Link: Copy link
That's true, but it's complicated. In this case, there's official-public-rule (which is "one second past deadline = inactive") and there's private-staff-protocol (which was, at least until my departure, "wait 24 hours minimum"). I actually only bring that point up to note that there are already exceptions to the internal system being made here, so I find the statement that it must be protected at all costs questionable. Staff are 100% within their rights to enforce to the second, and the rules very specifically say so... it's just not the established internal procedure that held for the past six years or, which was in part specifically designed to avoid incidents like this.Zetsumodernista wrote:This is the main thing, for me. If the original notification was sent erroneously (gah, that doesn't even look like a word anymore), then the appeal should be granted, no questions asked. Staff has to comply with appeals in cases where the original inactivity warning was mistakenly sent.MurderWeasel wrote:Among other things, if we really want to get into closed-doors policy, the initial notification was a violation of the twenty-four-hours buffer period designed to account for timezone differences and specifically to neutralize complaints about being warned mid-post... a protocol placed in V4 after the granting of an appeal basically just like this one, and one which I believe I reminded staff about following the sending of an inaccurate terminal notification near the beginning of V6.
2. I had the aforementioned Skype call with a couple of staffers, who were hoping to correct what they thought was a misunderstanding of the situation. It was established that I did not misunderstand, and both sides acknowledged the unfortunate inevitability of further discussion on the matter. I think "Voice call during video games at 2 am" is pretty clearly not official staff communication.wrote:Heya, staff. I was all about to fire this off in a righteous rage but after taking an hour to proof it and reconsider and muse a bit on how past disagreements played out, I decided to send it by PM instead as a first attempt at resolving the issue. I am not looking to start a massive public ordeal, but rather to deal with an issue that I feel is extremely pressing and serious. That said, I'm very intent about this being addressed and may well bring it back to the Support board if I feel that doing so is in the interests of site health and full transparency. I'm in a somewhat difficult position here in that I'd much rather be having this as a conversation involving the site as a whole, but fear that my history on staff and the rather extreme nature of my current disapproval of staff actions would risk cultivating an atmosphere of hostility, which I really do not want to do.
I also don't really want to rewrite the post to account for the change in audience, since it took long enough as-is, so here are my concerns laid out: