( ' )IcePacks( ' ) obscolene - 24 Hour OOC Ban

[obscolene]

Disclaimer: The mass amount of insults in this post are just banter, don't take them personally, Packs.

Byond account and character name: obscolene - Klara Ellstrom
Banning admin: IcePacks - Very poor and ugly middle-aged Indian man who, when not occupied with taking a nasty curry shit in the street, works at an outsourced AT&T call centre for 20 rupees a day.
Ban type (What are you banned from?): OOC
Ban reason and length: 1440 minutes (24 hours): Re-initiated an argument that I had specifically muted OOC for. There's a rule for this, it's right there at the top.
Time ban was placed (including time zone): ~9:00PM PST.
Server you were playing when banned (Sybil or Bagil): Sybil.
Your side of the story: It was a post-round after war ops. IcePacks made an announcement, chimping out about how you're not supposed to space the nuke or get on the syndicate shuttle. The same lecture we've heard a million sperged-out times. The chimpout escalates to a level 4, a numerous amount of people joining in on the superb monkey meltdown. IcePacks's autism-handling capabilities, as usual, are overloaded due to his own mental weakness. SENSORY OVERLOAD!!! AAAHHHHH!! He mutes OOC, proclaiming that he is setting it in stone, to not do whatever it is he was saying. I don't really care to remember what happened. He finally unmutes OOC, I politely suggest that, to prevent arguments like this from happening in the future, that new rules be added to the rules page on the wiki to clear up any confusion that players may have regarding policy. Pax takes this as an assertion of dominance, the inner-chimp look gleaming in his eyes. He immediately daybans me from OOC without any warning at all -- for the reason "re-initiated an argument." Except, it literally did not happen. There was just 2 people who agreed with me that it should be added to the rules page, in a calm and collected manner. Nobody even spoke of the previous topic, it was beginning the era of a new OOC age. An age in which people communicate their suggestions to each other like functioning human beings, rather than low-to-no-functioning autistic manchildren who literally cannot stop shitting the bed. I have created a utopia, but at what cost? I try to explain to him that I was not inciting a riot, rather, just leaving some helpful advice that could possibly prevent situations like these from happening in the future. (((Pax))) decides he isn't having any of this, and (since I know you can't handle more than one simple sentence at a time) tl;dr: "I'm leaving and I know you won't go through the effort of appealing an ooc dayban so fuck you lol."
Why you think you should be unbanned: Giving legitimately helpful suggestions in OOC is not re-inciting a previous argument. Especially when the argument wasn't re-incited at all. Literally NOBODY mentioned it, at all. They just said "Yeah, it should be added to the rules." and left it at that. We all came to an agreement, and the chromosomes were quenched. There was no reason for you to do this, IcePacks.

Edit: I committed suicide and when I was writing this appeal, someone stole my PDA and used it to message fucked up ERP shit to everyone constantly for the remainder of the round -- and I couldn't clear up that it wasn't me in deadchat or post-round OOC. I even got bwoinked for it, so that's nice.

[Sven12]

As far as the PDA situation, that was cleared up pretty quickly.

[IcePacks]

Over the course of the OOC channel mute, you ahelped this. You literally picked up right where you had left off and insisted that it had nothing to do with the current discussion, prefacing it with something along the lines of "like I was saying." I'd rather give a light punishment to someone who's probably intentionally trying to mute the channel again before I go to bed as opposed to just leaving OOC muted when I log out.

Again, if you'd like to debate about it, someone already made a new thread here. Offer coders some suggests on what could change if you like.

[bandit]

>mutes OOC telling people not to continue the shitfest
>unmutes
>continue the shitfest

really, what exactly did you expect to happen here?

[BeeSting12]

Whats the issue with having constructive conversation about server policy in OOC? Stop censoring the people!

[bandit]

If you want to discuss policy take it to Policy Discussion.

[Nilons]

>mutes OOC telling people not to continue the shitfest
>unmutes
>continue the shitfest

really, what exactly did you expect to happen here?

>Shitfest about a ruling
>Mute
>Admin announces his ruling on it to end the shitfest
>Unmute
>Oh okay they should add that to the rules then
>This is somehow considered reigniting the shitfest

It feels like this was just a miscommunication on both ends

[obscolene]

I'm trying to get the point across that the reason was "Re-initiating an argument," when:

1. My intent was not to re-initiate the argument, it was merely to give a helpful and legitimate suggestion.
2. I did NOT re-initiate the argument. The argument was not re-initiated.

Why was I banned for something I literally didn't do, nor did I have the intention to do?

[IcePacks]

considering i was off popping some sleeping pills when you made the remark and only noticed it was you after scrolling back up through the renewed debate i'm going to say that your intent was to bait me into either muting ooc or yelling at you

hopefully you'll take it as a learning experience on the risks of baiting instead of posting an unnecessarily long, childish essay seemingly designed to waste the reader's time

[Nilons]

considering i was off popping some sleeping pills when you made the remark and only noticed it was you after scrolling back up through the renewed debate i'm going to say that your intent was to bait me into either muting ooc or yelling at you

hopefully you'll take it as a learning experience on the risks of baiting instead of posting an unnecessarily long, childish essay seemingly designed to waste the reader's time

>Im gonna guess you WANTED me to ban you

why would they make an appeal if they wanted to be banned

[obscolene]

considering i was off popping some sleeping pills when you made the remark and only noticed it was you after scrolling back up through the renewed debate i'm going to say that your intent was to bait me into either muting ooc or yelling at you

hopefully you'll take it as a learning experience on the risks of baiting instead of posting an unnecessarily long, childish essay seemingly designed to waste the reader's time

Why would I bait you?? For what purpose? The only reason I could think of for baiting an admin into banning you would be to indict the admin of BANNEDM E FOR NO RAISIn. But this is a ban appeal, not an admin complaint. I think you're one of the better admins on Sybil, Pax. I can't see of a reason why I would try to bait into being banned. I don't like being banned -- and I already explained that it was not my intention to re-initiate the argument, nor did that even happen. Either you completely ignored what I posted, or you're still under the effects of the sleeping pills. I've gotta say you've really dropped the ball on this one, Pax.

[feem]

There's an adage: don't poke the bear. In old-school online gaming, following on from D&D in the early 80s, this was expressed in the following bastardization of a LotR quote: Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.

I agree with you that in a group of friends or colleagues in which all parties respect one another and it's generally just a really good time even when you're arguing, popping up after someone holds up a finger and says 'but here is the fact we should care about, and now the conversation is over' to discuss next steps, e.g. codifying the resolution, opening another bottle of whiskey, whatever, is a perfectly legitimate thing to do.

This is not one of those situations. For better or for worse, it's become a common practice in online gaming -- and online communications in general -- for people to shut everyone else up for a moment, issue an edict, close the conversation, and instruct people to move on. This is sort of an application of certain parliamentary rules of order: when the chair declares that something is tabled or closed, then it is, and further conversation about it is then out of order and can be held against those who participate in it.

In our specific instance, this isn't always a good policy. Sometimes it's a good idea to let players have their arguments because otherwise they'll bubble up and end up affecting the round by bubbling up into IC overescalations.

On the other hand, sometimes letting players have their arguments is what negatively impacts the game, because it furthers animosity for one of any number of reasons. Or maybe it's just so loud, so continuous, so spammy, that it actually disrupts players' abilities to see what's happening ICly and they either don't know or don't wish to disable OOC for themselves.

Sometimes there are multiple lines of conversation in OOC and arguments blow them up and make it impossible to actually communicate with other members of the "community," whatever that means.

We get complaints about OOC arguments quite frequently, even just in my short time here. There are a lot of players who don't like it when people are going off for pages and pages about whatever it is; at least, not when they're not the ones doing it.

I wasn't there, I don't know what happened, I don't know the respective feelings of the individuals involved at the time. But let's go back to the first thing I said: poking the bear usually ends up landing you exactly where you think it will.

If you don't think that this was poking the bear, then consider this an important lesson.

<3

Relevant: http://68.media.tumblr.com/e58619adae8b ... 1_1280.jpg