Repo - FungiFellow: Passive Aggressive in Ahelp / Pettiness

Incident on Round 36388 

I reported a Possible Metagrudge incident. I Stated that if I wasn’t a kill objective that it was likely Metagrudge (I suspected Metagrudge due to previous negative interactions).

Repo did confirm that I was a kill objective, but they drug out the interaction to lecture me in what came across as a condescending manner. This lecture was unproductive and served no purpose (I did get a bit frustrated), they continued the discussion after I said I would not participate further.

He continued the discussion into the next round, seemingly attempting to get the last word with an “ominous” statement as I decided to get off for the night (I was HoP I informed command and Repo before logging off).

I believe the continuation of the discussion was unprofessional behaviour and the interaction should have ended with them just stating that I was a kill objective.

I can provide screenshots of the Conversation should Logs not prove suitable (My screenshots are incomplete and miss a sentence or two)

The reason for the Ahelp in the first place was that I was permakilled and thought metagrudge was a possibility.

The round number was 36388, here are the related ahelps I was able to find:


In the ahelps, black is used to censor identifying information about the player that the complainant says may have metagrudged them and blue is used to censor the complainant’s IC name. Neither of these are private information, but it is generally good practice to not publish accusations that a player is metagrudging another to avoid retaliation or stealthier metagrudging. The complainant may publish their IC name or the identity of who they said may have been metagruding them if they’d like to. Uncensored versions of the ahelps will be shared here at request of the complainant.

Repo’s claim that they were the subject of a staff complaint made by the the player who the complainant said may have been metagruding them is accurate. This is not identifying information as staff complaints are occasionally not made public, typically at the request of complainants.

I’m currently busy and slightly backlogged with tasks, so I’ll likely request that another admin or project manager review this complaint. Unfortunately, it may take longer than usual for this complaint to be processed.

I believe Repo was only trying to ease the situation, they even revealed round information to help ease your worries about a meta grudge situation. You didn’t really accept their answer and claimed Repo had bias towards the other player which isn’t really the case here. I think this was a heated moment at worst, and not unprofessional conduct.

To break down the points individually,

  1. You claimed it was a lecture, and condescending. 
      I don’t personally see the lecture part. They provided some advice to be positive towards them, and I think that’s a fair thing to say.
  2. You claim they were dragging things into the next round unnecessarily, trying to get the last word.
      Admins often have to deal with several ahelps at a time, and aren’t always 100% active in observing a round. They didn’t really bring up anything unnecessary, other than trying to provide comfort in the fact that they themselves aren’t biased in favor of the other player. I again think they were only trying to be positive with this.

I can see why the “wise choice” remark may have seemed bitter towards you, but I don’t believe they were ever intending to be hostile or unprofessional in the first place. 

No action will be taken as a result of this staff complaint.