[Resolved] Staff Complaint - Delta

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

BYOND Key: Jackboot

Staff BYOND Key: Schevenigen

Game ID: Antagonist Contracts / Discord

Reason for complaint: Delta very unreasonably denied a syndicate contract I created, twice, for unreasonable and unfair reasons, and refused to have a dialogue about it.

Evidence/logs/etc:

Scheveningen - Today at 5:51 PM

If you have concerns about my decision-making and find them untenable with your own standards you can take this to a staff complaint on the forums.

Have a nice day.

Scheveningen - Today at 3:59 PM

speaking of contracts

you reminded me to check them

Scheveningen - Today at 4:00 PM

i wish i fucking didnt

Senpai Jackboot - Today at 5:12 PM

Sorry it wasnt edgy torture delta

Not everyone likes torture rp

I have to make a new one

Scheveningen - Today at 5:38 PM

If it's you making them you need to stop.

Senpai Jackboot - Today at 5:39 PM

No.

scaredy cat - Today at 5:41 PM

i liked it

Scheveningen - Today at 5:43 PM

I don't really care. Don't make meme contracts, please.

It was the second copy I had to close and it really needs to stop. Not going to say so a third time.

If it's an unfair request then we can take this to DMs.

Senpai Jackboot - Today at 5:46 PM

It's not a meme contract.

Scheveningen - Today at 5:46 PM

It is. Not arguing it.

Senpai Jackboot - Today at 5:47 PM

You're being really dramatic. Please say what negative qualities it holds then.

Scheveningen - Today at 5:48 PM

This is what I look for when accepting contracts to be displayed to antagonists during the round:

1. Has to be a comprehensible and simple objective that can be completed over the course of the round and proven it was done through a single snapshot.

2. Has to fit the general scope and spirit of the roleplay environment, meming undermines that, therefore meme contracts will be insta-denied.

Unreasonable?

Senpai Jackboot - Today at 5:49 PM

What makes it memey?

It's a contract revolving around humiliation which is much more important in unathi society.

Scheveningen - Today at 5:49 PM

If you can't tell what's wrong with it then I can't help you understand, honestly.

Additional remarks:

It's bewildering to think that because a contract is light-hearted and revolves around bullying that it is declared a 'meme' (whatever that word means in this context).

The contracts I've made in similar styles all revolve around bullying, teasing, or arguably school-yard level antics. They're meant to be interactive and enjoyable for both the assailant and the victim. Many contracts are bordering on torture porn and a lot of people are uncomfortable with that so I provided an alternative. Unilaterally declaring it a crap idea then refusing to hold a dialogue about it is very immature.

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

Here are the other contracts for reference that were accepted.

 

 

They all follow the same format but none of these were deemed problematic. I don't understand.

[Scheveningen]

Those contracts were apparently all accepted by Incog before he left the server. I did not have oversight over those contracts, as the effort was split between the two of us at the time. I did not do a once-over until recently, so those contracts are now also removed for not abiding by the unsaid guidelines that existed before. Apparently that trust that people won't submit bad contracts on purpose is being broken so I will be drafting up an announcement in the morning since I have my two days off for this week.

The Syndicate does not contract highly trained mercenaries to mildly inconvenience crewmembers for paltry sums of credits. The goals of the Syndicate are to undermine NanoTrasen operations, damage or steal company assets and break rapport built between the company and other organizations. These contracts do nothing to push that narrative (rather, they do the opposite because the syndicate doesn't hire pranksters, it's about as grimdark as it gets when it comes to terrorism and corporate espionage), ergo, they were denied. This was not something that wasn't understood as one of the wiki maintainers, AgentWhatever, echoed exactly what I wanted to say but simply had no energy to deal with you in another one-sided childish argument going your way.

And I told you twice I was able to have this conversation in DMs to discuss what was exactly wrong with the contracts. You refused, openly threatening to open a staff complaint against me if I did not answer to the entire staff lobby in our own discord to watch you embarass yourself because I didn't give you an answer you liked. I have no obligation to be cooperative to such an entitled and childish attitude. If you have nothing to add to a conversation that isn't constructive then you shouldn't participate in that conversation at all.

I have enough issues keeping my blood pressure normal with you constantly harassing me over these things in front of the entire staff. It is bewildering you are so adamant on attempting to tear at me for this. Do you have nothing better to do at the moment? Stop.

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

I provided transcripts of our conversation. I don't want to have DM's with you because I want us both to be accountable for anything said in the conversation. It's a little problematic and biased if the person I am appealing to is the person who issued the punishment. As you can tell by the transcript I asked you to better elaborate your reasons, and you refused, saying it was a meme contract. That is not a sentence that describes anything.

I did not "threaten" you. You told me to stop talking about it or open a staff complaint. I literally took your suggestion. Why would you tell me to open a staff complaint if you're going to complain about me taking a staff complaint? Was it a bluff?

There is a clear standard in each contract.

1) It prefaces the justification for the contract

2) It clearly outlines specific actions to take against them and establishes the 'spirit' of interactions to have with the victim

In addition, I personally went to each player who's characters were targetted and asked them if they liked the contract. All of them said they were fine with them, otherwise I would not have posted it.

Removing the contracts approved by Incog (who you literally just said you're enforcing the same standards of) is incredibly unprofessional and I am genuinely shocked that you just went and did that. I am deeply disappointed and frustrated. You removed all of my approved contracts in response to a complaint I just took out on you - this looks exactly like an attempt to punish me for this complaint.

[Scheveningen]

I provided transcripts of our conversation. I don't want to have DM's with you because I want us both to be accountable for anything said in the conversation.

 

You mean you didn't want to have the discussion because if you took it with me privately I'd argue a better case than if you set me up to be judged by the entire staff team that has less context in the matter than you and I do. That's not fairness, that's intimidation. I'm fully aware of how these tactics work considering how closely I work with corporate at my IRL job. You can deny this but it is still the same methodology, it doesn't matter what you say to defend yourself, your way of doing it makes it look like you were poisoning the well to begin with.

I did not issue a "punishment," that's nonsense. The contracts were denied and removed, that's it. That's the entire point of contract moderation. You're free to open more serious ones. I'm not restricting your ability to open contracts, just write up good ones and there will be no issues, I will accept them if you go over the details with me in DMs to ask for criticism on how to make it better and such. If you or anyone else write up bad ones, they'll get removed, it doesn't matter who does it, the head admin could offer 100,000 credits for a bounty on a space pixie and I'd still deny and remove it. That's not much to ask. It's not bias, it's quality control. I assume the loremaster would know what that entails.

 

Removing the contracts approved by Incog (who you literally just said you're enforcing the same standards of) is incredibly unprofessional and I am genuinely shocked that you just went and did that. I am deeply disappointed and frustrated. You removed all of my approved contracts in response to a complaint I just took out on you - this looks exactly like an attempt to punish me for this complaint.

 

And if we're honest, he got lazy at the tail end of his admin career with us, largely due to his growing disinterest in the server, I wouldn't be surprised if he clicked "approve" on most of them.

Among other things I could think people would find issues with, I didn't fathom this would be one of them.

Why is it so difficult for you to speak to people one-on-one over serious matters without being in front of multiple other people watching the conversation, exactly?

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

Why is it so difficult for you to speak to people one-on-one over serious matters without being in front of multiple other people watching the conversation, exactly?

 

AbOshehOb - Today at 5:52 PM

Can you two discuss this further, a complaint is really not necessary. How can JB make it presentable to you?(edited)

Scheveningen - Today at 5:52 PM

It will probably get nowhere as far as I am concerned.

AbOshehOb - Today at 5:53 PM

Just try

Scheveningen - Today at 5:53 PM

Have tried before. Haven't really succeeded in gaining common ground. Ergo, no point in trying something that doesn't work.

Senpai Jackboot - Today at 5:53 PM

that's a dismissive way to look at it

 

that's why.

[Scheveningen]

Then as far as your perception is concerned this will never get solved the way you're going about it. Sorry that you're upset that I do contract moderating in a way that you don't like, but I do things in a way that you don't like most of the time anyways.

[Garnascus]

Those contracts were apparently all accepted by Incog before he left the server. I did not have oversight over those contracts, as the effort was split between the two of us at the time. I did not do a once-over until recently, so those contracts are now also removed for not abiding by the unsaid guidelines that existed before. Apparently that trust that people won't submit bad contracts on purpose is being broken so I will be drafting up an announcement in the morning since I have my two days off for this week.

 

It is exceedingly inappropriate to cull additional contracts whilst your judgement over the status of a single contract is being questioned. You're being overly hostile and incredibly rude in this complaint. I do not know why you're taking this so personally. a complaint, even a frivolous one is an opportunity to engage in a reasonable dialogue about why you made the decision you made. If the other side is being flippant or egregiously acting in bad faith then thats on them and all it will do is make it easy for me to go "yeah you definitely made the right call here"

 

The Syndicate does not contract highly trained mercenaries to mildly inconvenience crewmembers for paltry sums of credits. The goals of the Syndicate are to undermine NanoTrasen operations, damage or steal company assets and break rapport built between the company and other organizations. These contracts do nothing to push that narrative (rather, they do the opposite because the syndicate doesn't hire pranksters, it's about as grimdark as it gets when it comes to terrorism and corporate espionage), ergo, they were denied.

 

This is reasonable and absolutely your call to make as one of the people that handle antag contracts. I agree with your reasoning here and you have a good reason to deny the initial contract. Theres serious issues with everything else however and now this complaint is not as easy as it could have been.

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

I GUESS I can see the reasoning if there was an actual policy written down somewhere for me to frame the contract off of. That was not provided and his justification was very flimsy and petty, but if his call is valid to make for the initial contract then I can live with that. Of course I'm going to argue in defense of something I created but I can see why it would need to be denied and it could have lead to the creation of an actual policy update.

However I cannot live with the rest of his behavior as you have pointed it out. I am still incredibly flabbergasted that he deleted all of my contracts like that.

[Scheveningen]

Then bite my shiny latex gryphon butt and deal with it like a grown adult, you vapid, pasty mayo drama queen. Just now stepped down from staff so I can say this with few repurcussions here, if you couldn't live with my behavior when I was 1138 I don't know what motivated you to keep on living at all, you over-dramatic ponce. The childishness displayed from you is a fucking wonder to behold and poke at sometimes, most lolcows are not finely bred such as you.

I'll take the forum warning, thank you.

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

ok thanks

[Garnascus]

Then bite my shiny latex gryphon butt and deal with it like a grown adult, you vapid, pasty mayo drama queen. Just now stepped down from staff so I can say this with few repurcussions here, if you couldn't live with my behavior when I was 1138 I don't know what motivated you to keep on living at all, you over-dramatic ponce. The childishness displayed from you is a fucking wonder to behold and poke at sometimes, most lolcows are not finely bred such as you.

I'll take the forum warning, thank you.

 

Well now you've gone ahead and burned this particular bridge. You where almost out the door nicely. You would have been fired had you not resigned. Complaint is....resolved? The initial contract is staying denied for reasons that delta stated and i am upholding because they are actually reasonable. Old contracts will have to be examined. If they do not fit in with the new criteria i can understand removing them but hnnng grandather clause. I will see what abosh thinks.

locking and archiving fml.