[Iain0] Googles_Hands - Gamer Rage Context

[Googles_Hands]

BYOND account: Googles_Hands
Character name: Apple Human
Ban type: Note
Ban length: N/A
Note: Rule 11 cautioned for admin helping "19:04:00: Googles_Hands/(Apple Human): Can you ban that faggot Kreeblord" - responded telling me that "if they behave like a retard i'll call him whatever", doubled down and pointed out that no, this isn't how the rules work.
Time ban was placed: 19:08:39
Server you were playing on when noted: Terry
Round ID in which note was placed: 216394
Why you think you should be unbanned: I was a nuclear operative during a round in which we had decided not to declare war, i.e. our presence in the round wasn't even known. After arriving at the station with the intent to infiltrate it and sow chaos, I was greeted with the following messages in OOC:

• 07:03:23 OOC Kreeblord/(Caden Styles) "oh hey syndicates in arrivals"

• 07:03:27 OOC Kreeblord/(Caden Styles) "waht the hell"

• 07:03:47 OOC Kreeblord/(Caden Styles) "syndicate operative leader is in arrivals!!"

• 07:04:39 OOC Kreeblord/(Caden Styles) "gay niggas are griffing me in arrivals".

Kreeblord was a ghost at this time and spouting IC information into OOC. So, as any responsible player I approached the authrorities, asking them to put a muzzle on the retard. Appearently I got off a bit too rough for Iain0 in my gamer rage. I didn't think admin channels were a place we had to keep our words in censored, especially in a one-sentence report of obvious rule breaking, oh well. I'd just like the context added off Kreeblords actions that drove me to so politely report him to Iain0.
References of good conduct: I don't call adress people as faggots on the regular. Lol, lmao.
Anything else we should know: Since I think the Note would paint me in a worse light to an admin that wasn't present in the round than to someone that was present, I'd like the note ammended, with the additional context, to something like this:
Rule 11 cautioned for admin helping "19:04:00: Googles_Hands/(Apple Human): Can you ban that faggot Kreeblord" after Kreeblord was actively pointing out Googles_Hands' location, who was a nuclear operative, in OOC. After informing him of his incoming punishment, responded telling me that "if they behave like a retard i'll call him whatever", doubled down and pointed out that no, this isn't how the rules work.

[iain0]

Why do you think someone else breaking the rules has any bearing on your allowance to break the rules?

[Googles_Hands]

I'm not saying I was obeying the rules by calling Kreeblord a faggot in my ahelp. I am saying that leaving what prompted me to ahelp and call him a faggot out of the note will make me viewed worse by an admin that did not have knowledge of those events than by one that did.

Da Rules:
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.

[iain0]

I didn't ask if you thought you were obeying the rules, I asked why you think that the context makes any difference or makes it more acceptable.

Because as per the original admin help, IMO it doesn't make any difference, you don't get to break the rules because someone else did. As such I don't see the need to provide details ; it is inferable from the message that you believe that you had a justifying reason and were told that this doesn't hold any weight, that's all that really matters.

The ahelp:

Spoiler:

From Ticket #12 during round 216394 on Terry:

---- Log Begins ----
2023-10-09 19:04:00: Ticket Opened by googleshands: Can you ban that faggot Kreeblord
2023-10-09 19:05:56: Reply from iain0: hi, you get yourself a rule 11 note for that too, dont use such terms in such a fashion
2023-10-09 19:06:19: Reply from googleshands: Lol, sure buddy. If he behaves like a retard I'll call him whatever
2023-10-09 19:06:37: Reply from iain0: no, you wont, someone else breaking the rules is not a permit for you to do so, clear?
2023-10-09 19:08:39: <a>Iain0</a>/(Bob Stange) has created a note for Googles_Hands<br />Rule 11 cautioned for admin helping "19:04:00: Googles_Hands/(Apple Human): Can you ban that faggot Kreeblord" - responded telling me that "if they behave like a retard i'll call him whatever", doubled down and pointed out that no, this isn't how the rules work.
2023-10-09 19:09:27: Resolved by Iain0
---- No Further Messages ----
This ticket can be viewed:

• By the affected player: http://statbus.space/tickets/216394/12
• By admins: http://statbus.space/tgdb/tickets/216394/12

This ticket was generated by Statbus v.1.17.5

I feel like you just keep digging a hole on this one. If you'd said to me in the original ticket "my bad, sorry", the note would have pretty cursory "standard issue template" type thing, instead telling the admin you don't really intend to respect the ruling gets you the additional payload on your note.

"I didn't think admin channels were a place we had to keep our words in censored" (you, this appeal). There's some yikes in this statement that I don't care to delve too deeply into. Rule 11 is very explicitly "anti-thought police" in that we only moderate expression, and I specifically only handle in-server moderation, however yes, if this is how you choose to phrase this restriction then you should probably "censor" yourself across the board on /tg/ as rule 11 is actually explicitly about OOC bigotry but also extends it to IC expressions of such, with xenophobia being the only permitted target for discrimination.

I don't feel that your idea about future admins being concerned about the nuances is all that relevant. Firstly this note only matters if you repeat this offence, and you're not going to do that, right? And even if you do they'll simply be counted as an integer number of past infractions, and if anything the appended note about your disregard for the rules makes the note more frowny, while the concept that you think you have just cause (when you don't/can't) really shaves off nothing, and is in fact already touched on by my note (the details of /why/ you think you're justified only serve to fluff out the note since there can be no valid justification IMO). Ultimately the whole thing will likely be boiled down to something like "Has X previous notes for similar thus this is being escalated to ban_duration". The granular resolution you hope exists likely doesn't, and even if it does I don't see why the ground should be given, it doesn't make it any less against the rules.


I think you should probably have taken the first available exit in this process with a better reply to my response and I feel that the more you try argue justification on this one the more I feel you missed the point that there isn't any.

As it stands, I intend to leave this note as is but you're welcome to try a last round of reasoning with me or you can escalate to the headmins if you think it appropriate/necessary.

[Vekter]

Going to give this another 24 hours before moving it on.