06-10-2021, 12:52 PM
I know I'm just a regular, but I would like the staff to read this.
I understand the viewpoints of both Steelman334 and the staff, and I think both parties could have handled things differently.
In Steel's application, he was accused multiple times of micspam. I really think evidence is really important to present in a staff application. Memory is a fickle thing, so it is entirely possible the staff remembers things too harshly, or Steel remembers it in a better light. That's why evidence should be presented so it's not a "he/she/other said" thing. If there was chat spam, then it should be easy to search the chat relay (I really hope all of the chat over the years is archived!). Storing large amounts of videos can be difficult depending on the resources each staff member has, but if micspam is an issue in a staff application, then a recording of the offending instances would be nice. OBS has a very nice pluggin that allows you to automatically mark timestamps with hotkeys, and videos can be compressed and archived for later use.
It's also entirely possible (and probable) that what is considered micspam varies from staff to staff. Some people may view being loud in the mic when talking as spam, and others may not.
I've played a great many hours on dinks when Steelman334 was on, and not once did I hear him micspam. He's a loud, talkative guy, and I don't think that's a bad thing at all.
Should Steel have written a message in a less impassioned state? Absolutely. Can we fault him for not taking kindly to being accused of micspam without any evidence to support such claims? I don't think so. There is no way for Steel to prove he didn't micspam, since he can't prove a negative. I don't think it's unnatural to react in a negative way.
Additionally, I don't think Steel is mad at all about the delayed responses as @[b]B0T.ikillyou [/b]suggests. To the outside observer, I didn't see where it was mentioned that the accusers were searching for evidence to post for his staff application. I think that's where the confusion stems. The finality of each post leads people to believe that no evidence is being searched for to be shown.
If professionalism is desired by the staff team, then the staff team needs to lead by example. Evidence is expected (actually, demanded) when it comes to getting ghosters banned (the word of 5+ regulars isn't considered enough to warrant ghosters being placed on the naughty list), so I would argue that it's natural to expect evidence to be presented in other aspects of the dinkleberg community as well. Some of your responses to Steel's post leave much to be desired as well. I get it, this is a gaming forum; however, don't pick and choose when to respond professionally vs not unless the subforum is specifically meant to be unprofessional (ie: shitposting <3). Lead by example. Be the better person. I'll see you all on dinks.
I understand the viewpoints of both Steelman334 and the staff, and I think both parties could have handled things differently.
In Steel's application, he was accused multiple times of micspam. I really think evidence is really important to present in a staff application. Memory is a fickle thing, so it is entirely possible the staff remembers things too harshly, or Steel remembers it in a better light. That's why evidence should be presented so it's not a "he/she/other said" thing. If there was chat spam, then it should be easy to search the chat relay (I really hope all of the chat over the years is archived!). Storing large amounts of videos can be difficult depending on the resources each staff member has, but if micspam is an issue in a staff application, then a recording of the offending instances would be nice. OBS has a very nice pluggin that allows you to automatically mark timestamps with hotkeys, and videos can be compressed and archived for later use.
It's also entirely possible (and probable) that what is considered micspam varies from staff to staff. Some people may view being loud in the mic when talking as spam, and others may not.
I've played a great many hours on dinks when Steelman334 was on, and not once did I hear him micspam. He's a loud, talkative guy, and I don't think that's a bad thing at all.
Should Steel have written a message in a less impassioned state? Absolutely. Can we fault him for not taking kindly to being accused of micspam without any evidence to support such claims? I don't think so. There is no way for Steel to prove he didn't micspam, since he can't prove a negative. I don't think it's unnatural to react in a negative way.
Additionally, I don't think Steel is mad at all about the delayed responses as @[b]B0T.ikillyou [/b]suggests. To the outside observer, I didn't see where it was mentioned that the accusers were searching for evidence to post for his staff application. I think that's where the confusion stems. The finality of each post leads people to believe that no evidence is being searched for to be shown.
If professionalism is desired by the staff team, then the staff team needs to lead by example. Evidence is expected (actually, demanded) when it comes to getting ghosters banned (the word of 5+ regulars isn't considered enough to warrant ghosters being placed on the naughty list), so I would argue that it's natural to expect evidence to be presented in other aspects of the dinkleberg community as well. Some of your responses to Steel's post leave much to be desired as well. I get it, this is a gaming forum; however, don't pick and choose when to respond professionally vs not unless the subforum is specifically meant to be unprofessional (ie: shitposting <3). Lead by example. Be the better person. I'll see you all on dinks.
