Mumble ban-Andrew4210

[Andromeda4210]

I was banned for "harassment" for sending a picture of Ron Jeremy to tompreuss after I was warned via a message from Denevien to stop. I'm not sure if this instance would count as harassment as tompreuss didn't communicate with me in the time from the picture being sent to him, to where I was banned that he wanted me to stop. Additionally I'd like this appeal to be handled by an outside individual who isn't kitcatbar due to a potential bias because of her joint decision making with tompreuss in the past, and nor Denevien due to the potential bias on his end due to probably being close friends with the related parties, I'd preferably like Draykar handle the appeal if possible.

Edited February 6, 2014 by Andrew4210

[HailSaban]

[Removed]

Edited February 6, 2014 by Denevien
Do not post in appeals for other players. Last Warning!

[Denevien]

Just posting to let you know that we have seen this, and per your request, I will not be handling this appeal. I've passed all relevant information on to Draykhar.

[Draykhar]

 

I was banned for "harassment" for sending a picture of Ron Jeremy to tompreuss after I was warned via a message from Denevien to stop. I'm not sure if this instance would count as harassment as tompreuss didn't communicate with me in the time from the picture being sent to him, to where I was banned that he wanted me to stop. Additionally I'd like this appeal to be handled by an outside individual who isn't kitcatbar due to a potential bias because of her joint decision making with tompreuss in the past, and nor Denevien due to the potential bias on his end due to probably being close friends with the related parties, I'd preferably like Draykar handle the appeal if possible.

 

You had been messaged by Denevien a few days prior that this type of conduct was not appropriate:

"Recently, I've received complaints from many players about your actions both in game and in mumble. These complaints range from spamming unsolicited materials within a mumble channel, spamming chat with things only meant to harass a user, joining mumble under troll names with intent to harass a user, spamming signs and builds during a build contest with intent to harass a user (this is a complaint from me). These actions need to stop. If you have a problem with a user (whether it be a regular player, or someone on staff), bring it up with one of the staff members. We will look into it and determine if your reasoning is just. Again, this is your only warning on these topics. No more sending picture to other channels, No more joining under troll names. No more actions with intent to harass someone. If you are unsure if something is harassment, chances are it is. I will not be lenient on this (including the mumble comments). Be sure to spread the word to any others involved."

 

 

 

Beyond that, you were warned nearly a month ago for the same thing. Twice now before this ban contact was made regarding this. You had already been asked to stop and neglected to do so. A warning between you doing it yet another time and your ban would have been frivolous: It didn't get through the first two times, why would the third be any different?

 

Your Mumble ban will remain in place. Sorry, but you can request a unban from mumble one month from the start of this appeal. Please reappeal on the 5th of of March and we will see that you are unbanned. In the mean time, reacquaint  yourself with the rules and take a look at your actions. You've consistently followed a pattern of skirting the harassment rule in various mediums. I don't want to see you banned again.

 

 

Moving past that, I'd like to address some of the more unsavory things I unearthed in seeking information regarding this appeal:

 

2014-01-28 21:30:57 | <Andrew4210> #DeModTomPreuss2014

2014-02-01 15:41:04 | [Andrew4210 -> REDACTED] how could you help me? what could we even do?

2014-02-01 15:41:22 | [REDACTED -> Andrew4210] get as much friendly staff members on your side

2014-02-01 15:41:28 | [REDACTED-> Andrew4210] set off a flame war in modchat 

2014-02-01 15:42:12 | [Andrew4210 -> REDACTED] I know a lot of people here hate tompreuss, how can we use that? I know you know them better than me

 

2014-02-01 16:09:47 | [Andrew4210 -> REDACTED] are you sure I shouldn't wait for the appeal? I have a friend who said he could get

2014-02-01 16:10:03 | [Andrew4210 -> REDACTED] dray, tornado horse, mr loud, and a few others on my side

 

 

 

 

This isn't appropriate whatsoever. Bans, their appeals, and all of the aftermath of them should not be used as rallying points to pit staff against each other; these appeals are a laying out of the facts, and a determination of what is to become afterwards, not about who's on whose side. As moderators and admins, we're placed in these role to handle the problems that arise in an unbiased manner, not pick sides in what is really a small ban-appeal blown way out of proportion. Nor is yelling out things like #demodtompreuss2014 in chat repeatedly going to get you anywhere. If you have a problem with anyone - staff or player alike - take it up with an admin you feel comfortable talking to, not pitting everyone against each other.

[Andromeda4210]

I would like to state that I was not attempting to "pit staff against each other" the plan in question was to find mods who shared my belief that recent moderating has generally declined in quality. I felt this appeal was an example of this because the usual banning protocal wasn't followed.

Additionally another player brought up an issue with moderation including how mostly new moderators tend to insufficently handle players who express homophobia and racism.

The quote in question about a "flame war" was an individual's interpretation of when I asked him to find like minded individuals to have the civil discussion in my attempt to improve the community, which I brushed off their comment as a joke, as I didn't legitimately want to cause conflict.

In providing this information I am hoping to convey how I am not attempting to cause further conflict, but inversely attempting to improve the nerd.nu community. The reason I kept it to private message was to not cause drama in game towards other people. If you wish to have this information verified I can give you the name of a specific individual that I was working with and they can explain as well.

On the topic of the # comment I understand how it can be viewed as immature and possibly hateful but I'd like to express that it was not meant to be viewed as a personal attack, or with malice. The saying was a circle-jerk topic within my group of friends which admittedly could be viewed as getting out of hand. In knowing this I can assure you that I will make my best attempt in preventing a similar instance from happening again.

In providing this information, I would hope that there would be the possibility of a reduced time for the mumble ban due to a misunderstanding, if the stated offenses contributed to the lengthy ban time.

Thank you for reading this essay of a post and I wish you all the best.

Edited February 6, 2014 by Andrew4210

[Denevien]

 

I would like to state that I was not attempting to "pit staff against each other" the plan in question was to find mods who shared my belief that recent moderating has generally declined in quality. I felt this appeal was an example of this because the usual banning protocal wasn't followed.

As we've been saying, it was followed. You were warned multiple times. We are not required to warn you once a day. When we say don't do something, that doesn't mean don't do it for the rest of the day. It means never. As I asked you in a PM, I don't understand why you would think it would be ok to send pictures to someone who had already warned you not to do that (and he even gave you a note for, which I feel was the start of all of this).

 

To answer something else you brought up earlier:

 

I'm not sure if this instance would count as harassment as tompreuss didn't communicate with me in the time from the picture being sent to him, to where I was banned that he wanted me to stop.

Per our Expectations for Staff page:

 

Also, keep in mind that you may not always be the best person to moderate a situation. It is best to avoid moderating anything that directly involves you.

 

 

In the logs, I saw you discussing this topic with some other people:

 

Additionally another player brought up an issue with moderation including how mostly new moderators tend to insufficently handle players who express homophobia and racism.

The person you were speaking with was wrong, we do not ALWAYS go straight to a ban for these situations. Many people do, but it is not required. We teach the new mods basic guidelines, but since each situation is different, they are welcome to be more lenient to players if they wish. We are not in the business of trying to ban everyone we can, we do our best to fix behavior without bans if possible (thus the multiple warnings sent to you, and the time I took in mumble to discuss it with you). If you have more questions regarding any of this, let us know. Though regarding your request for a length adjustment, that will be for Draykhar, since he was the one to issue it.

[Andromeda4210]

To be quite honest I believe that what I did does not count as spam (seeing as how I sent one picture to him not even every day) but simply a stretch for tompreuss to have a reason to have me banned after he already disliked me.

 

Additionally I never stated nor implied that you are in the business of trying to ban everyone you can, I simply believe that the current method of moderation isn't up to standards as it used to be and when you said that the person I was speaking to was wrong, that's your opinion, plus that individual doesn't want nerd.nu to ban everyone we come in contact with as well.

 

I intend to speak of this further in a civilized meeting, not in my ban appeal and if you could not post further in my ban appeal it would be much appreciated, seeing as how you stated

 

 

Do not post in appeals for other players.   

​I feel very strongly about you posting here seeing as how you provide information that only goes against me, and when Hail Saban attempted to provide additional information that would help, you chose censorship. Also please ignore the second quotation box, I didn't know how to type this after the first but it let me after the second.

Edited February 6, 2014 by Andrew4210

[Draykhar]

I would like to state that I was not attempting to "pit staff against each other" the plan in question was to find mods who shared my belief that recent moderating has generally declined in quality. I felt this appeal was an example of this because the usual banning protocal wasn't followed.

Additionally another player brought up an issue with moderation including how mostly new moderators tend to insufficently handle players who express homophobia and racism.

The quote in question about a "flame war" was an individual's interpretation of when I asked him to find like minded individuals to have the civil discussion in my attempt to improve the community, which I brushed off their comment as a joke, as I didn't legitimately want to cause conflict.

In providing this information I am hoping to convey how I am not attempting to cause further conflict, but inversely attempting to improve the nerd.nu community. The reason I kept it to private message was to not cause drama in game towards other people. If you wish to have this information verified I can give you the name of a specific individual that I was working with and they can explain as well.

On the topic of the # comment I understand how it can be viewed as immature and possibly hateful but I'd like to express that it was not meant to be viewed as a personal attack, or with malice. The saying was a circle-jerk topic within my group of friends which admittedly could be viewed as getting out of hand. In knowing this I can assure you that I will make my best attempt in preventing a similar instance from happening again.

In providing this information, I would hope that there would be the possibility of a reduced time for the mumble ban due to a misunderstanding, if the stated offenses contributed to the lengthy ban time.

Thank you for reading this essay of a post and I wish you all the best.

Deneviens already covered all of this, but I'll reiterate a few points that I feel you're not getting. A ban and its subsequent appeal is not the place to incite discussion on whether or not the staff is what you consider adequate. It's to bring the cold facts into the warm light of day and work from there. I'm not taking these actions into account whatsoever in the length of your ban, but rather presenting them to you so that you understand that a ban appeal is not a rallying point. If you'd like to continue the discussion about inadequate staffing or staff misconduct, I'd be happy to hear you out, however a ban appeal is not the place to do so.

 

And standard protocol /was/ followed. You'd been warned about it prior - a month before and again a few days before. You had your fair share of warnings - and even admit yourself that you deserved it 

 

 

2014-02-02 15:14:47 | [REDACTED-> Andrew4210] you may have deserved the action taken, you have been warned numerous times in the past,

 

2014-02-02 15:14:58 | [Andrew4210 -> REDACTED] true

 

 

 

 

To be quite honest I believe that what I did does not count as spam (seeing as how I sent one picture to him not even every day) but simply a stretch for tompreuss to have a reason to have me banned after he already disliked me.

 

Additionally I never stated nor implied that you are in the business of trying to ban everyone you can, I simply believe that the current method of moderation isn't up to standards as it used to be and when you said that the person I was speaking to was wrong, that's your opinion, plus that individual doesn't want nerd.nu to ban everyone we come in contact with as well.

 

I intend to speak of this further in a civilized meeting, not in my ban appeal and if you could not post further in my ban appeal it would be much appreciated, seeing as how you stated

​I feel very strongly about you posting here seeing as how you provide information that only goes against me, and when Hail Saban attempted to provide additional information that would help, you chose censorship. Also please ignore the second quotation box, I didn't know how to type this after the first but it let me after the second.

 

You weren't banned for spam, you were banned for harassment, and you had already been warned about it numerous times. Hell, there were people in the channel verbally warning you not to send it in the time building up to you sending it. I'm upholding your 1 month ban length. I hope that's enough time for you to look at your actions and see what you can do to change them.

[ROCKONN]

I've been asked by Andrew to weigh in on the situation, as we've (for lack of better wording) brushed over the main issue at hand. Before making my points though, please note that I'm not in support of Andrew's negative actions in mumble, now or ever.

 

Andrew was not warned by Tompreuss that he was acting out of line at the time in question. Regardless of knowing what he was doing or not, the issue here is not Andrew's conduct (wrong as it was), which could have been ceased simply with a warning, but the rash action taken by Tompreuss. I've been led to believe that there is a history between the two, which should not hold a bearing on the situation, but based on the presented facts I'm under the impression did in fact come into play.

 

You, Dray/Den, have noted that Andrew's been warned in the past for his actions, there's no denying that fact. However, I'm fairly certain that Tompreuss did not have the knowledge that another offense would subsequently lead to a ban, as his previous warning would have been his last. Based on that grounded assumption, (as every moderator should) Tompreuss should have warned Andrew that he was crossing a line, especially since he's claiming that he was being harassed. Being spoken to by fellow players verbally, by our own standards in practice, does NOT hold the same weight as a moderator warning a player to cease an activity violating rules/code of conduct, and should NEVER replace a staff member's actions to be taken. No warning was given at the time of the incident, nor in the time leading up to Andrew's ban, by Tom or any other staff member potentially involved. Tompreuss never once asked to be left out of the discussion at hand and never spoke to Andrew at the time in question.Tompreuss's jump to labeling the situation as harassment is simply that, a jump (of the proverbial gun), and has in turn cost Andrew his Mumble privileges.

 

I'm not saying that Tompreuss is in the wrong, completely, as it's every staff member's right to pass off a situation to fellow staff members if they feel that they're compromised or just cannot handle the situation at the time. However, the jump straight to the assumption of harassment coupled with the known history between Andrew & Tom conclusively suggests that a bias was brought into play for the situation. Tom's own history of imposing his own set of parameters on the Mumble rules/code of conduct further supports that he is prone to make judgements not in keeping with Nerd standards.

 

On these points, I'd like the following actions taken:

1- Andrew's ban length cut in half. There's no denying that he was being a dick, however he was not given the direct opportunity to correct his behavior due to a moderator's error in judgement via a pre-existing bias.

2- A retraining of all staff members in Mumble Conduct, and a closer watch taken on its primary staff residents.

 

I appreciate your time, and the effort you've all made in considering the facts of this issue, as well as your focus on the true issues at hand. Further debate of these points is welcome, and explanations for any facts you have questions about can be provided with a message to myself or a look through our logs.

Edited February 13, 2014 by ROCKONN

[Denevien]

Andrew was not warned by Tompreuss that he was acting out of line at the time in question. Regardless of knowing what he was doing or not, the issue here is not Andrew's conduct (wrong as it was), which could have been ceased simply with a warning, but the rash action taken by Tompreuss. I've been led to believe that there is a history between the two, which should not hold a bearing on the situation, but based on the presented facts I'm under the impression did in fact come into play.

 

You, Dray/Den, have noted that Andrew's been warned in the past for his actions, there's no denying that fact. However, I'm fairly certain that Tompreuss did not have the knowledge that another offense would subsequently lead to a ban, as his previous warning would have been his last. Based on that grounded assumption, (as every moderator should) Tompreuss should have warned Andrew that he was crossing a line, especially since he's claiming that he was being harassed. Being spoken to by fellow players verbally, by our own standards in practice, does NOT hold the same weight as a moderator warning a player to cease an activity violating rules/code of conduct, and should NEVER replace a staff member's actions to be taken. No warning was given at the time of the incident, nor in the time leading up to Andrew's ban, by Tom or any other staff member potentially involved. Tompreuss never once asked to be left out of the discussion at hand and never spoke to Andrew at the time in question.Tompreuss's jump to labeling the situation as harassment is simply that, a jump (of the proverbial gun), and has in turn cost Andrew his Mumble privileges.

I was personally in contact with Tom throughout the whole ordeal. He completely avoided handling the situation himself, to avoid claim of bias and abuse (which did not seem to work at all). I issued the warning in his place, warned Andrew that he was "crossing a line". You said:

 

Being spoken to by fellow players verbally, by our own standards in practice, does NOT hold the same weight as a moderator warning a player to cease an activity violating rules/code of conduct, and should NEVER replace a staff member's actions to be taken. No warning was given at the time of the incident, nor in the time leading up to Andrew's ban, by Tom or any other staff member potentially involved.

I stepped in, I was involved. I issued the warning as a staff member, to him and others involved. So, yes. A warning was issued "in the time leading up to Andrew's ban". Andrew knew what he was doing was wrong, given that we discussed the warning in mumble, yet continued on his action.

 

You claim:

 

Tom's own history of imposing his own set of parameters on the Mumble rules/code of conduct further supports that he is prone to make judgements not in keeping with Nerd standards.

From our own set of rules (I'll bold the ones I've personally witnessed Andrew violating):

 

• No “spamming” in the mumble with loud or generally annoying noises
• For Mumble you will be asked to put on push to talk, if a player fails to do so they may be moved to the channel “Turn On Push to Talk”. If a player repeatedly joins a channel and causes problems he or she may be kicked or banned.
• No sexism, racism, homophobia or any type of hate speech, especially targeted at specific users (harassment).
• Excessive trolling in general will not be tolerated and may result in a ban from the forum, mumble, and/or the nerd.nu servers. This includes trolling with your nickname.
• No posting of other players' personal information without their explicit permission in any server-associated communication channel (including but not limited to names, photographs, addresses and social networking profiles).
• Please do not discuss bans in irc or mumble if it has the potential of being disruptive. Persisting in doing so can result in kicks/bans from irc or mumble. Bans can be discussed and resolved on the forums (nerd.nu/appeal).
• Please mark all NSFW material linked as such, and be aware of who is in the channel. Do not send NSFW material to minors or people who are not interested in seeing it.

[ROCKONN]

Imposing rules that don't conform the the listed ones was what I was referring to, though skipping steps in a predetermined set of actions staff members are TRAINED TO TAKE is another.

 

As for your warning Andrew yourself, I find that to be new information, as I was told that Kitcatbar was tasked by you to handle the situation, as you were occupied with other matters.

 

I've already stated that Andrew's trollish actions weren't correct ones to take, and that he acknowledges that he'd been warned in the past, however transitioning from a generalized circlejerk (which was in fact what was going on beforehand, had gone on in the past, and was not interrupted at any other point in this instance) to a targeted attack on a player with NSFW content is, in this case, a mindboggling-ly misled connection.

 

"No sexism, racism, homophobia or any type of hate speech, especially targeted at specific users (harassment)."

"Please mark all NSFW material linked as such, and be aware of who is in the channel. Do not send NSFW material to minors or people who are not interested in seeing it."

These are the two rules being called into question at this time, none of the others bear weight on the situation at hand.

 

If you'll recall, the image of Ron Jeremy, though he is associated with NSFW activities, was not in itself an NSFW image. Tompreuss declined to ask to be left out of the aforementioned circlejerk, remaining present & silent throughout the ordeal. Without asking to be left out, or stating anything on the matter, Andrew & other members of the channel at the time would have no knowledge that Tom was "not interested in seeing" or hearing about the content. Furthermore, it was Tompreuss's decision to open the link containing the image, and to therefore involve himself in the activities at hand. His taking offense to that content is his own choice, and rightly so, but claiming it to be harassment with the aforementioned conditions is out of line. To put it in other words, someone heard something about themselves after involving themselves in a discussion, took offense to the discussion at hand, and asked someone else to handle the situation claiming it to be harassing. You tell me here, on recorded text, that that's alright for someone, anyone, to do. To cry wolf after involving themselves. Tell me, and the rest of Nerd, that that's acceptable behavior for an Administrator.

[Denevien]

As for your warning Andrew yourself, I find that to be new information, as I was told that Kitcatbar was tasked by you to handle the situation, as you were occupied with other matters.

 

Kitcatbar only issued the mumble ban, because I could not from my phone. The rest was handled by me.

 

 

If you'll recall, the image of Ron Jeremy, though he is associated with NSFW activities, was not in itself an NSFW image. Tompreuss declined to ask to be left out of the aforementioned circlejerk, remaining present & silent throughout the ordeal. Without asking to be left out, or stating anything on the matter, Andrew & other members of the channel at the time would have no knowledge that Tom was "not interested in seeing" or hearing about the content. Furthermore, it was Tompreuss's decision to open the link containing the image, and to therefore involve himself in the activities at hand. His taking offense to that content is his own choice, and rightly so, but claiming it to be harassment with the aforementioned conditions is out of line. To put it in other words, someone heard something about themselves after involving themselves in a discussion, took offense to the discussion at hand, and asked someone else to handle the situation claiming it to be harassing. You tell me here, on recorded text, that that's alright for someone, anyone, to do. To cry wolf after involving themselves. Tell me, and the rest of Nerd, that that's acceptable behavior for an Administrator.

 

Seeing the screen shot of mumble, I can rightly tell you that Tom did not "involve himself".

 

 

Notice, this isn't a link that he had to click. This isn't just something sent to the whole channel, that he happened to not like. This was a targeted message, to Tom, with what I can easily consider a NSFW image, that has been photoshopped to have the targeted person's head on it. "You tell me here, on recorded text, that that's alright for someone, anyone, to do."

[Cyotie911]

Ban length has been set, Reappeal at the end of your ban to be unbanned.