[<Mindstormy>] TheLoLSwat - ban

Appeals which have been closed.
Locked
User avatar
TheLoLSwat
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2022 9:56 pm
Byond Username: TheLoLSwat
Location: Captain's Office

[<Mindstormy>] TheLoLSwat - ban

Post by TheLoLSwat » #665594

BYOND account: TheLoLSwat
Character name: Lisa Green
Ban type: server
Ban length: 2 days
Ban reason: Image
Time ban was placed: 22:22:46
Server you were playing on when banned: sybil
Round ID in which ban was placed: 200128, logs are here if anyone is interested
Your side of the story & why you think you should be unbanned: For clairty, and an ATTEMPT to not write too much, I will merge these two sections.

Context

- Kendra hunter (my valentine) gave me an esword as a gift as seen here.
- while conversing with Kendra Hunter (we are also 1 tile from eachother and off to the side as to not interrupt anybody else), mr Max Power comes up to me (same distance that Kendra was, 1 tile) and does... i dont know (he just stood there, i think the typing indicator came up but i didnt understand what he was doing or trying to do
- Using the esword i had just recieved along with a laser gun, I attacked Max and was able to crit him in two esword hits and three laser shots while he fled towards escape (this is on icebox) and then looped around back outside medbay entrance. After going into crit, Max Power almost immediately succumbs to his injuries
- I take my leave, he was out in the open and right next to medbay. I intentionally did not stop attempts to revive them, but I also did not stop the crew from dismembering his corpse after explaining to them why i did what i did.
-Shortly after, I get a bwoink.

Now I know what you may be thinking reading those hastily thrown together bullet points, and rereading these points without my small commentary makes me almost believe that the admin had case to atleast note me. However, a deeper dive into the logs shows that it is not the case.

Last thing i will talk about before going into why the ban reason (in and of itself) is dumb is my "interaction" with Max Power that round.
- Max power enters brig (However, he had a free entryway into brig because of tide so I did not do more than yell at him and everyone else to get out since i usually had to process a prisoner or do somthing else important)
MASSIVE disclaimer: unlike the other points i have made, this is the only one that I dont have log support for, this is either because 1. Max power never entered brig (which is not true), or 2. I am separating the one instance into two which or 3. Max power entered just to be weird and stare (which although I am pretty certain this is the case, I cant say in full confidence because I cannot find log evidence). This point isnt going to be the one that makes or breaks my appeal anyway, just some added potential context.

- Max Power enters brig while I have another confirmed traitor cuffed and about to process them. After a few seconds of posturing (I was not getting a good feeling about the guy because he was just staring at me and not even saying anything so I opted to use the traitor chaplain as a meat shield just incase he pulls out a gun or something), Max power comes at me with a stun baton and promptly gets blammed for it after missing me.
- After shooting Max, I let him run out of brig without even giving chase because (IC, forefront reasoning): I had to process the prisoner and I wanted to throw the chaplain in jail for breaking into a sec locker and also being a traitor instead of risking losing both a footchase and leaving the prisoner unguarded when brig is wide open. (OOC, back-of-mind reasoning): I wanted to give Max some time to contact me when we are lightyears away via PDA or radio if he wanted to de-escalate. Not only did neither of this happen, Max also only said 6 things over comms in over 20 minutes, with one of them being "O" (although this may be irrelevant, it just helps to show the actions taken (or i guess not taken) by Max which further lead me to believe that he was up to no good).

With all this out of the way, I can do an almost complete 180 (if you think this is going to be jarring just imagine what I was going through experiencing an admin do this to me in real time) and talk about the actual reason I was banned. Powergaming.

Before we start (yeah whatever i know ive been saying that a lot im sorry rule 12 is a beast so i need to leave no doubt here) lets get a few terms out of the way.

Powergaming in its most "pure" form is essentially using any game mechanic (intended or not) with the purpose of furthering a goal. I suspect that the wording of these two statements in rule 12 precedent 1 matching with my own definition is not a coincidence. I would even go a bit further to say that the wording is intentional in order to differentiate "pure" powergaming and what rule 12 is trying to combat (playing to win)

Validhunting in its most "pure" form is essentially... going around hunting people down. What differentiates validhunting and hunting someone that is valid is that validhunter's have notoriously bad motives for doing something as drastic as removing someone, and instead hiding behind rule 4 to not get banned for killing.

Given these two definitions, I believe that the admin meant to use the term "validhunt" instead of "powergame" as it is closer in line with rule 12 (playing to win). and as such unless otherwise specificed I will be using the terms validhunt instead of powergame where it applies.

The part where i go over the ban reason, TLDR

Excessive powergaming: The reason that I decided to call this validhunting instead of powergaming is because of the wording used by the admin during the ticket. I dont have access to these logs but I would really appreciate it if the banning admin or another admin that has access to it can post. I can confidently say, however.

I was not playing to "win", when it was in the best interest of the narrative of the round I let antagonists go, or gave them a large obstacle (such as perma) to see if they could overcome it, or even avoided fighting them to instead quickly create a gap despite certain death (probably) if i fail, and this all happened in the same round i was banned for essentially violating rule 12, which covers playing to win. below are a few examples
- Did not harm my traitor valentine, even though this is the weakest counterpoint it still counts towards not "playing to win", especially considering there are many loopholes to ruining someones round without harming them that a validhunter wouldve gone through in order to "win" at both their valentines objective and also the general "kill/permanently incapacitate antag" traditional validhunt method
- Caught a traitor dead to rights breaking a security locker open with an emag and only threw him in perma, figuring that he will have an escape. (OOC)
- Was sleepy pen'd by a traitor and instead of using the 30 seconds to lethal and RR like someone that is playing to win wouldve, I juked him into the teleporter room and closed the portal to buy myself just enough time to run downstairs and wait off the sleep. I of course threatened Weston and I probably wouldve beaten him (bad) but I confidently wouldnt have executed him, especially on lowpop. I know this is entering "wouldvecouldveshouldve" territory but I hope that my previous examples can
-Instead of gunning down a "friendly" (was saccing people in the halls on lowpop and wasnt actively going around murderboning i guess) heretic, i gave a suggestion that allowed both of us to go on with our day while still keeping him close by just in case i need to smack him for doing even more dumb heretic stuff (obviously i was going a little light because they were doing a gimmick)

Not to say i was perfect that round, as I did shoot quite a few people that didnt want to leave sec (and that were actively robbing it after i told them to drop the locker and kick rocks). However, i dont believe it is relevant when talking about a powergaming ban.

Regularly ignores duties as captain to powergame: This one upset me. If NOTHING else, I pride myself on actually trying to lead the station during threats (or lead them into despair and urge them to get off station if its hopeless). I always make sure power is up, through threatening engineers with jail time if i have to go down there to set it up myself. I spent damn near TWENTY minutes with (also power came on here) the rest of the crew trying to figure it out, which i might add you didnt even help with despite:
- specifically being asked to help in as IC of a way as i can without disrupting the flow of the shift with admins just turning on the lights and going "fixed lol" which honestly also wouldnt have been a bad idea considering, but I wont fight against your choice to instead check my player panel and follow me (from words used in the ahelp, please correct me if im wrong as i do not have access to the logs) because im not the admin so surely whatever reasoning you have made it worth ignoring the entire server when the shuttle was about to be un-recallable and power had to miraculously come back on after Kendra (i believe but im too lazy to check and ive been working on this all evening)
- We were going to speedurn the shuttle because we all (i floated the idea and nobody seemed to disagree since nobody could figure it out) legitimately believed that something out of our control was fucking with the power.
I cant provide too many examples as this was a short shift on top of being lowpop, but I hope that my previously seen captain gameplay and the small interactions i had this round can help prove that I actually give a damn about my captain job. I am confident that i am wording this atleast decently but make no mistake, I am very disappointed with the adminwork done in this ticket. I dont believe that the admin was acting in good faith (or at the very least being very negligent) and if I can read the logs I can at the very least either have concrete logs to back up my claim, or I can apologize for to accusation and we can get back to processing the appeal part of this appeal.

Finally, Disk has been left unsecure on nearly every shift Lisa was captain for: This is just untrue. Could you tell me where i leave the disk "nearly every shift" that isnt secure? perhaps there is a contraption that is specifically designed to hold smaller things.... Its also almost as if there is a special code so that only the code-haver can access the contents of this mystery contraption... If only there was a name to perfectly describe in as few letters as possible the point of this mystery contraption and what it is supposed to do...

Im also not sure why this is part of the ban reason, considering protecting the disk in a different non traditional way isnt really "incompetence", especially when you look at the numerous examples that i spent hours curating and getting log evidence for to prove that im not an incompetent captain, or one that ignores captain duties to "validhunt". Would you bwoink a captain for surgically implanting the disk inside the clown, or putting it in an infinite disposals loop? The nuclear disk also came into play exactly 0 times that round And i dont believe my note history supports you adding it to the ban reason because you disagree with my playstyle and how i choose to protect the disk.

I hope to get the note removed as I dont believe it is fair to apply considering everything i just said. I would also like atleast a few other admins to check the ahelp logs and ask themselves if it was handled appropriately by the admin (this can be done privately, I just hope I can encourage a few staff members to poke their head into it). I want to say that this admin is acting in bad faith but I know that I have bias so I just want to put everything i can out and let conclusions be drawn where they may

will be editing and all that just hope to get the first draft out

ps. This is a long post but I am open to discussion about this if (when i guess?) you disagree. It feels like you started yelling at me for something rule 1 related (why did you rr that guy being asked when i didnt even behead the fucking guy), and as soon as I was able to explain why i did what I did, you pivoted it to rule 12 and then went "ok yeah powergamer + you obviously dont banned see you on forums" and then went radio silent before banning me when my actions clearly werent in violation of rule 12, i wasnt playing to win!!!!!!! I spared the only traitor i was able to actually catch by putting him in perma, and didnt even use the esword on him when he won a fight against me, knowing that he has syndicate gear and refuses to go back to jail. I really dont mean to rant but I cant say at all that I believed you did due diligence especially when it comes to a rule as complex as rule 12.
User avatar
Archie700
In-Game Admin
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2016 1:56 am
Byond Username: Archie700

Re: [<Mindstormy>] TheLoLSwat - ban

Post by Archie700 » #665652

Leaving the disk in a safe is considered unsecured for the purposes of the lone agent weighting event.

Code: Select all

09:21:31	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 1.		
09:26:28	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 2.		
09:29:37	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 3.		
09:30:29	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 4.		
09:31:22	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 5.		
09:33:23	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 6.		
09:36:27	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 7.		
09:40:32	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 8.		
09:46:47	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 9.		
09:48:31	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 10.		
09:54:10	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 11.		
09:55:46	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 12.		
09:56:00	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 13.		
09:56:02	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 14.		
10:00:34	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 15.		
10:00:48	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 16.		
10:01:24	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 17.		
10:02:04	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 18.		
10:03:25	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 19.		
10:03:49	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 20.		
10:04:50	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 21.		
10:05:16	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 22.		
10:05:57	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 23.		
10:07:10	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 24.		
10:08:11	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 25.		
10:10:47	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 26.		
10:10:51	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 27.		
10:11:03	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 28.		
10:11:29	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 29.		
10:13:07	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 30.		
10:13:45	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 31.		
10:14:38	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 32.		
10:14:42	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 33.		
10:14:52	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 34.		
10:14:54	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 35.		
10:15:43	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 36.		
10:16:46	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 37.		
10:16:54	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 38.		
10:17:46	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 39.		
10:18:21	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 40.		
10:18:39	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 41.		
10:19:27	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 42.		
10:20:06	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 43.		
10:21:17	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 44.		
10:22:11	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 45.		
10:22:38	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 46.		
10:22:55	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 47.		
10:23:15	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 48.		
10:23:35	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 49.		
10:24:50	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 50.		
10:24:54	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 51.		
10:25:30	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 52.		
10:26:02	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 53.		
10:26:06	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 54.		
10:26:15	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 55.		
10:26:43	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 56.		
10:28:37	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 57.		
10:29:24	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 58.		
10:30:08	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 59.		
10:31:59	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 60.		
10:34:10	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 61.		
10:34:29	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 62.		
10:34:43	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 63.		
10:35:34	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 64.		
10:35:40	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 65.		
10:36:00	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 66.		
10:36:37	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 67.		
10:36:47	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 68.		
10:36:59	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 69.		
10:38:04	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 70.		
10:38:32	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 71.		
10:38:38	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 72.		
10:39:12	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 73.		
10:39:20	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 74.		
10:39:26	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 75.		
10:39:33	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 76.		
10:39:52	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 77.		
10:40:26	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 78.		
10:40:37	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 79.		
10:40:48	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 80.		
10:41:19	GAME	The nuclear authentication disk was left unsecured in (Captain's Office (126,127,4)). Weight of the Lone Operative event increased to 81.	
Lisa and Max's interactions:

Code: Select all

09:49:08	ATTACK	1337gamer420/(Max Power) attacked [firelock] with the stun baton	(108, 175, 4)	Brig Overlook
09:49:08	ATTACK	TheLoLSwat/(Lisa Green) shot 1337gamer420/(Max Power) with the hellfire laser (NEWHP: 64.4)	(106, 175, 3)	Brig
09:49:08	ATTACK	1337gamer420/(Max Power) suffered: Second Degree Burns to head | Damage: 25 (rolled 8/90.5975) | BWB: 40
Seperated because timing between attacks.

Code: Select all

09:54:30	ATTACK	TheLoLSwat/(Lisa Green) attacked 1337gamer420/(Max Power) with energy sword (COMBAT MODE: 0) (DAMTYPE: BRUTE) (NEWHP: 76)	(148, 125, 4)	Medbay Lobby
09:54:30	ATTACK	1337gamer420/(Max Power) suffered: Weeping Avulsion to left arm | Damage: 30 (rolled 80/116.942) | BWB: 20	(149, 125, 4)	Medbay Lobby
09:54:35	ATTACK	1337gamer420/(Max Power) fired a puff of reagents from [floor] with the pepperspray with a range of [3], containing /datum/reagent/consumable/condensedcapsaicin (1.7u, 1 purity).	(157, 129, 4)	Starboard Primary Hallway
09:54:35	ATTACK	1337gamer420/(Max Power) fired a puff of reagents from a pepperspray with a range of [3] and containing /datum/reagent/consumable/condensedcapsaicin (1.7u, 1 purity).	(157, 129, 4)	Starboard Primary Hallway
09:54:35	ATTACK	1337gamer420/(Max Power) sprayed [firelock] with the pepperspray which had /datum/reagent/consumable/condensedcapsaicin (1.7u, 1 purity)	(157, 129, 4)	Starboard Primary Hallway
09:54:35	ATTACK	1337gamer420/(Max Power) sprayed [floor] with the pepperspray which had /datum/reagent/consumable/condensedcapsaicin (1.7u, 1 purity)	(157, 129, 4)	Starboard Primary Hallway
09:54:35	ATTACK	1337gamer420/(Max Power) sprayed [floor] with the pepperspray which had /datum/reagent/consumable/condensedcapsaicin (1.7u, 1 purity)	(159, 129, 4)	Starboard Primary Hallway
09:54:35	ATTACK	1337gamer420/(Max Power) sprayed [�Starboard Primary Hallway fire alarm] with the pepperspray which had /datum/reagent/consumable/condensedcapsaicin (1.7u, 1 purity)	(161, 129, 4)	Starboard Primary Hallway
09:54:35	ATTACK	1337gamer420/(Max Power) sprayed [floor] with the pepperspray which had /datum/reagent/consumable/condensedcapsaicin (1.7u, 1 purity)	(161, 129, 4)	Starboard Primary Hallway
09:54:36	ATTACK	1337gamer420/(Max Power) fired a puff of reagents from [floor] with the pepperspray with a range of [3], containing /datum/reagent/consumable/condensedcapsaicin (1.7u, 1 purity).	(162, 129, 4)	Starboard Primary Hallway
09:54:36	ATTACK	1337gamer420/(Max Power) fired a puff of reagents from a pepperspray with a range of [3] and containing /datum/reagent/consumable/condensedcapsaicin (1.7u, 1 purity).	(162, 129, 4)	Starboard Primary Hallway
09:54:36	ATTACK	1337gamer420/(Max Power) sprayed [floor] with the pepperspray which had /datum/reagent/consumable/condensedcapsaicin (1.7u, 1 purity)	(162, 129, 4)	Starboard Primary Hallway
09:54:36	ATTACK	1337gamer420/(Max Power) sprayed [floor] with the pepperspray which had /datum/reagent/consumable/condensedcapsaicin (1.7u, 1 purity)	(164, 129, 4)	Starboard Primary Hallway
09:54:36	ATTACK	1337gamer420/(Max Power) sprayed [table] with the pepperspray which had /datum/reagent/consumable/condensedcapsaicin (1.7u, 1 purity)	(165, 129, 4)	Starboard Primary Hallway
09:54:36	ATTACK	1337gamer420/(Max Power) sprayed [floor] with the pepperspray which had /datum/reagent/consumable/condensedcapsaicin (1.7u, 1 purity)	(165, 129, 4)	Starboard Primary Hallway
09:54:45	ATTACK	TheLoLSwat/(Lisa Green) shot 1337gamer420/(Max Power) with the hellfire laser (NEWHP: 77.1)	(183, 127, 4)	Starboard Primary Hallway
09:54:45	ATTACK	1337gamer420/(Max Power) suffered: Third Degree Burns to head | Damage: 25 (rolled 89/90.5975) | BWB: 40	(185, 125, 4)	Starboard Primary Hallway
09:54:46	ATTACK	TheLoLSwat/(Lisa Green) attacked 1337gamer420/(Max Power) with energy sword (COMBAT MODE: 0) (DAMTYPE: BRUTE) (NEWHP: 16)	(184, 125, 4)	Starboard Primary Hallway
09:54:46	ATTACK	1337gamer420/(Max Power) suffered: Weeping Avulsion to head | Damage: 35 (rolled 75/145.109) | BWB: 20	(185, 125, 4)	Starboard Primary Hallway
09:54:46	ATTACK	TheLoLSwat/(Lisa Green) fired at 1337gamer420/(Max Power) with the hellfire laser from Starboard Primary Hallway (NEWHP: 17)	(187, 124, 4)	Starboard Primary Hallway
09:54:47	ATTACK	TheLoLSwat/(Lisa Green) shot 1337gamer420/(Max Power) with the hellfire laser (NEWHP: 17)	(187, 126, 4)	Starboard Primary Hallway
09:54:47	ATTACK	1337gamer420/(Max Power) suffered: Catastrophic Burns to head | Damage: 30 (rolled 92/116.942) | BWB: 40	(184, 128, 4)	Starboard Primary Hallway
09:54:47	ATTACK	TheLoLSwat/(Lisa Green) fired at 1337gamer420/(Max Power) with the hellfire laser from Starboard Primary Hallway (NEWHP: -13)	(187, 127, 4)	Starboard Primary Hallway
09:54:50	ATTACK	TheLoLSwat/(Lisa Green) grabbed 1337gamer420/(Max Power) passive grab (NEWHP: -11.1)	(182, 129, 4)	Starboard Primary Hallway
09:54:53	ATTACK	1337gamer420/(Max Power) Has succumbed to death with -11.2 points of health!	(173, 129, 4)	Starboard Primary Hallway
09:54:53	ATTACK	1337gamer420/(Max Power) has died (BRUTE: 64.2, BURN: 53.4, TOX: 0, OXY: 89.8, CLONE: 0)	(173, 129, 4)	Starboard Primary Hallway
09:55:13	ATTACK	TheLoLSwat/(Lisa Green) is stripping *no key*/(Max Power) of the advanced MOD control unit.	(165, 129, 4)	Starboard Primary Hallway
09:55:13	ATTACK	TheLoLSwat/(Lisa Green) is pickpocketing *no key*/(Max Power) of the flash (left)	(165, 129, 4)	Starboard Primary Hallway
09:55:13	ATTACK	TheLoLSwat/(Lisa Green) is pickpocketing *no key*/(Max Power) of the gas analyzer (right)	(165, 129, 4)	Starboard Primary Hallway
09:55:17	ATTACK	TheLoLSwat/(Lisa Green) has stripped *no key*/(Max Power) of the flash.	(165, 129, 4)	Starboard Primary Hallway
09:55:17	ATTACK	TheLoLSwat/(Lisa Green) has stripped *no key*/(Max Power) of the gas analyzer.	(165, 129, 4)	Starboard Primary Hallway
09:55:22	ATTACK	TheLoLSwat/(Lisa Green) has stripped *no key*/(Max Power) of the advanced MOD control unit.	(165, 129, 4)	Starboard Primary Hallway
09:55:26	ATTACK	*no key*/(Max Power) suffered: Compound Fracture to head | Damage: 23.4 (rolled 78/82.5852) | BWB: 20	(164, 129, 4)	Starboard Primary Hallway
User avatar
Vekter
In-Game Admin
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 10:25 pm
Byond Username: Vekter
Location: Fucking around with the engine.

Re: [<Mindstormy>] TheLoLSwat - ban

Post by Vekter » #665727

Archie700 wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2023 11:46 am Leaving the disk in a safe is considered unsecured for the purposes of the lone agent weighting event.
To expand on this, the code specifically looks for whether or not the disk is 1) in the possession of a mob with a valid mind datum (ie "any player that's not SSD") and 2) moving. While there's an argument to be had regarding whether or not it's considered secured while locked in a safe, when admins refer to the disk being secured, it's usually in this context and less the literal definition of safe.
AliasTakuto wrote: Thu Jan 04, 2024 1:11 pm As for the ear replacing stuff, you can ask Anne but I don't think this is what I was banned for. If I was all I can say is "Sorry for being hilarious"...
Omega_DarkPotato wrote:This sucks, dude.
Spoiler:
Reply PM from-REDACTED/(REDACTED): i tried to remove the bruises by changing her gender

PM: Bluespace->Delaron: Nobody wants a mime's asscheeks farting on their brig windows.

PM: REDACTED->HotelBravoLima: Oh come on, knowing that these are hostile aliens is metagaming

[17:43] <Aranclanos> any other question ping me again
[17:43] <Vekter> Aranclanos for nicest coder 2015
[17:44] <Aranclanos> fuck you
User avatar
Scriptis
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2021 12:05 am
Byond Username: Scriptis

Re: [<Mindstormy>] TheLoLSwat - ban

Post by Scriptis » #665787

Full disclosure: I've regularly trolled Lisa Green ingame (with admin tools) over putting the disk in the safe at the start of the shift and then forgetting about it, and I spoke with Mindstormy before this ban was placed.

Putting the disk into the safe--especially when you're aware it will spawn a lone operative--runs afoul, at least to me, of rule five:

Code: Select all

5. Players in a head of staff, AI/Silicon role, or a team conversion role require a minimum amount of effort; generally considered to be not logging out at or near roundstart.
The "bare minimum effort" for the captain is generally considered to be actually securing the disk. You've been bullied ICly extensively (including with admin tools) over this, and in Discord, so actual admin intervention was the natural conclusion to this path.

I don't believe, given the extensive communication provided to you, that you didn't know that it just looks like "Lone Op Maxxing."

In 14 of your last 18 captain shifts, the disk remained unsecured in the Captain's Quarters (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14).

You have an extensive history regarding poor play in a command role, and yet you still take a riot helmet, a SEChud, an entire box of flashbangs, teargas, and a DRAGnet at the start of every shift you're captain--regardless of population or the size of your security team--and all without securing the disk. In short, you're just playing security as the captain. That's fine in small doses, but when it's all you do as the captain, it becomes an issue.
Image
Spoiler:
Image

Image

Image
User avatar
TheLoLSwat
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2022 9:56 pm
Byond Username: TheLoLSwat
Location: Captain's Office

Re: [<Mindstormy>] TheLoLSwat - ban

Post by TheLoLSwat » #665804

TLDR : nukie disk code doesnt have any actual ingame indicators so does it count? Isnt using it to powergame the disk (by keeping it constantly moving in an infinite disposals loop) actually in violation of rule 12? The disk also can be objectively secured while the two variables for it not being secured are ticked. Also scriptis shouldnt use admin powers (in bad faith i believe) to mess with players that he personally doesnt like and then consider it "[administrative] extensive communication"

Vekter wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2023 5:30 pm
Archie700 wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2023 11:46 am Leaving the disk in a safe is considered unsecured for the purposes of the lone agent weighting event.
To expand on this, the code specifically looks for whether or not the disk is 1) in the possession of a mob with a valid mind datum (ie "any player that's not SSD") and 2) moving. While there's an argument to be had regarding whether or not it's considered secured while locked in a safe, when admins refer to the disk being secured, it's usually in this context and less the literal definition of safe.
I also saw the logs involving the lone op event chances (for lack of a better term) and didnt believe that it was relevant because that number will increase only when those two variables are met, and not if the disk is "unsecured" in the rule sense. There are numerous examples of the disk being "secured" in the sense of the term while still meeting the two variables for the lone op event chance to increase. just one is:
- putting the disk in a bed in the middle of the bridge and having a borg construct a few reinforced windows around the disk to allow the crew to wave to it. Even though the two variables are met, as long as the captain is around atleast marginally (and really anyone can see / call out if someone is messing with the disky in bed) you cant really call the disk "unsecured"
An analogy if you still dont get it, The Chachapoyan Fertility Idol was left 1) not in any persons possession and 2) certainly not moving around. However, nobody can say that it wasnt secured, as nobody was able to take it until the main character of an adventure film decided to try. I Know you are just explaining it vekter so i dont mean to sperg on you but
Scriptis wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2023 8:12 pm Full disclosure: I've regularly trolled Lisa Green ingame (with admin tools) over putting the disk in the safe at the start of the shift and then forgetting about it, and I spoke with Mindstormy before this ban was placed.

Putting the disk into the safe--especially when you're aware it will spawn a lone operative--runs afoul, at least to me, of rule five:

Code: Select all

5. Players in a head of staff, AI/Silicon role, or a team conversion role require a minimum amount of effort; generally considered to be not logging out at or near roundstart.
The "bare minimum effort" for the captain is generally considered to be actually securing the disk. You've been bullied ICly extensively (including with admin tools) over this, and in Discord, so actual admin intervention was the natural conclusion to this path.

I don't believe, given the extensive communication provided to you, that you didn't know that it just looks like "Lone Op Maxxing."
Is this "extensive communication" in the room with us now? You admit to using your admin powers to bully me IC for playing in a way that you disagree with, and now you are saying that it is a valid substitute to actually bwoinking me at ANY POINT in those 18 rounds to go "hey i know youre doing a bit, but its actually teetering on rule 5 when you keep leaving the disk in the safe" or something similar?

How is teleporting the disk out of the safe into the captains bed and making a centcomm announcement that states something along the lines of "disky is tired captain give them a kiss :D". I picked up the disk and put it back in the safe after giving it a kiss goodnight (i think?) and then you did it again but this time breaking the safe with admin powers. This repeated with every safe on the station and I believed that you were just conducting a small event since i was aware that you are very against my playstyle ICly. There was also the part where you sent a centcomm official with a suicide bomb which destroyed the bridge... but ill treat it as escalation since we went back and forth about the disk thing (If im not completely accurate please correct me, im going off memory to give a better insight when they wonder what you mean by using admin tools to troll me)
Scriptis wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2023 8:12 pm
In 14 of your last 18 captain shifts, the disk remained unsecured in the Captain's Quarters (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14).
Going by your wording, im guessing that those are rounds where the disk remained in place inside the safe. If this is so, doesnt this help my case? The disk usually stays in the safe and i forget about it because a lone op doesnt spawn or they die or the shuttle comes and we all forget about it. If a nukie is spotted anywhere on the station, or comms and AI go down suspiciously fast i do keep the disk in my hands. I'm also guessing in those other 4 rounds nukies actually spawned, or I died before the disk was moved from the safe (and the station didnt blow up from a lone op, huh!)
Scriptis wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2023 8:12 pm You have an extensive history regarding poor play in a command role, and yet you still take a riot helmet, a SEChud, an entire box of flashbangs, teargas, and a DRAGnet at the start of every shift you're captain--regardless of population or the size of your security team--and all without securing the disk. In short, you're just playing security as the captain. That's fine in small doses, but when it's all you do as the captain, it becomes an issue.
This point might make the least sense out of all of them. Youre using rule 12 evidence to justify this entire post which is you yelling at me for not following rule 5 and being a good captain when i have multiple pieces of log evidence showing me captain the station in big or small ways in the same round i was banned! I also have multiple pieces of log evidence to show that I dont play to win (as evident when I had meaningful unique roleplay with almost every antag, again supported by logs) in the same round i was banned! I'm happy to have a discussion about the philosophy of keeping the disk somewhere stationary (but well protected) vs mobile but not as well protected but is a ban appeal forum really the place to force me to explain this stuff? when i have NO related note history (that i know of actually correct me if im wrong) to rule 5 and leaving the disk in the safe, and i am pretty sure i dont even have a bwoink where i was told that I had to stop doing it.

I thought when you used your admin powers to inconvenience me at varying levels (like allowing the entire crew to teleport the disk to them, or making the antique laser gun heavy roundstart, or putting glue on it roundstart), I thought it was you poking a bit of fun with admin powers and i believed that you did it in good faith and you wouldve actually informed me if you thought the actions i took were rule breaking or coming close at all. You dont have to respond but i need to just ask why you didnt bwoink me if you actually had an administrative problem with my captain play, considering how often you observe me just to mess with me using admin tools
User avatar
Scriptis
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2021 12:05 am
Byond Username: Scriptis

Re: [<Mindstormy>] TheLoLSwat - ban

Post by Scriptis » #665811

You're not wrong, and I could've communicated things better! From where I'm standing, you've made really solid progress with respect to your playstyle whenever a proper admin intervention occurred:

Code: Select all

2023-01-17 20:53:40 Rule 12- Asked not to build turrets as the captain in their office roundstart every round. Was told to wait for valid in character reasoning before doing so. 
You stopped building turrets at the start of the round FNR;

Code: Select all

2023-01-07 20:44:20 As Captain, had their shoes removed and placed next to them by the CE-turned-monkey. Responded by blasting the monkey to death with the hellfire laser, despite being loaded with nonlethal sec gear, and left the monkey's corpse in Engineering. Even if monkeys have reduced escalation, you probably shouldn't be executing them over minor shoe theft if you're got tons of alternatives on you.
You've started making a conscious effort to respect keeping other players in the round,

Code: Select all

2022-12-25 08:44:29 As HoS, called the shuttle multiple times early into the round stating 'it's a greenshift'. Warned to not call shuttle without proper reason or shuttle vote.
You've started making more of an effort to not end the round prematurely,

Code: Select all

2022-12-21 21:52:52 Banned from the server for (approximately) 1 day - Violation of rule 12, excessive power gaming. As captain, round start equipped themselves with the captain's laser, riot helmet, hand-tele, box of flashbangs, dragnet, sec hud, energy gun, pepper spray, flash, and a medkit. Put the other hand tele and fire axe into the captain's spare ID safe. Has similarly equipped themselves consecutively rounds prior. Continued with the round wandering around the station looking for trouble, with the majority of their say logs being threats. You’ve been warned about similar incidents in the past. Appeal on the forums if you think this misrepresents you.

December 22nd, 2022 Edit from san7890: This ban was originally placed for three days, but was shortened upon appeal at https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=660128#p660128.
and you've almost cut it out with the round-start gear rush.

I really, honestly, truly just felt that all you needed was a bit more time to bake, and that approaching you as a player, rather than an admin, would've gotten the point across--you're actually very receptive to feedback. But I'm not every admin, and others can still hold you more accountable than I can!

You're free to tuck diskie into bed, or put it in a safe, or whatever, as long as it isn't every single round. These things are fine in moderation--but at some point it stops being funny and becomes "this player just doesn't want to participate in the capacity their role implies." Similarly, you're free to team up with security every now and then and direct your focus there, but when your entire playstyle becomes defined by "I am security but with all-access," things start to get problematic. Especially when you're making a mad dash for the armory at the start of every shift!
Image
Spoiler:
Image

Image

Image
User avatar
TheLoLSwat
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2022 9:56 pm
Byond Username: TheLoLSwat
Location: Captain's Office

Re: [<Mindstormy>] TheLoLSwat - ban

Post by TheLoLSwat » #665824

TLDR: response to scriptis
Scriptis wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2023 9:32 pm You're not wrong, and I could've communicated things better! From where I'm standing, you've made really solid progress with respect to your playstyle whenever a proper admin intervention occurred:

Code: Select all

2023-01-17 20:53:40 Rule 12- Asked not to build turrets as the captain in their office roundstart every round. Was told to wait for valid in character reasoning before doing so. 
You stopped building turrets at the start of the round FNR;

Code: Select all

2023-01-07 20:44:20 As Captain, had their shoes removed and placed next to them by the CE-turned-monkey. Responded by blasting the monkey to death with the hellfire laser, despite being loaded with nonlethal sec gear, and left the monkey's corpse in Engineering. Even if monkeys have reduced escalation, you probably shouldn't be executing them over minor shoe theft if you're got tons of alternatives on you.
You've started making a conscious effort to respect keeping other players in the round,

Code: Select all

2022-12-25 08:44:29 As HoS, called the shuttle multiple times early into the round stating 'it's a greenshift'. Warned to not call shuttle without proper reason or shuttle vote.
You've started making more of an effort to not end the round prematurely,

Code: Select all

2022-12-21 21:52:52 Banned from the server for (approximately) 1 day - Violation of rule 12, excessive power gaming. As captain, round start equipped themselves with the captain's laser, riot helmet, hand-tele, box of flashbangs, dragnet, sec hud, energy gun, pepper spray, flash, and a medkit. Put the other hand tele and fire axe into the captain's spare ID safe. Has similarly equipped themselves consecutively rounds prior. Continued with the round wandering around the station looking for trouble, with the majority of their say logs being threats. You’ve been warned about similar incidents in the past. Appeal on the forums if you think this misrepresents you.

December 22nd, 2022 Edit from san7890: This ban was originally placed for three days, but was shortened upon appeal at https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=660128#p660128.
and you've almost cut it out with the round-start gear rush.
I know I've been improving as a player. Any time i recieve a bwoink i make a concious effort to change and nobody can tell me that I dont, I dont try to cheese my way around rulebreaking or anything silly, I figure out what I can do to keep my gimmick interesting but still within the confines of the rules.

I still struggle to understand what you mean with this though
Scriptis wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2023 9:32 pm and you've almost cut it out with the round-start gear rush.
I dont think that you understand how rule 12 is applied in the context of the ban reason. All of those items are listed because i actively used them to hunt down antags or deny them of traitor objectives (IE; playing to win which is why the words "violation of rule 12" is what is infront of it). I hid the hand tele and put the fireaxe in the safe which (no matter what i say) big nonos when it comes to PLAYING TO WIN (which is rule 12). Do you notice why I keep repeating what rule 12 essentially boils down to?

Because in this context, Im not using those items to win! I dont go around hunting antags (as evident when im not even carrying extra lethal equipment on me from the armory, instead only grabbing a box of nonlethals + 1 and a dragnet, along with (lets be real here) a dogass helmet that i ONLY wear at all times so i can conveniently hotbox a greytider with teargas (the melee protection is cool but only a consequence, as I wouldnt look the riot helmets way at all if it didnt block capsicum spray (of the one teargas grenade that i carry for emergencies lol). I also dont grab gear until blue alert is issued (and captain / security have reason to believe enemies of the station are onboard).
Scriptis wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2023 9:32 pm Similarly, you're free to team up with security every now and then and direct your focus there, but when your entire playstyle becomes defined by "I am security but with all-access,"
Again I have argued tirelessly against this using log evidence (from the specific round i was banned) so I dont understand why you are saying these things with nothing backing it up, and I would rather you not, as i would rather it not turn into dogpiling with no rebuttal from me other than just repeating points ive made 100 times and looking dumb because i feel the need to go deeper to explain it each time.
Dont forget, peanut threads are for peanuts and if you really want to call me a bad captain for stuff IC you can just ping me or DM me with a rant and ill at the very least read it and respond
Scriptis wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2023 9:32 pm You're not wrong, and I could've communicated things better!
This is evident, but I would still like answers to my questions please.

If you had all the time in the world to use admin powers to "troll" me(which i believed was in good faith and not because you had genuine IC and OOC problems with me as a player), why wouldnt you go into admin mode for 30 seconds and say something along the lines of "x y z is actually against rule 5, ill only leave a note so please refrain"? If it was a one-off instance I wouldve just chalked it up to you forgetting or something but there have been multiple rounds where you teleport the disk out of the safe or otherwise troll without any indication that you were doing it because you actually needed to inform me of something administratively. Do you mess with the antique laser gun roundstart because you are against how often i took it? You cant say that either because I stopped taking the antique early after a similar inicdent. You also bwoinked me JUST to tell me (using informal language and not mentioning any rules so i believe i was right to assume it was an informal bwoink) something along the lines of "bro get more creative lol" and then leave no note or anything similar. Is that what you meant by extensive admin communication, because if so why not leave a note about that or really any of the stuff you did to me to "teach me a lesson"? I just dont understand how these many coincidences can happen when an admin is truly acting in good faith but there are two sides to every story and im admittedly frustrated so I know that im being bias and I wont hurl any crazy accusations until i can atleast hear a response
User avatar
Scriptis
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2021 12:05 am
Byond Username: Scriptis

Re: [<Mindstormy>] TheLoLSwat - ban

Post by Scriptis » #665833

No, you're right, I should've at least talked to you more after the fact as an admin. The extent of the communication I provided--beyond using the disk for dumb jokes and really encouraging you to just pick it up--was two conversations, punctuated loudly by "I will dunk on you:"
Spoiler:
Image
Which, in retrospect, wasn't enough.

To clarify: I felt like you were on a good enough trajectory given your past history--my history was way worse than yours at around this same time--but I'm also notoriously too lenient among other admins because of this. I naturally moved out of my "keep all of the tools I might need on me at all times" phase of being the captain, without any admin intervention, and I figured you'd end up the same eventually.
Image
Spoiler:
Image

Image

Image
User avatar
TheLoLSwat
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2022 9:56 pm
Byond Username: TheLoLSwat
Location: Captain's Office

Re: [<Mindstormy>] TheLoLSwat - ban

Post by TheLoLSwat » #665851

Scriptis wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2023 11:20 pm No, you're right, I should've at least talked to you more after the fact as an admin. The extent of the communication I provided--beyond using the disk for dumb jokes and really encouraging you to just pick it up--was two conversations, punctuated loudly by "I will dunk on you:"
Spoiler:
Image
Which, in retrospect, wasn't enough.

To clarify: I felt like you were on a good enough trajectory given your past history--my history was way worse than yours at around this same time--but I'm also notoriously too lenient among other admins because of this. I naturally moved out of my "keep all of the tools I might need on me at all times" phase of being the captain, without any admin intervention, and I figured you'd end up the same eventually.
Not only that, you also spoke with Mindstormy about the ban (and im guessing supported it) without first checking my note history or inquiring about it ( " How bad is their note history when it comes to keeping the disk unsecure?" ) ? How could you have checked my notes (unless you did but i dont want to imply anything) and not realize that I didnt have a single note about the nuke disk pertaining to rule 5 and atleast try to investigate further with the other admin? What basis did you guys use to come to a 2 day serverban for something that i have not been bwoinked for once by ANYBODY on the admin team. Might i also mention that the nuke disk was NOT brought up in the bwoink that lead up to my ban unless it was thrown in the giant wall of text that essentially was the ban reason (which at that point my fate was sealed because i was ignored x5 and banned)
User avatar
mindstormy
In-Game Admin
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2018 1:59 pm
Byond Username: Mindstormy

Re: [<Mindstormy>] TheLoLSwat - ban

Post by mindstormy » #665859

Okay so lets cut straight to the chase here because I'm not writing a novel back at you.

I am going to lift the ban because a day is enough time in my opinion.

I saw you calling folks retards a few times in round and thought man this person's being a bit of a dick. Let me be clear this alone is not why I banned you. It just started me down the path of observing you. My gut reaction was confirmed a several times by your general actions, communication style, and play style, but especially when you allowed your friend to behead the person (effectively round removing them) who tased you in the brig that one time. I continue to think you were being a bit of a dick for the majority of the round and the ban is justified on those grounds alone.

I will admit I got distracted by your colorful note history of powergaming and general shittery and and that skewed my opinion of you in a negative light. I could have communicated my dislike of your play style better in round but your VERY RECENT note history skewed my judgement.

That being said. Stop getting notes every few weeks for this kind of shit it is leading you towards the path of a perma ban and a less friendly admin than I will not tolerate this behavior.
User avatar
TheLoLSwat
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2022 9:56 pm
Byond Username: TheLoLSwat
Location: Captain's Office

Re: [<Mindstormy>] TheLoLSwat - ban

Post by TheLoLSwat » #665865

TLDR: I appreciate the unban, but I would also like the note removed because it looks like you and the other admin both decided that i needed to be "punished" because of my playstyle and went back to hastily put together weak reasoning for it (small example, you and scriptis both came into this same appeal and argued two different reasons for upholding the note / ban, with neither of them being the focus of the bwoink)
mindstormy wrote: Thu Feb 16, 2023 1:56 am I am going to lift the ban because a day is enough time in my opinion.
I appreciate this, but I would like the note removed because the reason you bwoinked me (powergaming, falsely accuse of RRing maxpower) is only vageuly related to the real reason i was banned which also is not related to your own reasoning in the appeal (dickish behavior). If you decide to reword the note instead I would like the ban length removed or whatever the wording would turn it from a ban to a note when another admin looks at it, because It is not fair to already have a timed ban in note history (in terms of note/ban escalation) for something that i (still, ironically) have not been bwoinked for doing ingame.
mindstormy wrote: Thu Feb 16, 2023 1:56 am I saw you calling folks retards a few times in round and thought man this person's being a bit of a dick. Let me be clear this alone is not why I banned you. It just started me down the path of observing you. My gut reaction was confirmed a several times by your general actions, communication style, and play style, but especially when you allowed your friend to behead the person (effectively round removing them) who tased you in the brig that one time. I continue to think you were being a bit of a dick for the majority of the round and the ban is justified on those grounds alone.
Again, other than telling me to take him to medical next time (which he instasuccumbed right infront of, not a coincidence that people in deadchat and in the shift were calling him a shitter), you did not bring up any of this in the bwoink. Why? I even asked for clarification on if its rule 1 or rule 12 that you are coming at me with and you angrily (probably just be how i took it) told me something along the lines of "This is about powergaming. You know it is." before textwalling + ignoring + banning me not too long after.
mindstormy wrote: Thu Feb 16, 2023 1:56 am I will admit I got distracted by your colorful note history of powergaming and general shittery and and that skewed my opinion of you in a negative light. I could have communicated my dislike of your play style better in round but your VERY RECENT note history skewed my judgement.
As someone that is used to security process, I completely understand why you would assume something after seeing patterns develop ICly. However, I need to ask how you came to the administrative (note now this is different from your opinion as a player) decision (and carried out yadda yadda) to draft a ban reason and hit the ban button with no actual note history regarding the disk or anything rule 5 related and not nearly enough rule 1 notes to justify this. Especially considering how fast scriptis was able to look at my note history and go "oh huh it really wasnt that bad", I am confused as to how you guys got so far into this ban process when it looks like you didnt even really examine my notes before applying the first ban.

edit: realized i forgot to add a TLDR. oops
User avatar
Timberpoes
In-Game Game Master
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:54 pm
Byond Username: Timberpoes

Re: [<Mindstormy>] TheLoLSwat - ban

Post by Timberpoes » #668940

These are the guidelines for appealing notes:
viewtopic.php?p=347563#p347563
Note appeals:
Notes are remarks about players added to player's files in order to help keep track of player behavior, trends, as well as admin interactions with players. Notes have many uses and are not exclusively used to record rule breaking behavior, but we do recognize that their existence can seem like a black mark on the player.

For those reasons, notes can be appealed if they match one of the following two cases:
  1. The note is factually or materially incorrect.
    1. There must be a difference between how an admin who knew all the facts would view you vs how an admin who only had the note to go on would view you. If you were being a shit but the note didn't correctly detail exactly how you were being a shit, an appeal nitpicking this detail is unlikely to be granted.
    2. Statements that are clearly pure opinion on the admins part can not be incorrect (because that is what the admin actually believes), but may be appealed under case 2 below.
    3. Appealed bans are only factually incorrect if the conditions around ban itself was incorrect. Getting unbanned because you apologized or similar reasons is not grounds to have the auto-generated note about the ban removed. Likewise: getting unbanned because you broke the rules but the admin or a headmin later determined that a ban was "too much" is not grounds to remove the ban's note.
    4. Notes appealed under this rule may be amended rather than removed.
    5. Notes appealed under this rule will generally be more successful if appealing players offers suggested rewording that they feel properly accounts for nuances without minimizing what the note is trying to highlight. Understand that we have to balance keeping notes short and succinct with accurately reflecting the situation.
  2. The note's contents or existence is unjustifiably harsh to the player's standing in the eyes of admins reading the notes.
    1. Notes that contain admin opinions that unfairly paint the player in a bad light are one example.
      1. Emphasis on the phrase "unfairly". If you're repeatedly a shitter and an admin calls you a shitter in a note just take the hint and improve on not being a shitter
-by MSO
Give us the abridged version of how your appeal applies to these guidelines and which parts you're relying on to get your note overturned or amended.

Note in particular the following point:
"Appealed bans are only factually incorrect if the conditions around ban itself was incorrect. Getting unbanned because you apologized or similar reasons is not grounds to have the auto-generated note about the ban removed. Likewise: getting unbanned because you broke the rules but the admin or a headmin later determined that a ban was "too much" is not grounds to remove the ban's note."

And make sure you don't slam face-first into that.
/tg/station Codebase Maintainer
/tg/station Game Master/Discord Jannie: Feed me back in my thread.
/tg/station Admin Trainer: Service guarantees citizenship. Would you like to know more?
Feb 2022-Sep 2022 Host Vote Headmin
Mar 2023-Sep 2023 Admin Vote Headmin
User avatar
TheLoLSwat
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2022 9:56 pm
Byond Username: TheLoLSwat
Location: Captain's Office

Re: [<Mindstormy>] TheLoLSwat - ban

Post by TheLoLSwat » #668985

Assuming that the note is the same as my ban reason, I believe that it should be reworded because the evidence that mindstormy & scriptis used to support the 2 (which was turned to 1) day ban is leaving the nuke disk unsecure. I was never
bwoinked about this and I had no notes about it or anything similar. Even in the round I was banned the ticket had no mention of the disk.

I would just like it reworded to specifically be a note about rule 5 / leaving the disk unsecure so another admin doesnt think im already at the dayban or 2 day ban stage for this stuff in ban escalation, which just wouldnt be fair when i was never talked to about this other than when scriptis would delete the disk out of the safe and put it on the floor with a blanket(which funny enough also increases the chances of an operative spawning) but I dont think thats viable admin communication if they wanted me to actually stop what i was doing in an OOC sense.

Even if i dont agree with the stance that some admins take on the safe being secure or not secure, I understand that if the code shows that its not secure then i cant argue otherwise from an OOC standpoint. Every single note i recieved (atleast for captain stuff lol) i improved on immediately and this wouldn't be different.
User avatar
mindstormy
In-Game Admin
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2018 1:59 pm
Byond Username: Mindstormy

Re: [<Mindstormy>] TheLoLSwat - ban

Post by mindstormy » #669123

Edited the note to make it clear I was giving you a rule 1 ban for being a dick.
User avatar
Misdoubtful
In-Game Game Master
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2020 7:03 pm
Byond Username: Misdoubtful
Location: Delivering hugs!

Re: [<Mindstormy>] TheLoLSwat - ban

Post by Misdoubtful » #682345

We know we are really late on this one but something about it rubbed us the wrong way, and it took us a while to be able to communicate exactly what it was.

We appreciate the efforts of the ban and vocalization of issues, but feel like if a ban is unable to stand on its own legs and has to shift and transform over the course of an appeal, it might be better off not standing at all.

We don't want to see players held to the deep inner workings of mechanics, and don't want to see notes/bans convert from being one thing to being a completely different thing. Every issue is its own issue, and its important that we promote things being handled that way and not turn into a bus violently careening down the highway into someone completely unexpecting it. Or in other words, not being something discussed in its own ticket and case.

As such we are going to scrub this note/ban.
Hugs
Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users