negative comments on ban

[Faceplant]

The issue has never been the ban. Please reread my responses.

[OMJ]

I would also like to comment that notes do not feature status updates: It's not like an admin will come back years later, unsolicited, to add "He's been playing nicely" to my notes. 

Yes we do.

Not to peanut but I can back Wonk up on this- my notes were updated after me helping a new player was noticed, even after there being years of black marks and splotches. Goon is the #1 community in SS13 that actively notices rewards and incentivizes kind and constructive play.

[HydroFloric]

Also a reminder that all player notes are entirely private unless an admin discloses them to you specifically.

[Faceplant]

To the peanut gallery, someone already came in to clarify that positive notes happen, please read the thread. I still don't play nearly as often as I should if I want to build a reputation beyond the occasional visit.

My issue remains that the round in question was inaccurately judged. If anything I'd appreciate Horse Horsington's input, as they're the person I allegedly freaked out at.

I still find it very bizarre that I'm known better for my notes than for all the medical and security I play when I do play, or anything else for that matter. I've been probably the most efficient doctor or officer in every round I play as them. I'm one of the few people to regularly use department radios and to actually respond back. I like to goof off occasionally but a majority of my rounds are cooperative. Why is it that despite being here since cog2 release that nobody has bothered to add a positive note? Probably because I don't play as often, post on the forums frequently, or engage with people on the discord. I know I'm not popular but I'm not a malicious freak.

I want the record set straight: The round in question did not feature a freakout. Me and Horse were fooling around, and then later I tried to reference a YT video that had explicit sexual language. I fully accept the ban for sexual language but entirely refuse to recognize the attached note and increased ban duration as being legitimate, as they were both wrongly inferred from logs without context.

[warcrimes]

Hi, I'm one of the previous observers / note-writers whose note might or might not have contributed to the "again" portion of the offending "freaks out again".

I'd like to address reputation and general behavior. Usually, in order for something subjective to make it into a player note, it needs to be a behavior that is so repetitive and obvious that it stands out as something to take note of, to take the step to quantify and record what is, by nature, ephemeral.

The reason I chose, months ago, to make a note of your behavior, was that I noticed an incessant trend of making mountains out of molehills. Seemingly many rounds in a row, one errant death or a slight inconvenience turned into minutes (and dozens of them) of complaints, re-explanations, re-telling of the same situation to the same people until those people caved and offered some platitudes- and failing that, escalation of complaining and insulting until someone had to step in to end the conversation. The case that set me off was one where you actually broke a cardinal in-game rule, it probably warranted a day ban at the least- but I decided instead to add a note, for the benefit of the doubt.

To my disappointment, I wasn't the first to note such a thing. Nor the last.
Unfortunately, I think this situation might be familiar, because what was a simple (and in my purely subjective opinion, justified) ban into a long and tedious back and forth of what is and is not justified.

The notes system exists purely for our benefit, so that the 40+ admins don't need to consult one another to determine whether errant behavior is spontaneous or systematic. We use them as we see fit, and consult them as we see fit. They're purely internal, as people mentioned. You can request a copy at any moment, of course.
This is one of many cases where a ban is escalated because of a previous "suspended" ban, a note specifying the need to redress further behavior.

I really don't think you're going to get a retraction, because it's not warranted- and frankly the insistence on discrediting notes and logs is probably reason enough.

[Faceplant]

The ban was justified, this has been confirmed awhile ago. The round in question however did not feature a freakout, defining freakout similar to how it has been defined in my notes. That is the issue here. That round was perfectly normal aside from some wrong words spoken, and my in game behavior was not malicious or rulebreaking otherwise. That is why I do not support the freakout note or the additional ban duration that was applied. Even if I had a suspended ban hanging over my head from previous behavior, the ban in question is out of scope of the usual behavior that I would expect to see additional time added for. If I had actually been malicious during that round, I would understand, but this was entirely different, hence why I am here.

The logs presented in this thread should be discredited because they failed to take into account anything else happening in game while they were happening. The persons who I was assumed to be freaking out at, Horse Horsington and security, we're not targeted by malicious behavior and they both enjoyed the rest of their rounds without disruption.

Just because I'm making a thread about the incident does not mean this thread itself is a similar incident to my in game behavior. I have a right as a player to justify my actions and bring complaints forward to the admin team, and that includes back and forth discussion. Saying that my complaint will not be taken seriously because I am explaining the logs and notes relevant to the discussion is even more concerning to me.

Furthermore, the notes are not being discredited, I understand why many were added, and I am expressing my grievance that my positive behavior is not recorded as often because of my infrequent playtimes. The only note this thread is focused on in particular is the most recent one which stands out from the others for not being applied by an admin in game that could witness the events of the round and discern my intentions and actions. Having been added post round, and repeating what I've said about the lack of context, I do not believe it's accurate.

I am trying to be a good player. As I said before, because of how notes are used to quickly assess a player without discussion with other admins, and because these notes can have a serious impact on my ability to enjoy Goonstation, it's my personal responsibility to make sure that only factual information is presented. I do not find enjoyment in this discussion, I only engage in it out of personal responsibility to uphold my own character.

---

Finally, I want to say that nothing has been presented other than the logs to justify the note, and there has been no refutation of my explanation of said logs. I can talk about tangents all day, but I would like to keep this thread focused on the incident in question. I do not entertain the assertions that this thread or my own notes discredit my own concerns.

[warcrimes]

Hi

Notes are at the discretion of the admin who writes them.
The terms used are relative and also at the discretion of the admin who writes them.
I'm not, and nobody else is going to, dictate to Firebarrage what language he is permitted to use in his assessment of disruptive behavior.
I believe the majority of people here agree with the assessment, or you'd have heard differently.

Thank you, one final time, for bringing this complaint, as is your right.
We discussed it at length, as you were owed.
The verdict remains.

Please continue to enjoy the game, and display continuously exceptionally good behavior worthy of a "positive" note if that is your goal. Because thats how they happen- not for small here and there, but for unwavering, uninterrupted good play that goes above and beyond the standards we set. Meeting the bar is not worthy of a note.

I'm sorry if this wasn't satisfying, but we do our best every day.