Page 1 of 1

[Saegrimr] KittenHugz

PostPosted: Sun Feb 08, 2015 12:26 am
by KittenHugz
account, KittenHugz, character, Reynard Buttersworth
banning admin, Saegrimr
ban type: server ban
ban reason and length: permanent. "metacoms w/a group of friends."
time ban was issued: 4:00 pm (pacific)
my side of the story: I don't know how to play. I was being "tutored" in how this game works. I did not know or use any information that my character would not have known. I have read the rules and I was only learning from my friends (chindasvint and Quey) the basics of the game in terms of the interface and how to move.
unbanned why? I do not believe that I broke any of the rules listed on the wiki. I played with my friends for the sole purpose of learning the game, not for gamebreaking or trolling.

Re: [Saegrimr] KittenHugz

PostPosted: Sun Feb 08, 2015 12:56 am
by Saegrimr
KittenHugz wrote:I do not believe that I broke any of the rules listed on the wiki. I played with my friends for the sole purpose of learning the game, not for gamebreaking or trolling.


There's various rules outlining this.

https://tgstation13.org/wiki/Rules#Roleplay_Policy

>IC information should be kept out of OOC channels and vice-versa.
>Don’t metagame. Do not ever use information, acquired out of character or through patterns or events your character would not be able to know, in game.
>Persistent character relationships are acceptable, so long as they’re roleplayed out every round. Wordlessly assisting your OOC friends (or harming your OOC foes) ICly is NOT cool and will be addressed harshly. Roleplaying out your interactions will help you stay on the right side of the rules. How much or how little of previous “shifts” your character recalls is up to their discretion, with the caveat that being a known traitor doesn’t persist past the round it occurred in.

We had reports that out of the group of the three of you, were raiding the armory, rushing over to genetics to pull eachother out of cloning. Which added up according to chat logs.

You, haven't spoken a single word IC.
"Chindasvint" at least attempted to communicate through most of it.
Your mentor "Quey" probably spoke the most, and as the player with the longest play time i'm assuming he was the one who brought you onto the server. I'm also giving him the benefit of doubt since he was borging around during the mess, and refrained from also adding him to the list of people banned. Though he should have really made sure you two weren't communicating OOC since you guys were admittedly in the same room.

So assuming you wish to keep playing on the server, the three of you clearly cannot be trusted to play simultaneously so if you wish to keep playing, i'll instead ban Quey and he can appeal sometime in the future. However i'll let you guys deliberate on who stays unbanned.

Re: [Saegrimr] KittenHugz

PostPosted: Sun Feb 08, 2015 1:44 am
by Quey
Whoa wait what? Is that a normal thing, ban appeals resulting in the bans of others, especially after the admin says he wants to leave me just a warning?

I don't know about "rushing over to genetics to pull each other out of cloning". As a borg, I was trying to save a LOT of people and clone them. I don't know who dragged Reynard in, but I did drag in Mateo (Chindasvint) after hearing about it over radio. I was in the cloning bay because I was trying to save someone from being harmed in genetics and decided to stay to reverse some harm by helping to clone people. So I don't see what that has to do with anything.

As for the armory, I saw them while passing through to repair a wall by the gulag shuttle. They ordered me to open the doors to the armory as I passed, which made sense given the spider outbreak. The gave me orders in game, and afterwards I left. I don't see how that's relevant.

So yes, we were communicating in the same room, but only as far as "how do I move?" "I suggest tab then WASD" "How do I wear a suit?". I don't know what you mean about giving me the benefit of the doubt in relation to being a borg, or why that means I should still be banned. And I have no idea why we should decide who gets to play. Sure, they were new and didn't communicate much In game (Kittenhugz had to ask half way in how you talk), but that doesn't mean two lawyers can't hang out together.

Honestly, this doesn't seem fair. I'm not sure why I should be banned, as I did make effort not to communicate non-game mechanic info. This seems harsh for the other two as well. They were new players, and for most of the round they wandered around trying to figure out what to do. Given they were both lawyers, it would make sense they'd usually be in the same location (which they were, until the wormholes showed up). I don't think saying "we can't be trusted" is fair. If you think we were truly acting in bad faith and TRYING to break the rules, then by all means, ban us all. But first, I don't think we broke the rules, and if we did rouse suspicion, we certainly took good faith effort to notify admins beforehand and not break the rules.

Re: [Saegrimr] KittenHugz

PostPosted: Sun Feb 08, 2015 1:51 am
by Saegrimr
This is mostly just assuming out of the three people in metacomms, the two new players would defer to the person who brought them onto the server. Usually I just ban the whole lot of you and have all of you make an appeal but the majority of times that's how it plays out. If theres some discrepancy between who wants to actually remain on the server then yes, the three of you should talk it out and figure out who gets to stay. Either way as I said the three of you cannot be trusted to be playing simultaneously.

I'd logged on to respond to ahelps about your group late so I didn't get to see you as a borg being responsible for letting them into the armory, other than "[18:39:38]SAY: Mateo Skywalker/Chindasvint : Borg, please open door" with no response on your end. To which he was then arrested.

Re: [Saegrimr] KittenHugz

PostPosted: Sun Feb 08, 2015 1:56 am
by Chindasvint
I am sorry if we were in violation of the rules. I did try hard not to do anything based on knowledge my character wouldn't possess and I figured that would be sufficient but I guess not.

Not sure why we would be reported though. Quey was just being helpful pulling people to cloning and the only reason Kitten and I were in the cloning room at the same time was because he came back of his own accord to get his brain damage fixed. Breaking into the armory was a poor choice in retrospect but was made for in-game reasons (desire to fight the spiders).

Re: [Saegrimr] KittenHugz

PostPosted: Sun Feb 08, 2015 2:07 am
by KittenHugz
So
to clarify,
We are all banned for playing together in order to learn the game.
By the rules you posted, the only rule we may have broken was #2 of the Roleplay Policy, and that calls for a 15 minute ban, not a permaban on all of us.

Re: [Saegrimr] KittenHugz

PostPosted: Sun Feb 08, 2015 2:12 am
by Saegrimr
I'm not sure what IC in OOC has to do with this, as you spoke all of, well now that I see two lines ever which would be netspeak IC.
[18:21:38]SAY: Reynard Buttersworth/KittenHugz : Ty ty
[18:40:24]SAY: Reynard Buttersworth/KittenHugz : Bork open door plox

And no, you are all banned for communicating out of game to gain an advantage in game. This is meta communicating, and punished very severely.

Re: [Saegrimr] KittenHugz

PostPosted: Sun Feb 08, 2015 3:15 am
by Quey
Yeah, netspeak in IC, generally poor form and whatnot, not evidence of metacomms and deserving of instapermaban. (I would note that this particular player would pronounce it "ty ty" and "plox" in real life. People occasionally utter the word "lol". If that's now an illegal playstyle deserving of permaban, harsh. I digress...)

Your assumption that two new players would defer to me is no reason to start throwing out permabans. Being a silicon, I have very different motivations from other characters, and I had no real goals that I would force players to follow. It shouldn't matter what I was playing. Your assumption is not only unwarranted, but flies in the face of everything I've said. I made sure to adminhelp that we were going to be playing before we started, and I explained the importance of not metagaming. If you won't take my word for it, fine, we can work out something else, but I refuse to accept a ban based on "mostly just assuming". If you can't trust us, we'll work with you to reach an understanding, but just repeating that we can't be trusted, "clearly", without addressing our statements will lead nowhere.

As for communicating out of game for an advantage, what advantage? Getting new players able to move and dress themselves is an advantage now? People often talk about general game mechanics ("How do I climb on tables?") in OOC, is that not allowed either?

Saegrimr wrote: "[18:39:38]SAY: Mateo Skywalker/Chindasvint : Borg, please open door" with no response on your end. To which he was then arrested.

So... it sounds like the source of the original complaint, the armory break in, was completely IC. Borgs and AI don't generally respond to every door order in chat.

In a broader sense, do we really want to discourage new players? If you can point out any metacommunicative advantage we had, fine, mea culpa, we understand the rules and we'll try not to do it again. If not, this is still a lesson learned, but we don't deserve a ban.

Bans are either to teach a lesson, punish malicious behavior, or remove shitty players from the community. Banning for mistakes doesn't really serve any of these purposes (an honest mistake can be explained and in the future avoided without having the players experience ruined with a ban). Of course a jobban might be warranted if a mistake is repeated multiple times.
So we've talked it out, explained we're not malicious, and none of us have a long history of shitty playing. This is at worst a simple, honest mistake. Where do we go from here?

Re: [Saegrimr] KittenHugz

PostPosted: Sun Feb 08, 2015 3:36 am
by Saegrimr
Quey wrote:Yeah, netspeak in IC, generally poor form and whatnot, not evidence of metacomms and deserving of instapermaban.

Has absolutely nothing to do with the ban, i'm not sure why that was brought up in the first place.

Quey wrote:Your assumption that two new players would defer to me is no reason to start throwing out permabans.

Actually that was my reason for not permabanning you as well, again, if theres some discrepancy about who wants to play I can fix that.

Quey wrote:I made sure to adminhelp that we were going to be playing before we started, and I explained the importance of not metagaming. If you won't take my word for it, fine, we can work out something else, but I refuse to accept a ban based on "mostly just assuming".

I checked in the logs, and two hours before the ban
[16:29:08]ADMIN: HELP: Quey/(Quey): So just letting you know, I have a couple players on my IP address. They're new and I'm showing them the game, and I've instructed them about not talking about IC stuff. - heard by 0 non-AFK admins who have +BAN.

While that's great you informed us of this, it apparently didn't carry over as we were getting more adminhelps about extremely obvious metacomms between the group of you, leading me to investigate further.

Quey wrote:As for communicating out of game for an advantage, what advantage? Getting new players able to move and dress themselves is an advantage now? People often talk about general game mechanics ("How do I climb on tables?") in OOC, is that not allowed either?


Wordlessly following eachother around for things like raiding the armory is just plain out. If you can't understand why this would present an advantage over other players to inform eachother about their locations and what they're doing without others knowing, then i'm not sure what more I can say to this.

Bans are either to teach a lesson, punish malicious behavior, or remove shitty players from the community. Banning for mistakes doesn't really serve any of these purposes (an honest mistake can be explained and in the future avoided without having the players experience ruined with a ban). Of course a jobban might be warranted if a mistake is repeated multiple times.
So we've talked it out, explained we're not malicious, and none of us have a long history of shitty playing. This is at worst a simple, honest mistake. Where do we go from here?[/quote]

And this is the lesson, follow the rules. A mistake would be a scientist blowing himself up after getting his mix wrong.
This was deliberate enough to be extremely obvious to another player who didn't have the luxury of following you around to watch.

Re: [Saegrimr] KittenHugz

PostPosted: Sun Feb 08, 2015 4:04 am
by Quey
i'm not sure why that was brought up in the first place.
I don't know, you brought it up. Let's drop it then.
Actually that was my reason for not permabanning you as well, again, if theres some discrepancy about who wants to play I can fix that.
We all want to play. If it's any help, future games would be on different IP addresses. What is this discrepancy between, exactly? If that's not the reason, why am I banned again?
While that's great you informed us of this, it apparently didn't carry over as we were getting more adminhelps about extremely obvious metacomms between the group of you, leading me to investigate further.
I don't know what I could've done about you not receiving it. As for extremely obvious metacomms, I don't know what you're talking about. I don't even know what the story is on the original report. And yes, we were playing for a long time before that. I think the round before I was AI and Chindasvint was a borg. We communicated in game, no fouls there. KittenHugz was mime I think? I think he was off doing his whole thing that round. But we were playing just fine before that, and nothing really changed.
Wordlessly following eachother around for things like raiding the armory is just plain out. If you can't understand why this would present an advantage over other players to inform eachother about their locations and what they're doing without others knowing, then i'm not sure what more I can say to this.
Honestly, I don't know what happened after the last time I saw them in the armory. As far as I know, they were just hanging out together since they were both lawyers. And communicating locations is hardly effective, as they could hardly navigate the station and don't really know where everything is. Yeah, maybe raiding the armory is bad, but that's an IC thing. They were hanging out in the brig together, as lawyers are wont to do, and saw me wander by. It's not like they roped me into this big heist and the three of us converged on the armory. I'm not saying what you bring up isn't a bad thing, just that's not what happened.
And this is the lesson, follow the rules. A mistake would be a scientist blowing himself up after getting his mix wrong.
This was deliberate enough to be extremely obvious to another player who didn't have the luxury of following you around to watch.
Now *I* don't know what more I can say to this. The question of whether or not it was deliberate skips over the question of if it happened at all. Further, if I hadn't been here to tell them the rules and they WERE metacommunicating, you'd ban them? Ignorance is no defense, but is that deserving of a permaban? Again, I insist no malicious behavior. If it was so obvious, could we have their statement? Because I have no idea what they said. If they reported two people breaking into the armory, that's IC. If they saw them wordlessly taking different paths through maint to get to the same locations, that'd be something else.

Re: [Saegrimr] KittenHugz

PostPosted: Sun Feb 08, 2015 4:37 am
by KittenHugz
What is this ban about then?
you have listed multiple rules and random threads but never made a clear accusation for what we have done wrong or for what rule we have broken.

Wordlessly following eachother around for things like raiding the armory is just plain out. If you can't understand why this would present an advantage over other players to inform eachother about their locations and what they're doing without others knowing, then i'm not sure what more I can say to this.

Chindasvint and I were in the same room constantly (except for the brief stint in cloning). I fail to see how following another person with the same job in game is proof of metagaming and OOC communication. I don't know what data you have from the game (chatlogs at least I'm guessing) but in replay you will see me attempting to break into the armory via shattering a window. After electrocuting myself I saw Chindasvint ask a cyborg to open the door, I then followed suit. We had no desire to go on a killing spree, but to take care of the spiders that we thought were a bigger problem than they apparently were.

And I'll repeat myself, by the rules of the wiki of this site and the rules that you are referring to, the only rule we may have possibly broken was rule #2 of the Roleplay Policy, which in the rule itself states "IC in OOC can be a no warning ban of 15 minutes". We had no knowledge of any bugs or exploits (rule #6 Primary Policies). We had no knowledge of who to target nor were we coordinating and randomly killing others to win the game (rule #4 Primary Policies). We had no persistent character relationships because this was my first time ever playing this game (rule #5 Roleplay Policy). And by rule #2 of Roleplay Policy and rule #11 of Primary Policies, a permaban with no warning is simply too harsh for an "offence" such as this.

If you have any actual evidence of us breaking rules that require a permaban, fine. If you want us to play from different locations from now on, fine. I just ask that you don't permaban 2/3 of us just for trying to learn the game.

Re: [Saegrimr] KittenHugz

PostPosted: Sun Feb 08, 2015 5:02 am
by Saegrimr
Enough.

Two out of the three of you were banned for what we called metacomms or metacommunication. That is, not using THE IN-GAME CHAT FOR COMMUNICATING IN-CHARACTER and instead talking directly to eachother about the current round through external means. Whether this is being in the same room, over skype, or over some other form of voip or instant messenger, it doesn't matter.

If you are not communicating IN CHARACTER to eachother IN GAME, this is not allowed.

Quey wrote:Further, if I hadn't been here to tell them the rules and they WERE metacommunicating, you'd ban them? Ignorance is no defense, but is that deserving of a permaban?

Yes.
This is probably one of the worst things you can do in this game, and one of the things that break the balance of the game the hardest.
This is a roleplaying game, and with that, you are expected to act on knowledge only your character would have and not through external means. It's straight up cheating.


If this is too much to comprehend i'd suggest finding a different game to play entirely.

Re: [Saegrimr] KittenHugz

PostPosted: Sun Feb 08, 2015 5:10 am
by Timbrewolf
Just chiming in to give you guys a second opinion from a Headmin:

Metacommunication, that is using out-of-game resources to talk to eachother and coordinate your in-game actions is a DO NOT PASS GO DO NOT COLLECT $200 instant permaban.

Rule #6
Don’t metagame. Do not ever use information, acquired out of character or through patterns or events your character would not be able to know, in game.


You used information (where you guys were, what you were doing) acquired out of character (via talking to directly to eachother) to affect what you were doing in the game.
We've had lots of problems with this ruining rounds and creating a lot of illwill in the community over the years to the point where we just boot for it immediately. It should be common sense that this isn't a game you're supposed to team up and play together. All the suspense, paranoia, and guessing of who is really what and what could be happening to others just around the corner gets ruined when you can team up and chat with your buds.

That aside, I find it kind of strange that your version of "teaching someone to play" involves looting the armory. But that doesn't seem to be the major issue here. There's nothing to really nickel-and-dime or rules-lawyer about it. You metacommunicated, you get permabanned. Straightfoward and simple as that.

Re: [Saegrimr] KittenHugz

PostPosted: Sun Feb 08, 2015 7:07 am
by Quey
Two out of the three of you were banned for what we called metacomms or metacommunication. That is, not using THE IN-GAME CHAT FOR COMMUNICATING IN-CHARACTER and instead talking directly to eachother about the current round through external means. Whether this is being in the same room, over skype, or over some other form of voip or instant messenger, it doesn't matter.

Just to be perfectly clear, no one is disputing that metacommunicating is bad, and specifically not allowed by the rules. The disconnect here is what actually happened. What is disputed is that communication involved in game content. If all communication were mechanical stuff that could be legally said in OOC, as the examples I gave ("How do I catch thrown items?" "Turn on throw with an empty hand"), as opposed to "Let's beat up the captain", would that be allowed?
This is probably one of the worst things you can do in this game, and one of the things that break the balance of the game the hardest.
This is a roleplaying game, and with that, you are expected to act on knowledge only your character would have and not through external means. It's straight up cheating.
I messed up. What I meant to say was if you had two newbs, first time playing, maybe they hadn't read the rules, they metacommunicated, would that be deserving of an immediate permaban?
If this is too much to comprehend i'd suggest finding a different game to play entirely.
Wow, be nice. I perfectly comprehend the rule and value it. I just don't think that's what happened.
You used information (where you guys were, what you were doing) acquired out of character (via talking to directly to eachother) to affect what you were doing in the game.
When?
There's nothing to really nickel-and-dime or rules-lawyer about it. You metacommunicated, you get permabanned. Straightfoward and simple as that.

The argument is
1. You metacommunicated.
2. Metacommunication deserves a permaban.
Therefore bans are to be meted out.

I don't dispute (2). I dispute (1).

Re: [Saegrimr] KittenHugz

PostPosted: Sun Feb 08, 2015 1:22 pm
by Saegrimr
Quey wrote:The argument is
1. You metacommunicated.
2. Metacommunication deserves a permaban.
Therefore bans are to be meted out.

I don't dispute (2). I dispute (1).


Alright then.
So you mean to tell me in this thrilling chatlog between you three for the entire round (scrubbed for numerous GASPing and Kitten's brain damage drooling after being cloned.), the intentions were clearly made in-character for all three parties about what they were doing? All information relating to what your characters were doing were absolutely not conveyed in a method that isn't in-game? Not even a single "Hey, over here" or "Come here" or "Lets do this" in the entire chat log. You're telling me that even by following eachother around, you and everybody else knew they raided the armory specifically to fight spiders before they were arrested and reported for it?

Each person involved has their own color. black for Quey, blue for Chinsdavint, and red for KittenHugz.

Spoiler:
[17:37:37]SAY: Quey/(ABJAD-mini) : Hello
[17:44:48]SAY: ABJAD-mini/Quey : <i>Suggest arrest of glackglack. Suspicion: murder.</i>
[17:46:34]SAY: Mateo Skywalker/Chindasvint : What was that
[17:47:21]SAY: ABJAD-mini/Quey : Do not kill Fenex.
[17:48:48]SAY: ABJAD-mini/Quey : Fenex is a threat to humans.
[17:49:11]SAY: ABJAD-mini/Quey : Lasers are nothing but harm.
[17:49:34]SAY: ABJAD-mini/Quey : Jesus not detected.
[17:49:56]SAY: ABJAD-mini/Quey : Order confirmed.
[17:50:33]SAY: Quey/(ABJAD-mini) : Confirmed.
[17:52:45]SAY: Quey/(ABJAD-mini) : Doesn&#39;t look like killing
[17:53:48]SAY: ABJAD-mini/Quey : Oh great Beepsky!
[17:54:09]SAY: ABJAD-mini/Quey : I serve
[17:57:20]SAY: Mateo Skywalker/Chindasvint : <i>Wormholes!</i>
[17:57:28]SAY: Quey/(ABJAD-mini) : Fenex lost. breaking off help order.
[17:57:38]EMOTE: Mateo Skywalker/Chindasvint : <B>Mateo Skywalker</B> seizes up and falls limp, his eyes dead and lifeless...
[17:57:56]SAY: ABJAD-mini/Quey : Stay safe!
[17:59:32]EMOTE: Reynard Buttersworth/KittenHugz : <B>Reynard Buttersworth</B> seizes up and falls limp, his eyes dead and lifeless...
[18:01:33]SAY: ABJAD-mini/Quey : Aye
[18:02:03]SAY: ABJAD-mini/Quey : Why?
[18:02:20]SAY: ABJAD-mini/Quey : Fenex says otherwise
[18:03:20]SAY: ABJAD-mini/Quey : I can release him
[18:05:14]SAY: ABJAD-mini/Quey : Why?
[18:09:08]SAY: Quey/(ABJAD-mini) : Hm?
[18:09:56]SAY: Quey/(ABJAD-mini) : Fun
[18:10:35]SAY: ABJAD-mini/Quey : Yes?
[18:10:43]SAY: ABJAD-mini/Quey : Use this one
[18:10:55]SAY: ABJAD-mini/Quey : If you like I can bolt the door
[18:12:37]SAY: ABJAD-mini/Quey : Please do not stab humans.
[18:14:55]SAY: ABJAD-mini/Quey : Body acquired.
[18:14:59]SAY: ABJAD-mini/Quey : Yes
[18:20:30]SAY: ABJAD-mini/Quey : Hello
[18:21:38]SAY: Reynard Buttersworth/KittenHugz : Ty ty
[18:22:43]SAY: Quey/(ABJAD-mini) : Camera lights?
[18:22:45]SAY: Mateo Skywalker/Chindasvint : Where&#39;s my body?
[18:23:18]SAY: Quey/(ABJAD-mini) : Upload is not missing
[18:23:43]SAY: Quey/(ABJAD-mini) : Which one is third?
[18:23:55]SAY: ABJAD-mini/Quey : This is upload
[18:24:32]SAY: Quey/(ABJAD-mini) : R&amp;D?
[18:27:26]SAY: ABJAD-mini/Quey : This unit is in need of repair
[18:27:42]SAY: ABJAD-mini/Quey : Thanks
[18:30:47]SAY: ABJAD-mini/Quey : <i>Careful</i>
[18:31:03]SAY: Quey/(ABJAD-mini) : What can I do about the tcomms?
[18:31:37]SAY: Quey/(ABJAD-mini) : I see
[18:34:20]SAY: Mateo Skywalker/Chindasvint : <i>AI, Door please.</i>
[18:37:31]SAY: ABJAD-mini/Quey : Please repair me
[18:37:58]SAY: ABJAD-mini/Quey : Thank you
[18:39:27]SAY: ABJAD-mini/Quey : Damage detectexd
[18:39:29]SAY: ABJAD-mini/Quey : Fuck
[18:39:38]SAY: Mateo Skywalker/Chindasvint : Borg, please open door
[18:39:53]SAY: Mateo Skywalker/Chindasvint : Borg, door again please?
[18:40:24]SAY: Reynard Buttersworth/KittenHugz : Bork open door plox
[18:41:51]SAY: Mateo Skywalker/Chindasvint : <i>AI door</i>
[18:42:11]SAY: ABJAD-mini/Quey : Wow
[18:42:12]SAY: Mateo Skywalker/Chindasvint : Borg, door pls
[18:42:40]SAY: Quey/(ABJAD-mini) : Terminate?
[18:44:21]SAY: ABJAD-mini/Quey : Yay?
[18:44:25]SAY: Quey/(ABJAD-mini) : How&#39;s that?

It's around this point they got arrested and then I jumped on to deal with the ahelp involving them.

[18:44:54]SAY: ABJAD-mini/Quey : It is under AI control
[18:44:59]SAY: Mateo Skywalker/Chindasvint : Just trying to help fight the spider menace sir.
[18:45:31]SAY: Quey/(ABJAD-mini) : Oh my
[18:46:02]SAY: Mateo Skywalker/Chindasvint : We don&#39;t believe in animal cruelty
[18:46:05]SAY: Quey/(ABJAD-mini) : Same
[18:47:36]SAY: Mateo Skywalker/Chindasvint : I wanted to fight spiders.
[18:48:45]SAY: ABJAD-mini/Quey : Gravitational flux data: 120.5 Hz, 25

Re: [Saegrimr] KittenHugz

PostPosted: Mon Feb 09, 2015 6:49 am
by Quey
No, I'm saying that the three of us were wandering independently. The first 20 minutes I was off doing engieborg things, while the other two were literally just wandering around and trying to wear clothes. Then the wormholes came and they both ended up dying. Over the next 20 minutes or so bodies stream into cloning, where I help out. Around 10 minutes later the spider attack comes, and I kill a couple with my welder. It looks like 18:39 is when I was in the brig repairing a hull breach when the two lawyers, hanging out in the brig as lawyers do, order me to open the armory. Having just come from a spider attack (and being repaired), I comply. So one ordered me to open the door, and the other followed and grabbed some equipment. I wasn't around for what happened next (since I was off doing other things), but it was just the second lawyer following the first, or Reynard following Mateo.

So did I know specifically that they planned to fight spiders? No. I would have opened that armory for someone who hadn't been causing trouble that round, balanced against the greater threat of harm from the spiders. Arming, say, Fenex or his abductor I would have trouble justifying under law 1, but otherwise it makes sense. In emergencies, it has occurred that I'll follow others to the armory to grab weapons, and wordlessly follow them out to confront the threat. Multiple times. Is it because I'm metacommunicating? No, it's just safer to have someone there to drag you back and shoot off the attacking spider/blob/xeno. Who would turn down a trip to the armory? Who, antags excluded, would follow someone else into the armory, then just shoot the person who helped them, or just not prefer to help out the person who helped them? I think it was a reasonable thing to do given the situation, and in IC terms, if a bit powergamey.

Re: [Saegrimr] KittenHugz

PostPosted: Mon Feb 09, 2015 3:44 pm
by Saegrimr
Which is why -you, specifically,- aren't banned.

Re: [Saegrimr] KittenHugz

PostPosted: Mon Feb 09, 2015 6:36 pm
by KittenHugz
could we see the contents of the reports against us?

Re: [Saegrimr] KittenHugz

PostPosted: Mon Feb 09, 2015 6:54 pm
by Saegrimr
The ahelps were simply "These two are obviously metagaming, they've been following eachother around wordlessly and just raided the armory", so I hopped on to investigate.

Re: [Saegrimr] KittenHugz

PostPosted: Wed Feb 11, 2015 8:39 pm
by KittenHugz
I believe we have completed our arguments
The defense holds that any metacomming was done accidentally and without malicious intent.
What is the final verdict?

Re: [Saegrimr] KittenHugz

PostPosted: Wed Feb 11, 2015 9:10 pm
by Saegrimr
You accidentally forgot to roleplay out interactions in a roleplaying game, and were punished for metacomms.

Since the three of you can't be trusted to play at the same time, figure out who wants to play spacemens more and he will remain unbanned. I defaulted to Quey out of the group of you because as I stated before I assumed the agreement would have come to him anyway since he is the "regular" out of the three of you (though he should have been more conscious of the rules, being here longer). If there is a disagreement between the three of you, I'll still default to Quey.

After a month or so, make another appeal to get the others unbanned.

Re: [Saegrimr] KittenHugz

PostPosted: Wed Feb 11, 2015 9:17 pm
by KittenHugz
I have a question and a request

Question: are future appeals more likely to be successful than this one? (if we wait the month or so and follow all other forum rules)

Request: on the wiki, I would like to see what the usual ban is for breaking particular rules. we were rather blindsided by a permaban when the most intensive ban referred to in the wiki rules was a few hours.

PS you are correct in assuming that Quey is the one that loves spacemen the most

Re: [Saegrimr] KittenHugz

PostPosted: Wed Feb 11, 2015 9:33 pm
by Saegrimr
Yes, and metacomms/metagaming typically end in permanent bans like these when discovered. Though usually for all parties involved.

Most permabans aren't always "permanent", usually as an indefinite timer until future appeals or if the person in question logs off before we can get the full story from him.