/tg/Station 13

Byond account and character name: Deitus
Banning admin: Spyroshark
Ban type (What are you banned from?): n/a (note)
Ban reason and length: (weekban) Twice in one round as captain, overescalated and killed someone, then only cloned them after being talked to by an admin. Using your power just to kill anyone you want is not ok.
Time ban was placed (including time zone): ~3:30 am cst
Server you were playing when banned (Sybil or Bagil): sybil
Your side of the story / Why you think you should be unbanned:

please note that before i begin i am only asking for a REVISION TO THE NOTE, not a repeal of the ban or the note itself.
i feel the note as it stands does not give context to the situations that lead to it being applied.

first kill story: found mime attempting bridge breakin. captured, warned, then released. ~5 minutes later rcd'd down the first two sec doors, tried to get in to last two before i caught him again. as i thought the rule was breaking into sec was valid, i borged him, before being told by an admin (i think ispiria? dont remember for sure) that it was the ARMORY, not sec, that made a person valid. i then cloned them and released them.

second kill story: found ai to be missing midway through the round. found black fiber prints on the doors, announced this to crew, then received a pda message that the miner most likely took it as he was seen with a card and speaking to the ai. went to lavaland where he and the minerborg (later found to be ai) fled after bolting me behind a door. announced to crew that the miner was likely traitor and he was to be captured. later found the miner after he got cloned, borged him. was told by the ai-borg and spyro that the ai was taken willingly (which, as an aside, i think is a bit shitty), so i again cloned them and released them.

as i said, i think the note as it stands does not give enough context to the situations that lead to the killings, since as it stands now it comes off as me doing it for little to no reason. therefore i again do NOT ask for the repeal of the ban or the note, but for the note to be revised to give better context to the reason why the crewmembers were killed.

Security Policy & Precedents

3. The 'act like an antag, get treated like one' part of Rule 4 of the main rules also apply to security. Stunning an officer repeatedly, using lethal or restricted weapons on them, disrupting the arrests or sentences of dangerous criminals, or damaging the brig, are examples of behaviour that may make you valid for security under Rule 4.

It was 4 AM for me (If there was another admin online I would of asked them to take over), So I wanted to keep the note short and to the point. I still stand by the ban, but i'm fine with re-writing the note to give more context to the situation. My main issue with the second kill was that you killed them, were told IC what happened, went through with borging them anyway, then only cloned them after I sent you a PM.

At work right now will edit this comment when I'm get back in ~6 hours for an explanation

I literally told you repeatedly that I was with him willingly and to fuck off, instead you ran to lavaland doing your usual "ME CAPTAIN I GET TO SELF ANTAG" bullshit and tried to kill him. I bolted you in and yeeted out to enjoy myself in lavaland with the miner, to actually have fun instead of having to deal with you. We have actual fun and co op bro op bubblegum and get the treasure but sebastian died, so you decided to kill him and forceborg him even after being told to fuck off by the rest of the crew and the ai.

I find it funny how you forgot to mention the fact you deconstructed the mining shuttle consoles on the station and lavaland leaving only the one in the shuttle itself as well as dismantling all the mining vendors on lavaland in your tantrum, potentially ruining the round for any other miner joining the shift.

Massive flooding in my area right now so I’m gonna have to phonepost this since I can’t get home

For one thing Carl, kindly get your shit straight before you try and play the victim card. It’s funny how YOU forget to mention that the “abloobloo cap bein big meanie pants to me” thing happened after you both got back, and you only told me about you willingly going AFTER you bolted me out, later trying to flash me and kill me with your mining drill. I frankly don’t give a fuck if you and your meta buttbuddy wanna go jerk each other off in lavaland but if you try to play victim AFTER you get dunked for acting like an antagonist, you can kindly fuck right off. Yes you told me as I was boring him, but let’s think for a sec here—I’ve got an ai that bolted me on lavaland and tried to kill me; I was within every right to think you were emagged, and frankly I don’t know why I didn’t just blow your sorry ass even if Spyro WAS breathing down my neck due to your whining, and thinking back now I don’t know why you didn’t get your ass slapped with a ban baiting note.

Actually, the more I type this up and think about this whole situation, I was entirely within my rights as captain to do exactly what I did. This thread was originally intended to be an appeal of the note’s wording but I think I’m just gonna stop here and type up a nice, in-depth appeal about how the note AND the ban are bullshit with a nice piping hot side of how this is another example of Carl being a banbaiting shitter when I get back home to my computer tomorrow.

Stay tuned, folks.

Deitus wrote:but if you try to play victim AFTER you get dunked for acting like an antagonist, you can kindly fuck right off.

Nibba

You were being an annoying cunt the entire round like you always do, I come into the round as ai and find out you already did your guillotine bullshit on the bridge of a non antag, you start threatening to creamte the clown for bullying you until enough of the crew called you a retard and then you proceeded to buy the meteor shuttle like you always do to brag about how funny you are over, like you always do. You had me, sebastian, and the hop all asking what the fuck you were doing in your autistic rampage.

https://pastebin.com/KaWQBG84

Here are some logs from the admins showing that literally every other head role online was telling talist to cut his shit out while griefing a player for saving me from his bullshit. If they want a full timeline of the shit talist pulled that round i'd be down to logdive for them. When the very first line you see after being bluespaced in as an ai is this, you know you're in for a FUN shift

[2018-06-30 06:25:24.585] SAY: 06:25:24.585] SAY: Lumi Straten/TheSpecialSnowflake : Amaretto thank fuck, Captain is insane. (179,104,2)

D&B wrote:Security Policy & Precedents

3. The 'act like an antag, get treated like one' part of Rule 4 of the main rules also apply to security. Stunning an officer repeatedly, using lethal or restricted weapons on them, disrupting the arrests or sentences of dangerous criminals, or damaging the brig, are examples of behaviour that may make you valid for security under Rule 4.

My feelings about this appeal aside and whether the following applies to this appeal since I don't want to peanut post, I do want to note that it says MAY. It's all about the extent and combination of these things. You're not valid if you stun an officer twice or bash a window twice.

Deitus wrote:~5 minutes later rcd'd down the first two sec doors,

how's do these situations not fall within people acting like antags lmao

the fact that he borged him was a huge favor, why would you note someone for this when he's making it easier for people to escape / break in
i'd delete this post so only admins can see it but it's too late rip

So was the individual banned because they did something after an admin asked them to?

If someone kills someone then they typically have no intention of getting them cloned.

Dax Dupont wrote:

D&B wrote:Security Policy & Precedents

3. The 'act like an antag, get treated like one' part of Rule 4 of the main rules also apply to security. Stunning an officer repeatedly, using lethal or restricted weapons on them, disrupting the arrests or sentences of dangerous criminals, or damaging the brig, are examples of behaviour that may make you valid for security under Rule 4.

My feelings about this appeal aside and whether the following applies to this appeal since I don't want to peanut post, I do want to note that it says MAY. It's all about the extent and combination of these things. You're not valid if you stun an officer twice or bash a window twice.

This person attempted to break into the bridge and deconstructed doors, not hit windows.

Please read the full appeal before peanut posting.

D&B wrote:

Dax Dupont wrote:

D&B wrote:Security Policy & Precedents

3. The 'act like an antag, get treated like one' part of Rule 4 of the main rules also apply to security. Stunning an officer repeatedly, using lethal or restricted weapons on them, disrupting the arrests or sentences of dangerous criminals, or damaging the brig, are examples of behaviour that may make you valid for security under Rule 4.

My feelings about this appeal aside and whether the following applies to this appeal since I don't want to peanut post, I do want to note that it says MAY. It's all about the extent and combination of these things. You're not valid if you stun an officer twice or bash a window twice.

This person attempted to break into the bridge and deconstructed doors, not hit windows.

Please read the full appeal before peanut posting.

I specifically mentioned I'm not talking about this appeal, just that the policy is often stated as the last PR that brought this up.

Not sure why this was locked but I’d appreciate some clarification regarding what the ban/note is actually for

Looks like it was answered in the other appeal