[Resolved] Staff Complaint: Scheveningen

[Kaed]

BYOND Key: Kaedwuff

Staff BYOND Key: Scheveningen

Game ID: N/A

Reason for complaint: This individual has become steadily more aggressive and hostile conduct towards me, leading up to what appears to be an warning for being 'spammy' when I replied to a topic with a viewpoint that was on topic for the actual thread but differed from their opinion.

Evidence/logs/etc: https://forums.aurorastation.org/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=8829&p=82652#p82642

Looking over my initial post here, I think that it was this bit here that illicited so much rage:

 

The fact that the staff team is so afraid to poke an antagonist and tell them to actually antagonize the crew shows me exactly how bad things have gotten.

Yes, this could have been worded in a way that was less accusatory towards the staff themselves, and if I had been issued a warning for attacking staff, that probably would have been something I could cop to. It was a bad way to word things, and I post-emptively issue an apology if it offended someone. But the actual warning is this:

 

 

Which is telling me that by expressing agreement with the original topic, and not factoring in this.. frankly unrelated information related to Jackboot's round into my statement, I am creating irrelevant information that is not welcome on this forum. This was actually addressed in another part of the offending post I was issued this warning for:

 

So let me reiterate here that whatever happened on this round jackboot was in has absolutely no bearing on the point I'm making. If there are actually no rounds where people just surrender to security and chill harmlessly in a cage for the rest of the round, hey fine. I'm a happy man, and I agree, this thread is pointless. If they do happen, and you are advocating that is okay, then I disagree with you definitively.

 

This is not the only time that that they have behaved this way, being dismissive to the point of near hostility, as you can see here:

https://forums.aurorastation.org/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=8838#p82651 I'm not super sure it was necessary to post a snide comment like this in a joke thread in Off Topic?

You know, I don't particularly care that we seem to butt heads a lot. That's discourse on the internet. And if they take offense to my feelings towards the way the server is run, that's pretty relevant to them, since they are also staff.

But using their position to tell me that expressing my opinion when it contradicts theirs is spammy deserves a warning? That's gross misconduct by any standard of staff conduct I'm aware of.

Additional remarks:

I'm not actually sure if this complaint is against forum rules, because the thread linked here about the general forum rules does not actually lead anywhere, it's a dead link, to a thread that doesn't exist (anymore?). I've made a cursory attempt to find it despite that, so if I somehow missed it, please do let me know.

[Scheveningen]

Yes, this could have been worded in a way that was less accusatory towards the staff themselves, and if I had been issued a warning for attacking staff, that probably would have been something I could cop to. It was a bad way to word things, and I post-emptively issue an apology if it offended someone. But the actual warning is this:

 

I appreciate you're self-aware enough to notice that. You need to still take into consideration that, quite frankly, the manner of your posting tends to come off like that, given the nature of antagonists and the nature of server staff are two particular subjects you bring up on a common basis. It undermines any point of discussion the moment it starts seeming as though you're levying personal attacks hurled at staff, because we've had plenty of individuals who were generally disillusioned with how things were going, they effectively shitposted themselves into oblivion (plus earning forumbans for it), et cetera. There's precedent for it. We don't really have to tolerate it the moment when criticism just morphs into a behavior that sums up to, "Attack, belittle, undermine." What's the point of it? It just comes off as rude and adding nothing of value, I'm sure you're aware, but I'm contextualizing to hopefully characterize why I added that forum warning.

Was it bias for me to add the warning, considering I was still engaging in discussion in the thread? I did consider it. I didn't add the forum warning just to exert psuedo-internet authority. I do not mind if you spend time arguing about subjects on the forums here that matter to you. What is important is that you understand that you should make it your priority to use your wordcraft in a manner that can still convince people without coming off as sarcastic and generally malicious towards other people. You're a smart person, that much I can observe from your posts. If someone called you stupid I'd be the first to rush to your defense, because it is clear you put a lot of thought into your posts and a stupid person doesn't even consider cause and effect like you do, but I can see you occasionally fall into the very tempting deadfall of undermining things that are seemingly opposite of your own opinion on how things should work.

It's just important to not, 1.) waste words in a manner that it conveys the opposite of meaning, 2.) use words in a manner that is not productive and is rather, deconstructive, and so by viewing the person saying those words one could possibly decide what it's all for in terms of intention and the means of conveyance of ideas.

The forum warning was issued because it did seem like you were shitposting and providing nothing of particular worth to the conversation, particularly characterized by your statements that you didn't care and the thread was pointless. It is important to hold investments in the conversations you partake in, otherwise you have no reason to be posting, no?

 

Which is telling me that by expressing agreement with the original topic, and not factoring in this.. frankly unrelated information related to Jackboot's round into my statement, I am creating irrelevant information that is not welcome on this forum. This was actually addressed in another part of the offending post I was issued this warning for:

 

It was not unrelated information I was detailing. It was contextual information that Jackboot used as a basis to form their opinion that staff should slam the hammer down based on a, quite frankly, a lack of an actual experience with the round antagonist. Providing additional context as to what effect they actually created in the round was made by me in order to prove a point that the antagonist was putting more than just a mild invested effort into the round, and that Jackboot was hardly driving much of a case that there was an issue with antagonists surrendering themselves.

The response to something unusual happening should not be, "Ban anything unusual from happening ever again." That was Jackboot's approach to the situation, regardless. It is important to contextualize what actually causes things to happen, not doing so leads to bad decision-making.

 

So let me reiterate here that whatever happened on this round jackboot was in has absolutely no bearing on the point I'm making. If there are actually no rounds where people just surrender to security and chill harmlessly in a cage for the rest of the round, hey fine. I'm a happy man, and I agree, this thread is pointless. If they do happen, and you are advocating that is okay, then I disagree with you definitively.

 

Point directly where I said that it was fine for antagonists to hold their wrists out for security so they can roleplay sitting in an isolation cell for the rest of their round. I do not support that, antagonists need to drive an initial narrative better that, BUT, what I outlined before made the case that the vampire in the round Jackboot was complaining about was not the case. I stated that antagonists are permitted to otherwise, choose how they want to antagonize the station in just about any reasonable means they see fit, with violence or not. Is that wrong for me to say? Am I not subscribing enough to the idea that antagonists have to pay attention to and interact with everyone, and stretch their effort to impossible proportions to ensure select people's enjoyment is being catered to? Then I apologize in advance for being so adamantly against that. It is a draconian mindset, in my opinion, to decide that we must punish people for playing in a way that may not blend well with their personal opinion with how they think the game should be played, but still doesn't particularly violate any written part of the rules, much less the spirit of them. It's dishonest and disingenuous to presume people should play according to vocal minority opinion. I disagree with slamming the hammer down on someone who doesn't deserve it more heavily than I disagree with someone who thinks they should hand themselves into security as a ploy, whether they are successful or not. I am not implying you're dishonest or draconian or whatever, I am attacking the idea and the rationale itself.

Regarding the comment I made, it was a shitpost thread. I shitposted. If you use the defense that whoever disagrees with you is irrationally furious about the subject and that you don't really care about their feelings, then that is unfortunate to see written, but I'm not going to use the same passive-aggressive language to be petty about it. If you were legitimately irked by it, then I will apologize for it, I assumed it was a non-serious thread where banter could take place.

Making complaints are never against the rules, by the way, it is how you go about doing it that may create further problems. I don't find this thread particularly offensive.

Yes, this is a 'long-ass reply'. Honestly, the way you write out your cases did inspire me to write essays point-by-point as I'm also infamous for, it really tickles my grey matter to partake in even if nobody reads it, so to speak. I may choose to remove the forum warning depending on the outcome of this, I'm not insisting you suck up so I remove it and we're supergudfrens again, because I would like to hear brutal honesty rather than niceties when it comes to complaints.

[Garnascus]

The warning is completely and utterly invalid on one single base alone. We do not take action against issues we have a direct involvement in. Every staff member is taught this and learns it as part of their trial. It is entirely possible for an emergency situation to crop up that leaves you no other alternative. This situation is not one of them. I am going to remove the warning and delta, myself and abosh will discuss what happens next,

[Garnascus]

Myself, abosh and delta had a conversation about various issues. Chief among them being the need to distance yourself from issues you are directly involved in. This will be considered resolved and will be locked and archived.