[Nev]

[Doctor Internet]

[Nev]

You were completely unrelated to the case. Whether you believe that morally that you should be allowed to post your views on every appeal, that doesn't mean your input is required, necessary or allowed. The rule is in-place to stop exactly what you did, people who aren't related to the situation posting their "insights", which have done repeatedly on other threads.

Relationship to the case isn't necessarily a requirement according to the forum rules as it says you might just simply have an important relation to the case and - in my opinion - providing a rule that you directly went against is of significant importance.

Those staff members also posted on the appeal, stating their support for the suspension remaining in place.

This isn't necessarily true - considering roxas had mentioned that from what he had seen being in-game the conversation "was rather harmless and looked more like banter and memeing to me. Hence why I did not intervene."


Additionally, even if he was alt-tabbed, there was still another moderator on that was participating in the conversation (although in the evidence provided his chat in OOC was redacted/blurred)

A rule-breach is a rule-breach, no matter how it's found out

Toxicity in OOC, unfortunately, is not a listed rule. The suspension appeal failed to note any significant evidence of him actually insulting Wesley.

You're a living and walking hypocrite considering you liked and supported the following suggestion <PR Requirement> which would require individuals to not collect evidence and post a player report after the fact but instead contact them directly to tell them to stop or provide why they might form a report. Yet here you are doing this exact thing that you, I assume, would be against - and what I have the biggest issue with is that this is simply because it involved your buddies.

I was alerted to the situation which occured, and read logs to see what had happened / had been said. After reading it, I decided that a suspension was appropriate. We can use logs to check for breaches whilst we're not on server, hence why players have had punishments applied from instances other than ingame or via PRs. I don't see your point here?

You're not wrong - however - you fail to see the issue with this case. The facts are the following:

1) There were two online staff members on at the time and engaged in chat.
2) Wesley was actively engaged in the chat and posting comments that, in return, further provoked Murdoch.
3) Staff members were aware of what was going on and saw nothing wrong with it and this is evidenced by no warning, blacklist, or attempt to direct the conversation differently.
4) Murdoch never directly insulted Wesley and evidence provided proves that.

I'll go ahead and list your supporting evidence which Wesley provided that shows the entirety of the situation:

Spoiler

Figure 1: "Why are you saying dindunuffin when you helped to get my memes banned from the forums" 
Q: Where's the insulting/toxicity (?) He's merely stating what is, in his opinion, a fact and that was Wesley's involvement in that situation. 

Figure 2: "It's because he knows I can't say anything without getting blacklisted again"
Q: Where's the insulting/toxicity (?) He's merely stating the fact that if he did argue/insult him in OOC he would likely face an OOC blacklist.

Figure 3: If it ever gets unbanned I'll make sure to search every post that you insulted someone and compile into a montage with ali-a intro music"
Q: Where's the threatening that you mentioned (?) He's merely stating the fact that Wesley is, in his mind, hypocritical and is saying that if his forum account ever is unbanned he will surely attempt to prove that to be true. It's not threatening, insulting or toxic.

          Wesley's Comment Before: Oof how's your forum account doing? (Baiting)
          Wesley's Response: Well... IF (Toxic, Provocative, Baiting)

Figure 4: "It's been 9 months side we made a video, they only started after I got banned"
Q: How is this relevant to anything (?)

          Wesley's Response: I know where you been all this time.. w a i t (Provoking, Referencing his ban)

Figure 5: "I cried tears of happiness that day your boyfriend got demoted"
Q: How is this insulting (?) not directed towards Wesley himself nor did it mention a name. This is certainly a factor in the bias that I believe is present in this case because the comments were directed towards a close friend / acquaintance. 

Figure 6: "How is poomuku doing now that blackdick cant place his megadupes, or did he give them all to the dev-slave"
Q: This is the only possible case of player insulting, however, it was not directed towards Wesley himself and instead was directed towards BlackDog. (Dev-Slave isn't an insult, it's merely a comparison to someone that is doing work for little pay and isn't being appreciated)

While he may have insulted someone else it does not necessarily mean it is grounds for a punishment considering the rules prevent you from placing a report on someone for OOC insulting that isn't directed towards you yourself. If he posted a formal player report in the PR section of the Courthouse - this rule would a factor and by indirectly contacting you he is, in essence, bypassing the requirements that all players have. 

Additionally, to my knowledge, there were staff members online at the time and again not attempting to stop the conversation and neither was Wesley. Even if he wasn't directly insulting him he could have, instead of further baiting the conversation, go and tell him to stop because it was bothering him.

If you look at the sequence of events it is clear that Wesley was engaged in a behavior that did not attempt to resolve the situation nor stop it but rather was one that was done in attempted to further bait the conversation to go somewhere it did not need to go.

---

The facts have been listed and that is that it wasn't grounds for punishment both because two staff members online at the time found no issue with it and the event itself was never reported in game by Wesley nor did he make any effort to stop it or indication that it was something he was uncomfortable with.

If he was to not use a player-staff relationship to go directly to you and post an informal report he would have to adhere to the same rules that every player has to in the Courthouse. A rule that would disallow him from posting a player report that involved OOC insulting not directed towards him.

Instead he chose you because, to my best assumption, is because you are close acquaintances and the player-staff relationship is strong in your entire group.

[Doctor Internet]

[Nev]

[Doctor Internet]

[Nev]

[Enzyme]

[Doctor Internet]

[Nev]

Nope - go ahead

[Enzyme]

Alright, finally here to conclude this properly.
Here are my thoughts on the concerns:

My post was edited by the administrator in question when I brought up something that was not on behalf of the defendant in the posted case but was rather, in my opinion, of an important relation to the case considering it brought up a point that I believe could invalidate the entirety of the case. It also provided further concerns that shouldn't be overlooked.

As Internet said himself, you were in no position to post on the thread as per courthouse rules. You're no stranger to these rules as you've once upheld them yourself. You weren't involved and thus not allowed to post on the thread. Rules are rules, and it was dealt with in this case. I see nothing wrong with how Internet acted here. 

Concern 1:

Reporting individual, @Wesley Lawrence, was never insulted in a way that would warrant a punishment and never gave any indication that the conversation was insulting to him. He engaged in a similar manner by responding with passive-aggressive remarks that was not productive but instead promoted further remarks.

As Internet said, you were not the player in question, and you're therefore not able to make that statement. It's up to us to step in if we find it to be inappropriate or not. 

Concern 2:

Staff members online at the time, @roxas and @Stell90, can be seen actively engaging in the conversation with remarks that can also be found to be aggravating the defendant, Murdoch Murdoch, however this isn't what is truly important. What is important is that neither staff members found the conversation(s) to be in violation of any rules and never attempted to stop it using verbal warnings, blacklists, or anything for that matter. Evidence provided in the original case show that at least one of the moderators was engaged in the conversation and was seen saying "roasted" after Wesley had directed a nasty comment back at Murdoch. This kind of response doesn't benefit the situation but only further shows that there was some sort of entertainment value to it.

As Internet said, the staffmembers in question posted on the appeal supporting that the suspension would remain as it was issued. I also need to add that while not the Moderators found this to be an issue at the time, the reviewing Administrator (in this case Internet) found it to be. An Administrator can step in on a situation or case if he feels that something should be done. Going through the logs also showed the conversation in a different way than it otherwise might have seemed ingame. 

Concern 3: 

There was no attempt on Wesley's part to stop the conversation. This user did not tell Murdoch to stop nor did he tell moderators to intervene if he had believed there to be a rule infringement. Instead, he opted to collect information in-game and not bring this issue up directly to the online staff members, nor to post a formal report in the Courthouse, but instead to share this information with a close friend on the staff team.

Again, as Internet says: A rules breach is a rules breach. If we see it, then we act on it. We are also against toxic behaviour, something Murdoch is well known for showing, and we have therefore a very thin patience for this sort of thing. 
His record ingame and on the forum speaks for itself on this topic. While you mention that toxicity is not a written rule, I need to remind you that we reserve the right to punish whoever we see fit. If we see someone acting toxic and inappropriately then we'll step down on that. Hard. 

Concern 4: 

The problem with addressing the issue after the event had taken place and ultimately bypassing staff members that were in-game and even the process of posting a formal report is mainly that it A) prevented the individual from defending himself and B) may be a considerable loophole in the reporting process. This was a player report and whether it was formal or informal it should still follow the Player Report Rules which indicate that you cannot report someone for OOC insults that aren't directly aimed towards you. 

As I mentioned previously, an Administrator is well within his rights to act on a case, even if a Moderator has been involved in it already. Internet saw inappropriate behaviour and dealt with it accordingly, and he was well within his rights to do so. Murdoch should have known better. It's also already been mentioned that the Moderators in question agree with the action taken. 

I find Internets replies to your comments to explain well enough, and I'll stop myself from continuing with this post here. I fail to see any abuse from Internet. 

He saw and acted on inappropriate behaviour, and he was well within his rights to do so. 
He did so against a player who's known for acting in a toxic and inappropriate way, and put an end to it. If the player wouldn't have such a serious record already, then it would have made more sense to maybe show some leeway. I find the actions taken though to be appropriate and fair. I see no abuse or missuse of powers or rank. 
Reviewed and concluded.
No abuse noted.