>> > "1. Failure to follow direct instructions from a superior officer."
>> > [to a limited degree]
>>
>> Could you please point to what instructions Jason failed to
>> follow?
>
> He was instructed to process the application as a notification, not an
> approval. The application is still pending. I would say that qualifies
> as a failure to handle it as a notification (which should not require
> much time for deliberation).
As you stated that you are already aware, it was not yet pending Mid=20
approval and so he had no opportunity to "fail to handle it".
As for it being something that "should not require much time for=20
deliberation", I disagree.
This application violated the Addendum, and therefore questioning and=20
discussion should not be unexpected.
The Addendum is quite clear about custom items, it says "Custom mechanics=20
(such as Skills, Merits, Sorcery, Coils, rituals, etc.) are not possible=20
unless their creation details are specifically outlined in sanctioned=20
material, e.g. for Custom Disciplines and Devotions in Requiem or Fetishes=
=20
in Forsaken." The Addendum also allows exceptions to the itself with MST=20
approval, and of course the MST has the power to rewrite the document if he=
=20
so chooses. In the description of approvals in the Addendum, it states=20
clearly that all levels up to the appropriate storyteller must also approve=
=20
of the item. Furthermore it states: "If an item or character feels=20
unbalancing or inappropriate for a venue or style of play, it is the direct=
=20
or supervising storyteller=92s right and *duty* to refuse such an approval =
or=20
subsequent entry into her game at any point." (The emphasis on "duty" is=20
mine). Furthermore, it was the policy of the MST's office at the time not=
=20
to approve any custom merits (as the AAMST-Rules I had to explain this to=20
people several times).
Thus, since the rules that are sanctioned by the National Storytellers and=
=20
Alex himself requires the item to be an approval (instead of a=20
notification) and stipulate that it is each STs *duty* to deny it if they=20
feel it is inappropriate to the venue or style of play, I find it hard to=20
accept that bringing up concerns about it is the same as "refusing to=20
follow a direct order." If there *was* a direct and explicit order to=20
approve it, then I wonder why Dale was not given similar instruction, and=20
why Jason was fired before he had the *opportunity* to not comply.
>> > "9. Failure to deal appropriately with the improper conduct of a
>> > subordinate officer (ADST) after being repeatedly informed of the
>> > impropriety by a superior officer."
>>
>> This is simply false, as Jason was never informed of any
>> improprieties.
>
> I think the MST's emails made it very clear that he considered the
> comments made to be lacking in propriety. I don't think any reasonable
> person would interpret "highly inflammatory and unprofessional
> accusations" as anything other than having some impropriety present.
As far as I am aware, Jason referred the "improper conduct" to Strauss'=20
Chapter Coordinator and asked Strauss to refrain from commenting in the=20
Database. Since he both referred CoC issues to the coordinator side and=20
took steps to prevent the same issue from happening again, in what way did=
=20
he fail to deal appropriately with the situation? What *should* he have=20
done differently, and why were his actions deemed outside of the realm of a=
=20
reasonable discretion on his part and into the realm of "failing to deal"=20
with the incident.
I know that by now, you and many other officers, are sick of the domain of=
=20
Pittsburgh latching on like bulldogs and asking question after question,=20
but it is just our frustration at wanting details. So many of the=20
accusations have been passed from person to person as fact that we worry=20
that some of his transgressions have grown in the telling, and it makes it=
=20
seem to us (regardless of truth) that the matter was insufficiently=20
investigated. While we may be arguing semantics in some cases, it is=20
because we are trying to isolate the facts and details from the things that=
=20
we have been told. We are trying to get a refined explanation where we can=
=20
clearly see what went wrong. We would greatly appreciate it if you could=20
provide those details so that we can understand the situation, and restore=
=20
our faith in the system.
Charlie Collins
AAMST-Rules
us2002023850