Staff Conduct & Accountability Policy

Staff should act respectfully, communicate clearly, keep disagreements professional and avoid turning staff authority into a personal argument. Firm decisions and constructive criticism are sometimes necessary; humiliation, threats, retaliation and unnecessary public confrontation are not.

Staff permissions, logs, teleportation, inspection tools, WorldEdit, moderation systems and other privileged access may only be used for legitimate Uros purposes.

• Do not use staff tools to gain items, money, progression, travel, intelligence or other personal gameplay advantage.
• Do not use privileged information to benefit your own character, faction, settlement or friends.
• Do not inspect players, logs or private staff information simply out of curiosity.
• Do not bypass normal Lore, Build, Moderation or other specialist review because you personally have permission to make the change.

Staff may have access to reports, evidence, applications, account information, moderation records, unreleased lore, event plans and internal discussions. Information should only be shared with people who legitimately need it for their role or for an authorised review.

Staff remain players and will have friends, characters, factions and creative interests. Those interests are not automatically a problem, but a staff member should disclose a material conflict and step away from being the sole decision-maker where their impartiality could reasonably be affected.

• Do not moderate your own dispute where another suitable staff member can take it.
• Do not approve controversial work primarily benefiting your own character or faction as the only reviewer.
• Do not investigate a serious complaint against a close friend or a person with whom you have a significant unresolved conflict without appropriate oversight.

Staff should distinguish between personal preference and an actual rule, policy or quality requirement. Similar situations should be approached consistently while still allowing for meaningful differences in evidence, harm, context and risk.

Staff are not required to agree with every player or colleague, and policies should not be weakened merely to avoid disagreement. However, instructions, criticism and review feedback should remain factual and proportionate, particularly where the staff member has authority over the person receiving it.

• Explain required changes and the reason they are required.
• Separate mandatory requirements from recommendations and creative suggestions.
• Handle interpersonal complaints through the appropriate private route rather than turning project or moderation channels into personal disputes.

A player or staff member must not be disadvantaged simply because they made a good-faith complaint, requested a review, disagreed respectfully with a staff decision or provided evidence in a case. Deliberately false or malicious complaints may still be addressed separately.

Concerns about staff conduct can be raised with an appropriate Team Lead or Administrator. Serious allegations, complaints involving senior staff, confidentiality concerns or cases where ordinary team visibility would create a conflict may be handled through a restricted staff-conduct case.

Staff issues should be handled proportionately. Depending on seriousness and history, outcomes may include guidance, coaching, a formal warning, restricted permissions, temporary suspension, removal from a particular role or removal from staff. Serious misconduct can justify moving directly to a higher outcome.