/tg/Station 13

Byond account and character name: klippklar - char name was random
Banning admin: thunder12345

You have been banned by thunder12345. Ban length: 48 hours. Banned from TG, happened on Bagil.
Reason: Ban baiting and lying in ahelps. Claimed they were permabrigged for a crime that should've gotten a 2 minute sentence. They were in the armoury, claimed in ahelp that the warden let them in. They had in fact choked and stripped the warden while they were AFK. When called on on their lies, spouted meaningless babble to try and evade answering questions.

Reason for unbanning: I wasn't ban baiting, i wasn't lying, hence wasn't called out on my lies and what I say is never meaningless. I think thunder12345 took a lot of what i said down the wrong hole when i was obviously just trolling around a little...
https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=18559

Let's make a list of the lies you told in the course of our conversation:

"get convicted to a major penalty (perma) for a medium crime (penalty would be 2 minutes)"
You were found trespassing in the armoury and should know that this is in fact a very serious crime

"went into the armory because me and some random dude got let in by a warden"
The warden let the other guy in because they believed he was meant to be there, they specifically told me that they never gave you leave to go in too

"breaking in and getting allowed to by a supervisor are two different stories"
You claim the warden let you in, while in actual fact you choked them and stripped them of their ID to gain access

"yes should be in the logs"
There was nothing of the kind in the logs

"Mr. warden was most comfortable with it."
The warden had no ability to be comfortable with it, seeing as you did it while they were AFK

Of the coherent statements you made during our conversation, the majority were either severely misrepresenting the truth, or complete fabrications. Unless any headmins are feeling merciful today, this is denied.

Thunder11 wrote: "get convicted to a major penalty (perma) for a medium crime (penalty would be 2 minutes)"
You were found trespassing in the armoury and should know that this is in fact a very serious crime
"went into the armory because me and some random dude got let in by a warden"
The warden let the other guy in because they believed he was meant to be there, they specifically told me that they never gave you leave to go in too

If and only if the accused is in a restricted area WITHOUT a passing permit by his supervisors, passing becomes trespassing.
Since first: the accused applied the access handout to himself, since the supervisors allotments were rather variable open to interpretation and second, the supervisors retrospective predications might not even be less falsifiable than those of the accused. Furthermore since in the first place there was no accuser up until thunder1234 came up with it, this point isn't filled with any more importance than to name and shame me of alleged lies.
On top of that space law itself is not meant to be absolute, which finally proves my statement to not be a lie.

Thunder11 wrote: "yes should be in the logs"
There was nothing of the kind in the logs

Respectively to obvious lack of incriminating evidence nothing that proves the accused wrong either.

Thunder11 wrote: "Mr. warden was most comfortable with it."
The warden had no ability to be comfortable with it, seeing as you did it while they were AFK

The accused doesn't have any power over nor the needs of other peoples connectivity behaviours. The assessment of other peoples on-off state is something that anyone couldn't possibly verify to every given moment in time.

Thunder11 wrote:Of the coherent statements you made during our conversation, the majority were either severely misrepresenting the truth, or complete fabrications. Unless any headmins are feeling merciful today, this is denied.

Is the admin who invoking the ban actually able, to speak in the respective intents of the public and of the parties concerned in a whole? This would be the very same as if you needed to get a second evaluation from a different judge than the first, the second being the very same one as the first. Also since lifting the ban would mean you are incapable of not letting the saltiness flush away your rational thinking, I assume it's not an element in the set of your interests?

Going into an ahelp after you went into the armory after strangling the warden (and they were nice enough to put you in a cell instead of killing you) is not the type of ahelps we want to encourage. This is banbaiting, you did shit and got retribution for it. You then ahelped your retribution. If I lift this, I set a precedent that people can ahelp everything that occurs to them even when they do bullshit, which is not something I will accept. I don't see the problem here. Two days is a bit harsh but you've gotten notes for it previously and you don't seem to understand what you've done wrong so I'm standing by this ban.

Appeal denied. Any other headmin can step in here.