[Timberpoes] 1jovemtr00 - Hostility /Poor appeal handling

[1jovemtr00]

ss13-chatlog-20230715-032439.rar

(83.22 KiB) Downloaded 55 times

When and where this incident occured (Game Server, forums, Discord): Forums
Byond account and character name OR Discord name: 1jovemtr00 - Nicklas Winter
Admin:Timberpoes
ROUND ID HERE IF APPLICABLE: ID 210264. Provided this to add context to this complaint form.

Objective:

My appeal case to be reviewed properly on what's expected of admins:
1.No Attacks/harassment towards players
2. No threats of banning specific players in public channels.
3. All posts by admins in FNR should be meaningful and contribute to the discussion.

Detailed summary: I had an 1 hour ban given by another admin named TheBibleMelts. I decided to appeal because even though it wasn't much of a deal, I don't think it was quite fair that this was imposed to me on that specific round where multiple characters were given disabilities and bad quirks. My character couldn't speak, was mute since the very first second it joined the round. Not too long after that it got deaf for a while and then killed by an heretic and turned into a ghoul that was capable of understanding and speaking an eldritch language only. That remained untill the end of the round. Others also had quirks and conditions imposed to them, not only me.

During that round, there was an incident with another character, fellow officer Claire, where we were chasing the heretic around arrival maints. We lost it and then I decided to return and arm myself better. I got a shotgun and 6 rounds of incendiary ammo. As it's not an uncommon thing around Manuel, the lag was there and I had a base ping of 500ms. All my actions were delayed. I made to arrivals again , went through maints and saw fellow officer Claire wandering around it with the heretic and I tried to follow. We returned back to the hallway and fearing that my fellow officer was in danger or possibly being turned into a ghoul, I decided to open fire with my shotgun. Unfortunatelly, I ended up firing Claire on the process and yes, I never denied, multiple times because of the lag. I also set myself on fire, shot the floor but also shot the heretic. It was wearing some armor that bounced some of my shots. After that, I managed to drag the heretic away and started to use melee attacks to hit it, alongside with other crew. The heretic killed me and others during that round, turned me into a ghoul and was publicly announced as a menace. These were my reasons IC to perform the actions I did under the circumstances listed above.

I got bwoinked by the admin TheBibleMelts. To put it short, he said it was a bad shooting and stated that I handled the situation poorly. Exact words sent were:

Admin PM from-TheBibleMelts: This is your first offense so I'm going to go light, but I don't really believe you managed to shoot an officer into crit with a weapon that requires re-pumping so much as it would have needed. You had a chance to assess the situation and jumped the gun - your quirk is your responsibility to work around in order to not negatively impact others to this degree. **taken directly from the logs that I saved from the round, which will be attached.

I replied to him stating the lag issues and that I had no intention, no IC reason nor desire to take down my fellow officer: it was an accident. I also said the conditions that were imposed to me hampered my communications. He basically said it was just an excuse both the quirk and the lag. This justification turned out to be quite a pattern from both admins that handled the matter, TheBibleMelts and Timberpoes. The rest of the ticket conversation can be seen through the logs, so putting it short at the end of ticket, he changed his mind and gave me an 1 hour ban. I decided to appeal the ban even though it wasn't much of a deal but mostly because he said it would be listed on future notes about me. I don' think the reasoning I gave him were excuses and the quirks weren 't my choice, they were imposed to me.

I did, and he basically ignored all my arguments and stayed with his opinion without providing any further justification, nor facts and not even poiting exactly which rule I broke. He also said I could ask for someone else to review this case, which I did.

The full ban appeal is here: viewtopic.php?t=34439&view=unread#unread

I gotta state that although we disagreed, the admin TheBibleMelts was never hostile or argumented on any way that seemed defamatory or agressive.

The admin that took over, Timberpoes, went a bit on the opposite direction.He maintained the same "tactic" used by the previous admin, which was to ignore or immediatly disregard my arguments and label them as excuses. He used that term multiple times alongside with an ultimatum and agressive language. From his very first post, his mind was already made up, and I quote:

Keep in mind in answering that question, the more you rely on assumptions that aren't supported by some sort of actual evidence or fact then the less freedom you have to carve out an exception when your actions result in a rule break.

This falls under conduct break #3: 3. All posts by admins in FNR should be meaningful and contribute to the discussion. This doesn't contribute to the discussion since he shows signs that his mind is already made up and intends to disregard my arguments, which was exactly what happened and what his previous fellow admin was doing.

Instead of doing what he thinks and states he tried to do, which was according to him: I tried my best to guide you down a path that would extract what myself and TheBibleMelts needed to change the note or even overturn it entirely. I had only agressiveness, public blaming, logs and IC justifications ignored and judgements based on opinions and subjectiveness.

Some highlights of his "guidance":

1- You and you alone are you responsibe for the actions you take,and as much as you're insistent on blaming everything else from your lag to being ghouled to being deaf
This falls under conduct break # 1 and #3: 1. No Attacks/harassment towards players , 3. All posts by admins in FNR should be meaningful and contribute to the discussion. I wasn't blaming anything, I was pointing the reasons that made me act the way I did IC and there was no "everything else". Was a single incident that I got bwoinked for by TheBibleMelts. This statement is agressive because of the tone implying that Im "blaming" everything when they were actually justifications and suggests multiple incidents and contributes nothing to the discuss becase it fails to point exactly how my action was wrong and which rule I broke .

2-Fact:Lagging is not an excuse for excessive friendly fire. It has never been an excuse for excessive friendly fire.
Fact: For over 20 seconds the attack logs show you repeatedly hitting Clair with friendly fire.
Fact: The only time this would be acceptable is if it falls neatly into the package of the "sometimes SS13 shifts get chaotic and things happen by accedent when we play to a reasonable standard" exception.

This falls under conduct break #3: 3. All posts by admins in FNR should be meaningful and contribute to the discussion. Head admin is experienced enough to realize that unusual activity either had to be a very strong IC reason or some other factor which could be easily ruled out if the round logs and not only the attack ones were seen to put everything on perspective. Failed to give an example of that "reasonable standard exception". Rounds on Manuel are mostly chaotic and that one was clearly not an exception, again, if the logs were seen. Attack logs by themselves do not add context nor explain IC actions. So if there is an opening for such thing to be acceptable, it should had been properly reviewed and explained.

3-You took shortcuts and seemed to be relying on the crutch of your deafness/language issues/lag. This ended up with a situation where rules were broken.

This falls under conduct break #3: 3. All posts by admins in FNR should be meaningful and contribute to the discussion. Assumptions without anything concrete to prove that statement was accurate. "Seemeed" is used, therefore, shows uncertainty. Conclusion based on that uncertainty led to a conclusion being: "Rules were broken". Doesn't provide how my rely on the crutch of my deafness, language issues and lag broke the rules that weren't mentioned, therefore, it's a vague statement that won't contribute to the discussion.

4- IC disabilities make the game harder. They make the game harder because the admin team don't allow players to rely on them as a crutch for shitty play. You don't get blasted by an explosion, become deaf and go "Yes! Now I don't have to talk to players and can just start shooting whenever I want because I can't hear them anyway!"

This falls under conduct break # 1 and #3: 1. No Attacks/harassment towards players , 3. All posts by admins in FNR should be meaningful and contribute to the discussion. After a brief line that kinda contradicts their previous statements of how disabilities should not be regarded as a strong argument, the two underlined statements that followed are an agressive tone implying that I had no IC reason to act the way I did and suggests a player behaviour that I never showed before not only on this round but on any other previous one that I have played so far, which was to take advantadge of certain in game circumstances. I saw this as an attack to my reputation that had no basis and contributed nothing to the discussion since it was an opinion without any specifics given.

5-Our roleplay environment doesn't work that way and you have just the same obligation to make reasonable and sound judgement calls when you're IC deaf, dumb and blind as you do when you're IC

This falls under conduct break #3: 3. All posts by admins in FNR should be meaningful and contribute to the discussion. Another statement that doesn't contribute to the discussion. Fails to point out on how exactly I could had done things different under the circumstances I had and shunned again my reasoning both OOC and IC. This is where the guidance Head Admin said he intended to do would be the most helpful: On telling me what I could had done in terms of interactions and roleplay to avoid the supposed rules that were never mentioned being broken.

6-You're just leaning on the "things were harder so I took the easy route and skipped my responsibilities as a player, negatively impacting the game for someone else" gambit.
This falls under conduct break # 1 and #3: 1. No Attacks/harassment towards players , 3. All posts by admins in FNR should be meaningful and contribute to the discussion. Just a plain attack directed at my reputation based on assumptions and opinion. Suggests that I took advantadge (again) and that I skipped responsibilities as a player when that wasn't the case. Adds nothing to the discussion because it's an agressive statement without any basis since round logs points otherwise: I had a lot of IC reasons to neutralize the target. It was my responsibility as a security officer at a time where lethals were authorized and I had to protect the crew. Again,a quick read at the round logs would point to that conclusion.

7-Having IC disabilities does not excuse this. You weren't attacked, you weren't acting in self defense, you were the aggressor. When you initiate conflict that results in other players dying, you must have a good IC reason for doing so.

This falls under conduct break #3: 3. All posts by admins in FNR should be meaningful and contribute to the discussion. This statement contributed nothing to the discussion. Again, IC reasons were at the logs and listed on replies at the ban appeal discussion many times. Shunned again my reasoning as an excuse. I was not ONLY ATTACKED by an HERETIC, I was killed and ghouled.Others were too. Again, facts being ignored, reasons being shunned and logs unread/also ignored. Pattern of behaviour that never contributed to this discussion in a constructive way.

8-I would have probably given you a day ban for this.

I am unsure if this falls on 2. No threats of banning specific players in public channels. But goes for me as #3 3. All posts by admins in FNR should be meaningful and contribute to the discussion. According to admin conduct: Any declaration and intention to ban someone for something related to a player's actions in-game or outside of space station 13 should not be done in public channels that can be seen by any party. For the purpose of this expectation, a public channel is any channel that can be seen by anyone on a server who is not an admin.
Indirectly suggests that I would be banned if it was him the admin during the round? It's a declaration to ban someone (me) and related to a player's action in-game at forums where anyone on a server who is not an admin can see. I honestly don't know if it applies to this rule, but, it certainly for me, applies on this #3 simply because it adds nothing to the discussion on a constructive way whatsoever. Head Admin is implying that some admins are more strict than others? Not for me to know and I have no interest on this information. Also, by that time ban was lifted already. Objective was to remove the notes so once again, needless assertion that could had been taken as intimidation. ( which I didn't)

9- You failed to work with me and wasted your time discussing and arguing irrelevant points that even if true don't change this note or ban. You did not listen and stubbornly stuck to your guns despite my patience dealing with an appeal that has wasted more of my time than your entire ban duration.

This falls under conduct break # 1: 1. No Attacks/harassment towards players.
Mentions that I "failed to work with him" (?????), states my points were irrelevant and "EVEN IF THEY WERE TRUE" wouldn't change the note or ban. Calls me a stubborn and states that I " wasted more of his time than my entire ban duration".
I don't have to "work " with the head admin. I present REASONS with FACTS AND LOGS to JUSTIFY my IC actions. I have no desire and never will shape events on a certain way nor make excuses just to please or satisfy certain conditions that weren't even presented to me and EVEN IF THEY WERE, I would completely DISREGARD them. Regards this as a waste of time.
Confesses the predisposition to reject my reasoning: "EVEN IF THEY WERE TRUE, WOULDN'T CHANGE THE NOTE OR BAN". Very agressive tone, contributes with absolutely nothing to the discussion. What does he mean with that? That even if my reasoning was right and legit, it would be disregarded? Contradicts previous statement given by head admin:

Fact: The only time this would be acceptable is if it falls neatly into the package of the "sometimes SS13 shifts get chaotic and things happen by accedent when we play to a reasonable standard" exception.

10-Think before you act next time. You and you alone are responsible not only for your own actions but also your own ignorance and the outcomes of said ignorance when combined with your actions.
This falls under conduct break # 1 and #3: 1. No Attacks/harassment towards players , 3. All posts by admins in FNR should be meaningful and contribute to the discussion. Another needless agressive tone that contributes nothing to the discussion based on opinion that I acted without thinking. Logs shows otherwise, I actually intended to neutralize target after me and officer Claire lost sight of the heretic around arrivals maints with good IC reasons. I went back and took the shotgun shells. I thought about this act. A better argument with a good example could be given instead of just calling me out as an ignorant person.

I got an ultimatum from this admin:

So I'll give you one last chance to stop blaming your lag, stop blaming the admins and stop blaming everyone else around you and start coming up with the kind of stuff we can use to resolve this appeal in your favour:

This falls under conduct break # 1 and #3: 1. No Attacks/harassment towards players , 3. All posts by admins in FNR should be meaningful and contribute to the discussion. Needless agressive tone that contributes nothing to the discussion on any constructive way. The reply I gave to head admin at the ban appeal post should suffice to state my reasoning on flagging this as break of conduct:

Imposing an ultimatum because you have a certain status to someone is very rude. I have been assertive but respectful. Telling me it's a last post beause this dreaded for way too long is fine but trying to intimidate me or anyone is a bad take.If that wasn't intended it's fine but reading the way you putted it I interpreted this way. Apologies in advance if it wasn't the case. It's just a video-game after all.

Conclusion:
During my appeal I was assertive however never once disrespectful or agressive and was replying all the time to nothing but agressive tone and fingers pointed at me excessively alongside with the extreme disregard tactic used by both admins. I was willing to change my mind:

Its getting quite frustrating to see that I have to repeat myself over and over again and just get ignored. There hasn't been a single refutation to any of the conditions that I stated nor any argument based on logs or facts to counter argument what I say. All I get is again, judgements and fingers pointed. Im not an intolerant guy, if I see facts and good arguments that do prove and shows that I did this in a negligent way, I will accept the note and apologize. But so far there is none. And of course to the Claire player, even though the character was rushed to medical immediatly, I do feel sorry and it's pretty much clear that you were not the target and wasn't my intent to take her down. The logs provided by the player( and kinda backfired your argument) again, PROVES that.

A guidance would be from my pont of view something of the sort: "Hey, you were negligent IC according to us. Because of that, you broke rule A. You pointed your reasons. We don't agree because [reasoning]. Next time you face this kind of situation, do this instead :

That never happened. My logs were ignored, my IC reasons were ignored, my reasoning for doing what I did was disregarded, I was told I was blaming admins, everyone else (???), called a stubborn, wasted his time and brought irrevelant points to the discussion and had to turn things myself in "my favour" despite my reasoning AND IC JUSTIFICATIONS WITH LOGS TO BACK THEM UP. I can take the last part, but the hostility towards me as a player that had struggles during that round made me post this complaint.

Thanks in advance for the attention and time that will be put into this.

[Timberpoes]

Since I'm currently a headmin, this complaint will naturally be handled by my two co-headmins.

I have no additional comments beyond what I already put on the appeal.

I said what I said. I stand by what I said. I stand by how I said it.

This is a waste of my time. I wish you the best of luck.

[Vekter]

Hey, I'm not directly involved in this but I do have a question if I may.

What are you hoping to gain from this complaint? Like, if the other headmins did vote that he'd acted outside of what we'd consider acceptable, what looks like a fair resolution to you?

[kieth4]

Hia, we don't allow complaints based on bans unless the ban is successfully overturned.

We do however allow complaints based on admin conduct. Can I ask you to restructure this with that in mind please with focusing on exactly how you feel the admin/admins broke conduct?

E.g
[/quote] I believe this broke conduct because....
[Action] I believe this broke conduct because....

Doing it in this way or similar will assure nothing gets missed and can be directly addressed.

At the moment your post is somewhat hard to digest and I fear that the point you are making may be lost in that, If you could clear it up for me it would be much appreciated.

[1jovemtr00]

Hey, I'm not directly involved in this but I do have a question if I may.

What are you hoping to gain from this complaint? Like, if the other headmins did vote that he'd acted outside of what we'd consider acceptable, what looks like a fair resolution to you?

Yeah I forgot to add the objectives. Apologies, was doing this during break time.

I want my case if possible to be reopened ( the ban appeal) and handled better. The tone used by the head admin wasn't ideal and my reasoning both OOC and IC on this cased was just shunned, disregarded.

You were involved actually. The first post you made at my appeal was actually discrediting the lag I had if I remember correctly.

[Timberpoes]

I have absolutely no opposition at all if the other two headmins want to re-open your appeal, delete my posts and handle it themselves.

They've got my full support and blessing if that is what they wish to do. :)

[1jovemtr00]

Hia, we don't allow complaints based on bans unless the ban is successfully overturned.

We do however allow complaints based on admin conduct. Can I ask you to restructure this with that in mind please with focusing on exactly how you feel the admin/admins broke conduct?

Hello, once again, thanks for the heads up. I have changed it quite a bit to be more concisive and listed point by point which conducts were broken, where exactly and why I thought so. Hope it's better now. Apologies for not doing before as the template says explicitit to give a detailed summary only so I figured that it was not my place to actually explicit say how and where conducts were broken. Thanks for the patience, first time Im doing this and I really hope it's the last.

[Timberpoes]

Okay, for the sake of argument I have a brief response:

1. My posts weren't attacking or harassing you when read in full.
2. You weren't threatened with a ban. In concluding the appeal, I compared the punishment you got with how I would have handled it if I was in TheBibleMelts' place: "I would have probably given you a day ban for this. So the punishment isn't excessive in my eyes."
3. My posts were meaningful and contributed to the discussion, directly aimed at guiding you towards what you needed to talk about to succeed in the appeal.

So I don't believe there's any basis or merit to this complaint.

And please don't post another thesis in reply to this if you disagree. My co-headmins are liable to throw themselves off a bridge if that happens.

[1jovemtr00]

Okay, for the sake of argument I have a brief response:

1. My posts weren't attacking or harassing you when read in full.
2. You weren't threatened with a ban. In concluding the appeal, I compared the punishment you got with how I would have handled it if I was in TheBibleMelts' place: "I would have probably given you a day ban for this. So the punishment isn't excessive in my eyes."
3. My posts were meaningful and contributed to the discussion, directly aimed at guiding you towards what you needed to talk about to succeed in the appeal.

So I don't believe there's any basis or merit to this complaint.

And please don't post another thesis in reply to this if you disagree. My co-headmins are liable to throw themselves off a bridge if that happens.

Since I'm currently a headmin, this complaint will naturally be handled by my two co-headmins.

I have no additional comments beyond what I already put on the appeal.

You posted three times already after this...

1. Yes they were. When you're trying to guide someone, you don't use that kind of language or tone, regardless being read fully or not. Words like "shitty", "ignorance", "stubborn" are just not necessary for that purpose. Sentences that implies intentional misconduct, call outs for it being a "waste of time" and ultimatums are also out of place and not required. More examples above on the "thesis".
2. Contributed nothing to the discussion, I don't need or want to know that. Your tone during the whole appeal and way you handled it left it open for others interpretations. It wasn't about the 1 hour ban, it was about the notes, therefore, off topic needless argument. Explain how this is meaningful and gave any kind of contributation maybe and how that actually could had guided me towards succeding in the appeal? Also, you gave clear indications that you had your mind made up since your very first post at the ban appeal. Wasn't your intention to guide or change your mind.
3. No they weren't. You never guided anything, you just tried to discredit me and what I stated excessively (just like you're trying to do now), didn't read the log I attatched and used innapropriate tone and language to adress to me. You never pointed a single rule broken nor what I could had done better.

Not my problem if you think that was a "thesis". Not surprised that you think it is though. I propose a deal: I will keep my replies shorter if you bring up arguments instead of just trying to discredit or attack someone's reputation publicly. How about that?

[Timberpoes]

Lol

[Vekter]

There's nothing in the admin guidelines that says admins have to be nice to you about the situation they're handling.

They have to be professional.

Source: https://tgstation13.org/wiki/Admin_Conduct

Kieth4: EDITED TO REMOVE PEANUT-Y PART.

[kieth4]

Let me pre-face this with the fact that headmins have the privilege to post basically w/e the fuck they want in appeals. This can be found here. viewtopic.php?f=7&t=44

"This would allow players who are invested in the rules, have the experience, and can conduct themselves well to advocate in threads. Reminder that this applies to uninvolved admins except Headmins."

I would like you to answer some questions for me.

1- You and you alone are you responsibe for the actions you take,and as much as you're insistent on blaming everything else from your lag to being ghouled to being deaf
This falls under conduct break # 1 and #3: 1. No Attacks/harassment towards players , 3. All posts by admins in FNR should be meaningful and contribute to the discussion. I wasn't blaming anything, I was pointing the reasons that made me act the way I did IC and there was no "everything else". Was a single incident that I got bwoinked for by TheBibleMelts. This statement is agressive because of the tone implying that Im "blaming" everything when they were actually justifications and suggests multiple incidents and contributes nothing to the discuss becase it fails to point exactly how my action was wrong and which rule I broke .

How exactly does this constitute harassment? You are in all technicalities blaming another action for your own. You feeling that he has no contribution doesn't entirely matter as he has the right as a headmin to chime in. (as mentioned earlier.) From my perspective, it looks like he is simply taking the agency away from why you claim you did it and placing it on you for doing it.

This falls under conduct break #3: 3. All posts by admins in FNR should be meaningful and contribute to the discussion.

As mentioned earlier, this doesn't matter one bit. He can post w/e he wants. So every post you prefaced with this I am going to summarily ignore as there is no case to be made I'm afraid.

IC disabilities make the game harder. They make the game harder because the admin team don't allow players to rely on them as a crutch for shitty play. You don't get blasted by an explosion, become deaf and go "Yes! Now I don't have to talk to players and can just start shooting whenever I want because I can't hear them anyway!"

This falls under conduct break # 1 and #3: 1. No Attacks/harassment towards players , 3. All posts by admins in FNR should be meaningful and contribute to the discussion. After a brief line that kinda contradicts their previous statements of how disabilities should not be regarded as a strong argument, the two underlined statements that followed are an agressive tone implying that I had no IC reason to act the way I did and suggests a player behaviour that I never showed before not only on this round but on any other previous one that I have played so far, which was to take advantadge of certain in game circumstances. I saw this as an attack to my reputation that had no basis and contributed nothing to the discussion since it was an opinion without any specifics given.

I do not think that a slightly aggressive tone constitutes harassment or attacks on players. He is not attacking you or your reputation- let me create a hypothetical example based in this complaint as it's easy to think of something."YOU WROTE A 3.2K ADMIN COMPLAINT, YOU SHOULD LEARN BREVITY BECAUSE IT'S LONGER THAN AN ACADEMIC PAPER AND I AM NOT BEING PAID TO READ IT. YOU SHOULD NEVER WRITE AGAIN!!" I view this as an attack on you (It's purely hypothetical with a tinge of humour- please don't misunderstand) but it's directly attacking you for the action you took and it's essentially flaming you. What Timber seems to have done is create a situation to attempt to help you see the issue that arose- your focus seems hyperfixated on the tone whilst I believe that you're completely missing the message that was presented. They're not calling you bad but they're trying to bring up a situation that you can look at and go- hey that's kinda shit and then self reflect on how it may or may not relate to your own.

You're free to disagree obviously- but I'd like to ask, have you thought about the words themselves as opposed to hyperfixating on the tone? Take yourself away from the ban appeal and imagine that situation in a vacuum.

6-You're just leaning on the "things were harder so I took the easy route and skipped my responsibilities as a player, negatively impacting the game for someone else" gambit.
This falls under conduct break # 1 and #3: 1. No Attacks/harassment towards players , 3. All posts by admins in FNR should be meaningful and contribute to the discussion. Just a plain attack directed at my reputation based on assumptions and opinion. Suggests that I took advantadge (again) and that I skipped responsibilities as a player when that wasn't the case. Adds nothing to the discussion because it's an agressive statement without any basis since round logs points otherwise: I had a lot of IC reasons to neutralize the target. It was my responsibility as a security officer at a time where lethals were authorized and I had to protect the crew. Again,a quick read at the round logs would point to that conclusion.

It feels like you've taken this post somewhat out of context. If by itself, I could see it aggressive- yes- but by grabbing the full quote it seems fair in the scope of a ban appeal. This does not seem like harassment- it's an accusation, sure. But not harassing you.

Your IC disabilities explain why you didn't speak first. But they don't explain what you did instead to gain as full and clear understanding of the situation as possible before acting. And you don't explain that either. You're just leaning on the "things were harder so I took the easy route and skipped my responsibilities as a player, negatively impacting the game for someone else" gambit."

Contextually I see no issue, you are free to change my mind.

8-I would have probably given you a day ban for this.

I am unsure if this falls on 2. No threats of banning specific players in public channels. But goes for me as #3 3. All posts by admins in FNR should be meaningful and contribute to the discussion. According to admin conduct: Any declaration and intention to ban someone for something related to a player's actions in-game or outside of space station 13 should not be done in public channels that can be seen by any party. For the purpose of this expectation, a public channel is any channel that can be seen by anyone on a server who is not an admin.
Indirectly suggests that I would be banned if it was him the admin during the round? It's a declaration to ban someone (me) and related to a player's action in-game at forums where anyone on a server who is not an admin can see. I honestly don't know if it applies to this rule, but, it certainly for me, applies on this #3 simply because it adds nothing to the discussion on a constructive way whatsoever. Head Admin is implying that some admins are more strict than others? Not for me to know and I have no interest on this information. Also, by that time ban was lifted already. Objective was to remove the notes so once again, needless assertion that could had been taken as intimidation. ( which I didn't)

This is NOT a threat. Going "I would have treated you differently" is not threatening you in any way- he was pointing out the lenience of the other admin as our unspoken rule is 1 kill = 1 day ban. He instead gave you 1hr.

I do not feel that stern words from admins or headmins should be banned- every admin has a right to speak like a human and every player has a right to respond. This is a game run by volunteers and no one is obligated to be kind.

I am open to having my mind changed on the points- but from a preliminary look this seems to be a non-issue.

This response was slightly over 500 words, I appreciate that some people are much wordier than me but I ask you to keep your response under 800 words.. I simply do not have the time to analyse larger blocks of text, I'm sorry.

Also, I don't know why you feel so slighted by a note- here are some of mine.

[1jovemtr00]

Let me pre-face this with the fact that headmins have the privilege to post basically w/e the fuck they want in appeals. This can be found here. viewtopic.php?f=7&t=44

"This would allow players who are invested in the rules, have the experience, and can conduct themselves well to advocate in threads. Reminder that this applies to uninvolved admins except Headmins."

I would like you to answer some questions for me.

1- You and you alone are you responsibe for the actions you take,and as much as you're insistent on blaming everything else from your lag to being ghouled to being deaf
This falls under conduct break # 1 and #3: 1. No Attacks/harassment towards players , 3. All posts by admins in FNR should be meaningful and contribute to the discussion. I wasn't blaming anything, I was pointing the reasons that made me act the way I did IC and there was no "everything else". Was a single incident that I got bwoinked for by TheBibleMelts. This statement is agressive because of the tone implying that Im "blaming" everything when they were actually justifications and suggests multiple incidents and contributes nothing to the discuss becase it fails to point exactly how my action was wrong and which rule I broke .

How exactly does this constitute harassment? You are in all technicalities blaming another action for your own. You feeling that he has no contribution doesn't entirely matter as he has the right as a headmin to chime in. (as mentioned earlier.) From my perspective, it looks like he is simply taking the agency away from why you claim you did it and placing it on you for doing it.

This falls under conduct break #3: 3. All posts by admins in FNR should be meaningful and contribute to the discussion.

As mentioned earlier, this doesn't matter one bit. He can post w/e he wants. So every post you prefaced with this I am going to summarily ignore as there is no case to be made I'm afraid.

IC disabilities make the game harder. They make the game harder because the admin team don't allow players to rely on them as a crutch for shitty play. You don't get blasted by an explosion, become deaf and go "Yes! Now I don't have to talk to players and can just start shooting whenever I want because I can't hear them anyway!"

This falls under conduct break # 1 and #3: 1. No Attacks/harassment towards players , 3. All posts by admins in FNR should be meaningful and contribute to the discussion. After a brief line that kinda contradicts their previous statements of how disabilities should not be regarded as a strong argument, the two underlined statements that followed are an agressive tone implying that I had no IC reason to act the way I did and suggests a player behaviour that I never showed before not only on this round but on any other previous one that I have played so far, which was to take advantadge of certain in game circumstances. I saw this as an attack to my reputation that had no basis and contributed nothing to the discussion since it was an opinion without any specifics given.

I do not think that a slightly aggressive tone constitutes harassment or attacks on players. He is not attacking you or your reputation- let me create a hypothetical example based in this complaint as it's easy to think of something."YOU WROTE A 3.2K ADMIN COMPLAINT, YOU SHOULD LEARN BREVITY BECAUSE IT'S LONGER THAN AN ACADEMIC PAPER AND I AM NOT BEING PAID TO READ IT. YOU SHOULD NEVER WRITE AGAIN!!" I view this as an attack on you (It's purely hypothetical with a tinge of humour- please don't misunderstand) but it's directly attacking you for the action you took and it's essentially flaming you. What Timber seems to have done is create a situation to attempt to help you see the issue that arose- your focus seems hyperfixated on the tone whilst I believe that you're completely missing the message that was presented. They're not calling you bad but they're trying to bring up a situation that you can look at and go- hey that's kinda shit and then self reflect on how it may or may not relate to your own.

You're free to disagree obviously- but I'd like to ask, have you thought about the words themselves as opposed to hyperfixating on the tone? Take yourself away from the ban appeal and imagine that situation in a vacuum.

6-You're just leaning on the "things were harder so I took the easy route and skipped my responsibilities as a player, negatively impacting the game for someone else" gambit.
This falls under conduct break # 1 and #3: 1. No Attacks/harassment towards players , 3. All posts by admins in FNR should be meaningful and contribute to the discussion. Just a plain attack directed at my reputation based on assumptions and opinion. Suggests that I took advantadge (again) and that I skipped responsibilities as a player when that wasn't the case. Adds nothing to the discussion because it's an agressive statement without any basis since round logs points otherwise: I had a lot of IC reasons to neutralize the target. It was my responsibility as a security officer at a time where lethals were authorized and I had to protect the crew. Again,a quick read at the round logs would point to that conclusion.

It feels like you've taken this post somewhat out of context. If by itself, I could see it aggressive- yes- but by grabbing the full quote it seems fair in the scope of a ban appeal. This does not seem like harassment- it's an accusation, sure. But not harassing you.

Your IC disabilities explain why you didn't speak first. But they don't explain what you did instead to gain as full and clear understanding of the situation as possible before acting. And you don't explain that either. You're just leaning on the "things were harder so I took the easy route and skipped my responsibilities as a player, negatively impacting the game for someone else" gambit."

Contextually I see no issue, you are free to change my mind.

8-I would have probably given you a day ban for this.

I am unsure if this falls on 2. No threats of banning specific players in public channels. But goes for me as #3 3. All posts by admins in FNR should be meaningful and contribute to the discussion. According to admin conduct: Any declaration and intention to ban someone for something related to a player's actions in-game or outside of space station 13 should not be done in public channels that can be seen by any party. For the purpose of this expectation, a public channel is any channel that can be seen by anyone on a server who is not an admin.
Indirectly suggests that I would be banned if it was him the admin during the round? It's a declaration to ban someone (me) and related to a player's action in-game at forums where anyone on a server who is not an admin can see. I honestly don't know if it applies to this rule, but, it certainly for me, applies on this #3 simply because it adds nothing to the discussion on a constructive way whatsoever. Head Admin is implying that some admins are more strict than others? Not for me to know and I have no interest on this information. Also, by that time ban was lifted already. Objective was to remove the notes so once again, needless assertion that could had been taken as intimidation. ( which I didn't)

This is NOT a threat. Going "I would have treated you differently" is not threatening you in any way- he was pointing out the lenience of the other admin as our unspoken rule is 1 kill = 1 day ban. He instead gave you 1hr.

I do not feel that stern words from admins or headmins should be banned- every admin has a right to speak like a human and every player has a right to respond. This is a game run by volunteers and no one is obligated to be kind.

I am open to having my mind changed on the points- but from a preliminary look this seems to be a non-issue.

This response was slightly over 500 words, I appreciate that some people are much wordier than me but I ask you to keep your response under 800 words.. I simply do not have the time to analyse larger blocks of text, I'm sorry.

Also, I don't know why you feel so slighted by a note- here are some of mine.

Hey Kieth thanks for you reply.

I wasn't aware of that link where it says an admin has privileges to say anything he wants. So there are rules for admin conduct, but also rules that allows them to not follow the conducts...got it.

My case is based on the rules of admin conduct. It doesn't seem they matter though, after what happened at the ban appeal and the comments I read at the players club regarding my very long post. About the lenght that I see you and your friends complaining and making fun of it: apologies because after your first reply I thought you wanted me to point exactly each point that broke which rule thoroughly and not necessarily reduce the ammount of words. Kinda something I have been asked to your friends TheBibleMelts and Timbertoes to do on the ban appeal multiple times. I apologize about it. Think your friends are curious to know how long it took for me to make that post, was around 20 minutes of my lunch break, done while eating by the way! :D

As I stated there, my objective was the removal of the notes simply because I don't think what I did at the round even if ruled out to be wrong (which was since I served the ban), deserved the treatment I received on the points I highlighted from the ban appeal. Again, the length of the ban quite wasn't the issue despite what some of your friends said.

Im not against being stern either. I think the overall approach was a bad take which was obviously to discredit me as a player, my reputation and ignore everything I said and my logs. What I was looking for ( still am) is which rule I broke exactly and despite all the problems I listed during the appeal and the IC reasons which unlike one of your friends said at the players club, were in the logs and stated multiple times basically on almost every single post I made there. The "guidance" would be to tell me what to do when I face that kind of situation again. Kinda simple. If your admin friend don't want to do that, well, don't offer?

Seeing your friends reaction about this appeal, I think you get my point why I wanted my notes taken out. One of them said "it's just a game". Exactly my point. Tell me where Im wrong, which rule I broke and that's it. That was asked multiple times at the ban appeal. No need to imply that Im taking advantadge of something or that I played on bad faith just because I had disabilities IC and the rest I pointed up there since the logs and my history of first offence proves otherwise. That is not guidance nor being stern.

You have been very honest with me and I appreciate it. Therefore, I ask: I can adress to the points you raised. Will it make a difference? Because obviously admins are "protected" by the rule you pointed out here and I take the next step will be to "sit on it". Hope the length is better now for you and your friends!

[dendydoom]

i'd like to interject here with what i feel is relevant about how bans work:

bans always come with a note. the ban needs a reason that's formally recorded, and this serves doubly as a note. there aren't really cases where we will uphold a ban for being valid, but remove the "note" associated with it for being invalid. if the ban is valid, then so is the note.

i hope this makes sense.

[Vekter]

I wasn't aware of that link where it says an admin has privileges to say anything he wants. So there are rules for admin conduct, but also rules that allows them to not follow the conducts...got it.

This is misrepresenting what was said and what the rule Kieth pointed to says.

This would allow players who are invested in the rules, have the experience, and can conduct themselves well to advocate in threads. Reminder that this applies to uninvolved admins except Headmins.

This rule exists because otherwise head admins would be unable to post in threads where they have relevant questions even if they weren't involved directly in the ban. Admins (Trial, Game, Game masters, etc.) still have to abide by this rule. Head admins have no obligation to do so.

[conrad]

Tell me where Im wrong, which rule I broke and that's it.

Heya. Third interjection here. I'm basing this off of what's been said here:

This is NOT a threat. Going "I would have treated you differently" is not threatening you in any way- he was pointing out the lenience of the other admin as our unspoken rule is 1 kill = 1 day ban. He instead gave you 1hr.

The rule in question is the first of rule 1's precedents.

Random murders are not acceptable nor is the killing of other players for poor or little reasoning such as ‘My character is insane’. Each unjustified kill is normally met with one 24 hour ban.

Please bear in mind that this is an estimate: admins are allowed to raise or lower the ban duration. No ban duration is truly set in stone (except permanent bans for cetain egregious rule breaks, and even those can usually be debated against).

Thank you!

[kieth4]

Let me pre-face this with the fact that headmins have the privilege to post basically w/e the fuck they want in appeals. This can be found here. viewtopic.php?f=7&t=44

"This would allow players who are invested in the rules, have the experience, and can conduct themselves well to advocate in threads. Reminder that this applies to uninvolved admins except Headmins."

I would like you to answer some questions for me.

1- You and you alone are you responsibe for the actions you take,and as much as you're insistent on blaming everything else from your lag to being ghouled to being deaf
This falls under conduct break # 1 and #3: 1. No Attacks/harassment towards players , 3. All posts by admins in FNR should be meaningful and contribute to the discussion. I wasn't blaming anything, I was pointing the reasons that made me act the way I did IC and there was no "everything else". Was a single incident that I got bwoinked for by TheBibleMelts. This statement is agressive because of the tone implying that Im "blaming" everything when they were actually justifications and suggests multiple incidents and contributes nothing to the discuss becase it fails to point exactly how my action was wrong and which rule I broke .

How exactly does this constitute harassment? You are in all technicalities blaming another action for your own. You feeling that he has no contribution doesn't entirely matter as he has the right as a headmin to chime in. (as mentioned earlier.) From my perspective, it looks like he is simply taking the agency away from why you claim you did it and placing it on you for doing it.

This falls under conduct break #3: 3. All posts by admins in FNR should be meaningful and contribute to the discussion.

As mentioned earlier, this doesn't matter one bit. He can post w/e he wants. So every post you prefaced with this I am going to summarily ignore as there is no case to be made I'm afraid.

IC disabilities make the game harder. They make the game harder because the admin team don't allow players to rely on them as a crutch for shitty play. You don't get blasted by an explosion, become deaf and go "Yes! Now I don't have to talk to players and can just start shooting whenever I want because I can't hear them anyway!"

This falls under conduct break # 1 and #3: 1. No Attacks/harassment towards players , 3. All posts by admins in FNR should be meaningful and contribute to the discussion. After a brief line that kinda contradicts their previous statements of how disabilities should not be regarded as a strong argument, the two underlined statements that followed are an agressive tone implying that I had no IC reason to act the way I did and suggests a player behaviour that I never showed before not only on this round but on any other previous one that I have played so far, which was to take advantadge of certain in game circumstances. I saw this as an attack to my reputation that had no basis and contributed nothing to the discussion since it was an opinion without any specifics given.

I do not think that a slightly aggressive tone constitutes harassment or attacks on players. He is not attacking you or your reputation- let me create a hypothetical example based in this complaint as it's easy to think of something."YOU WROTE A 3.2K ADMIN COMPLAINT, YOU SHOULD LEARN BREVITY BECAUSE IT'S LONGER THAN AN ACADEMIC PAPER AND I AM NOT BEING PAID TO READ IT. YOU SHOULD NEVER WRITE AGAIN!!" I view this as an attack on you (It's purely hypothetical with a tinge of humour- please don't misunderstand) but it's directly attacking you for the action you took and it's essentially flaming you. What Timber seems to have done is create a situation to attempt to help you see the issue that arose- your focus seems hyperfixated on the tone whilst I believe that you're completely missing the message that was presented. They're not calling you bad but they're trying to bring up a situation that you can look at and go- hey that's kinda shit and then self reflect on how it may or may not relate to your own.

You're free to disagree obviously- but I'd like to ask, have you thought about the words themselves as opposed to hyperfixating on the tone? Take yourself away from the ban appeal and imagine that situation in a vacuum.

6-You're just leaning on the "things were harder so I took the easy route and skipped my responsibilities as a player, negatively impacting the game for someone else" gambit.
This falls under conduct break # 1 and #3: 1. No Attacks/harassment towards players , 3. All posts by admins in FNR should be meaningful and contribute to the discussion. Just a plain attack directed at my reputation based on assumptions and opinion. Suggests that I took advantadge (again) and that I skipped responsibilities as a player when that wasn't the case. Adds nothing to the discussion because it's an agressive statement without any basis since round logs points otherwise: I had a lot of IC reasons to neutralize the target. It was my responsibility as a security officer at a time where lethals were authorized and I had to protect the crew. Again,a quick read at the round logs would point to that conclusion.

It feels like you've taken this post somewhat out of context. If by itself, I could see it aggressive- yes- but by grabbing the full quote it seems fair in the scope of a ban appeal. This does not seem like harassment- it's an accusation, sure. But not harassing you.

Your IC disabilities explain why you didn't speak first. But they don't explain what you did instead to gain as full and clear understanding of the situation as possible before acting. And you don't explain that either. You're just leaning on the "things were harder so I took the easy route and skipped my responsibilities as a player, negatively impacting the game for someone else" gambit."

Contextually I see no issue, you are free to change my mind.

8-I would have probably given you a day ban for this.

I am unsure if this falls on 2. No threats of banning specific players in public channels. But goes for me as #3 3. All posts by admins in FNR should be meaningful and contribute to the discussion. According to admin conduct: Any declaration and intention to ban someone for something related to a player's actions in-game or outside of space station 13 should not be done in public channels that can be seen by any party. For the purpose of this expectation, a public channel is any channel that can be seen by anyone on a server who is not an admin.
Indirectly suggests that I would be banned if it was him the admin during the round? It's a declaration to ban someone (me) and related to a player's action in-game at forums where anyone on a server who is not an admin can see. I honestly don't know if it applies to this rule, but, it certainly for me, applies on this #3 simply because it adds nothing to the discussion on a constructive way whatsoever. Head Admin is implying that some admins are more strict than others? Not for me to know and I have no interest on this information. Also, by that time ban was lifted already. Objective was to remove the notes so once again, needless assertion that could had been taken as intimidation. ( which I didn't)

This is NOT a threat. Going "I would have treated you differently" is not threatening you in any way- he was pointing out the lenience of the other admin as our unspoken rule is 1 kill = 1 day ban. He instead gave you 1hr.

I do not feel that stern words from admins or headmins should be banned- every admin has a right to speak like a human and every player has a right to respond. This is a game run by volunteers and no one is obligated to be kind.

I am open to having my mind changed on the points- but from a preliminary look this seems to be a non-issue.

This response was slightly over 500 words, I appreciate that some people are much wordier than me but I ask you to keep your response under 800 words.. I simply do not have the time to analyse larger blocks of text, I'm sorry.

Also, I don't know why you feel so slighted by a note- here are some of mine.

Hey Kieth thanks for you reply.

I wasn't aware of that link where it says an admin has privileges to say anything he wants. So there are rules for admin conduct, but also rules that allows them to not follow the conducts...got it.

My case is based on the rules of admin conduct. It doesn't seem they matter though, after what happened at the ban appeal and the comments I read at the players club regarding my very long post. About the lenght that I see you and your friends complaining and making fun of it: apologies because after your first reply I thought you wanted me to point exactly each point that broke which rule thoroughly and not necessarily reduce the ammount of words. Kinda something I have been asked to your friends TheBibleMelts and Timbertoes to do on the ban appeal multiple times. I apologize about it. Think your friends are curious to know how long it took for me to make that post, was around 20 minutes of my lunch break, done while eating by the way!

As I stated there, my objective was the removal of the notes simply because I don't think what I did at the round even if ruled out to be wrong (which was since I served the ban), deserved the treatment I received on the points I highlighted from the ban appeal. Again, the length of the ban quite wasn't the issue despite what some of your friends said.

Im not against being stern either. I think the overall approach was a bad take which was obviously to discredit me as a player, my reputation and ignore everything I said and my logs. What I was looking for ( still am) is which rule I broke exactly and despite all the problems I listed during the appeal and the IC reasons which unlike one of your friends said at the players club, were in the logs and stated multiple times basically on almost every single post I made there. The "guidance" would be to tell me what to do when I face that kind of situation again. Kinda simple. If your admin friend don't want to do that, well, don't offer?

Seeing your friends reaction about this appeal, I think you get my point why I wanted my notes taken out. One of them said "it's just a game". Exactly my point. Tell me where Im wrong, which rule I broke and that's it. That was asked multiple times at the ban appeal. No need to imply that Im taking advantadge of something or that I played on bad faith just because I had disabilities IC and the rest I pointed up there since the logs and my history of first offence proves otherwise. That is not guidance nor being stern.

You have been very honest with me and I appreciate it. Therefore, I ask: I can adress to the points you raised. Will it make a difference? Because obviously admins are "protected" by the rule you pointed out here and I take the next step will be to "sit on it". Hope the length is better now for you and your friends!

I'll be 100 real and honest with you.

Please do not refer to players club posters as my friends- half of them smell bad and I do not want to be associated with them. I think it's important to realise that I am not an essay poster getting 200 words out if me is hard so having to read a super large paragraph is somewhat soul draining. I appreciate that others like posting a thesis in response to your points but that simply isn't me.

Complaints cannot be made on bans themselves, I understand you might want the note and disagree but if the ruling is no it is more than likely to stay no unless you can post to an egregious case of admin miscommunication/abuse/something.

I took a glance at the appeal itself and it is way too fucking long for me to read, it's locked I am not reading it. This isn't relevant to the complaint really and you cannot complain about bans unless they are successfully appealed.

Only headmins are really protected, but you'd need to prove to me beyond doubt that timber was attacking you and not your actions, I'm not sure that you can do this but I'm willing to have my eyes opened if you think you can do so.

[Riggle]

Hiya, this hasn't been active for a long time. Do you still want to pursue this complaint?

[kieth4]

Closing due to lack of response.