you guys want to sling shit at each other in byond pager then thats your right. However if someone is using other chat programs to harass community members i can and will take action.

[EvilBrage]

However if someone is using other chat programs to harass community members i can and will take action.

 

AIM? Facebook? I'm not sure what you're implying, but you're setting a dangerous precedent.

So since we've established that shit-slinging in and of itself isn't against the rules, what's the infraction? What constitutes a personal attack along this sliding scale?

 

2. I disagree with what you did there.
4. I dislike what you did there.
   
6. I dislike you.
   
8. What you did was dumb.
   
10. You're dumb.
    
12. You shouldn't have won the sperm race to your mother's womb.
    
14. Were you born on a highway? Because that's where most accidents happen.
    
16. Did your mother have any children who lived?

 

Because they're all different ways of saying something very similar, and if you're serious about enforcing this across the board, you'll have every moderator pouring through chat logs for weeks if you get a report every time someone throws out a 'personal attack' as you seem to define it. Hypersensitivity is a very real threat to online communities.

The point I'm trying to make with all of this is that enforcing the rules subjectively, as the more recent moderators and administrators seem to be doing lately, is ultimately a losing battle. Favoritism will inevitably come into play through unconscious bias unless you enforce the letter of the rule along with the spirit, rather than simply "winging it." The forum rules pertaining to complaints deters others from posting here, but I guarantee you that if someone who worked as a moderator like Chaz notices it, many others do too. You've mentioned the (very extreme) example of Rusty, but you can't treat every case like a Rusty case because you've individually decided that it's a personal attack.

If you want to warn and/or punish someone for behavior, outline in the rules what that behavior is and the resulting punitive action. Imagine if "don't be a dick" were the only law in your city - who do you want deciding what constitutes being a dick?

I've been fairly consistent in stating over and over again to various head administrators (Baka, Doomberg, Skull, and now you) that the rules should not be as static as they are, but they should constantly shift and adapt to new patterns of bad behavior we find unacceptable. Agreement happens, and then the rules never change. What is it about the server that makes it so difficult to change the rules?

[Garnascus]

I will tell you every time that its not how we do things here. you literally told someone that you wished they lost the race to their mothers womb. This situation is extremely black and white and every staff member i asked about this agreed that you both deserved warnings for being huge phalluses to each other. Our server operates with a decent set of rules that do not necessarily cover every situation. A lot of factors go into punishing someone and writing what behavior gets what punishment is impossible. The judgement of the staff member to uphold the spirit of the server rules is, has been and will continue to be far more important. I do not agree that favoritism will ultimately come into play. At least not to a significant degree. In this case juani reckoned you both where being huge douches to each other. He asked the opinion of a few other staff members on discord and they agreed that you both went too far. Staff complaints exist to contest any decision.

The rules actually did undergo a revision recently, see here http://forums.aurorastation.org/viewtopic.php?f=107&t=6712

[EvilBrage]

I will tell you every time that its not how we do things here.

Every time? You did read what I typed, right? Because if that's the case, you just told me I'm not allowed to disagree with someone - and that's a problem.

 

A lot of factors go into punishing someone and writing what behavior gets what punishment is impossible. The judgement of the staff member to uphold the spirit of the server rules is, has been and will continue to be far more important.

I have you quite literally screenshotted and quoted as saying "just because it's not a rule doesn't mean we won't punish someone for it." There's upholding the spirit of the rules, and then there's simply dishing out punishment for things you think should be against the rules. The latter is gross negligence, and seems to be what you continually imply whenever I see you talk about this, ergo why you've probably noticed that I disagree with you on most decisions you've made ever since you were a trial moderator.

 

I do not agree that favoritism will ultimately come into play. At least not to a significant degree.

The others with more experience in the role can tell you otherwise. For the ideal amount of impartiality, administrators and moderators wouldn't be allowed to play, but that would be extremely boring and unfair to them, so that's not exactly feasible. That's why it's important to enforce the letter of the rules as well. You can claim to be impartial all you want (and you may very well be, that's not what my argument is designed to question,) but until you can strictly enforce the letter of the rule, there will always be room for someone to fairly interpret that perhaps you are not.

Again I'll ask the question: if the only rule in your community was "don't be a dick," who would you want deciding what dickery is? And I'll go ahead an answer it - no one. There is no one you could trust with that kind of authority to both execute and define the law, ergo why we have the rules expanded as widely as possible so that when the time comes to enforce a ruling, the moderator in question doesn't have to ask everyone else what they think, because the rule itself will be black and white.

 

Staff complaints exist to contest any decision.

Which is precisely what I'm doing, on the grounds that the rule is entirely too subjective and, therefore, cannot be enforced with any semblance of consistency until it's revised.

[Chaznoodles]

'Don't be a dick' rule is a leftover from early days, when I trusted my staff in their judgement, and the players in their ability to know when they were being dicks, or when staff were misinterpreting it.

Now, I wouldn't trust either side with that judgement.

[Garnascus]

Every time? You did read what I typed, right? Because if that's the case, you just told me I'm not allowed to disagree with someone - and that's a problem.[

 

If you where actually not allowed to disagree with me i would lock this thread and permaban you for daring to have an opinion thats different from my own /s. What i mean to say is having a "dont be a dick" rule has served us well in my opinion. In the future anything is possible, i might be resistant to a change but im not necessarily 100% against it.

 

I have you quite literally screenshotted and quoted as saying "just because it's not a rule doesn't mean we won't punish someone for it." There's upholding the spirit of the rules, and then there's simply dishing out punishment for things you think should be against the rules. The latter is gross negligence, and seems to be what you continually imply whenever I see you talk about this, ergo why you've probably noticed that I disagree with you on most decisions you've made ever since you were a trial moderator.[

 

I am going to assume you are intelligent enough not to take things out of context. I said that during a discussion we once had and i still stand by it. The context that i am sure i explained then is this. If/when a situation arises that is not "technically" against the rules but against the spirit of the game then i can and will take action. You have to understand though that cases like that are exceedingly rare and almost always result in a "what you're doing is not against the rules but its pretty silly because of X".

 

The others with more experience in the role can tell you otherwise. For the ideal amount of impartiality, administrators and moderators wouldn't be allowed to play, but that would be extremely boring and unfair to them, so that's not exactly feasible. That's why it's important to enforce the letter of the rules as well. You can claim to be impartial all you want (and you may very well be, that's not what my argument is designed to question,) but until you can strictly enforce the letter of the rule, there will always be room for someone to fairly interpret that perhaps you are not.

Again I'll ask the question: if the only rule in your community was "don't be a dick," who would you want deciding what dickery is? And I'll go ahead an answer it - no one. There is no one you could trust with that kind of authority to both execute and define the law, [

 

We DO enforce the letter of the rules. the vast majority of cases involve one rule or another being broken. I am sorry but strict enforcement of the letter of the rules, and in fact even the spirit is not something i have ever really been keen on. Maybe "enforce" isnt the right word to use when i say that though. I mean i dont go "welp you broke rule 1, 2 and 3 ding dong bannu. Yes i agree a server with only one rule of "dont be a dick" would be incredibly silly. You at least need to fairly communicate what is and is not against the rules to the players.

 

ergo why we have the rules expanded as widely as possible so that when the time comes to enforce a ruling, the moderator in question doesn't have to ask everyone else what they think, because the rule itself will be black and white. [

 

This is probably the point i disagree the most on. First off even if you had a super amazing rule set that 100% covered every little incident you would still have staff members asking what everyone else thinks. You have to understand that the nature of running a server with a large player count and being heavy roleplay makes for a lot of unique situations. The discussions in msay are usually something like "is this guy being a diphead?" "to what extent is he being a diphead?" "what should we do about him being a diphead"? If we wanted to expand the rules as wide as possible to cover as many situations as possible our rules would be the size of a small novel. The answers to each of those questions can vary based on a lot of factors. Round type, job, player history. Its healthy to ask the opinion of other staff members.

I also want to say that while we are pretty far apart on some things we dont necessarily completely disagree. We added a synthetic rule about AIs not being permitted to lawyer their laws. We would sporadically smack any subverted AIs that did their best to resist and validhunt whoever subverted them but after bringing up officially in a staff meeting it was decided the rules should explicitly cover that situation. Funnily enough it was me who brought up wanting to add it. I think their are things to take away from what you're saying but the original warning here is pretty cut and dry and its going to stick.

[Garnascus]

So, are there still some things to discuss or should we lock this?

[Garnascus]

Locking and archiving.