/tg/Station 13

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 4:18 am**

Hello guys!

A new update has been made to our current rule 1 to make it clearer regarding what is and what is not allowed. This is with the purpose to avoid further issues regarding this for players, so hopefully the number of incidences about this will lower.

The rule 1 will be edited to the following:

1. Don’t be a dick.
We're all here to have a good time, supposedly. Going out of your way to seriously negatively impact or end the round for someone with little IC justification is against the rules, this also includes harassing a player OOC (Out of character). Legitimate conflicts where people get upset do happen however, as detailed in the escalation section of the rules.

And this precedent will be added:

8. Starting a fight in OOC/Dead chat or harassing someone across multiple rounds after being informed to stop by an admin may end in a server ban. Conflicts are something that happen, but going out of your way to repeatedly do this will not be tolerated.

You can see a side by side comparison in the attachment on this thread, but in case the image isn't visible, it's the following:

Outdated rule:

1. Don't be a dick.

We're all here to have a good time supposedly. Going out of your way to seriously negatively impact or end the round for someone with little IC justification is against the rules. Legitimate conflicts where people get upset do happen however, as detailed in the escalation section of the rules.

New rule:

1. Don’t be a dick.
We're all here to have a good time, supposedly. Going out of your way to seriously negatively impact or end the round for someone with little IC justification is against the rules, this also includes harassing a player OOC (Out of character). Legitimate conflicts where people get upset do happen however, as detailed in the escalation section of the rules.

If you have any questions regarding this, please ask them below!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A new poll has been made regarding the changes made to our rule 1 wording.

Please make sure to vote in the one labelled as ***Please vote in this poll*** and not the other one which was made as multichoice accidentally.

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 4:19 am**

What caused this?

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 4:21 am**

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 4:22 am**

lmao how is dchat/ooc salt real just put them on your ignore list

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 4:23 am**

ok but define "a fight"

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 4:25 am**

I'm gonna say the t-word

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 4:29 am**

Nervere wrote:What caused this?

A recent influx of players harassing other people on this community to the point in which it gets out of hand and they justify it as it being normal. One example I can give now is the following: https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic ... 34&t=24151

Malkraz wrote:ok but define "a fight"

A verbal fight that has become too heated (Insults are being thrown, people are being told to suicide and personal hostile remarks are being told to the other party). Admins will first ask the participants to cease and go cool down, so there should be no worries for unexpected bans.

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 4:31 am**

Why didn't you consult the community before changing the rules?
Why do you think this wasn't already covered by rule 1? This is just giving more power to sensitive retards.

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 4:32 am**

Malkraz wrote:ok but define "a fight"

This.

Am I gonna get bwoinked for salting at someone in OOC chat with a pre-typed paragraph of text expressing my bafflement at the awfulness of/sheer incompetency shown by their decisions over the course of the round after the round ends, for example?

EDIT: Ah, I got ninja'd by Morto. Never mind.

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 4:32 am**

MortoSasye wrote:
Nervere wrote:What caused this?
A recent influx of players harassing other people on this community to the point in which it gets out of hand and they justify it as it being normal. One example I can give now is the following: https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic ... 34&t=24151

If he was already banned for this under rule 1 and not rule 0 what's the purpose of adding it?

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 4:35 am**

Nervere wrote:Why didn't you consult the community before changing the rules?
Why do you think this wasn't already covered by rule 1? This is just giving more power to sensitive retards.

1. Because it doesn't affect on a large scale how things are currently handled. It just makes what isn't allowed more clear.

2. It was covered, but it wasn't clear enough which lead to people being banned because they thought harassment was ok.

Nalzul wrote:
MortoSasye wrote:
Nervere wrote:What caused this?
A recent influx of players harassing other people on this community to the point in which it gets out of hand and they justify it as it being normal. One example I can give now is the following: https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic ... 34&t=24151

If he was already banned for this under rule 1 and not rule 0 what's the purpose of adding it?

That's an example of a player that thought harassment was fine, which inspired me again to update this rule to make it more clear it isn't allowed.

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 4:37 am**

Did you consider, when making this rule, that players have access to an "Ignore" verb, that hides someone's OOC and deadchat speech?

Looks like our concerns already aren't being taken seriously, though, not sure why I'm even bothering.

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 4:43 am**

Nervere wrote:Did you consider, when making this rule, that players have access to an "Ignore" verb, that hides someone's OOC and deadchat speech?

Looks like our concerns already aren't being taken seriously, though, not sure why I'm even bothering.

I'm aware of it because I had to use it during months when someone was harassing me because admins did nothing about it when I was a player. This was about a year ago.

Enabling this sort of behavior from someone just because they can be blocked is extremely dumb.

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 4:46 am**

How did the harassment continue after you could no longer see their deadchat and OOC messages?

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 4:48 am**

Nervere wrote:Why didn't you consult the community before changing the rules?

because no one would support it, much easier to just do it and brush aside any complaints

what a slippery slope, i cant wait for the day that "ligger" gets banned from ic

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 4:52 am**

MortoSasye wrote:
Nalzul wrote:
MortoSasye wrote:
Nervere wrote:What caused this?
A recent influx of players harassing other people on this community to the point in which it gets out of hand and they justify it as it being normal. One example I can give now is the following: https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic ... 34&t=24151

If he was already banned for this under rule 1 and not rule 0 what's the purpose of adding it?
That's an example of a player that thought harassment was fine, which inspired me again to update this rule to make it more clear it isn't allowed.

If they can't grasp their brain on rule 1 and existing precedent how is an addendum going to change that though? We have rules in place that have punished harassment in the past, just not the admins themselves that apply it when needed to.

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 4:53 am**

Nervere wrote:How did the harassment continue after you could no longer see their deadchat and OOC messages?

Other people started targetting me too due to me not being able to defend myself when they decided to start attacking me. This isn't a story about me, however, but regarding this update.

Nalzul wrote: If they can't grasp their brain on rule 1 and existing precedent how is an addendum going to change that though? We have rules in place that already that punished harassment in the past, just not the admins themselves that apply it when needed to.

For new players that are coming to the game, they may not be aware of how things are handled with how often harassment is displayed on this community.

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 4:56 am**

MortoSasye wrote:This isn't a story about me

how many other players have voiced concerns about being harassed in dchat/ooc? not players that you think have been harassed, but players that have actually made some kind of complaint about it

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 4:57 am**

MortoSasye wrote:Other people started targetting me too due to me not being able to defend myself when they decided to start attacking me. This isn't a story about me, however, but regarding this update.

This is already covered under rule 1, though. How would your new rule do anything different? Rule 1 covers harassment...

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 5:09 am**

High Impact Dolphin wrote:
MortoSasye wrote:This isn't a story about me
how many other players have voiced concerns about being harassed in dchat/ooc? not players that you think have been harassed, but players that have actually made some kind of complaint about it

We had approximately around 5-6 players that have made complaints regarding it, and one that always gets picked on by some people. I won't say names to protect their privacy though.

Nervere wrote:
MortoSasye wrote:Other people started targetting me too due to me not being able to defend myself when they decided to start attacking me. This isn't a story about me, however, but regarding this update.
This is already covered under rule 1, though. How would your new rule do anything different? Rule 1 covers harassment...

It isn't supposed to do anything massively different but more clearly define how we handle rule 1 for people that haven't understood this yet.

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 5:11 am**

This is setting a dangerous precedent to be misused by sensitive members of the community maliciously.
Edit: Also, tools already do exist to block user interaction in OOC. OOC -> Ignore -> Select Userhere. If this happened unprovoked over multiple rounds in character, I can see action being taken (which it usually is as it falls under the rule covering metagrudging at that point). This is just a useless addendum, no offense.

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 5:12 am**

Going back to this quote, ignoring community input by saying...

MortoSasye wrote:1. Because it doesn't affect on a large scale how things are currently handled. It just makes what isn't allowed more clear.

... is a total copout. This decision clearly is already controversial, and even just making a policy discussion would have helped. Totally ignoring the community. Not to mention, this was clearly rushed through. The Dootdoom ban was really recent, and its being cited as justification for this rule. Now we already have this change? Seriously, just TALK to the community before you do stuff like this. Give it time!
This change is a bad idea and is the first step to leading /tg/ down a worse path.

MortoSasye wrote:It isn't supposed to do anything massively different but more clearly define how we handle rule 1 for people that haven't understood this yet.

I'm sorry, but if someone is too braindead to report their own harassment, this rule won't change anything to fix that.

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 5:13 am**

MortoSasye wrote:
Nalzul wrote: If they can't grasp their brain on rule 1 and existing precedent how is an addendum going to change that though? We have rules in place that already that punished harassment in the past, just not the admins themselves that apply it when needed to.
For new players that are coming to the game, they may not be aware of how things are handled with how often harassment is displayed on this community.

If it's intended for actual new players most aren't going to bother reading the rules in the first place until they get bwoinked for breaking them. With most new players if they try to start shit (I've adminned on event hall long enough to understand) it's mostly in the form of copy-pasta hit and runs or salting that they were killed, when actual malicious conduct goes on they get swatted down easily under the previous rule 1.

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 5:16 am**

TheMythicGhost wrote:This is setting a dangerous precedent to be misused by sensitive members of the community maliciously.

It will be up to admin discretion and if it's abused a headmin can always step in to overrule it.

Nervere wrote:Going back to this quote, ignoring community input by saying...
MortoSasye wrote:1. Because it doesn't affect on a large scale how things are currently handled. It just makes what isn't allowed more clear.

... is a total copout. This decision clearly is already controversial, and even just making a policy discussion would have helped. Totally ignoring the community. Not to mention, this was clearly rushed through. The Dootdoom ban was really recent, and its being cited as justification for this rule. Now we already have this change? Seriously, just TALK to the community before you do stuff like this. Give it time!
This change is a bad idea and is the first step to leading /tg/ down a worse path.

I mentioned this during my candidacy thread, it wasn't a rushed decision at all, it was also discussed by me with the other head admins which is how the way it gets handled got changed from dead chat / ooc mute bans and I also discussed this with the admin team. However, I do recognize my fault in not asking for input first perhaps via vote since even when I see it as not necessary due to it just being a clarification, it may not seem the case to other people.

I also don't see how avoiding harassment is leading tg down a worse path, but that's off-topic.

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 5:28 am**

Thank you for agreeing that the community should have been addressed, but:

MortoSasye wrote:I also don't see how avoiding harassment is leading tg down a worse path, but that's off-topic.

This is fundamentally misunderstanding what I'm saying. Your rule is NOT avoiding harassment.
Harassment is already covered by rule 1. Your argument is that it will make players more aware that they can report harassment, but that's silly.
I cannot imagine a player so braindead that they could not press F1 and report a rule infraction. That's insane.
If they could not do that, why would this precedent help them? Let's be honest, no one reads precedents until an admin needs to pull a reason to ban someone. No reasonable person reads an entire essay full of rules, like what our current page looks like.

You need to understand that this rule does not achieve its intended effect. Honestly, the only thing that will come from it is some shitty ban getting justified for "bullying" or whatever when an admin dives into the rules for justification.

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 5:29 am**

MortoSasye wrote: I also don't see how avoiding harassment is leading tg down a worse path, but that's off-topic.

It depends on how far people in the position of power are intending to label something as "harassment". Immediately disregarding critiques with a "those people" label and defining a fight as "A verbal fight that has become too heated (Insults are being thrown[...])" sure as hell don't help ease concerns about how strictly you plan to control player behavior. As well, giving people control over how others can refer to or act towards them seems noble at face value, but there's plenty of potential for abuse of that power. You've already kicked me from the discord after misunderstanding who I was calling "a nigger" after another user said they don't like when people seriously make transphobic statements, and claimed I was targeting him with his forbidden words.
Be careful how you try to police behavior, it rarely goes how you want it.

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 5:43 am**

MortoSasye wrote:It will be up to admin discretion and if it's abused a headmin can always step in to overrule it.

Rule 1 was already up to admin discretion. It was always upheld differently from admin to admin but all this does is give more sensitive admins more leeway to ban players for saying words they don't like. What one person might just see as friendly banter will be taken as harassment by another. Sure a headmin can overrule a bad ban but that's still time wasted that didn't need to be because the means to do so was given to someone who abuses their position.

MortoSasye wrote: I mentioned this during my candidacy thread, it wasn't a rushed decision at all, it was also discussed by me with the other head admins which is how the way it gets handled got changed from dead chat / ooc mute bans and I also discussed this with the admin team. However, I do recognize my fault in not asking for input first perhaps via vote since even when I see it as not necessary due to it just being a clarification, it may not seem the case to other people.

You also said that

I’m fully aware this is a controversial decision and it may not be smart of me to propose this, but I prefer being fully transparent about my intentions from the start. With the update of our discord rules, I believe it’s time to give our server rules a new update to accompany it with.

in your candidate thread. It was also like the only thing you ran on as far as your main thread was concerned. If you knew this was going to be controversial from the start then that should have been all the more reason to bring it up with the community first.

MortoSasye wrote:I also don't see how avoiding harassment is leading tg down a worse path, but that's off-topic.

As I and others have said already: what even is harassment. What are these series of events that led up to this because we only had two major cases involving Takov and Doot. Takov was let off after it was decided that it wasn't harassment and doot was banned under the previous rule 1. If we have a bunch of disagreements in the background that the player base can't see then that sounds like players not reporting it or simply not using the tools we already have to ignore those types.

People say mean shit to each other on the internet. Why is that a problem? Some nameless faceless dude called you a bad word. You don't know them and they don't know you so why does it even bother you? If it gets to the point where they keep hounding you then use the tools available to ignore them and then do something admin wise if they get around that.

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 5:52 am**

MortoSasye wrote:However, I do recognize my fault in not asking for input first perhaps via vote ...

Awesome news! When can we expect a poll to be up?

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 5:56 am**

Nervere wrote:What caused this?

Someone said the "t" word.

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 7:39 am**

Lol, exactly how many of your term's rule changes or policy rulings were put to poll, Nervere?

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 7:55 am**

Arianya wrote:Lol, exactly how many of your term's rule changes or policy rulings were put to poll, Nervere?

Attack the point, and not the person. In other words, stop shitposting, forum mod.
Edit: Additionally, if you're going to moderate posts, and ignore oranges shitposting on every single thread that would otherwise get posts deleted were it any other user, you may as well give your rank up.

That said, a fair deal of policy changes by Nervere were handled in community discussions or meetings. I'm not exactly sure where this point is coming from?

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 10:30 am**

TheMythicGhost wrote:
Arianya wrote:Lol, exactly how many of your term's rule changes or policy rulings were put to poll, Nervere?
Attack the point, and not the person. In other words, stop shitposting, forum mod.
Edit: Additionally, if you're going to moderate posts, and ignore oranges shitposting on every single thread that would otherwise get posts deleted were it any other user, you may as well give your rank up.

That said, a fair deal of policy changes by Nervere were handled in community discussions or meetings. I'm not exactly sure where this point is coming from?

a) Not a forum mod
b) Even if I were it wouldn't be shitposting to accuse someone of hypocrisy
c) Even in the narrow area I do moderate (FNR) the only oranges post in recent history that I can recall was OK'd by a headmin
d) Thanks for the lessons in oratory, but I'm already attacking the point in questioning why a poll is being asked for, especially by someone who had every means of running polls for a year but didn't
e) Your thoughts on my "rank" are noted, thank you

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 10:57 am**

This doesn’t even change anything, it simply makes it clearer to understand a rule. Its not a slippery slope since the rules won’t be enforced any different after this. Just a clarification at the end of the day.

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 11:11 am**

All of you are complaining and bitching, but I for one am glad our hugbox overlord is making /tg/ server more inclusive.

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 11:45 am**

Arianya wrote:
TheMythicGhost wrote:
Arianya wrote:Lol, exactly how many of your term's rule changes or policy rulings were put to poll, Nervere?
Attack the point, and not the person. In other words, stop shitposting, forum mod.
Edit: Additionally, if you're going to moderate posts, and ignore oranges shitposting on every single thread that would otherwise get posts deleted were it any other user, you may as well give your rank up.

That said, a fair deal of policy changes by Nervere were handled in community discussions or meetings. I'm not exactly sure where this point is coming from?
a) Not a forum mod
b) Even if I were it wouldn't be shitposting to accuse someone of hypocrisy
c) Even in the narrow area I do moderate (FNR) the only oranges post in recent history that I can recall was OK'd by a headmin
d) Thanks for the lessons in oratory, but I'm already attacking the point in questioning why a poll is being asked for, especially by someone who had every means of running polls for a year but didn't
e) Your thoughts on my "rank" are noted, thank you

A) You refute your own point in C.
B and D) Nowhere in this post does Nervere ask for a poll to be made, he suggested to speak to the community before making rule changes, and you're putting words in his mouth and trying to make him out to be a hypocrite for something he never said.
E) Cool.

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 12:32 pm**

If bans are going to be handed out for shitty OOC conduct, why wouldn't you want this to be clarified or outlined in the rules? If it's merely a clarification of already-existing precedence, it wouldn't change how the rule is enforced, right?

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 1:17 pm**

wesoda25 wrote:This doesn’t even change anything, it simply makes it clearer to understand a rule. Its not a slippery slope since the rules won’t be enforced any different after this. Just a clarification at the end of the day.

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 1:32 pm**

IkeTG wrote:If bans are going to be handed out for shitty OOC conduct, why wouldn't you want this to be clarified or outlined in the rules? If it's merely a clarification of already-existing precedence, it wouldn't change how the rule is enforced, right?

Here's the thing you dumb pup, and everyone else with the same sentence worded in many different flavors.

This

We're all here to have a good time supposedly. Going out of your way to seriously negatively impact or end the round for someone with little IC justification is against the rules. Legitimate conflicts where people get upset do happen however, as detailed in the escalation section of the rules.

Was like this because OOC and Deadchat can be ignored via the OOC -> Ignore option. You can ignore both OOC messages, and deadchat messages (as they actually are OOC communication) via this method. Any player being harassed IC without prior provocation over a multitude of rounds usually is punished by the rule stated above too, but the precedent of it regarding metagrudging.

We're all here to have a good time, supposedly. Going out of your way to seriously negatively impact or end the round for someone with little IC justification is against the rules, this also includes harassing a player OOC (Out of character). Legitimate conflicts where people get upset do happen however, as detailed in the escalation section of the rules.

All this allows is effectively allowing targeted bans towards people you dislike the opinion of, or inconvenienced you in some way because you can now label it as "harassment". I don't even think Morto put a single shred of thought into this at all and didn't think to gauge the community feedback on the suggested changes, and that's completely odd coming from one of the most player friendly admins that investigates instances of grief regardless of round if reported to her.

In short, it's a redundant ruling that has a high potential to be misused in the same way the word filter has a high chance of being misused by a sensitive individual (though luckily there's no player control over that, so the select people that can abuse it can be addressed).

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 1:43 pm**

wesoda25 wrote:This doesn’t even change anything, it simply makes it clearer to understand a rule. Its not a slippery slope since the rules won’t be enforced any different after this. Just a clarification at the end of the day.

Pretty much. This kind of behavior was already covered under rule 1 even though brainlets somehow get surprised when they are banned for harassing people. Now it's out in the open for edgy dent heads to whine about (again).

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 1:58 pm**

cuck station

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 3:17 pm**

Gigapuddi420 wrote:
wesoda25 wrote:This doesn’t even change anything, it simply makes it clearer to understand a rule. Its not a slippery slope since the rules won’t be enforced any different after this. Just a clarification at the end of the day.
Pretty much. This kind of behavior was already covered under rule 1 even though brainlets somehow get surprised when they are banned for harassing people. Now it's out in the open for edgy dent heads to whine about (again).

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 3:43 pm**

Nervere wrote:Why didn't you consult the community before changing the rules?
Why do you think this wasn't already covered by rule 1? This is just giving more power to sensitive retards.

If its already covered by the rule then what's the point on consulting the community about something supposedly already present in the rule? How is this granting more power to supposed "sensitive retards" if Rule 1 already covered it?

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 5:31 pm**

cedarbridge wrote:
Nervere wrote:Why didn't you consult the community before changing the rules?
Why do you think this wasn't already covered by rule 1? This is just giving more power to sensitive retards.
If its already covered by the rule then what's the point on consulting the community about something supposedly already present in the rule? How is this granting more power to supposed "sensitive retards" if Rule 1 already covered it?

This is transparently an attempt to defend one controversial ruling retroactively, a ruling which is linked as the sole example of why this rule now exists. Can we maybe not base rule changes off of perpetually-offended clique members?

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 5:48 pm**

Sandshark808 wrote:
cedarbridge wrote:
Nervere wrote:Why didn't you consult the community before changing the rules?
Why do you think this wasn't already covered by rule 1? This is just giving more power to sensitive retards.
If its already covered by the rule then what's the point on consulting the community about something supposedly already present in the rule? How is this granting more power to supposed "sensitive retards" if Rule 1 already covered it?
This is transparently an attempt to defend one controversial ruling retroactively, a ruling which is linked as the sole example of why this rule now exists. Can we maybe not base rule changes off of perpetually-offended clique members?

at this point i'm genuinely unsure who you're referring to- are the pepetually offended guys the one complaining about this rule in the thread, or the ones the people complaining in this thread don't like

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 5:52 pm**

Jimmius wrote:at this point i'm genuinely unsure who you're referring to- are the pepetually offended guys the one complaining about this rule in the thread, or the ones the people complaining in this thread don't like

The person who tried to cop one of our discord users a discord permaban for posting wrongthink in politics.

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 5:54 pm**

I disagree with the sentiments of the change and the form with which you are taking them. Rule 1 as stipulated prior was more than enough to handle almost all interactions because the text of the numbered rule itself is based on virtue of consensus and discretion. All you're doing by tacking on the seven words is caving to the endless victim complex of certain members (and I use that word loosely) of this community who feel every interaction they have outside their own terms as a personal sleight, which has been proven to continue regardless of who they choose to antagonize, be it successfully or abortively.

I by no means want anyone to feel as though they aren't welcome, nor do I want to imply that the community at large is needlessly hostile, but the fact of the matter is that the thinly veiled group of complainants has a history of attempting to utilize administration as a means of retribution against parties they do not approve of, which is something I will not ever abide. If you want to be here, be here. If you want to interact with the community at large, do so. If you want to complain that you are as much a subject of banter as is the namesake of this server would suggest, I strongly suggest you reconsider your role in the community, because no one will ever become beholden to anyone else for any reason and I will assure my effort goes towards making certain such things never come to pass.

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 6:14 pm**

Sandshark808 wrote:
Jimmius wrote:at this point i'm genuinely unsure who you're referring to- are the pepetually offended guys the one complaining about this rule in the thread, or the ones the people complaining in this thread don't like
The person who tried to cop one of our discord users a discord permaban for posting wrongthink in politics.

who was that, don't be coy i need to know

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 6:30 pm**

Jimmius wrote:
Sandshark808 wrote:
Jimmius wrote:at this point i'm genuinely unsure who you're referring to- are the pepetually offended guys the one complaining about this rule in the thread, or the ones the people complaining in this thread don't like
The person who tried to cop one of our discord users a discord permaban for posting wrongthink in politics.
who was that, don't be coy i need to know

Cynic

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 6:44 pm**

Woah color me surprised.

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 6:45 pm**

Sandshark808 wrote:
Jimmius wrote:
Sandshark808 wrote:
Jimmius wrote:at this point i'm genuinely unsure who you're referring to- are the pepetually offended guys the one complaining about this rule in the thread, or the ones the people complaining in this thread don't like
The person who tried to cop one of our discord users a discord permaban for posting wrongthink in politics.
who was that, don't be coy i need to know
Cynic

Wasn't the "Report it to discord" thing about what someone thought was a bug, and then it got blown out of proportion out of misinterpretation?
Also, that sort of stuff isn't on topic, there's been a LOT of hostility in deadchat and ooc, just so you know. This is a serious issue and should not have people bringing up other issues here.

/tg/Station 13

Update to rule 1.

Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.