in this peanut we argue escalation policy again

[kinnebian]

Bottom post of the previous page:

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=33868

[Striders13]

Honestly... I like what Linden is doing here. He's being a shitter but he's also accepting the consequences of his actions (he didn't even fight back when lynched!). I think it's a perfect example of a little gremlin that's nice to see once in a while, if only to get the satisfaction of lynching them. I played a round as security with them as assistant, and spent the entire round brigging them over and over again for various crimes. He carefully skirted the line of "too much grief" for it to be enjoyable experience.

As for the ban itself,

► Show Spoiler

lol

[dendydoom]

antags have a license to grief, non-antags do not have a license to grief. stealing someone’s shit not once but twice to purposefully fuck with them is very much “act like an antag, get treated like an antag” - you’ll notice that Baal didn’t ahelp until after the second thievery. you’re correct that stealing the toolbelt once doesn’t necessarily constitute antag behavior, it’s the fact that they came around a second time

the core of my sentiment is that it sets a poor standard for the RP server if we allow people to react to IC situations with OOCly motivated violence based on things like "shitter behaviour, now i kill u!" it shouldn't be up to players to decide when RP is in effect and when it isn't because something happened they don't like.

if it was an IC situation, then their response should've been proportionate to the IC crimes committed and also motivated by IC desires - "i want my things back and i'm going to bloody the cretin that stole them from me" not "i must punish the shitter with murder". the way they chose to respond to those IC crimes broke escalation because they went above and beyond what was ICly necessary because they were motivated by OOC desires to see someone punished.

for everything else we're in absolute agreement. the thief was cringe and deserved a beatdown, but because of IC reasons, not because a player deemed their crimes did not warrant anything other than an OOCly motivated execution.

[EmpressMaia]

Baal is a shithead but this was a fine conflict and didn't deserve a ban. Just tell baal to cool off, talk to the assistant about their behavior, then call it a day

[BONERMASTER]

antags have a license to grief, non-antags do not have a license to grief. stealing someone’s shit not once but twice to purposefully fuck with them is very much “act like an antag, get treated like an antag” - you’ll notice that Baal didn’t ahelp until after the second thievery. you’re correct that stealing the toolbelt once doesn’t necessarily constitute antag behavior, it’s the fact that they came around a second time

the core of my sentiment is that it sets a poor standard for the RP server if we allow people to react to IC situations with OOCly motivated violence based on things like "shitter behaviour, now i kill u!" it shouldn't be up to players to decide when RP is in effect and when it isn't because something happened they don't like.

if it was an IC situation, then their response should've been proportionate to the IC crimes committed and also motivated by IC desires - "i want my things back and i'm going to bloody the cretin that stole them from me" not "i must punish the shitter with murder". the way they chose to respond to those IC crimes broke escalation because they went above and beyond what was ICly necessary because they were motivated by OOC desires to see someone punished.

for everything else we're in absolute agreement. the thief was cringe and deserved a beatdown, but because of IC reasons, not because a player deemed their crimes did not warrant anything other than an OOCly motivated execution.

shut up.
kill all assistants.


With simple regards
-BONERMASTER

[dendydoom]

shut up.
kill all assistants.


With simple regards
-BONERMASTER

such power... such authority...

how could i have been so misguided? the assistant purge begins now.

[Muffindrake]

As for the ban itself,

► Show Spoiler

lol

I guess you could call this an admin peanut response.

[Striders13]

As for the ban itself,

► Show Spoiler

lol

I guess you could call this an admin peanut response.

unfuckingbelievable

[Bawhoppennn]

Drag needs to take a chillpill, I know dealing with shitters is annoying but gosh

[sinfulbliss]

Drag needs to take a chillpill, I know dealing with shitters is annoying but gosh

say gosh again.

[Armhulen]

gorsh! lotta shitters, hyuck!

[Epoc]

god manuel is so fucking lame
this is the second ban in the past few days where the person ahelping gets banned for slightly imperfect escalation
almost like the escalation policy is scuffed and a bad reason to give someone the dayban

Also I will slab you if you do not take that assistant to medbay, as it is part of our escalation policy.

if you're gonna get this heated in the ticket, just don't take the ticket

[Epicgamer545]

Making conflict is good, however doing with with complete lack of justification repeatedly is, not fun. They should’ve been at least got told “hey, sometimes making conflict is cool if you roleplay, but if you don’t it’s just acting like a antag.” Yet Baal, who was wronged should have not resulted to a LRP mindset of “oh, this guy’s a antag, let me kill them even though I’m a regular person in society with no justification to do so!” and instead should have at least not killed him and actually talk.

Jesus, manuel players, you guys realize that it’s a MRP server, right? I know that it’s Manuel and it has it’s own way of working out, but, it’s starting to get on my nerves. In my opinion, at this point, people should be noted for using bad faith to not at least roleplay in some situations where it consult it, and, if it gets heavily off the rails, should be banned.

There’s two sides to the coin. We can organize Manuel to use a medium level of roleplay, or we can keep it as it is.

[sinfulbliss]

I really, really hate this mentality. If someone is griefing you and breaking rules, you CANNOT retaliate!

Am I wrong for thinking that people who want admins to handle things should step back and let admins handle things? They gave an ahelp and then IMMEDIATELY beat the assistant into crit. What is the point of the admin team if it's just a fucking free for all? I was IN THE MIDDLE of checking antagonist status of everyone involved before responding.

The point IMO is to ensure everyone was playing within the rules. You can do that before or after the conflict, ahelping shouldn’t mean you have to hide in a locker and wait for the whole thing to be settled (which could take 20+ minutes).

Yet Baal, who was wronged should have not resulted to a LRP mindset of “oh, this guy’s a antag, let me kill them even though I’m a regular person in society with no justification to do so!” and instead should have at least not killed him and actually talk.

And where is the “RP mindset” in robbing someone of their ID and toolbelt while they’re being healed? Where was the roleplay there? Why are you so transfixed on the victim having to roleplay their ID being stolen when the nonantag thief wordlessly took it to begin with?

[Epicgamer545]

Yet Baal, who was wronged should have not resulted to a LRP mindset of “oh, this guy’s a antag, let me kill them even though I’m a regular person in society with no justification to do so!” and instead should have at least not killed him and actually talk.

And where is the “RP mindset” in robbing someone of their ID and toolbelt while they’re being healed? Where was the roleplay there? Why are you so transfixed on the victim having to roleplay their ID being stolen when the nonantag thief wordlessly took it to begin with?

The beginning of my post addresses this.

Making conflict is good, however doing with with complete lack of justification repeatedly is, not fun. They should’ve been at least got told “hey, sometimes making conflict is cool if you roleplay, but if you don’t it’s just acting like a antag.”

Using the argument “this guy did that, so I am morally allowed to do this” is a faulty argument. Breaking rule one because someone else is breaking rule one is pretty contrary. Both should’ve realized that MRP has the word “roleplay” in it and that’s that. I’m just adressing how both sides, both the guy who started this, and the victim, were wrong. Common sense is that, one, people shouldn’t wordlessly kill people for stealing a ID (because IDs are replaceable for one), but should be able to retaliate anyway because conflict is great and we should have more of it sometimes, and two, that you shouldn’t be a asshole just because you want to be a asshole (IE, stealing a ID with no ic justification).

[BONERMASTER]

Using the argument “this guy did that, so I am morally allowed to do this” is a faulty argument. Breaking rule one because someone else is breaking rule one is pretty contrary. Both should’ve realized that MRP has the word “roleplay” in it and that’s that.

"He who acteth like a scoundrel, be treateth like a scoundrel."


With ancient regards
-BONERMASTER

[BlueMemesauce]

The argument on escalation policy continues to escalate

► Show Spoiler

someone probably said that sentence on the forums already

[Maxipat]

If a conflict leads to violence and either participant is incapacitated, the standing participant is expected to make an effort to treat the other, unless they have reason to believe the other was an antagonist.

labelling minor shithead behaviour as self-antagging [...]

antags have a license to grief, non-antags do not have a license to grief.

As a non-antagonist you may begin conflict with another player with valid reason (refusal of critical services, belligerent attitude, etc) OR if it does not excessively interfere with their ability to do their job.]

I've always played with assumption (someone correct me if im wrong) that stealing someone's ID is excessively interfering with their job, you could argue that a toolbelt for engineering constitutes this as well, so maybe he had some merit to thinking of him as antag. The assistant should be punished for griefing either ICly as it happened or OOCly anyways, though throwing his body under the tram tracks is maybe too far

[Timberpoes]

I think the note has merit based on throwing the player down the tram well instead of into medbay. I'm basically ignoring it for the moment, since it's a waste of time thinking about it beyond that.

How the ahelp got escalated into a ban is something I'm significantly more interested in, and something I intend to drill down to the brass tacks of.

[Constellado]

Linden is fun keep him around.

[Archie700]

I can see where my words could be interpreted as firm, yes, but not hostile. My initial response started with a literal "please" and a half-baked joke. When a player tells me "they deserved it" that sets a tone for me that there's a level of OOC anger coming from the individual

I don't think a joke would be appropriate given you literally witnessed him throwing the person down the well.
A straight answer of "Please do not throw people down and walk away after you critted them, this is bad escalation and will be noted." would be better.

Though I don't think it would matter for Muffin's anger.

[Not-Dorsidarf]

Aside from the arguing over whether the admin or the player was more disrespectful in this admin disrespect ban, what I wanna know is who keeps arguing with someone who's malding in a ticket once you've made up your mind? You sure arent gonna convince THEM after telling them "Go appeal it on the forums". Close the ticket and dump that bucket of ice on them.

[sinfulbliss]

Aside from the arguing over whether the admin or the player was more disrespectful in this admin disrespect ban

Cheeky, I like your style.

I still want to know what it means to “slab” someone. Is it a term of endearment? A threat? A wrestling move? Something uncouth? I’ve no fucking idea.

[CMDR_Gungnir]

Aside from the arguing over whether the admin or the player was more disrespectful in this admin disrespect ban

Cheeky, I like your style.

I still want to know what it means to “slab” someone. Is it a term of endearment? A threat? A wrestling move? Something uncouth? I’ve no fucking idea.

Morgue slab.

Or more likely, a typo for Slap.

[sinfulbliss]

Using the argument “this guy did that, so I am morally allowed to do this” is a faulty argument.

My brother in christ, this is quite literally the definition of escalation.

[Drag]

I still want to know what it means to “slab” someone. Is it a term of endearment? A threat? A wrestling move? Something uncouth? I’ve no fucking idea.

Endearment, but I understand how it doesn't come off that way or is generally up to interpretation

[Not-Dorsidarf]

Aside from the arguing over whether the admin or the player was more disrespectful in this admin disrespect ban

Cheeky, I like your style.

I mean that does seem to be what the thread bickering is about

[iwishforducks]

I still want to know what it means to “slab” someone. Is it a term of endearment? A threat? A wrestling move? Something uncouth? I’ve no fucking idea.

Endearment, but I understand how it doesn't come off that way or is generally up to interpretation

whatcha smoking on this blessed day of 4/20 to come up with this one

[Epicgamer545]

Using the argument “this guy did that, so I am morally allowed to do this” is a faulty argument.

My brother in christ, this is quite literally the definition of escalation.

I mean rule-wise, like in cases where y—

"He who acteth like a scoundrel, be treateth like a scoundrel."

With ancient regards
-BONERMASTER

OW GOD okay, okay I get it

[datorangebottle]

Using the argument “this guy did that, so I am morally allowed to do this” is a faulty argument. Breaking rule one because someone else is breaking rule one is pretty contrary. Both should’ve realized that MRP has the word “roleplay” in it and that’s that.

"He who acteth like a scoundrel, be treateth like a scoundrel."


With ancient regards
-BONERMASTER

Alright, who implanted BONERMASTER with the voice of god, and when did he kill colossus?

[Drag]

I still want to know what it means to “slab” someone. Is it a term of endearment? A threat? A wrestling move? Something uncouth? I’ve no fucking idea.

Endearment, but I understand how it doesn't come off that way or is generally up to interpretation

whatcha smoking on this blessed day of 4/20 to come up with this one

Weed, mostly.

[Epicgamer545]

I can agree admin help procedure could have started out better as well. Turns out there’s like three sides instead of two. But the thing is it would have not mattered because Muffin was pretty much going to be angry anyway.

Anyway, good peanut thread, but /how did this turn out as a ban if we are supposed to ignore people being mad in the first place/?

Anyways, still sticking to my point. Tools are replaceable, make new ones. IDs are replaceable, make new ones. So it’s not the end of the world if someone gets it. However, am I saying that you should not be escalating, right? No! Shove them into a wall, call security, and teach them a lesson, hell, I won’t care! But at least don’t just kill them wordlessly in the hallways. All that I’m saying is that take it creative at least and don’t let the anger go into ye head.

And, yeah, you can kill people if they escalate to it or they are doing it with no justification multiple times. Just don’t be the shitter in the first place and don’t jump to conclusions.

[Epoc]

[Drag]

Are you suggesting I should run ahelp responses through chatGPT? If so that frankly sounds hilarious and I wonder how long it would take people to notice.

[Not-Dorsidarf]

Are you suggesting I should run ahelp responses through chatGPT? If so that frankly sounds hilarious and I wonder how long it would take people to notice.

I bet we could get a pretty good set of results by giving it our rules then asking it for judgements, hmm....

[TheLoLSwat]

jeez, maybe admins should take a deep breath before starting tickets or something

[BeeSting12]

I don't quite see how threatening a player with a smite can ever be seen as nonaggressive. Unless you're good friends with the player in question I would avoid doing that.

[Timberpoes]

Ultimately it's not the neutral, non-accusatory wording I have come to expect from our admin team and that a number of our new admin candidates are exemplifying through their excellent training. (The future is bright)

I'm just gonna crosslink the part in its entirety here, since there's no real secret about it even though it's in the admin-only forum section and it's something I point every new admin to during training.

Spoiler:

Adminhelp Procedure

General Ahelp Procedure
- Most situations require the admin to gain a full and unbiased understanding of a situation as possible. Only then can an admin apply the rules and their own accumulated sense of right and wrong from past experiences to a situation.
- Some ahelps just require the admin to be a human interface and middle man to the google or github search bar. Accept you're fate and learn how to dive into the code for edge game mechanics.
- Assume players do not tell you the full story. Players are not privy to the wider view we have and can only answer you from their limited viewpoint. Players are also likely to let their own biases and sometimes very personal investment in a round affect what they say to you. Players may forget, misrepresent, or even deliberately mislead you. Have empathy for a player but never fully trust what you see in a reply. It is always on you to act with the most accurate information and understanding of a situation.
- If you are unsure on policy regarding niche or edge cases, it is always a good idea to ask in adminbus. Just start pinging people if you don't get a response :^).
- Do not be drawn into e-dick or ego slap fights. Be aware of attempts by players to draw you personally into a conversation. Players may get confrontational, they may get aggressive, second-guess you, use the 'well if X can do Y then I'm going to do Y too' play, etc. Some players are mature enough to both appreciate and be respectful of admins who have some more informal or personal conversations in adminhelp. That's fine. Sometimes, curt and neutral replies are what is required to stop an adminhelp conversation from escalating. Of the many purposes that adminhelp conversations have, making sure you have the last word is not one of them. If no more information is required or if an individual has been sufficiently told something, there is no reason to continue an ahelp conversation if the player remains (passive-)aggressive or confrontational. Once you have what you need, disengage and ignore. If you warn someone of something, perhaps to not continue a specific action, and they remain aggressive, let them have the last word. Letting them have the last word does not hurt you and if they ignore your warnings, then any consequences are on them.
- Answer ahelps in a timely manner where possible. Similarly, some players do appreciate being told if an adminhelp was resolved or not.
- Don't use ahelps as a way to push your own ideas or beliefs onto players. The role of an admin is to enforce the rules and ensure everyone is having a good time. If you're handling an ahelp in which a player has named themselves after a well-known school shooter, it’s best not to lecture them even if you are tempted too, let them know they've broken naming policy and discuss what avenue of punishment you are taking.

Admins initiating a conversation should do so with the following points in mind,
- Be neutral in tone and avoid being accusatory. While it is not necessary to build a rapport with the individual being talked to, it is essential to maintain at least a neutral relationship between you and the player. This is so the conversation is less likely to become hostile and the player is less likely to become defensive or evasive. Players that are not defensive or evasive may provide more information. If the player is expected to be evasive, remaining non-accusatory also makes it less likely for what you say to tip off the player on what they want to be evasive/deceptive about.
- Example, "Hi there, what happened between you and x?", is a good way to initiate an ahelp when looking into a player suspected of griefing and killing player x.
- Exceptions to this exist, bluffing has helped me in the past to make someone confess when I wasn't too sure but doing so can just as easily prematurely show your hand. Be careful when doing this to not slip into a mindset adversarial to the players. There are time when it is easy to but personally involving yourself in an adminhelp conversation usually does not end well.
- Check whether a player is busy or not before adminhelping them for example, if a security player is busy in a fight. This obviously does not apply if you are questioning someone in the middle of griffing the station.

Admins answering an ahelp of the 'Is X valid?' or 'Was what X did valid?' sort should do so with the following points in mind,
- Consider the situation that the player is in. A player that has been cremated or gibbed and is unlikely to come back to the round can be given a clear 'Yes it was valid' answer. If a player is actively hunting someone or is still in game and may be wanting to supplement their insufficient IC knowledge with OOC confirmation from admins, it is likely a good idea to tell them a variation of 'Admins can't reveal IC information, please wait until round end'.

Accusatory, check.
Non-neutral tone, check.
Drawn into an argument, check.
Ahelping player reacts poorly to all of the above, check and dayban.

I don't think this should have ended in a dayban, and I think there are issues with the admin-side handling of the ticket that resulted in the player being banned because of how the admin chose to handle the incident just as much as if not more than how the player did.

[sinfulbliss]

Muffin was pretty much going to be angry anyway.

Very big difference between an ahelper being mad because they were griefed, and the ahelper being mad because of how the admin handles the conversation. One is expected, the other messes up the ticket.

Anyways, still sticking to my point. Tools are replaceable, make new ones. IDs are replaceable, make new ones. So it’s not the end of the world if someone gets it. [...] But at least don’t just kill them wordlessly in the hallways.
[...]
Just don’t be the shitter in the first place and don’t jump to conclusions.

I'm not walking over to the HoPline with my tail between my legs and waiting for 10 minutes trying to get someone there because a random griefer decided to steal my ID.
The random griefer that steals your ID is not entitled to roleplay before being killed.
The only conclusion to jump to when the random griefer steals your ID is that they're a random griefer.

If it sounds vindictive, it's because it is. People should get what they deserve... It's quite literally the fundamental principle that escalation tries to regulate: "people should get what they deserve" ~ "people deserve to be treated how they treat others" ~ "treat others like an antag, get treated like an antag" ~ "act like an antag get treated like an antag"

[dendydoom]

I'm not walking over to the HoPline with my tail between my legs and waiting for 10 minutes trying to get someone there because a random griefer decided to steal my ID.
The random griefer that steals your ID is not entitled to roleplay before being killed.
The only conclusion to jump to when the random griefer steals your ID is that they're a random griefer.

If it sounds vindictive, it's because it is. People should get what they deserve... It's quite literally the fundamental principle that escalation tries to regulate: "people should get what they deserve" ~ "people deserve to be treated how they treat others" ~ "treat others like an antag, get treated like an antag" ~ "act like an antag get treated like an antag"

bro i thought us cringe manuel roleplayers were supposed to be the dramatic ones

no one is saying you can't beat 5 shades of piss out of the dude for randomly stealing your shit. the point is that if it's an IC situation, then you're supposed to react ICly, not declare NO, RP IS CANCELLED BECAUSE I DIDN'T LIKE THAT
throw in a few "and take that you cur! you rotten knave! you no-good dirty scoundrel!" between baseball bat hits to the head and you're good. that's roleplay. it's your character that's mad, not you as the player. it's your character that wants their things back, not you as the player.

manuel escalation policy literally says that if you pointlessly grief or annoy people and it's declared an IC issue because it's not breaking the rules then you're not allowed to retaliate lethally as the instigator when the wronged party inevitably turns up to stomp your head into the dirt. it says nothing about you not being allowed to lay the smackdown on them for being a jackass. just don't wordlessly throw their limp corpse into the undertram after telling an admin to fuck off in ahelps. this shit ain't hard.

[sinfulbliss]

I'm not walking over to the HoPline with my tail between my legs and waiting for 10 minutes trying to get someone there because a random griefer decided to steal my ID.
The random griefer that steals your ID is not entitled to roleplay before being killed.
The only conclusion to jump to when the random griefer steals your ID is that they're a random griefer.

If it sounds vindictive, it's because it is. People should get what they deserve... It's quite literally the fundamental principle that escalation tries to regulate: "people should get what they deserve" ~ "people deserve to be treated how they treat others" ~ "treat others like an antag, get treated like an antag" ~ "act like an antag get treated like an antag"

bro i thought us cringe manuel roleplayers were supposed to be the dramatic ones

no one is saying you can't beat 5 shades of piss out of the dude for randomly stealing your shit. the point is that if it's an IC situation, then you're supposed to react ICly, not declare NO, RP IS CANCELLED BECAUSE I DIDN'T LIKE THAT
throw in a few "and take that you cur! you rotten knave! you no-good dirty scoundrel!" between baseball bat hits to the head and you're good. that's roleplay. it's your character that's mad, not you as the player. it's your character that wants their things back, not you as the player.

manuel escalation policy literally says that if you pointlessly grief or annoy people and it's declared an IC issue because it's not breaking the rules then you're not allowed to retaliate lethally as the instigator when the wronged party inevitably turns up to stomp your head into the dirt. it says nothing about you not being allowed to lay the smackdown on them for being a jackass. just don't wordlessly throw their limp corpse into the undertram after telling an admin to fuck off in ahelps. this shit ain't hard.

i’ve never seen so little said in so much text before

you don’t have to throw in those dumb phrases while you retaliate if you don’t want. if someone takes your ID and runs off, i’m not sure you have to roleplay more than “hey fucker, you have my ID give it back” before beating the shit out of them and searching their bag

[Epicgamer545]

If it sounds vindictive, it's because it is. People should get what they deserve... It's quite literally the fundamental principle that escalation tries to regulate: "people should get what they deserve" ~ "people deserve to be treated how they treat others" ~ "treat others like an antag, get treated like an antag" ~ "act like an antag get treated like an antag"

The thing is, in MRP, the abstract rule of “oh this guy is a antag” doesn’t exist. To your character, a “antag” isn’t a thing. The only thing that does exist is people doing stupid things, and in order to solve these things, you need to react ICly instead of treating them like a “antag”. That’s what MRP is. Things go hit the fan, but you’re still expected to use a level of roleplay instead of being focused on you, the player, rather than your character. Otherwise then what’s the point of adding “MRP” to the server name?

Yeah, sure, people have different ways how to roleplay, and your not expected to type a paragraph (not even I am), but your still expected to use a set minimum amount when playing on MRP. Otherwise when people get wronged instead they tend to switch from “character” mode to “player” mode and start hating on the character OOCly instead of ICly and it causes quite a mess.

[dendydoom]

i’ve never seen so little said in so much text before

you don’t have to throw in those dumb phrases while you retaliate if you don’t want. if someone takes your ID and runs off, i’m not sure you have to roleplay more than “hey fucker, you have my ID give it back” before beating the shit out of them and searching their bag

aw come now, i saw you struggling and i put a lot of effort into breaking it down as simple as possible for you. it's ok that you still didn't manage to glean anything from it

some people enjoy it when you put in a little bit of effort to add some sort of entertaining narrative to being mildly inconvenienced in a video game about being mildly inconvenienced. that's why there's a server for it. you should try it, you might like it more than beating your fists on the keyboard and cursing the entire lineage of the one who clicked on your imaginary ID card

[Lacran]

I really like drag, I think they are a great admin and all my interactions with them have been positive. Though if any admin started talking to me like that I'd pop a blood vessel, especially as the ahelper.
Something simple like "before I ask you more about linden could you take him to medbay, if he dies its going to make things a lot more complicated." Probably would've avoided this entire fiasco. You could still note them or whatever, but atleast get the full picture, make them feel heard. They came to the admins for help afterall.

If you're going immediately into threats and scolding a player who came to you for help, you're doing something wrong. Nobody would react to that in a constructive manner.

[sinfulbliss]

i’ve never seen so little said in so much text before

you don’t have to throw in those dumb phrases while you retaliate if you don’t want. if someone takes your ID and runs off, i’m not sure you have to roleplay more than “hey fucker, you have my ID give it back” before beating the shit out of them and searching their bag

aw come now, i saw you struggling and i put a lot of effort into breaking it down as simple as possible for you. it's ok that you still didn't manage to glean anything from it

some people enjoy it when you put in a little bit of effort to add some sort of entertaining narrative to being mildly inconvenienced in a video game about being mildly inconvenienced. that's why there's a server for it. you should try it, you might like it more than beating your fists on the keyboard and cursing the entire lineage of the one who clicked on your imaginary ID card

it's fun sometimes sure, but it takes two to tango. you shouldn't be forced to RP with the person that just fucked you over, especially if they're playing in bad faith and not for the story of the round, sometimes it's better to respond with mechanics

[iwishforducks]

so….

[Constellado]

Are you suggesting I should run ahelp responses through chatGPT? If so that frankly sounds hilarious and I wonder how long it would take people to notice.

Sounds like a great idea!

Imagine the peanut thread once somebody tries to appeal a ban written by chat gpt...
It would be so entertaining
probably a bad idea for you though?