Jump to content

Chief_Engineer

Project Manager
  • Posts

    972
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    56

Chief_Engineer last won the day on March 1

Chief_Engineer had the most liked content!

5 Followers

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Chief_Engineer's Achievements

  1. Sorry for the delay. This complaint has been rejected. The server you were playing on is a low roleplay server. While we take sexual misconduct seriously, we also aim to keep sexual language, including IC accusations of sexual assault, off of our servers since minors can and do play on them. Space Station 14 is not designed to have sexual aspects to it so certain systems, like the clothing system, do not work in a way that allows them to mirror reality well. In Space Station 14, it is not uncommon to see a security officer take off someone's uniform to put them into a prison uniform, or for a crew member to take off their own uniform to put another on, all in public spaces or in public view. Despite these things being inappropriate in the real world, in Space Station 14, they are typically not considered to be inappropriate or sexual. Findings Wizard's Den Lizard is a low RP server. Wizard's Den servers do not allow sexual content, including in chat. While combining it with other actions can easily rise to the level of IC sexual assault, and therefore a rule violation, removing someone's uniform is on its own is not a rule violation. If it were, gameplay would become cumbersome particularly for security. Due to finding 2, simply removing someone's uniform cannot be labeled as sexual assault IC. The admin did not act unprofessionally. The admin did not tell the complainant to pretend that the situation was not a big deal, the admin only instructed the complainant to not label the situation as sexual assault. Resulting Actions No action was taken due to the complaint being rejected.
  2. The relevant round appears to be Lizard 50370. A transcript of the ahelp is provided below. I have not compared the transcript of the ahelp with the one provided by the complainant, but the complainant's appears to be accurate and complete.
  3. The complaint is rejected due to a lack of response from the complainant
  4. The clarification has been edited to make it clearer that there are three situations where hacking knowledge can be recalled.
  5. Paragraph 1 has been modified to account for changes to another rule clarification that allow the term "uplink" to be used before an uplink is discovered IC.
  6. The wording of this clarification has been modified to allow for the use of the term "uplink" without first having to discover uplinks IC
  7. Staff complaints can't be made about active bans or bans which were not successfully appealed. Please use the Ban Appeals section if you'd like to appeal your ban. Feel free to open another complaint if you successfully appeal your ban, but don't feel the situation is fully resolved by the appeal
  8. You can send an admin message with a link to the application
  9. if you or one of your alt accounts are banned, discord won't let you join the server
  10. Thank you for your complaint, it has been accepted. Findings Akamaithewolf is a trial admin A trialmin mentor determined that the note was placed on the wrong player Resulting Actions The complaint was forwarded to trialmin mentors for review, resulting in finding 2 Akamaithewolf was contacted about the complaint The note was removed from the complainant Akamaithewolf asked that you be told that they're sorry this happened.
  11. As a result of your response to the result of this ban appeal, which included claiming that you would ban evade and grief, the admin team has decided to modify the voucher requirements for your ban. A voucher is still required to appeal the ban, but instead of being able to appeal no sooner than 6 months from the time of the original ban, you may appeal no sooner than 12 months from now.
  12. Which ban are you talking about?
  13. Thank you for the complaint, it has been accepted. Findings An "appeal ban" and "indefinite ban" are the same thing. "Indefinite ban" is the term we've been transitioning to from the term "appeal ban" for around 6 months. While "appeal ban" may imply that all that needs to be done for the ban to be lifted is to make an appeal, even when the old term was used in policies, the admin team had the option and regularly did reject appeals of "appeal bans". An "indefinite ban" is one which does not automatically expire, can be appealed, and does not require a voucher of good behavior to appeal. The ban that the complainant appealed was an "indefinite ban". Using the term "reduced" to describe the ban's change from indefinite to 3 weeks is appropriate. The appeal was put up for a vote at least 24 hours prior to being processed. 5 admins, including the processing admin, participated in the appeal through voting or discussion, with 3, not including the processing admin, unanimously voting to reduce, not remove, the ban. Only one admin indicated a suggestion for the reduction in discussion, and the suggestion was 2 weeks. A reasonable interpretation for reductions when unspecified is to reduce to that time from the time that the vote for the appeal was put up rather than from the time that the ban or appeal was made. Processing admins may vote in appeals. Processing admins who vote in appeals are not required to indicate their vote if it is not for a voucher upgrade. For decisions made off discussion consensus, such as reduction times, processing admins must express their positions in the discussion to be able to consider it in their processing, and they must leave sufficient time after doing so for others to disagree. Due to findings 7, 8, and 11, the admin team's consensus was to reduce the ban to 2 weeks from the time of the appeal. The complaint does not provide specific examples of worse or similar appeals of bans which were for worse or similar offenses that were given more leniency, it only references appeals by offense category and lists so many categories that it likely covers a majority of appeals. With the number of factors to consider in a ban appeal, and the nature of those factors, it is extremely difficult to objectively conclude that an appeal was treated unfairly compared to another appeal if the standard appeal procedure was followed. Resulting Actions AjexRose was contacted about the complaint. The ban has been modified to end 2 weeks after the appeal vote was started. AjexRose was informed of finding 11.
  14. This complaint is rejected. Findings A prior complaint was rejected without being evaluated due to not meeting the requirements to make a complaint. This complaint is nearly an exact copy of the prior complaint, it is still a complaint about a ban. The complainant has still not met the same requirements to make this complaint, and has not attempted to appeal their ban. The incident that this complaint is about occurred between Leviathan rounds 46311 and 46316. Resulting Actions Due to the combination of findings 1, 2, and 3, the complainant may not make another complaint about the role bans placed during the incident, or about any other admin action or interaction which occurred during the incident, including ahelps.
  15. Is this a duplicate of the complaint you posted earlier?
×
×
  • Create New...