Paris Konets Possible return Peanut (Somah69)

[toemas]

Bottom post of the previous page:

viewtopic.php?p=644085#p644085
Unban him Now

[wubli]

Ok then stop defending him lol

[Pandarsenic]

It's easy to say "Just ban him then" until admins actually start Just Banning People Then and suddenly it's TYRANNY and SHITMINS all the way down

[toemas]

Ok then stop defending him lol

reading comprehension

[BeeSting12]

because we don't get paid and if every time you bwoink someone for being a dick they go "what rule am i breaking?" and you need to spend a lot of time explaining why they need to stop being shitters, eventually you'll be drained. if you're gonna say "just ban them lol" then you'll have the forum losers crying that the person wasn't given a chance
these people share the pattern that they "don't break any rules". they toe the line and they act like dicks but it's really subjective what is "being a dick", isn't it?
that's why it's hard to ban them. playing with an unfun fuck that "plays within the rules" but in a way that makes everyone miserable? yeah it's not as easy as "just ban them"

yeah nothing you've said has changed the fact that he could have just been banned at any time
"but forum posters will be mean to me and hes not TECHNICALLY breaking the rules!!" is silly logic

its because the burden of defending the ban will likely fall on the admin who banned them and noone wants to put up with making endless forum posts arguing why he was actually breaking rules. easier to persuade a headmin to do it or document everything and wait for a really clear cut case of shittery before banning

[massa]

If you people would actually pay attention to his appeal he's not rules lawyering or playing any measure of fuckfuck games, so why sledgehammer these ideas like they're relevant? This shit will be relevant when he starts to display the same behaviors as before. Even then people need a fighting chance as far as the human element goes.

He readily admitted he was wrong, declared an intention to grow/change, and is continuing to press that point. Either way it'll all be another 6 months.

[oranges]

If you people would actually pay attention to his appeal he's not rules lawyering or playing any measure of fuckfuck games, so why sledgehammer these ideas like they're relevant? This shit will be relevant when he starts to display the same behaviors as before. Even then people need a fighting chance as far as the human element goes.

He readily admitted he was wrong, declared an intention to grow/change, and is continuing to press that point. Either way it'll all be another 6 months.

Ok then stop defending him lol

reading comprehension

Yep

That's going in my cringe collection

[Imitates-The-Lizards]

Asking them to prove it by logging some clean hours on a remotely reputable server isn’t asking a lot. Also +1 to what wubli said

Sure, as long as the admins involved in this appeal stop pretending that fulp is a remotely reputable server that should be in any way considered for reference for this appeal.

I've thought about it and I would actually lend weight to a ban or vouch from SPLURT a million years before I would consider even considering lending any weight to a ban or vouch from fulp.

[wesoda25]

You should make a policy thread saying they shouldn't be valid for vouches then. I've personally never been on fulp but it's status quo to accept their vouches so I just go along with it, and I imagine the same applies to many others.

[Jonathan Gupta]

You should make a policy thread saying they shouldn't be valid for vouches then. I've personally never been on fulp but it's status quo to accept their vouches so I just go along with it, and I imagine the same applies to many others.

fulp only does vouches for moderators or staff.

[Imitates-The-Lizards]

You should make a policy thread saying they shouldn't be valid for vouches then. I've personally never been on fulp but it's status quo to accept their vouches so I just go along with it, and I imagine the same applies to many others.

Well, let's play this out - I make a policy discussion thread saying Fulp shouldn't be valid for vouches - admin team says "Okay, why?"

There's only 2 things I can really point out at that point. The first is the widespread disdain for the fulp administration in other ss13 related places, such as the ss13 subreddit. I doubt the admin team is going to accept a bunch of people whining on digg as a valid reason to disregard fulp.

The only other thing I can point out is my own personal experience on the server as someone who had 1k hours there, which would mean pointing out my own interactions with the admins (which were few and far between, just like here in /tg/station, because I'm a good faith player), or getting into the bit I keep referencing about one of their admins stalking me, which would involve potentially putting my personal and private life and info out there.

So, in the end, it probably wouldn't work, and if I went through the effort to try, it would most likely result in me doxxing myself. Sooooooo, no, I don't think so.

[wesoda25]

Fair. Fwiw though vouches are (to me, at least) a way of showing commitment to be unbanned. I don’t have to agree with the rules/admins of a server, because the fact that you logged x hours there while following them just to get unbanned here speaks pretty loudly.

I agree with the sentiment on bans though. I try and avoid attributing much weight, if any, to bans from other servers. I know a good amount of admins do the same.

[toemas]

Yep

That's going in my cringe collection

https://www.digg.com/

[Mothblocks]

Fun fact: Fulp isn't active in Hostbus

[sinfulbliss]

I think people are over-complicating what a "vouch" is. I like Wesoda's take on it. Just shows commitment to be unbanned and that you can play somewhere else without running into the same issues you were banned in the first place for. To that end wouldn't a screenshot of your total playtime and notes be sufficient?

[Not-Dorsidarf]

because we don't get paid and if every time you bwoink someone for being a dick they go "what rule am i breaking?" and you need to spend a lot of time explaining why they need to stop being shitters, eventually you'll be drained. if you're gonna say "just ban them lol" then you'll have the forum losers crying that the person wasn't given a chance
these people share the pattern that they "don't break any rules". they toe the line and they act like dicks but it's really subjective what is "being a dick", isn't it?
that's why it's hard to ban them. playing with an unfun fuck that "plays within the rules" but in a way that makes everyone miserable? yeah it's not as easy as "just ban them"

yeah nothing you've said has changed the fact that he could have just been banned at any time
"but forum posters will be mean to me and hes not TECHNICALLY breaking the rules!!" is silly logic

Not wanting to deal with fallout from Just Banning Them has been a top level course of admin burnout for as long as I can remember

[Misdoubtful]

A vouch is a vouch literally who cares where its from the point is they can get along or at least look like they can make the effort to get along with the rules (community) they are engaging with. Maybe they'll realize they mesh with that place more, or maybe they'll get the bigger picture.

Saying a server is bad as a reason a vouch wouldn't mean anything is missing the entire point and an extremely laughable holier-than-thou joke.

[wubli]

Ok then stop defending him lol

reading comprehension

is that the next subject of your highschool exam? wish you the best!

[wubli]

If you people would actually pay attention to his appeal he's not rules lawyering or playing any measure of fuckfuck games, so why sledgehammer these ideas like they're relevant?

the conversation on that started because mothblocks said in the appeal that he was a pain in the ass to deal with and that people in adminbus were tired of him
so thoman says "why are you guys overcomplicating things just ban him"
and i (and others) talked about how he was in ahelps and why mothblocks said what they said
they ARE relevant to the conversation we were having

[massa]

i believe in people