[IrishWristWatch] John_Oxford - Day Ban for Hardening Sec.

[John_Oxford]

Byond account and character name: Bill Rowe - John_Oxford
Banning admin: IrishWristWatch
Ban type (What are you banned from?): Server
Ban reason and length: "It was taken seriously and it got someoen innocent killed . Your sec memes are bad and you should feel bad. This is a temporary ban, it will be removed in 1440 minutes."
Time ban was placed (including time zone): 12/6/2016 7:22 PM EST
Your side of the story:
This is very cut and dry and is entirely based around the fact that irish didn't understand that team antag requires sec to go full anal to be able to handle it. It was clockclut. I'll greentext the story, bolded sections are the important parts.
>Late Join Captain
>Walk around and shit for a while
>HoS wants to swipe for red alert because she thought we had lings.
>I swipe
>It's red alert, we have lings, so in this situation i tell the warden to start tracking implanting security and loyalty implanting those not loyalty implanted.
>It turns out to be clockcult, the AI is blowing up the radio about a whole bunch of people surrounding a borg ( Im pretty sure there was a non-cult person surrounding the borg, then security caught them all and executed him with them for being there)
>The warden start's distributing guns to security
>To insure security doesn't get fucked over, i give the AI a "Syndicates are not human and must be killed, Syndicates are designated by the Heads of Staff + Security" and then i gave it a deadman switch, if all the heads and security die, to purge the station.
>I authorize security to execute suspected traitors to prevent clockcult from spreading
>I authorize the full distribution of the armory, and go and order combat knives, auto rifles, energy guns, laser guns, and more tracking implants from cargo to restock the armory.
>Security has gone fully tactical and is entirely equipped to handle a team antag
>BWOIK
>Irish: "hey you said this why did you say this its a bad meme"
>Me: "its just a meme and wasen't ment to be taken seriously" - It was ment to be taken seriously
>Irish: "-silence-"
>irish: "WHy in fuck would you think that murder anyone who looks shady was a good idea"
>This wasen't what i said, its what you interpeted it as, "Suspected Traitor" does not mean "Shady". "Suspected Traitor" means someone with a gasmask, grey jumpsuit, and covered in blood with a stun prod on their back with no ID or PDA who just walked out of research which is now a pile of corpses.
>A few moments later, i was banned for a day for it.

Team antag rounds require heavy security policy to be able to compete against their equipment, MORE SO clockcult. The person who died was in the wrong place at the wrong time, it's blatantly fucking obvious that security would use common sense and not just kill everyone, the fact that the HoS (or whoever) used what i said as a excuse to kill people demonstrates their shittieness, not mine.

It has ALWAYS been the standard that buffing security during suspected team antag results in a win. The fact that you didn't see that is pretty cancer, the fact that you banned me for a day right in the middle of the round because someone went "BUT I WUZN"T A CULT I WUZ JUST STNANDIN THER WHATCING EM CONVERT" and then wondering why when sec kicked the door in and arrested everyone that he got executed along with them is illogical.

You've been around long enough and you know why i would say something like that, this ban alone doesn't make any sense, and i'm absolutely sure its do to some other influence besides what i did. I can't control the HoS directly, him being trusted to know who to execute shouldn't be my responsiblity. If he/she isn't intelligent enough not to know when to not execute someone, then its on them. That's completely disregarding the fact that it WAS FUCKING:
CLOCK CULT

Personally i'd like a explanation as to why you think the ban was justified

(kinda disapointed in this appeal, its very poorly written, i'd be happy to argue with whatever point your going to try to bring up, however.)

Why you think you should be unbanned: See above

ALSO PRECEDENT: https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic ... ead#unread

[IrishWristWatch0]

Denied. It's a bad meme. It leads to shitcurity and does not increase overall fun. It may be fun for you and 3 officers but as a whole it does not increase overall happiness.

[John_Oxford]

Denied. It's a bad meme. It leads to shitcurity and does not increase overall fun. It may be fun for you and 3 officers but as a whole it does not increase overall happiness.

Don't you deny and lock me, there's a underlying reason for why i did it.

It's not fun to get killed by clockcult five minutes in because i decided to fuck around in the bar instead of helping security.

All of the security officers and head's of staff would have shared the same fate. Yet you argue the crew's fun is more important than security's fun?

Do explain irish.

EDIT

When all cases of a team antag round is basically greytide when it comes to interactions with security. Shitcurity is the hard counter for greytide, its justified based on the round type.

The fact that you talk about "EVERYONES" fun when you literally said it was one innocent person who died NOT at my hand, but yet i bit a ban for it because of the incompetency of a security officer/ head of security.

Please, explain to me how that's even remotely justified.

You also seem to be missing the point that i didn't say "YOU CAN KILL EVERYONE" i said "You may execute suspected traitors". Based off of this it looks to me like you think i just did this to ruin everyones fun and that apparently, all of the crew are doing shitty enough stuff to be suspected as traitors?

And somehow you mean to tell me that if someone is being shitty enough to be suspected as a traitor, that they wouldn't deserve to get executed anyways?

You also didn't include any of the situational details, like how said person got killed to begin with, You know why? Because i know it's not justified and you made the ban off a emotional reaction, which is illogical. Explain to me what happened to the person who was killed so i have more to go off of then just "its a bad meme"

[Saegrimr]

It's also not fun being killed for standing in a hall.
Also did you really pull being the captain and "I just told them to kill everyone I didn't think they'd take me seriously"?

[John_Oxford]

It's also not fun being killed for standing in a hall.
Also did you really pull being the captain and "I just told them to kill everyone I didn't think they'd take me seriously"?

Standing in a hall doesn't make you a suspected traitor. Read the post before you comment.

I pulled the "I expected the HoS not to be fucking retarded and apparently execute someone who wasn't acting like a traitor.

Do i really need to cite the "Act like a antag get treated like a antag" rule? Honestly? I thought you guys we're admins.

(tbh im fucking disapointed, your saeg, your supposed to argue better than that you cuck)

[IrishWristWatch0]

Take it up with the headmins, I'm not lifting this. What you did was bad and it got someone killed. Don't do it again.

[John_Oxford]

Take it up with the headmins, I'm not lifting this. What you did was bad and it got someone killed. Don't do it again.

Are you just not willing to argue because you know your wrong or your just being lazy?

If you can't justify what you did then why did you do it. I justified what i did with a entire three paragraphs, why shouldn't you have to? Because your opinion is always factual evidence and one hundred percent correct all the time?

Please enlighten me.

[ The fact that it's a day ban only means that if i do try to contact the head admins, i won't be able to contact them before the ban expires, which neutralizes the point, i could just wait instead. ]

[John_Oxford]

As per saeg's shitpost, ill start making posts every time instead.

Irish has left the thread after being fucking destroyed, a head min has still yet to comment, and i'm willing to bet money not a damn one of them will.

Checkmate. Except its on me this time.

[John_Oxford]

And there went saeg.

Top quality, somehow it's possible to just talk a admin out of your ban appeal thread.

Why argue when there's no accountability ; )

[John_Oxford]

Oh thank fuck okands viewing the thread, maybe we'll actually get some progress.

edit: i guess fucking not

[TehSteveo]

We're discussing this. Yet, in the meanwhile can you knock off the attitude? We're just volunteers and you expecting us to just bow to your whims as soon as possible isn't winning you favors here.

[John_Oxford]

We're discussing this. Yet, in the meanwhile can you knock off the attitude? We're just volunteers and you expecting us to just bow to your whims as soon as possible isn't winning you favors here.

The attitude is based off the snarky comments of a certain admin who thinks everything is a meme (which yes is ironic) and the unwillingness to delegate a even moderate argument from the banning admin.

Him telling me that would have been fine, but the problem isn't with me, the admins volunteered to do something, that implies that they want to do it, if the most minimal effort to reply with a reason isn't something that they can give, it brings in question why they would even do it in the first place.

I'm not expecting you to bow to my whims, i was expecting any sort of logical reasoning but all i got was "its bad" and "oxford memes pls disregard" from two admins.

Kindly consider that before attempting to pin this on me being a smart ass, it goes both ways.

[TehSteveo]

We're discussing this. Yet, in the meanwhile can you knock off the attitude? We're just volunteers and you expecting us to just bow to your whims as soon as possible isn't winning you favors here.

The attitude is based off the snarky comments of a certain admin who thinks everything is a meme (which yes is ironic) and the unwillingness to delegate a even moderate argument from the banning admin.

Him telling me that would have been fine, but the problem isn't with me, the admins volunteered to do something, that implies that they want to do it, if the most minimal effort to reply with a reason isn't something that they can give, it brings in question why they would even do it in the first place.

I'm not expecting you to bow to my whims, i was expecting any sort of logical reasoning but all i got was "its bad" and "oxford memes pls disregard" from two admins.

Kindly consider that before attempting to pin this on me being a smart ass, it goes both ways.

It's more the previous post when you saw one of us viewing and had to make a snarky edit because they are no longer viewing the thread than anything.

[John_Oxford]

-snip-

My point still stands, a admin made a smart ass reply and received four smart ass replies back.

[TehSteveo]

-snip-

My point still stands, a admin made a smart ass reply and received four smart ass replies back.

Which I don't really have issue with. My issue is your attitude taking it out on the headmins who you want to resolve this.

[Okand37]

Generally I think something important to note here is that people are going to have different interpretations of something. When you order someone to 'execute all suspected traitors' you must understand that different people are going to perceive this differently; some person might think someone in a syndicate hardsuit isn't enough to suspect them if they haven't done anything antagonistic, and others might see an assistant with a gasmask and no ID in maintenance as a direct route to bag and tag them for being an antagonist. But depending on phrasing, actions and context, it is usually put on the person who interprets it in a hostile or lethal way that is given the fault.

Usually it isn't very good to give such an order without more specific content, but its important to weigh in that the head of security has authorization to execute as well, and if they or another player chooses to do so unlawfully in regards to the server rules, it is generally counted on them opposed to someone else depending on again; context, phrasing and order.
While I don't necessarily think you should've given such a vague order, I don't think you should be taking the blame for someone else to act over the line.

With that said, It would be a lot nicer if you could be a little.. nicer, in your appeal. I understand it can be frustrating, but we're not always at a constant availability-but your frustration IS understood!

I think we'll go ahead and unban you as we don't entirely agree with the reasoning. Its hard to give such tight reigns on security in a team antagonist mode when the other team has far more leniency than one. Yes, the other team is a group of antagonists, but within reason security should be given more leniency in a term versus team scenario. This isn't so much as 'security waltz into virology and bags the lone virologist doing their job' as much as 'one out of three guys was caught hanging out with the wrong crowd.' Do I think they should've been executed? No, not really, I think its important to try not to kill people without substantial evidence or reasoning-but you didn't exactly go out of your way to say that specific person needed to die. That is on the person who executed them, not yourself. Still, I must again stress on trying to be a little more patient in your future dealings. Generally because one person is snarky, doesn't entirely give the other a reason to do so back, its a little childish.

[John_Oxford]

Generally I think something important to note here is that people are going to have different interpretations of something. When you order someone to 'execute all suspected traitors' you must understand that different people are going to perceive this differently; some person might think someone in a syndicate hardsuit isn't enough to suspect them if they haven't done anything antagonistic, and others might see an assistant with a gasmask and no ID in maintenance as a direct route to bag and tag them for being an antagonist. But depending on phrasing, actions and context, it is usually put on the person who interprets it in a hostile or lethal way that is given the fault.

Usually it isn't very good to give such an order without more specific content, but its important to weigh in that the head of security has authorization to execute as well, and if they or another player chooses to do so unlawfully in regards to the server rules, it is generally counted on them opposed to someone else depending on again; context, phrasing and order.
While I don't necessarily think you should've given such a vague order, I don't think you should be taking the blame for someone else to act over the line.

With that said, It would be a lot nicer if you could be a little.. nicer, in your appeal. I understand it can be frustrating, but we're not always at a constant availability-but your frustration IS understood!

I think we'll go ahead and unban you as we don't entirely agree with the reasoning. Its hard to give such tight reigns on security in a team antagonist mode when the other team has far more leniency than one. Yes, the other team is a group of antagonists, but within reason security should be given more leniency in a term versus team scenario. This isn't so much as 'security waltz into virology and bags the lone virologist doing their job' as much as 'one out of three guys was caught hanging out with the wrong crowd.' Do I think they should've been executed? No, not really, I think its important to try not to kill people without substantial evidence or reasoning-but you didn't exactly go out of your way to say that specific person needed to die. That is on the person who executed them, not yourself. Still, I must again stress on trying to be a little more patient in your future dealings. Generally because one person is snarky, doesn't entirely give the other a reason to do so back, its a little childish.

That's all i wanted was a answer, ill keep it in mind, thanks.

[onleavedontatme]

the fact that you banned me for a day right in the middle of the round because someone went "BUT I WUZN"T A CULT I WUZ JUST STNANDIN THER WHATCING EM CONVERT"

This isn't so much as 'security waltz into virology and bags the lone virologist doing their job' as much as 'one out of three guys was caught hanging out with the wrong crowd.'

It's also not fun being killed for standing in a hall.

The guy killed was the Mime because he attacked the Botanist with a null rod (after the botanist shot them, but the eye witnesses shouting for security didn't know about that part).

[00:11:30]ADMIN: PM: Cobraman/(Aden Mcclymonds)->IrishWristWatch0/(Lou Sbowles): He attacked and tried to kill someone, I know that there and lings on the station. He had enough suspious items for me to burn him because I didn't want to risk him being a ling and breaking out

I mean I guess it doesn't matter at this point, but everyone is arguing over something entirely unrelated to the ban.

[TehSteveo]

the fact that you banned me for a day right in the middle of the round because someone went "BUT I WUZN"T A CULT I WUZ JUST STNANDIN THER WHATCING EM CONVERT"

This isn't so much as 'security waltz into virology and bags the lone virologist doing their job' as much as 'one out of three guys was caught hanging out with the wrong crowd.'

It's also not fun being killed for standing in a hall.

The guy killed was the Mime because he attacked the Botanist with a null rod (after the botanist shot them, but the eye witnesses shouting for security didn't know about that part).

[00:11:30]ADMIN: PM: Cobraman/(Aden Mcclymonds)->IrishWristWatch0/(Lou Sbowles): He attacked and tried to kill someone, I know that there and lings on the station. He had enough suspious items for me to burn him because I didn't want to risk him being a ling and breaking out

I mean I guess it doesn't matter at this point, but everyone is arguing over something entirely unrelated to the ban.

Which neither the ban reason or appeal address that specific issue thus it's really irrelevant to bring up at this point. End result would been the same as security acted on what information that they had at the time.

[tedward1337]

honestly it's just a day ban. You can't just sit the day and wait? I get that you want to make your case but like, this could've been wrapped in supportbus

[Saegrimr]

honestly it's just a day ban. You can't just sit the day and wait? I get that you want to make your case but like, this could've been wrapped in supportbus

"Just a day ban" is irrelevant when we hold shit like this over people's heads when they continue to fuck up.

[PKPenguin321]

honestly it's just a day ban. You can't just sit the day and wait? I get that you want to make your case but like, this could've been wrapped in supportbus

"Just a day ban" is irrelevant when we hold shit like this over people's heads when they continue to fuck up.

Yep yep yep. This will go on his permanent record if he doesn't appeal it, so he absolutely by all means should even if it's a short ban.

Short term ban note appealing policy when?

[TehSteveo]

I'm probably going to delete the ban note. Just to note; players are allowed to appeal notes they don't agree with. They are allowed to also discuss the wording of the note. If reasonable we can change them. I have changed or added amendments to notes for reasons. Recently someone I banned came around to apologize as they realized they done wrong now. They asked me to edit the note so it doesn't make them appear like they're some 24/7 griefer. I edited it to adding new information in regards they know what they did was bad and were apologetic for them and we both were satisfied.

If we discuss things as civil human beings respecting one another we are much better off to resolve little issues than make huge drama storms which we may find amusing just end up hurting in the long term.