Jump to content
Server time: 2017-08-16, 13:17

Sign in to follow this  
Elmo

Staff Feedback: Elmo

Recommended Posts

Elmo    876

This is a feedback thread designed for constructive criticism for Game Master Elmo.

Please obey the Staff Feedback thread rules, as well as the general community rules whilst composing feedback for me. I will not accept commendations without suggestions, as I don't believe they are helpful in nature, constructive criticism and suggestions only please.

Spoiler

Staff feedback rules

  1. Community members may only post in feedback threads using the template below.
  2. All feedback and criticism should be constructive. No rants or pats on the back.
  3. Staff members may reply freely to feedback within their own thread.
  4. Posts not adhering to above rules will result in 5 warning points per post.

 

Spoiler

Link to the situation:(Use "N/A" if not appropriate.)

Any supporting evidence or notes: (Here you can post a screenshot, chat logs or anything else to help demonstrate your point,Use "N/A" if not appropriate".)

Feedback: (Here you post the main section of your feedback. Keep it respectful.)

Suggestions for improvement: (Use N/A if not appropriate. If bad feedback suggestions of improvement are required.)

also, cheeky Lotr references are mandatory

Share this post


Link to post
Dr Willsky    148
Posted (edited)

Link to the situation:(Use "N/A" if not appropriate.) N/A

Any supporting evidence or notes: (Here you can post a screenshot, chat logs or anything else to help demonstrate your point,Use "N/A" if not appropriate".) N/A

Feedback: (Here you post the main section of your feedback. Keep it respectful.)
I'll just list up several points :

- One of the staff members who can be seen IG, which I think is great. They get connected with the current way of RP provided by the community. 

- Good at solving/dissolving situations when they occur

- really mature and unambiguous way of formulating responses/opinions.

- Elmo puts a lot of time in staff duties and helpdesk 

Suggestions for improvement: (Use N/A if not appropriate. If bad feedback suggestions of improvement are required.)

- promote this man to GM, pretty sure they could use his insight on certain matters and his extensive experience. Also let's not forget his professionalism.

Edited by Willsky
didn't the the no commendations but W/E I'll take the 5 points for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Elmo    876
4 hours ago, Willsky said:

-snip-

Thank you for your feedback. Its refreshing to hear constructive, positive feedback every once in a while and I appreciate you taking the time to make it out for me. Usually I prefer solely critically constructive feedback because I find that to be helpful more than positive feedback. In this case your feedback has been helpful because its confirmed to me the things I am doing right, as well as how it looks from a community member's standpoint. For a while, I have been uncertain about what I've been doing right, so it is helpful to hear an affirmation that I'm going in the right direction and to keep on going. 

 

 

keep it to a minimum though, i'd like to fit my head through the next doorway I come across <3

Share this post


Link to post
Hebee    2205

Link to the situation: In game activity

Any supporting evidence or notes: 599bda9b589635e338c4a5351ae257b9.png

Feedback: Your in game activity is amazing, one would almost say to much however, you seem to do a great job at also doing forum work so keep this up and remember to be an example for the community when in game. also make sure to balance your in game time and out of game staff activity time, do not let either fall!

Suggestions for improvement: none as this is good feedback

Share this post


Link to post
Elmo    876
12 minutes ago, Hebee said:

-snip-

Perks of having no social life I guess :) Thanks for the feedback, I'll keep it in mind ^_^ 

Edit: although, what makes you think they're not pub hours :3

Share this post


Link to post
shookyaaa    27
Posted (edited)

Link to the situation: 

 

Any supporting evidence or notes: no

Feedback: This guy just handed out multiple bans based on a statement that his men did not receive the text initiation. The reporters provided no evidence while the defendants had evidence of everything that occurred. The only evidence provided was of someone sitting next to a wall on a hill that literally had nothing to do with the situation and wasn't even seen the entire time. This video evidence is for some reason used as an excuse to ban because they didn't hear the initiation. but they are literally so far away from the rest of the group that was interacting with the defendants group. You say that both parties role played before and that its proven by the evidence, yet the evidence that was provided from the accusers shows literally no rp that occurred. You also show no explanation for the ban of 3 people, @jackradders @MrMaha, and @Faithie, and I'm sure that if they were banned they would like to know what specifically they were banned for and how they were involved. You then go on to say that the accusation of a false report is wrong, insisting that the evidence proves, yet the evidences literally shows absolutely NOTHING, just him behind everyone, on a hill, sitting. This is obviously bias as we can see that you literally banned 5 on an assumption that they did not hear a text initiation, whilst no evidence was provided that his was the case. You state in multiple bans that there is an "Invalid initiation," which to me, and many others, doesn't really make sense. Only thing that I could think of that would make an initiation 'invalid" is that someone perhaps NVFL'd while initiating, making the initiation itself fail rp and invalid. In this case, the initiation itself does not encompass that, but rather the only thing that could possibly be argued is that the kill was invalid inside our rules. The initiation itself is not invalid, it was a completely valid initiation, but according to the accusers, they thought the killing was perhaps not. In my opinion, it is an incorrect and wrong use of words to describe the reasons that they were banned. You also ban @lukzo2024, for "attempted invalid kill," when he literally did not hit anyone, only a guy that was taken hostage after the firefight ended, that was role playing poorly and not listening to orders. Me, on my character Jose Martinez, was there the entire time, and was in a similar situation to @lukzo2024, but did not hit anyone during the firefight, yet I wasn't even talked about or banned. This completely shows that you obviously have something out for @lukzo2024, accusing him of an attempted invalid kill, whilst he didn't hit anyone, and I did the same and even admitted that I shot in my POV, and I wasn't touched.  There are also multiple people in the fight that were in the same situation as well. This shows a completely failure by the team the investigated the case, because there are so many holes and mistakes made in the explanation. 

Suggestions for improvement:  Investigation skills need to improve, check for holes before you post an explanation, make sure your ban explanations are accurate and correct, check to make sure that evidence correlates to the situation at hand.

Not trying to be hostile in any way, just think the report should have been handled differently. Thanks for reading.

Edited by shookyaaa

Share this post


Link to post

Link to the situation: 

 

Any supporting evidence or notes: Suppose you can have a read of this.

Feedback: I'm gonna keep this short and sweet considering I criticized you enough in my appeal.

You did not ask the OPs friends for video evidence when we initiated. 

Now taking that you actually watched the video Zantier posted you will notice around the 5 minute mark that about 2 other people say "I recorded that boys" and "same". I'm just gonna say that you didn't pick up on that? 

But like I said, gonna keep this short and sweet.

 

Suggestions for improvement: Make sure you go through all evidence of the report before making a verdict?

Share this post


Link to post
Elmo    876

Shookyaaa, there are a few things that are evident to me right off the bat when reading your feedback to me, namely that you do not fully know the rules nor are you aware of how the report system works. Allow me to address your concerns here to the best of my ability.

Quote

This guy just handed out multiple bans based on a statement that his men did not receive the text initiation. The reporters provided no evidence while the defendants had evidence of everything that occurred. The only evidence provided was of someone sitting next to a wall on a hill that literally had nothing to do with the situation and wasn't even seen the entire time. This video evidence is for some reason used as an excuse to ban because they didn't hear the initiation. but they are literally so far away from the rest of the group that was interacting with the defendants group.

Multiple bans were not handed out due to a sole statement, multiple bans were handed out due to the statement and the video evidence provided by the OP's party. There was video evidence of their reactions to the initiation, which was "what the fuck, oh shit we're being shot at for no reason." In my opinion, and in the opinion of the team who verdicted this report, the combination of testimonies, the reactions of multiple members of the OP's group and your own comms demonstrating your uncertainty as to whether or not they received the initiation clears up any ambiguity as to whether or not it was received. This is not something you can fake unless they intended to report your people maliciously, which they clearly didn't as they offered to close the report multiple times. Your party, childishly in my opinion, deigned to decline their offer and a verdict was delivered by myself and 3 other members of staff. 

Quote

You say that both parties role played before and that its proven by the evidence, yet the evidence that was provided from the accusers shows literally no rp that occurred.

Testimonies from both sides correlated this version of events. There was also video evidence from one of your friends that showed them breaking away from the main group and running off. Furthermore, there was video evidence from TheProxJack [I could be incorrect with the PoV] that showed a meeting between your group and theirs. There was indeed some interaction beforehand. Unless you're willing to admit that your or their people sat around in silence denying role-play, then I think we can consider this one solved.

Quote

You also show no explanation for the ban of 3 people, @jackradders @MrMaha, and @Faithie, and I'm sure that if they were banned they would like to know what specifically they were banned for and how they were involved. You then go on to say that the accusation of a false report is wrong, insisting that the evidence proves, yet the evidences literally shows absolutely NOTHING, just him behind everyone, on a hill, sitting. This is obviously bias as we can see that you literally banned 5 on an assumption that they did not hear a text initiation, whilst no evidence was provided that his was the case.

An explanation was shown and would've been known to you had you read the verdict properly. I don't understand how there is any ambiguity as to why they were banned, it is clearly stated in the verdict that the initiation was deemed invalid and the logs prove that they engaged in hostilities based off of an invalid initiation. If that was unclear in any way then I apologise but, more like than not, you and yours simply did not read the verdict correctly. Had you done this, this question would not have been necessary.  In addition, the accusation of the false report cannot be false in my eyes because there was a guilty verdict delivered to the people who were reported. There was no assumption, we looked at the video evidence, the testimonies, the logs and came to that conclusion.

Quote

You state in multiple bans that there is an "Invalid initiation," which to me, and many others, doesn't really make sense. Only thing that I could think of that would make an initiation 'invalid" is that someone perhaps NVFL'd while initiating, making the initiation itself fail rp and invalid. In this case, the initiation itself does not encompass that, but rather the only thing that could possibly be argued is that the kill was invalid inside our rules. The initiation itself is not invalid, it was a completely valid initiation, but according to the accusers, they thought the killing was perhaps not. In my opinion, it is an incorrect and wrong use of words to describe the reasons that they were banned.

This is the part that concerns me. The wording of the initiation was fine, there is no doubt about that. However, I am wondering how an initiation can be considered valid when the party on whom you are initiating doesn't receive the initiation fully? 

Quote

You also ban @lukzo2024, for "attempted invalid kill," when he literally did not hit anyone, only a guy that was taken hostage after the firefight ended, that was role playing poorly and not listening to orders. Me, on my character Jose Martinez, was there the entire time, and was in a similar situation to @lukzo2024, but did not hit anyone during the firefight, yet I wasn't even talked about or banned.

Lukzo was found guilty for attempting an invalid kill and invalidly initiating. The ban he received was 3 Days and 10 points, which is the punishment for the invalid initiation, not the invalid kill with RP, which is 2 Days and 10 points. As for your PoV, you mention nowhere in your PoV that you shot at the OP and his party. As far as I am aware, you were not identifiable in any of the video evidence where shots were fired, the logs do not mention you and, again, you did not come forward to say directly that you shot at them. How can you be punished if there is no direct link? Why did you not come forward with this before and explicitly say that you were involved in the shooting? Furthermore, in TheProxJack's video, Lukzo is seen shooting at the party of the OP who were invalidly initiated on and, as such, was delivered a guilty verdict for attempting to invalidly kill them. 

Quote

This completely shows that you obviously have something out for @lukzo2024, accusing him of an attempted invalid kill, whilst he didn't hit anyone, and I did the same and even admitted that I shot in my POV, and I wasn't touched.

If you're going to accuse me of bias, please bring evidence. If anything, the accusation of bias could be turned around against you and this entire feedback simply because your friends were caught in the crossfire of their rule-breaks and you might angry about it. Of course, that would be wild conjecture and I would never make such an assumption. Plausible though, entirely plausible.

Quote

There are also multiple people in the fight that were in the same situation as well. This shows a completely failure by the team the investigated the case, because there are so many holes and mistakes made in the explanation. 

If we cannot link them, we cannot punish them. Just because they were there does not mean they fired shots. We would be banning based on their presence rather than their actions which is not how we do things. We do things based on evidence, facts and the rules, there is no other way with which reports can be handled. 

With all of that being said, I hope your concerns here have been addressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Elmo    876
35 minutes ago, TheProxJack said:

-snip-

Criticism is totally fine by me as long as it is valid. At the very least, I can respond to the criticism you post here, as I cannot touch your ban appeal due to how the system works.

I will remind you of the following portion of a post made by myself in that report:

ab78fb0867a6a3d7f4a02729fe51622c.png

"Please list any allies and post any video evidence you may have." I did in fact ask everybody in the report to post their video evidence. My request was deliberately or mistakenly declined, this I do not know, but I will admit that it was lax of me to not catch on to that.

However, am I fully in the wrong for video evidence not being brought forward despite my request to do so? Personally, I do not think so but, like I said, it was lax of me to not clock that in Zantier's video. Unfortunately, the team, including myself, comprises exclusively of humans who can miss things from time to time. I don't wish to shift the blame onto my team either, as I was the one who wrote the verdict, but to say that I am solely at fault is not entirely fair to me. All I can do is apologise for the slip-up and do my best to ensure that something like that doesn't happen again.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest   
Guest
Posted (edited)

-Before I begin, there is no OOC hate for you here @Elmo, this is simply my own opinion on recent events.

Link to the situation: 

 

Any supporting evidence or notes: N/A

Feedback: Right, in all honesty I believe that this verdict was entirely unfair, as I have already stated in my appeal but this doesn't need to be spoken about here. I would like to say @Elmo that no solid evidence was provided by the OPs to say that no initiation was received. Through reading the posts in the report you would see that the OPs even admit that there was an initiation and that it was entirely their fault for miscommunication on their side - this is solid evidence. 

I am completely confused as to how the verdict was processed... If those who filed the report stated that an initiation was received then how does that make our actions invalid? They admitted that an initiation was received and also gave no solid evidence to say that it wasn't received either.

As I stated in my appeal, clearly justice/verdicts are only fair if solid evidence is provided and proves the criminal committed the crime. The evidence proving that we did the crime is not solid and not clear but the evidence to show that our actions were valid - the post made by Jxkey that states that an initiation was received - is solid (it was said by the person who filed the report).

Suggestions for improvement: This may not be only applicable to you but I have only ever had this issue in a report of which you decided the verdict. A verdict is made by the staff coming together and voicing their opinions. Ultimately, opinions can only be influenced by viewed evidence. So how in any way possible does the evidence of "our other guys have admitted there was text initiation alongside your evidence" not influence the opinions of staff in the direction that the initiation was indeed valid therefore making all actions valid.

Allow me to add that verdicts should only be decided upon solid evidence, not assumptions. If there was any need of guessing/assuming in the staff team then the report would be inconclusive as it is unfair on both sides.

Edited by jackradders
Added suggestions.

Share this post


Link to post
Elmo    876

I'm sensing a trend here.

Quote

Feedback: Right, in all honesty I believe that this verdict was entirely unfair, as I have already stated in my appeal but this doesn't need to be spoken about here. I would like to say @Elmo that no solid evidence was provided by the OPs to say that no initiation was received. Through reading the posts in the report you would see that the OPs even admit that there was an initiation and that it was entirely their fault for miscommunication on their side - this is solid evidence. I am completely confused as to how the verdict was processed... If those who filed the report stated that an initiation was received then how does that make our actions invalid? They admitted that an initiation was received and also gave no solid evidence to say that it wasn't received either.

You can believe the verdict was unfair, that is fine, what you cannot do is tell half-truths. If you had genuinely read through the posts of the report you would see the following posts:

1cf9eb6a745578674972e1e7209770f4.png

Storey's PoV where he does not state in any way shape or form that he received the initiation. All he states is that there was an initiation, which was proven by our chat logs either way. Where is the admission that they saw said initiation.

c1c9b738078b785b1b22b2a48ed7aa4a.png

Jxkey's statement, explicitly stating that he received no initiation. The video evidence, in the opinion of the team who verdicted that report, supports this statement. I've explained this to your friend already, so if I can reference you to my response to Shook above then hopefully it should clear up any discrepancies. The only admission I can see is that he was satisfied that you guys initiated, though he did not see it, [invalidly I might add] and was happy to close the report.

c84d6289cf2a213558e9e4ef1046ad2f.png

Another statement, supported by the video evidence, that demonstrates that no initiation was received. I fail to see how this is not understood.

Quote

Ultimately, opinions can only be influenced by viewed evidence. So how in any way possible does the evidence of "our other guys have admitted there was text initiation alongside your evidence" not influence the opinions of staff in the direction that the initiation was indeed valid therefore making all actions valid.

If you initiate on an entire group, you must make sure everybody receives it. It is not down to them to relay your poorly executed initiation. Like I said in my response to Shook, we examined the video evidence and deigned both their reactions at the time and their testimonies at a later date to be in correlation and, as such, it was deemed to be credible evidence as both stories lined up.

Honestly, I'm not entirely sure why you and your friends, aside from ProxJack as his feedback was legitimate and concise, decided to post essentially the same feedback. It was made clear in your appeals that you disagreed with the verdict, I have received feedback for the verdict from sources close to yourself and I've deconstructed it to the best of my ability in order to accept or decline the validity of it. As it turns out, I declined it. So, my question to you is, what are you hoping to accomplish by repeating the same previously deconstructed and declined feedback?

Share this post


Link to post
Guest   
Guest
Posted (edited)

Link to the situation: The above statement.

Any supporting evidence or notes: N/A

Feedback: Technically @Elmo, you're taking "statements" made in the report as true when no evidence backs this up.

-No solid evidence is provided by Storey to back up the fact that he didn't see the initiation, although I appreciate that the Admin messages do crop up a lot, he still provides no evidence to back up his argument, this is only a statement. 

-No solid evidence is provided by Jxkey to prove that he received no initiation, he simply stated it.

-No solid evidence was also provided by Bazz whose statement you also have above. Twice he said he received no initiation but twice he left it as a flimsy statement with no concrete evidence to support this. 

^I'm starting to see a trend here.

I struggle to comprehend how evidence & research that proves an initiation was received is overruled by words that simply say otherwise.

The fact that they closed the report means they appreciate that they were wrong. If this is not evidence that we weren't in the wrong then i don't know what is. Why else would this report be closed? The report remained open to push for a false report which ended in this not being valid.

Suggestions for improvement: Take the solid evidence into consideration over words. Words don't fly in court, evidence does. Why should a "justice" system be different here. 

Edited by jackradders
Added info.

Share this post


Link to post
Elmo    876
3 minutes ago, jackradders said:

-snip-

Normally I would consider myself quite a professional staff member. However, in light of your recent feedback to me, I have found myself thinking of a particular phrase, namely "deliberate ignorance." Frankly, I find it interesting that you failed to answer my question, as well as failed to address the fact that I also cited that they [the PoVs] were supported by video evidence. There is not much else I can really say to you unless you bring fresh feedback to the table, so I will not respond to any further feedback if it has pertinence or relates to the subject of your previous feedback, [given that I feel I have adequately addressed it in my first post] as it is evident what your true motivation is and I do not wish to turn my feedback thread designed for legitimate feedback into a pissing contest.

 

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×