Chat user etoile has been repeatedly been warned regarding their tendency to speak to other users in chat in an authoritative manner. Ops decided on a 24 at the next infraction, which happened to be the following:
Appealed to Procy, but was denied on account of the ban being so short.
→ •stormbreath (halfopped), Superpineapple7, •uraniumempire (opped) and forbiddenquest joined ⇐ Igloo quit • RockSleepMothDream → •RockTeethMothEyes
21:44:02 <•stormfallen> etoile: if you're not gonna appeal your ban, please leave
21:44:23 <etoile> oh sorry i wasnt paying attention
21:45:12 i genuinely dont mean to minimod but i understand ive been disruptive+disrespectful and wont repeat that behavior
21:45:20 → •Dexanote (promoted to admin, opped) joined
21:47:01 <•Corvus> Is that your appeal, or if not would you like to give one
21:47:29 <etoile> im trying to put my thoughts together one moment
21:50:25 ik intent isn't a defense but i guess i'm not entirely clear on the boundaries of minimodding vs my default way of interacting with people, which includes stuff like saying "that was kind of rude". i dont intend to speak authoritatively when i do stuff like that but i definitely understand if it comes off as disruptive/annoying, i'm more than capable of monitoring more closely how i talk to people
21:50:34 it won't happen again
21:51:36 → Tyumen joined ↔ synGuest737 popped in
21:57:19 <etoile> thats my appeal ftr
21:58:52 <•Corvus> Honestly while I can understand some of the difficulty here, it's been a repeated pattern of behavior.
21:59:07 One I've seen noted, unhappily, by other operators several times.
21:59:28 <etoile> yeah ig i just didnt realize how disruptive i was coming off as, but i definitely see that now
21:59:57 <•Corvus> This is only a 24 hour ban, I think that's appropriate here. However, we would be happy to help you understand the limits of what is and is not backseat moderating so you do not have trouble in the future.
22:00:30 <etoile> yeah i think thts fair! and clarification would be appreciated so i dont repeat this on accident definitely if you dont mind
22:00:59 <•Corvus> Alright, as the one who managed this, TheMightyMcB, would you care to give your input?
22:01:49 <•TheMightyMcB> Honestly dude the issues come in when you directly tell other people what to do or not to do
22:01:52 ⇐ dave quit (moc.duolccri.gnitoot.4196EFB-CRInys|806144diu#moc.duolccri.gnitoot.4196EFB-CRInys|806144diu) Quit: Connection closed for inactivity
22:02:07 <•TheMightyMcB> the only people in chat who should be doing that have rank, and honestly they use that power sparingly
22:02:20 → MutantMcFly joined (~ten.thgilkraps.epc.8F5271DD-CRInys|criigc#ten.thgilkraps.epc.8F5271DD-CRInys|criigc)
22:02:33 <etoile> see like. agh sorry this is gonna come out weirdly but i dont know how far that extends, and i can give a perfect example here bc my impulse was to be like "please dont call me dude"
22:02:36 <•TheMightyMcB> it's one thing to be like "hey thats not cool", but it's another to go "stop doing that"
22:03:06 <etoile> how would/should i word that to not sound authoritative
22:03:10 and yeah that makes sense!
22:03:11 <•TheMightyMcB> well tbh thats a preferred pronoun thing that's different
22:03:24 <•Corvus> I think when it's directly involving you and how you like to be identified it is fine
22:03:26 <•TheMightyMcB> if you dont like being called dude then there's no other way to say that
22:03:30 <etoile> i have trouble figuring out stuff like that im sorry u__u
22:03:36 <•Corvus> Making demands of others when it comes to yourself is a-ok
22:03:56 (So long as they're expressed maturely and not rudely, doesn't even have to be "politely")
22:03:59 <etoile> ok thats what i was worried about a little, ty for clarifying
22:04:04 <MutantMcFly> hello everyone! How are we all doing today?
22:04:52 <•Corvus> Like, not saying you'd do this, but both "don't call me dude" and please don't call me dude" would be fine, "don't call me dude you stupid fuck" isn't
22:04:59 <etoile> it Might be a retained habit from the discord servers i admin msgbfdjdf but ill definitely be more aware of that now tht i know what to watch for so ty!
22:05:02 yeah sfhdgjsfdg
22:05:20 <•TheMightyMcB> yeah having chat authority can bleed over into other chats for sure
22:05:21 <WhiteGuard> MutantMcFly Hi there! Just so you know, this is the staff helps channel, so if you are looking for general discussion, try #site19.
22:05:40 <•TheMightyMcB> it's just something we need to be aware of in whatever communities we are in
22:05:44 <etoile> genuinely very sorry that its been disruptive here though u__u
22:05:46 ofc
22:05:47 <•Corvus> Yeah it is real real hard for me to be in basically any other chat where I'm no one :P
22:06:39 <•TheMightyMcB> im not quite at that point but i have caught myself in a few unrelated discords before
22:06:45 <etoile> again ty for clarifying what does and doesnt count i was worried that was kind of a dumb/obvious question
22:06:49 <MutantMcFly> Oh my I was on the wrong channel. Thank you WhiteGuard. I swore I clicked on 19. Well either way, hope everyone is doing well, I'll be on my way. :)
22:07:12 <•TheMightyMcB> etoile: see you in 24
22:07:22 <etoile> :']
Noting that this user is now known as "etoisle" and has occasionally used the nickname "spicaterrible"
There was a minor incident earlier where this user responded poorly to critique. Log follows. Lengthy, salient bit is at the end.
10:45 AM <etoisle> hey
10:45 AM i have a draft you might like (it's technology and purely beneficial) but im just gonna ask your opinion on it, not for actual crit, if you dont mind that is
10:45 AM i hope you understand why
10:49 AM <Mew-ltiverse> Oh sure! And /sigh/ yeah, I do. I would appreciate if you gave me a chance, though. I have not made that mistake since.
10:49 AM <etoisle> only if you want :]
10:50 AM im willing to give you another chance i appreciate you saying that
10:51 AM [SANDBOX LINK REMOVED]
10:51 AM <Mew-ltiverse> Thank you. You don’t know how much I regret being dishonest. I will give my 100% accurate opinion and advice this time.
10:52 AM <etoisle> i definitely understand the feelings leading towards that decision+i rly appreciate your openness
10:52 AM its all good :]
10:58 AM <Mew-ltiverse> Alrighty. I’m waiting at the dmv rn, so I could look over it now but I might be slower than normal cause I’m on mobile.
10:58 AM <etoisle> no rush!
10:59 AM <Mew-ltiverse> Alright. I’m not gonna do line by line, just my opinion and advice.
10:59 AM <etoisle> ok!
1:04 PM <etoisle> hiii
1:36 PM <Mew-ltiverse> Hello
1:46 PM <etoisle> sorry i just got the impression you were able to read it over earlier but theres no rush so just lmk when you get a chance :]
1:46 PM <Mew-ltiverse> You never linked me
1:47 PM <etoisle> 11:51 AM <etoisle> [SANDBOX LINK REMOVED]
1:47 PM <Mew-ltiverse> Fuck
1:47 PM <etoisle> sjdfkgfdg
1:47 PM <Mew-ltiverse> I’m really dumb
1:47 PM <etoisle> ur fine
1:48 PM <Mew-ltiverse> I’ll read it as soon as I can I’m so sorry I’m blind sometimes
1:48 PM <etoisle> youre fine nw!!
1:52 PM <Mew-ltiverse> IMO “Shoot the Moons” should be italicized, but that’s a style opinion
1:52 PM <etoisle> the company's name?
1:53 PM <Mew-ltiverse> Yeah
1:53 PM Also I don’t think it should be stated that a character that lives in a video game doesn’t need sustenance that’s sorta a given
1:54 PM <etoisle> true
2:04 PM <Mew-ltiverse> So I’m finished
2:06 PM I wouldn’t have both the discovery of it not being neutralized because a researcher has a copy, and Mrs. J recognizing the interviewer, I think the draft would benefit from choosing one or the other
2:06 PM I thought the general tone was good and I liked Mrs. J’s personality
2:06 PM But then
2:07 PM There’s the ending
2:07 PM Addendum 2
2:08 PM I’m going to be blunt. It was really, really stupid.
2:09 PM Reading Addendum 2, all that could come to mind was “look at my special SCP!!!! See how special they are?”
2:09 PM There is no saving Addendum 2 in my opinion. I’d just cut it all together. It would help immensely.
2:10 PM And I’d have them find a copy at a thrift store so you can keep the interview because the interview was quite good
2:18 PM <etoisle> uhhhh
2:18 PM what makes you say that
2:19 PM >
I wouldn’t have both the discovery of it not being neutralized because a researcher has a copy, and Mrs. J recognizing the interviewer, I think the draft would benefit from choosing one or the other
2:19 PM because both of them having played it is significant to the last addendum
2:19 PM as is the section about who it was advertised to
2:20 PM i didnt put that detail in for no reason, it's a summation of the themes of the piece
2:21 PM <Mew-ltiverse> You mean the Addendum I heavily suggest you cut
2:21 PM <etoisle> yes
2:21 PM <Mew-ltiverse> I can tell why you did it
2:21 PM <etoisle> why, then
2:21 PM <Mew-ltiverse> I’m telling you that in my opinion, the reason why, the last Addendum, is really hurting the piece
2:22 PM You did it to allude and add up to foundation researchers knowing of xxxx
2:22 PM <etoisle> nope
2:22 PM they already know about it, that's not a twist
2:22 PM because it's very much not a "look how special my scp is" and very much a "commentary on the kind of person the foundation would hire" thing. note the very last line
2:23 PM <Mew-ltiverse> Oh then if you stick with the ending, I’d try to make that a tad more apparent, just a tad
2:24 PM <etoisle> i mean if you missed what i was setting up that bad then im not quite sure what to do bc someone else just told me that the last addendum was perfect and if i made it more obvious it'd be too heavy handed
2:26 PM <Mew-ltiverse> Also since this is a commentary of that, it’s not a good one; like the draft has a lot of great things about it but it is not the right set up for commenting on who the foundation hires
2:26 PM They aren’t gonna hire people because they all played the same anomalous educational game as kids
2:26 PM <etoisle> that is not the point im making
2:26 PM they didnt hire them because they played the game
2:27 PM they hired them because a) the game advertised to neglectful parents, which produced b) socially isolated but very intelligent people
2:27 PM <Mew-ltiverse> Okay well since you don’t like my advice, I’m done giving it.
2:27 PM <etoisle> its not that
2:27 PM i just feel like it wasnt understood properly?
2:28 PM and that could very well be my fault for not making it clear enough
2:28 PM but if you come out heavy with "this part sucks and you should delete it" based on a massive misunderstanding, i hope you can understand how that set us back off on the wrong foot
2:31 PM i can work on making that message more clear if that's what you think would help
2:33 PM <Mew-ltiverse> I said I’m not giving anymore feedback because you refused to acknowledge it, but instead only defended your decisions.
2:33 PM <etoisle> mew i'm not defending my decisions i'm letting you know that you're critting a concept that is based on a misunderstanding
2:34 PM if you had said "oh, well i couldn't tell that" then i would say ok i'll make it more clear
2:34 PM but you're acting like the way you interpreted it was my intentions
2:34 PM if that makes any sense
2:35 PM 3:26 PM <Mew-ltiverse> They aren’t gonna hire people because they all played the same anomalous educational game as kids
2:35 PM like im telling you "no, that's not what i'm trying to say" that's not "not taking your advice" thats me telling you that there was a miscommunication of my authorial intent
2:36 PM which is still a problem with my writing! just a different one
2:37 PM <Mew-ltiverse> I believe I said I’m not giving you more advice
2:37 PM <etoisle> i mean, alright
2:37 PM i'm sorry?
2:37 PM im not sure what happened here
2:38 PM <Mew-ltiverse> I said I’m not giving you advice and you apparently didn’t understand that
2:39 PM <etoisle> you're not giving me more advice because you feel like i wasn't listening to you, right?
2:39 PM sorry to drag this out i just want to make sure im understanding it properly
2:49 PM <Mew-ltiverse> yes
2:49 PM <etoisle> i see
2:49 PM i'm sorry i gave that impression
While it can be argued that the user was simply not understanding it, the crit-giver specifically intended the highlighted sections to be a "I am finished, please stop". Since the phrasing used is open to interpretation, chatstaff consensus is that this is not actionable, but should be logged for future reference.
Noting that I got a PM regarding this case:
hey, sorry to bother and idk if this is the right place to take it, but i have… i guess a complaint about the behavior of a member of junior crit staff? i had asked mew-itiverse to crit my article, now posted, and received positive reviews; after i posted it, she left this comment: http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-13389101/scp-5403#post-4668479 (tldr: "I'm gonna come forward and admit that I was dishonest when reviewing this."). this, by itself, was confusing and a little upsetting, but i let it slide; i understand anxiety in situations like that.
however, i solicited crit from her over irc pms today, she agreed, and in response i received something that i can only really describe as hostility:
[chatlog noted above was here]
sorry about the last 3 lines i needed to copy+paste. i absolutely understand that it's possible for me to have been in the wrong here, and if so i apologize for wasting your time; however, a few people have told me this response was unnecessarily hostile. i'm not asking for her to be punished or anything, i just wanted to let you/staff know about all of this. thanks for your time
I sent back:
Hmm. I'll be honest, I feel like both parties could have communicated better here. While I will say that Mew was unnecessarily hostile towards the end, your repeated continuation of the conversation after Mew stated she was finished comes off as pestering—especially since your focus was on making sure you understood the situation even though Mew already stated multiple times she was done talking.
As a general note, rather than responding to a reviewer with kind of dismissive replies like "what makes you say that", "nope", "i mean if you missed what i was setting up that bad", and "that is not the point im making", maybe try something along the lines of "Oh. I was going for [content here]. How can I make that clearer in the draft?"
Naturally, if you received conflicting feedback from other reviewers, that would be something to address after you have received the current critique, rather than immediately saying "someone else said the opposite" with the possible implication that the current reviewer's comments are invalid because of that (which can be especially frustrating for the reviewer if the author doesn't even name the other reviewer who disagreed, and it seems like the author is inclined to go with that nameless opinion just because it's positive).
The point where Mew states "[2020-06-25 15:27:25] <Mew-ltiverse> Okay well since you don’t like my advice, I’m done giving it." is where I think you should have stepped back a bit, rather than posting a lot of text in response (which is likely the exact opposite of what Mew was asking for). Moving forward, feel free to respond to comments like that with something along the lines of "Okay, thanks for your critique so far. Maybe some other time, can we go over revised version of this?"
I will keep this situation in mind for the future; however, I highly encourage putting a pause on conversations whenever a reviewer seems to be getting frustrated (especially if the review is happening because you requested the favor directly, not as part of a critique trade or the like).
I wouldn't really describe Mew as hostile here. It could be seen as an abrupt change in tone I guess but I would be far harsher with someone not taking the hint.
Also, since mew was explicitly asked for "your opinion on it, not for actual crit" this isn't a crit staff matter.
Attempting to make it one after the fact is… disingenuous, at best.
Today, chatstaff received a formal request from a ranking member of the Forum Crit team and discussion ensued.
After several incidents of user disregarding critique in favor of rubberstamping, despite the critters in question offering legitimate and (ultimately confirmed) concerns, it is the consensus of five operators and two chatmin that a permanent ban from #thecritters be enacted.
I enacted this ban, and it will remain permanent pending a successful appeal.
Chat logs are extensive and available upon request.
(EDIT: Cleaned up my wording for clarity.)