/tg/Station 13

Bottom post of the previous page:

I was there when he was told he needed more evidence before filing a complaint and that the admins couldn't do anything with what they had.

I knew someone would say that.

Wyzack wrote:Here is the neat thing though. We already have a team of people tasked with enforcing the rules on the server, we call them admins.

Who don't go through a background check and very little in way of vetting process, and can't be everywhere at once.

I don't see the point of unbanning him from playing on the server since he spent a whole month observing specific players just to make a ban request, and not actually playing. That is minmodding to the max. The amount of ooc drama he brings and insists to continue bringing raises the point of why he should be allowed to stay.

DrPillzRedux wrote:I don't see the point of unbanning him from playing on the server since he spent a whole month observing specific players just to make a ban request, and not actually playing. That is minmodding to the max. The amount of ooc drama he brings and insists to continue bringing raises the point of why he should be allowed to stay.

How do you know he didn't play any rounds either? You got evidence of that?

DrPillzRedux wrote:I don't see the point of unbanning him from playing on the server since he spent a whole month observing specific players just to make a ban request, and not actually playing. That is minmodding to the max. The amount of ooc drama he brings and insists to continue bringing raises the point of why he should be allowed to stay.

Biased opinion detected

How do you know he didn't play any rounds either? You got evidence of that?

Given how often I play and how I have never seen his character that he stated he played in his last ban request. We surely would have interacted by now.

I could check logs but I'm not that obsessive and I'm not going to pretend I'm an admin. I simply give my personal experience with him playing, which is none.

As for Malkevin, you can call it biased as much as you like, that doesn't change what I've said. The simple fact that it's come to this point where a rule 0 ban is applied, and few if any admins try to stop it, shows how people think of him. Which, again, is what rule 0 is made for.

DrPillzRedux wrote:Given how often I play and how I have never seen his character that he stated he played in his last ban request. We surely would have interacted by now.

As stated in this ban appeal, he random-names. Not everyone plays a static character.

DrPillzRedux wrote:I could check logs but I'm not that obsessive and I'm not going to pretend I'm an admin. I simply give my personal experience with him playing, which is none.

You're one of those people who were against public logs because of "muh privacy", weren't you? It's not "pretending you're an admin" to go through the publically available logs or record data about a round, it's using the tools given to you by the server owner and administration.

DrPillzRedux wrote:As for Malkevin, you can call it biased as much as you like, that doesn't change what I've said. The simple fact that it's come to this point where a rule 0 ban is applied, and few if any admins try to stop it, shows how people think of him. Which, again, is what rule 0 is made for.

Okay, but that doesn't answer the question about WHY admins aren't trying to stop it.

Remember when people said nobody would bother using the public logs to stalk someone?

Good times.

Saegrimr wrote:Remember when people said nobody would bother using the public logs to stalk someone?

Good times.

We gonna get a response to the bit about how he was told to gather more evidence or what?

You'd have to wait for whoever told him that to step up, because I don't know who it was.

If the precedent we're going to set here is 'being a creepy stalker and using the logs is bannable' then Niknak's gonna have to bite the ban bullet too.

DrPillzRedux wrote:I don't see the point of unbanning him from playing on the server since he spent a whole month observing specific players just to make a ban request, and not actually playing. That is minmodding to the max. The amount of ooc drama he brings and insists to continue bringing raises the point of why he should be allowed to stay.

Considering you are one of the two players he was observing due to suspicion of metafriending among other things, of-course you'd want him gone.
What is with you and consistently insisting that everyone "doesn't play." except for yourself as a form of argument.

Damn we're getting all the Rarely Plays and people already permabanned for being shitters coming out of the woodwork for this one.

To observe someone for a few days or a week is understandable. For a month or more is creepy and makes you question them as a person. Which is likely contributing to the rule 0.

I'll also say no, I was not against public logs as I was not even here when they were created. I left tg in 2013 then came back in August 2015. That just shows how I've yet to interact with Madison IC yet how recently I've been active.

Regardless of him having made a request on me, it's still alright for me to comment on my experience with him in the actual game. I've held off on really speaking about his ooc acts because I've already spoken before and boy is there a mountain of stuff there.

I also agree with Saeg. It seems most are only defending Madison based on how they perceive the rules and not how he conducts himself as a player.

Saegrimr wrote:Damn we're getting all the Rarely Plays and people already permabanned for being shitters coming out of the woodwork for this one.

Why are you guys shifting the topic every time we start pressing points on the last one?

DrPillzRedux wrote:To observe someone for a few days or a week is understandable. For a month or more is creepy and makes you question them as a person.

That's what Niknakflak does. Nobody judged him.

DrPillzRedux wrote:I'll also say no, I was not against public logs as I was not even here when they were created. I left tg in 2013 then came back in August 2015. That just shows how I've yet to interact with Madison IC.

J_Madison wrote:Byond account and character name: Akesson/Dynamic name

iamgoofball wrote:As stated in this ban appeal, he random-names. Not everyone plays a static character.

Open your eyes and read.

DrPillzRedux wrote:Regardless of him having made a request on me, it's still alright for me to comment on my experience with him in the actual game. I've held off on really speaking about his ooc acts because I've already spoken before and boy is there a mountain of stuff there.

What experiences, you say you have none with him. Does he play or not, Pillz? Make up your mind.

What points?

He's been an irritating ass in supportbus constantly bitching about Pillz and his lizard fuckbuddies, screaming that we do something about ERPing on the server to the point i've just starting kicking him out of supportbus. I find out later from Shaps about the personal info after reading them two arguing about whatever bullshit with his character. If Judicator didn't rule zero him, i'd probably have just for that.

Don't get me wrong. I'd prefer to see Pillz and his buddies on a long term identity ban, but theres a point where this needs to stop and doxing over a fucking space roleplaying game clearly passes that.

iamgoofball wrote:

Saegrimr wrote:Damn we're getting all the Rarely Plays and people already permabanned for being shitters coming out of the woodwork for this one.

Why are you guys shifting the topic every time we start pressing points on the last one?

punches was perma'd for rarely playing, mostly observing, and complaining about the state of the game and community ooc. I don't see how this should not apply to Madison as well.

Pascal, that is my point. I have no experience with him as a player because he does not play.

Saegrimr wrote:What points?

He's been an irritating ass in supportbus constantly bitching about Pillz and his lizard fuckbuddies, screaming that we do something about ERPing on the server to the point i've just starting kicking him out of supportbus. I find out later from Shaps about the personal info after reading them two arguing about whatever bullshit with his character. If Judicator didn't rule zero him, i'd probably have just for that.

Don't get me wrong. I'd prefer to see Pillz and his buddies on a long term identity ban, but theres a point where this needs to stop and doxing over a fucking space roleplaying game clearly passes that.

So is he being banned for:

• Log diving
• Being an ass in supportbus
• The shaps dox
• Ban request against the lizard players

Or any combination of these? Or is it a specific one? Because the ban reason listed implied #1 and #4, but the actual reason seems to be #2 and #3.

Pick whichever one you fucking want. Again if Judicator didn't get him first, I would have solely for the dox. Shaps wanted that part left out of the ban reason specifically for reasons though.

Saegrimr wrote:Pick whichever one you fucking want. Again if Judicator didn't get him first, I would have solely for the dox. Shaps wanted that part left out of the ban reason specifically for reasons though.

Shaps specifically removed the first ban reason because he did not want the dox to be involved with the ban.
Simply put, it can't be an excuse to ban me, and Shaps refused to have the dox involved in a ban.

Saegrimr wrote:What points?

He's been an irritating ass in supportbus constantly bitching about Pillz and his lizard fuckbuddies, screaming that we do something about ERPing on the server to the point i've just starting kicking him out of supportbus. I find out later from Shaps about the personal info after reading them two arguing about whatever bullshit with his character. If Judicator didn't rule zero him, i'd probably have just for that.

Don't get me wrong. I'd prefer to see Pillz and his buddies on a long term identity ban, but theres a point where this needs to stop and doxing over a fucking space roleplaying game clearly passes that.

Saegrimr wrote:Pick whichever one you fucking want. Again if Judicator didn't get him first, I would have solely for the dox. Shaps wanted that part left out of the ban reason specifically for reasons though.

The whole 'doxxing' thing was already resolved. From my understanding it was letting admin know he 'was doxxable' and to take steps to remedy it. I don't know the full thing since the reasoning since it the whole thing is private. Regardless of which it was resolved.

Shaps wrote:

Stickymayhem wrote:It might possibly be the doxxing.

Yeah it's probably the doxxing

Ban reason 1 was dismissed by the respective admin.

Irrelevant, said admin has no stake in this

__

Anyway, he was told explicitly to gather more evidence. He gathers that evidence, and now he's getting buzzworded with the term 'stalkerish' (for gathering evidence?) for doing exactly that.

Speaking of which, this is the third time the ban reason was circled around in an attempt to get *something* to stick and be valid. The doxxing thing turned out to be a misunderstanding and was dismissed. Then the ban reason was switched 'constantly stirs up drama and ban requests' which turned out to observably not true. Then the ban reason is now 'his post excessively "stalkerish"', which, even if gathering evidence is 'stalking', it was induced by the admins in the first place.

This tells me the admins themselves have no confidence in their own ban reasoning. Which this still points towards retaliation for being on the badside of an admin.

Also, I think it's best DrPillz to recuse his opinions from this thread. It's very clear he's grudging over his ban request.

J_Madison wrote:Simply put, it can't be an excuse to ban me

Says who?

Saegrimr wrote:

J_Madison wrote:Simply put, it can't be an excuse to ban me

Says who?

Says Shaps. The first ban reason was removed by him because it involved him.

J_Madison wrote:

Saegrimr wrote:

J_Madison wrote:Simply put, it can't be an excuse to ban me

Says who?

Says Shaps. The first ban reason was removed by him because it involved him.

I mean to be fair he technically wasn't allowed to do that. I just removed the doxxing from the reason as per his wishes. The rest still stands though.

Docprofsmith wrote: I mean to be fair he technically wasn't allowed to do that. I just removed the doxxing from the reason as per his wishes. The rest still stands though.

What *is* 'the rest' supposed to be anyway. Enough with the omniscient council of vagueness and wink wink nudge nudging and explicitly state it.

TheWulfe wrote:

Docprofsmith wrote: I mean to be fair he technically wasn't allowed to do that. I just removed the doxxing from the reason as per his wishes. The rest still stands though.

What *is* 'the rest' supposed to be anyway. Enough with the omniscient council of vagueness and wink wink nudge nudging and explicitly state it.

J_Madison wrote: (MANUAL BAN) Seems to be an incredibly toxic individual, does nothing other than complain about other players or features. Has made several ban requests for little to no reason in a short period of time and constantly manages to stir up drama. Definitely needs a permanent break from this server since he can't handle other players or how it's run. I'm confident his absence will have a positive effect on the server.

Why is my name being brought up as reference in terms of log diving. I don't deal in logs much except searching for memes like "whisper niknakflak". I have never stalked a group of players for the purpose of metacomms evidence because 90% of the time it's super obvious if someone is doing it or not. The database is not logs and does not include IC actions or references of any form. Logs are rarely conclusive most of the time if you don't have something to go off in the first place.

Also J_madison was told to get more evidence when he brought up this issue in supportbus because what he had was jack nothing. When he first brought this "metafriend/metacomm" claim to us, he would just link an entire day of logs from the public ones and go "It's in there". The claim wasn't completely unfounded because eventually HG thought it was becoming a bit of a problem and issued an official warning. People call me autistic for database diving and people call J_madison autistic for this and for just being awful to deal with but let's not grasp at straws here.

NikNakFlak wrote: When he first brought this "metafriend/metacomm" claim to us, he would just link an entire day of logs from the public ones and go "It's in there".

Unless I'm mistaken, Loller too requested for me to get more evidence. If that wasn't true then sorry.

Regarding your statement Nik. I'm sorry that what evidence I produced in short notice without logging tools wasn't obvious enough for you to believe and it ended up creating a nearly month long "vigilante" investigation on my part.
I didn't want to waste your time noting every word, every PDA log, every attack, hug, and grab if that's what you wanted.
I believed what what I'd produced was sufficient enough, but I'm sorry that you couldn't see anything from it.

I can assure you that nobody is going to just dive into an entire day's worth of logs when they don't even know what they are looking for. And you statement above shows just how much of an asshole you are.

Docprofsmith wrote: (MANUAL BAN) Seems to be an incredibly toxic individual, does nothing other than complain about other players or features. Has made several ban requests for little to no reason in a short period of time and constantly manages to stir up drama. Definitely needs a permanent break from this server since he can't handle other players or how it's run. I'm confident his absence will have a positive effect on the server.

Alright, so it's the official text, and nothing like 'stalking' or something.

I still stand by my original thought that only four ban requests. With two reporting legit rule breakings (or near rule breaking), and two with full months between them doesn't fit the text of of 'made several ban requests for little to no reason in a short period of time and constantly manages to stir up drama.' I don't know anything about being 'toxic' and complaining, but both are incredibly vague and are really reaching for straws.

That said, I will always think reaching for Rule 0 has always been incredibly shit in the absence of actual rules broken, and has always been the sign of a sketchy, a personal dislike vendetta, and probably unwarranted ban.

https://files.singulo.io/QZIs.txt it's not direct but you guys kept blowing off his concerns about metagaming by saying he didnt' have enough evidence.

More importantly banning someone for making a ban request is about the dumbest fucking thing you could possibly do, are we just gonna ban everyone who does something that causes more work for the admin team? Shit's lazy, in fact HG showing up and warning the lizard gang as a spooky skeleton caused more drama in less time, including multiple threads on singulo.

Are we gonna ban him to, or is this just a hypocritical double standard because you don't actually like the person in question because they actively engage with admins over administrative issues.

I'm very disappointed in this ban and I hope jordie and HG stop being inactive long enough to overturn it.

So really it seems like you've wanted to nail him for a while, tried to use the doxxing thing as a reason, then had Shaps not wanting anything to do with it and had to come up with something else and now you're just trying to make the ban stick out of spite.

oranges wrote:More importantly banning someone for making a ban request is about the dumbest fucking thing you could possibly do

The fucking plaque hung over the door of the ban request and admin complaint forum is, or should be, "YOU WON'T GET FUCKING BANNED FOR COMING HERE".

We discussed the issue with Judicator and J_Madison's ban has been removed.