[Coiax] istoprocent - OOC in ICly Note Appeal

[Istoprocent1]

Byond account and character name: istoprocent - krokodil
Banning admin: Coiax
Ban type (What are you banned from?): Unfair note under rule 2.
Ban reason and length: Warned, kept using the roundtype in an OOC manner, "its hiveminds" ,"it might be hiveminds", "hiveminds confirmed".
Time ban was placed (including time zone): 2018-12-16 18:24:57
Server you were playing when banned (Sybil or Bagil): Bagil
Your side of the story: The round type was Assimilators and we figured out that there are hiveminds among us. It is referring to the situation or active threat and there is no round type called Hiveminds. This happened 1-2 rounds after Coiax held another vote for Donut and I openly criticized it. May or may not have made things personal for him and he may or may not have decided to get back at me by tarnishing my reputation as a player.
Why you think you should be unbanned: I think the note should be deleted, because its unfair. I was thinking of making an admin complaint as Coiax seemed to refuse to handle other policy or rule violations, even when presented with. Which makes him apply policies and rules selectively.

Rounds 98766, 98770 (TRAITOR CONFIRMED uttered over comms) and 98771 (REVS CONFIRMED and REVS ARE CONFIRMED uttered over comms by multiple people) all contained similar violations or some obscure policy violation, such as Fortifying Brig.

[coiax]

As an admin, I often hold votes to choose the next map, but I don't have any particular bias towards any maps, I more have a bias towards elaborate voting systems. It's perfectly within the realm of admin fiat to just choose a map round after round without any player input, but I wanted to I suppose get players involved more in map selection, when the map rotation code often selects maps that seem unpopular with almost everyone who complains about them on OOC.

In the previous years, I noted some admins trying hard to get people to stop talking about the "round type" so blatantly in IC chat, and I felt that was something to strive towards.

So when I noticed you doing that, I messaged you, explained how I felt, and left a note. I was also more motivated to leave a note, because in the conversation that we had over ahelps, you disagreed strongly with my assertions.

I then went back, as a Trialmin, and checked with my trainers and other admins that I had acted properly in doing this, and got no suggestions I had acted out of order.

I did not respond to your constant ahelps afterwards pointing out other language you thought was "IC in OOC", because I felt that your motives in reporting such language was less about your upset with rules infraction, and more about a minor note you had recieved, which had previously complained at great length in my admin complaint thread.

[BeeSting12]

[2018-12-16 18:10:42.997] SAY: Istoprocent/(Krokodil) "Tanner doesnt have an implant it might be hiveminds!" (Fore Primary Hallway (106, 158, 2))
-snip-
[2018-12-16 18:11:24.355] SAY: Istoprocent/(Krokodil) "Start implanting crew, if Tanner wasnt cloned its hiveminds." (Port Bow Maintenance (76, 165, 2))
-snip-
[2018-12-16 18:13:48.913] SAY: Istoprocent/(Krokodil) "Hiveminds confirmed" (Brig (111, 167, 2))
-snip-
[2018-12-16 18:14:54.447] SAY: Istoprocent/(Krokodil) "We need more implants, its hiveminds." (Brig (113, 165, 2))

https://tgstation13.org/raw-logs/basil/ ... 3/game.log

Lines omitted between each line of text for irrelevancy.

The issue isn't saying hivemind or assimilators, both are fine. The issue is "Its [game mode/antag]".

[Istoprocent1]

As an admin, I often hold votes to choose the next map, but I don't have any particular bias towards any maps, I more have a bias towards elaborate voting systems. It's perfectly within the realm of admin fiat to just choose a map round after round without any player input, but I wanted to I suppose get players involved more in map selection, when the map rotation code often selects maps that seem unpopular with almost everyone who complains about them on OOC.

Coming in and saying "You know what time it is and then going DONUT with few hypemen backing you up and then voting for an unpopular map, which most of the time results in server population dropping.

In the previous years, I noted some admins trying hard to get people to stop talking about the "round type" so blatantly in IC chat, and I felt that was something to strive towards.

So when I noticed you doing that, I messaged you, explained how I felt, and left a note. I was also more motivated to leave a note, because in the conversation that we had over ahelps, you disagreed strongly with my assertions.

I then went back, as a Trialmin, and checked with my trainers and other admins that I had acted properly in doing this, and got no suggestions I had acted out of order.

I don't know where you are getting this as I even in ahelps I said sure as I wanted that unreasonable interruption of my round to be done with, since everybody is saying "Its X".

I did not respond to your constant ahelps afterwards pointing out other language you thought was "IC in OOC", because I felt that your motives in reporting such language was less about your upset with rules infraction, and more about a minor note you had recieved, which had previously complained at great length in my admin complaint thread.

You are trying to play up my saltiness and butthurt by saying that I did something to a great length, while in reality I was merely defending my points against shitposters. Its not about being upset, its about holding everybody to the same standard and being a neutral referee. Applying rules selectively is a big no-no. I was helping you out as in the admin feedback thread people pointed out that admins are not omniscient and all help is welcome. Either its all okay or none of it is okay - you shouldn't play favorites or gun down people you dislike. Some pretty prominent names used "REVS CONFIRMED" in the 3rd round that was brought up.

[Rustledjimm]

So you're asking us to uphold the rules non-selectively.

OK we'll do that as we have been. I still see 0 reason for this appeal other than soapboxing. Perhaps this is a peanut post and if the headmins decide it is please delete it. But you aren't asking for an appeal, you're salty you got caught breaking a rule and others didn't get caught. If they get caught they will receive the same punishment as you have done.

[Istoprocent1]

So you're asking us to uphold the rules non-selectively.

OK we'll do that as we have been. I still see 0 reason for this appeal other than soapboxing. Perhaps this is a peanut post and if the headmins decide it is please delete it. But you aren't asking for an appeal, you're salty you got caught breaking a rule and others didn't get caught. If they get caught they will receive the same punishment as you have done.

I wasn't breaking any rules and if I was then Mike Murdock, Lexia Black and all the others were breaking it as well and you can note us all.

Edit: And if thats the case, then Coiax has been refusing to apply the same standards to all people, which makes an admin complaint a valid option.

[Rustledjimm]

OK I'll go through logs when I get back from holiday and note everyone that's broken this rule.

Also you're implying he is omniscient and sees all.

Guess what admins are only human. Stop being so salty that you got caught and others just so happened to not. It's starting to look really pathetic.

[wesoda25]

Saying revs confirmed isn’t against the rules.

Saying its revs is.

Theres a difference and I don’t think you can distinguish it.

[Istoprocent1]

Saying revs confirmed isn’t against the rules.

Saying its revs is.

Theres a difference and I don’t think you can distinguish it.

Saying REVS is short for saying ITS REVS, because one can ask a question "What is?"

English is a second language to me, but its clear that the intent wasn't to reference to the round type, but to reference to the threat.

Meanwhile all the warden's getting noted up for using barriers at the start of the shift. Is this the kind of experience we are all looking for? To focus on nitpicking and finding loopholes over semantics?

[Istoprocent1]

OK I'll go through logs when I get back from holiday and note everyone that's broken this rule.

Also you're implying he is omniscient and sees all.

Guess what admins are only human. Stop being so salty that you got caught and others just so happened to not. It's starting to look really pathetic.

You are misquoting me. I said that "people said that admins are not omniscient", which I agree with. I was providing him help to notice rule and policy violations, which he could have otherwise selectively ignore.

Edit: What is pathetic is you dogpiling on a single member of the community just to save face of another admin.

[wesoda25]

Saying revs confirmed isn’t against the rules.

Saying its revs is.

Theres a difference and I don’t think you can distinguish it.

Saying REVS is short for saying ITS REVS, because one can ask a question "What is?"

English is a second language to me, but its clear that the intent wasn't to reference to the round type, but to reference to the threat.

Meanwhile all the warden's getting noted up for using barriers at the start of the shift. Is this the kind of experience we are all looking for? To focus on nitpicking and finding loopholes over semantics?

So according to you, "we have caught the revolutionaries" is the same as "we have caught the its revolutionaries". When you say revs confirmed, you are referencing an IC threat. If you say its revs, you are referencing the game mode.

If you need more help with syntax and semantics there are better places than ban appeal and admin feedback threads.

[Rustledjimm]

It's amusing because if anything I've removed more admins than anyone for misconduct and not being up to the quality expected of the admin team.

[Istoprocent1]

Saying revs confirmed isn’t against the rules.

Saying its revs is.

Theres a difference and I don’t think you can distinguish it.

Saying REVS is short for saying ITS REVS, because one can ask a question "What is?"

English is a second language to me, but its clear that the intent wasn't to reference to the round type, but to reference to the threat.

Meanwhile all the warden's getting noted up for using barriers at the start of the shift. Is this the kind of experience we are all looking for? To focus on nitpicking and finding loopholes over semantics?

So according to you, "we have caught the revolutionaries" is the same as "we have caught the its revolutionaries". When you say revs confirmed, you are referencing an IC threat. If you say its revs, you are referencing the game mode.

If you need more help with syntax and semantics there are better places than ban appeal and admin feedback threads.

Edit: At times some may fall through the cracks and end up in a position of power, which can be detrimental in the wrong run. Better vet early.

According to you on the otherhand "We have a revolution" = "Revolutionaries Confirmed". Again calling out the threat, which is not a living being is IT, so "Its hiveminds" = "The present threat is hiveminds".

[Cobby]

To hopefully clarify,

saying it's X implies there can only be a singular threat to the station at any time. This is only true because you (the player) know that the antagonist is dictated by a gamemode. You never hear people say "IT'S ABDUCTORS" or "IT'S MORPH" although they are also threats to the station which is why admins get upset when people use it.

[Istoprocent1]

To hopefully clarify,

saying it's X implies there can only be a singular threat to the station at any time. This is only true because you (the player) know that the antagonist is dictated by a gamemode. You never hear people say "IT'S ABDUCTORS" or "IT'S MORPH" although they are also threats to the station which is why admins get upset when people use it.

If you put it in a sentece, then it makes sense.
A: Whats the situation?
B: Its the abductors, man, they are lurking in the boiler room. / There are abductors, man. is as correct.

It boils down to petty nitpicking using some niche rulings, which aren't meant to be used Rules As Written - This page does not replace the rules and whenever possible the rules should be referred to instead of this page.

Saying "Its X" (threat) over "There are X" (beings or a threat if singular such as "There is a X") is not in the main rules and the intent of saying "Its X" is not to break the OOC in IC rule.

[BeeSting12]

If you put it in a sentece, then it makes sense.
A: Whats the situation?
B: Its the abductors, man, they are lurking in the boiler room. / There are abductors, man. is as correct.

I'd be good with that but can you prove using logs that this is what happened for any of these lines:

[2018-12-16 18:10:42.997] SAY: Istoprocent/(Krokodil) "Tanner doesnt have an implant it might be hiveminds!" (Fore Primary Hallway (106, 158, 2))
-snip-
[2018-12-16 18:11:24.355] SAY: Istoprocent/(Krokodil) "Start implanting crew, if Tanner wasnt cloned its hiveminds." (Port Bow Maintenance (76, 165, 2))
-snip-
[2018-12-16 18:13:48.913] SAY: Istoprocent/(Krokodil) "Hiveminds confirmed" (Brig (111, 167, 2))
-snip-
[2018-12-16 18:14:54.447] SAY: Istoprocent/(Krokodil) "We need more implants, its hiveminds." (Brig (113, 165, 2))

https://tgstation13.org/raw-logs/basil/ ... 3/game.log

Lines omitted between each line of text for irrelevancy.

The issue isn't saying hivemind or assimilators, both are fine. The issue is "Its [game mode/antag]".

If not, then you're breaking a rule, and as a result, the note is both factually correct and consistent with our policies/rules, nor is it overly harsh as it just gives the facts. That would mean it's an invalid appeal. See this page for the rules on appealing notes: https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=13422

[Cobby]

https://tgstation13.org/parsed-logs/bas ... -98723.zip -- fixed link

What question was asked/context provided that you would respond with "It's [the] hivemind"?

To be clear if you can explain it in a way in which you ACTUALLY used the phrase using the log file I just linked instead of a hypothetical that very rarely applies I'd be very much for the removal of the note since my sole issue is referring to the gamemode as a gamemode in IC, which I think you were (albeit probably unintentionally) doing here.

Also beesting's link is cr4p

[Istoprocent1]

I'd be good with that but can you prove using logs that this is what happened for any of these lines:

[2018-12-16 18:10:42.997] SAY: Istoprocent/(Krokodil) "Tanner doesnt have an implant it might be hiveminds!" (Fore Primary Hallway (106, 158, 2))
-snip-
[2018-12-16 18:11:24.355] SAY: Istoprocent/(Krokodil) "Start implanting crew, if Tanner wasnt cloned its hiveminds." (Port Bow Maintenance (76, 165, 2))
-snip-
[2018-12-16 18:13:48.913] SAY: Istoprocent/(Krokodil) "Hiveminds confirmed" (Brig (111, 167, 2))
-snip-
[2018-12-16 18:14:54.447] SAY: Istoprocent/(Krokodil) "We need more implants, its hiveminds." (Brig (113, 165, 2))

https://tgstation13.org/raw-logs/basil/ ... 3/game.log

Lines omitted between each line of text for irrelevancy.

The issue isn't saying hivemind or assimilators, both are fine. The issue is "Its [game mode/antag]".

I get that the main idea is to always find fault in the player and protect the admins, while trying to make the appealer run out of gas by redirecting focus everywhere. In reality is what was meant with the sentences:

"it might be hiveminds" - The present threat might be hiveminds.
"its hiveminds" - The present threat is hiveminds.
"hiveminds confirmed" - The threat of hiveminds have been established. (this one i would have the most beef with, then again revs confirmed would be problematic as well)

The appeal stands as there was no OOC in IC. The intent wasn't to OOC in IC - such as saying "round" or "validhunter" or anything OOC.

Edit: It would be like saying you can't say lings, because it refers to the round type changeligns. Always have to use "carbon based non-human lifeform with shapeshifting abilities". We are heading towards word policing territory.

[BeeSting12]

It looks like you spent most of your tank on trying to call out a nonexistent admin conspiracy. That doesn't get you very good miles per gallon, I'd recommend actually trying to prove your innocence or getting the policy changed in policy discussion.

I also don't see an issue with "Hiveminds confirmed", I just included it because I ctrl f'ed hivemind and got those four lines from you before coiax bwoinked you.

[Istoprocent1]

It looks like you spent most of your tank on trying to call out a nonexistent admin conspiracy. That doesn't get you very good miles per gallon, I'd recommend actually trying to prove your innocence or getting the policy changed in policy discussion.

I also don't see an issue with "Hiveminds confirmed", I just included it because I ctrl f'ed hivemind and got those four lines from you before coiax bwoinked you.

I think I have proven my point that there was no OOC in IC nor any intent to OOC in IC, even if one applied niche rule of OOCing ICly.

Its a fact that the group is as strong as its weakest link and people in groups tend to cover for another. Say a cop not noticing a key piece of detail in order to save his partner from the law etc.

Edit: 3. Do not say in character (IC) things in the out of character (OOC) chat channel. Do not say OOC things in IC either. There is an exception for OOC in IC where terms like 'clickdrag X to Y, or look for the tab' is used to help a player.

There is no round type called Hiveminds nor are there any antags called Hiveminds. Its Assimilators and Hivemind Hosts.

Edit 2: People who belong to a hive and practice groupthink are hiveminds.

[Arianya]

Denied. This note is factual and is not unfairly negative to your standing in other admins eyes. It's also a good enforcement of our rules on OOC in IC.

I appreciate the distinction might seem nitpicky to some, but the point is that even if we're "lowRP" that we are still "RP". We try to keep the concept of the gamemode of the round out of IC, and the particular wording used here does matter.

As a personal point of advice to OP, I'm going to note that the way they've reacted to being noted, in game and out, has done more to harm his image in the eyes of random admins then this note would ever have done. If you disagree with a note, appeal it, but don't waste everyone's time by trying to get "gotcha!"s in on the banning admin because you think they have it out for you.