Clown vs Sec Peanut

[Pandarsenic]

Bottom post of the previous page:

https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=29477

Raise your hand if you think the sec officer just wanted all-access for himself!

[Omega_DarkPotato]

based MSO goddamn

[Eskjjlj]

Based MSO but Shaps will only get a slap on the wrist as is tradition!

[ATHATH]

You might as well perma me right now because as time goes on and I discover more about the round it only reinforces my belief that what I did was right, at the very least it brought this administration to light.

chill out with this stuff stupid ur gonna undermine your argument (that I'm making for you)

goddamnit moocow I specifically warned you to keep this to a note appeal to keep this from getting out of hand.

I guess it worked out, though. Thanks, MSO. <3

[Naloac]

we've got a reply ready and have for awhile, just waiting for coco to wake up to say if he agrees/ disagrees with it

[MooCow12]

I opened a nitrous oxide canister in his room, hes in gay baby jail right now until he manages to turn on his internals.

[Super Aggro Crag]

we've got a reply ready and have for awhile, just waiting for coco to wake up to say if he agrees/ disagrees with it

coco is cool

[technokek]

[Super Aggro Crag]

his eyes are red cuz of the weed

[MooCow12]

To be fair , again im gonna reiterate that I think that round was alittle bit chaotic and shaps probably did have alot of tickets to go through.


Since again the round theme was "national greytide day" or something like that.

But that mainly just helps him with the > initial < decision he made.

[technokek]

[Screemonster]

bull fucking shit.
You steal someone's shit, you're valid.
Being security doesn't change that.

What a horrible take. By that logic, sec should let people run around with stunbatons, shotgun, disablers, and whatever other shit they have because "you steal someone's shit, you're valid."
See the below.

Spoiler:

fuck off

being security doesn't give you a licence to steal shit off people and keep it for yourself

if he'd made any attempt to return the ID to the bridge then he could make an argument that he was "doing his job" and not "taking another player's shit"

[cSeal]

It's not the first time Shaps fails to investigate a situation correctly. I ahelped a shitter once and Shaps instantly denied my ahelp when said shitter claimed (lied) that I called him the nword repeatedly. Facts don't care about your feelings sweaty.

creepy permabanned morons using peanut threads to work out their weird grudges against specific admins is exactly the reason why peanut threads suck

Why cant people discuss a ban they think is unreasonable without making it personal or shitting on the person appealing/the admin who applied the ban

[Agux909]

[Rohen_Tahir]

It's not the first time Shaps fails to investigate a situation correctly. I ahelped a shitter once and Shaps instantly denied my ahelp when said shitter claimed (lied) that I called him the nword repeatedly. Facts don't care about your feelings sweaty.

I bet all my antag tokens that either the "shitter" "griefed" you after you emoted something related to underwear and/or genitalia or your ahelp contained sexual advances towards Shaps.

[Not-Dorsidarf]

Such power ...

As usual, Crag is all-powerful

[sinfulbliss]

Y’all needa chill with the MSO overruling Shaps thing. It’s the kind of shit like this which makes admins not want to go back on their decisions in the first place, cause on the offchance they make a mistake everyone will be like “SEE WE WERE RIGHT THEY ARE SHITMIN BE ASHAMED.” It’s literally fine for an admin to make a mistake especially when it’s as nominal as a 1-day ban.

That said I’m gonna defend Shaps here, honestly his perspective was completely reasonable. Blowing a secoff to smithereens for taking the spare ID from the clown is probably not really a good precedent to set as something crew can do validly. The only thing he really did *wrong* that could make him valid, IMO, was disobeying (lying) to the captain in order to keep it for himself. That should be what made him valid - not confiscating a high risk item.

[MrStonedOne]

Y’all needa chill with the MSO overruling Shaps thing. It’s the kind of shit like this which makes admins not want to go back on their decisions in the first place, cause on the offchance they make a mistake everyone will be like “SEE WE WERE RIGHT THEY ARE SHITMIN BE ASHAMED.” It’s literally fine for an admin to make a mistake especially when it’s as nominal as a 1-day ban.

[sinfulbliss]

bull fucking shit.
You steal someone's shit, you're valid.
Being security doesn't change that.

What a horrible take. By that logic, sec should let people run around with stunbatons, shotgun, disablers, and whatever other shit they have because "you steal someone's shit, you're valid."
See the below.

Spoiler:

fuck off

being security doesn't give you a licence to steal shit off people and keep it for yourself

if he'd made any attempt to return the ID to the bridge then he could make an argument that he was "doing his job" and not "taking another player's shit"

He was doing both, though. Taking AA from a clown, or an autorifle from a cargo tekkie, explosive lemons from a botanist, or literally anything that involves confiscating dangerous items is doing your job. That’s not even up for debate. The question is whether you should then use the items for yourself, or put it in evidence. Honestly it seems like a pretty dumb waste to put a desword in evidence and not use it for good and to stop traitors with.

Keep in mind this is allowed because sec literally can’t use these weapons for malicious purposes, because they’re sec. Any antag behavior from sec is bwoinkable from the getgo.

[Super Aggro Crag]

Y’all needa chill with the MSO overruling Shaps thing. It’s the kind of shit like this which makes admins not want to go back on their decisions in the first place, cause on the offchance they make a mistake everyone will be like “SEE WE WERE RIGHT THEY ARE SHITMIN BE ASHAMED.” It’s literally fine for an admin to make a mistake especially when it’s as nominal as a 1-day ban.

That said I’m gonna defend Shaps here, honestly his perspective was completely reasonable. Blowing a secoff to smithereens for taking the spare ID from the clown is probably not really a good precedent to set as something crew can do validly. The only thing he really did *wrong* that could make him valid, IMO, was disobeying (lying) to the captain in order to keep it for himself. That should be what made him valid - not confiscating a high risk item.

shut up my post was funny i gave him red eyes

[Not-Dorsidarf]

He was doing both, though. Taking AA from a clown, or an autorifle from a cargo tekkie, explosive lemons from a botanist, or literally anything that involves confiscating dangerous items is doing your job. That’s not even up for debate. he question is whether you should then use the items for yourself, or put it in evidence. Honestly it seems like a pretty dumb waste to put a desword in evidence and not use it for good and to stop traitors with.

Keep in mind this is allowed because sec literally can’t use these weapons for malicious purposes, because they’re sec. Any antag behavior from sec is bwoinkable from the getgo.

By this logic if Sec do anything the captain doesn't like, he can just fire them all and ahelp if they mutiny. After all, He's their boss, and he's a metaconfirmed good guy so it cant be antag behaviour to do so. It's his job to fire misbehaving crew members, after all, especially a gang of extremely heavily armed ones.




Edit: also I don't know if I agree with MSO unbanning someone while the headmins are still actually discussing the matter, especially when theyre doing so in a timely manner? Even though I disagree with the ban.

[XivilaiAnaxes]

Y’all needa chill with the MSO overruling Shaps thing. It’s the kind of shit like this which makes admins not want to go back on their decisions in the first place, cause on the offchance they make a mistake everyone will be like “SEE WE WERE RIGHT THEY ARE SHITMIN BE ASHAMED.” It’s literally fine for an admin to make a mistake especially when it’s as nominal as a 1-day ban.

You know, if the admin goes back on his decision in the first place nobody does what you imply. It's always "cool man thumbs up". People only think that when the admin just goes "nah fuck it I'm right you're wrong" and someone else has to clean it up for them.

[FloranOtten]

Based MSO but Shaps will only get a slap on the wrist as is tradition!

Ah yes because deadminning over bad bans surely will foster a good server culture

[sinfulbliss]

By this logic if Sec do anything the captain doesn't like, he can just fire them all and ahelp if they mutiny. After all, He's their boss, and he's a metaconfirmed good guy so it cant be antag behaviour to do so. It's his job to fire misbehaving crew members, after all, especially a gang of extremely heavily armed ones.

Good example. I would say the cap can't just fire people he doesn't like, he has to have really good IC justification. Think about it - you're firing your entire security force. I can hardly see a good IC justification for that. Sec could mutiny at that point, because there is a place for justified mutinies. If sec mutinies the captain for the wrong reasons, though, Centcom could get involved and send an ERT or something and make a nice juicy round out of it (all without taking it to ahelps).

Chain of Command is to be followed basically always except when the captain/higher-up is making a really bad decision which you simply can't follow in good conscience. Letting the clown have the spare wouldn't really fall under something that severe, so if the captain says "CLOWN. GETS. THE. SPARE. THAT'S AN ORDER" then you should respect the CoC.

[cybersaber101]

PEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE NUT

[kieth4]

Seccie is obvious shitter, wonder if he lied in ahelps. Not like shaps checked the logs during it.

[Kangtut]

Based MSO but Shaps will only get a slap on the wrist as is tradition!

Ah yes because deadminning over bad bans surely will foster a good server culture

Yes

[wesoda25]

I'm curious what other resolutions Shaps had in mind to be honest, apart from an ahelp.

Hes literally mother fucking doctor strange looking at all of the possible dimensions and timelines, looking at all of my other better versions and calling me a sack of shit.

[youtube]cik9j1IG_zs[/youtube]

[Farquaar]

[youtube]cik9j1IG_zs[/youtube]

Love it

[MooCow12]

This is perfect, thankyou.

[Naloac]

we've got a reply ready and have for awhile, just waiting for coco to wake up to say if he agrees/ disagrees with it

coco is cool

I love coco

[Jimmius]

we've got a reply ready and have for awhile, just waiting for coco to wake up to say if he agrees/ disagrees with it

coco is cool

I love coco

I also love coco

[Pandarsenic]

A few things I don't buy here...

Spoiler:

As MSO has mentioned in the edit to his above post, this has been the topic of a long ongoing discussion in adminbus over the last few hours, and here is a summary of said discussion:

• I'm agreeing to lift the ban and the note, in light of additional information made available about the situation and the security officer's conduct that was not available at the time the ban was placed
• Specifically, a significant amount of information that is used in this thread to justify the clown's actions, namely the officer's lying to the captain and general skullduggery, were only made apparent to the clown after the round was completed and they were free to comb through the complete round logs in a way that they wouldn't have had access to at the time of the murder. The sticking point here, is that these defenses were formed entirely after the fact and would not have been able to factor into the clown's original intentions to murder the security officer.
• The original response from the clown when I questioned them about the murder,

  Code: Select all

  they stole the id that the captain gave me and since im a clown i have no way to stun them back or cuff them long enough to take off their backpack so i used an explosive spear and got the id back then took them to medbay.

  , was generally agreed upon (or at least gained no dissent) to show bad intentions on the part of the clown, and is problematic in several ways. For one, the clown's PDA is one of the most powerful slips in the game, forcing someone down to the ground for an entire 12 seconds, which any security officer who's been robusted by a clown can attest is absolutely more than enough time to be subdued and cuffed, then stripped. While they are at the mercy of RNG when it comes to using stunbatons and guns, it's very well known in the /tg/ community that clowns still have several potent options to subdue people nonlethally. In that respect, the clown's decision to jump to a decisively lethal 1-2 combo of a bola and an explosive lance (both of which together require a decent amount of resources and time to craft) rather than use a readily available nonlethal option was likely motivated by a desire for revenge, which supports the clown's intentions being bad and against the rules.
• All that said, the evidence that has been brought up regarding the security officer's bad conduct with playing dumb about having the confiscated ID specifically, is enough to throw this case squarely into "everybody sucks here, mark it as an IC issue" territory. At no point in the ticket, however brief it was, did the clown bring up this misconduct as justification for such steep escalation against the sec officer, because he couldn't have known all of those details until after the round when discussing the ban in discord and peanut threads with a dozen people combing the logs with a fine toothed comb.
• In this sense, the appeal process functioned correctly, as additional mitigating information was gained from the logs that at the very least push the situation out of bannable territory, since the security officer's dishonesty and shiftiness did in fact play an indirect role in him getting killed, even if no one involved in the situation could have recognized that at the time. That is to say, the security officer knowingly took risks with his bad conduct after confiscating the ID and had he simply been honest, his death wouldn't have happened. In that sense, it would absolutely be an IC issue.

I'm more than willing to admit that having had the above conversations and seeing the evidence brought up after the round, you can safely be absolved of the ban and will have the note removed shortly. On both a professional and personal level, I apologize for being dismissive of the additional evidence you brought up in this thread, and I'll strive to be more open minded in handling future ban appeals. That said, as MSO indicated in his edit above, my initial placement of the ban was not due to carelessness or callousness in the moment, and I take these matters very seriously. Even with all of the investigative tools admins have available to them, we definitely get things wrong sometimes, and I hope we can break bread on this and get along on the server going forward without any hard feelings.

Admins: "no one involved could have recognized [the officer's dishonesty and shiftiness] at the time."

MooCow12's opening post: "1. I spent the entire 20 minutes before then talking on radio wanting my id back and not even 2 minutes before the lethal encounter I asked them where my id was and then they ignored me and took off running."

Also - show of hands, who thinks Seth would have round-removed Buzz Saw for failing a PDA slip into cuff attempt? I didn't know the PDA slip is 12 seconds fully unresponsive(!?), but I do know what happens if the officer gets out his baton before that happens.

[Pandarsenic]

Double posting to keep it separate, janniefolk can merge the posts if they think it'd be better:

HOLY SHIT TURNAROUND BANBAITING DUNK, EXCEPTIONALLY BASED

[Malkraz]

This turned into an extremely based appeal its unironically changed my view of the admemes a bit

[MooCow12]

Jimmius - yes - I believe the new ID system means that the Captain's Spare is no longer valid to confiscate regardless of how it was obtained, as AA can no longer be used to spread AA- the Captain giving it out for a gimmick is fine. If the Clown is using it to try and tide the armoury, you can blow him away then, but there's no longer a need to pre-emptively confiscate the spare ->in case it's used to spread AA.<-"

(Thank god the admins will never find out what I was doing in the nanite room when I got bwoinked and banned)


I think an important detail is that it can still be used to spread ghetto AA.

[Agux909]

What else can be said? Everyone ended up being solid in the appeal. Incredibly based stuff.

[IkeTG]

the clown got unowned

[Omega_DarkPotato]

what an amazing turnaround
memorable ban appeals one after the other goddamn

just this month we had the alex ban appeal, nyaazuka's, this one, and iirc another really great one

also joooks' lmao

[Malkraz]

what's the alex one

[Gigapuddi420]

What a horrible take. By that logic, sec should let people run around with stunbatons, shotgun, disablers, and whatever other shit they have because "you steal someone's shit, you're valid."

Sometimes I'm amazed at how bad your contrarian takes can get. You're comparing the theft of authorized all access to unauthorized lethal weapons. For what it's worth, if the Captain/Head of Security arms up an assistant to hunt down a threat and makes security aware of it, presuming that assistant doesn't go on to commit a crime with those weapons he absolutely would be allowed to retaliate should security decide to steal his property.

[Fishimun]

what's the alex one

you literally made the peanut thread for it lol, https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29310

[Malkraz]

oh THAT alex lmao

[sinfulbliss]

So now the seccie who ahelped is getting banned for the ahelp?
That's kind of excessive. I mean the clown chose to resolve it ICly by blowing him up, so doesn't that mean it was IC?

Also, I strongly disagree with Naloac's and Jimmius's suggestion that mass AA is now not a problem because "AA can no longer be used to spread AA." Can't he simply create like 8 HoS silver IDs and hand those out? Even if it's not "full" AA, a HoS silver ID can cause a ton of damage. If even a few of those got out, it'd be a serious security risk. People could just tide brig and help themselves to batons and whatever else, delete their sec records, set sec to arrest, etc. At the very least the spare itself is a security threat, it's just silly to deny that. Should he have listened to the cap instead and let the clown be? Yes. Would it have been a security risk to do that? Also yes.

Sure it was a dick move to confiscate the spare from the clown when the cap gave it to him, but it seems insane to claim that the spare "isn't valid to confiscate" anymore.

I also don't think the sec officer intentionally abused the ahelp feature. He mentioned he saw the clown with AA, took it from him, then got killed. He ahelped the kill and questioned its validity. Simple enough to be honest. Yeah he knew the cap gave it to him, that's pretty much taken for granted when a clown has the spare. Seems like a stretch to say the ahelp was intentionally abusive.

[Super Aggro Crag]

So now the seccie who ahelped is getting banned for the ahelp?
That's kind of excessive. I mean the clown chose to resolve it ICly by blowing him up, so doesn't that mean it was IC?

Also, I strongly disagree with Naloac's and Jimmius's suggestion that mass AA is now not a problem because "AA can no longer be used to spread AA." Can't he simply create like 8 HoS silver IDs and hand those out? Even if it's not "full" AA, a HoS silver ID can cause a ton of damage. If even a few of those got out, it'd be a serious security risk. People could just tide brig and help themselves to batons and whatever else, delete their sec records, set sec to arrest, etc. At the very least the spare itself is a security threat, it's just silly to deny that. Should he have listened to the cap instead and let the clown be? Yes. Would it have been a security risk to do that? Also yes.

I also don't think the sec officer intentionally abused the ahelp feature. He mentioned he saw the clown with AA, took it from him, then got killed. He ahelped the kill and questioned its validity. Simple enough to be honest. Yeah he knew the cap gave it to him, that's pretty much taken for granted when a clown has the spare. Seems like a stretch to say the ahelp was intentionally abusive.

do you really have to play devil's advocate for everything? everyone already thinks you're a pedophile apologist who would rescue hitler from a burning synagogue

[Gigapuddi420]

*tips fedora* ackually...

[sinfulbliss]

do you really have to play devil's advocate for everything? everyone already thinks you're a pedophile apologist who would rescue hitler from a burning synagogue

I mean, if that's what they think then what's there to lose
(I was being genuine though in the above no cap)

[Super Aggro Crag]

do you really have to play devil's advocate for everything? everyone already thinks you're a pedophile apologist who would rescue hitler from a burning synagogue

I mean, if that's what they think then what's there to lose

your virginity and at this rate i wouldn't bet on it

[Malkraz]

Yeah he knew the cap gave it to him

He knew the clown obtained AA legitimately and decided it was an opportunity to take it himself. This is supported by him lying to the captain about having the AA so he could keep it, there's no way he thought it was stolen. This is not a valid confiscation, it's theft. Theft makes you valid for murder under escalation. He then made an illegitimate I DED ahelp and lied to Shaps saying he thought the clown stole it to get OOC revenge.
Shitter got owned.

[sinfulbliss]

do you really have to play devil's advocate for everything? everyone already thinks you're a pedophile apologist who would rescue hitler from a burning synagogue

I mean, if that's what they think then what's there to lose

your virginity

You mean I'll get laid more if I keep arguing on the forums? Holy shit you're a genius, thanks Crag!

[Screemonster]

So now the seccie who ahelped is getting banned for the ahelp?
That's kind of excessive. I mean the clown chose to resolve it ICly by blowing him up, so doesn't that mean it was IC?

if it's IC then he shouldn't fucking ahelp and lie to the admins telling them it wasn't provoked

[XivilaiAnaxes]

do you really have to play devil's advocate for everything? everyone already thinks you're a pedophile apologist who would rescue hitler from a burning synagogue

I laughed at the mental image