[CedarBridge] Kanye West Sr Extremely rude and abusive.

[Snuffleupagus]

Byond account and character name: Snuffleupagus86 Kanye West Sr
Admin:CedarBridge
Time and Server(Bagil or Sybil) incident occurred: Sybil
ROUND ID HERE: 78000 78001
Detailed summary:
I will admit I was still salty at this point. There was another discussion happening about obscure rules applying to an admin who left the server not even a day or two prior. I used my most recent example of how obscure rules shouldn't be applicable to the current situations. If it's not on the wiki we shouldn't be held culpable. The GAME itself directs us to the WIKI not the FORUMS for rules. Daturix messages me again, but that's not even the issue. Moments later CedarBridge interjects himself.
Take a look at Cedarbridge's language in the following screencaps;
https://imgur.com/a/xeeNF
Independent of any previous interactions, I am flabberghasted, because if this conversation had been face to face, not a sane and worldly person could take it as anything less than gaslighting. If this is the quality of adminship on this server, I fear for the players who fall prey to their behavior. When I was told "Nobody brought your mental health into this but you," that was the final straw in my decision. CedarBridge was the first who initiated speculation to my mental health regarding "not really sure what's going on inside (my) head right now, but it's not in tune with reality," and in light of this, closely resembles one of the more classic forms of gaslighting if there ever was one.
In regards to the rest of the conversation, I am only disappointed/upset/perturbed that the rules weren't updated for over two months on the wiki, and had they been, this was unlikely to have happened, but the incident did bring to light this questionable behavior on CedarBridge's part. The Admins need to reflect on what they're truly here for. It's not to lord over the user-base of this server waiting to drop a preemptive hammer on someone. It's not to bully people. It's certainly not to goad them into questioning their own mentality. I respect Daturix for finally offering me an apology. It's all I was asking for. I felt it was warranted. This guy couldn't even swallow his pride to acknowledge the points I was making, and the last thing you need when in a position of power is a conflated sense of pride and power. That ruins experiences for people. It clouds judgement.

[Screemonster]

If I'm reading this right, that entire fucking wordnado and the ensuing ruleslawering and high-horse bullshit was about being asked to change your name and saying there's not a rule about it.

oh would you look at that

[Arianya]

Cross-quoting, as it bears some relevance here as well:

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]

This was never about changing my name. If you actually READ what occurred it was about the statement AFTER I asked to SEE it. I love how ASKING for visual evidence is rules lawyering to you guys. Rules Lawyering is if I sat and DEFENDED having SR after my name. Which I did not do ONE time.

Edit: I accept the ruling in light of the events, however the issue is not about rulings in this case. If you wish to continue this about the rules, please do so in policy.

[Arianya]

Per the server rules, requesting that an in-game administration ruling be backed up by external evidence is rules lawyering. There's a reason Rule 6 exists and its so that the kind of conversations that you had both in AdminPMs and OOC are kept to the bare minimum.

Realistically, looking at it as a detached observer who wasn't there, its easy to understand Daturix's and CedarBridge's frustration, given that a relatively basic request turned into a OOC drama fest as well as a gradual lengthy back and forth AdminPM chain about their conduct.

Please remember that administrators on the server are volunteers, and people too, and while they are held to a standard, you shouldn't expect the world of volunteer administrators for a 2d spessmen game.

[Snuffleupagus]

Rule 6 doesn't say anything about them not having to provide proof of a rule. It's contextually about their rulings. It's there to protect the Admin from a user bitching and whining about the ruling they made. Had I spent the next 30 minutes bitching about the Honorifics rule I could understand it falling under rule 6. However. Being told I'm mentally ill doesn't fall under Rule 6. If you wish to continue this about rules, please bring it up on policy.

[Arianya]

Rule 6 doesn't say anything about them not having to provide proof of a rule. It's contextually about their rulings. It's there to protect the Admin from a user bitching and whining about the ruling they made.

I'm going to stop posting after this because I can feel MSO sharpening an axe for my neck over steno posting, but its worth pointing out that doing the former is effectively doing the latter, if indirectly.

If you have a dispute over an admin's ruling, whether its "they were wrong and I didn't do that!" or "This rule doesn't even exist!", both are preferred to be taken directly to Admin Complaints (once the round is over) rather then argued in-game.

[Snuffleupagus]

Rule 6 doesn't say anything about them not having to provide proof of a rule. It's contextually about their rulings. It's there to protect the Admin from a user bitching and whining about the ruling they made.

I'm going to stop posting after this because I can feel MSO sharpening an axe for my neck over steno posting, but its worth pointing out that doing the former is effectively doing the latter, if indirectly.

If you have a dispute over an admin's ruling, whether its "they were wrong and I didn't do that!" or "This rule doesn't even exist!", both are preferred to be taken directly to Admin Complaints (once the round is over) rather then argued in-game.

You should have stopped responding the moment you kept citing rules. This complaint is not about rules. This complaint is about abusive behavior from an admin. If you are unwilling to admit to this, then you have no place in the discussion other than as a derailment. Goodbye.

[Nilons]

Admins are unpaid volunteers and if you're gonna act retarded you shouldn't get upset when an admin tells you as much.

If you'll refer to https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=3509

Admins are generally expected to have some level of professionalism but nowhere in the list of things expected of them is an expectation to put up with extensive horseshit. I can think of at least a few admins who would have closed your ticket instead of trying to explain to you why they made the ruling they did.

[Snuffleupagus]

Admins are unpaid volunteers and if you're gonna act retarded you shouldn't get upset when an admin tells you as much.

If you'll refer to https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=3509

Admins are generally expected to have some level of professionalism but nowhere in the list of things expected of them is an expectation to put up with extensive horseshit. I can think of at least a few admins who would have closed your ticket instead of trying to explain to you why they made the ruling they did.

Professionalism of any level generally precludes personal abuse. If a volunteer can get let go at a homeless shelter for an emphatic sigh, then this deserves at least the attention of admins above CedarBridge.

[MollyKristoph]

Admins are unpaid volunteers and if you're gonna act retarded you shouldn't get upset when an admin tells you as much.

If you'll refer to https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=3509

Admins are generally expected to have some level of professionalism but nowhere in the list of things expected of them is an expectation to put up with extensive horseshit. I can think of at least a few admins who would have closed your ticket instead of trying to explain to you why they made the ruling they did.

I definitely understand people getting short. I really do. Why else do I salt if not for myself getting short with someone?
However, in between the provocative "Is this the hill you want to die on" statement directed at me over my hissy fit at the lack of upfront documentation, and this subject, well, I gotta say that I've got my brow raised.
I can also name a few now defunct admins who were driven off that could have defused the situation with panache and class that would have simultaneously shut down debate as well as assuaged misgivings.
This however, doesn't look good on anyone's part, but the mental health bit sounds to me like Cedar off and made it personal. If it were appended with a ban I would definitely call it such.

But, wtf do I know. I was asked if I wanted to die on a hill. :^)

[BeeSting12]

Rule 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.

Where does it say that ingame rulings should be taken to OOC or continue arguing in ahelps? By the way, your proof is on the rules page if you want it. The only thing Cedarbridge and Daturix did wrong here was not copy pasting rule 6 into a PM and muting you from ahelps.

[MollyKristoph]

Rule 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.

Where does it say that ingame rulings should be taken to OOC or continue arguing in ahelps? By the way, your proof is on the rules page if you want it. The only thing Cedarbridge and Daturix did wrong here was not copy pasting rule 6 into a PM and muting you from ahelps.

That is pretty much exactly what I meant with style, class and panache, rather than insinuations to someone's mental health after an insinuated threat to another player about a ban.

[Snuffleupagus]

Rule 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.

Where does it say that ingame rulings should be taken to OOC or continue arguing in ahelps? By the way, your proof is on the rules page if you want it. The only thing Cedarbridge and Daturix did wrong here was not copy pasting rule 6 into a PM and muting you from ahelps.

At this point I can plainly see that I'm not going to get a fair shake on this. None of you are actively looking at the imagines I diligently collected throughout the entire course of the night. You're focusing on a singular fact. A fact that I didn't even contest. This was never about violating a rule or contesting the rule that Daturix gave me. Had you actually took time to look at the images that I submitted you'd see that it was CEDARBRIDGE who initiated the AHELP with me the second time. I didn't submit a SINGLE ahelp about this issue at ALL last night. Instead you're focusing on the earlier posts instead of reading the actual context of what was INITIATED with me. It was regarding a completely different topic from removing SR from the end of my name. It had EVERYTHING to do with me being offended by being told "Questioning admins is bad." just because you have a rule 6 doesn't give you an excuse to fall back on it and use it as a crutch when you feel like being a shitter to someone. I did nothing wrong. I was confused by the initial BWOINK from Daturix and it all snowballed from there after I was told "Questioning admins is bad." I took it to OOC because there was someone else with an honorific in their name. If the rule was a big deal why weren't they bwoink'd?

If we're not allowed to hold you accountable, who is? The person above you? The person no doubt you're friends with? Excuse me if I ASK someone to see a rule. A rule by the way they had no trouble providing to Cedarbridge earlier in the night. Telling me I'm rules lawyering by RULES lawyering rule 6 is complete nonsense and it certainly doesn't address the fact that I can't get a FAIR objective analysis of the situation. I'm not contesting an in game ruling. These aren't about CONTESTING the honorifics ruling. It's about not being a shitty representative. Having a little RESPECT. Muting me from ahelps for what? CedarBridge was the one who picked the fight the last time. I merely asked Daturix for an apology.

I'll say the same thing here I say about the police. People shouldn't fear the cops for walking up to you or pulling up behind your vehicle. Yet we do. We panic. We shouldn't fear admins on a game that we enjoy playing, yet we do. Most of the time I get Bwoink'd I deserve it. Tonight when Cedarbridge Bwoink'd me to continue the argument I didn't deserve it. They shut OOC off for a good period of time and for a good while I didn't say a damned thing. Until someone brought up Alphonzo and how he was banned for an obscure rule. I did bring up the OBSCURE honorifics rule as an example. I hardly carried it on EXCESSIVELY.

How can you acknowledge the honorifics rule as ridiculous in another thread, but say it has it's place in this one?

[MollyKristoph]

Rule 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.

Where does it say that ingame rulings should be taken to OOC or continue arguing in ahelps? By the way, your proof is on the rules page if you want it. The only thing Cedarbridge and Daturix did wrong here was not copy pasting rule 6 into a PM and muting you from ahelps.

At this point I can plainly see that I'm not going to get a fair shake on this. None of you are actively looking at the imagines I diligently collected throughout the entire course of the night. You're focusing on a singular fact. A fact that I didn't even contest. This was never about violating a rule or contesting the rule that Daturix gave me. Had you actually took time to look at the images that I submitted you'd see that it was CEDARBRIDGE who initiated the AHELP with me the second time. I didn't submit a SINGLE ahelp about this issue at ALL last night. Instead you're focusing on the earlier posts instead of reading the actual context of what was INITIATED with me. It was regarding a completely different topic from removing SR from the end of my name. It had EVERYTHING to do with me being offended by being told "Questioning admins is bad." just because you have a rule 6 doesn't give you an excuse to fall back on it and use it as a crutch when you feel like being a shitter to someone. I did nothing wrong. I was confused by the initial BWOINK from Daturix and it all snowballed from there after I was told "Questioning admins is bad." I took it to OOC because there was someone else with an honorific in their name. If the rule was a big deal why weren't they bwoink'd?

If we're not allowed to hold you accountable, who is? The person above you? The person no doubt you're friends with? Excuse me if I ASK someone to see a rule. A rule by the way they had no trouble providing to Cedarbridge earlier in the night. Telling me I'm rules lawyering by RULES lawyering rule 6 is complete nonsense and it certainly doesn't address the fact that I can't get a FAIR objective analysis of the situation. I'm not contesting an in game ruling. These aren't about CONTESTING the honorifics ruling. It's about not being a shitty representative. Having a little RESPECT. Muting me from ahelps for what? CedarBridge was the one who picked the fight the last time. I merely asked Daturix for an apology.

I'll say the same thing here I say about the police. People shouldn't fear the cops for walking up to you or pulling up behind your vehicle. Yet we do. We panic. We shouldn't fear admins on a game that we enjoy playing, yet we do. Most of the time I get Bwoink'd I deserve it. Tonight when Cedarbridge Bwoink'd me to continue the argument I didn't deserve it. They shut OOC off for a good period of time and for a good while I didn't say a damned thing. Until someone brought up Alphonzo and how he was banned for an obscure rule. I did bring up the OBSCURE honorifics rule as an example. I hardly carried it on EXCESSIVELY.

How can you acknowledge the honorifics rule as ridiculous in another thread, but say it has it's place in this one?

I think the big issue is that I don't think that this is a rule 6 issue for the original post.
Yeah, there's shit in the images(my gods is there shit in the images) that violates rule 6 left right front and center, but that's like throwing out a murder charge because the other person was kicking over trashcans and breaking windows in protest of a fucked up piece of legislation.
However, you know what Doesn't violate rule 6?
Bringing a complaint about admin maltreatment to the forum, rather than screeching autistically about it on OOC.
The next person that cites rule 6 without going through and seeing the Cedarbridge comments and how they slid on in to those DMs like an egg on twitter in Lena Dunham's mentions(by the way, guy, try to put those at the top or something) is just as bad as a shill or a buttbuddy in this conversation. There's no excuse for all the comments excepting Maybe for Beesting and Nilons' own comments. The rest of these, probably including this very one, have no bearing on the complaint and serve only to obfuscate the issue.

[captain sawrge]

i'm using a mac and can't view your images, could you convert them to .bmp for me? Afterwards I will look into the issue and see to it that necessary action is taken.

Thankyou,
sawrge, headless administrator.

[Snuffleupagus]

i'm using a mac and can't view your images, could you convert them to .bmp for me? Afterwards I will look into the issue and see to it that necessary action is taken.

Thankyou,
sawrge, headless administrator.

Sure I'm not sure how to do it but I'll figure it out. Give me a moment. I'll edit this post when I figure it out.

Edit: The best I could figure out is to convert to JPG. I know sometimes on my mac I have trouble viewing PNG files as well. If this doesn't work please let me know I will research it further, or if you could offer some advice on how to upload bmp files I'm open to it. For the moment though here's the JPG files.

[Vekter]

IT'S A GAME. ABOUT IDIOTS IN A SPACE STATION IN THE FUTURE. FOR FUCK'S SAKE.

Just let the guy change your name and stop puckering your ass every time someone messages you.

There is ZERO EXPECTATION of an admin to be professional past common courtesy. If you're being an asshole, people are going to be an asshole to you. This isn't Walmart or the fucking Applebee's, you don't get to cry just because the admin wasn't sucking your cock every five seconds.

[captain sawrge]

Sorry, still having trouble viewing the images right now. I'll look into it when I get home.

Regards,
sawrge, headless administrator.

[imblyings]

i'm running on linux mint and indeed the images aren't displaying right for me either but luckily I was able to pull the logs of the stuff in the screenshots

so

>why did you bring my mental health into this
but they didn't even mention it
>b-but I can extrapolate from your posts that you did whether you directly or indirectly mentioned it
????

>I need proof, why didn't you give me proof
why didn't you read the rules it's all in there, admins can change your name if they think it's dumb, it's literally at their discretion, admins don't have to give proof if it's a rule that a player failed to read

>gaslighting, emotional abuse
???????????????????????????

>it's about telling me not to question authority
literally the rules state admins have the final call in-game, rules you should have read. While admins have the discretion to discuss rules or decisions ingame it is not an obligation.

The only thing cedar did wrong was think they were taking the time to explain something to a player, when all they did was actually just feed negative attention to someone who needs to seek help. Please take a break or something, getting this emotional about a 2d spess sim isn't good.

[BeeSting12]

At this point I can plainly see that I'm not going to get a fair shake on this. None of you are actively looking at the imagines I diligently collected throughout the entire course of the night. You're focusing on a singular fact. A fact that I didn't even contest. This was never about violating a rule or contesting the rule that Daturix gave me. Had you actually took time to look at the images that I submitted you'd see that it was CEDARBRIDGE who initiated the AHELP with me the second time. No, looks like he just interrupted you sounding like a conceited snob and demanding an apology like we're some cashier at Walmart that didn't give you your return. I didn't submit a SINGLE ahelp about this issue at ALL last night. Instead you're focusing on the earlier posts instead of reading the actual context of what was INITIATED with me. It was regarding a completely different topic from removing SR from the end of my name. It had EVERYTHING to do with me being offended by being told "Questioning admins is bad." just because you have a rule 6 doesn't give you an excuse to fall back on it and use it as a crutch when you feel like being a shitter to someone. You mean when we feel like doing our job and someone argues with it? I did nothing wrong. You really didn't until you started demanding proof of a rule like there's a conspiracy against you. I was confused by the initial BWOINK from Daturix and it all snowballed from there after I was told "Questioning admins is bad." I took it to OOC because there was someone else with an honorific in their name. If the rule was a big deal why weren't they bwoink'd? We're not omniscient, ahelp it if you see a name you feel goes against our policy.

If we're not allowed to hold you accountable, who is? The person above you? Uh, yes? The person no doubt you're friends with? Not necessarily.Excuse me if I ASK someone to see a rule. A rule by the way they had no trouble providing to Cedarbridge earlier in the night. Telling me I'm rules lawyering by RULES lawyering rule 6 is complete nonsense and it certainly doesn't address the fact that I can't get a FAIR objective analysis of the situation.Demanding proof a rule exists is rules lawyering. Just make a policy discussion for clarification from a headmin. I'm not contesting an in game ruling. These aren't about CONTESTING the honorifics ruling. It's about not being a shitty representative. Having a little RESPECT. Muting me from ahelps for what? CedarBridge was the one who picked the fight the last time. I merely asked Daturix for an apology. yes we owe you an apology for doing our job.

I'll say the same thing here I say about the police. People shouldn't fear the cops for walking up to you or pulling up behind your vehicle. Yet we do. We panic. We shouldn't fear admins on a game that we enjoy playing, yet we do. Most of the time I get Bwoink'd I deserve it. Tonight when Cedarbridge Bwoink'd me to continue the argument I didn't deserve it. They shut OOC off for a good period of time and for a good while I didn't say a damned thing. Until someone brought up Alphonzo and how he was banned for an obscure rule. I did bring up the OBSCURE honorifics rule as an example. I hardly carried it on EXCESSIVELY. How is this rule remotely related to the one Alphonzo broke

How can you acknowledge the honorifics rule as ridiculous in another thread, but say it has it's place in this one?I do think it's a bad rule to force people to remove honorifics such as Jr, Sr, and Esq. I personally wouldn't tell them to. However, the rule is enforced at each admin's discretion and you shouldn't argue with an admin if they tell you it's against the rules.

[cedarbridge]

Byond account and character name: Snuffleupagus86 Kanye West Sr
Admin:CedarBridge
Time and Server(Bagil or Sybil) incident occurred: Sybil
ROUND ID HERE: 78000 78001
Detailed summary:
I will admit I was still salty at this point. There was another discussion happening about obscure rules applying to an admin who left the server not even a day or two prior. I used my most recent example of how obscure rules shouldn't be applicable to the current situations. If it's not on the wiki we shouldn't be held culpable. The GAME itself directs us to the WIKI not the FORUMS for rules. Daturix messages me again, but that's not even the issue. Moments later CedarBridge interjects himself.
Take a look at Cedarbridge's language in the following screencaps;
https://imgur.com/a/xeeNF
Independent of any previous interactions, I am flabberghasted, because if this conversation had been face to face, not a sane and worldly person could take it as anything less than gaslighting. If this is the quality of adminship on this server, I fear for the players who fall prey to their behavior. When I was told "Nobody brought your mental health into this but you," that was the final straw in my decision. CedarBridge was the first who initiated speculation to my mental health regarding "not really sure what's going on inside (my) head right now, but it's not in tune with reality," and in light of this, closely resembles one of the more classic forms of gaslighting if there ever was one.
In regards to the rest of the conversation, I am only disappointed/upset/perturbed that the rules weren't updated for over two months on the wiki, and had they been, this was unlikely to have happened, but the incident did bring to light this questionable behavior on CedarBridge's part. The Admins need to reflect on what they're truly here for. It's not to lord over the user-base of this server waiting to drop a preemptive hammer on someone. It's not to bully people. It's certainly not to goad them into questioning their own mentality. I respect Daturix for finally offering me an apology. It's all I was asking for. I felt it was warranted. This guy couldn't even swallow his pride to acknowledge the points I was making, and the last thing you need when in a position of power is a conflated sense of pride and power. That ruins experiences for people. It clouds judgement.

tl:dr
I said before that frankly I owe you nothing. On a personal or professional level. You were continuing to drag out an argument with a coworker volunteer in a conversation where that volunteer is my junior charge.

You were given a rule, you were told to follow it, you were upset about this and proceeded to join another user in a two-round-wide rant about how much you don't like the rule and how much you don't like how the rule was presented. After trying to peel the two of you out of OOC so people actually playing the game could play the game instead of listening to the two of you soapbox about how upset you are about an addition or subtraction from your name, I was frankly past caring about the contents of your complaint against the rule and very past how you felt about the means (a post in the policy forum by a headmin as the first post in said thread that the rule was communicated. I, like anyone else, have a level of patience to which I am capable of supporting bullshit. Your extended and increasingly hostile posting both in OOC and ahelps exceeded that. Beyond my Care Event Horizon, I stop being nice or even trying to be nice. I'm not going to treat you like a child if you refuse to behave like an adult. This was exemplified by your "Well, I'll just take my patreon contribution and fuck myself then." You seemed to be under the impression that we as admins have to bend over backwards for you or you have some sort of power to lord over the adminship. "Without players you don't have an adminship," as you said. You went into this entire conversation in bad faith and you're now upset that I didn't treat you like a precious darling throughout. I know you went into this in bad faith because you said at one point that you were pretty sure admins were just looking for an excuse to ban you.

Professionalism of any level generally precludes personal abuse. If a volunteer can get let go at a homeless shelter for an emphatic sigh, then this deserves at least the attention of admins above CedarBridge.

This post sums up a lot of the issues present. This is not some hugbox for you and your extremely fragile feelings. If I, as a human being with the ability to make value judgments about the world around me, find that you are an idiot, I am not precluded from calling you an idiot by anything sort of a choice not to do so and perhaps an attempt at de-escalating a matter. Idiotic and lacking in context basically sum up your homeless shelter example, really. If the entire story is "volunteer sighed and they kicked them out for it" then who in their right mind would support that sort of thing? Are you suggesting that this is good or merely something that happens? If that is what rises to the level of "personal abuse" for you then I suggest that its amazing you've managed to stay online for so long.

Your mental well-being.
After our conversation (and not at the time you suppose in your complaint, and now after reading your reactions to these posts I am actually concerned about your mental well-being. I mean this sincerely and honestly. You should seek help. You are paranoid to a concerning degree. Mate, you even came close to implying that because the forums were having issues and you couldn't post this complaint for a few minutes that there was some sort of conspiracy to keep you from posting. Frankly, I'm not going to break down all of the psychological issues present but the way you carry yourself reminds me of those people who unironically believe in gangstalking. If you're already being treated or have already been evalutated, I hope you do well. It will not excuse how you behaved, but these are separate issues. Saying that you are saying things that do not reflect reality is not "gangstalking" any more than telling you more plainly that you are wrong. If your response to being told that you are wrong is "oh god stop gaslighting me" then, again, seek help. In context the sentence "not really sure what's going on inside (my) head right now, but it's not in tune with reality," refers to your attempt to throw around weight in the conversation by implying that unless admins cave to your demands then the server will cease to be and there will suddenly be no players. You also imply some sort of weird anarchist/power by the people sort of mantra that I entirely tuned out about the second post into it. I honestly just don't have time for your pseudopolitical bullshit and telling you that the sort of socio-political bullshit you are attempting to lay down as a framework for admin-player interactions does not actually exist as a real thing in this three dimensional world in which we live is not gaslighting. Its taking the long way to telling you that you're wrong and basically an idiot projecting power that you do not have. Rule 6 explains the roles fairly well. Short of a ruling from above, the rulings given down by admins are the final word. If an admin says "Stop doing X." or "X is a violation of rule Y, stop doing it" you stop doing it. Period. There is no obligation that they engage you in an extended conversation about the merits of the rule, the way that the rule was announced, where the announcement was made, and then asking for exceptions to be made because you feel entitled to them for whatever reason. If the admin is incorrect, make a complaint. Here, the rule you were given was correct. The fact that you were not given a citation to a forum post or a link to the wiki at a speed or time of your choosing is nobody's problem but your own. You were owed exactly nothing in this case and I told you as much at the time.

What I and other admins are here for.

I can't pretend to speak for every admin, but I'll explain what I'm here for and what I've put thousands of connections of my personal time into this for. I'm here to ensure that the players to the game can play the game and that all players of said game are held to the same rules that are set forth by the admins above me. I'm here to ensure that if a person is being disruptive to a degree that it infringes on other players playing the game, the offending player is stopped from doing so and that the other players are left in peace. What I am NOT here for is to entertain your own personal issues. I'm not here to argue the finest points of whatever sociopolitical framework you think should be imposed over admin-player relations. I'm frankly not. Its not my job, not my problem, and it shouldn't be the problem of other admins working with me to provide a space for players to actually play the game. You were distruptive in OOC, I muted it. You were obnoxious and making demands I still find improper in ahelps to a junior admin so I interjected and made it clear that you were being obnoxious. You can be as salty and upset about that as you like. Its not my job to fall over myself to kiss your ass or to beg you to play on the server. I got a very strong impression that you thought I would have to because 1) you threatened to pull your contribution from the server upkeep, as though I see a penny of it or as though it were some sort of threat to my "employer" 2) you implied that if you left the server that the server would suddenly be a barren wasteland that would have no need of adminship or some such self-important nonsense 3) your "this isn't the military" diatribe.

You acted like an asshole, you were treated like an asshole.

[imblyings]

>emotionally abusing cedar into writing tldr

this has gone on long enough.