Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Survival of the Fittest, a RPing board loosely based off of Koshun Takami's Battle Royale, with its own unique plot and spin on the 'deadly game'. We've been around quite a while, and are now in our thirteenth year, so don't worry about us going anywhere any time soon!

If you're a newcomer and interested in joining, then please make sure you check out the rules. You may also want to read the FAQ, introduce yourself and stop by the chat to meet some of our members. If you're still not quite sure where to start, then we have a great New Member's Guide with a lot of useful information about getting going. Don't hesitate to PM a member of staff (they have purple usernames) if you have any questions about SOTF and how to get started!

Let the games begin!

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Staff Responsibility/Accountability
Topic Started: May 30 2017, 02:31 PM (3,006 Views)
Espi
Member Avatar
Death By Truth
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
This has been bothering me a lot, for a few reasons, so I wanted to post here just to give my stance and hopefully provide some reasonable solutions.

First of all, as someone just noted, I feel I have a degree of personal involvement in this, because it was in my thread that Scout and Bart went inactive and I feel responsible because I held up the thread for two weeks. Obviously that doesn't excuse Ciel and Aura entirely, but that's another matter that I'll go into later.

Also, I feel like this conflict is growing rather than being resolved, which is concerning. As a few people have said, everyone just wants the site to be a fair and fun place to write (about murder). The issue is essentially subjective, because it asks where the rules need to be drawn. If we didn't need rules, then everything would be fine, but as much as I love the people here (seriously, you're all great) unfortunately none of us are perfect, and we can't always universally agree, so consistent guidelines need to be in place.

As for the actual topic, I take the side of staff on this one, for a couple of reasons. For starters, I don't feel like staff is obliged to stay with an erroneous ruling just because it favors the member. In a perfect world, there would be no errors, but mistakes happen, and I think resolving them to be consistent is important.

The biggest thing that I think isn't being brought out to the appropriate extent is that Ciel did actually get a second appeal and made one, which was denied. I would absolutely disagree with staff saying 'well you made an appeal already' because it should've been obvious Ciel's initial message was not his proper appeal. But a staffer made a mistake, was corrected, and the system was followed appropriately afterwards. So as much as I respect Ciel as a writer and like him as a person, I don't know that I would rule differently.

That being said, I don't think this has been addressed by staff appropriately. As far as I'm aware, neither Ciel nor Murder feel that an official statement has been provided, and I think that needs to be done. This is a serious matter and it could absolutely end up a wound that never fully heals if there's no closure and the parties don't feel it was adequately resolved in either favor.

I also really disagree with the actual posting of the inactive kill. Since again, the whole discussion doesn't feel like it has been properly finalized and no staff decision was made in a public setting, it feels like staff attempting to say 'nope it's done they're dead move on'. I don't think that's the intent (I have much more faith in our staff team than that) but it's not the right way to handle this. To that end, I think the actual scene was rushed out, since it doesn't feel like it really attempted to meet the characters' desires. Aura, who admittedly is not directly involved in the primary conflict, has obviously stated that he feels the post disrupted his intents for the future (specifically meanwhile plans) and didn't feel faithful to the work he put into Bart's development.

These aren't issues that can be taken lightly, obviously, and I don't think this situation can just be brushed off. My suggestion would be to find a way to improve Ciel and Aura's feelings on the death, possibly by giving them a chance to be involved in discussing the inactive kill scenario. Obviously that's not normally how things are done, but this hasn't been normal since the beginning, and it wouldn't seem unreasonable to give some measure of involvement to an inactive character's death if that character's handler is still around and involved. The inactivity rules are important to keep things flowing and fair, but it shouldn't be at the detriment of a member who hasn't left the site and is still active themselves.

I also think this is a sign of a much larger issue, namely transparency in moderation. I think a lot of stuff has become enforced as official even though it's off the books (tangentially, the profile guidelines may need updating so that they can fully explain expectations). I think it needs to be obvious how staff will handle a situation based on precedent and rules as written, with an admitted need for some leniency when the situation can afford it. We don't need this to be a totalitarian state, but it does need to be fair and people shouldn't be able to break or even bend rules just willy-nilly.

That's basically all I have to say. I think staff has the right to change a decision when that initial decision was unfair, but I think handlers deserve some measure of understanding of what's going on at any given time.
V5: Cut Short


V6: Broken Down


V7: Unprepared
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ciel
Member Avatar
"Thatís not a prediction, thatís a spoiler.Ē
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
As Espi brought up, I did actually put in a second appeal. The contents of the pms are not important; I thought I had sufficient grounds to appeal the decision, a family medical emergency that I do not want to discuss further, and clearly staff thought differently.

Ultimately this thread has nothing to do with whether or not my second appeal was granted. Instead, as Riki pointed out, it is about the way staff has dealt with this entire matter. I already came into this thread knowing I probably would probably not be getting Scout back. Staff have been dragging their feet about the matter this entire time, so something in the pit of my chest told me it was going to come down to this. But that changes nothing to me. If I wanted to continue playing as Scout I would shove her into SC2. This is bigger than one character.

( ... Also Aura isn't the only one who is unhappy with the death thread. I wasn't even going to bring up my grievances about it but it feels like people are about as unhappy as I am about it. Bart doesn't even sound like Bart. I just can't imagine him strangling someone. Also, Scout does something that is completely out of character for her to do. Not only would she not go to sleep in the same building as someone else, she's been struggling with insomnia. Also, how the hell do you not reflexively let go of the death grip you have on somebody's throat after getting shot at point-blank range? I know Bart is fat but c'mon, he's not the Hulk, he's not a brick wall. And Scout's gun isn't a semi-automatic, this is a mini-machine gun at as close of a range as you can get. There should be no such thing as a locked door with a gun like that. )
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Primrosette
Member Avatar
Contender
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
I looked back at the death thread again and I've been thinking about it. I think Aura and Ciel should at least be given a chance to handle Bart and Scout's deaths instead. It was too rushed and definitely not the way that the both of the characters would have acted. Although, I don't think that would happen but I wanted to pipe up about it myself.
Their Time Is gone
 

Spoiler: click to toggle


V7


In The Future
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MurderWeasel
Member Avatar
You've been counting stars, now you're counting on me
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
A couple thoughts:

RC
 
Why is a character who has not posted for a month without an away allowed to have a proper death thread written by their handler, but Jeff and Aura have a death post handled by SOTF_Help mid through a discussion? Staff has the right to declare inactive characters dead, but at least let the death be handled by their handlers when they're active. Equality, guys. A month is the double of 2 weeks.


There's actually a really specific reason for this, and I don't think it's an incorrect choice on staff's part (bar the "midway through a discussion" bit). The short of it is, killing characters off takes a lot of staff time and effort and is usually a last resort. If a character is rolled but the death is taking forever, staff is faced with a choice. If they intervene, they either have to do the scene in progress on the handler's part (which produces roughly the same results as letting it go, but potentially actually slower as staff has to catch up, and likely at lower quality as staff isn't as familiar with the character) or do something totally different (burning those currently involved with the death, and also being kinda slow and not as great). If they don't intervene, that stuff is avoided.

Meanwhile, if a character is inactive, it's pretty important that staff write the death, just because of what inactivity means. If staff allow handlers to write inactive deaths, it raises a really big question: why are the characters dying to begin with? If someone can be trusted to get a death together, that's effectively a second chance. At that point, just let them keep writing the character! Otherwise, it looks like the purpose of the inactivity system is narrowing the field, which it really isn't (at least, in my experience).

I don't think that the thread in question is meant as an insult. I think it's a pretty standard inactive situation absent the external circumstances around it, and there's a lot of complicated stuff that goes into writing such threads. It's not mid-bathroom-break-collarsplosion here. Stepping into an unoriginal character's story just to end it is really tough, will almost never feel totally satisfying or line up with a character's story well, and just kinda sucks all around, and I think by and large staff do the best they can.





re: communicating with staff, I also had mixed feelings about the "new" rule, but mostly just because it confused me. Heck, it still confuses me, since as I mentioned a while ago it doesn't actually seem to apply to the situation in this thread. I do think that in most cases a simple "Thanks for raising this concern, I'll have to bring it up with staff and get back to you," suffices. There's even room for a "Here's my personal opinion, but this is very much not up to me and needs to go through staff as a collective." I think everyone agrees that nobody should be pressuring staffers one on one and that decisions should involve the whole staff if necessary, but I'd also put forward that staff made it this far dealing with all kinds of stuff without routing people through Help, just via solid in-staff procedures. The weird thing to me about the rule is that it's basically no major change to how stuff has always been handled, except removing a bit of staff responsibility to be able to deflect.





Malloon
 
If both side of the issue have broken the rules, however (which I would disagree with, since on a purely technical basis, only Ciel broke a rule (sorry Ciel)) and the consequences of both are inconsistent, then the only option left is inconsistency. If there were a rule in place to deal with conflicting rules, then there wouldn't be inconsistency, but there isn't, so whichever option offers the least inconsistency, it seems, would then be the best option. Murder and Riki have said that what Staff says through SOTF_Help should be considered true for fairness for the handlers on the receiving end, even it it's because of an individual member going rogue, but while that might be a good policy and perhaps a good rule, it isn't official. Since it isn't official, even though it perhaps should be, the only inconsistency is perhaps the lack of leniency. I'll get back to this later.


I would disagree here, even in technicality. The rule in question is:

Inactivity PM
 
If you wish to appeal this inactivity, please respond to this PM within three days (seventy-two hours) with your appeal. Failure to respond within the time limit will result in your appeal being denied, unless you are validly listed as Away and thus unable to respond.


I think arguing that Help isn't binding based on stuff outside handlers' knowledge is a very slippery slope. After all, if that's the case, how are we to trust this rule? And what does it mean for the vast majority of the site's rules, which are posted from individual staffers' (or former staffers') accounts? Is all of this stuff unofficial?

Malloon
 
For Ciel's case, which might or might not be a moot point at this point, some people have said say that we can be lenient despite the importance of rules, as long as it's stated that this is a one-off thing because of the mistake made by the member of Staff or because that would be more conducive to the fun we're to have here. The counter-argument that has been made to the first point is that this is not a one-off thing and gives individual staff members too much power, whether or not they're punished afterwards, since this does set a precedent for any case in the future where a staff member makes a mistake - it's either that, or more inconsistency, which would also counter the second point, since that would impact the fun for other people in the future, among other things. In essence, if and on whatever grounds leniency is/would be granted here (since this has been thoroughly discussed and will be brought up in later cases), whatever is granted has to become a new rule.

This same counter-argument above has been used against the idea that there should be a rule that everything that Staff says in official capacity should be true - having individual staff members make a decision that can't be changed can definitely be dangerous. I don't have to say why, I think. That fact that staff members are thoroughly vetted before joining mitigates this somewhat, but staff members are people, and people can make mistakes, as demonstrated here.

I sort of agree here, but the big thing is that there is an enforcement mechanism already in place for rogue staff decisions: internal discussions, procedures, and consequences, as necessary. As I've said before, that could range anywhere from "Please do not do this again," to "Okay, you need to check everything with at least three other staffers before posting and failure brings dire consequences," to "Sorry, you're off staff." It's all about magnitude and results. I think making everyone wait a day to see if staff means what they say is an unnecessary slowdown--that sort of thing should come before they say it! Especially since staff check-in has been something that's been harped on a good bit internally (I don't have the text anymore, but I had a couple rambles on this a few months before dropping from the team).





re: RC's point about who the staffer was, I actually disagree. I do think new staffers make mistakes, often. That's part of the learning curve! But the staff test at least historically has specifically poked at the difference between unilateral action and staff discussions, and while mistakes happen, it's still not fair that the handler be punished. I do think it's a good argument for internal staff stuff to amount to a slap on the wrist, though.





re: second appeal, I've avoided it because Ciel has expressed a desire to avoid digging into it. Also, while I personally disagree with rejecting it, I think that, had it been a first appeal, staff would've been 100% within their rights to do so, and I'd be in a spot where my stance would pretty much be, "Wow, that's pretty hard-line, but it's staff's right to say rules are rules." Staff can reject appeals for pretty much any reason barring their own screw-up. I don't think they should, but they can!

That said... there's a reason that staff screw-ups are the exception: it's unfair to punish handlers for staff error. We all know where this line of discussion goes.





re: exceptions: I dunno. I don't think rewriting the thread is the way to go as far as the issues at play go. If staff wanna do so, cool (there is precedent from V4 Endgame, though that offer was never taken up) but that's a whole other can of worms and a real complication, and as I've said I think the death thread isn't perfect but I think absent its interjection into the conversation it's pretty fair. I think any staff fiddling with it is outside the scope of my issues and if they do that's really them going above and beyond and being extremely extremely generous.

My conversation with Ciel that started this all was mostly him venting, and us actually disagreeing about the general workings of the activity situation. The initial appeal situation didn't come up until two hours in, and pretty much hard-turned me on the issue. That's my dog in this race. That's what I see as being a huge issue (coupled with the communications issues that have shaken out since). Aside from those two issues, I think staff has handled everything in a way that's harsh but does follow both the letter and a spirit of the rules (not taking a potshot with "a" as opposed to "the"--there has always been disagreement on the exact philosophies and purpose of the activity system).
V7:
Juliette Sargent
Alton Gerow
Lavender Ripley
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SOTF_Help
Member Avatar
Winner
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Attention, handlers:

We feel that we have to respond as the situation has been misrepresented to the board as a whole. We do not seek to stifle civil discussion with this post, but the discussion in this thread has passed the point of civil. Additionally, there seems to be the impression that the final outcome on this particular matter hasnít yet been reached, or that staffís decision is going to change based on the discussion.

That isnít the case. A decision had been reached before this thread was ever posted. While the particulars of this and other such cases generally stay between staff and the handler in question, that obviously isnít an option here, so we have decided that it is necessary to lay out exactly what happened:

  • Ciel was sent a terminal activity notice for his character Scout Pfeiffer after she passed the 336 hour-mark, which is the official deadline for activity. While staff has, at some points, allowed a 24-hour grace period prior to sending activity notices, this was never an official rule and it is no longer in practice as it made properly keeping track of activity and keeping staffers all on the same page difficult.

  • Immediately after receiving his notice, Ciel messaged a single staffer personally to state that he had been in the process of posting when the notice was sent. In light of this, that single staffer, without allowing for deliberation from the staff team as a whole, erroneously rescinded the notice.

  • When the rest of the staff team was available to review the decision, it was ruled to be incorrect and the terminal notice was reinstated. At this point, Ciel had not made an official appeal and was now given the chance to do so through the proper channel of Help.

  • Ciel made his appeal, which did not include details of a medical emergency. The appeal was denied on the basis of consistent inactivity without an away post or other notification to staff.

  • Ciel went on to make several more appeals before bringing up the issue of a medical emergency. All were denied on the same basis and it was noted that such an emergency was the grounds for posting as away. Ciel stated that he had not felt comfortable noting his situation in the Away thread. This is not the first time that multiple appeals with an eventual claim of emergency has been made by Ciel in response to an activity notice in V6; a similar communication occurred when his character Jasmine Reed was marked terminal in December, and he was informed that he could post as Away without having to give out full details of the situation. His character Audrey Reyes was marked terminal just two weeks before Scout went terminal, and Ciel made no mention of an emergency in his appeal on Audrey. He did post in the reduced activity thread, but as noted in that thread, this does not grant activity extensions. As this was a apparently an ongoing situation which he knew about in advance and he chose not to post as Away regardless, while the situation is unfortunate, there are no official grounds on which to approve the appeal.

    This pattern of consistent inactivity followed by multiple appeals from Ciel goes back to at least V5. We can only show so much leniency to a single handler who has repeatedly had the same issue and repeatedly refused to use the official systems in place to avoid it. He got his warning, he had one character spared from getting inactive killed in this situation, and has been given the opportunity to make multiple appeals. Staff has been exceedingly lenient in this situation.

  • On these grounds, Scout was officially declared terminally inactive and scheduled to be killed as per the site activity rules.

  • At this point, Ciel contacted MurderWeasel to claim that staff had unfairly declared his character inactive without giving him a chance to appeal.

  • MurderWeasel contacted staff through Help to share his concerns about the situation. Multiple staffers spoke with him and explained the situation, but he felt that this merited public discussion and made this thread.

  • It must be reiterated now that at the time, the matter had already been settled. A decision had been officially reached almost a week prior to this threadís creation. Staff accepts full responsibility for the initial error in handling this case and any confusion or inconvenience that it caused, but that error had no bearing on the eventual outcome.

  • Ciel is not being punished for a staff error. His character was terminally inactive and was taken care of in the same way as any other terminally inactive character would be at this point in the game. He was allowed to appeal through the proper channels, he did so, and his appeals were denied after the proper amount of staff deliberation.

  • Since this has also come up, the recent PSA about contacting staff through the proper channels was not a direct response to Ciel's actions either. It was written in response to multiple instances throughout the current version of handlers messaging individual staff members through PM, chat, or other channels with questions or concerns better sent through Help, which just makes it harder to keep all of staff on the same page.


Staff members do make errors from time to time, and we encourage anyone with concerns to approach us with them. We hope that any handler on the board can feel comfortable discussing such issues both with us and within a thread such as this one. There's nothing wrong with calmly discussing issues in a mature manner but the vitriol in this thread is unhealthy and unhelpful. Feel free to keep discussing in this thread, but please keep it civil.

Lastly, staff acknowledges that this was a murky situation in which errors were made that caused confusion among handlers. While it is important to uphold the rules of the game, it is equally important to maintain an enjoyable writing environment for handlers and to avoid complete character destruction as what may have happened with the characterization of Bart and Scout. As such, Aura and Ciel may have five days to draft a one-shot death for their respective characters and submit them to SotF_Help. Staff will work with them on any questionable details such as time, location, or any other requests they may have.

Thank you for your time and attention.
-The SOTF Staff Team
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aura
Member Avatar
Has seen that which cannot be unseen.
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Thank you for this opportunity, Staff. I sincerely mean it.
Posted Image

Characters

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TwelveFourtyFive
Winner
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
wow, that's pretty rad
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MurderWeasel
Member Avatar
You've been counting stars, now you're counting on me
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
A few thoughts:

SOTF Help
 
While staff has, at some points, allowed a 24-hour grace period prior to sending activity notices, this was never an official rule and it is no longer in practice as it made properly keeping track of activity and keeping staffers all on the same page difficult.

This was not an official handler-facing rule, but it was internal policy. References:

V4 Inactivity Thread, posts 56, 126, 242, 363.

V5 Inactivity Thread, posts 21 and 23

I'm also pretty sure I posted to the same effect in the V6 activity thread, but don't have that one hanging around in my hoard. As is probably obvious by this reply, I did back up certain historical staff threads while archiving versions a while back. I did check my references before making the initial assertion.
SOTF Help
 
Immediately after receiving his notice, Ciel messaged a single staffer personally to state that he had been in the process of posting when the notice was sent. In light of this, that single staffer, without allowing for deliberation from the staff team as a whole, erroneously rescinded the notice.

Logs have been posted. I respectfully disagree with the interpretation in question; Ciel requests that the staffer check Help, the staffer does so and claims to be consulting with the staff team, and then a response is issued.
SOTF Help
 
When the rest of the staff team was available to review the decision, it was ruled to be incorrect and the terminal notice was reinstated. At this point, Ciel had not made an official appeal and was now given the chance to do so through the proper channel of Help.

This has come up a few times in discussions, but what constitutes an official appeal? Where is this defined? The initial response was sent through SOTF_Help. This is logged. As I've said, it's certainly not a good appeal, but I see no evidence it's not an appeal overall, and I do think it's incorrect to frame it otherwise.
SOTF Help
 
At this point, Ciel contacted MurderWeasel to claim that staff had unfairly declared his character inactive without giving him a chance to appeal.

This isn't quite correct. He contacted me to discuss the situation. I smiled and nodded and expressed condolences until the granting and rescinding came up. That became a pretty major issue for me. It remains so. I was aware of the other facets of the issue, but I don't think staff handled them inappropriately in any way and have no interest in arguing them.
SOTF Help
 
MurderWeasel contacted staff through Help to share his concerns about the situation. Multiple staffers spoke with him and explained the situation, but he felt that this merited public discussion and made this thread.

This is true, though all conversations were individual staffers speaking for themselves, as I've noted before. The general consensus was that I had not misunderstood the situation.
SOTF Help
 
It must be reiterated now that at the time, the matter had already been settled. A decision had been officially reached almost a week prior to this threadís creation. Staff accepts full responsibility for the initial error in handling this case and any confusion or inconvenience that it caused, but that error had no bearing on the eventual outcome.

Respectfully, I do not see evidence of accepting responsibility for the initial error. To accept responsibility is to admit fault and set things right within one's power. That either has not been done, or the way staff sees handling fault varies from how I see it (differing opinions are of course fair, but I'd argue the results here are unfair). In this case, I do feel that the fair way to handle things and show true acceptance of responsibility would be to honor the original appeal, then take whatever internal actions are necessary to prevent recurrences (personally, I doubt that much beyond a simple "Staff don't do this again" would be required, given that this has become such a wide topic of discussion.
SOTF Help
 
Ciel is not being punished for a staff error. His character was terminally inactive and was taken care of in the same way as any other terminally inactive character would be at this point in the game. He was allowed to appeal through the proper channels, he did so, and his appeals were denied after the proper amount of staff deliberation.

I mildly disagree here. Had Ciel posted at the same time without any initial warning PM being sent, would staff have marked him terminal? Clearly no--people go over two weeks all the time and get away with it by sliding under staff's radar. Retroactive enforcement has, to my recollection, been brought down on someone once in site history. It was on Mini, and it came after several explicit warnings that retroactive punishment would be applied. It still didn't feel very good.

A handler was authorized to post by SOTF Help--where he lodged his initial response--and did so. In any other situation, that marks a return to activity. It doesn't feel good for that to suddenly not count, and it doesn't feel good for Help's responses to be open to question. That's the difference, and what makes the typical response inappropriate. Otherwise, I'd be 100% on-board with this.

To say he is not being punished for staff error assumes this as the starting point: Ciel is terminally inactive. I think, however, a slight change in perspective will reveal a different situation. Consider the following starting point: Ciel has just had his appeal granted and has put up the post he was 80% through, returning to activity.

There remains no way for him to have known that this second point wasn't where he was at. Everything else comes from internal staff discussions and knowledge. I really do get that--I've been on both sides of this--but the fact remains that Help granted an appeal, the handler acted in accordance with the outlined terms, and then staff changed its mind.
SOTF Help
 
Since this has also come up, the recent PSA about contacting staff through the proper channels was not a direct response to Ciel's actions either. It was written in response to multiple instances throughout the current version of handlers messaging individual staff members through PM, chat, or other channels with questions or concerns better sent through Help, which just makes it harder to keep all of staff on the same page.

Thank you for the clarification. As noted, I don't think the thread in question really applies here at all since the procedure it outlines is the one Ciel followed, and if this is a recurrent issue elsewhere it's not my place to address it.
SOTF Help
 
While it is important to uphold the rules of the game, it is equally important to maintain an enjoyable writing environment for handlers and to avoid complete character destruction as what may have happened with the characterization of Bart and Scout. As such, Aura and Ciel may have five days to draft a one-shot death for their respective characters and submit them to SotF_Help. Staff will work with you on any questionable details such as time, location, or any other requests you may have.

While I still disagree with all the stuff I've noted above, I do want to pull this out as the incredible act of lenience it is. If staff are settled in the other matters, this is, as stated a few posts ago, way above and beyond and a major exception. I think it's pretty important to highlight this and give massive credit where it's due (while, of course, continuing my poking at the issues I have with other facets of this).





I'd also like to thank staff for giving me the official reply I've been asking for. While obviously I still disagree with the ruling and handling of the situation, having an active and official dialogue helps me feel much better about the whole process.
V7:
Juliette Sargent
Alton Gerow
Lavender Ripley
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Malloon
Member Avatar
Survivor
[ *  * ]
Well, that's settled then, it seems. I suppose it might be worth it to discuss the issues above further, but I think that any urgency around this topic has been removed. For the leniency shown here - I think we can agree that this is an incredible gesture, not one given lightly. The situation is almost unique, and I doubt any resentment will come out of this, so I can only applaud it.
V6 Character - Benjamin "Squirrel" Lichter [ ~ / + / + / + / + / + / + / + / + / + / + / + / + / + / + / + / + / + / + / > ] - You'll find him in the clouds.
Future Characters:
Chloe Bridges - You'll find her doing math.
Joseph "Joey" Quintero - You'll find him writing speaches.
Keith Rogers - You'll find him out with his gang.

In the unlikely event you want to use my characters...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TwelveFourtyFive
Winner
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I don't find it okay how people talk to me about my opinions and how you interpret my words, but I have to admit that some of the things I said were bullshit rude, so I apologise.

K. Thanks. Bye.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ciel
Member Avatar
"Thatís not a prediction, thatís a spoiler.Ē
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Staff Post
 
At this point, Ciel contacted MurderWeasel to claim that staff had unfairly declared his character inactive without giving him a chance to appeal.
I never made such a claim. I have said nothing that even remotely approaches "Staff didn't give me a chance to appeal". Not once. Not in this thread, not in public chat, not in private messages to Toben.

I explained the situation to MurderWeasel, including the events leading up to the terminal inactivity. I did this solely as a way to vent my frustrations not only about the on-site matter but also real life circumstances I've been going through over the past six months. I knew that Toben would at least understand and perhaps give me an alternative point of view on the situation.

Instead MurderWeasel took issue with the fact that staff revoked an official decision. That is why this thread exists. Honestly, even if I was willing to let things lie and not openly pursued this line of discourse, I have a feeling Toben would have gone ahead and made this thread anyway.

Staff Post
 
Immediately after receiving his notice, Ciel messaged a single staffer personally to state that he had been in the process of posting when the notice was sent. In light of this, that single staffer, without allowing for deliberation from the staff team as a whole, erroneously rescinded the notice.
It is troubling that staff still have not officially addressed the message I sent SOTF_Help.

Look. I only asked this staff member to check help. I have said this time and time again. I already apologized to the staff member in question on an individual basis because I was embarrassed with how I handled the matter. I was upset and frantic and nobody should have to deal with that in the morning. So I'm sorry if that made it seem like I was pressuring them but that is so not the case. If staff honestly do not believe me, if all of the staff members look at the logs that have been posted, and collectively believe I was somehow breaking the rules then I am not sure what else to tell you.

Staff Post
 
Ciel made his appeal, which did not include details of a medical emergency. The appeal was denied on the basis of consistent inactivity without an away post or other notification to staff.
My argument was mainly about the revoking of the appeal approval, as the explanation was vague and made absolutely no sense to me at the time. Staff error is grounds for immediate appeal of terminal activity. I also felt extremely uncomfortable talking about the real life emergency in question, and I saw no reason to bring it up because I thought I had a case.

Staff Post
 
A similar communication occurred when his character Jasmine Reed was marked terminal in December, and he was informed that he could post as Away without having to give out full details of the situation.
My grounds for appeal were due to my laptop's keyboard, which broke the evening before the inactivity notice was sent, and that I was posting as all of my characters up until that point. Here are two pictures that I submitted as evidence. As I recall, 'technical errors' are sufficient grounds to appeal. I only mentioned real life circumstances in passing at the time because I felt like I owed staff an explanation for the earlier activity warning and the inactivity leading up to the Christmas holiday. The technical problem was the crux of my argument.

Staff Post
 
His character Audrey Reyes was marked terminal just two weeks before Scout went terminal, and Ciel made no mention of an emergency in his appeal on Audrey.
Because there was no medical emergency when Audrey went inactive. Why would I mention something that did not occur yet? In truth I did post as Audrey in order to get her and another handler's character out of a dangerzone, and my appeal was mainly concerning the situation Audrey was in at the time.

Staff Post
 
This pattern of consistent inactivity followed by multiple appeals from Ciel goes back to at least V5.
I was never considered terminally inactive in v5. I was warned once, that's it. You said something similar to this in your official denial of my appeal.

Staff PM
 
We received appeals in similar context dating back three years ago in V5 that were handled more leniently at your request as special exception.
I sent you a response stating that I did not recall ever receiving special leniency, let alone requesting any. Also, I do not see why something as flaccid as an activity warning that happened three years ago would matter in the grand scheme of things. Lives change in that amount of time. People marry and bear children twiceover in that amount of time.

Overall I am extremely troubled by this response by staff. This breakdown paints me as a moocher, as someone who has been breaking and bending the rules for years, and that does not sit well with me at all. It makes me more sad than mad, honestly. It makes me question everything I have ever done on this forum.

I do not want to sound petty here, or greedy, or ungrateful, posting this. On the contrary, I am extremely grateful for the offer staff is extending. It is an amazing amount of charity on staff's part, and at the very least I'm happy Aura will be able to have some creative freedom with Bart's death.

However, the tone of this post alone and the things that it implies have made me hesitant to even accept this offer on my end.

I'm sorry for being a debbie downer but all of this needed to be said.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TwelveFourtyFive
Winner
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
can confirm that ciel's a cool dude

re: my previous messages

I actually haven't posted anything rude. My posts which were meant to help were not meant to be unhelpful and unhealthy, and saying that all of my posts were useless is absolutely insulting to me. I've spent much time to write my posts, to try to solve this conflict/problem with my experience and to give thoughts and arguments on this issue so people can agree/disagree. That's part of a discussion.

None of my posts were meant rude, this thread was civil imo. I have never insulted anyone, I don't think this thread was unhealthy. There was an issue, and we talked about it. I know SOTF isn't used to it since it's not having as many problems as other communities, but it's a legit thing to do.

Also, I'd like to point out publically that I've been unrespectully treated for stating my civil points in this thread which I don't find is okay at all. Everyone who states their opinion on topics should have the right to do so. I have never been hostile. I appreciate having the feedback that you read my posts as hostile, but...I have never been hostile.

I have never been hostile.

Look at this sentence. It probably looks hostile to you because I used punctuations. Now, read it the way it really was meant to be written. Now suddenly it's alright. Magic~

I will not say that it's all a misunderstanding and it doesn't excuse my wall of texts and my frequency of postings, but judging me automatically, because you already know me and don't know me in rationally argumenting, is not a fair thing. I don't think I've been treated fairly. This has not been the first time you guys interpreted me more hostile than I really was, and I've always, always tried to improve my tone, because it's my fault in the end, but conflicts like these just hurt me. If someone else had been saying the same thing and is already known for their harsh tone, it's alright. But when I do it, it's not.

And no, I don't blame anyone. I just want to say that this conflict is conflicting me.

Again, I'd like to point out that I've said nothing uncivil and I stand by that. So the statement that 'this thread has passed the point of civil' is simply false. Prove me wrong, if that's the case. I will be able to say that I've been in the right. Why? Because I read my posts before posting them.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
« Previous Topic · Support/Suggestions · Next Topic »
Add Reply