21:59 <shaggydredlocks> any disc staff out and about?
21:59 <•naepicfael> Lemme find someone for you
22:00 <•ARD> shaggydredlocks: what's up
22:02 <shaggydredlocks> so, saw some of the convos on O5 and wanted to clear some things up. Not necessarily an appeal since idk if it even went thru + I'm not particularly bothered by a ban anyways, but I just want to clarify some things
22:03
22:05 <shaggydredlocks> From the first post in my disc thread: "The circumstances appear that the user was not engaging with the site or site staff in good faith, which would fall under our rules regarding trolling or indistinguishable." I would argue that there's plenty of evidence which suggests I wasn't working against anyone in bad faith at any point (because I wasn't)
22:05 <•ARD> do you have any to offer
22:05 <shaggydredlocks> yup
22:05 maybe pms would work better
22:05 <•ARD> here is fine
22:10 <shaggydredlocks> So, as soon as it came to my attention that this rose from 'mild annoyance' to 'punishable offence' I dialed back on spurring silliness on (which, like, people do constantly for kicks anyways on SCPD) to work with Taylor to make sure another user wouldn't suffer from harmless horseplay
22:10 https://www.irccloud.com/pastebin/uFMACi1b/convo%20w%20tay
convo w tay Plain Text • 86 lines raw | line numbers
22:10 ^
22:11 <shaggydredlocks> I chilled out to work with staff to clear up a misunderstanding. Not precisely trolling behavior
22:11 <•ARD> ok. this seems to be related to what etoisle did
22:13 <•ARD> you were banned for what you did, which was repost owo-2-j on your author page to bypass our rules against unedited reposts and egg the community on to shitpost more
22:13 <shaggydredlocks> https://www.irccloud.com/pastebin/YwpnHQ7n/
22:15 <shaggydredlocks> did my second snippet come thru for you? I can see it but I got a message it wasn't sent
22:15 <•ARD> right, we're aware you came into ask that the page be deleted after you became aware that staff were investigating it
22:15 but you still posted it onto your author page
22:17 <•ARD> and we do discipline people who bring their antics from scpds onto the site
22:17 *from SCPD
22:17 <shaggydredlocks> I understand. Imma get to that in a sec
22:18 <•ARD> This next bit better not just be a summary of your O5 record
22:19 <shaggydredlocks> no
IRCCloud shat the bed for a minute, and part of my log was lost. Helen is having logging issues as well, so 5 minutes of this log are currently unavailable.
22:24 <shaggydredlocks> Third: This is the second time I've created a page like this. Last time there wasn't anything approaching a disciplinary issue brought up. A few people were annoyed, sure, but a lot of people had fun letting off some steam with a single-page dumping ground — and we actually got some worthwhile art and prose from it. Exhibit A from Deci
22:24 https://www.irccloud.com/pastebin/QEHVlC0P/
22:25 <•ARD> link me the previous page?
22:26 <shaggydredlocks> The old OwO, you mean?
22:26 <•ARD> yeah. was that page deleted per our usual site policy and then immediately reposted without being edited?
22:27 <shaggydredlocks> I have the page source in a pm. The above excerpt isn't related to it, it's from the first time I posted a page like that
22:28 <•ARD> right. i'm asking how this relates to the incident wherein you posted a page and then used your author page as a place to immediately repost the other page without edits after it was summarily deleted
22:29 <shaggydredlocks> I did say I was going to get to that. Right now I'm trying to go over how this wasn't bad faith or trolling.
22:29 <•ARD> But you haven’t. You’ve just summarized your O5 record and explained how your previous page wasn’t trolling
22:30 You’ve been here for almost half an hour and haven’t explained to me
22:32 <shaggydredlocks> Working with staff in dms to protect another user, followed by amicably working with staff regarding the author page, and beginning to showcase how I didn't go in to this with malicious intent isn't helpful in showing this isn't trolling?
22:33 <•ARD> It seems more like trying to cover your ass, especially given that you went through with the repost and were egging people on in 19
22:34 <shaggydredlocks> I said going into this that I don't care about the ban. I'm not covering my ass, I'm providing my perspective since it seems staff think this was some deliberate scheme to disrupt the site.
22:35 <•ARD> Okay. Your perspective didn’t convince us otherwise.
22:35 Disc staff have been paying attention to this appeal
22:35 Well, this conversation
22:35 If you don’t want to appeal, please leave.
22:37 <shaggydredlocks> Well then, I guess I'm appealing?
22:38 <•ARD> shaggydredlocks: ok so you consider this as your appeal?
22:39 <shaggydredlocks> Not entirely.
22:40 <•ARD> Ok. You have ten minutes to explain why you should be unbanned. Your appeal will have been fifty minutes by then which I think is more than fair
22:41 <shaggydredlocks> sure, didn't know appeals were timed
22:42 <•ARD> Usually people have appealed or been kicked for wasting almost an hour
22:43 <shaggydredlocks> I created a page, for fun, in the spirit of its predecessor — which while obviously deleted, still provided the community overall with a good time and actually produced worthwhile content. Sure, I egged people on — but that's not anything that isn't already routine 'round here. I had no reason to think there would be actual damage resulting from this, and worked with staff to rectify such when it came up.
22:45 If the ban is solely due to authorpage loopholing, I'm not sure that's even a rule, but I don't consider a ban for it unfair. That's cool, but then the disc thread should reflect that.
22:47 <shaggydredlocks> And I would add that it was in no way, shape, or form meant to waste staff time or resources — I was shocked it became as serious as it did to begin with.
22:48 As the last time this happened several staff members added to it (and a couple this time around too)
22:49 <•ARD> The page hit -20 and was deleted. You specifically violated the site rule against reposting a page unedited. The only reason staff didn’t immediately delete it is because the loophole tricked us into thinking no rule was being broken — but you were still violating the rule against reposting and deliberately using your knowledge both of site rules and staff operation to delay us from enforcing said rule
22:50 <•ARD> HTimes up on the appeal. The ruling stands.
22:51 <shaggydredlocks> If that's your decision I won't argue against it. However I'd ask that this be clarified in the disc thread as the reason for the banning versus 'indistinguishable from trolling/testing the waters for nonsense'.
22:52 <•ARD> Using prior knowledge to waste our time and stop us from doing our jobs well is trolling.
22:53 If you have any further questions, ask now. Otherwise, I’ll see you in a week
22:54 <shaggydredlocks> eh, just that the entirety of my author page was still there, so it wasn't precisely unedited, but that's splitting hairs. See ya
22:59 <shaggydredlocks> Shit, sorry. Last thing I promise: "to waste our time and stop us from doing our jobs well" it was more "to let people enjoy playing with the article for a bit longer" so again, not trolling. Next time I'll let it die once its shelf life is up.
<Thirty minutes of usual #site17 comings and goings, newbie questions, etc.>
00:32 <shaggydredlocks> Hey, question
00:32 Is there a page that lays out the appeals process? Could have sworn there was one, but I can't seem to find it
00:33 <•taylor_itkin> Taylor Itkin im not suree
00:33 but the appeals process is "come into 17 and tell us why we should unban you"
00:33 if it's for chat we decide then and there
00:33 for site we put it on O5 to be discussed, I believe
00:34 <shaggydredlocks> Okay. I was just curious because during mine I was made aware that there's a time limit to these things, and I feel that should be made known for folks going into it
00:36 <shaggydredlocks> Is there something formal on the staff staff site about handling them? I'm wondering if my appeal is going to be logged or if that's not a requirement.
00:44 <WhiteGuard> shaggydredlocks: As far as I can tell, the only mention of the appeals process is in the ChatOp-Guide http://05command.wikidot.com/chatop-guide
00:45 <WhiteGuard> Beyond of course what is mentioned on the chat guide.
00:51 <•TheMightyMcB> WhiteGuard: this is a site appeal, not a chat appeal
00:52 <WhiteGuard> Ah I see. Thanks for clarifying McB
00:53 <shaggydredlocks> yea, it doesn't actually cover either of my questions — I went through that page already
00:53 thanks a bunch though
01:10 <•ARD> shaggydredlocks: your appeal will be logged. the appeal wasn't cut short so much as i decided to reject your appeal because after 50 minutes i had not heard a suitable defense
01:17 <shaggydredlocks> A: gracias. I think that how logging is handled should be visible somewhere on one of the disc team pages (unless I missed it entirely). I know not everything is always codified, so I wasn't sure that was an actual procedure staff must follow. B: I believe I laid out how my behavior is plainly distinguishable from trolling, and wasn't acting against the site, its staff, or its userbase in any capacity.
01:18 <•Corvus> Procy You do not get to relitigate your appeal.
01:19 If you have concerns about how your appeal was handled you may make an administrative complaint but you're done in here.
01:20 <shaggydredlocks> apologies. I do have a concern but it's not a complaint, more of a suggestion?
01:20 <•Corvus> Procy Then you are free to make it. When your ban is up.
01:21 <•Corvus> Procy If it is not patently obvious, we have reached the point in this process where you are asked to leave.
01:29 ← shaggydredlocks (moc.duolccri.llewkcorb.59F291E6-CRInys|805303diu#moc.duolccri.llewkcorb.59F291E6-CRInys|805303diu) was kicked by •Corvus: Or being forced to leave.
01:29 •Corvus banned *!*@synIRC-6E192F95.brockwell.irccloud.com (+b)