[Doctor Internet]

It was dealt with by me, not BlackDog.

---

Okay, misread your argument.

I can't speak for Blackdog, since the team isn't a hive-mind.
In my case, I hadn't recieved an @ call, despite there being at least two staff members on.

I told him to remove it. He did, then started the debate after removing it.

He did as he was asked, and then challenged the rule after. I see no issue with my actions?

Well I did call in an @ call on Monday and I think also yesterday atleast once.
PrisonDad also didn’t challenge the rules he just changed it when he was asked to.
I see no difference in the actions between gungranny and prisondad about from the hour and rank gap. ( not that that’s why he got more of a punishment )

I cannot speak for the staff member who issued the punishment.
However, from my perspective, I told him to change it, and it was changed.
The situation ends there.

[Kvatch]

I'm kind of on Quests side here. I don't know what's actually going on here by the way I just read the thread and wanted to put my penny in the pot. Let's say 5 other people also had the advertising website in their names, the sixth being Soviethooves, or whatever he advertised. Those 5 people all get permanent warnings, and Soviet does not. Would HR see an issue with this? Yes, because it is more of a collateral and collective situation - 5 people with low hours, but decent players who don't break the rules, all punished, and 1 player, lots of hours, history of administration, not punished.

It's almost like you guys should write a statement in the rules, just warning people that players over 1000 hours, who have maybe, idk, donated, or were ex-staff, yeah you can expect those guys to not be treated like regular players who need to be taught that breaking rules isn't good. I'm not saying give Soviet the warning but by the sounds of it, PrisonDad should have his removed 100%. I also understand that the staff are not a hive-mind and do not think the same, but with sensitive topics like bias going around, do you guys not think you should at least enforce a little more collectiveness in your actions? Or at least notice that the player-base is speaking out and do something?

Correct me if I'm wrong here, guys

[Daley]

I have never seen anyone band for having another communities name, or a website url in their steam name. Well it is technically against the rules, and would fall under advertising, we have never enforced it though. Nor is it specified if steam names fall under that rule in the first place.

 A certain amount on consistency is expected from a staff team, and the general consensus on certain topics, and how rules are enforced.

However, in this case there is not much of an issue considering it was ultimately removed. Mistakes are made.

[Soviethooves]

I'm kind of on Quests side here. I don't know what's actually going on here by the way I just read the thread and wanted to put my penny in the pot. Let's say 5 other people also had the advertising website in their names, the sixth being Soviethooves, or whatever he advertised. Those 5 people all get permanent warnings, and Soviet does not. Would HR see an issue with this? Yes, because it is more of a collateral and collective situation - 5 people with low hours, but decent players who don't break the rules, all punished, and 1 player, lots of hours, history of administration, not punished.

It's almost like you guys should write a statement in the rules, just warning people that players over 1000 hours, who have maybe, idk, donated, or were ex-staff, yeah you can expect those guys to not be treated like regular players who need to be taught that breaking rules isn't good. I'm not saying give Soviet the warning but by the sounds of it, PrisonDad should have his removed 100%. I also understand that the staff are not a hive-mind and do not think the same, but with sensitive topics like bias going around, do you guys not think you should at least enforce a little more collectiveness in your actions? Or at least notice that the player-base is speaking out and do something?

Correct me if I'm wrong here, guys

You are forgetting a big thing here: CONTEXT.

Were those people listening? 
Were they very argumentative?
Did they actually change it?
Is it covered by the rule?
Does any of them have a record?


When a staff member is dealing with a situation, he needs to factor in multiple questions. In this situation it was no different.

We were already in TS for a RP we were doing and BD and Doc asked me to remove it. I did and then began to argue the rule’s meaning. Now at that point, why punish someone who understood and changed what was wrong? There is no reason to do so. 

Now compared to saying “Oops I RDMed people, I won’t do that again!” That is different as the deed has already been done and has effected other negatively. Rules such as the advertising rule are there not to stop malicious people, but to keep focus on LL. I forget the name of it, but it’s like the two different types of laws. There are a set of laws for naturally wrong things like murder, rape, etc.. But there are also laws for things that are not wrong naturally such as jaywalking.

[Quest]

@"Gungranny" 
See the thing is?
I've told you that he didn't argue he just straight up changed it.
He changed it after told it was against the rules and never did it again yet he was warned.

Also you compare it to jawwalking but in one state you may get a ticket for jaywalking (idk I don't live in the U.S)
But in another state you might just get a verbal warning
Does this mean that metaphorically the staff follow different "state laws"?


Why is this the case that he gets a warning and you don't?

[Quest]

I have never seen anyone band for having another communities name, or a website url in their steam name. Well it is technically against the rules, and would fall under advertising, we have never enforced it though. Nor is it specified if steam names fall under that rule in the first place.

 A certain amount on consistency is expected from a staff team, and the general consensus on certain topics, and how rules are enforced.

However, in this case there is not much of an issue considering it was ultimately removed. Mistakes are made.

So how come one staff member enforces a rule and another one doesn't?
It doesn't make sense.

[Jen]

I have never seen anyone band for having another communities name, or a website url in their steam name. Well it is technically against the rules, and would fall under advertising, we have never enforced it though. Nor is it specified if steam names fall under that rule in the first place.

 A certain amount on consistency is expected from a staff team, and the general consensus on certain topics, and how rules are enforced.

However, in this case there is not much of an issue considering it was ultimately removed. Mistakes are made.

So how come one staff member enforces a rule and another one doesn't?
It doesn't make sense.

Internet did enforce the rule. Just he didn't take the same action as Blackdog did.

And actions change from admin to admin

[Toxic]

I have never seen anyone band for having another communities name, or a website url in their steam name. Well it is technically against the rules, and would fall under advertising, we have never enforced it though. Nor is it specified if steam names fall under that rule in the first place.

 A certain amount on consistency is expected from a staff team, and the general consensus on certain topics, and how rules are enforced.

However, in this case there is not much of an issue considering it was ultimately removed. Mistakes are made.

So how come one staff member enforces a rule and another one doesn't?
It doesn't make sense.

It looks as though you're speaking in circles when your question was answered on the previous page.

Honestly I don't see why this is a major issue that's being brought up and in my eyes, blown out of proportion. Staff punishments are issued at the discretion of the staff member involved. This is how it is and always has been since inception.

[Quest]

@Toxic 
Yeah and how is that fair?

[Vadar]

@Toxic 
Yeah and how is that fair?

How would you prefer it to be handled ?

[Quest]

@Toxic 
Yeah and how is that fair?

How would you prefer it to be handled ?

Uhhhh what do you think?

Equal punishments
Either they both get a verbal warning or they both get a warning.
Simples

[Soviethooves]

@Toxic 
Yeah and how is that fair?

How would you prefer it to be handled ?

Uhhhh what do you think?

Equal punishments
Either they both get a verbal warning or they both get a warning.
Simples

So I perm someone for RDM on their last chance I should perm you for RDM on your first ban?

[Vadar]

It looks as though you're speaking in circles when your question was answered on the previous page.

[Jen]

But the point is Quest,

That punishments are dictated by what the admin/moderater thinks should be issued.

As Nightmare has said.

Equal punishments completely disregards what the team does having equal punishments means that whenever anyone breaks a rule they get punished by what a sheet says. This isn't how we operate, the team operaters off discresion and choice. If someone believes it isn't the right choice or is abusing their powers they can get reported on the forums.

[Barkles]

Question  has been answered: Staff have discretion on punishment.