Change background image
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Denied Carnation Garneys

Discussion in 'Archived Player Complaints' started by Avignis, Apr 5, 2021.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Avignis

    Avignis Assistant

    Their BYOND username: no idea
    Their character name: Carnation Garneys
    Your BYOND username: Avignis
    Your character name: Emily Skylance
    Date, time, and game ID of incident: cbp-azcq [5th april 2021 2:20pm Melbourne time]
    Who else can vouch for the situation: everyone in the logs who talked at the bar, the bartender saw pretty much all [Kyla Power]
    What happened: I was chilling in the mess just minding myself when I saw someone wearing improper uniform walk in, I simply reminded them that I should be able to see their ranks at which point I got some backtalk which progressed to inappropriate behavior and name calling, very much out of rank and role for E-5 of EC to someone in charge of ALL enlisted personnel. the CoS {also ROIC} was informed of this and shrugged it off over the radio with and gave a general care free attitude to the behavior of their subordinates. I ahelped about this and was told that the SEA is actively discouraged from enforcing standards on expeditionary corps personnel. Which to some extent is true, but when it escalates to something violating the uniformed justice code (GENERAL ARTICLE) I believe that it is still within role for the SEA to enforce certain standards.
    Furthermore, the SEA page states this on SEA, "is tasked primarily with the efficient running of the SEV Torch, ensuring standards, regulations and procedure are being met, enforcing these regulations on enlisted personnel as appropriate, and advising the Executive Officer and Commanding Officer on matters pertaining to enlisted personnel or the ship at large" albeit with the addendum at the bottom stating
    "Keep in mind that the Expeditionary Corps commonly ignores such regulations, and players who choose to join the EC are likely not looking to have their character's slightly lackadaisical behavior turned into a three-hour shouting match."
    While I understand that the SEA isn't necessarily meant to be as harsh on EC personnel, I don't believe asking politely to make sure someones ranks are visible is going out of my way to turn someones round sour with a "three hour shouting match" as the wiki page quotes. There are plenty of other ways to handle this while still maintaining a lackadaisical behavior.
    "Carnation Garneys says, "Listen- I'm not enlisted." " which simply isn't true. They're an E-5 of the Expeditionary Corps. And as an E-5 they're expected to maintain some degree, even if more lax, of professionalism as a member of a uniformed service. If a character kept up this behavior whenever they were politely asked to follow regulations, would they keep their rank? The wiki does not state the EC can just ignore uniform regulations. It just says to be wary about being hard on EC personnel. Which, I wasn't. It only escalated when they decided to insult my character.

    Evidence that shows the incident fully (logs, screenshots, recordings, etc.): logs, 4 screenshots and the ahelp attached in the .zip
     

    Attached Files:

  2. lorwp

    lorwp Gayme Administrator Game Administrator

    Hi i'll be taking this.
    After speaking to the other party and reading logs i'm marking this invalid, this is partially a misunderstanding (they meant to say they weren't fleet, not enlisted in general), but also purely IC as both parties had reasonable IC motivations for their actions (From Garney's angle, already having served in the SCGF, and disliking their uniform. and overall just not liking being harassed at the bar). It's completely the EC CoS' discretion as to take any action on this, and they chose not to in this instance, even if it was a valid SCUJ violation.

    Moderator's ruling stands, this is invalid. Find bigger fish when enforcing regulations on the EC.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.