/tg/Station 13

Situation:
I left feedback in Cimika's feedback thread (https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic ... 37&t=28792), to which Oranges replied. I in turn replied to that, and apparently more people weighed in although I haven't seen those replies. My reply to oranges was deleted (which is fine and correct, and I assume holds true for the other deleted posts too). Oranges post, however, is not feedback either, just like the deleted posts. I reported this and the report was closed with no action taken.
Action expected:
Application of moderation standards.

Thank you.

Hello! This complaint is against me, and I assume the other two headmins, as I asked them both which posts should be removed before doing so. My logic was that your original post was feedback based on the information that was available to you, and that Oranges' reply gives context to the feedback that is relevant to anyone reading it down the line.
Your reply to Oranges' reply was not feedback, nor did it give greater context to your existing piece of feedback, it was just repeating some hearsay you read in a peanut thread, and the other two replies followed in a similar fashion.

Considering the source of that information was an admin and everything surrounding that post including the "uh oh adminbus leak" replies from more admins was quickly deleted I think it's safe to assume it was not just hearsay but has in fact actually happened. Be that as it may, oranges posts suggests that Cimika was not talked to and that what I'm saying is factually wrong - if it is, it should be deleted. If not, then oranges' post is false, and should be deleted, since it paints a wrong picture and isn't directly feedback.

Thank you.

terranaut wrote:words

Since I am the admin who the *dressing down* is based off of, It is just hearsay. You as an Ex headmin surely realise that admins talk in their own channels and will talk about bans? Having every single time this happens as a framed as a admins talking on high to another is stupid surely you know better. The posts where peanuts and got removed for being such

Leaving incorrect feedback based on the information you had to hand is perfectly acceptable- I don't blame you for leaving feedback based on your understanding of the situation.
However, in light of the greater context you now have from the Headmin responsible for the situation you are referring to, I am more than happy to delete both your post and Oranges' reply, given you're now aware that it's inaccurate and based on false information.

Sure, thanks for clearing it up.

Alright, I'll delete both then.

If this was completely inaccurate, why did you drum me up in the admin shame chatroom and chew me out for "breaching the trust of people who shared opinions with the understanding they won't be shared elsewhere"

I'm not sure why you're arguing with Naloac about what he actually meant- I'd assume he knows what he meant better than anyone, so if he thinks your description of what he said is inaccurate, there's not really anything left to discuss. You're more than welcome to try and convince him of the meanings of his own words in your free time, but none of this is relevant to the complaint.

Not-Dorsidarf wrote:If this was completely inaccurate, why did you drum me up in the admin shame chatroom and chew me out for "breaching the trust of people who shared opinions with the understanding they won't be shared elsewhere"

Maybe it's because you
A) needlessly leaked admin channels
B) in the process of doing so incorrectly described the events that went down, resulting in people incorrectly attacking members of the admin team because of some bullshit you pulled out your ass?

Irrespective of what you think happened, you still deserved to be chewed out for it

Jimmius wrote:Alright, I'll delete both then.

I don't agree to the deletion of my post, it's perfectly valid and I do not think the stupidity of the other user deserves my factual post to be deleted.

oranges wrote:

Not-Dorsidarf wrote:If this was completely inaccurate, why did you drum me up in the admin shame chatroom and chew me out for "breaching the trust of people who shared opinions with the understanding they won't be shared elsewhere"

Maybe it's because you
A) needlessly leaked admin channels
B) in the process of doing so incorrectly described the events that went down, resulting in people incorrectly attacking members of the admin team because of some bullshit you pulled out your ass?

Irrespective of what you think happened, you still deserved to be chewed out for it

I feel I described what happened both reasonably accurately and vaguely enough to not be leaking pertinent information thank u very much Optimum "De-adminned for actually maliciously leaking administrative channels" tact

oranges wrote: I don't agree to the deletion of my post, it's perfectly valid and I do not think the stupidity of the other user deserves my factual post to be deleted.

While your post does give important context to the feedback that would have been relevant if the OP wanted it to remain, he's accepted that it's incorrect feedback based on an incorrect version of events- the context is no longer needed, the feedback is being removed. You're free to provide new feedback that doesn't reference the deleted post, but there's not much use leaving up half a conversation only tangentially related to admin feedback in a feedback thread.