[Sightld2] FerroLocus - Egregious Misrepresentation, Exaggeration, and Unprofessional Conduct

[Locust]

BYOND account: FerroLocus
Character name: Lex Lenning
Ban type: note
Ban length: note
Ban reason: "Given a final warning about meta-grudging. Combative and argumentive in ahelps."

Time ban was placed: 1:16:58

Server you were playing on when banned: Manuel

Round ID in which ban was placed: (196177)

Your side of the story: The round started, I walked into the kitchen and saw a banana cream pie on the table. I picked up and stored the pie in my backpack. I then walked into dorms to change clothes and threw said banana cream pie into the face of another assistant before continuing about my day.

Why you think you should be unbanned: I’m gonna be honest, I didn’t initially intend on appealing this seeing as I didn’t actually get banned. It left a bitter taste in my mouth, though, and the more I thought about it the more insidious this whole interaction started to seem.

Allow me to explain,

The “my side of the story” section, while completely factual, left out the context which prompted the admin to note me. The note the admin placed also left out the context which prompted the admin to note me. In fact, the note the admin left doesn’t provide ANY context whatsoever. Before I do what the admin apparently couldn’t be bothered to and tell you why this actually happened, let’s discuss the deeply concerning nature of the note itself.

This note is a complete nondiscriptor designed to be an aggressively-worded black mark rather than an accurate description of my “crimes.” This note provides absolutely no information other than calling me a meta grudger and implying that I’d been warned about this many times, both of which are untrue. I can't blame the admin for not including context, though, as I can't see how you could convincingly word the events that led to the note in a way that wouldn’t make it seem completely farcical and unjustified. “Pied my friend” just doesn’t have the same ring to it, wouldn’t you agree?

Context time. In a round the day before (196037) I’d come across the assistant that I would later pie (Mariam Cately), squatting in tool storage with two or three others being a general nuisance. I spraycanned them in the face. They told security I “assaulted” them and had me arrested. Around 30 minutes later I, in retaliation for them getting me arrested, threw a smoke grenade filled with light space drugs at a splinter group that didn't include the assistant in question. They shot me to death with a .357. An admin (WalterTruck) bwoinked me but was understanding and left the interaction IC, with me dying to a .357 over two harmless pranks. I was also told not to “harass” those specific players and given a non note verbal warning. A warning which I fully respected.


That’s it. That’s the context. Some things worth mentioning before I make my final argument:

-These incidents were a day apart, and separated by several rounds where both me and the assistant played and had either no or neutral interactions.

-The assistant I pied was not present for, nor was the target of the smoke grenade.

-The admin either lied or decided to be completely ignorant of the facts by saying that I had done this in “several” rounds, when in reality it was TWO, a day apart.

-This is the only note I have received on this server

All in all, the tally of interactions I’ve had with this assistant amount to the following:

1x spraycan to the face
Several rounds in-between worth of neutral interactions.
1x pie to the face

Please, gods almighty, explain to me how this is metagrudging because I feel like I’m going fucking insane. How are two interactions that amount to nothing more than two seconds of stun time and a trip to the bathroom “Targeted griefing?”

As for "Combative in Ahelps," I feel the logs speak for themselves. I never used any obscenities, I tried to point out their absurd exaggerations as politely as possible, and the only thing I did that could be considered rude was copy-pasting the definition of "several" after the admin misused it when describing the amount of times I had done this. I'll admit that was childish, and I apologise.

References of good conduct:

Anything else we should know: I’m confident in saying that in my hours playing here I’ve maintained a decent RP standard, done fun gimmicks, and had no serious OOC negative interactions with anybody up until this point. Though from my note record, you’d think I was a shithead griefer. That note seems specifically worded to give whatever admin I interact with in the future ammunition and incentive to ban me, and that's something I can't stand for.

[Vekter]

You didn't actually post the logs, let me help you with that.

From Ticket #3 during round 196177 on Manuel
Ticket opened at 2022-12-13 01:02:30 by sightld2
Log:
01:02:30: Ticket Opened by-sightld2: You've been spoken to before about repeatedly griefing this exact person. There's no reason for you as an assistant to randomly pie anyone to begin with.
01:03:14: Reply from-ferrolocus: I threw a pie into someone's face how is that griefing
01:04:27: Reply from-sightld2: How is it not? What is it beyond screwing with someone? But again, you were already warned about doing this sort of thing, to the exact same person.
01:05:42: Reply from-ferrolocus: Are you not allowed to screw with someone? A pie to the face is the most basic thing, I've had pies randomly thrown in my face more times then I can count when did it become an issue?
01:06:47: Reply from-sightld2: The largest point, is that you've been told off for repeatedly doing this to the same target. Last time you got away with saying "How is two pranks in 20 minutes consistent." At this point, it very clearly is consistently, targetted griefing.
01:07:47: Reply from-ferrolocus: how is three pranks over the course of days consistant, targetted griefing?
01:08:15: Reply from-ferrolocus: especially when one of them is LITERALLY a pie to the face
01:09:07: Reply from-sightld2: Even then, that kind of minor grief is reserved for clowns. You're not a clown, your an assisstant, going out of your way to get a pie, and again, target the exact same player.
01:09:28: Reply from-sightld2: but for the record. Yes. Three times in days is a pattern.
01:11:21: Reply from-ferrolocus: it was on a table in the kitchen, I didn't go out of my way to make it or obtain it. It was just there, in a place that everybody visits. If minor ""grief"" (pie in the face) was reserved for clowns then that's the worst case of inconsistant moderation I've ever seen.
01:12:18: Reply from-sightld2: If a single player repeatedly over the course of several rounds caused minor grief to you, and it was ahelped, it would be handled the same way. Can you just not target this player anymore? Ok?
01:13:25: Reply from-ferrolocus: sev·er·al#/ˈsev(ə)rəl/#determiner · pronoun#_>_>_>more<_<_<_ than two but not many.#"the author of several books"##it was TWO rounds a day apart
01:14:57: Reply from-sightld2: I'm asking you to not with this player. Can you do that or are you going to keep debating?
01:16:05: Reply from-ferrolocus: I can do that
01:16:17: Reply from-sightld2: Thank you. Enjoy the rest of the round.
01:16:58: Sightld2/(Glyphidoptera Hirashimai) has created a note for FerroLocus<br />Given a final warning about meta-grudging. Combatitive and arguementive in ahelps.
01:17:04: Resolved by Sightld2
---- No futher messages ----
This ticket was generated by Statbus v.0.14.0

[Sightld2]

The note the admin left doesn’t provide ANY context whatsoever. Before I do what the admin apparently couldn’t be bothered to and tell you why this actually happened, let’s discuss the deeply concerning nature of the note itself.

In my eyes, this was rather simple. I didn't think further context was needed beyond "I've asked this player to stop randomly pranking this player." However, I do concede that "Final warning about meta-grudging" is too harsh wording and I will lower the severity of the note and change its wording, more on that later, we can perhaps come to an agreement about what a more fair wording would be.

I can't blame the admin for not including context, though, as I can't see how you could convincingly word the events that led to the note in a way that wouldn’t make it seem completely farcical and unjustified. “Pied my friend” just doesn’t have the same ring to it, wouldn’t you agree?

I'm sorry I don't follow. Are you are accusing me of noting for you causing minor inconvenience to "my friend"?

Context time. In a round the day before (196037) I’d come across the assistant that I would later pie (Mariam Cately), squatting in tool storage with two or three others being a general nuisance. I spraycanned them in the face. They told security I “assaulted” them and had me arrested. Around 30 minutes later I, in retaliation for them getting me arrested, threw a smoke grenade filled with light space drugs at a splinter group that didn't include the assistant in question. They shot me to death with a .357. An admin (WalterTruck) bwoinked me but was understanding and left the interaction IC, with me dying to a .357 over two harmless pranks. I was also told not to “harass” those specific players and given a non note verbal warning. A warning which I fully respected.

-The assistant I pied was not present for, nor was the target of the smoke grenade.

Firstly. It was my assumption that this player was effected by the smoke bomb. However, even with them not, I considered this note to be a warning for meta-grudging this entire group at large, not just this one player, this is another reason I left out the exact specific of the context, given that the note doesn't entirely refer to the triggering context, but the one prior to it as well. I understand that I may not have conveyed this very well in our ticket conversation.

-These incidents were a day apart, and separated by several rounds where both me and the assistant played and had either no or neutral interactions.

I honestly don't believe the amount of times between the unprompted negative interactions is much of an excuse.

-The admin either lied or decided to be completely ignorant of the facts by saying that I had done this in “several” rounds, when in reality it was TWO, a day apart.

Right, I misspoke in our ticket. I said "several rounds" when I meant "several instances" two of which were in the same round. My apologies.

-This is the only note I have received on this server

I’m confident in saying that in my hours playing here I’ve maintained a decent RP standard, done fun gimmicks, and had no serious OOC negative interactions with anybody up until this point.

I've looked through quite a bit of your logs. And I agree. But I also don't consider it much of a defense, given that you haven't been here very long at all. In fact, it was me who accepted your interview the first time.

How are two interactions that amount to nothing more than two seconds of stun time and a trip to the bathroom “Targeted griefing?”

As I said, I considered the group at large, making it three interactions. And "targeted" I use in this context to say that you are not preforming these types actions on anyone else (to my knowledge). In fact, Waltertruck used a similar wording when he first spoke to you "Repeatedly harassed" However I understand you disagree with that wording as well.

As for "Combative in Ahelps," I feel the logs speak for themselves. I never used any obscenities, I tried to point out their absurd exaggerations as politely as possible, and the only thing I did that could be considered rude was copy-pasting the definition of "several" after the admin misused it when describing the amount of times I had done this. I'll admit that was childish, and I apologise.

I appreciate that. Consider that from my perspective, I was asking you to stop messing with this player, and as I read it you replied "I've only done it twice, no, I'm going to keep on."
I understand that tone doesn't convey well through text and apologize for my own skepticism of your words.

Though from my note record, you’d think I was a shithead griefer. That note seems specifically worded to give whatever admin I interact with in the future ammunition and incentive to ban me, and that's something I can't stand for.

I agree. The note is far too harshly worded and your concerns are valid here. My intent was to mean "Asked to stop, if he does it again, escalate." Which is why I was mostly content with the conclusion of our ticket, where I asked you to stop with this specific player and you agreed. The severity of the note comes from the hostilities that you've apologized for and that I misread. I agree, it paints you in a light I did not intend, especially without context.

So, how does this sound? We'll lower the severity to minor and it can read "Asked to stop with minor pranks against <INSERT CKEYS>."

I can include context, but I'm not sure it's entirely relevant beyond that. I think the lack of context was mostly egregious given the severity of the note, and without that it would be fine to exclude it. Thoughts?

[Locust]

I agree. The note is far too harshly worded and your concerns are valid here. My intent was to mean "Asked to stop, if he does it again, escalate." Which is why I was mostly content with the conclusion of our ticket, where I asked you to stop with this specific player and you agreed. The severity of the note comes from the hostilities that you've apologized for and that I misread. I agree, it paints you in a light I did not intend, especially without context.

So, how does this sound? We'll lower the severity to minor and it can read "Asked to stop with minor pranks against <INSERT CKEYS>."

I can include context, but I'm not sure it's entirely relevant beyond that. I think the lack of context was mostly egregious given the severity of the note, and without that it would be fine to exclude it. Thoughts?

This sounds fair, up to you if you want to include the context or not. Overall I think we both misrepresented our own points of view during the ahelp and I'm glad wee could come to an understanding. Sorry for the short response, but it's late and I'm happy to put this behind us at this point.

[Sightld2]

Note is amended. Thanks for appealing chief .

[san7890]

I'm happy to put this behind us at this point.

Locking per appealer's wishes, please contact me via Forums PM or any other channel if this is not the case and I will re-open the appeal.

[Locust]

Resurrecting this because, after talking to some other players, It seems like I have a better case then I initially thought. I am requesting a headmin review for the complete removal of this note. This whole situation is unreasonable, and I can't see this note as something that came from a position of good faith, especially considering the context. Receiving an ahelp about a pie, and deciding to act upon it is comedic at best and malicious at worst. Do you really think there should be precedent to ahelp things this minor in nature?

To quote a user in the policy discussion thread this spawned,

In order to meta grudge someone, you have to be griefing them in the first place.

To call pieing someone metagrudging, you first need to justify that hitting the person with the pie was actually grief.

[Sightld2]

Your note does not at this time include either the words "metagrudge" or "grief"

Do you really think there should be precedent to ahelp things this minor in nature?

Firstly, an Admin's opinion is not policy. Secondly, and I cannot stress this enough given that no one in the peanut thread understands this: you were not noted for throwing a pie at someone.

I can't see this note as something that came from a position of good faith, especially considering the context.

Allow me to explain my thoughts.

I don't agree with this logic:

In order to meta grudge someone, you have to be griefing them in the first place.

To call pieing someone metagrudging, you first need to justify that hitting the person with the pie was actually grief.

Here is why:
We are agreed that pieing someone, is at worst a mild inconvenience. A trip to the bathroom. Now, lets say hypothetically only for the purposes of arguing against this take, That I decide every single round, I am going to take that pie sitting on that table, hunt you down and throw it at you. As it is behavior that spans multiple rounds, it is meta. I do not care how minor the grief is, because at that point it is an OOC issue. In fact, even if it wasn't a pie, even if it was me hurling insults at you, unprovoked, every round, that is still a metagrudge despite not mechanically affecting you whatsoever

Once again, your note does not use the word meta-grudge at this time. This time around I specifically chose even lighter wording to indicate to the next admin, that if you continued, it should be considered crossing that line and should be considered meta.

I understand that you still might not agree with that, but please consider this and try to understand the other end of the coin.

Lets say, no one is actively hunting you with a pie every round. No one is actually "meta-grudging you."

But every single round, there are one or multiple instances of this exact kind of minor minor minor grief. From not just one person, but actually a sizeable number. Not a majority of the server by a long shot, but around 15 people do it to you. An unprovoked spray can attack here, a laser pointer there, vile things spoken in Dchat about you. You do not feel welcome. Are you expected as a player to let all of this minor grief slide?

I don't think that should be the case. And as an Admin, well I can't call a pie a rule 1 issue. I made a mistake in calling it meta-grudging because I misread you. I've amended this mistake and once again I apologize. I can't do either of those things. but I think it is within my ability, to ask these minor minor minor griefers to chill out before it does become excessive(Rule 1 issue) or consistent(Metagrudging/rule 7).

I think your note in its current state reflects this well.

Even if you disagree, well I hope you see how it came from "a position of good faith"

Do you really think there should be precedent to ahelp things this minor in nature?

No, you shouldn't ahelp a pie being thrown your way. If the same person or several people have thrown pies at you several rounds in a row? Yeah. I think that's fair.

[Locust]

I think we've both made our points as well as we possibly could and the only thing left is for a neutral third party, a headmin, to review our arguments and make a final decision. I have nothing left to say on the matter.

[iwishforducks]

Something to consider that's not mentioned here is that on the round after the original first incident mentioned in the ticket, is that Lex tried to make amends with the player but was denied the opportunity.

https://scrubby.melonmesa.com/round/196042 (Name is censored below in the interest of keeping it topical.)

Code: Select all

11:40:19	EMOTE	FerroLocus/(Lex Lenning) points at [PLAYER]	(176, 114, 3)	Starboard Tram Dock
11:40:21	SAY	[CKEY OF PLAYER]/([PLAYER]) "what?"	(180, 115, 3)	Starboard Tram Dock
11:40:22	SAY	FerroLocus/(Lex Lenning) "I APOLOGISE"	(176, 114, 3)	Starboard Tram Dock
11:40:26	SAY	[CKEY OF PLAYER]/([PLAYER]) "fuck off."	(179, 115, 3)	Starboard Tram Dock

[spookuni]

After a great deal of internal discussion, we have settled on overturning this note.

While there is some grounding to Sight's perception that situations like this may constitute metagrudging behaviour, discussed both here and with additional incidences and information in admin-bus, we do not think it sufficient to apply a non-interaction directive general note. To reveal some normal administrative procedure - the information provided to us by Sight and some other admins would have supported a temporary internal watchlist and further observation. Not direct directive action, especially for a note that covers a whole group of players and not just those involved in prior incidents.

Stripped of that backing, this individual incident must be viewed as a record-keeping note for a specific incident, and on that grounds we do not believe that throwing a pie at someone to be something worth administrative record.

Spook: Overturn
Rave: Overturn - Additionally Pieing people and similar minor pranks are not restricted to clown content, and are not restricted to any particular job.
San: Overturn