TheeBiggest - Staff Report: Enforcement Action Taken - Segrain

TheeBiggest - Staff Report: Enforcement Action Taken - Segrain

What’s your BYOND key:
TheeBiggest

When did this incident occur:
2023-04-14T23:45:00-07:00

Your character name:
Jane JJ Jacobson

Their BYOND key:
Segrain

What are you reporting?:
Enforcement Action Taken

Description of the incident:
I won’t lie, I was being a dumbass pressing my macro to spam dchat with “*scream” and didn’t realize, after recording the logs before round ended and such, I hit it roughly 77 times, and exhaustion was 28 because a cooldown is already a set thing. I wouldn’t have a problem with this if I was treated like a human being and just a quick PM or, from what my screenshot shows Dchat being disabled, a message to everyone “Hey guys can you please stop spamming.” The note, in my opinion, is exaggerated and handled unprofessionally.

I don’t understand why I couldn’t have been told, or directly muted, “Hey bud you need to relax with the spamming”. Why is it a MUST to note for stupidity. It got their point across but this just leaves a bad taste and look on the handler. In fact I talked to someone who was noted for the same general area and they told me it was a Rule 3 violation?

Does this imply I broke rule 3 because there was NO communication with me and the handler. Just dchat muted for EVERYONE, a sudden note and that’s that. This happened way before the round ended as well because a 1 on 1 wouldn’t make this report exist.

The resolution I want to see is an answer to my “why was it absolutely necessary to mute everyone in dchat, come after me and others who spammed their macros, and treat us like shit with a note slapped across my face, not saying a word and continue onwards?” If no answer is made or if some staff protocol paragraph is made then I want something done because I just, don’t understand why I couldn’t be treated like a person.

Evidence:


^ The note placed




Yes I counted every single line from the moment I started screaming to Dchat being muted. A total of 33 lines, not 60, was me spamming my macro. The extra 20 was from exhaustion and to Dchat being muted for everyone.

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/962975194480250901/1096335304002121768/CM-SS13_-_USS_Almayer_2023-04-13_23-50-43.mp4

Video evidence of chat logs. In it I started from my last couple words I said to the exhaustion prompt.

1 Like

Was considering making an appeal myself on this, got dinged with a similar note. Had just died and was watching the PMC medic spawn in. I did start off as Ellis this round, but cryoed and got sent to the lobby, and at (99% sure) Ro3ger’s behest swapped to the alt I just made of Bulk Bogan (can pull up screenshot from CM-discussion where the name is suggested, but logs will show its me, as will the binds for “Anytime, anywhere!” and “It’s you or me, and I like me a whole lot more” in the last screenshot, both lines I use as Ellis quite often. Point is, got noted as well for spamming, and as I expressed to Segrain in an ahelp the following round didn’t even realize I had done it. Past midnight and my muscle memory seems to have betrayed me. Although for me it was a warcry in dchat seemingly twelve times by my count, which while didn’t trigger the standard spam block, didn’t get me hit with the note as well.

If this is deemed valid I might appeal it myself, but if this gets turned down fast, I won’t post an unnecessary appeal.

1 Like

why was it absolutely necessary to mute everyone in dchat

So that the spamming would end.

come after me and others who spammed their macros

So that the misconduct is noted for future reference.

treat us like shit with a note slapped across my face, not saying a word

Such language is uncalled. I do not know what word do you need said here - the note already says all that needs to be said.

Yes I counted every single line from the moment I started screaming to Dchat being muted. A total of 33 lines, not 60, was me spamming my macro.

I might have been mistaken as I did quite rough rounding trying to quickly count everything, so upon seeing this report I went to check the server logs. Notepad says “77 lines” - which is the same number you have used above in your post, so I do not even understand what are you trying to say here.

In fact I talked to someone who was noted for the same general area and they told me it was a Rule 3 violation?

Coincidentally, some minutes before actually seeing this report and writing this reply, I asked Forest for a clarification on how do rules treat spamming (I had asked it to somebody some weeks, if not months, prior, but had not received a reply then). He now has added an explicit subsection for spam under the rule about community expectations.

In all honesty, I do not understand what is your reasoning in making this report. Do you disagree that spamming is bad? Or do you disagree that you had spammed? Or do you think that I should explicitly make it an announcement for everybody online at the server that spamming is bad, as if they do not know it already? I see no point in announcing that, same as there is no point in annoucing “griefing is bad” every time somebody gets a note for griefing.

Blockquote “So that the spamming would end.”

That’s fair, but what also stopped my spamming before you closed dchat to everyone was the built in exhaustion mechanic. I know you have no way of knowing but that’s a way to tell me to stop as well.

Blockquote “So that the misconduct is noted for future reference.”

People spam dchat with macros and paragraphs of randomness quite often and again, I’m admitting I’m at fault for doing this excessively. The issue here is suddenly a new ruling is made and I’m with a very lackluster detailed note of why its an issue. To add to this, I looked at rule 3 and last night when I made this report, there was NOTHING about spamming dchat but suddenly there is?

Blockquote " Such language is uncalled. I do not know what word do you need said here - the note already says all that needs to be said.

I don’t understand why I couldn’t get a 1 on 1 quick talk to you with this suddenly new ruling made. As far as I’m concerned, you pulled a Rule 0, I made a staff report, now there’s suddenly a new rule change to Rule 3. I am punished for something that didn’t exist and that is unfair. It is especially unfair to Cassie451 as well because the main problem was me but they were hit too with the same Rule 0 turned Rule 3.

Blockquote “I might have been mistaken as I did quite rough rounding trying to quickly count everything, so upon seeing this report I went to check the server logs. Notepad says “77 lines” - which is the same number you have used above in your post, so I do not even understand what are you trying to say here.”

What I’m trying to say here is that my perspective of the whole situation doesn’t look all that bad from the in-game view. 33 lines of me being dumb clicking a macro. Cassie451 only takes up 14 lines. I forgot the gamepad exists and if it doesn’t condense me spamming, that’s on me and I’m taking responsibility for that.

Blockquote “In all honesty, I do not understand what is your reasoning in making this report. Do you disagree that spamming is bad? Or do you disagree that you had spammed? Or do you think that I should explicitly make it an announcement for everybody online at the server that spamming is bad, as if they do not know it already? I see no point in announcing that, same as there is no point in announcing “griefing is bad” every time somebody gets a note for griefing.”

Spamming is bad but it should depend on the excessiveness in my opinion, in this case I’m in the wrong but the punishment given is what the problem here is. Considering how a new rule was added AFTER this report was made, maybe informing everyone who likes to be silly and spam their selected macros or paragraphs would be nice to do. Why are you assuming it should have common sense to not spam because people do it all the time, unaware of their own actions because before this report, before you noted me, this was never an issue or problem.

Blockquote “Coincidentally, some minutes before actually seeing this report and writing this reply, I asked Forest for a clarification on how rules treat spamming (I had asked it to somebody some weeks, if not months, prior, but had not received a reply then). He now has added an explicit subsection for spam under the rule about community expectations.”

Not only did you hit me with a made up ruling, along with Cassie451, and I’m saying made up ruling because last night this didn’t exist, you had to seek management to assist in making a sudden new rule to back you up and make your note seem reasonable against me and against Cassie. Yes the rule was added, it was put in place after the event had occurred, resulting in it being Ex Post Fasto. To me now this sets a standard that Moderators can make a rule after something has happened, and enact punishments for it and have it made a legitimate rule within the wiki.

This is unfair to me, this is unfair to Cassie451. Now I want my note removed and if that’s not possible then for Cassie. Your note does not explicitly state what rule has been breached, just 8 words thrown together to make it look like I do this for a living, in fact your previous issued warning against me does not say what rule has been breached. You had a new rule made because of this report to back up your claims and justify your actions.

I would like my note and Cassie451’s removed and this is a nitpick but this goes out to all staff that when issuing notes, warnings or bans, you should specify what rule the user has broken to avoid confusion and to possibly avoid this similar report happening again.



2 Likes

what also stopped my spamming before you closed dchat to everyone was the built in exhaustion mechanic. I know you have no way of knowing but that’s a way to tell me to stop as well.

Be that mechanic working properly, we would not be having this conversation at all. Evidently, it is not doing enough.

People spam dchat with macros and paragraphs of randomness quite often and again, I’m admitting I’m at fault for doing this excessively.

If you admit to the wrongdoing, I do not understand what argument can you be trying to make at all.

I don’t understand why I couldn’t get a 1 on 1 quick talk to you with this suddenly new ruling made. As far as I’m concerned, you pulled a Rule 0, I made a staff report, now there’s suddenly a new rule change to Rule 3.

Rules cannot possibly cover every possible situation. They are applied as intended, with judgement calls made as necessary. The actual wording of rule 3 - which I would not quote verbatim on the grounds of obscenity - is as broad as it is brief, but it makes the point: do not act in manner purposefully irritating other players. Spamming, as far as I am concerned, has always been covered under that rule - now, thankfully, it is explicit, but there is nothing sudden about it.

What I’m trying to say here is that my perspective of the whole situation doesn’t look all that bad from the in-game view. 33 lines of me being dumb clicking a macro. Cassie451 only takes up 14 lines.

It should not take more than one. Fourteen lines is half of the chat on my screen. That is extremely excessive and extremely irritating - for no actual constructive purpose. It ought to be punished, because it ought to never happen at all.

Spamming is bad but it should depend on the excessiveness in my opinion, in this case I’m in the wrong but the punishment given is what the problem here is.

Informative note is the least punishment there is. Be it up to me, it would be treated in the same manner as EORG: no questions asked, one click, one ban. As it is, all I can do is make a note and move along to the next issue in need of handling.

Why are you assuming it should have common sense to not spam

Because I assume that our players have a modicum of common sense and actual manners to behave.

I’m saying made up ruling because last night this didn’t exist, you had to seek management to assist in making a sudden new rule to back you up and make your note seem reasonable

Once again, as far as I am concerned, spamming has always been against the rules, as long as “do not be annoyance” has been a part of the rules. There is nothing new about it. I did not ask for it to be made a rule to postfactum justify my actions. I asked for it to be clarified, because apparently it somehow still needs clarification for certain players. In my logs, my previous request to “have spamming explicitly mentioned somewhere in the rules” dates to january and contains a mention of me asking staff of various levels for some months prior to that.

You have been on staff yourself. You know how a shortage of hands to take care of everything in the round feels. You know how rules are applied as they are intended, even if they do not explicitly spell everything to the letter of every possible application. There is no need to suddenly portray me as trying to bend and break them as I see fit for… doing something we all are doing in every single case.

Blockquote " If you admit to the wrongdoing, I do not understand what argument can you be trying to make at all ."

The argument here is the actions you took to get your point across. I find it rude and disrespectful that absolutely nothing was said between us, you disabled Deadchat only to target me and Cassie451 (maybe others as well, it’s only us two as far as I’m concerned) with a note for a rule that did not exist until this report was made. You have easy access to mute specific players, you had time to speak with us about our wrong doings while the round went on yet you chose to do it one of the rudest ways possible I have seen from a member of staff. It should not be how efficient you are with dealing with troublemakers, it should be how knowledgeable and understanding the player is after a brief talk with them so they don’t do the same rule breach.

Blockquote " Rules cannot possibly cover every possible situation. They are applied as intended, with judgment calls made as necessary. The actual wording of rule 3 - which I would not quote verbatim on the grounds of obscenity - is as broad as it is brief, but it makes the point: do not act in manner purposefully irritating other players. Spamming, as far as I am concerned, has always been covered under that rule - now, thankfully, it is explicit, but there is nothing sudden about it."

Clearly it did not “make the point” if Spam had to be made as a recently added Rule 3. So yes, it is sudden, maybe not to you but to the public who will look at this and go “Wait when was this
added?” As of today, after my staff report against you, this is a new rule that was made, that is the fact I am pointing out.

Blockquote " It should not take more than one . Fourteen lines is half of the chat on my screen. That is extremely excessive and extremely irritating - for no actual constructive purpose. It ought to be punished, because it ought to never happen at all."

Keep in mind, my screenshots above prove and verify this, that these spammed macro actions are condensed with a multiplier. If it clogs the game panel then what am I supposed to say? During my time as a Moderator since you brought up my previous position as staff, I didn’t have the best experience and during my time, it was close to my removal date when I started learning and pulling logs. I do not have the most or best knowledge when it comes to this gray area and I do not have any memory of seeing macros spammed. So as a player now, how would I know how the game panel works OR whatever your settings are that allows you to see something different than my screenshots of Cassie451 using their macros. To add to this, I say 14 lines, not of them saying their macros 14 times but the start of their spam to wherever they stopped.

Blockquote “Informative note is the least punishment there is. Be it up to me, it would be treated in the same manner as EORG: no questions asked, one click, one ban. As it is, all I can do is make a note and move along to the next issue in need of handling.”

There is nothing informative about this note at a quick glance. This is not an EORG offense. Its now, suddenly, a Rule 3 offense but there’s nothing stating what rule I breached in my note.

Blockquote “Because I assume that our players have a modicum of common sense and actual manners to behave.”

This false assumption to place on every single player in the community shows you have poor judgment and lack of duty to spend a moment with players, while the round was still ongoing, to inform them about a non-existent rule until after this staff report became live and explain why this behavior is not allowed. You were disrespectful and rude to not elaborate anything and slap me with a 8 word note about “Do not spam” with no visible sign that says “Hey this guy broke Rule 3” because this now public ruling was not made but now it is.

Blockquote " Once again, as far as I am concerned, spamming has always been against the rules, as long as “do not be an annoyance” has been a part of the rules."

Correction, “Don’t be a dick” is the main concept of Rule 3. There is nothing under the category of the rule that says you can’t be annoying. Maybe being annoying is my character’s trait by pestering the Commander. Frankly Deadchat is probably the equivalent to Discord’s LRC with how much of a nuisance players are from salt to reposting what people say in-game but suddenly after months of this fabricated rule even before January, this has been something I do a lot, pressing my macro to spam maybe 8-11 times because it was fun and there were absolutely zero problems that occurred until now, because “I annoyed you” apparently under what you believe Rule 3 is and without informing me how it was annoying.

Blockquote “I asked for it to be clarified, because apparently it somehow still needs clarification for certain players. In my logs, my previous request to “have spamming explicitly mentioned somewhere in the rules” dates to January and contains a mention of me asking staff of various levels for some months prior to that.”

It’s disappointing that it took a Staff Report for an entirely new rule to be made on the spot to justify you are in the right. That is another issue I now have with the actions taken, it was not public knowledge and made public after this report went live.

Blockquote “You have been on staff yourself. You know how a shortage of hands to take care of everything in the round feels. You know how rules are applied as they are intended, even if they do not explicitly spell everything to the letter of every possible application. There is no need to suddenly portray me as trying to bend and break them as I see fit for… doing something we all are doing in every single case.”

There have been nights where I was alone but that’s why I signed up, to help players out with issues that cannot be handled in-character. When it comes to rules, yes not every single thing is listed, but I followed the procedures of what rules are listed, not the non-existent listed ones.

I have no issues or frustrations towards the staff team after about 6 months of being let go but your actions and interactions, not only to me but what people post on Discord about you being plain rude to people, puts a negative view on your peers. I want to trust the volunteers who moderate the game giving their time to ensure we have the best experience possible but with what I’ve seen on Discord and what actions you took against me and Cassie451 last night, going as far as getting a new rule made, makes me believe the staff members we have now are disrespectful and untrustworthy. Plus this now gives me a sense of worry when I see you within “Staffwho” because your actions are shown to have a negative impact on community members. It’s unfair for me to make this observation because I would like to believe you’re a cool guy but this level of disrespect when it comes to interactions with players should be investigated.

2 Likes

As of today, after my staff report against you, this is a new rule that was made, that is the fact I am pointing out.

Once again, it is not a new rule. It is a rule that has always existed. What do you want, the poor wiki staff to explicitly spell out every possible way somebody can be a public nuisance?

Keep in mind, my screenshots above prove and verify this, that these spammed macro actions are condensed with a multiplier.

On the new chat? Maybe. Other players are under no obligation to be using new chat. A few times I have seen reports of players having technical issues with new chat and having to use old chat as a workaround. Nobody needs to see 77, or ten, or however many lines of spam filling screen after screen.

This false assumption to place on every single player in the community

It is a default assumption I place on every human being old enough to be allowed to communicate on the Internet. If behaving in public like a decent human being is too much of an expectation in your eyes, I do not know what to tell you.

Correction, “Don’t be a dick” is the main concept of Rule 3. There is nothing under the category of the rule that says you can’t be annoying.

If “do not be a nuisance” does not mean “do not be a nuisance” to you, I do not know what can I even say in this conversation.

It’s disappointing that it took a Staff Report for an entirely new rule to be made on the spot to justify you are in the right.

Once again, I have asked for a clarfification before seeing this report - simply because somebody else happened to have spammed 33 lines and Forest and I happened to be online on the server for me to ask his opinion on how that should be handled.

Blockquote “Once again, it is not a new rule. It is a rule that has always existed. What do you want, the poor wiki staff to explicitly spell out every possible way somebody can be a public nuisance?”

You used Rule 0 on me and you claim the new subsection under Rule 3 has always existed. It did not, my screenshots prove it and the literal “Rules” button link at the top right of the forums goes to the wiki. I also don’t understand why you’re calling the wiki maintainers “poor”, is there something you want to express about the people who do work on that section of the community to them?

Blockquote “On the new chat? Maybe. Other players are under no obligation to be using new chat. A few times I have seen reports of players having technical issues with new chat and having to use old chat as a workaround. Nobody needs to see 77, or ten, or however many lines of spam filling screen after screen.”

This is news to me and after a quick check in the game using old chat, I now understand why you had such a huge problem with it. But at the time of you giving me the note, you didn’t explain anything so why am I, a player who started in very late 2021 who’s been used to the “new chat” UI for my entire time playing CM13, being punished for something I was never aware of and never informed while being a staff member when I was active. Not once I have ever used old chat because a prompt always pops up “Hey click me for the regular chat UI” and I do. This entire thing could have been avoided if you informed me “Hey, I use old chat and it spams the hell out of me on my end, please stop it.” Why am I in the wrong for not having the knowledge you have that I didn’t until you made your 3rd reply. You muted Deadchat, did not say a single word, slap me with an 8 letter note explaining nothing of how on your end, it clogged your chat. I don’t understand why at that time of noting me and Cassie451 you didn’t stop and take a moment to explain why it’s a full blown issue on your end.

Blockquote " Once again, I have asked for a clarfification before seeing this report - simply because somebody else happened to have spammed 33 lines and Forest and I happened to be online on the server for me to ask his opinion on how that should be handled."

Huge coincidence I guess, doesn’t change my mind on how I think and feel about your actions after noting me. There’s nothing else I can add to this report that I haven’t listed already. You were unfair in your Rule 0 do to the fact you never gave any explanation to me or within the note I received. You are claiming this Rule 3 subsection has always existed, it did not, my screenshots of Forest editing to add it proves that area. Your assumptions that I as a player should every single thing about the game is biased, including the old format chat, that is as well unfair to treat the issue. Lastly, why the hell are you calling out wiki maintainers, that is so disrespectful to their position and to the work they do, they have nothing to do with my report against you.

I have nothing else to say, once this report is looked at by your superiors my resolution is to have my and Cassie451’s notes removed for the fact Segrain failed to give any proper explanation to me on how he’s using the old chat UI and how it affects his moderation duties, how am I supposed to know that and especially how am I supposed to know it spammed his end compared to my UI making them condensed? If they can’t be removed, maybe make it a warning with proper details explaining the rule break and why it’s not allowed.

3 Likes

You used Rule 0 on me and you claim the new subsection under Rule 3 has always existed.
You are claiming this Rule 3 subsection has always existed

These are outright blatant lies. I am saying that rule 3 has existed as long as I can remember. It cannot, does not and will not ever possibly cover every possible way in which somebody can break it. It does not need to do so. It is on you to behave in public without being told that acting as annoyance is, in fact, annoying.

Why am I in the wrong for not having the knowledge you have that I didn’t until you made your 3rd reply.

You are not in the wrong for not knowing how other players play the game. You are in the wrong for spamming, which is always wrong everywhere on the Internet, and it is nobody’s duty to inform you of the standards of basic human decency.

Both of you stop arguing and wait for a management resolution.

Fact is spamming has always been against our rules and it’s one of those common sense things, but it was never specifically written down.

Player admits wrong doing however the allegation that needs to be resolved is the lack of a conversation and explanation of why the note was issued.

Scarlet is a little busy and this is pretty cut and dry. We would think “Do not spam” is one of those common sense things, but I understand the mentality of “well its not written down.”

However you admit you spammed, but just because he didn’t message you, or others involved. “Two wrongs, don’t make a right” and you automatically get a pass from this.

He gave you a warning for the spam and noted it, however Segrain should have still messaged with the minimum of “Stop spamming” before issuing a note.

I’ve relayed this to him, but no formal discipline will be issued.