Staff Discretion

[Capitalist]

[+]

I'm fully aware by making this thread that I will lose all favor with staff, a staff that has always held a bias against me because of how I play the game. This is collapsed because it is not objective, but an observation about discretion nonetheless.

First and foremost, please keep this thread completely and utterly civil. The second this is moved to Trash Talk because someone wants to call a staff member out based on personal dislike is the second we move away from any notion of progress and further into internal political chaos.

Recently there have been a couple of decisions that have caused public outcry from almost every veteran of the server, whom in fact witnessed the server in its prime. I want to keep the examples discussed completely objective as a means of making a valid point.

The issue with Hazy and Tj:

Tj is a long standing veteran, donator, and contributor to this server. Hazy is a well known thief, corruptor, and character of deviance. Once acquiring Tj's account(s) information, Hazy had a friend rob him blind so that the friend who cares nothing about UOSA would be banned and not Hazy. He coordinated and conspired to do so, the only crime he did not commit is that he didn't pull the trigger.

After a rather well orchestrated investigation, particular staff decided that they would not punish Hazy nor reimburse Tj. Stealing account information and looting someone was "era accurate" after all. However, the points of contention follow:

On OSI, stolen accounts were reimbursed if the investigation didn't turn out fruitless. This was because OSI accounts were a paid for entity.

This is not OSI. This is an era accurate replication of a period in UO history. Replicating staff decisions on a personal level that was partially based on discretion is merely impossible. Thus, to call the decision not to punish Hazy "era accurate" is actually a matter of discretion and not full proof, nor a fact.

The case of Hazy vs Tj has had repercussions that are irreparable. Keeping with objectivity, the donations for a server that Derrick has only been slightly burdened with have doubled. I know, staff will not be held hostage, this isn't a very valid point. However, players have left in large groups to only refresh here because of this decision. That isn't because of Tj, he only has so many friends. It's because of the security that was once felt has now vanished for a generation of newer players.



A second issue, involving myself, has come to fruition today. It is well known that I play this game to hurt the same feelings people instill in a community and a game based on such. Through such, I have always intentionally targeted players who have bad karma coming their way. This is not a defense, merely an introduction for what is to follow.

My target today was Escobart. After miraculously acquiring a grandfathered red orc mask through suspicious means via an afk Banks, another contributing veteran, Escobart has bragged about it day in and day out. His age is no excuse here, this is a personality issue. Thus, I know through observation of other players interaction with him that his weakness is his financial and ethnic position in life. So, I attacked. I made light of several stereotypical problems within the ethnic communities of America, of which collegiate level white guilt and partially common sense has told me to stay away from. In doing so, I tossed around a term that "is now probably the most offensive word in English" (dictionary.com).

Being harassed, he reported me to administration. I was promptly jailed and warned that if I ever say that word again that I would be banned.

Case study of the staff here has shown personally, through friends and through enemies that if you're being verbally harassed on this server, it is only your problem because an ignore function exists on your UO client. This is logical, hence the function existing.

Upon being jailed, I pointed out that I read, follow up, and then follow the rules that have been bestowed upon this server by staff themselves. Otherwise, I could not play the way I play because it would be illegal and my mission here is to in fact play. Simple. Here are lines stated within the rules page:

Second Age is set in the T2A era of UO. These were very dangerous times in the land of Britannia

All staff instructions should be followed. You are welcome to voice objection after the fact.

This is not intended to be a comprehensive list of rules. Other common sense guidelines may apply, but we do our best to leave the game to the players. Staff on Second Age do not play.

Second Age is dangerous. I am using my voice to object staff instruction. Not only have I seen in all verbal harassment cases that suggestion of the ignore function is the end result, but I have discussed in-game chat rules with Kaivan and Derrick; mostly Kaivan. The results of those discussions follow:

(These are not direct quotes, but the ideas expressed) IRC has rules and limitations that are clearly stated. The server also has rules and limitations that are clearly stated. The forums have rules and limitations that are clearly stated. The place that you can get away with free speech is in-game because there are no rules that prohibit free speech.

In regards to a particular case that I discussed with Kaivan in ventrilo about another player using the same racial slur that I used towards Escobart, Kaivan stated that they (the staff) should update the rules to more clearly identify protection against such terminology, but that until then it is completely legal. Moreover, he also stated that such a thing will probably never happen.

I'm bringing light to this matter for two reasons, one more important for the community and one for myself. This is a means of protection against tyranny, specifically tyranny without representation. The latter, I propose that this thread serve as a discussion point and hopefully a means for staff to re-write the rules, and post them publicly. To the third line of text within the rules, I certainly hope that a push towards clarification is in the future. Until then, my greatest hope from this is that players can objectively discuss their opinion of recent staff discretion and issues.

- Vega

[Anarcho]

I appreciate your attempt at being objective, but it would appear that you failed from the start. No one ever claimed that anything to do with the TJ and Hazy situation was about era accuracy. This was something I debated and thought over within the staff circle, ultimately to learn and determine what the rules have been regarding these things, and ultimately a player's account security is up to them to protect.

Second, yes I did encounter you today and pulled you to jail for less than a minute (only to speak directly and privately with you). I apologise for misunderstanding the rules in this case, I felt for certain that we had a rule against it, but after rereading the rules myself and speaking with other staff it has become clear to me that we don't.

No other action was taken against you, I truly am sorry that you were inconvenienced for a minute, staff make mistakes as well and I always try to own them.

[Capitalist]

Given your above statement, I suspect that your "say that again and you won't be playing here anymore" is no longer in effect?

[Anarcho]

Actually, I specifically stated that you refrain from saying it until further notice or you will be back in jail. This was so I could clarify myself on the rules with others.

All staff instructions should be followed. You are welcome to voice objection after the fact.

Looks like it played out right.

[Abyz]

Gimme back those few minutes... BIG YAWN.

[Used Kotex]

All that crying for being Jailed for one minute?

Jesus. Go get a job.

[Kaivan]

Ok, there's a lot to respond to here, and since we're the main focus of the discussion, and I'm called out by name I'll respond. So lets get started.

I'm fully aware by making this thread that I will lose all favor with staff, a staff that has always held a bias against me because of how I play the game. This is collapsed because it is not objective, but an observation about discretion nonetheless.

I don't think that any individual player has had any favor or bias against them in the past. However, the actions that a player takes will naturally cause successive interactions to be viewed slightly differently. Beyond that, we've gone to the greatest lengths possible to ensure that we take the most neutral and objective opinion that we can, and that is largely what sets us apart from other free servers. The decisions may not go the way that you believe they should, and that is the nature of maintaining the most objective position possible, but the will of the majority or a few vocal players is not by definition the right thing to do. This brings me to the next part...

The issue with Hazy and Tj:

Tj is a long standing veteran, donator, and contributor to this server. Hazy is a well known thief, corruptor, and character of deviance. Once acquiring Tj's account(s) information, Hazy had a friend rob him blind so that the friend who cares nothing about UOSA would be banned and not Hazy. He coordinated and conspired to do so, the only crime he did not commit is that he didn't pull the trigger.

After a rather well orchestrated investigation, particular staff decided that they would not punish Hazy nor reimburse Tj. Stealing account information and looting someone was "era accurate" after all. However, the points of contention follow:

A fair bit of what has been stated here is conjecture and is not supported by any evidence that I've seen.

Beyond that, presuming that a player gave out their account information, they are thus responsible for the potential consequences for taking that action. Additionally, we have a process in place by which a player may change their account password after registering their account to an e-mail address, and as a result, the security of their account is generally on their shoulders, and is something that they can manage themselves. So, if a player divulges their login information to another player, it is squarely on them to recognize and accept the risks that come with that action, and if the player decides that they are not comfortable with that decision, they are free to correct that decision.

As a result, any breach of account security that is not a result of some fault on our end (e.g. server is hacked and account credentials are stolen), is not our responsibility, and warrants no action on our end.

On OSI, stolen accounts were reimbursed if the investigation didn't turn out fruitless. This was because OSI accounts were a paid for entity.

Actually, this is not the case. OSI did not return items lost for any reason, including inappropriate use of an account, bugs resulting in their deletion, or bugs resulting in the items being taken from another player. The policy is in the GM handbook, and on archived versions on the OSI webpage.

This is not OSI. This is an era accurate replication of a period in UO history. Replicating staff decisions on a personal level that was partially based on discretion is merely impossible. Thus, to call the decision not to punish Hazy "era accurate" is actually a matter of discretion and not full proof, nor a fact.

We've never claimed that this was an era accurate decision, and it is a misrepresentation to call it such.

The case of Hazy vs Tj has had repercussions that are irreparable. Keeping with objectivity, the donations for a server that Derrick has only been slightly burdened with have doubled. I know, staff will not be held hostage, this isn't a very valid point. However, players have left in large groups to only refresh here because of this decision. That isn't because of Tj, he only has so many friends. It's because of the security that was once felt has now vanished for a generation of newer players.

Again, this is a very poor representation of events. Server donations have been down for quite some time, so it is conjecture to state that the lack of donations is exclusively due to this issue.

Beyond that, as I stated before, if anyone has a concern regarding their login credentials, it is due to their own actions, and through their own actions they can correct the problem. We cannot be expected to interject in these cases just because someone else got access to the account.

Finally, if players decide that because we didn't decide the way they want to they will withold donations, that is their perogative. If that results in our donations dropping to 0% of the monthly cost, then so be it. Either Derrick will decide to shoulder the burden himself, or he'll shut down the server. However, no matter the result, this will not have any effect on our policy regarding these matters.

A second issue, involving myself, has come to fruition today. It is well known that I play this game to hurt the same feelings people instill in a community and a game based on such. Through such, I have always intentionally targeted players who have bad karma coming their way. This is not a defense, merely an introduction for what is to follow.

My target today was Escobart. After miraculously acquiring a grandfathered red orc mask from Banks, another contributing veteran, Escobart has bragged about it day in and day out. His age is no excuse here, this is a personality issue. Thus, I know through observation of other players interaction with him that his weakness is his financial and ethnic position in life. So, I attacked. I made light of several stereotypical problems within the ethnic communities of America, of which collegiate level white guilt and partially common sense has told me to stay away from. In doing so, I tossed around a term that "is now probably the most offensive word in English" (dictionary.com).

Being harassed, he reported me to administration. I was promptly jailed and warned that if I ever say that word again that I would be banned.

Case study of the staff here has shown personally, through friends and through enemies that if you're being verbally harassed on this server, it is only your problem because an ignore function exists on your UO client. This is logical, hence the function existing.

While this issue has largely been clarified by Anarcho, I will agree that our current harassment policy does not restrict what can and can't be said in-game.

A second and extremely important point is that you were never threatened to be banned by Anarcho. This is a very poor representation of events, and quite frankly, reeks of paying the victim and painting our actions for your rhetoric regarding tyrannical behavior below.

Upon being jailed, I pointed out that I read, follow up, and then follow the rules that have been bestowed upon this server by staff themselves. Otherwise, I could not play the way I play because it would be illegal and my mission here is to in fact play. Simple. Here are lines stated within the rules page:

Second Age is set in the T2A era of UO. These were very dangerous times in the land of Britannia

All staff instructions should be followed. You are welcome to voice objection after the fact.

This is not intended to be a comprehensive list of rules. Other common sense guidelines may apply, but we do our best to leave the game to the players. Staff on Second Age do not play.

For clarification, these lines are not the relevant parts of our rules or policies that deal with this situation. This is what you are looking for.

Second Age is dangerous. I am using my voice to object staff instruction. Not only have I seen in all verbal harassment cases that suggestion of the ignore function is the end result, but I have discussed in-game chat rules with Kaivan and Derrick; mostly Kaivan. The results of those discussions follow:

(These are not direct quotes, but the ideas expressed) IRC has rules and limitations that are clearly stated. The server also has rules and limitations that are clearly stated. The forums have rules and limitations that are clearly stated. The place that you can get away with free speech is in-game because there are no rules that prohibit free speech.

In regards to a particular case that I discussed with Kaivan in ventrilo about another player using the same racial slur that I used towards Escobart, Kaivan stated that they (the staff) should update the rules to more clearly identify protection against such terminology, but that until then it is completely legal. Moreover, he also stated that such a thing will probably never happen.

Since this is a quote of things that I have said, I will point out that yes, I do think that our harassment policy needs to be updated, and that our current policy is extremely vague, and generally leaves no room for action on our part. However, I have not stated that the policy will probably never change.

I'm bringing light to this matter for two reasons, one more important for the community and one for myself. This is a means of protection against tyranny, specifically tyranny without representation. The latter, I propose that this thread serve as a discussion point and hopefully a means for staff to re-write the rules, and post them publicly. To the third line of text within the rules, I certainly hope that a push towards clarification is in the future. Until then, my greatest hope from this is that players can objectively discuss their opinion of recent staff discretion and issues.

I sincerely hope that your statement regarding tyranny was made in error, because our policies and positions are far from tyrannical. As for discussing recent staff actions, we don't typically respond to public threads which are intended to call out our actions, which this thread is currently doing, but since a response has already been given, this thread can stand, provided it remains extremely civil.

[Jay]

I didn't make it past the 1st chapter. so you're saying events are coming back?

[Capitalist]

A second and extremely important point is that you were never threatened to be banned by Anarcho. This is a very poor representation of events, and quite frankly, reeks of paying the victim and painting our actions for your rhetoric regarding tyrannical behavior below.

"If you say it again you will not be playing here anymore."

In response to "it's not in the rules", Anarcho said "I make the rules around here"

I had no intent on throwing Anarcho under the bus, but you're simply wrong there.

I sincerely hope that your statement regarding tyranny was made in error, because our policies and positions are far from tyrannical. As for discussing recent staff actions, we don't typically respond to public threads which are intended to call out our actions, which this thread is currently doing, but since a response has already been given, this thread can stand, provided it remains extremely civil.

Prior to Anarcho changing position on the situation, being jailed while playing and then told "If you say it again you will not be playing here anymore." is a pretty tyrannical escapade. So, using your wording, there was an error that was tyrannical. Other events have occurred since.

[Kaivan]

See Anarcho's clarification for what was said.

[Abyz]

I didn't make it past the 1st chapter. so you're saying events are coming back?

That's what they SHOULD be saying.

[Kaivan]

This thread is not about events. Please keep contributions on topic.

[Boondock_Saint]

I am incapable of following instructions.

[Notorious]

I, too, am incapable of following instructions. And as a result, I am in time out.

[Elk Eater]

I am capable of following instructions and I think the staff, taken as a whole, does a great job.