[Nev]

Your Steam Name: Nevy

Time/Date: 2018-07-28 16:14:14

Your Steam ID: STEAM_0:0:18452963

Name of Staff Member: Doctor Internet

Summary/Details: 

Attempted to post supplementary information in the following case <https://limelightgaming.net/forums/thread-22195.html>
According to Forum Rules

You are only allowed to post in a thread when you are either the accused player, reporting player and if you are of any important relation to the case (Which is to be determined by staff members).

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. 

Of course, as the rule states, this is to be determined by staff members - however - I think for the administrator to remove it himself was a little premature and if anything an attempt to deflect the points that I was making which weren't unfounded.

I brought up these concerns on the referenced suspension appeal however my post was edited and to my knowledge this had deleted what I provided and disallowed other, potentially non-biased staff members, from seeing the contradictions that I believe are present.

---

This report is not referencing how the administrator handled my statement on the thread but rather to bring up the point(s) that I had made.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

When the administrator in question initially responded to the suspension appeal there was little to no evidence of insults against Wesley himself but rather evidence of Murdoch engaging in banter with others and some remarks here and there towards others that themselves hadn't brought up an issue in OOC or using @ to contact staff members online at the time. His initial statement was a collection of logs that he had dug for that weren't even relevant to the case nor were they completely accurate. 

Evidence:

Example 01)

v2b [12:46:31] ✡ TJ McG ✡ (STEAM_0:0:155779481) said "// Oh well, I have a 1 year ban on there so It is like a home away from home. XD"
v2b [12:46:54] Murdoch Murdoch (STEAM_0:0:65618358) said "//if you keep saying 'XD' ill make sure u get banned from here too"

Threatening players with reports.

What we have here is a completely satirical statement in OOC that you're somehow taking and trying to make it seem as an actual threat. 

---

Evidence 02)

v2b [13:57:07] Murdoch Murdoch (STEAM_0:0:65618358) said "//if it ever gets unbanned ill make sure to search every post that u insulted someone and compile it into a montage with ali-a intro music"

Again, threatening people.

Again, twisting something into something it isn't. It's called banter. 

---

Summary:
While I don't believe the administrator in question was involved in abusive behavior - I do believe it violated player report rules and is a gross misuse of a player-staff relationship to, after the events had taken place, go and have him dig through logs to collect tons of little things here and there to attempt to make the punishment seem justified. 

It's not unheard of for someone to hate Murdoch Murdoch and I do believe there was a strong bias considering the user who placed the informal report and the administrator that issued the punishment have been close acquaintances/friends and the conversation that took place had comments directed towards offline users in that same group (FUMUKU)

[Doctor Internet]

You are only allowed to post in a thread when you are either the accused player, reporting player and if you are of any important relation to the case (Which is to be determined by staff members).

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. 

Of course, as the rule states, this is to be determined by staff members - however - I think for the administrator to remove it himself was a little premature and if anything an attempt to deflect the points that I was making which weren't unfounded.

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.
[/quote]

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.

You are not the player, and thus cannot say whether they were insulting or not. I'd also like to bring up, even when Wesley had stopped, he continued. This you can see from the evidence posted in the appeal prior.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

When the ingame moderation staff agreed with the ban, it's not really bypassing them. If I was ingame at the time, the result would have been the same.

When the administrator in question initially responded to the suspension appeal there was little to no evidence of insults against Wesley himself but rather evidence of Murdoch engaging in banter with others and some remarks here and there towards others that themselves hadn't brought up an issue in OOC or using @ to contact staff members online at the time. His initial statement was a collection of logs that he had dug for that weren't even relevant to the case nor were they completely accurate.

The evidence showed repeated instances of insults and toxicity. Multiple offences strung together are worse than singular offences.

v2b [12:46:31] ✡ TJ McG ✡ (STEAM_0:0:155779481) said "// Oh well, I have a 1 year ban on there so It is like a home away from home. XD"
v2b [12:46:54] Murdoch Murdoch (STEAM_0:0:65618358) said "//if you keep saying 'XD' ill make sure u get banned from here too"

Threatening players with reports.

What we have here is a completely satirical statement in OOC that you're somehow taking and trying to make it seem as an actual threat. 

Considering Mr Murdoc's prior history for making threats, I'm unsure to how you can be sure of that.

Evidence 02)

v2b [13:57:07] Murdoch Murdoch (STEAM_0:0:65618358) said "//if it ever gets unbanned ill make sure to search every post that u insulted someone and compile it into a montage with ali-a intro music"

Again, threatening people.

Again, twisting something into something it isn't. It's called banter. 

Banter and bullying are similar things, however, this was already gone over in the appeal.

Summary:
While I don't believe the administrator in question was involved in abusive behavior - I do believe it violated player report rules and is a gross misuse of a player-staff relationship to, after the events had taken place, go and have him dig through logs to collect tons of little things here and there to attempt to make the punishment seem justified. 

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?

It's not unheard of for someone to hate Murdoch Murdoch and I do believe there was a strong bias considering the user who placed the informal report and the administrator that issued the punishment have been close acquaintances/friends and the conversation that took place had comments directed towards offline users in that same group (FUMUKU)

Yeah, I have a strong bias to myself? There was no informal report, I was told that I'd been mentioned in OOC, and read the logs. That's not a report.

[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]

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.

Unfortunately not. Stating that "this guy broke the rule 5.2" or however put, is also against the rules. No matter how elegent the way you type it, you were not involved in the case, not a member of staff, not involved in the situation. You provided your input, which is, in my opinion, and in the opinion of others, is in breach of that rule. You also fail to see the second part of that rule.

(Which is to be determined by staff members).

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)

There was another part afterwards.

I can't tell what happened after. But reading the logs I can imagine it now.

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.

It falls under 1.4 and 1.9. Murdoch would know this, as he has been punished for the same offence by other administrators.

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 fail to see how supporting a suggestion to change the policies makes me a hypocrite when I am currently enforcing current policies.

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.

1. I responded to this above.2
2. As I said before, the disparity between the two sets of messages is why one was punished and the other not. There is a difference between repeatedly insulting different groups of people without provocation, and responding to someone who was responding to you.

As you can see in the evidence provided in the appeal, nothing had been said to Murdoch for around 3/4 minutes, before his "stinker" comments. That was not a response to someone riling him up, and quite frankly, I'm surprised that you would think 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. 

No, @SirWulf was the one involved in that situation, not Wesley. A quick reminder that dindunuffin is commonly used on /pol/ to mock black people, hence could also be seen as racism in OOC, depending on the context of use.

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.

Aye.

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)

Aye, perhaps so, but a remind that again, Wesley was not the one who started that set of comments.

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)

It's not? It's showing more context to the situation.

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. 

But how can you say they're directed to a close friend. As you say, quite correctly, no name is mentioned.
However, if we skip over that to the undertone and context of the message, we all know quite clearly who it's directed at.

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)

Unfortunately, I found this comment to be offensive, and staff disrespect.

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. 

Once again no, if I had been ingame, or been viewing the chat live via the relay, the outcome would have been the same. The same way that if players report a player breaking the rules to me ingame, I deal with those situations. That's literally the description of the moderation role.

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.

Wesley stopped replying at 14:07. Murdock sent messages at 14:09 and 14:13. That is not baiting; that is stopping.

Furthermore, for the response of the staff members, you can see @roxas's response prior.

: Right so looking back over it. Personally I saw it as a bit of banter the who Wesley and Murdock, but upon relooking at the evidence it looks like Murdock wishes to create trouble with others in OOC by making unneeded responses and mocking other players.

I don't remember if we told him to stop or not, because if so then yes it was unacceptable if not then that is bad play on our part and we should of given him a warning in pack it in before resulting to a permanent ban against him.

Granted I should of intervened at an earlier stage and told him to pack it in, but I've seen it mostly as banter throughout, but relooking at the evidence, it does seem like a mocking action to gain attention and to get reactions from others.

Both staff members would have intervened if they had seen the comments in their full context. However, I did go over this before prior.

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.

Wesley did not initiate the situation.
Wesley stopped replying, stopping any "baiting" in your eyes.
Murdock then, two minutes after, three minutes after and five minutes after, repeatedly, attempted to re-start arguments / insulting.

The evidence is clear, you've seen it.

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.

Both staff members did find issue given full context, and Wesley did stop. The logs posted prior, along with statements from the staff confirm this.

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.

Once again, there was no report filed. Formally or informally. I was told that some comments had been made about me. I looked at the logs, and found that, in my opinion as an administrator, the rules had been breached.

There is no special relationship there. Players will quite often say if jokes are made about me, quite a lot of the time I will see them in the relay. Most of the time I will look up the logs / relay to read full OOC conversations. That is not special.

[Nev]

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. 

No, @SirWulf was the one involved in that situation, not Wesley. A quick reminder that dindunuffin is commonly used on /pol/ to mock black people, hence could also be seen as racism in OOC, depending on the context of use.

Why is this being brought up and how is this relevant to the issue at hand? If you're going to try and bring racism into the equation - let's re-evaluate the fact that Wesley was the one to use the word first.



Is it racism if it's not in quotation marks or simply because it's Murdoch?

[Doctor Internet]

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. 

No, @SirWulf was the one involved in that situation, not Wesley. A quick reminder that dindunuffin is commonly used on /pol/ to mock black people, hence could also be seen as racism in OOC, depending on the context of use.

Why is this being brought up and how is this relevant to the issue at hand? If you're going to try and bring racism into the equation - let's re-evaluate the fact that Wesley was the one to use the word first.



Is it racism if it's not in quotation marks or simply because it's Murdoch?

could be.
Context is important.

However, you have failed to answer my question to why you believe that Wesley provoked the response from Murdock. Doubly so, considering Murdock's ban was nothing to do with Wesley.

[Nev]

Once again, there was no report filed. Formally or informally. I was told that some comments had been made about me. I looked at the logs, and found that, in my opinion as an administrator, the rules had been breached.

So you just heard that someone (and not a specific individual) made comments about you and you just decided on a whim to go browse through the ACP to see what kind of conversations were happening (?)

Did you read through the entire session or did you, more realistically, filter for a specific user because you were informed of who made the comments? You couldn't have filtered for comments with your name in them because after all your name was never mentioned nor was an insult directed at you. 

I think it is a stretch to take a conversation that only once used the term dev-slave, which didn't specifically name you nor was it directed towards you (considering you were not on the server) and pinning it as some form of staff disrespect is simply an attempt to throw something that is hard for a player to fight against considering it's one of the rules that usually falls under the discretion of the staff members themselves. 

It'd be one thing if the comment actually mentioned you directly or was a comment that was clear in its meaning and if he was saying it directly to you - but it is entirely a different case when this is merely you on a hunt looking through logs to find something that you can use to make a punishment stick. 

---

Both staff members did find issue given full context, and Wesley did stop. The logs posted prior, along with statements from the staff confirm this.

Quote from Stell90:

Right so looking back over it. Personally I saw it as a bit of banter the who Wesley and Murdock, but upon relooking at the evidence it looks like Murdock wishes to create trouble with others in OOC by making unneeded responses and mocking other players.

I don't remember if we told him to stop or not, because if so then yes it was unacceptable if not then that is bad play on our part and we should of given him a warning in pack it in before resulting to a permanent ban against him.

Granted I should of intervened at an earlier stage and told him to pack it in, but I've seen it mostly as banter throughout, but relooking at the evidence, it does seem like a mocking action to gain attention and to get reactions from others.

Statements of staff show a few important things and that is that A) they saw it as banter between Wesley and Murdoch and that B) this moderator @"Stell90" said he would've intervened, however, then proceeds to say once again that he simply saw it as banter and simply an attempt to gather attention/reactions which is the entire purpose of banter. 

These moderators did not take action and instead were participants in the conversation which only shows that they weren't unaware of what was going on and simply saying that looking back they might have done this or that isn't grounds to support a suspension given by someone that was not on the server but instead searching through logs.

Given the context of this situation - I personally think that any other staff member wouldn't have issued the punishment and as the events unfolded it was shown that two separate moderators held that very same mentality. Let's not pretend like they didn't see it or that they were alt-tabbed. It was there right in front of them and yet nothing. If it was staff disrespect or a blatant insult they would have issued an immediate response/warning/blacklist // but for you to become the word police in ACP logs is... unprofessional and a troubling thought. 

---

I will reference a case that I believe is more or less similar to the one I referenced.
<https://limelightgaming.net/forums/threa...#pid242344>

Outcome:

Conclusion

Concluded.

The raid should not have happened the way it did, and it still counts as a presidential raid in this case which would make this in violation of president raid rules. Much better options would consist of ambushing the cops in another location or waiting for your colleague (doc in this case) to finish the peaceful negotiations and then consider future actions based on the outcome of that.

However, an administrator was asked for his opinion on the case and the response suggested to the accused that their actions would fall within the rules. In addition, that administrator was present throughout the situation and did not choose to intervene during or after the situation took place.

Due to this, we think it would not be fair to issue any punishments to the accused, as we always advocate asking staff when unsure if something is allowed or not. The misinterpretation of the presidential raid rules in this case will be discussed further internally.

Player report will be set as approved, as a violation was found, however no punishments to the accused will be issued.

In Murdoch's case - there were two moderators present throughout the situation that did not choose to intervene during or after the situation took place

How can you find fault with Murdoch when two staff members engaged in OOC along with Murdoch/Wesley and not intervening if there was a violation of the rules? Either this is an issue with the two staff members competency in their ability to enforce rules or this is an issue with your own perspective on the situation and more evidently a clear bias towards the involved player considering your past with him and previous punishments that you've issued against him.

Once again no, if I had been ingame, or been viewing the chat live via the relay, the outcome would have been the same. The same way that if players report a player breaking the rules to me ingame, I deal with those situations. That's literally the description of the moderation role.

If you had been in-game the events would not have unfolded the way they did. Maybe you would've intervened earlier on, maybe you would've done this, or that, however, you could do none of those things because you were not in-game. 

You say I failed to answer your question about how Wesley provoked Murdoch (?) however I clearly provided this information in Figure 1 to Figure 6 that highlighted some of the comments Wesley was making before and after. I'm not saying Wesley started this conversation but I am saying that he did not attempt to stop it.

---

I'll wait for input from someone unrelated to this case.

[Enzyme]

@Doctor Internet 
@"Nevy" 

Is there anything you wish to add before HR reviews and concludes this case?

[Doctor Internet]

"Doctor Internet" 
@"Nevy" 

Is there anything you wish to add before HR reviews and concludes this case?

No. Anything I needed to say, was said prior.

[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.