[Resolved] Staff Complaint - Scheveningen

[grant4455]

BYOND Key: Grant4455

Staff BYOND Key: Scheveningen

b]Game ID:[/b] BOJ-afNQ

Reason for complaint: Putting it formally is difficult, but I felt like I was being harangued because I wasn't role-playing in a way Scheveningen liked. I felt that I was playing my character, who was created bearing in mind that whilst any character must be employ-ably sane, quirks and flaws are allowed, to a good standard, and behaving in character. I was b'woinked, and lectured, I feel unfairly. I know this seems minor, but I really don't think I did anything wrong, and the message pulled me out of the round, and my immersion.

Evidence/logs/etc: https://pastebin.com/vU6Hc2nL https://pastebin.com/7qRC0xLy (I have the log file, but can't figure how to upload it. Sorry! Also, had to restart my client briefly, so there is about a minute gap between the two pastebins. It's well after the incident, but I wanted to note that.)

Additional remarks: I wish to reiterate that whilst Byron was initally heckling Tyr, he stopped the moment Tyr proved he was a credible threat, not just a moron with a radio. Before that, Byron thought he was a want-to-be action villan, who raises his demands arbitrarily, and banters like a moron with the people he's robbing, and wish to draw special attention to how much he kicked himself when one of Tyr's men sprung out, and captured him. That was when the penny dropped of how much of a moron he was. He didn't panic because he was netted, and obviously not going to be killed, from his eyes, he's too valuable to be in danger. He's logical to the hilt, and I don't see that as being fearless. If he genuinely thought his life was at risk, he'd have been a lot more scared, but he didn't, and so he wasn't.

As this point, Tyr had done nothing but peacefully take hostages, and cause property damage as far as he knew.

The last bit of communication Byron had with Tyr was 'we got one of yours'. Tyr had said he'd blow up the mining station, and already had, so he saw no harm in saving some face. This still seems realistic.

I don't see how anything I did was bad RP. I think Byron is a believable character, who is employable, but flawed, well within the rules. and I think he played him well. He's not insane, or a mary sue. He's a scientist, a valuable one, who simply doesn't function well with others.

I'm very sorry to make fuss out of this. I really hate creating drama. I have no hard feelings, I just wanted to sort this out.

Edited May 30, 2017 by Guest

[NoahKirchner]

Hello, Tyr here.

Yes, Byron heckled, but it wasn't unreasonable levels of heckling, and he stopped whenever it was very clear that we were actually a threat. Sure, ICly, it was a really rather stupid thing to do, but OOCly it seemed really rather reasonable. It was actually a bit helpful to the round, in all honesty, because without his heckling there would've been no way to prove our credibility by blowing up the mining station (and thus getting everyone to shut up).

Edited May 30, 2017 by Guest

[grant4455]

Hello, Tyr here.

Yes, Byron heckled, but it was unreasonable levels of heckling, and he stopped whenever it was very clear that we were actually a threat. Sure, ICly, it was a really rather stupid thing to do, but OOCly it seemed really rather reasonable. It was actually a bit helpful to the round, in all honesty, because without his heckling there would've been no way to prove our credibility by blowing up the mining station (and thus getting everyone to shut up).

 

Do you mean 'was' or 'wasn't'? Genuinely unclear.

[NoahKirchner]

Hello, Tyr here.

Yes, Byron heckled, but it was unreasonable levels of heckling, and he stopped whenever it was very clear that we were actually a threat. Sure, ICly, it was a really rather stupid thing to do, but OOCly it seemed really rather reasonable. It was actually a bit helpful to the round, in all honesty, because without his heckling there would've been no way to prove our credibility by blowing up the mining station (and thus getting everyone to shut up).

 

Do you mean 'was' or 'wasn't'? Genuinely unclear.

Oh gosh whoops, was meant to be wasn't.

[Faris]

Hi, just going to say I'll be taking over this complaint.

[Scheveningen]

You were not warned or issued disciplinary action.

You were merely spoken to and asked to roleplay a sensible character and to avoid vehemently heckling antagonists alongside five-to-six other people who were also spoken to and doing it.

Your defense was that your character was a high-functioning sociopath and that he does not care for the issues of other people and if they get killed, too bad. This is not acceptable.

Firstly, I have a friend that is clinically graded as a high-functioning sociopath, and I've never seen him pick verbal confrontations with other people that could reasonably kick their ass in a fight, or potentially kill them. Sociopathy and psychopathy are constantly confused by social media to the point where it undermines actual solid psychology findings that determine what sociopathy is. But not all sociopaths act under every single sociopathic tendency. Most sociopaths lie, yes, but they would not lie purposefully if it meant they would get hurt doing it. They may act impulsively, but the risk of outcome scares a sociopath more than it does for any other person, because sociopaths tends to be selectively selfish and self-serving.

Even then, with our rule set, NanoTrasen would not employ an extremely reckless and impulsive sociopath with no concern for lives or consequence. Extreme sociopaths are dangerous manipulative people, and unlike lowkey psychopaths, they do not blend in very well.

According to your definition, however, this is not acceptable character behavior or decent character design. All characters must be reasonably well-rounded, physically fit to at least do their job and able to pass psychological examinations to discern whether they are socially well-adjusted or not. Incompetents, psychopaths, overcompetents and unstable characters are not allowed. These provides for an even playing field without resorting to granting the freedom for every player to roleplay cliche personality archetypes that do nothing beyond making the roleplay atmosphere worse and unenjoyable. Heavy roleplay means heavier standards for roleplay.

It is not practical nor realistic for a character to be fearlessly mocking a group of armed terrorists who have proven their intent and murdered several people. It is highly advised to take RPing conflict much more seriously than what was done. You were not the only person I had to speak to about this, one among at least six.

[grant4455]

You were not warned or issued disciplinary action.

You were merely spoken to and asked to roleplay a sensible character and to avoid vehemently heckling antagonists alongside five-to-six other people who were also spoken to and doing it.

Your defense was that your character was a high-functioning sociopath and that he does not care for the issues of other people and if they get killed, too bad. This is not acceptable.

Firstly, I have a friend that is clinically graded as a high-functioning sociopath, and I've never seen him pick verbal confrontations with other people that could reasonably kick their ass in a fight, or potentially kill them. Sociopathy and psychopathy are constantly confused by social media to the point where it undermines actual solid psychology findings that determine what sociopathy is. But not all sociopaths act under every single sociopathic tendency. Most sociopaths lie, yes, but they would not lie purposefully if it meant they would get hurt doing it. They may act impulsively, but the risk of outcome scares a sociopath more than it does for any other person, because sociopaths tends to be selectively selfish and self-serving.

"Even then, with our rule set, NanoTrasen would not employ an extremely reckless and impulsive sociopath with no concern for lives or consequence. Extreme sociopaths are dangerous manipulative people, and unlike lowkey psychopaths, they do not blend in very well."

According to your definition, however, this is not acceptable character behavior or decent character design. All characters must be reasonably well-rounded, physically fit to at least do their job and able to pass psychological examinations to discern whether they are socially well-adjusted or not. Incompetents, psychopaths, overcompetents and unstable characters are not allowed. These provides for an even playing field without resorting to granting the freedom for every player to roleplay cliche personality archetypes that do nothing beyond making the roleplay atmosphere worse and unenjoyable. Heavy roleplay means heavier standards for roleplay.

It is not practical nor realistic for a character to be fearlessly mocking a group of armed terrorists who have proven their intent and murdered several people. It is highly advised to take RPing conflict much more seriously than what was done. You were not the only person I had to speak to about this, one among at least six.

 

For the sake of clarity and fullness, I'm posting your whole quote here. I will be taking snippets as we go down in my reply. I hope that's alright.

 

"You were not warned or issued disciplinary action."

 

No, but I felt I was being harassed. I described the situation to an administrator, who advised me to file a complaint.

 

"You were merely spoken to and asked to roleplay a sensible character and to avoid vehemently heckling antagonists alongside five-to-six other people who were also spoken to and doing it."

 

And I feel I was swept up in a group of people, who heckled to various degrees, and thus treated unfairly by due, possibly due to frustration at the, as you put it during the round, 'mob mentality'.

 

"Firstly, I have a friend that is clinically graded as a high-functioning sociopath, and I've never seen him pick verbal confrontations with other people that could reasonably kick their ass in a fight, or potentially kill them."

 

If you don't mind me being a tiny bit sarcastic, and please take this in good humour; Mores the pity I'm not playing your friend. Autism, and sociopathy are autism very broad terms, admittedly the latter moreso. That statement is fallacious as it takes the acitons of a single individual to represent mental disease across a significant portion of the population. We can ignore it, because Byron might be an outlier, and so might your friend, or they both lie in different places, or either one of them could have separate, compounding issues.

You're trying to use a case study, that isn't a case study, to dictate behavior and believablity. Because I genuinely think that is the issue you took with me, not the actual heckling, because as Tyr said, Byron actually didn't do very much of it, and shut up when he was ordered. Feele free to correct me if I'm wrong, but the main disagreement points we have are;

1.) Byron's behavior could be adequately explained by a mental condition which is high functioning to the point where he is employable.

2.) Byron's mental condition is sociopathy.

On the second point, I fully accept I explained this poorly, and may be mistaken on his condition. I've spoken to a friend recently who is a psychology major, and they've said his behavior sounds more like 'sociopath tendencies brought on by autistic aversion.', not proper sociopathy.

 

"Even then, with our rule set, NanoTrasen would not employ an extremely reckless and impulsive sociopath with no concern for lives or consequence. Extreme sociopaths are dangerous manipulative people, and unlike lowkey psychopaths, they do not blend in very well."

 

Howwever that doesn't actually change the fact that his day-to-day behavior, and conversational manner, do not preclude employment by nanotrasean. He is an intelligent research scientist. I never said he was an extreme sociopath, or reckless, I in fact said borderline. Several times. Please stop magnifying my words, or actions, it's distasteful. Nothing Byron did during that round implied a total lack of caring for others, and in fact, he mentioned in one of his messages, "We don't have anyone there right now..." He took the saftey of others onboard mentally. At this point, and I've reiterated this several times, he took Tyr to be nothing but an overdramatic idiot with a speaker. He'd done nothing credible, except break a few windows. He hadn't killed anyone, displayed violent tendencies. Byron assumed he was issuing empty threats.

Maybe that wasn't a completely justified assumption, a more socially balanced person might have waited and seen, but Byron made the mental call, and so acted accordingly until he was shut up. That's not extreme recklessness, at most it's mild overconfidence in one's own reasoning, and optimism. That does not make him an 'impulsive no concern for lives or consequences". You're really being just a tiny bit silly now.

Whilst this isn't fully relevant, that the hardest, most unfeeling calculation by Byron is that he is too valuable to kill. Perhaps rough up a bit, but they'd identified a desire to get money, not cause havoc. Even if he thought they were credible, he never seriously thought his life was at risk. At most, he'd have thought he'd be kidnapped and ransomed, which is exactly what they attempted to do later on. Is this mildly egotistical? Sure. But if mild egotism is grounds for not being employed, you literally have to clear half the characters on the station. Sorry if this strays off topic.

Back to the point, his job isn't to be a security guard, it is not to speak with others on the company's behalf, and he thought Tyr was a half-credible threat, he would have. This is the reasoning I've got for him being held back from further promotion to RD; He just cannot functional well with subordinates. He's the sort of brilliant, but insufferable scientist you cram, far away form a research team, in a private lab with a modest budget to occasionally produce discoveries. Though he would hardly impress and interview, he wouldn't spit bile and invective on the man and then flee the room. He'd merely display the quirks, and social clangers associated with the stereotypical hermit-scientist, and be given a research position where he has little authority, and plenty of time.

Byron has trouble connecting socially, or empathically with other people, but, as he demonstrated several times /in that round/, he is concerned about the consiquences of life and death. Perhaps sometimes for some reserved sense of social decency, perhaps for the sake of actual lingering empathy.

When I first said, "He is a borderline sociopath." I was referring to the social deafness that comes with people who aren't severely affected enough to gain the social deftness often associated with sociopaths, but still have trouble connecting with others, leaving them awkward and uneasy in most social interactions. Something they usually cover with humour, as i understand.

 

"According to your definition, however, this is not acceptable character behavior or decent character design. All characters must be reasonably well-rounded, physically fit to at least do their job and able to pass psychological examinations to discern whether they are socially well-adjusted or not. Incompetents, psychopaths, overcompetents and unstable characters are not allowed. These provides for an even playing field without resorting to granting the freedom for every player to roleplay cliche personality archetypes that do nothing beyond making the roleplay atmosphere worse and unenjoyable. Heavy roleplay means heavier standards for roleplay."

 

You've selectively expanded the wording to the rules to surgically include a broader range of characters then it first implies. This strikes me as dishonest.

"Characters must be believable, and well-rounded. No insane or psychotic characters. No Mary Sues. (Over the top characters, characters who know too much, have no weaknesses, etcetera.)"

Let me see if I can do a checklist for your phrasing of the rules however.

Reasonably well-rounded: Yes. His education was reasonably broad, and he is capable to put his socks on and make toast as well as research phoron. Check

Physically fit to at least do their job: I don't think this point is contested. Check

Able to pass psychological examinations to discern whether they are socially well-adjusted or not. This is the sticking point. How decerning as psychological exam? How high are standards? Are exceptions and special cases made? Etc.

Byron would walk out of a psychological exam with a diagnosis of strong, but not disabling social deafness, with a report saying that he connects perfectly fine with synthetics, but socially stumbles with non-synthetics. That his prone to mild egotism, and copes with his social awkwardness with distancing and humour. Today, this would preclude a high security position, but not a research position at any reputable firm. Assuming the standards hold, Byron would never be a research director. But he isn't a research director, and the position he is in has little authority, and extreme oversight. You don't just pass a psych exam, you're give a diagnosis or a clean bill of health, generally. Byron would not receive the latter, but the former would not keep him from a heavily overseen research position. This strikes me as believable, as it is how psyche exams work today.

 

" Heavy roleplay means heavier standards for roleplay."

I am aware, and I like to think I rise to them well. I've received many positive comments about my characters from a broad range of players who seem to enjoy him.

"It is not practical nor realistic for a character to be fearlessly mocking a group of armed terrorists who have proven their intent and murdered several people. It is highly advised to take RPing conflict much more seriously than what was done. You were not the only person I had to speak to about this, one among at least six."

I've repeated this, several times now. I ask you note what I'm saying. When the heckling actually occured, heckling which even Tyr says was not particularly bad on Byrons part, and actually improved the round, they had;

Not proven they were armed.

Not proven their intent. (They had, as far as anyone on-station knew, broken a few windows. No deaths, let alone murders were reported.)

Not murdered several people. (At least as far as the station-knowledge goes.)

When they proved their intent, proved they were armed, and had murdered several people the station knew about, Byron had been silent for a considerable length of time. I said this in game and you ignored it.

[Faris]

I'm more partial to Schev here. "Heckling" as you put it is fine in certain situation. There's a difference between intruders running around the station regardless if they've done anything yet to crew members threatening to do things. The way I see it, you are in the modern equivalent of "heckling" pirates that are about to raid your ship. The setting of our lore emphasizes that while intruders/pirates aren't a daily occurrence, that they are more often than not a credible and dangerous threat, hence why security is armed with lethal weaponry and can call in paramilitary forces.

Furthermore, keep in mind Schev wasn't really there to punish you, he was speaking to you, emphasizing that it is more of a learning experience rather than a punishment. I don't think this was him harassing you.

I would like to apologize for the delay, bit busy with a few things. I'm going to leave this up for a bit, incase there's any other points you'd like to raise, you could also contact me on discord if you want to discuss this more actively.

[grant4455]

I'm more partial to Schev here. "Heckling" as you put it is fine in certain situation. There's a difference between intruders running around the station regardless if they've done anything yet to crew members threatening to do things. The way I see it, you are in the modern equivalent of "heckling" pirates that are about to raid your ship. The setting of our lore emphasizes that while intruders/pirates aren't a daily occurrence, that they are more often than not a credible and dangerous threat, hence why security is armed with lethal weaponry and can call in paramilitary forces.

Furthermore, keep in mind Schev wasn't really there to punish you, he was speaking to you, emphasizing that it is more of a learning experience rather than a punishment. I don't think this was him harassing you.

I would like to apologize for the delay, bit busy with a few things. I'm going to leave this up for a bit, incase there's any other points you'd like to raise, you could also contact me on discord if you want to discuss this more actively.

 

If you don't mind, I'll use the same reply-by-quote style I used above. I find it the easiest way to reply-by-point.

 

There's a difference between intruders running around the station regardless if they've done anything yet to crew members threatening to do things. The way I see it, you are in the modern equivalent of "heckling" pirates that are about to raid your ship. The setting of our lore emphasizes that while intruders/pirates aren't a daily occurrence, that they are more often than not a credible and dangerous threat, hence why security is armed with lethal weaponry and can call in paramilitary forces.

 

Quite. However, in this particular instance, they weren't actually on the ship yet. As far as anyone could tell, they were glorified vandals. If noone else is taking them seriously, and they're behaving in a very silly way, (I note the incident on the demand of how much money they made, where Tyr raised the price basically on the dare), I think at that point a bit of derision is more then justified, especially from a character who is prone to bluntness, and thinking of other humans in general as a bit stupid. More often then not doesn't mean always, and it's quite reasonable to assume that, given the relatively large preponderance of evidence that was before him that they were a bunch of impulsive amateurs, he might engage in some light heckling.

Again though, I do encourage you to go and peruse what I actually said to them. I am not sure any of it would be off-key to even a serious threat. If you agree, this entire point is moot.

 

Furthermore, keep in mind Schev wasn't really there to punish you, he was speaking to you, emphasizing that it is more of a learning experience rather than a punishment. I don't think this was him harassing you.

 

If Schev had merely asked why I was doing what I was doing, and queried lightly into my character's behavior and motivations, I really would not be so bothered. I felt I was being harassed because of the way it was phrased, and the rather dry tone that was taken, I.g

"If i might offer a piece of advice. really not a good idea to heckle terrorists who have said they'll bomb the station. it's not good rp or respecting of fear whatsoever to intentionally antagonize armed intruders who have killed people."

"I assume "within his failings", does not mean heckling antagonists with no personal regard for your own life. because i figure the last thing a sociopath wants to do is to put themselves on a terrorist team's shitlist."

"pst. if i might offer a piece of advice. really not a good idea to heckle terrorists who have said they'll bomb the station. it's not good rp or respecting of fear whatsoever to intentionally antagonize armed intruders who have killed people."

It's not a professional tone, nor is it questioning. It's phrased as an attack. Even the advice is prefixed with a sardonic 'pst' that makes the entire following statement seem more like sarcastic haranguing then actual advice. Furthermore, given Byron's remarks, and the situation beforehand, I don't think even applies. I get the impression I was simply put under a blanket of people who he felt was behaving unacceptably, and blasted with a broad-brush accusation.

That doesn't seem becoming of a moderator, and drew me, really heavily out of the round. I felt like I was being told exactly what sort of roleplay was acceptable, even when what I was doing was within the rules, because it wasn't to his taste, and told in none-too a polite tone. I understand there isn't a duty to be polite, or even respectful, but some degree of professionalism I think is a worthy expectation.

Again, I know this seems minor, but I sought advice first to see if this was worth raising as a complaint, and was told to do so.

 

I would like to apologize for the delay, bit busy with a few things. I'm going to leave this up for a bit, incase there's any other points you'd like to raise, you could also contact me on discord if you want to discuss this more actively.

 

Please don't apologize. Real life always comes first, and I'm by no means at your beck and call. I'd be happy to contact you on discord to discuss this further when next i see you. My discord handle is 'Grant4455'.

[Faris]

Complaint resolved after discussion.