Jump to content

Staff Complaint - Coalf, MattAtlas, and Alberyk


Guest Marlon Phoenix

Recommended Posts

Guest Marlon Phoenix

BYOND Key: Jackboot

Staff BYOND Key: Coalf, MattAtlas, and Alberyk

Game ID: bVn-a8QY (Improv Night Hide-Out) ||| bVm-aIQZ (Cruise Ship Vaurca Attack)

Reason for complaint: Bad call on command whitelist strip.

Evidence/logs/etc:

 

So, the CCIA has looked into your conduct in the group of four IRs made, and after discussing with us if an IC or OOC punishment would be better due to your head of staff's behaviour during the round in question, we've settled on an OOC punishment. Specifically, abuse of the announcement system for personal interests, harassing the refugees causing bad PR, extremely unprofessional conduct and the fact that you went on a potentially very dangerous away mission for no reason other than "supply" which could've been handled by anyone else.


Moreover, changing what your character is when it suits you is not okay. You need to decide if you want to go through an unknown portal on a rescue mission as the HoP or if you're a paper pusher that just wants to make sure your entire department is alright. Shifting your character's attitude based on the situation is not something that should be done. Coupled with your notes and previous behaviour, the command whitelist team has decided to strip your head of staff whitelist, effective immediately and permanently.

 

abuse of the announcement system for personal interests,

Once again, as addressed in the complaint on house_of_synth, the announcements were for a fundraiser for wounded veterans. There was a big battle on adhomai that saw a lot of casualties. Lots of wounded veterans. As said in the announcements all proceeds earned would go to non-profits. This is not a personal interest. This is arranging a small lore event and including the crew with the lore. This should not be considered bad command play.

 

harassing the refugees causing bad PR

I gave them sandwiches and water and tried to tell the Tajara refugee that her mother died in a comforting way. I also tried to side with a second refugee, the skrell, when they had a confrontation with security. Where was the harassment? This was not mentioned anywhere.

 

and the fact that you went on a potentially very dangerous away mission for no reason other than "supply" which could've been handled by anyone else.

 

The Event Manager ( [mention]Bygonehero[/mention] ) specifically wanted the beginning of the event to include non-security departments. Going in we were rescuing stranded tourists on a crashed cruise liner. As HoP I recruited a cargo technician to help hand out lunch boxes with food and water as a form of aid for any survivors we found. It was not a highly dangerous away mission. We were expecting harried and panicked survivors. When the scary monster was revealed, the initiative to give sandwiches and water to people was more or less abandoned. You are punishing an attempt to be more inclusive in event participation. It would be metagaming to only have let security board this cruise liner fully equipped with riot armor. We didn't know there was anything more than some hurt and hungry people to encounter. It was completely within reason for Supply to Supply. I asked for cargo volunteers and got one.

 

Moreover, changing what your character is when it suits you is not okay. You need to decide if you want to go through an unknown portal on a rescue mission as the HoP or if you're a paper pusher that just wants to make sure your entire department is alright.

This is another example of the "got'cha" style of admining I noticed and called out in my complaint on House_of_Synth, from Coalf. There was no unknown portal. There was a shuttle being sent to a crashed ocean liner. I was carrying a freezer full of sandwiches and water bottles. You do not need to be a specialized emergency responder to hand out lunch boxes.

 

CoalfToday at 12:53 PM

Everything was given by Matt a punishment consensus was already reached however the discussion then was between an IC and OOC punishment:

Our biggest reason this was taken into OOC in the end were your previous extensive notes with janky head play and further the statement that your character is a backline paper pusher when you have proven otherwise here by, to quote, "strongarming yourself into the event to steal thunder for yourself from the other players".

 

I took no attempt to be a hero during the encounter. I fired no shots, and pushed other characters to take the lead in different incidents (such as Tabby Treckers). There were several encounters on the away mission where Jawdat stumbled on something, and left it well enough alone once someone else came in. See: Letting the Captain personally deal with an armed survivor, letting other crew handle the crazy robot, asking a vaurca to help ID what the monster was, etc. the claim that I was stealing thunder is wrong.

 

Coalf:We've also gotten conflicting points of interest with WHY exactly your character was there, being reported by you that you managed supply but we've also gotten reports that you were there for "sight-seeing"

All the doors were locked and other people had to go in first.... He was trying to find more survivors to give sandwiches to.....

 

Coalf: And the extremely frequent apperance of IR's, plus a very weak if almost no present attempt to correct your behaviour.

How many IR's and how many resulted in punishment, and what length of time have I played since these rounds has my behavior remained so bad? (the idea that the frequency of IR's means there is bad behavior is a load of hokey, let's look instead at the merit of the IR's)


 

CoalfToday at 1:20 PM

I'm sorry but that's how it is sometimes. We talked to the CCIA, we talked with the people, we let CCIA conduct their own investigations to see if it was OOC or IC, we let everything simmer for a while hoping things would calm down and they really didn't.

We didn't have to do much convincing and I'm sorry it had to come this far.

SynnonoToday at 6:13 PM

[sic] I am told Jawdat had OOC handling so we waived any action for him.

 

Jawdat fumbled around a bit because I was playing straight his unfamiliarity with away missions. He handed food to survivors found and helped Tabby Treckers, the cargo technician he was having help him. When things got violent or weird, he moved Tabby to the cockpit saying there were a lot of toys and games in there so she wouldn't see things like the dead body on the shuttle.


There's nothing in what I did that stole glory, or made Jawdat into an action hero. You are just doing a "got'cha" moment. Jawdat's character did not change in either of these events. He acted the same. He went into and handled and responded to each incident consistently. Comparing the two situations to each other is a misnomer. He was coordinating a supply and civilian response to the crashed cruiser, and when the monster appeared he focused on keeping away from it. The only change was trying to persuade a Vaurca to identify the monster, and pulling the vaurca around hoping to catch a glimpse, but fleeing if they actually saw it.


I took steps to involve crew that were not command but yet made sense within the situation. I would have also brought a chaplain or counselor if we had one, but there was a seething resentment from the security department towards anyone that was not geared up in a riot suit (or from the medical department) participating in the mission. When there was the actual attack, I fled to the bunker and stood in there. But that got boring and was not helpful to creating an interactive round for the players so Jawdat left the bunker to run around with a vaurca trying to snap a pic of the monster slippin'. He never did encounter the monster again, because of fear, and later being gibbed by a shuttle glitch.


Additional remarks:

There was also a lot of complaining at how Jawdat handled the sedition against the captain during the monster attack. Because conspiring to commit sedition, insulting the Captain to his face, and being heavily armed as you commit sedition is completely fine from an OOC perspective but asking the Captain is he's going to (nonlethally) shoot the apparently rogue HoS is no bueno. Give me a break.


There is a good exchange that encapsulates my views on the situation.

 

[Common] Daniel Carmichael asks, "Are you allowed to use your occupation here as a means of pushing political things?"

[Common] Rrazujun Rrhazkal-Jawdat says, "It's a fucking charrrrrity forrr wounded veterrrans Carrrmichael."

 

There is such a sharp, monolithic divide between command and non-command. Unless I play security, I am shunned out of events and participation within any sort of abnormal shenanigan going on the station. There is a persistent complaint since the first antag contest about the exclusivity of events. As Command I can interact with these incidents and try to rope in non-security to break this mindset of sec exclusive events. I am not within any of the established circles of friends so I cannot even use the favoritism within these groups as noncommand to shoehorn myself within these circumstances. This genuinely feels to me like a retaliation against trying to play in our canon events as non-security.


https://forums.aurorastation.org/viewtopic.php?p=102752#p102752

https://forums.aurorastation.org/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=11533 - HoS complaint

Link to comment

I'm not going to do the quote by quote thing, it's draining.


The reason it was titled as abuse of coms is because you're making it a clear advertisement for your own products and a charity second as an excuse, it was ruled as abuse by CCIA and we happened to agree with them.

One, you had no reason to be there, you admit it was an unfamiliar situation and your entire previous defence was that Jawdat likes upholding morale and is a paper pusher, he clearly had no idea what he was doing because every time he saw a survivor he screamed at the top of his lungs "What the fuck is that", about 2-3 times. This is where the "harassing refugees" comes from and shows that not bringing you would have been the better option since Jawdat had no idea what he was doing.

Also most likely because you took every opportunity to title anyone who disagreed with you as having "bad gas".

Nobody was co-ordinated until AFTER the monster showed up. From the logs I saw you simply ordered Trekkers to come with you, if she said no you would have gone anyways. The charity is important enough for you to let the station deal with a Malf AI but not important enough to let station deal with the refugees, this is the character turn we're talking about.


None of this really explains why he had to be there when 5/6 heads were leaving already, leaving the RD to manage the station alone. This is what put entire command on blast, putting their own fun and importance in an event before other players. There was absolutely no need to have so many heads there.


The strange thing is you agree with me in PM's that it's apperant by the amount of warnings something was wrong with Jawdat and to "trade" him for your command whitelist, but now you turn around and say nothing is wrong. But I get it, opinions change.


Actually everything I said was regarding before the monster even showed up, we didn't address the entire mutiny thing because all of the heads were being stupid and childish.

The thing is right, that after the monster shows up and you have seen it your recruit a vaurca to go translate, fly the shuttle there, tell people to take pictures, raise to blue, co-ordinate cargo with weapons, hide in the bunker, come out of the bunker and finally try to arrest Price.


This is wherein the buried dog lies, why were you such a capable Heads of Personnel in this round but not in the latter malf AI round? This is where the disparity and difference in characters arises, you have descibed Jawdat as a paper-pusher trying to raise morale and here you're doing your actual job as an HoP fulfilling all the criteria and going plus ultra.

 

There is such a sharp, monolithic divide between command and non-command. Unless I play security, I am shunned out of events and participation within any sort of abnormal shenanigan going on the station.

Yes, don't play civilian if you want to be involved in majority of violent events.

This is why away events always get such a bad rep, because civilians have nothing to do because they're civilians. Entertainment industry, the most useless bunch with no applied skill who exist only because our system allows for luxuries to become an available thing even for lower and middle-classes.



Alright here is the thing, almost everyone in the round got punished but your punishment wasn't simply for this one round. It was the culmination of your notes and repeated behaviour (Which you have aknowledged is wrong in our private PM's as the screenshot indicated) and the extreme difference on how your character acts when involved in an event and when forced to deal with a usual boring standard malf AI round.


However I don't speak for the whitelist team and I hope [mention]Alberyk[/mention] along with [mention]Datamatt[/mention]

Link to comment
Guest Marlon Phoenix

Your interpretation of my interactions with the refugees is completely off the ball. Do you have the logs for my encounters with them? I never screamed at them like that. I pushed sandwiches and magazines on them.


Youre also making a lot of assumptions. If trekkers didnt come i would have brought someone else. When a disaster strikes common people can hand out sandwiches and bottles of water to disaster victims. This isnt bad command play. I was handing out food and water. To disaster victims.


And i did my job as hop in both cases. We had a whole song and dance about this. It was resolved as a matter of communicating my intentions icly and oocly. Why did you let it be resolved and closed if punishment was being escalated?


If the monster attacked during a group event on the station then Jawdat would have tried to herd his group to safety and blissful ignorance all over again.


Jawdat did say Ritcher had bad gas because he was embarrassing him. The guy responded by freezing in place and attempting to persuade security to let him arrest Jawdat, and was throwing a huge fit about it. The more consistent arguments were based on the merits of what other people were doing. Actual debates..............


I never tried to arrest the HoS

I vocally encouraged it. I never made a move to arrest the HoS. I said they should be and would probably need to be tased with how they were behaving. Im allowed to call for an arrest of a seditionous command member. I just cannot do it myself. I never cuffed anyone or tried........


Your memory of all of this is very innaccurate and it really looks to me like you arrived at a conclusion (strip my whitelist) then went back to find anything that would justify the action, including incredible exaggeration and wrong interpretations.


Where are the logs?

Link to comment

Welp I had the logs, then I closed the tab I was in and my entire post got deleted so I won't be answering that one today, but I'll probably post them tomorrow.

(note, logs don't display radio chatter only spoken words)

To be short.


1)

Why was Jawdat needed there? You claimed he's unfamiliar with the situation in the first place but you never clear up why the fuck would he go to a suspected burning wreck that could be fitted with corpses and wounded with the first wave instead of deciding y'know, maybe I should see what the scouting team says before I decide to go outside of my expertise and hand out propaganda to children whose mothers have died.


Claiming I make assumptions sure is fun, but the fact that you had prepared the lunches and decided you'll go there before even asking if anyone will come with or if you can go there in the first place.

Jawdat was not needed there, he should be managing the station in the captains absence (the captain should have not gone in the first place and neither should have the CMO)

It's called a command structure for a reason, if one part collapses there are other pillars to hold them down. What if the shuttle crashed and every single one of you died on that ship? Who would man the stations? The RD? The one person whose job is NOT to manage every department if other heads are absent?

Yes people do hand out relief supplies, but they hand them out in shelters and after it's been established that it's safe.


I'm sick of having to link the Heads of Personnel page you yourself wrote because you fail again and again to follow the criteria you set yourself.

You wrote that article objectively and without your tailfeathers being on fire, that is why I trust it more.


2)

I didn't resolve your complaint, Matt did, I don't have any "Mind Control" powers over Matt or Alberyk so I sadly cannot tell them which whitelist to remove and when, neither was I the only person conducting investigations and thus the "You just wanted to strip my whitelist and now you're searching for reasons why!" kinda dies there.

Further if you think you did absolutely nothing wrong there I am glad I agreed with the decision to take your whitelist.

And if you would have done the same thing as you did previously in case of a monster attack now, we would be meeting here once more.


3)

"Bad gas" didn't serve to show how much of a shitty head you are. It was to show that almost every head in the round acted like an absolute child and as you can see by the third staff complaint, it was to show that we, the whitelist team aren't the only ones who think you absolutely failed to do your job properly as the CCIA would have punished you anyways.



4)

Yes I admit I misread that log, it was Richter saying that ICly. And I apologise for it.


In the End:

There is a lot to unpack here and as I said myself I don't speak for the entire whitelist team. For now I'll keep my mouth shut so it doesn't turn into an insane back&forth as it has before as we clearly do not see eye to eye.

Again, I'm not the one handling the complaint, I think I explained myself and my reasons for why I agreed on the strip.

Aboshehab has to resolve it himself and the others need to defend their own points.

Link to comment
Guest Marlon Phoenix

I cannot understand how you are going on about complaining about events being exclusively constrained to the security department, and within the same breath turning around and punishing me and saying my command play is bad because I go out of my way to include non-security into an event where the event manager specifically wanted non-security to be involved in the initial wave to the shuttle.


I went because I was bringing non-command to hand out food and aid to disaster victims. Yes Coalf something went awry and things got messy. But a cargo technician got to be involved with the opening phase of the event and parts of the middle stage. I would have brought a few more but there was already seething anger at Supply going.


We went in expecting disaster survivors who needed food, medical help, and comfort. Security was there to 'riot control', medical was there to give medical aid, and supply was there to supply. Disaster response is not just SWAT and EMT.


You are punishing a command playstyle that tries to focus on inclusivity, drowning me in the technicalities of everything that does not follow a specific interpretation of the guide. It's mean spirited. You either expect non-security Command to try to involve people in events (even if they are in over their head) or you sequester events behind security because its the most "realistic" thing to do. You can't complain about exclusivity then punish me for acting against exclusivity. This is such bad faith. My proactive behavior as Jawdat was not validhunting or powergaming or trying to win the round. I was including other people and I never fired a shot. Is this seriously something you're putting on the same par as a HoP running into the cruise ship, arresting the refugees and personally trying to gun down the monster?


The primary problems that I have consistently gotten are with the tonal dissonance of Jawdat, not his style of command. I worked to remain in-character at all times and not having out of character gags.


I am honestly getting out of you that the only way I can legitimately include myself into any abnormal situation on the station is to play HoS.

Link to comment

As Coalf said, we did not only take in consideration the bound event, and one of the biggest issues was most of the command staff leaving the station on their own, we are not saying that only security has the right to do anything, but command staff is supossed to send their minions first, when possible and which I do think it was the case. Instead, the chief engineer, the chief medical officer, the captain and the head of personnel left the station, when they could have just send the people they do control and can order around. When I do believe that bygone and myself tried the best to include everyone, a lot of people did feel that command staff itself was hijacking it, by going on their own, "stealing the thunder" of the crew.


Another detail that did left me puzzled in Jawdat's characters, was when the crew ram away from the first contact with the monster, was him offering to get them back the away site, which clearly had a hostile creature, instead of just sending somoene else. Which was brought at the time, get in conflict with the "coward paperpush" that was painted in the synth's complaint if I am not wrong.

 

[04:10:55] bVm-alQZ SAY: Jackboot/(Rrazujun Rrhazkal-Jawdat) : (Ceti Basic) HoS do you want me to fly the shuttle since I know how?

 

We did discuss what was given to us by the ccia, synth's warning and what else we had as evidence, notes and etc in your case, and it was a decision that all of us did take with this in consideration. We would surely not strip this whitelist in question if it was the first time that those issues did show up. While I do agree with the points already exposed by Coalf, the final decison on this matter belongs to the whitelist team overseer.

Link to comment
Guest Marlon Phoenix

I didnt want to fall into "gotcha" arguments which is why ive been getting more and more justifications before pursuing this line of argument:


Your decision to strip my whitelist is based on a catch 22. In the malf ai incident you ran into me hard about being too passive in my command play. I could have gone out and coordinated and oversaw a response to the malf ai.


In the vaurca incident you ran into me hard for being too active, and are stripping my whitelist for a history that is contary to your reason.


I went left and you punished me for going left. So i go right, and you punish me and say my whitelist is being stripped for a history of wrong turns.


My command play during the cruise liner event was active yes but it always involved a noncommand crew member and jawdat didnt throw himself into overly dangerous situations.


He piloted a shuttle and handed out sandwiches and participated in the commands overall response (which was primarily criticising, in the beginning, a heavy handed security response to a rescue mission).


I cant do both. You say i am lying about my intentions and change my characters level of bravery to suit my needs.


I say you are the ones that asked me to change and now you are saying i am acting in bad faith.


Am i just never able to play command right? How am i too proactive and too passive at the same time? Are you situational with your expectations to always call out what you see as the worst in me?


This is why i said you wanted to strip my whitelist and just looked back to find reasons.


You say i should have fought a malfunctioning ai and then say i should not have used autopilot to fly a shuttle into a dangerous area.


I genuinely have no idea what you want from me because when i do what you say i should do you cite it as evidence that im not doing the right thing.

Link to comment

Christ Almigthy, I just can't watch this.


Again, this isn't an A or B option, there is a very cut clear path, there are deviations on this path correct but it's a very straightforward path with minimum responsibilities.

In the Vaurca event you did all your responsibilities as a HoP, you raised to blue, you delegated your department to get supplies, you ordered a translator for the vaurca. In scope those were your responsibilities.

But all of this was done AFTER everything we raised as an issue, AFTER we asked you why Jawdat was there, AFTER we asked why Jawdat decided to fly back, AFTER the fact that as we already said that 5 out of 6 heads on an away mission leaving the station completely abandonned for the RD(whose responsibility it is NOT to manage HUMAN RESOURCES) to tend to.

There were correct thing to do, you did a lot of things correctly but there was a lot of things you did badly because you wanted to be included in an event. This isn't an assumption again, you decided to make an entire manifesto about how unfair it is that you aren't allowed to be included in events even if you try your hardest to shove yourself into them.


Yes there is an issue with inclusion, but that issue EXISTS because CIVILIANS forfeit their RESPONSIBILITIES, thus they are LESS INVOLVED. It is a trade-off, civilians are the entertainment industry, a luxury and they need to learn to accept that security, medical and engineering are going to be more involved because they have more responsibilities making them more important.


You hark and hark about inclusion this and inclusion that and completely ignore the fact 3 departments were present excluding yourself and Trekkers, Engineering, Security and Medical out of the existing 6.

Security - Ensure the crew is safe, if the crew is ordered to go on a rescue mission they would logically be there.

Engineering - Manual skills, excellent for deconstructing walls and clearing debree, perfect for a rescue operation.

Medical - No comments

Then we have the rest that were not, "included"

Supply - Ensure the station crew is well supplied, medkits, roller beds, bodybags, food, water. They are not supposed to dig through rubble and search for corpses, they're supposed to deliver supplies.

Research - Research, completely uninvolved in this event judging from logs.

Civilian - Luxuries, food, water. Again not the people to take to go through rubble and search for corpses and survivors.


Establishing a camp on the other side where refugees can stay = Perfect, awesome, exactly what should be done and a great way to involve civilians in this event aswell as supply.

Establishing a camp on station where refugees can stay = Great, awesome, same as above.

Bringing supplies to the rescuers = Great, nice, supply is included and you have a reason to go a bit further into the rubble while at the same time doing a great job.

Going through rubble with untrained personnel searching for dead and wounded so you can give them lunch = No.


Was the HoS, CE, Captain, CMO and HoP needed there? Absolutely not, this was an extreme unnecessary risk. Captain should not be going away from the station in the first place, neither should be the HoP, CMO or HoS, they should have delegated the response teams rather than take full control and run into the potentially dangerous rubble to have event fun. Actively taking any plot-relevance of players away and substittuing it with their own.

Everyone was punished for fucking up, not just you.


But this, this is the really fun part.


Nobody punished or warned you after the Vaurca event, the only action that was taken were in-character IR's which logically Jawdat can't see the IR's made against him, but even if he did all of the IR's were made due to the ""mutiny"", not front-lining so even OOCly you couldn't mistake it as such.

So let's imagine that the Vaurca round was you going right, as you say catch 22 or whatever, this is you going Right.


Then after the interview, during which you did not know that possible action could be taken for front-lining, you decide to go in the other way, as you said yourself, to the left and be completely Passive instead of active.


Do you get what we're saying you decided to switch personalities when it suits you?

We didn't punish you for going one way and then punished you for going the other, you decided to switch personalities on your own when it suited you.

This isn't a gotcha moment, this is me explaining our logic and stepping stones, hell you yourself have aknowleddged it in your own argument man.


EDIT: I typed this up on my lunch-break, I'll provide logs later today to for my previous post.

Link to comment
Guest Marlon Phoenix

I do have a question.


Why did you DM Coalf for explanations and questions about your whitelist strip rather than the person who DM'd you about it? Moreover, why did you go to Coalf to ask if the punishment could be lessened?

 

He's in charge of the whitelists and was the one that wanted to punish me as his posts on my staff complaint on house of synth shows.

Link to comment

I do have a question.


Why did you DM Coalf for explanations and questions about your whitelist strip rather than the person who DM'd you about it? Moreover, why did you go to Coalf to ask if the punishment could be lessened?

 

He's in charge of the whitelists and was the one that wanted to punish me as his posts on my staff complaint on house of synth shows.

 

All three are in charge of whitelists.

Link to comment
Guest Marlon Phoenix

He was the one that had already indicated he wanted ounishment from the previous complaint. He was involved and had a stake in it and wanted this to pass. He was already clocked in and involved. The others didnt say anything as much as coalf in the complaint i made previously. I knew coalf would seek upgraded punishment when he jumped into my previous warning. I got what info i needed from matt with his own question from me. If either of the others had been as aggressive i would have asked them questions too.


I asked why the strip was chosen over a job ban when the problem he had was over one character.



"Nobody punished or warned you after the Vaurca event"


Youve spent many words justifying this strip based on my actions in the event. This is a punishment for the event. Your problem is with my command play, not the specific characters personality, as you have said.

Link to comment
Guest Marlon Phoenix

Ill put it here in public since i asked coalf in dm


"As an aside why was my entire roster deleted from command if the issue is the singular character of jawdat and ive had no listed issues with my HoS or CMO play? its clear you guys dont like the character. Why was the decision made for the blanket ban from command rather than a job ban?"


I guess "because we said so" is a valid response to this. I was upset in the moment at what seemed a nuclear option.

Link to comment

I realized I never posted the notes, my mistake.

 

[03:19:37] bVm-alQZ SAY: CampinKiller/(Marc Price) : (Ceti Basic) What's the plan for the survivors who are not wounded?


[03:19:45] bVm-alQZ SAY: Jackboot/(Rrazujun Rrhazkal-Jawdat) : (Ceti Basic) Kill them.

 


 

[03:34:35] bVm-alQZ SAY: Jackboot/(Rrazujun Rrhazkal-Jawdat) : (Ceti Basic) WHAT IN THE SHIT IS THAT


[03:34:36] bVm-alQZ SAY: (Qui-Ip Laqx-Itix) : (Ceti Basic) I have a grenade.


[03:34:39] bVm-alQZ SAY: Jackboot/(Rrazujun Rrhazkal-Jawdat) : (Ceti Basic) h its a skrrrell




[03:34:41] bVm-alQZ SAY: Jackboot/(Rrazujun Rrhazkal-Jawdat) : (Ceti Basic) Hello skrrrell

 



 

[03:43:57] bVm-alQZ SAY: (Sikaevi Suhn'Krashzkrikh) : (Ceti Basic) HoP could you refrain from disstributing war propaganda to people who are disssstressssssed?

 

[03:42:50] bVm-alQZ SAY: (Aisha El-Saif) : (Ceti Basic) Herr motherr is missing and he gives prrropaganda!

These are all the notes, to explain further:

The gaps bewtween the phrases are gaps in time and deleted conversations of everyone who was not in the scene.

I tried my best to read into where who was but if I missed something or accidentally taken something/someone out of context, I do apologise.


All Ckey's have been redacted except yours since we've publicly discussed who your character is.


Do keep in mind, logs don't log a lot of actions like opening lockets, pulling people without using an intent, your position etc. etc. I tried my best to clean this up.

EDIT: Edite out "Ckeys" and replaced with "logs", missplaced a word.

EDIT 2: For the note I will avoid answering your question as I have already answered it before in PM's when you asked me and the general thought is that I'm trying to get you.

Link to comment

This took me a while to think over, so I'll go over it point by point until I reveal the verdict.


 

  • I do need to agree that there does appear a disparity in Jawdats playstyle as command. For a server which values persistence and consistence in character roleplay, doing 180 degree switches such as those don't really paint a positive image to me.

 


I'm not sure what's there to call out about the specific type of administration. If a staff member sees an issue, naturally it'll be a gotcha to the player. I don't believe you're being inherently malicious here with these shifts, but it's still an issue. You have a character, yes they can change, but they shouldn't flip from being a sun and then a moon each round. So I do agree with them on this point.


 

  • As unfortunate as it is to say, you do have a history with brushing up against the rules, some while playing command and others revolve around general rule violations. As per the rules of staff enforcement, punishments are given for a sum of violations. This is doubly mentioned in the command whitelist rules.

 


They've stated that they've reviewed your entries, which I also double checked, so I do concur with them that they are proper on this front.


 

  • Reviewing the thread a couple of times now, I've noticed that the person filing this complaint seems to have bypassed a couple of points raised and diverted to other topics. Given the time this complaint has been up, I'm going to assume that no suitable reply was thought of. An example.

 

Another detail that did left me puzzled in Jawdat's characters, was when the crew ram away from the first contact with the monster, was him offering to get them back the away site, which clearly had a hostile creature, instead of just sending somoene else. Which was brought at the time, get in conflict with the "coward paperpush" that was painted in the synth's complaint if I am not wrong.

 


This point by Alberyk was never really countered? I'm just seeing an argument about catch 22 and how they aren't giving you a singular path. I don't see the team as punishing you for all the paths. I'm seeing part of the reason of the strip as due to my first point.


 

  • There seems the belief that the action of the strip was something spearheaded by Coalf on some form of agenda. As per reviewing their discussion and responses, I also feel that this claim doesn't have much ground to stand on. I've specifically reviewed their discussion and the decision was a collaborative effort.

 


With all those points said and done, my verdict is that the punishment given was just and fair given the material reviewed, which I do not find to be lacking. Meaning that the whitelist is not being returned. I have went ahead and asked for the conditions of reapplication if you'd like to.

 

  • You can reapply a month after the date of the whitelist being stripped.

  • You're free to use your previous application, but that does not guarantee being accepted.

  • In the notes section, you'll need to outline the reason it was initially stripped.

Link to comment
Guest Marlon Phoenix

This took me a while to think over, so I'll go over it point by point until I reveal the verdict.


 

  • I do need to agree that there does appear a disparity in Jawdats playstyle as command. For a server which values persistence and consistence in character roleplay, doing 180 degree switches such as those don't really paint a positive image to me.

 


I'm not sure what's there to call out about the specific type of administration. If a staff member sees an issue, naturally it'll be a gotcha to the player. I don't believe you're being inherently malicious here with these shifts, but it's still an issue. You have a character, yes they can change, but they shouldn't flip from being a sun and then a moon each round. So I do agree with them on this point.


 

  • As unfortunate as it is to say, you do have a history with brushing up against the rules, some while playing command and others revolve around general rule violations. As per the rules of staff enforcement, punishments are given for a sum of violations. This is doubly mentioned in the command whitelist rules.

 


They've stated that they've reviewed your entries, which I also double checked, so I do concur with them that they are proper on this front.


 

  • Reviewing the thread a couple of times now, I've noticed that the person filing this complaint seems to have bypassed a couple of points raised and diverted to other topics. Given the time this complaint has been up, I'm going to assume that no suitable reply was thought of. An example.

 

Another detail that did left me puzzled in Jawdat's characters, was when the crew ram away from the first contact with the monster, was him offering to get them back the away site, which clearly had a hostile creature, instead of just sending somoene else. Which was brought at the time, get in conflict with the "coward paperpush" that was painted in the synth's complaint if I am not wrong.

 


This point by Alberyk was never really countered? I'm just seeing an argument about catch 22 and how they aren't giving you a singular path. I don't see the team as punishing you for all the paths. I'm seeing part of the reason of the strip as due to my first point.


 

  • There seems the belief that the action of the strip was something spearheaded by Coalf on some form of agenda. As per reviewing their discussion and responses, I also feel that this claim doesn't have much ground to stand on. I've specifically reviewed their discussion and the decision was a collaborative effort.

 


With all those points said and done, my verdict is that the punishment given was just and fair given the material reviewed, which I do not find to be lacking. Meaning that the whitelist is not being returned. I have went ahead and asked for the conditions of reapplication if you'd like to.

 

  • You can reapply a month after the date of the whitelist being stripped.

  • You're free to use your previous application, but that does not guarantee being accepted.

  • In the notes section, you'll need to outline the reason it was initially stripped.

 

Arguing any of the cited points is pointless given the appeal is denied.


The take away i have from this whole affair is that the ooc responsibility of pushing the round to have crew involvements with events is a violation of the rules if the character in command used does not respond in the same way each time. Character consistency is more important than involving noncommand.


By coalfs words i also take away service and civilian should not participate in events where security had perogative.


I have also taken away that committing sedition on a canon round carries a lesser punishment than a character behaving differently to situations, given the other player was suspended of one character for one month for one job, wherin i have lost all of my characters for all command jobs.


Im not going to abandon my playstyle of inclusion of noncommand when i play the game. I will do better on consistency and ethos in a character but i cannot play to isolate noncommand and nonsec from events. So the only thing i can do is not play canon events, or if i do, i know from here that i playing HoS, captain, or security officer ate the only permissable method to influence the round and Im never going to participate in any event as anything other than a security officer, hos, or captain are the only safe means of determining who is allowed to participate in a Command sense.


Ill continue to play Jawdat in his noncommand presence and continue to work on consistency. Ill try my best to have his personality morph into what you find acceptable, and see where in the years hes been a played character he went wrong.


I don't know what to do with all my other command characters since they are also deemed problematic from my playstyle?

Thanks for your consideration.

Link to comment
committing sedition

 

As the person being referenced here, let me just say that what occurred was not sedition. There was no inciting of a rebellion, or "rallying" against the chain of command/conspiring against the chain of command. At worst what was committed was Failure to Execute an Order w/Serious Consequences.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...