fetus1 Enut

[Omni]

No, I wasn't. I just remember some people being older than ssethtide from legends/ vague recollection of them being more experienced when I started/forums. Sorry that I forgot about you chief, not intenional.
This is really besides the point I was trying to make, honestly.

[oranges]

don't chat shit newfag

[Armhulen]

Yeah, I get to be confidently wrong because I've been wrong for years. You, new fry, should stick to being wrong as a joke so you can back down on anything you say.

[Sheodir]

Player should not be encouraged for going out of their way to ruin someone's round. Banning them is too much, yeah, but I'd warn someone or maybe even add a note if they literally went to ruin someone's round for no fucking reason. It's literally in the rules. The rules do not mention anything about RESOLVE PEOPLE RUINING YOUR ROUND FOR NO REASON ICLY, it says to not DO THAT. This is a bad admin decision and a bad look for mins that have otherwise been pretty reasonable, and really feels like staff covering for their OOC buddies rather than their actual opinions.

My two cents.

[cedarbridge]

Player should not be encouraged for going out of their way to ruin someone's round. Banning them is too much, yeah, but I'd warn someone or maybe even add a note if they literally went to ruin someone's round for no fucking reason. It's literally in the rules. The rules do not mention anything about RESOLVE PEOPLE RUINING YOUR ROUND FOR NO REASON ICLY, it says to not DO THAT. This is a bad admin decision and a bad look for mins that have otherwise been pretty reasonable, and really feels like staff covering for their OOC buddies rather than their actual opinions.

My two cents.

It's really not asking too much for an admin to poke in and say "Hey, that thing you're doing there is shitty and you're being an asshole. Stop."

The upshot is when they say "nuhuh I'm gonna do it anyway" and then you permaban them from everything.

[Cobby]

no party in this situation is my friend here and im the one who told the OP they should make the complaint if they feel wronged so hopefully we can have a conversation that extends beyond people assuming bad faith discussion and having that mindset going forward despite it being a running theme in this peanut gallery dissection.

the rules dont say a lot of things so we have to work off of the principle of the rule, on top of the understanding that sometimes conflict is a healthy aspect for the game and admins have to navigate that fine line in the sand. If it was so easy to come to the conclusion the AI was a shitler byond rule 1 permissibility, lets assume they knowingly continued to mess with the librarian despite knowing it was trashed earlier and that the minecraft gimmick they were trying to run was entirely bad faith, I don't see why you dont make it clear as day by just letting them know you have a problem with what they're doing and you'd like them to stop so they either continue or stop that way you are 100% sure they're being shit.

I'm not sure why it's ok to assume bad intent without even bothering to say (op) has an issue with it but it's a super hot take to assume that maybe we dont have the full story of what the AI's intents/reasonings were (beyond the post-round OOC trash talk which i'd take about as seriously as peanut posts) and maybe we shouldnt immediately assume maliciousness just because third parties grieffed the user similarly earlier.

Even a third party who was actually present during the round as a player said he thought op was just doing some gimmick. I dont think it would be a stretch for the AI to think similarly.

[Armhulen]

no party in this situation is my friend here and im the one who told the OP they should make the complaint if they feel wronged so hopefully we can have a conversation that extends beyond people assuming bad faith discussion and having that mindset going forward despite it being a running theme in this peanut gallery dissection.

the rules dont say a lot of things so we have to work off of the principle of the rule, on top of the understanding that sometimes conflict is a healthy aspect for the game and admins have to navigate that fine line in the sand. If it was so easy to come to the conclusion the AI was a shitler byond rule 1 permissibility, lets assume they knowingly continued to mess with the librarian despite knowing it was trashed earlier and that the minecraft gimmick they were trying to run was entirely bad faith, I don't see why you dont make it clear as day by just letting them know you have a problem with what they're doing and you'd like them to stop so they either continue or stop that way you are 100% sure they're being shit.

I'm not sure why it's ok to assume bad intent without even bothering to say (op) has an issue with it but it's a super hot take to assume that maybe we dont have the full story of what the AI's intents/reasonings were (beyond the post-round OOC trash talk which i'd take about as seriously as peanut posts) and maybe we shouldnt immediately assume maliciousness just because third parties grieffed the user similarly earlier.

Even a third party who was actually present during the round as a player said he thought op was just doing some gimmick. I dont think it would be a stretch for the AI to think similarly.

didn't read virgin LOL LMAO LMFAO

[Omni]

I want to issue a public apology to everyone involved in this threat for using the o** word in whatever context I thought there was. It was huge blunder on my side and I will do all within my power not to do this again.
I want to say sorry for wasting your time with me and wish you a good day, and to people involved in complaint itself quick and just resolution of the matter, and better luck with roleplay endeavours in the future, whether on Terry or someplace else.
Stay hydrated.

[BONERMASTER]

If you feel, more or less, guilty about what you did, then I will mostly forgive you, and our happiness is most definitely increased, for the most part.

[Timonk]

ill fucking behead you newfriend, call me old 1(one) more time!!

[Sheodir]

snip because massive

I'll bite.

You are again missing the point entirely. Whether or not the player accurately communicated he wanted them to stop or not is largely irrelevant - it was clear from what he was saying that it was unwelcome if nothing else, and as the OOC logs have shown, the AI player was entirely aware he was ruining someone else's work. Further, whilst you're correct that we don't know the AI player's exact intentions, that is literally one of the complaints of the ahelp - there was no attempt from the admin to get a reason from the other player, the complaint owner was just told it was fine because 'IC' issue.

None of these arguments address the fact that the AI player broke a rule to the absolute letter. Ahelping the moment a rule is distinctly broken isn't an issue, even if it's on quickfire. I get that some people might be trying to just discourage a complete lack of IC conflict and resolution, but the AI player had nothing to gain, hadn't been asked to do this, and offered no IC justification other than 'fuck this guy in particular'. Specially confused at seeing some Manuel mains that I know invest time into huge autism projects defend the admin's point of view - I know for sure if the AI started dissassembling their projects to 'play Minecraft' this complaint would be going really differently.

[IkeTG]

honestly the AI player should have been banned for being an AI player

[SkeletalElite]

the solution to the problem is to be human or carry a flash. You can print them in ghetto maint robotics.

[Timonk]

Imagine having to be forced to stop being a dick by a human

[Tarchonvaagh]

Wow we joined on the same day now isn't that something!

[Timonk]

no we didnt

[Tarchonvaagh]

no we didnt

Not you

[Flatulent]

also why the fuck is terry overrun with hippie tier players? i tell you what the rot in that server comes from the admins who hang out there if you ask me.

rich coming from you, you don’t hang out in any server lmao

[Flatulent]

No, I wasn't. I just remember some people being older than ssethtide from legends/ vague recollection of them being more experienced when I started/forums. Sorry that I forgot about you chief, not intenional.
This is really besides the point I was trying to make, honestly.

cringe

[oranges]

also why the fuck is terry overrun with hippie tier players? i tell you what the rot in that server comes from the admins who hang out there if you ask me.

rich coming from you, you don’t hang out in any server lmao

I hang out in your mums house instead lmao

[Timonk]

Lmao

[Omni]

also why the fuck is terry overrun with hippie tier players? i tell you what the rot in that server comes from the admins who hang out there if you ask me.

rich coming from you, you don’t hang out in any server lmao

Codejannies hate gamers. Codemonky puts a lot of thought and their free time into their PR, and thinks it works fine and balanced, only to see Edgar Pope spin around the hallways perpetually with (old) new carp while 50 people try to kill him at once with all means possible. You'd be upset too.

[Agux909]

Seems like negligence towards shitty AI players is becoming a trend.

[trollbreeder]

Welp.

[Tlaltecuhtli]

liberalibrarian btfo

[Agux909]

Both Fatal complaints rejected. Both regarding negligence towards AI players being dicks/degrading the experience of other players FNR. Going for the third strike?

Also, ruling present in the second Fatal complaint now is officially a (headmin approved) double standard of the ruling for the ban appeal by the new borg player who didn't get this "leeway" given to them (with no headmin overrule before expiration)

Talking about this one https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=27292

I will post my thoughts in my policy thread once I get the chance to sit on my pc this weekend. I'd recommend and really appreciate for any of you guys who care enough about the subject to post your opinions and thoughts there to ideally help defining a more tangible guideline for admins to use when handling these kind of situations, so we don't get such weird and arbitrary disparity in future rulings:

https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=27296