Captaincy Review - Licensing

Summary:

CityToast

Captaincy Review - Licensing

aismallard 17 Feb 2023 04:00

Following a Captaincy Review carried out by administration, after a thorough investigation of the situation, we have determined that CityToast is not currently suitable to carry out the role of Licensing Captain. As Vice Captain, Naepic is now Acting Captain of the Licensing Team.

This is not a disciplinary action, but a determination of current unsuitability. Further changes beyond captaincy (e.g. removal from the team or staff) are not permitted as part of a Captaincy Review.

Additionally, we have invoked fiat to hold his moderator rank in abeyance while further deliberations take place: Fiat - CityToast Moderator Abeyance

Re: Captaincy Review - Licensing

stormbreath 20 Feb 2023 01:25

To briefly give a summary of the admin team’s reasoning for not posting the rationale behind the Captaincy Review immediately, and why we are doing so now: The original plan of the Admin Team was to perform a Captaincy Review and then forward a recommendation of Demotion to the Disciplinary Team. This Demotion vote would have the rationale of the admin team and Disciplinary, and be open to discussion and comments from CityToast’s peers (other Moderators¹). CityToast’s moderator powers were held in abeyance until innocence or guilt was determined, in accordance with Section V.B.4 of the Charter.

However, following coordination between the Anti-Harassment Team and the admin team, the admin team was informed that AHT would be pursuing a six month ban from SCP Wiki and a permanent blacklist from staff. This blacklist from staff would supercede any possible outcome out of the Demotion Vote (Censure, Rank Demotion, or Full Removal). Furthermore, CityToast would be banned from 05Command, making him unable to post in his defense on 05Command - a violation of Section V.B.4 of the Charter.

As a result, the admin team has decided to not recommend CityToast for a Demotion proceedings, and instead repurpose the rationale posts we would have used for the Demotion to explain the Captaincy Review. Please note that the Captaincy Review performed by the admins was not a Disciplinary process, which is to say that CityToast could have been removed from Captaincy even if he had not violated any rules.

Over the next six forum posts, we will break down the reasoning for CityToast to be removed as Captain. No single one of these concerns caused CityToast’s removal, but instead the total sum of all the arguments and concerns did.

These posts were written by stormbreath and reviewed by aismallard, DrBleep, UncertaintyCrossing, ManyMeats, HarryBlank, Cassandra_Prime does not match any existing user name, and OriTiefling.

Footnotes

1. In theory, Operational Staff Captains would have also been invited to comment on this vote; in practice, none currently exist.

---

can I get some nice "no signatures on my forum"
sigma-9 css machine broke
understandable have a nice day

Last edited on 20 Feb 2023 01:30 by stormbreath Show more

Abuse of Captaincy Power - Improper Suspension of Rank

stormbreath 20 Feb 2023 01:25

This section references the following logs:

• DMs with Ralliston: Image 1, Image 2
• DMs with Naepic: Image 1, Image 2
• Group Chat with Toast and Admins

The crux of this matter comes in Toast's February 14, 2023 12:17 PM ET messages to Ralliston, in which he demands an apology from the staffer, and when Ralliston refuses to apologize, immediately suspends Ralliston from Licensing.

While he immediately reverses this decision — according to Ralliston, this was immediately after Ralliston pinged aismallard in staffchat asking to speak — he does not appear to have actually dropped the idea, contacting his Vice Captain, Naepic, about the issue two days later on the 16th. Naepic, at this time, talks him away from the suspension and recommends that CityToast contact Disciplinary, which he does not do.

Later on the 16th, the admins - in the middle of a greater conversation about Toast's recent behavior and the incident - ask Toast to explain his actions. Toast initially defends his actions by saying that he overreacted, but "moved on". He repeats, twice at the outset, that he "moved on" from the decision.

This is not the case - he was still thinking of the action two days later, and contacting his Vice Captain to inquire about the topic and attempt to push it further along. When confronted with this, he attempts to split hairs over an inconsequential error made by Meats, and then when this is pointed out as making his case worse, changes to a defense based on his promotion vote, in which he voted Yes for Ralliston.

It must be noted that while he voted Yes for Ralliston on the 15th, he later discussed entirely withdrawing Ralliston's promotion nomination on the 16th, saying: "If he's being removed we should also withdraw his promo".

He testifies that his removal of the suspension was not based on Ralliston pinging admins in #staff-discussion, and questions the idea of doing this, accusing Ralliston of trying to make a scene (despite pinging users to ask to DM being a common practice in staffchat).

During this conversation with admins, he does not respond at any point to Meat's accusation that "this is a bell that can't be unrung" (meaning that the fact he suspended Ralliston in the first place was inappropriate, regardless of any ameliorating actions) and further continues to defend his initial actions, saying that this is an appropriate response to “a team member for saying "go fuck yourself. I'm ashamed to be on your team and I think you should step down" publicly”. Notably, the only messages from Ralliston before the attempted suspension that have a tone somewhat similar to the supposed quote are the following:

i'm sorry but i'm frankly i unbelievably shocked at this behavior i feel nothing but disappointment for somebody who's my team captain.

these strawmans, insults, and straight up lies are entirely unprofessional behavior and something i'm astonished somebody in such a position is allowed to get away with.

CityToast has continued to make misleading and false claims to admins about the content of Ralliston’s messages. The admin team has thoroughly read through Ralliston’s comments and found no wrongdoing. SCPD moderators have confirmed that Ralliston has not deleted any messages in the server this month.

CityToast continues to lie to admins about the incident during this conversation. He claims that he was "recognizing that i was the one offended and so handling over the entire matter to my VC to handle", but his messages to Naepic do not contain any reference to putting the matter entirely in Naepic's jurisdiction, and imply that it is something CityToast still actively sees himself as involved in.

Further, he made claims of "approaching him [Ralliston] later to apologize again"; Ralliston denies any contact with CityToast between the initial apology and the conversation with admins; although notes that CityToast did later reach out to apologize in SCPD the morning after the conversation with admins.

---

The admin team agrees that CityToast engaged in an abuse of his Captaincy powers during this incident. The immediate summary removal of Ralliston from a staff position - an action which CityToast informed multiple other staff members of - over legitimate concerns about Captain actions is an abuse of power and attempt to silence dissent. While the action was quickly reversed, it is fact the action was performed at all that constitutes abuse. Furthermore, CityToast did not “move on” from the suspension as claimed, and was still making attempts to pursue the matter two days later.

This complaint, while not the only reason for CityToast’s removal, is the most salient of all the concerns, and would have been sufficient cause for the removal of Captaincy rank by itself.

---

can I get some nice "no signatures on my forum"
sigma-9 css machine broke
understandable have a nice day

Last edited on 20 Feb 2023 01:28 by stormbreath Show more

Behavior in SOSS #staff-discussion

stormbreath 20 Feb 2023 01:26

Before the conversation in #staff-discussion was stop-ordered, CityToast engaged repeatedly in vehemence and attacks against staff members in the SCP Official Staff Server. These patterns of behavior also happened in parallel or continued in SCPD in the #meta-scp channel, but we are focusing on his actions in an official staff space.

Discussion, while tense, is mostly civil until approximately forty minutes into the conversation. At this point (following discussions in SCPD), CityToast begins outright refusing to give results of the survey to members of staff. He engages in personal attacks (Image 1, Image 2), accusing the users asking him for proof of having no trust and only thinking their opinion matters. He discusses his unwillingness to work with the Data Analysis team over unstated problems, and accuses staff members of toxicity. (Image)

---

The admin team finds CityToast’s behavior in SOSS unbecoming of a Captain, although not necessarily enough to remove him from staff. However, in light of the greater context of CityToast’s actions, is a salient concern and justifies his removal from Captaincy.

---

can I get some nice "no signatures on my forum"
sigma-9 css machine broke
understandable have a nice day

Last edited on 20 Feb 2023 01:38 by stormbreath Show more

Comments Regarding OnlyFans

stormbreath 20 Feb 2023 01:26

During the arguments in the #meta-scp-discussion thread of the SCPDeclassified server, CityToast made repeated - and mostly unprompted - references to his OnlyFans account.

The first mention of OnlyFans was following a remark by syuzhet at 11:55 AM that she went through CityToast's messages in the SCPD server, his twitter account, and his reddit profile and found no evidence of the survey being posted. In response, he said "Wow, cyberstalker alert. Want my onlyfans too? I might have posted the survey there" (Image) This was the first mention of OnlyFans made at any point in the conversation.

Ten minutes later, at 12:05 PM, Guaire says "No one is asking personal details, we are just asking for a link to wherr [sic] the survey was posted" to which CityToast responds "I already said, my onlyfans." (Image) Seven minutes later, Guaire continues, saying "Toast, once again, this can easily end by giving us the link. Your behavior has been the primary cause of all the hostolity [sic] and suspicions you have received the las [sic] 2 hours", to which CityToast responds with a message reading "https://onlyfans.com/" (Image) At some point within the next five minutes, following the immediate backlash to this action in the server and remarks there are minors present, he edits the link to "https://onlyfriends.com/", a website for "World First Social Crypto Currency".

In response to posting the OnlyFans link, Guaire sends a message saying "Fuck off". CityToast responds to this by saying "That costs extra, check the pinned post on my profile". (Image)

Finally, at 12:51 PM, in response to a remark from Fishish that "Dont think the wife would approve of the onlyfans plug on valentine's day", CityToast responds:

She's the photographer 😉

actually, it's funny, I have an OF to stop someone from making one with my username. I briefly posted wholesome encouraging videos as a joke

(Image) Confirming he does, in fact, have an OnlyFans account and its username.

When asked in a discussion with the admin team by ManyMeats:

I am going to ask you point blank as an admin what in the nine realms possessed you to make a onlyfans joke in the middle of what was going on?

CityToast responded:

I dunno, after being told "go fuck yourself" by a staff member, all bets were pretty much off

This did not occur. He did not provide any other defense for the OnlyFans comments, and questioned whether or not there was a problem with the OnlyFans comments in the first place, saying:

And just to be like…super clear. is there an issue with onlyfans?

---

CityToast’s actions here are not, strictly speaking, in violation of Section IV.F of the Charter, but they do come dangerously close to violating the Section IV.F.2 of the Charter, which reads as follows:

Staff are not to directly advertise their current position in the SCP Wiki’s staff structure on platforms where adult activity is expected or the norm. “I am [REDACTED], Moderator of SCP Wiki” is unnecessary; “[REDACTED], writer at SCP Wiki” is more acceptable, if among other hobby listings. It’s not necessary to fully isolate one’s self identity between the Wiki with other platforms, but a level of division is expected and heavily encouraged.

While OnlyFans is not - as pointed out by several users, including myself - a website used exclusively for adult activity, it is a platform where such activity is the norm, and most users expect such activity when the website is mentioned. As a Captain, the bar of expectation for CityToast is higher than it is for other staff members, and as such the admin team expects a greater standard of care to isolate identities on the SCP Wiki and such platforms.

Regardless of the specific charter clauses and his account on the platform notwithstanding, by continuing to reference OnlyFans, direct users to OnlyFans, and make jokes about it, CityToast was making an extended reference to adult content and material inappropriate for the room. The age limit in SCPD is 16+, and members between the ages of 16 and 18 were actively engaged in the conversation in #meta-scp-discussion before and after CityToast began making reference to OnlyFans. The repeated, unprompted mentions of a platform used for adult activity, linking to said platform directly, and alluding to one’s username on said platform – all of which were performed in a discussion that minors were actively involved in – constitute unacceptable behavior for a Captain.

---

can I get some nice "no signatures on my forum"
sigma-9 css machine broke
understandable have a nice day

Last edited on 20 Feb 2023 02:23 by stormbreath Show more

Vehemence in SCPDeclassified #meta-scp-discussion

stormbreath 20 Feb 2023 01:27

During the discussions on February 14th in the #meta-scp-discussion channel of the SCPDeclassified server — a common location for users to discuss site policy and ongoing events — CityToast repeatedly engaged in vehement and insulting comments towards other users. An outline of some of the most egregious of these comments follows below.

This is not an exhaustive list of excessively vehement comments made by CityToast in SCPD. It does not capture the extensive pattern of behavior that CityToast engaged in throughout the course of the day and every individual comment he made.

slashannemoo: That's not true! You are claiming that the 50/50 status of public opinion regarding AI-generated media is the product of a survey. Although you are a credible individual, you have not provided critical proof of that survey in order to properly backup your information. It is a healthy dose of scepticism, and doesn't really criticise your credibility, rather, it seeks to edify it further.

CityToast: "You're only credible when you're telling me what I want to hear"

(Image 1, Image 2)

Slashannemoo is a very established member of the community and is an admin on the -INT and -PT-BR, a fact that CityToast was aware of due to having discussed INT with Slashannemoo earlier in the conversation. Slashannemoo is very polite and clear to CityToast in her remarks, but is met with hostility and insults by CityToast.

YossiPossi: Toast clearly does not intend ill will to the community or artists. It's not fair to project the disdain for AI onto him even if he supports its use on the Wiki.

CityToast:

It's not fair to project the disdain for AI onto him even if he supports its use on the Wiki.

Man, that's some backhanded shit, dawg. "Let's not be mean to toast even though he supports the controversial opinion anyone here hates."
lol

(Image 1, Image 2)

Here, YossiPossi (Captain of the Internet Outreach team) is attempting to defend CityToast against the rest of the server and encouraging users to behave civilly with him. CityToast responds by attacking Yossi.

CityToast: I already said, my onlyfans.

pr0m37h3um: toast if you expect people to believe and support you you're gonna need to stop being an ass

CityToast: I dunno, being open, transparent, and polite apparently means I'm unfit to be Captain of Licensing 😛

People wanna be salty, I'll make margaritas.

(Image 1, Image 2)

When told by the Captain of the Recap team pr0m37h3um that CityToast should stop being rude to users in response to CityToast’s OnlyFans remarks (which, as discussed above, were rule-violating and inappropriate), CityToast claims he is in fact being polite and transparent. Refusing to link to a survey one distributed and instead directing users to OnlyFans is neither transparent nor polite. (Note that CityToast was not required to be transparent here, although he was expected to be polite.)

syuzhet: i looked through your chat history in SCPD, as well as your twitter and your reddit account, and i found nothing pertaining to a survey of any kind

CityToast: Wow, cyberstalker alert.
Want my onlyfans too?
I might have posted the survey there

(Image)

The OnlyFans comments of this message have already been discussed above. Looking through three public accounts - one of which CityToast explicitly claimed to have distributed the survey in - is a reasonable step for a user to take to check CityToast’s claims, as the survey and its existence was a major topic of discussion in SCPD. Calling syuzhet a cyberstalker for doing so is unreasonable.

CityToast: The details were shared with an admin. And no one has given me any reason whatsoever to believe that sharing it with anyone will solve anything. Believe what you want.

stormbreath: Which admin?

CityToast: Why, so they can be harassed and told they're unfit to be admin if they don't want to share details?

stormbreath: No, so I can bring this information to the rest of the admin team. You can DM me their identity

(Image 1, Image 2)

When asked by an admin to clarify a statement CityToast made about a second admin, CityToast accused the admin of inciting harassment against the second admin. This is, as before, an uncharitable read of the user’s actions. CityToast did not contact stormbreath with the identity of the second admin, although stormbreath was able to determine it when discussing with admins later.

---

When asked by the admin team to justify his answers, CityToast responded that he was not engaging with SCPD on a staff level. He pointed out his username in SCPD does not reference his site rank and he does not have a staff role in the server.¹ He returned to this idea at several points, saying that he was under the belief that SCPD is outside staff control and therefore, its events will not be used against staff.

To his credit, two days after this conversation with admins (on the 18th), CityToast said the following:

While being inundated and harassed in SCPD, I defensively started to crack jokes and avoid questions, which made some people more upset. I probably should have just stepped away.

This, however, lines up with other comments CityToast has made, in which he perceives any rule-violating comments as only having been made towards users who were harassing and attacking him. This is not the case - as shown by CityToast’s response to slashannemoo and YossiPossi, CityToast attacked and insulted any user who entered the conversation, even those who were attempting to defend him. He behaved with vehemence not only to non-staff users, but also to his fellow Captains.

Furthermore, CityToast’s defense here does not truly encompass the degree of vehemency he expressed in SCPD or the problem behind them. It is not enough that CityToast regrets his behavior, as his actions permanently damaged his standing in the eyes of the community.

The remarks that CityToast made in SCPD were unbecoming of a member of staff of any level, let alone a Captain. Behavioral expectations for a Captain are higher than other staffers, and CityToast clearly crossed these lines.

Footnotes

1. No such role exists.

---

can I get some nice "no signatures on my forum"
sigma-9 css machine broke
understandable have a nice day

Last edited on 20 Feb 2023 02:26 by stormbreath Show more

The Survey

stormbreath 20 Feb 2023 01:27

This section references the following set of logs: Link

To clear one topic of discussion: On February 17th, the admin team was finally able to obtain proof that CityToast did, in fact, distribute a survey. This survey was a poor method of data collection, poorly distributed on purpose, did not make considerable mention of the SCP Wiki, and received “around 40” responses. However, as best as can be determined — basing this not only on statements made by CityToast after February 14th, but also discussions had in the Licensing discord while the policy was drafted — the survey was not used to justify or determine policy. While CityToast may have been influenced by the survey, there is no way to prove whether or not he was, and he did not mention it in discussions of the policy.

The more salient problem with the survey is that CityToast's initial description of it was misleading and inaccurate. CityToast claims this is a result of a mixup, having confused the survey he did run with a survey he had briefly discussed with Internet Outreach. However, CityToast lied - not only to the community, but also his own team and the administrators - about this supposed mixup on February 14th and did not imply it existed at the time.

---

CityToast made several unprompted claims about the survey at the start of the conversation. These claims are being discussed in further detail, as CityToast was not engaged in conversation with anyone at the time, and was not subject to a large volume of criticism. As such, they can be taken as statements made in a neutral frame of mind. CityToast's initial claims about the survey were:

In #staff-discussion:

I wanted to bring this up because I have seen it quite a bit about the "overwhelming" userbase response regarding AI…I know a lot of staff are in SCPD but please remember that SCPD is not representative of all wiki users. We did a very thorough feedback run related to AI content and responses were very split. Nearly 50/50, actually. One SCP-related discord I am in which is very VR-focused has a very different opinion of AI-generated art.

The survey was posted in many different SCP communities including SCPD. I am in a lot of other SCP discords and forums and Facebook pages etc. It was not heavily promoted anywhere specific to prevent mass survey spamming so the results would be a more normal distribution.

(Image)

The relevant claims here are:

• There was a "very thorough feedback run"
• Responses had a 50/50 split
• One unnamed discord is strongly in favor of AI art
• The survey was posted in many communities, including SCPD. Other discords, forums and Facebook pages are implied.
• The survey was not promoted so it would have a "more normal distribution"

In SCPD #meta-scp-discussion:

To be fair, INT has never asked for any of the information from any of the rounds of feedback that were run. So, I do have to remind that SCPD is not "the userbase".
There is a server of SCP users who are focused on new tech, and their discussions are wildly different than [sic] here.

When we did our survey run, the responses were closer to 50/50 on the matter. If it wasn't, the proposal would be much different.

I'm not trying to diss SCPD. Just wanting to make sure that it's understood that we did the survey, and we got informative data that informed our writing of this proposal. And some people from noon-SCPD [sic] places have reached out to me asking why staff keep saying "overwhelming" opinions oppose it.
I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm wanting to remind you that this is only one venue

(Image 1, Image 2)

And when asked "Im on the official discord's team. Was the survey not there", CityToast responded, "It was"

The relevant claims are:

• The unnamed discord has different opinions
• There is a 50/50 split on the matter
• The proposal would be different if not for the 50/50 split. CityToast explicitly says that information from the survey informed the proposal.
• The survey was posted in the official discord server.

CityToast made additional claims to the admins (specifically aismallard) directly regarding this survey, immediately following the stop order in #staff-discussion. These will be discussed in further detail later.

---

CityToast has yet to provide the direct results of the survey with the admin team. As such, we cannot confirm or deny the 50/50 split in the survey results. This claim is potentially true. However: the fact CityToast did not appear to use the results of the survey means that this claim is largely irrelevant.

The name of the Google Form provided by CityToast to the admin team is "Art and Technology Survey". No survey or Google Form by this name was ever sent in either SCPD or 19cord, searching by the name of the survey and the provided link. These are the only two specific locations — other than CityToast's OnlyFans page¹ — where CityToast claimed to post the survey. The survey was not posted in either. Later, in DMs with aismallard, he acknowledged not having sent the survey in SCPD or 19cord.

In a group conversation between admins and CityToast, he claimed:

And again. This survey was not relevant to any part of the proposal and I honestly should not have even mentioned it. I was making conversation and I made a mistake.

This is in direct contradiction of his claims that the survey gave data that informed the proposal, and the proposal would be different if the survey did not have a 50/50 split. In the discussions leading up to the formation of the policy and its creation, this survey was not mentioned during the team. The admin team currently believes this later statement is correct, and the initial statements were false.

The final major point is that CityToast claimed to have performed a "very thorough feedback run". In discussions with admins, multiple days after the fact, CityToast admitted that the survey received "around 40" respondents. The survey was the only source of feedback mentioned. Describing this survey as "very thorough" is either a wilful lie, or shows a lack of understanding of the community unfit for a Captain.

---

Immediately following the stop order in #staff-discussion, aismallard reached out to CityToast on behalf of the admin team to ask several questions about the survey, saying:

(Asking here instead of in channel in case there's any sensitive information or things you don't want immediately exposed to the rest of staff)
I'm not a fan of the hostile response from staff to your discussion about the policy issue, but other admins who saw the conversation would like to ask some questions, if that's okay.
Can you clarify what you mean by "survey", as well as information about it (level of formality, where and how it was conducted, what the results are)?

During this conversation CityToast claimed that the survey was informal, and "It showed that among readers, the AI issue is much less one-sided, particularly among people who identified as not spending time in the official discord or SCPD." The survey, as provided, did not ask if users were involved in the official discord or SCPD.

When asked by aismallard to provide results or proof of the survey - expressly for the benefit of the admin team and not the rest of staff - CityToast refused. He claimed the survey asked for personal information. The survey, being on Google Forms, clearly states that email address is not shared and the only personal information collected was which fandoms a user was involved in.

Of significant note, when later discussing his actions with the admin team two days after the initial incident, CityToast made the following claim:

I was thinking about my survey which was not sent to main SCP communities and was targeted at smaller SCP groups and non-SCP groups, and got mixed up with the discussion about putting out a formal survey (which IO and CO decided not to do) and the community survey, and I wasn't at my computer to be able to dig up answers. When I got back to my computer and realized where I'd made the mistake I apologized and provided some info about the informal survey, but by that time it had spiraled and I was being harassed repeatedly to provide links that I genuinely did not have.

At the time of his conversation with aismallard, CityToast did not make any such distinction. He was able to provide survey questions to aismallard at this time, indicating that he was already back to his computer.

---

In short, CityToast entered SCPD and #staff-discussion without prompting by any other users and began lying. He continued to double and triple down on these lies with all parties involved - including members of the admin team. While the survey was not a good form of data collection, the admin team is not concerned with this fact. There is a potential argument that the survey’s isolation from other staff teams - having not been run in coordination with Internet Outreach or the Data Analysis subteam of Community Outreach - represents unfitness for Captaincy.

However, the admin team is more concerned with the extended pattern of lying, deceitful and misleading behavior that CityToast engaged in throughout the day. The initial statements made by CityToast were all demonstrably false. CityToast defended his actions in the day as being overwhelmed and dogpiled. To give him the benefit of the doubt, the admin team is only looking at the statements CityToast made at the start of the conversation, before he had been engaged in conversation. These statements are all false.

A Captain beginning a conversation in #staff-discussion predicated on blatant lies is unacceptable behavior.

Footnotes

1. The admin team is ignoring this claim as it relates to the survey. See discussion of OnlyFans Comments above.

---

can I get some nice "no signatures on my forum"
sigma-9 css machine broke
understandable have a nice day

Last edited on 20 Feb 2023 03:22 by stormbreath Show more

CityToast and Stop Orders

stormbreath 20 Feb 2023 01:28

CityToast has repeatedly ignored the admin team's stop orders since the start of the conversation. On February 14th, approximately three hours after the initial stop order, CityToast entered #staff-discussion and made a remark that each part of the proposal was voted on separately. Earlier in the conversation, CityToast had been told this was largely irrelevant. This was somewhat unrelated to the stop order, but had been part of earlier conversation.

Ten minutes later, he asks for users to "stop throwing around disciplinary threats." This was again, under violation of the stop order, which users remind him at this point. Guaire responds to CityToast, explaining why disciplinary concerns exist, and Toast requests that Guaire stop harassing him. stormbreath reiterates the stop order, and discussion stops.

The next day, CityToast reenters staffchat and provides an update on how the ongoing processes are affecting his real life and employment status. stormbreath issues a stop order, which is acknowledged as something of an extension of the stop order from the previous day. Following this, CityToast enters a group DM between admins and himself and demands the stop order be lifted. Admins refuse to do so.

Following his Captaincy Review and the loss of Licensing Captain, CityToast entered staffchat and began to describe his employment situation and ask for the review to be undone. The first of these actions is in defiance of the stop order from Wednesday. DrBleep issued a third stop order on the matter, which CityToast did not obey or respect, continuing to expound on both issues. He continued to do so even after DrBleep repeated this stop order, requiring his being muted in staff chat.

As a final note: following the first stop order in staffchat, meta-scp actually respected the stop order and did not continue discussion. For a period of ten minutes, meta-scp discussed stop orders in general, civility, and Vivarium returning to staff. After these ten minutes, the chat was silent for twenty minutes. At the end, CityToast resumed discussion, violating the spirit of the staff-chat stop order. When asked by Guaire if there was a stop order on the conversation, CityToast complained that staff-chat stop orders do not apply in SCPD, despite being the individual who broke the stop order in the first place.

Following the third stop order, CityToast briefly continued discussion in SCPD, saying “I've been timed out in staffcord because they stop ordered it again. So now I'm here because staff doesn't feel comfortable being accountable”, again attempting to skirt the stop orders, although he did not continue discussion further beyond these comments.

---

The concerns here are simple: CityToast repeatedly violated stop orders from the admin team. This is rule violating behavior, and required a staff member to be muted in SOSS - an unprecedented behavior.

Furthermore, CityToast repeatedly complained about users moving to SCPD to violate the stop order. The user who started this conversation was CityToast.

---

can I get some nice "no signatures on my forum"
sigma-9 css machine broke
understandable have a nice day