[<TheBibleMelts>] Voudez - uhhh ummm yeah..

[Voudez]

When and where this incident occured: Forums
Byond account and character name OR Discord name: voudez
Admin:TheBibleMelts

Detailed summary: Heya, this is rather not a complaint but a questions that confuses me.
In a recent event, we had one quality control ban that I worried about. If I remember correctly, the main goal of any temporary/permament/Quality Control bans is not only to punish people for their behavior but also to let them work over it.
So, what Im talking about? Im talking about Sk1wass3r QC ban.
In that thread Sk1wass3r, with the current ban reason,

Quality Control - Has demonstrated over the course of their time here that they're not here to play well with either fellow players, or staff members. By accounts of several members of the team who have watched his playstyle on the server, as well as his actions taken to maliciously antagonize staff members without provocation, we don't feel like you're here in good faith. This QC ban was placed with unanimous headmin support, so an appeal is not recommended this term unless you have sizable reasoning to provide that you've changed.

explains that they want to discuss it as the main goal:

My main reasoning for this appeal is that I want to discuss; TheBibleMelts joined the server and messaged me about the QC ban but then banned me without responding to my messages.
First of all, I want to ask what behavior in my playstyle is meant in the ban? how have I demonstrated I don't play well with other players? whats meant by "actions taken to maliciously antagonize staff"? the ban reason doesn't really explain to me what I did wrong so if anything I just want to clear up the reasoning and how I can improve.

And after a couple of time they get this answer from TheBibleMelts:

hey, sorry for the late reply. it's been a busy couple of days. your unprompted antagonism toward staff, as well as general quality of play on the servers have led us here - you've racked up about 9 OOC in IC notes in the past few months, on top of other bans and notes that displayed disregard for the people you share this server with, and seemed to have had no indication of wanting to change your playstyle to be more in line with the minimum that is enforced for our sybil/basil/terry servers. this QC ban was discussed for a while, and opinions were gathered from administrators who have spent many rounds with you first-hand, and we ultimately came to a 3/3 vote as a result of it.

i'm sorry you feel this is out of the blue, and i thank you dearly for your contributions to my love of our TTS system, but you were given more than enough time and chances to improve over the last few months and simply did not take it. we're denying this appeal.

After a few hours, that topic was closed.

The main questions that I worry about is:

• Why the thread was closed without giving them a chance to respond?

• Is "your unprompted antagonism toward staff" an answer to "his actions taken to maliciously antagonize staff members without provocation" with a full description of their actions?

• How was Sk1wass3r supposed to start working on his behavior before his permaban when the major indication of his misbehavior was 2 weeks ago (from the moment when appeal topic was created), but quality control ban scales up to couple of months?

The point of these questions is not to try to blame TheBibleMelts, hell no, but to understand why it happened and could it be handled more properly? Im not saying the ban is unjustified, but the denial of appeal looks odd.

[TheBibleMelts]

hi hello, it's me, the guy you titled this thread to. this seems like a weird way to address some basic questions at me when i wasn't the only one involved in the process, but i'll try to respond to what you listed.

the qc ban was placed due to a notably steady decline in his playstyle, so i figured there wasn't a whole lot to discuss beyond my reasons listed if the vote was already 3/3 to uphold, and so locked it, as i have done with other threads that had already had us review it.

iain0 had already given him The Talk about a potential QC a few weeks before this was placed. he had his chance to try and change his trajectory as far as i am personally concerned, and he did not take it.

i think that linking a three-month old note that you disagree with in OOC chat with zero provocation and telling that admin to retire is a dick move, and the fact that he did it knowing he'd have friends from the terrygang around him to dogpile ontop of it made him look like nothing but a dude trying to shit-stir and harass.

i think that addresses your main questions.

this thread might fall into this category, btw.

New host ruling: Admin's banning conduct can not be the subject of an admin complaint. That is what appeals are for, and the appeal leading to the ban being overturn is the minimum bar required before a complaint can be filed that references the ban conduct.

You already have an appeal up, headmins know about it. Leave it at that.

[Vekter]

this thread might fall into this category, btw.

New host ruling: Admin's banning conduct can not be the subject of an admin complaint. That is what appeals are for, and the appeal leading to the ban being overturn is the minimum bar required before a complaint can be filed that references the ban conduct.

You already have an appeal up, headmins know about it. Leave it at that.

The intent behind that rule was to prevent people opening complaints about the behavior of an admin during the process of banning/noting someone. I believe Voudez' concern is in regards to locking the thread before he felt the discussion had ended, which would be a complaint against a forum action.

[TheBibleMelts]

this thread might fall into this category, btw.

New host ruling: Admin's banning conduct can not be the subject of an admin complaint. That is what appeals are for, and the appeal leading to the ban being overturn is the minimum bar required before a complaint can be filed that references the ban conduct.

You already have an appeal up, headmins know about it. Leave it at that.

The intent behind that rule was to prevent people opening complaints about the behavior of an admin during the process of banning/noting someone. I believe Voudez' concern is in regards to locking the thread before he felt the discussion had ended, which would be a complaint against a forum action.

i see. if either chesh or fikou would like to open and revisit the thread and speak their piece, they can have at it.

[Voudez]

this seems like a weird way to address some basic questions at me when i wasn't the only one involved in the process

Yeah, I understand that, and Im sorry for causing inconvenience, but you are one of headmins who represents all actions in the appeal thread.

the qc ban was placed due to a notably steady decline in his playstyle, so i figured there wasn't a whole lot to discuss beyond my reasons listed if the vote was already 3/3 to uphold, and so locked it, as i have done with other threads that had already had us review it.

I assume that wasn't only about discussion but rather explanation of their actions.

First of all, I want to ask what behavior in my playstyle is meant in the ban? how have I demonstrated I don't play well with other players? whats meant by "actions taken to maliciously antagonize staff"? the ban reason doesn't really explain to me what I did wrong so if anything I just want to clear up the reasoning and how I can improve.

And with that assumption, you "resolve" the thread as headmin without the opportunity to let them say they did understand their ban reason or ask any additional question that could lead to their understanding.

My point is that no matter what admin or headmin were involved, as long as the appealer follows Ban Appeal Forum Rules #10

This forum is for ban appeals made in good faith only. Major actions of bad faith in your ban appeal will be punished. Your ability to appeal bans can be revoked, leaving you fucked if you are perma banned. Lying, forging supporting evidence, or making baseless claims against the administration will not end well for you.

They deserve more explanation of their actions that led to their ban, and I feel like that appeal lacks it.


Other question were answered.

[Cheshify]

If there's more to say, it will be in the appeal then. This is a strange situation for all involved so we'll be closing the complaint and opening the appeal back up for any more discussions that feel relevant.

Chesh - Yeah
Fikover - +1