[Daturix] Kanye West Sr admin approach to rules violations

[Snuffleupagus]

Byond account and character name: Snuffleupagus86 Kanye West Sr
Admin: Daturix
Time and Server(Bagil or Sybil) incident occurred: 2:30 EST and Sybil
ROUND ID HERE: 78000, 78001
Detailed summary:I was approached about honorifics, a matter not mentioned on the linked rules, so I thought it was a joke. A bwoink over calling myself a position would be one thing, but this was over Sr, and worse not a rule I was aware of after combing through the rules page with Ctrl+F.
The discussion devolved heavily after my question of "Where does it say that?" because I could not find it at all. That was when a big red flag went up with their response was, and with screencaps, "If you are questioning me, this is bad," which raises alarms screaming 'abuse of power,' for the simple fact of authoritarian persons throwing their weight around.
Second to this was the lack of updated documentation, with the rule change being more than two months old on the forums, and yet not updated on the wiki which is linked on the welcome screen in byond.
When I asked for clarification, after much incredulity, I was finally informed that it was on the forums.
Later, with much heated discussion after noticing another person with an honorific, I mentioned it, and pressed on the issue. This was where I saw that several people did not know it was a rule. Given that it didn't affect them, this is reasonable, but the issue wasn't the rule itself, it was the fact that I one; had no knowledge and no one playing casually would think to go looking for such rules, and two; an immediate and aggressive statement demanding submission to all statements without an accessible policy or rule to go off of.
some screens to go along with everything. Warning this is Part 1 of what I believe to be a 2 part issue. There are a lot of screens in this info dump.

https://imgur.com/a/DVkH0

If need be I can link each image to the forums, but I'd rather not waste data/space and leave it on the imgur side of things.

[Arianya]

The specific rule is Rule 3, Precedent 1:

Rule 3 Precedents.
1. Excessively OOC names fall under rule 3. Make a minimum effort to have your name fit in a setting involving a wacky space station in the future. Admins may get involved if your name is dumb.

This is left somewhat vague to pre-empt rules lawyers, I imagine, and there's been a stated effort to not have the Rules page be a legal lexicon of ruling after sub-ruling so that its reasonably concise and legible to the average player. The honorific rule might need to be included in the wiki, but that said, you also fell foul of Rule 6:

6. In-game administration rulings are final.
Incidences of admin abuse, negligence or disputed rulings can be taken to the forums. If an admin says something was 'looked into, handled, resolved' etc, regarding an issue, it is unlikely an admin will provide any further information. Admins are under no obligation to reveal IC information. Deliberately lying or misrepresenting facts in adminhelps will be dealt with harshly.

Generally speaking this is taken to be that regardless of what the rules say, if an Admin says x, x is true for certainly the current round at the minimum. Rather then arguing it it is generally seen better to acquiesce and then create a Admin Complaint if you felt the behaviour was wrong or ill-founded in some way. This would explain the incredulity and the "questioning me" comments. I hope this has helped.

[Snuffleupagus]

It's not about the rule. It stopped being about the rule when they made the remark they made. Further I think the rule applies to people who want to name their character something along the lines of Dick In a Box. There have been several names running around as pop culture references from Rick and Morty and other television shows. Plus there was the whole thing about me getting Bwoink'd for it but not the other character that showed up with an honorific.

[Arianya]

I wasn't commenting on the specific case, so much as quoting the relevant rules and how they've been applied in the past.

[Snuffleupagus]

I wasn't commenting on the specific case, so much as quoting the relevant rules and how they've been applied in the past.

I appreciate that. It's the first place I looked when they Bwoink'd me. For the record I didn't disagree with everything Daturix said. I changed my name. At first I was going to be a smart ass and add roman numerals to the end of it. Then I decided to just revert it to just Kanye West.

It was circumstance really it was silly. The rule came across as silly to me. I've had an admin joke around with me before. So I assumed this was the case. Literally had they posted the link to the forum that they posted in OOC like 15 minutes later. It would have been done and over with. Instead they told me questioning them was 'bad.' and that's not right. It wasn't on the rules page. So you betcha I questioned it. I feel like we should have that ability. How else are we as users assured that what we're being told isn't being made up?

[Arianya]

Instead they told me questioning them was 'bad.' and that's not right. It wasn't on the rules page. So you betcha I questioned it. I feel like we should have that ability. How else are we as users assured that what we're being told isn't being made up?

Per Rule 6, theirs was a correct interpretation. If your concern is less with the specific admin's conduct and more with the existence of Rule 6, you should probably close this in favour of a Policy Discussion thread.

[Alipheese]

I see some omission of a few ahelps but irregardless I'll give my full piece on this tomorrow.
And I do genuinely apoligize for the few times I got annoyed and cursed at you. It was unproper of me.

[BeeSting12]

I mean, there is a literal rule against questioning admins ingame. They're not obliged to give you proof that a rule exists. If you dispute an ingame ruling, you can go to the forums and make an admin complaint/policy discussion but apparently you don't dispute it, you're just complaining an admin gave no proof of the rule existing which is about the dumbest thing I've heard.

[Snuffleupagus]

I mean, there is a literal rule against questioning admins ingame. They're not obliged to give you proof that a rule exists. If you dispute an ingame ruling, you can go to the forums and make an admin complaint/policy discussion but apparently you don't dispute it, you're just complaining an admin gave no proof of the rule existing which is about the dumbest thing I've heard.

Again. This isn't about a ruling. I wasn't disputing the rule. Asking for PROOF and disputing something are two entirely different concepts. Is it really hard to put yourself into my shoes and have someone Bwoink about something as ridiculous as HONORIFICS? Again I'm asking for someone who can be objective about this to answer the question. Honestly step back away from the rules list and think. If you were a player and you got a Bwoink about something as simple as Sr and had someone call it Honorifics you'd think you were being FUCKED with.

[Vekter]

I mean, there is a literal rule against questioning admins ingame. They're not obliged to give you proof that a rule exists. If you dispute an ingame ruling, you can go to the forums and make an admin complaint/policy discussion but apparently you don't dispute it, you're just complaining an admin gave no proof of the rule existing which is about the dumbest thing I've heard.

Again. This isn't about a ruling. I wasn't disputing the rule. Asking for PROOF and disputing something are two entirely different concepts. Is it really hard to put yourself into my shoes and have someone Bwoink about something as ridiculous as HONORIFICS? Again I'm asking for someone who can be objective about this to answer the question. Honestly step back away from the rules list and think. If you were a player and you got a Bwoink about something as simple as Sr and had someone call it Honorifics you'd think you were being FUCKED with.

Do we need to change the fucking sound effect so it doesn't freak people out anymore?

[BeeSting12]

I mean, there is a literal rule against questioning admins ingame. They're not obliged to give you proof that a rule exists. If you dispute an ingame ruling, you can go to the forums and make an admin complaint/policy discussion but apparently you don't dispute it, you're just complaining an admin gave no proof of the rule existing which is about the dumbest thing I've heard.

Again. This isn't about a ruling. I wasn't disputing the rule. Asking for PROOF and disputing something are two entirely different concepts. Is it really hard to put yourself into my shoes and have someone Bwoink about something as ridiculous as HONORIFICS? Again I'm asking for someone who can be objective about this to answer the question. Honestly step back away from the rules list and think. If you were a player and you got a Bwoink about something as simple as Sr and had someone call it Honorifics you'd think you were being FUCKED with.

You were arguing against the admin that the rule existed in the first place. Admins can enforce/not enforce rules at their discretion. If the admin thinks the name goes against naming policy, then just listen to him, apologize for being unaware of the rule, and fix it. Then you can make an admin complaint or policy discussion later about incorrect enforcement of the rules.

>think you were being fucked with
Yeah theres a conspiracy against someone with hardly even 550 connections.

[imblyings]

>making an admin say sorry for doing their job
?

Refer to the posts in the other complaint. tldr, admins can ask you to change your name if they think it's dumb, admins also have the final call in-game, both are in the rules and it is a universal thing among any game server to expect a player to read the rules before playing. Please do not get over-emotional and blow things up more than they actually are, please and thank you.