TehSteveo

[Scriptis]

Please post any positive or negative feedback for the administrator here.
This is not the place to discuss ban appeals, admin complaints, or ban requests.
This is for specific feedback for this administrator.

[Sweaterkittens]

TehSteveo was/is a great player, and I'm glad to see them as a Trialmin. I've only had a couple of interactions with him in an admin setting thus far, but they've been excellent. In one round I had to bail as CE due to an IRL crisis, and they were both prompt in responding as well as understanding. Additionally, after the one mistake I've seen him make, he was incredibly quick to realize the problem and remedy it to make sure it didn't happen again. Definitely someone I'm happy to see when I check to see what admins are online.

[callanrockslol]

Fullmin he.

[tedward1337]

Always been quick to answer ahelps, and deal with problems when I'm on. Keep it up!

[IrishWristWatch0]

Oh shit tehSteveo is from PA. Where u @ fam

[TehSteveo]

Oh shit tehSteveo is from PA. Where u @ fam

Washington County and Allegheny County. Pretty much live on near county lines. Obviously near Pittsburgh.

[IrishWristWatch0]

Oh shit tehSteveo is from PA. Where u @ fam

Washington County and Allegheny County. Pretty much live on near county lines. Obviously near Pittsburgh.

Ew I'm Wilkes-Barre

[oranges]

Pulls profiles and doesn't afraid of anything

[Not-Dorsidarf]

Won the admin vote over Joan, must be slain immediately to crown the true king.

[D&B]

Sieg Heil

[Aloraydrel]

Stupid sick cat

[Doctor Pork]

Oh shit tehSteveo is from PA. Where u @ fam

Washington County and Allegheny County. Pretty much live on near county lines. Obviously near Pittsburgh.

Ew I'm Wilkes-Barre

I'm right over in Bradford county. Crazy stuff.

[J_Madison]

Might want to change the title thread; couldn't find your feedback thread until I checked your profile.


You've locked two discussion threads because you thought they ran their course. I thought there was more to be discussed. Different to the last headmins.

[TehSteveo]

You've locked two discussion threads because you thought they ran their course. I thought there was more to be discussed. Different to the last headmins.

One was you getting a hit list of IC names and discussing subjective incidents. It was useless discussion and it may as well have been a pseudo ban request with stenography posting allowed. It was locked and I invited people to make a more objective and productive thread to discuss escalation and rules; which nobody did.

The second was a ghosting policy thread made out of anger when someone who IC in OOC'd ghosted and was banned for the former. Even being as such it was still discussed and rules were posted and even changed to better reflect ghosting and suiciding. After that it devolved back into the pseudo admin complaint and being the original thread was created as a pseudo admin complaint it'd been useless to try to salvage by deleting posts to stay on the topic of ghosting. It was locked; if someone feels that it should be discussed further they are more than welcomed to create a thread that is actually policy discussion.

I do not appreciate FNR policy threads that are pseudo ban requests and/or pseudo admin complaints so I'm going to can threads like that, delete posts off topic, and take action for other violations of the rules there.

Also; speaking of last headmins they too locked or deleted several policy discussion threads that served no purpose. Ironically, two of the threads I can see that were locked were yours.

[J_Madison]

You've locked two discussion threads because you thought they ran their course. I thought there was more to be discussed. Different to the last headmins.

One was you getting a hit list of IC names and discussing subjective incidents. It was useless discussion and it may as well have been a pseudo ban request with stenography posting allowed. It was locked and I invited people to make a more objective and productive thread to discuss escalation and rules; which nobody did.

The second was a ghosting policy thread made out of anger when someone who IC in OOC'd ghosted and was banned for the former. Even being as such it was still discussed and rules were posted and even changed to better reflect ghosting and suiciding. After that it devolved back into the pseudo admin complaint and being the original thread was created as a pseudo admin complaint it'd been useless to try to salvage by deleting posts to stay on the topic of ghosting. It was locked; if someone feels that it should be discussed further they are more than welcomed to create a thread that is actually policy discussion.

I do not appreciate FNR policy threads that are pseudo ban requests and/or pseudo admin complaints so I'm going to can threads like that, delete posts off topic, and take action for other violations of the rules there.

Also; speaking of last headmins they too locked or deleted several policy discussion threads that served no purpose. Ironically, two of the threads I can see that were locked were yours.

I didn't say I made a physical or digital list of names to grief. I only said that I'd notice patterns and treat it as such. It was never intended to be a "pseudo ban request", nor was it created as such. "pseudo ban request" is too loosely defined if threads are being locked like that.

Good observation on my threads; but a few of those I actually worked the issue out with an admin in IRC prior to it being locked.

[TehSteveo]

You've locked two discussion threads because you thought they ran their course. I thought there was more to be discussed. Different to the last headmins.

One was you getting a hit list of IC names and discussing subjective incidents. It was useless discussion and it may as well have been a pseudo ban request with stenography posting allowed. It was locked and I invited people to make a more objective and productive thread to discuss escalation and rules; which nobody did.

The second was a ghosting policy thread made out of anger when someone who IC in OOC'd ghosted and was banned for the former. Even being as such it was still discussed and rules were posted and even changed to better reflect ghosting and suiciding. After that it devolved back into the pseudo admin complaint and being the original thread was created as a pseudo admin complaint it'd been useless to try to salvage by deleting posts to stay on the topic of ghosting. It was locked; if someone feels that it should be discussed further they are more than welcomed to create a thread that is actually policy discussion.

I do not appreciate FNR policy threads that are pseudo ban requests and/or pseudo admin complaints so I'm going to can threads like that, delete posts off topic, and take action for other violations of the rules there.

Also; speaking of last headmins they too locked or deleted several policy discussion threads that served no purpose. Ironically, two of the threads I can see that were locked were yours.

I didn't say I made a physical or digital list of names to grief. I only said that I'd notice patterns and treat it as such. It was never intended to be a "pseudo ban request", nor was it created as such. "pseudo ban request" is too loosely defined if threads are being locked like that.

Good observation on my threads; but a few of those I actually worked the issue out with an admin in IRC prior to it being locked.

While you may not intend it to be that way; it'll be used in the worst possible manner. In the end if people actually used your thread the way you wanted it would have created drama and likely created meta issues. I'm not going to have policy discussion devolve into the level of the hut or singulo.io thread.

Again, you are invited to make a new thread that actually is objective in what it's addressing; as in actual wording of rules or a playbook to follow for situations. Not a thread asking everyone comment on how this issue was handled while inviting everyone else to post theirs as well; while making sure to mention IC names just so maybe we can get people arguing how they were not in the wrong while I'm sure we'd get even more details that were selectively omitted...almost like a ban request where the original poster would fail to mention crucial details of how they were causing issues.

[J_Madison]

While you may not intend it to be that way; it'll be used in the worst possible manner. In the end if people actually used your thread the way you wanted it would have created drama and likely created meta issues. I'm not going to have policy discussion devolve into the level of the hut or singulo.io thread.

Again, you are invited to make a new thread that actually is objective in what it's addressing; as in actual wording of rules or a playbook to follow for situations. Not a thread asking everyone comment on how this issue was handled while inviting everyone else to post theirs as well; while making sure to mention IC names just so maybe we can get people arguing how they were not in the wrong while I'm sure we'd get even more details that were selectively omitted...almost like a ban request where the original poster would fail to mention crucial details of how they were causing issues.

Then the people that devolve the discussion threads should be punished rather than locking everyone out of the convorsation.

Policy discussion being used as ban requests isn't possible if no bans are handed out. It just becomes a place to rant. And nothing should happen since it's double jeopardy.

But the point is moot, I've handed in my piece of feedback.

[Whoisthere]

Closed my thread so I couldn't act upset at lzimann not wanting to send me presents for my birthday, I don't know if it's a good thing or a bad thing.

[oranges]

singulo.io thread.

has very good discussion thank you very much

[J_Madison]

The madman actually did it. He locked the thread!

[oranges]

[TehSteveo]

I'm proud of my lack of feedback.

[Doctor Pork]

I'm proud of my lack of feedback.

[youtube]edCqF_NtpOQ[/youtube]