[Thedragmeme] Muffindrake - unfair handling of player response to self-antag

Appeals which have been closed.
Locked
Muffindrake
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2021 7:19 am
Byond Username: Muffindrake

[Thedragmeme] Muffindrake - unfair handling of player response to self-antag

Post by Muffindrake » #680978

BYOND account: Muffindrake
Character name: Baal-Fur
Ban type: Server
Ban length: 24h
Ban reason: (MRP) Rule 1, Poor escalation. After being stolen from by an assistant had poor escalation and resorted to immediate lethal means when their life was not at risk. This note is escalated to a day ban due to blatant rule 1 breaches, server tribalism, and being insulting in tickets when they did not recieve the outcome they wanted. If you have issues on our servers please allow admins time to handle them, instead of complicating the issue further.
Time ban was placed: 2023-04-18 22:18:39
Server you were playing on when banned: Manuel
Round ID in which ban was placed: 204026
Your side of the story: I was affected by the current round's admin event where I was immediately blown up by them and had a limb removed at the engineering protolathe. Since I was deaf and had an arm missing, I headed to Medical to get it reattached. Medical had constructed their surgery tables right inside the Medical Treatment Centre. I stripped my character except for my bag and waited patiently for a doc to get to me. During that time, an assistant walked ran to the pile of my equipment on the floor, and stole a toolbelt, then bolted out of Medbay. They came back pretty soonish and did the same with my ID. Since they were blatantly self-antagging because either they were bored or doing haha funny roleplay, I shoved them to the floor when they later came back to Medical to proclaim it was 'a joke' (having my ID returned by another engineer, and my toolbelt completely missing, which is great if your protolathe got blown up with your machine board disintegrated), beat them to crit with a table, then threw them down to the lower tram area below medical. Shortly before this I ahelped to get an admin to talk to the person since they were obviously self-antagging. Since the game does not wait for ahelps, I had already beaten the guy to a pulp before the admin had a chance to respond to me. The admin threatened me with a note/ban shortly after and demanding I go back and drag them back to Medical. I told them I was going to do that, just that I'm not obliged to do that immediately. Someone else then dragged them back to Medical roughly ten or fifteen seconds before I had gone back, at which point the admin decided to day ban me.
Why you think you should be unbanned: The admin listed 'being insulting because I didn't receive the outcome I wanted' in the ticket, but the admin did _nothing_ do begin with before deciding to ban me, so what's the deal here? They accuse me of server tribalism since I told them that the player in question belongs on Terry since they were being a self-antagging asshole. This is funny because I still mostly play on Terry, and self-antagging-adjacent behaviour is more expected there to begin with. Also, handing a person that was just griefed by a player that had broken the rules to begin with a punishment is the most dystopian thing you could possibly do at that moment. Insults are warranted since the admin was obviously out of touch.
References of good conduct: I'm pretty well known on Terry and Manuel both, and don't engage in poor escalation behaviour, since generally I don't get griefed by self-antagging shitters, or at least not anymore since moderation has mostly removed those people from my sight.
Anything else we should know: -
User avatar
Drag
In-Game Admin
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2021 3:16 am
Byond Username: Thedragmeme

Re: [Thedragmeme] Muffindrake - unfair handling of player response to self-antag

Post by Drag » #680981

I will not be handling this until the current round on Manuel has ended.
User avatar
Drag
In-Game Admin
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2021 3:16 am
Byond Username: Thedragmeme

Re: [Thedragmeme] Muffindrake - unfair handling of player response to self-antag

Post by Drag » #680994

Round is over, first and foremost: I am not interested in lifting this ban.

Also:
the current round's admin event where I was immediately blown up by them
That was not me. That was a tot objective.

The ticket for reference, taken from mothbus:
► Show Spoiler
You originally ahelped this, then IMMEDIATELY attacked Linden when they walked into medbay lobby. I understand your frustration, but you need to understand you need to give us time to handle stuff. Ahelping and then taking the situation into your own hands just makes it an IC issue since you're actively changing the variables of the situation.
[2023-04-18 22:07:22] Muffindrake/(Baal-Fur) (Medbay Lobby (125,112,3)) (Event #24)
shoved (Linden Wilkerson) with knocking them down (NEWHP: 90.7)
[2023-04-18 22:07:23] Muffindrake/(Baal-Fur) (Medbay Lobby (125,112,3)) (Event #25)
grabbed (Linden Wilkerson) passive grab (NEWHP: 90.7)
[2023-04-18 22:07:24] Muffindrake/(Baal-Fur) (Medbay Lobby (125,112,3)) (Event #26)
grabbed (Linden Wilkerson) aggressive grab (NEWHP: 90.7)
[2023-04-18 22:07:26] Muffindrake/(Baal-Fur) (Medbay Lobby (127,111,3)) (Event #27)
tabled Azura Chitin/(Linden Wilkerson) onto the table (NEWHP: 80.7)
[2023-04-18 22:07:27] Muffindrake/(Baal-Fur) (Medbay Lobby (127,111,3)) (Event #28)
grabbed (Linden Wilkerson) passive grab (NEWHP: 80.7)
[2023-04-18 22:07:28] Muffindrake/(Baal-Fur) (Medbay Lobby (127,111,3)) (Event #29)
grabbed(Linden Wilkerson) aggressive grab (NEWHP: 80.7)
Rinse and repeat until they were crit:
[2023-04-18 22:07:42] Muffindrake/(Baal-Fur) (Medbay Lobby (127,111,3)) (Event #43)
head slammed (Linden Wilkerson) against the table (NEWHP: -11.8)
It's really important to note, the assistant in question DID take your toolbelt and ID. They threw your toolbelt, I'm assuming at you because when I talked to them they said you were chasing them beforehand:
[2023-04-18 22:02:49] (Linden Wilkerson) (Central Tram Dock (118,116,3)) (Event #28)
has thrown the toolbelt
As for your ID, they gave it to one of your co-workers:
[2023-04-18 22:06:20] (Linden Wilkerson) (Science Lobby (178,113,3)) (Event #34)
threw and hit (Loretta Stan) with Baal-Fur's ID Card (Atmospheric Technician) (NEWHP: 100)
[2023-04-18 22:06:09] (Linden Wilkerson) (Science Lobby (178,113,3)) (Event #41)
"hey"
[2023-04-18 22:06:14] (Linden Wilkerson) (Science Lobby (178,113,3)) (Event #42)
"can you give this to the atmos tech"
[2023-04-18 22:06:16] (Linden Wilkerson) (Science Lobby (178,113,3)) (Event #43)
"im fucking with him"
As you begin shoving them they actually try to tell you this:
[2023-04-18 22:07:24] (Linden Wilkerson) (Medbay Lobby (126,112,3)) (Event #44)
"they"
[2023-04-18 22:07:25] (Linden Wilkerson) (Medbay Lobby (126,112,3)) (Event #45)
"have your id"
[2023-04-18 22:07:27] (Linden Wilkerson) (Medbay Lobby (128,112,3)) (Event #46)
"its a jokie"
[2023-04-18 22:07:29] (Linden Wilkerson) (Medbay Lobby (128,112,3)) (Event #47)
"STOP"
[2023-04-18 22:07:41] (Linden Wilkerson) (Medbay Lobby (127,111,3)) (Event #53)
"I DONT HAVE YOUR SHIT"
[2023-04-18 22:07:43] (Linden Wilkerson) (Medbay Lobby (127,111,3)) (Event #0)
(WHISPER) "ENOUGH"
This is, for all intents and purposes, an in-character issue. They fucked with your stuff and they found out. HOWEVER, what I take issue with is after you crit them you threw them into the undertram when medical was right there behind you. I do not believe you had any interest in taking them to Medbay at all, you LEFT the area after throwing them into the under tram. The only time the concept of you coming back to go get them was when I brought it up in the ticket.
[2023-04-18 22:08:01] Muffindrake/(Baal-Fur) (Central Tram Dock (117,114,3)) (Event #55)
thrown (Linden Wilkerson) grab from tile in Central Tram Dock (117,114,3) towards tile at Central Tram Dock (116,118,3) (NEWHP: -32.5)
While it is true you don't have to prioritize taking the person to medbay after you kick their ass, you are still obligated to. Medbay was RIGHT THERE, but you still made the CONSCIOUS decision to throw them into the under tram, resulting in someone else having to go get them.

This ban was originally just going to be a note, I'm not gonna lie: Your escalation in this situation was absolutely shitty. However it was understandable, the only part I was going to note was the fact you threw them into the undertram and the fact you jumped to lethal means. The ban was escalated because you were being an ASSHOLE in the ticket.

I have nothing more I really want to say about this, you are welcome to request a headmin review.
Last edited by Drag on Wed Apr 19, 2023 12:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Vekter
In-Game Admin
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 10:25 pm
Byond Username: Vekter
Location: Fucking around with the engine.

Re: [Thedragmeme] Muffindrake - unfair handling of player response to self-antag

Post by Vekter » #680995

Muffindrake wrote: Tue Apr 18, 2023 10:45 pm They accuse me of server tribalism since I told them that the player in question belongs on Terry since they were being a self-antagging asshole.
This is the textbook definition of server tribalism.
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
dendydoom
In-Game Head Admin
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2020 10:40 am
Byond Username: Dendydoom

Re: [Thedragmeme] Muffindrake - unfair handling of player response to self-antag

Post by dendydoom » #681005

interjecting with what i hope is relevant policy:

there is nothing in the rules that says stealing an item off the floor is self-antagging. being annoying, yes. behaviour deserving of a smackdown, yes. but not against the rules. even manuel's stricter escalation policy says all that stealing shit does is revoke your right to escalate to lethals when the person turns up to slap the piss out of you, and the thief didn't retaliate at all:
Roleplay Escalation Policy wrote:Players acting without legitimate IC reasoning (for example: randomly or unnecessarily attempting to steal items from departments or other people) void the right to escalate to lethal self-defence if it is employed reasonably by the wronged party.
however escalation policy says:
Global Escalation Policy wrote:If you are wronged, you are expected to handle the conflict non-lethally whenever possible, escalating in severity as the conflict continues.
so yeah seems like only one person in this situation broke the rules. totally understand being mildly frustrated at the inconvenience of getting your tools yoinked by some bored jerkoff moments after getting blown up but really not something to flip out over, it's just unnecessary.
User avatar
Archie700
In-Game Admin
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2016 1:56 am
Byond Username: Archie700

Re: [Thedragmeme] Muffindrake - unfair handling of player response to self-antag

Post by Archie700 » #681013

Relevant policy
Global Escalation Policy wrote:If a conflict leads to violence and either participant is incapacitated, the standing participant is expected to make an effort to treat the other, unless they have reason to believe the other was an antagonist.
Muffindrake
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2021 7:19 am
Byond Username: Muffindrake

Re: [Thedragmeme] Muffindrake - unfair handling of player response to self-antag

Post by Muffindrake » #681089

Rule 4
Non-antags acting like an antag can be treated as an antag.
Requesting a headmin review.
User avatar
Timberpoes
In-Game Game Master
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:54 pm
Byond Username: Timberpoes

Re: [Thedragmeme] Muffindrake - unfair handling of player response to self-antag

Post by Timberpoes » #681094

RP Rule 6
6. Deal with the bad guys in proportion to their crime(s).

Restricted antagonists (or crewmembers) should be handled in proportion to their committed crimes. The decision to execute an antagonist should have good in-character reasoning based on their crimes and the state of the shift. Punishments against antagonists that repeatedly commit minor crimes may be escalated. Only antagonists that have committed the most severe crimes may be met with immediate execution.
/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
Timberpoes
In-Game Game Master
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:54 pm
Byond Username: Timberpoes

Re: [Thedragmeme] Muffindrake - unfair handling of player response to self-antag

Post by Timberpoes » #681096

When you treat a player as an antag, especially chasing then down, you're now bound by a mix of sec policy (players acting as sec will be held to the same standards) and RP Rule 6.

You're still bound by the server rules all the same. This wasn't LRP. It was MRP.

But you of course already knew this.

The other stuff regarding the conduct and approach to the ticket can always be looked into.

I dislike any situation where a player ahelps in good faith and ends up banned, and it's important Drag and Muffin figure out what went wrong here.

Was this a good faith ahelp and how did this end up in a ban?
/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
iwishforducks
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2020 4:48 pm
Byond Username: Iwishforducks

Re: [Thedragmeme] Muffindrake - unfair handling of player response to self-antag

Post by iwishforducks » #681113

Timberpoes wrote: Wed Apr 19, 2023 11:42 am RP Rule 6
6. Deal with the bad guys in proportion to their crime(s).

Restricted antagonists (or crewmembers) should be handled in proportion to their committed crimes. The decision to execute an antagonist should have good in-character reasoning based on their crimes and the state of the shift. Punishments against antagonists that repeatedly commit minor crimes may be escalated. Only antagonists that have committed the most severe crimes may be met with immediate execution.
Rule 6 is meant to be a guideline for how security should be treating their suspects. You’ll notice it specifically states restricted antagonists or crewmembers. For that reason alone I believe it has no relevancy for IC conflicts between two people, but also it’s a stretch to say that soft critting someone and throwing them off the side of the tramline counts as an execution. Baal did it infront of several people so it would be safe to assume that someone would pick them up. Not to comment on escalation but rather that the action Baal took here is not severe enough to warrant being classified as some kind of execution. They also said they had the intention of picking them up later (if no one got to them)

Edit: To keep this relevant, I totally overlooked your reasoning for applying rule 6:
Timberpoes wrote: Wed Apr 19, 2023 11:57 am When you treat a player as an antag, especially chasing then down, you're now bound by a mix of sec policy (players acting as sec will be held to the same standards) and RP Rule 6.
Baal didn’t chase the assistant when they beat them up the last time. The assistant came up to them in medical. I don’t think it would be relevant anyhow since they had stolen their items, so chasing them at any point to get their stolen goods would have been fine. Again: an IC conflict, not a security conflict.
User avatar
Timberpoes
In-Game Game Master
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:54 pm
Byond Username: Timberpoes

Re: [Thedragmeme] Muffindrake - unfair handling of player response to self-antag

Post by Timberpoes » #681165

iwishforducks wrote: Wed Apr 19, 2023 1:55 pm Baal didn’t chase the assistant when they beat them up the last time. The assistant came up to them in medical. I don’t think it would be relevant anyhow since they had stolen their items, so chasing them at any point to get their stolen goods would have been fine. Again: an IC conflict, not a security conflict.
They cited non-antags acting as antags can be treated as antags in their request for headmin review.

It brings up a totally different set of rules on MRP, but the outcome is still broadly the same; security can't just insta-valid crit someone for that kind of theft and under the RP rules and quoting RP rule 4: "Players that choose to act as security will be held to the same standards as security."

They're better off arguing escalation instead of claiming they're validing antags/self-antags, as the RP rules actually allow more freedom in escalation than they do in validing antags.

I'm simply far more interested in how I once again find myself reading an appeal where a player that initiated an ahelp finds themselves banned. I'm much more interested in seeing both sides figure out precisely how this happened than I am in whatever petty escalation issues are present in the appeal.
/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
Drag
In-Game Admin
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2021 3:16 am
Byond Username: Thedragmeme

Re: [Thedragmeme] Muffindrake - unfair handling of player response to self-antag

Post by Drag » #681198

As I stated before this was going to just be a note, the only reason it turned into a ban was because of Muffindrakes hostility and server tribalism. My intention was not to come off as angry in the ticket, and I intentionally had some typos with the hope of keeping my stance of "you also need to follow policy" clear. I wouldn't have rephrased things had the ahelp not started on such a bad foot, as the intention of the ahelp quickly went from asking for help with something to a vibe Muffindrake was attempting to weaponize the ahelp system and double dip on someone who caused a bit of problems for them. I am willing to reword the note, but the time for lifting the ban is pushing on its limit.

The primary issues I have is the lethal escalation and throwing them into the undertram, the server tribalism, the hypocrisy from the poor escalation in the first place, and the blatant breaches of escalation policy and RP rule 6 policy breaches. If my ticket conduct was not satisfactory we have the admin complaint system that they could have utilized. I even told them as such. However, they instead resorted to personal insults directed at me which escalated the note into a day ban.

Edit: And for reference, I DID talk to the assistant about their behavior. I'm not going to bend over backwards and tell the person who is raging at me in an ahelp, clearly not interested in a discussion, that I did what they asked me to. They did so in a toxic way, which I don't tolerate.
User avatar
Timberpoes
In-Game Game Master
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:54 pm
Byond Username: Timberpoes

Re: [Thedragmeme] Muffindrake - unfair handling of player response to self-antag

Post by Timberpoes » #681237

I would like to highlight the following part from our internal guide to rule enforcement:

viewtopic.php?f=29&t=27477
General Ahelp Procedure
...
- Do not be drawn into e-dick or ego slap fights. Be aware of attempts by players to draw you personally into a conversation. Players may get confrontational, they may get aggressive, second-guess you, use the 'well if X can do Y then I'm going to do Y too' play, etc. Some players are mature enough to both appreciate and be respectful of admins who have some more informal or personal conversations in adminhelp. That's fine. Sometimes, curt and neutral replies are what is required to stop an adminhelp conversation from escalating. Of the many purposes that adminhelp conversations have, making sure you have the last word is not one of them. If no more information is required or if an individual has been sufficiently told something, there is no reason to continue an ahelp conversation if the player remains (passive-)aggressive or confrontational. Once you have what you need, disengage and ignore. If you warn someone of something, perhaps to not continue a specific action, and they remain aggressive, let them have the last word. Letting them have the last word does not hurt you and if they ignore your warnings, then any consequences are on them.
We both know that tgstation players are genuinely some of the most blessed human beings, taking God's gift of that 47th chomosome and leveraging the superpowers it grants them with reckless abandon.

Despite that, as an admin you have complete power to control when any ahelp ends and if/how it progresses. It is an exceptional moment when a player sends an ahelp yet ends up banned instead for their conduct in that ahelp. It requires a special blend of shitty ahelp conduct where there is genuinely no chance for an admin to disengage or de-escalate the ticket before words went flying, usually where the player escalates the ahelp needlessly or enters the ahelp swinging at 120%.

When I asked how this ended up with the player being banned, I should probably instead be asking how this escalated to the player being banned when admins are expected to de-escalate and disengage, having power to both immediately end ahelps as well as mute players from sending ahelps temporarily.

Your first two replies to the player included either implied or direct, it's a really academic disctinction which, threats of admin action ("Also I will slab you if you do not take that assistant to medbay, as it is part of our escalation policy." and "don't care what they deserved, either follow our escalation policy or be slapped.")

You seem to come out swinging from the first message. Re-reading your messages, do you think there be a valid interpretation where you as an admin escalated the ahelp to an argument and the player spoke out in frustration in response to 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
Drag
In-Game Admin
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2021 3:16 am
Byond Username: Thedragmeme

Re: [Thedragmeme] Muffindrake - unfair handling of player response to self-antag

Post by Drag » #681262

Timberpoes wrote: Wed Apr 19, 2023 9:41 pm You seem to come out swinging from the first message. Re-reading your messages, do you think there be a valid interpretation where you as an admin escalated the ahelp to an argument and the player spoke out in frustration in response to that?
I can see where my words could be interpreted as firm, yes, but not hostile. My initial response started with a literal "please" and a half-baked joke. When a player tells me "they deserved it" that sets a tone for me that there's a level of OOC anger coming from the individual
User avatar
Drag
In-Game Admin
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2021 3:16 am
Byond Username: Thedragmeme

Re: [Thedragmeme] Muffindrake - unfair handling of player response to self-antag

Post by Drag » #681411

I will edit the note to say:

"Was reminded to non-lethally escalate where possible when wronged by another player, and was asked to not partake in server tribalism as it toes into rule 1."

Other than that, my being firm is in my opinion a non-issue. Nothing I said warranted such a hostile response, if any player has an issue we have the means to communicate it, an appeal system, and the ability to deal with it in a productive way. Being straightforward is not wrong, I don't mind debating nuances in a ticket, but when someone tells me to go fuck myself they slam the door in their own face.
User avatar
Lacran
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2020 3:17 am
Byond Username: Lacran

Re: [Thedragmeme] Muffindrake - unfair handling of player response to self-antag

Post by Lacran » #681433

Taken from General Admin guidelines on the wiki: https://tgstation13.org/wiki/Admin_Conduct
Maintain professional conduct both in game and outside of the game.
Also I will slab you if you do not take that assistant to medbay
follow our escalation policy or be slapped
its NOT cool to kick someones ass
nabbing your ID. WHICH WAS RETURNED TO YOU.
Your poor escalation on the other hand, is.
There were about 9 messages before Muffindrake insulted you directly. I've highlighted the parts leading to that, which could be viewed as a breach of professionalism.
 ! Message from: Armhulen
Edited to remove peanut post part of this. Remember, as someone who is not involved with the appeal/complaint: mentioning rules, precedents, or pieces of evidence missed is good. Opinions, takes, advice, bad.
User avatar
Timberpoes
In-Game Game Master
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:54 pm
Byond Username: Timberpoes

Re: [Thedragmeme] Muffindrake - unfair handling of player response to self-antag

Post by Timberpoes » #687055

Not forgotten, this will be headmin ruled in the next few days with any luck.

Sorry for the delay. No excuses. We've basically had a decision made for ages but due to reasons of being dumbass headmins we've not actually put anything to a vote. That process is going on now and we'll have this cleared up ASAP.
/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
Timberpoes
In-Game Game Master
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:54 pm
Byond Username: Timberpoes

Re: [Thedragmeme] Muffindrake - unfair handling of player response to self-antag

Post by Timberpoes » #687164

Point the zeroeth, I want to acknowledge that muffindrake can be a fucking wretch to deal with in tickets at times. My dude, you're a damn ticket goblin. Sort your shit out.

Point the first, as a headmin team we note the conduct on display in this ticket falls far short of the expected standards. The player was dismissed without being given the opportunity to present their side of the story, the decision to note muffindrake was made without gathering their side of the story and the ticket's tone was accusatory with various "threats" (ie. Do X or I'll do Y bad thing").

Point the second, the note will be removed. The lack of due diligence in placing a note can mean it's unsafe to keep it, even if it's correct. The example I use is: We don't allow people to kill players FNR and get away with it if they just so happened to be an antag by coincidence. We shouldn't allow admins to note people without proper due diligence and have the note stand because they just so happened to have been correct by coincidence.

Point the third, the ban will be overturned and any trace of it removed. The ticket conduct escalated matters. Admins should strive to de-escalate matters and we shouldn't uphold bans when the admin was partially responsible via conduct.

Point the final, we have discussed all of these issues (and more) with thedragmeme in detail and have given them a formal conduct warning, with no further action taken since this is the first formal warning they've had to my knowledge.

Individually I have also directed thedragmeme to our internal guide to rule enforcement and ahelps - a document I've often cited in appeals, complaints and peanuts - which outlines the best practices in handling ahelps fairly, completely and without bias. At some point we may declassify it and put it in a more public area such as the wiki. Oh, if only I was someone in a position to do this. Oh well, I shall feign helplessness.

Specifically, I've told thedragmeme to read up on the fundamentals of conducting ahelps and investigations to make sure their future tickets are handled professionally; notes and bans are placed fairly; and full due diligence has been carried out.

Timberpoes: Wrote words
Kieth4: Agrees
Misdoubtful: Also agrees
/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
Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users