Completed Report against Spitefulvenom

Discussion in 'TTT Staff/Player Reports' started by Enemy "Rule Bot" Below, Jan 12, 2021.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Name of Staff/Player:
    Steam ID of Staff/Player:
    Your Steam ID:
    Which Server:
    Which Map:
    Which Round:
    Time of Occurence:
    Reason For Report:
    Incorrect report resolution along with a pretty petty warning point.

    Read my post in the thread below, I think its pretty clear.

    For the warning point, really? We've historically allowed people to post in reports if its on-topic and provides a valid viewpoint or information. I can trawl through the forums and pull precedent if I need to.

    I honestly didn't think I'd still need to make these.

    No real commenting should be needed outside of Lordy as I think our positions are pretty cut and dry.​
    Evidence And/Or Witnesses:
  2. As an addendum, I just saw this line.

    You are not recieving a warning point as your comment is valid but it was the wrong place i am happy to explain my thought process here if you wish

    So no warning point I guess, even though you used the standardized warning point template... I've seen it often enough I didn't even finish reading it, so my bad.
  3. Spitefulvenom

    Spitefulvenom I got a WAP and can not lie Administrator Elite

  4. I'm good on the point, but I still have an issue with your report response.

    Apologies for jumping you on the point. I literally stopped reading after the title and seeing the general layout of it. I still feel its the wrong decision to flag it, but without a point its pretty null to me.

    My biggest issue is using information (the 2 points of damage) to justify the slay as RF didn't slay for that reason. It was basically extraneous to the slay decision making process. Only you brought it up as justification.

    This almost feels like equating to getting slayed for invalid report response, but then coming back and saying "oh he did this valid reason, you shouldn't have slayed me so I'll report you" We don't allow that. The response is the response, and in this case RF slayed for not performing a traitorous act. Using information outside of the report itself to constructively generate a reason for the slay post-report doesn't sit well with me.

    I figured I'd post to nudge you in that direction as I also agree your mod didn't do anything wrong given what was available in the death scene but just for differing technical, but critical, reasons.
  5. Spitefulvenom

    Spitefulvenom I got a WAP and can not lie Administrator Elite

    While i have spoke with indy about this i can explain my reasoning. So the reason for the report was a false slay but as i explained the slay was valid as he was reported for damaging and killing, Meaning that as night hadnt done anything traitorous the slay is valid hence the report is invalid. RF coil neglected to mention the damage in his response and i acknowledged this by saying and i quote "however i will speak with coil about props as a refresher." just in case a Correct slay was given for the wrong reason.
  6. I keep pivoting back to the fact that in RF's video they do not once see that 2 points of damage occurred. Since they don't see that it has no real bearing to the report. It happened, sure. It did not affect the decision making process to slay or not to slay. That makes it null as a reason to justify the slay. You are the one that is using it to justify the slay, using information attained after the slay/report had occurred.

    Without these two points of damage, the slay reason was for not committing a traitorous act. The death scene support this. Night's movement of the pig is lackluster at best in the deathscene. Therefore RF made the right decision at the time, given the deathscene information, to slay Indy. However, post-report, Night's POV shows that they did indeed perform a traitorous act and therefore makes the slay invalid as Indy killed Night for a traitorous act.

    I would argue, and I think that we agree, that RF did not do anything wrong given the information they had at the time. They did however issue an invalid slay given Night's video. Only Night's video, that RF did not have access to at the time of slay, proves that this is an invalid slay. That makes the report "technically" valid as an improper slay was issued.

    My biggest issue here is you trying to use information that your moderator did not see at the time of the slay to justify your moderator's slay. You're using information outside of the decision making process to justify the slay.
  7. Lordyhgm

    Lordyhgm Aldi's gingerbread gin is better though fr Lead Admin VIP

    Suh, just commenting to say that I've seen this
  8. Yellow

    Yellow VIP

    • Posting in irrelevant reports/ban appeals
    @Lordyhgm You need to handle it too, not just look at it

    Dont warn me for trying to make sure that all players get their reports handled
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2021
  9. Lordyhgm

    Lordyhgm Aldi's gingerbread gin is better though fr Lead Admin VIP

    Sup, I'll handle this tomorrow pinky promise
  10. Lordyhgm

    Lordyhgm Aldi's gingerbread gin is better though fr Lead Admin VIP

    Aight sorry for the delay, I have a very long pinky, wanted to make sure I got through this properly and when I sat down to write it I had to instead deal with complaints saying that I wasn't sitting down and writing it.

    Start with the simple part, we use informal warnings (ones without points) to help make sure that mundane or helpful comments on reports or appeals aren't treated too harshly, while still discouraging them as they can muddy the narrative between Reporter and Reported etc. The preferred route is to bring it to the staff member or their superior which'll get things resolved and cleared up easier.

    Next up with we have the RFCoil report. He was reported for a false slay based on an RDM. The confusion of this comes from the miscommunication in the report and the protocol we give staff for handling reports. Here's an example of standard report handling, Mango's old flowchart we give to tmods:
    In this situation, we can see with the report Night filed that RFCoil could reasonably assume that Indy's prop kill was the one referred to, and with the context of Indy's personality/history, the failed prop kill from Night (too weak to be a T-act - as established), and the jovial atmosphere that was present that he was just playing around and it resulted in an RDM. This is concurrent with what we expect of staff when handling a report, although if earlier damage is spotted is should be clarified else WvW.
    With this in mind, when the necessary evidence was supplied via the report thread, Spiteful was wrong to use the earlier damage to retrospectively justify the report conclusion, instead it should be handled as any other report that had additional information provided after handling. Whether that means a slay is added where one is due, an apology is issued and a self-slay given, or an apology for the confusion but no action is needed other than to be more cautious next time is up to the context.

    Ultimately, RFCoil's handling was satisfactory, with politeness and professionalism, although mistaken regarding the nature of re-handling a report with new information. Spiteful was mistaken in his assumptions regarding RFCoil's actions/thought process, and likewise mistaken regarding additional information. RFCoil was corrected before his resignation in the interim, and Spiteful was made aware of his mishandling during the process of this report (I simply take a while to find the time to write up ;)).

    Thank you for reporting this as it is helpful to remind the staff team of these things occasionally, as staffing habits can sink in that work for the majority of cases, but aren't helpful when it comes to situations like these. I'm sorry that I took so long to write up the conclusion to this, I like to make sure that I get precedents correct and finding the time to sit down and double-check everything is difficult, I will be making sure that this doesn't happen again.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.