regular borging procedure peanut

[BlueMemesauce]

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=32663

[Imitates-The-Lizards]

The biggest issue I have with the reasoning from the banned player is his assumption that "not leaping in to prevent human harm" = malf. The Borg could have just as easily been a different lawset, or, as was apparently the case mentioned by the admin, there were other circumstances.

They're clearly just not that experienced of a player yet, though.

[TheSmallBlue]

I'm kind of on DarkKeeper's side.

>Guy goes to robotics, asks to get borged
>Roboticist opens the door and lets him in
>Guy waits around until roboticist goes "there are no mats". Guy answers "yes there are".
>Gets tableslammed to 40hp.

At this point the guy was
* let into Robotics willingly
* not told to leave
* violently and harmfully shoved out

I think this is all important, because it paints the scene in a very reasonable picture:
* Guy saw Roboticist and Cyborg in the RD office, a restricted area
* The Roboticist's escalation was absurdly violent, which would make sense if they were an antag who could justify it
* The cyborg did nothing about it, just watched

Nothing wrong with unexperienced players, but even if they didn't know what to *do*, they should've known what to *say*. "Stop", "Cease", "Harm", anything. Even new players should understand the basic asiimov laws and at least TRY to uphold them in any way they can.

Point is, seeing all of the above, I think it's reasonable for the guy to assume that the Robo is a traitor, and the cyborg was emagged. He also, didn't "round remove" him, only "killed" it, which in cyborgs is specially fixable, just a few welder thunks and a reboot board and presto.
Should've been a note saying "hey man you kinda went overboard calm down", don't see how this warrants a ban.

Admittedly I haven't checked the logs at all, this is all based on the guy's post, so it could be completely wrong.

[CMDR_Gungnir]

Nothing wrong with unexperienced players, but even if they didn't know what to *do*, they should've known what to *say*. "Stop", "Cease", "Harm", anything. Even new players should understand the basic asiimov laws and at least TRY to uphold them in any way they can.

I feel like, for the borg, it kinda falls under Rule 10. Maybe they were new, and didn't know how to solve it. Well...sometimes you just die. That's the nature of it. People have to act without all of the information, but for some reason this is only ever brought up to chastise people, rather than to say "ehh, you got it wrong, just be more careful".

[dirk_mcblade]

Well he's not following procedure he needs to appeal to headmins at this point

[TheSmallBlue]

For the record I'm not saying the borg did anything wrong, I'm saying that because they didn't at least SAY anything, it's logical to see them as malf

[technokek]

The Borg could have just not been Asimov........

► Show Spoiler

(Not being Asimov doesn't make you valid)

[Tearling]

[2022-10-28 10:29:34.430] SAY: 10:29:34.430] SAY: Bieyes/(B.O.R.B.O) "YOU BROKE INTO ROBO" (Medbay Treatment Center (126,100,3))
[2022-10-28 10:29:38.155] SAY: 10:29:38.155] SAY: Bieyes/(B.O.R.B.O) "AND COMMITED A CRIME" (Medbay Treatment Center (126,100,3))
[2022-10-28 10:29:45.038] SAY: 10:29:45.038] SAY: Bieyes/(B.O.R.B.O) "SO THAT IS BASICALLY WILLING" (Medbay Treatment Center (125,99,3))
[2022-10-28 10:30:37.040] SAY: 10:30:37.040] SAY: Bieyes/(B.O.R.B.O) "YOU WILLINGLY GOT HUMAN HARMED" (Medbay Central (133,105,3))
[2022-10-28 10:30:39.812] SAY: 10:30:39.812] SAY: Bieyes/(B.O.R.B.O) "YOU TRESSPASSED" (Medbay Central (133,105,3))

Cyborg players trying not to justify human harm for five minute challenge. (It's impossible)

The Borg could have just not been Asimov........

It was at the time, in case you're not aware.

[dirk_mcblade]

I hate narcimov silicon players.

[Archie700]

You can't harm a borg just for not helping you because it may not be asimov-

[2022-10-28 10:29:34.430] SAY: 10:29:34.430] SAY: Bieyes/(B.O.R.B.O) "YOU BROKE INTO ROBO" (Medbay Treatment Center (126,100,3))
[2022-10-28 10:29:38.155] SAY: 10:29:38.155] SAY: Bieyes/(B.O.R.B.O) "AND COMMITED A CRIME" (Medbay Treatment Center (126,100,3))
[2022-10-28 10:29:45.038] SAY: 10:29:45.038] SAY: Bieyes/(B.O.R.B.O) "SO THAT IS BASICALLY WILLING" (Medbay Treatment Center (125,99,3))
[2022-10-28 10:30:37.040] SAY: 10:30:37.040] SAY: Bieyes/(B.O.R.B.O) "YOU WILLINGLY GOT HUMAN HARMED" (Medbay Central (133,105,3))
[2022-10-28 10:30:39.812] SAY: 10:30:39.812] SAY: Bieyes/(B.O.R.B.O) "YOU TRESSPASSED" (Medbay Central (133,105,3))

Cyborg players trying not to justify human harm for five minute challenge. (It's impossible)

The Borg could have just not been Asimov........

It was at the time, in case you're not aware.

nevermind borg was a dumb, tresspassing doesn't mean "I have given you permission to kill me"

[Turbonerd]

What a self entitled tider.

[blackdav123]

shouldve ahelped the borg instead of immediately trying to murder it if he knew it was interpreting its laws wrong

[Shellton(Mario)]

Good to know as a silicon player i can ignore all human harm as long as its happening on a table.

[Tearling]

Good to know as a silicon player i can ignore all human harm as long as its happening on a table.

Not because it was on a table, because he was trespassing. If they are a criminal, it's fine. /s

[Shellton(Mario)]

Scroll up

Not because it was on a table, because he was trespassing. If they are a criminal, it's fine. /s

True we follow space law

[Cobby]

How does table slamming help with the borging process? I can understand say using ampu shears vs doing the surgery or even chopping head with saw repeatedly as methods of debraining, but I cant see how "I want to be borg" translates to any harm performed by you by the guy who WOULD be doing the surgery means they can do no harm and you consent to every action they perform even if it means its outside of the bounds of what was agreed upon (him getting borged).

I would understand more if they just said the borg was new, but then he deserved to get trashed (not because he is new but because he came off as rogue due to his newness).

Also would accept they only saw the first tablesmash (which could reasonably be an accident), although that would result in the same since they saw harm and didnt even bring it up.

[Tearling]

Main issue for me is the borg being round-removed based on them not living up to an impossible standard (immediately knowing when the harm becomes non-voluntary)

IMPOSSIBLE standard. I would personally presume it's when someone screams out that they need help and calling it harm, that it's probably no longer voluntary, but maybe that's just me.

[Armhulen]

[2022-10-28 10:29:34.430] SAY: 10:29:34.430] SAY: Bieyes/(B.O.R.B.O) "YOU BROKE INTO ROBO" (Medbay Treatment Center (126,100,3))
[2022-10-28 10:29:38.155] SAY: 10:29:38.155] SAY: Bieyes/(B.O.R.B.O) "AND COMMITED A CRIME" (Medbay Treatment Center (126,100,3))
[2022-10-28 10:29:45.038] SAY: 10:29:45.038] SAY: Bieyes/(B.O.R.B.O) "SO THAT IS BASICALLY WILLING" (Medbay Treatment Center (125,99,3))
[2022-10-28 10:30:37.040] SAY: 10:30:37.040] SAY: Bieyes/(B.O.R.B.O) "YOU WILLINGLY GOT HUMAN HARMED" (Medbay Central (133,105,3))
[2022-10-28 10:30:39.812] SAY: 10:30:39.812] SAY: Bieyes/(B.O.R.B.O) "YOU TRESSPASSED" (Medbay Central (133,105,3))

Borgs in 2022
(Also borgs in:
2021
2020
2019
2018
20xx)

[Shellton(Mario)]

How does table slamming help with the borging process?

It breaks the skull making it easier to get to the brain. But maybe thats just what I do.

[Agux909]

Why does Lulufren keep insisting on calling it round-removal? Was the borg's dead chassis hidden in maint or spaced? Was it's brain removed, hidden or fried? Otherwise the borg just plainly died. A swipe of a board + some clicks is enough to bring them back, which takes no more than 20s.

[Pandarsenic]

Borbo does appear to have come back to life later, but maybe it was only through an adminheal? idk

[Archie700]

Main issue for me is the borg being round-removed based on them not living up to an impossible standard (immediately knowing when the harm becomes non-voluntary), when reasonablee escalation would have meant retaliating against the roboticist who did the repeated table-slamming in the first place.
To have the HoS lockdown the borg and then round-remove that borg on such a flimsy justification is a misdirected retaliation and, also, a cheap shot.

Excuse me, I thought the assumption was that the borg must take any harm as non-voluntary unless a human explicitly states that he wants to be or risk harm.

[sinfulbliss]

[2022-10-28 10:29:34.430] SAY: 10:29:34.430] SAY: Bieyes/(B.O.R.B.O) "YOU BROKE INTO ROBO" (Medbay Treatment Center (126,100,3))
[2022-10-28 10:29:38.155] SAY: 10:29:38.155] SAY: Bieyes/(B.O.R.B.O) "AND COMMITED A CRIME" (Medbay Treatment Center (126,100,3))
[2022-10-28 10:29:45.038] SAY: 10:29:45.038] SAY: Bieyes/(B.O.R.B.O) "SO THAT IS BASICALLY WILLING" (Medbay Treatment Center (125,99,3))
[2022-10-28 10:30:37.040] SAY: 10:30:37.040] SAY: Bieyes/(B.O.R.B.O) "YOU WILLINGLY GOT HUMAN HARMED" (Medbay Central (133,105,3))
[2022-10-28 10:30:39.812] SAY: 10:30:39.812] SAY: Bieyes/(B.O.R.B.O) "YOU TRESSPASSED" (Medbay Central (133,105,3))

Cyborg players trying not to justify human harm for five minute challenge. (It's impossible)

The Borg could have just not been Asimov........

It was at the time, in case you're not aware.

You should post these on the thread.
Also did your post mentioning they could request headmin review get deleted or something?

[Archie700]

09:58:17 SAY DarkKeeper072/(Thomas Sagan) "clearly enough" (161, 98, 3) Robotics Lab
09:58:26 SAY DarkKeeper072/(Thomas Sagan) "HUMAN HARM BORG" (161, 98, 3) Robotics Lab
09:58:28 SAY DarkKeeper072/(Thomas Sagan) "HELP" (161, 98, 3) Robotics Lab
09:58:41 SAY DarkKeeper072/(Thomas Sagan) "what the fuck are you doing" (156, 103, 3) Robotics Lab

Holy shit the guy clearly shouted for help, no wonder he thought the borg was subverted

[Pandarsenic]

Main issue for me is the borg being round-removed based on them not living up to an impossible standard (immediately knowing when the harm becomes non-voluntary), when reasonablee escalation would have meant retaliating against the roboticist who did the repeated table-slamming in the first place.
To have the HoS lockdown the borg and then round-remove that borg on such a flimsy justification is a misdirected retaliation and, also, a cheap shot.

Excuse me, I thought the assumption was that the borg must take any harm as non-voluntary unless a human explicitly states that he wants to be or risk harm.

Players are allowed to make best-guess attempts at reading context (obviously "committing a crime is consent to being harmed" is not how it works though)

[saprasam]

how does this admin not know that you just use reboot boards to revive borgs
jesus christ

[sinfulbliss]

Looks like the borg bolted them into a room for this conflict later too:

10:31:30 SAY DarkKeeper072/(Thomas Sagan) "Wow" (143, 104, 3) Morgue
10:31:33 SAY DarkKeeper072/(Thomas Sagan) "Borg being retarded" (143, 104, 3) Morgue
10:31:35 SAY DarkKeeper072/(Thomas Sagan) "Again" (143, 104, 3) Morgue
10:31:36 SAY Bieyes/(B.O.R.B.O) "Preventing any more harm" (133, 105, 3) Medbay Central
10:31:39 SAY DarkKeeper072/(Thomas Sagan) "And bolt blocked me" (143, 104, 3) Morgue
10:31:40 SAY Bieyes/(B.O.R.B.O) "For them to do" (133, 105, 3) Medbay Central
10:31:43 SAY DarkKeeper072/(Thomas Sagan) "For no fucking reason" (143, 104, 3) Morgue
10:31:44 SAY DarkKeeper072/(Thomas Sagan) "What" (143, 104, 3) Morgue
10:31:45 SAY DarkKeeper072/(Thomas Sagan) "A" (143, 104, 3) Morgue
10:31:45 SAY Bieyes/(B.O.R.B.O) "For them being so retarded" (132, 105, 3) Medbay Central
10:31:47 SAY DarkKeeper072/(Thomas Sagan) "Fucking" (143, 104, 3) Morgue
10:31:48 SAY DarkKeeper072/(Thomas Sagan) "Surprise" (143, 104, 3) Morgue
10:32:11 SAY Bieyes/(B.O.R.B.O) "I am stopping you from harming again" (132, 116, 3) Central Tram Dock
10:32:17 SAY Bieyes/(B.O.R.B.O) "Actual retard" (137, 112, 3) Medbay Maintenance

This is really bad, particularly because the borg admitted earlier it only didn't intervene because Thomas committed a crime by trespassing. Assuming they just lied to the admin about "not knowing what to do."

[Not-Dorsidarf]

A borg openly and explicitly refusing to help a human being beaten up and yelling for help on such an insane justification as "Tresspassing (alleged) is consenting" is on VERY shaky grounds if they ahelp being killed for that on suspicion of being hacked in return. That's basically screaming I AM NOT STANDARD ASIMOV / I HAVE A LAW REDEFINING HUMAN HARM.

[Tearling]

You should post these on the thread.
Also did your post mentioning they could request headmin review get deleted or something?

I have found out that policy is that headmins are supposed to review every bean appeal thread, so informing them to request a headmin review is against peanut policy.
Cough This also means that every ban appeal thread they don't review, that is upheld, is considered headmin precedent. Cough

Also I'm not posting them in the thread (Though I noticed you did, good luck). I'm not interested in fighting for Darkkeeper given I lack faith that Lulufren will change their mind, and I doubt the headmins will overturn the decision.

[Shellton(Mario)]

This guy should request headmin review. A borg failed law 1 and law 2 then got treated as malf for it due to a clear misunderstanding of its laws on their end which they would have learnt from if the admin had talked to them. The robo should had possibitiy gotten a note for over escalation. Following asimov is not an impossible standard and the fact that this is believed by an admin is frankly shocking. If its so impossible then how come we been expecting people to follow it 90% of the time for years?

This should be a cut and dry case of borg failed law 1 and 2 and got treated as malf but instead we are some how we have an admin saying the borg ignored law 1 because harm happened on table which is just dishonest among other shit like the guy should get table slammed for walking into robo and asking to be borged without any pass issues with the robo inquestion and he is instead table slammed because the guy doesnt want to do his job for no reason.

[technokek]

That's basically screaming I AM NOT STANDARD ASIMOV / I HAVE A LAW REDEFINING HUMAN HARM.

Okay but how does this make the Borg Valid?

[technokek]

09:58:17 SAY DarkKeeper072/(Thomas Sagan) "clearly enough" (161, 98, 3) Robotics Lab
09:58:26 SAY DarkKeeper072/(Thomas Sagan) "HUMAN HARM BORG" (161, 98, 3) Robotics Lab
09:58:28 SAY DarkKeeper072/(Thomas Sagan) "HELP" (161, 98, 3) Robotics Lab
09:58:41 SAY DarkKeeper072/(Thomas Sagan) "what the fuck are you doing" (156, 103, 3) Robotics Lab

Holy shit the guy clearly shouted for help, no wonder he thought the borg was subverted

That's basically screaming I AM NOT STANDARD ASIMOV / I HAVE A LAW REDEFINING HUMAN HARM.

Okay but how does this make the Borg Valid? Not being Asimov doesn't make you valid.....

This opens up the Borg to being bwoinked, but it doesn't mean he is valid.

[Tearling]

Okay but how does this make the Borg Valid? Not being Asimov doesn't make you valid.....

Techno, we went over this earlier, but he was asimov.

[Archie700]

Ultimately i think its a debate over wether we can demand a human player to robotically follow cyborg laws immediately and without hesitation.
An unreasonable standard that is often punished by crew if the borg tries to be a radical "no harmies" machine. It's a bit of a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" there.

excuse me what, the roboticist was tableslamming the guy and he called for help because he was being harmed, there is literally no nuance, you have to help
this is not like those scriptis incidents
lulufren could literally just say "yeah that borg was cancer but cool down and report it to us next time"

[technokek]

Okay but how does this make the Borg Valid? Not being Asimov doesn't make you valid.....

Techno, we went over this earlier, but he was asimov.

And yet that still doesn't make him valid. It only opens him up to being bwoinked


Are you unable to comprehend the precedent it would set if we just allowed people to valid Borg not behaving Asimov?

[Timberpoes]

As per silipol:

The occurrence of any of the following should be adminhelped and then disregarded as violations of Server Rule 1
1. Declaring silicons as rogue over inability or unwillingness to follow invalid or conflicting orders.
2. As a nonantagonist, killing or detonating silicons in the presence of a reasonable alternative and without cause to be concerned of potential subversion.

There were no invalid or conflicting orders.
There was cause to be concerned with potential subversion (borg didn't follow what was expected of an Asimovicon).

Borg ignores the human telling them they are being harmed, while that human is being harmed.

Borg doesn't follow Asimov as they are seemingly more interested in getting the Robo to turn them into an AI. (The robo doesn't know how to do this.)

Borg claims the person broke in to robotics when the logs would indicate they asked and were let in (by the borg or robo?). Borg was aware of this as the borg was one of the people asked to open the door shortly before the player was let in. Borg then claims "you consented to this by breaking in".

I don't think it's unreasonable to conclude the borg is not on Asimov based on them not helping out when harm is occurring. I wouldn't know what lawset they were actually on, but it could be malf, emagged or any other subverted custom lawset. At the very least it was clear to the player being attacked that the borg had precisely 0 intention of actually following Law 1, and thus either they were subverted or not on Asimov. These are the lessons we learn as we play silicon and choose which of our orders we do and/or do not apply.

HoS locks down the borg. Borg is killed and brought to robotics with intent to see if it's subverted/reset it.

HoS tells Roboticist to check and reset the borg. Robo explains that they don't know how to reset the borg. That they don't "fuck with borgs or AI" [translation: don't know how to build or maintain them] and that was also the reason he didn't borg the silikiller. Silikiller throws the borg in the trash after this (read: disposals) infront of the HoS and Robo, neither of which care.

I don't think throwing their metal ass down a disposals chute in full view of the HoS and Robo, neither of which protested, is equivalent to round removal.

Also later on:

Code: Select all

[2022-10-28 10:17:07.155] SAY: Sk1Wass3r/(Talon Mckendrick) "AI do you have borgs" (Engineering Hallway (127,105,2))
[2022-10-28 10:17:20.242] SAY: ThatKindOfJack/(P.O.L.Y.) "One in the trash dead" (AI Chamber (184,36,3))
[2022-10-28 10:17:25.826] SAY: Sk1Wass3r/(Talon Mckendrick) "fixable?" (Engineering Foyer (125,102,2))
[2022-10-28 10:17:43.186] SAY: ThatKindOfJack/(P.O.L.Y.) "Yes but its emagged and robo doesnt know shit to fix it." (AI Chamber (184,36,3))

Everyone important knows they're in the trash. Just nobody has the ability to fix them until a station engineer does it 20 minutes later. Again, I wouldn't call that round removal if everyone important knows where the borg is but nobody knows how to fix it.

This entire thing is dumb. This seems like a massive IC issue with a dash of "that's what happens when borgs don't follow laws and everyone around them is equally as incompetent" for good measure.

I'd vote to overturn the ban and the note.

[Tearling]

Are you unable to comprehend the precedent it would set if we just allowed people to valid Borg not behaving Asimov?

Are you unable to understand that the cyborg was asimov? It's fine to argue that he shouldn't have been killed the borg, and that he should have instead ahelped, but you should also be honest with the situation.
He had valid reason to believe the borg was asimov, and he was right that it was.


Timberpoes' post is a great summary of the argument. Well done Timberpoes.

[sinfulbliss]

You should post these on the thread.
Also did your post mentioning they could request headmin review get deleted or something?

I have found out that policy is that headmins are supposed to review every bean appeal thread, so informing them to request a headmin review is against peanut policy.
Cough This also means that every ban appeal thread they don't review, that is upheld, is considered headmin precedent. Cough

Who told you this? This seems excessively dumb.

I also don’t understand why Lulufren is stubbornly avoiding the main point that the borg acknowledges it intentionally ignored his law 2 order because Thomascommitted a crime. I assume this is being avoided because it knocks down the whole “the borg didn’t know what to do” argument.

[Armhulen]

You should post these on the thread.
Also did your post mentioning they could request headmin review get deleted or something?

I have found out that policy is that headmins are supposed to review every bean appeal thread, so informing them to request a headmin review is against peanut policy.
Cough This also means that every ban appeal thread they don't review, that is upheld, is considered headmin precedent. Cough

Who told you this? This seems excessively dumb.

I also don’t understand why Lulufren is stubbornly avoiding the main point that the borg acknowledges it intentionally ignored his law 2 order because Thomascommitted a crime. I assume this is being avoided because it knocks down the whole “the borg didn’t know what to do” argument.

it's me and it's true, whether you see a headmin post or not they are aware of every ban appeal up atm

Cough This also means that every ban appeal thread they don't review, that is upheld, is considered headmin precedent. Cough

whether you see a headmin post or not they are aware of every ban appeal up atm.

Seriously, do you guys want every single thread with some fucklenuts going "HEY UMMM YOU CAN ASK FOR HEADMIN REVIEW" just so headmins can say they agree, when if they don't stop the admin they obviously agree? Varying amounts of discussion happens about a ban between admins when it's happening, after its happened, when the appeal opens, etc. Headmins know about your fuckin thread, okay?? they know. Shit why doesn't tearling remind the poster about the christmas avatar while he's at it, why doesn't he remind the poster that they have a quick post feature at the bottom of the webpage when looking at the website?????? just because you think you're useful doesn't mean you actually are, don't peanut post

[Tearling]

Shit why doesn't tearling remind the poster about the christmas avatar while he's at it, why doesn't he remind the poster that they have a quick post feature at the bottom of the webpage when looking at the website??????

Do you want me to actually answer this question, or is it rhetorical?

Personally, I'm okay with your ruling, this whole thing really isn't that important.

[Shellton(Mario)]

If the guy has a fresh fourm account I think thats something helpful to the appealer and a line or 2 of text just stating what he can do isnt a bad idea nor really makes the ban appeal thread unreadable.

[Timberpoes]

Seriously, do you guys want every single thread with some fucklenuts going "HEY UMMM YOU CAN ASK FOR HEADMIN REVIEW" just so headmins can say they agree, when if they don't stop the admin they obviously agree? Varying amounts of discussion happens about a ban between admins when it's happening, after its happened, when the appeal opens, etc. Headmins know about your fuckin thread, okay?? they know. Shit why doesn't tearling remind the poster about the christmas avatar while he's at it, why doesn't he remind the poster that they have a quick post feature at the bottom of the webpage when looking at the website?????? just because you think you're useful doesn't mean you actually are, don't peanut post

I was actually getting advice from the headmins about Tearling's post as to whether they wanted it removed, between between it getting reported and you deleting it. They didn't seem to mind it. They mentioned a number of people aren't aware they can request headmin review, and it's always better for players to be aware of the recourses they have than not.

I was about to close the report on that basis, inform the post reporter of why it was okay for Tearling to post and ask Tearling to reserve it for only appeals where there's a back-and-forth and it appears the player isn't aware they can get the appeal reviewed by a 3rd party.

My own experience is that: Unless a player requests headmin review, they will not get a headmin review. It was something I tried my hardest to subvert through strong oversight in the ban appeals subforum.

If you don't see this kind of interaction in ban appeals...

viewtopic.php?f=34&t=32325
viewtopic.php?f=34&t=32387
viewtopic.php?f=34&t=32211
viewtopic.php?f=34&t=32256
viewtopic.php?f=34&t=32037

... I argue that any headmin team are unlikely to be investigating appeals to the level of detail that they understand whether they need to step in without being requested.

I think last term was a massive exception in headmin visibility in appeals and we'll see a return to the previous status quo of "don't interact with appeals unless summoned" this term onwards.

[Shellton(Mario)]

maybe that should have been ahelped then. Proceeding straight to round removal is not valid escalation

I didnt think table slamming someone for asking to be borged is vaild escalation either because you dont want to borg them

[sinfulbliss]

You should post these on the thread.
Also did your post mentioning they could request headmin review get deleted or something?

I have found out that policy is that headmins are supposed to review every bean appeal thread, so informing them to request a headmin review is against peanut policy.
Cough This also means that every ban appeal thread they don't review, that is upheld, is considered headmin precedent. Cough

Who told you this? This seems excessively dumb.

I also don’t understand why Lulufren is stubbornly avoiding the main point that the borg acknowledges it intentionally ignored his law 2 order because Thomascommitted a crime. I assume this is being avoided because it knocks down the whole “the borg didn’t know what to do” argument.

it's me and it's true, whether you see a headmin post or not they are aware of every ban appeal up atm

Cough This also means that every ban appeal thread they don't review, that is upheld, is considered headmin precedent. Cough

whether you see a headmin post or not they are aware of every ban appeal up atm.

Seriously, do you guys want every single thread with some fucklenuts going "HEY UMMM YOU CAN ASK FOR HEADMIN REVIEW" just so headmins can say they agree, when if they don't stop the admin they obviously agree? Varying amounts of discussion happens about a ban between admins when it's happening, after its happened, when the appeal opens, etc. Headmins know about your fuckin thread, okay?? they know. Shit why doesn't tearling remind the poster about the christmas avatar while he's at it, why doesn't he remind the poster that they have a quick post feature at the bottom of the webpage when looking at the website?????? just because you think you're useful doesn't mean you actually are, don't peanut post

... I argue that any headmin team are unlikely to be investigating appeals to the level of detail that they understand whether they need to step in without being requested.

I agree with Timber and this seems obvious. Why would people even need to request headmin review if every appeal was automatically reviewed? And most people absolutely do not know they can request headmin review. Deleting and reporting a post just reminding the appealer they can request a review just sounds like being afraid of one because the ban’s bad.

[Timberpoes]

Sorry Gung, I had to axe your post in the appeal as peanut.

It was a somewhat player-focused take on round removal that lacked a perspective into the kind of battles the admin team has with players that take steps to prevent revival that fall short of making it literally impossible a person can be revived, instead by making it incredibly likely a person will not be revived either for meta reasons (too hard) or practical (body hidden where there's little chance a player will venture by accident). Thus, it was an incomplete understanding of policy and was wrong due to that incompleteness.

Similarly, since there's nuance in what the admin team considers round removal, your opinion on whether it was or was not round removal fell into the realm of opinion. Feel free to put your takes and opinions on it in here in Le Peanut.

I did just that. The appeal is for policy and logs if you weren't involved in it.

[Timonk]

In my personal opinion every person should be violently dismembered, their limbs torn from them 1 by 1 while being alive, then get their organs removed just before taking the brain for borging. Best way to keep organs and limbs as fresh as possible

[CMDR_Gungnir]

Sorry Gung, I had to axe your post in the appeal as peanut.

It was a somewhat player-focused take on round removal that lacked a perspective into the kind of battles the admin team has with players that take steps to prevent revival that fall short of making it literally impossible a person can be revived, instead by making it incredibly likely a person will not be revived either for meta reasons (too hard) or practical (body hidden where there's little chance a player will venture by accident). Thus, it was an incomplete understanding of policy and was wrong due to that incompleteness.

Similarly, since there's nuance in what the admin team considers round removal, your opinion on whether it was or was not round removal fell into the realm of opinion. Feel free to put your takes and opinions on it in here in Le Peanut.

I did just that. The appeal is for policy and logs if you weren't involved in it.

That's fair! I was under the assumption that I was correct (lockerwelding a body deep in maintenance is different from just...killing a cyborg), and saw "Round Removed" being thrown around a lot and figured pointing it out may help solve an area of confusion. But if it falls afoul of peanut policy, then no harm no foul.

[sinfulbliss]

The admin just claimed flushing a body down disposals was RR because hypothetically someone could hypothetically pull the lever sending it to the recycler room where hypothetically no one would find them if, hypothetically, the borg weren't revived by someone anyway and this never occurred. Completely ignored his very reasonable justification for flushing the borg - just chose not to regard it.

Can someone force this guy to request headmin review this is getting wack.

[Shadowflame909]

big ic issue

if I was getting murdered by the roboticist acting sus and the borg was just watching without helping (Against my pleas for them to do so) I'd definitely ask hos to lockdown the borg and lynch the robo

[Archie700]

How the fuck did lulufren completely ignore logs before throwing the banhammer not once but twice