Complaint Grifllez | Admin Feedback Forum | Apr 14 2023 1528 EST

[saccharineChampion]

Admin: Grifflez

Server: Admin Feedback Forum
Date + time: Apr 14 2023 1528 EST
Synopsis: In the threadGrifflez | Conduct | Goonstation 3: Morty | 4/13/2022 | 00:00 EST, KevinFromHP posted a complaint about Grifflez' conduct regarding undue aggression in contacting players through ahelp to ask a question and to give a warning. TDHooligan posted a reply stating that he recently had a similar experience with the same admin and the reason Grifflez contacted them. 17 hours later, Grifflez replaced the contents of TDHooligan's message with "NO PEANUT POSTING."
Logs: N/A
Extra information:
Peanut gallerying/posting is irrelevant posting on another player's feedback. It is defined in the NO PEANUT GALLERYING post.
Relevantly, what is defined as acceptable is:
"We are mostly interested in hearing from you if you were there at the time of a discussed event and have new insight or corrections to add, or if you've experienced similar problems with the complainee in the past."
TDHooligan experienced a similar problem with the complainee (Grifflez) in the past.

The comment was not irrelevant because it provided additional context on the same issue; that it had occurred to someone else recently, what prompted the other interaction, and that it was the same complainee involved. It was also a post regarding Grifflez's conduct in the context of administration.

The overall rules for posting a new complain encourage the presentation of multiple events which may not be substantial enough on their own. TDHooligan's post helped establish legitimacy of the complaint as not being an isolated incident.

While there may be issue with how detailed his reply was, nothing indicates that briefness is a reason for a relevant post to be considered peanut-posting; briefness falls outside of the point of the term. Removing it and designating it as peanut posting warps the legitimacy of the removal and harms the legitimacy of other posts that have been removed as peanut posting since outside of seeing the post before removal, non-admin users are unable to see if posts truly were removed for being peanut posting.

[Grifflez]

You sort of skimmed over the very first sentence in the 'NO PEANUT GALLERYING' post, those being:

If you weren't there for the events in question or you don't have any sort of relevant info to the complaint, please refrain from commenting or responding to posts in this forum.

TDHooligan's post did not contain relevant information beyond "I was warned by this admin for also breaking a rule" nor were they present for what the original complaint poster was being warned for.

Sometimes people get stern warnings for doing something they should know better then to do, as was the case here (and in the complaint TDHooligan was posting in)

Have a nice day.

[TDHooligan]

If this is the case, why is the specific clause about having similar events occur in the past even kept in the post?

As I'd said in the original comment - I refrained from opening a new thread because of the similarity and because of this particular clause. Would it have been better for me to open a second isolated post for the same problem, on the same server, at the same time?

I cut down what I posted to a minimum to cover explicitly the part covering this clause (the mention of it being similar, for the same complainee) - It's not like I'm throwing random events up from the past or conjecture solely to stir up controversy.

Here's the thing - I could understand the edit being made, but you also warned me as if I'd made my post in bad faith. I don't know how the warning system works but is my misinterpretation of these relatively vague rules really worth a step towards what i'm guessing is a forum ban?