ADMIN CAUGHT STACKING NOTES FOR QC BAN: OWN MCPAIN STRIKES BACK

[sinfulbliss]

Bottom post of the previous page:

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=34269

first ticket ive seen where it was the admin lying in the ahelp

[Archie700]

The reason for length was because how long the entire incident took (basically most of Owen's round was him fighting), his most frequent victim being Lizard-Man (thus his entire say logs were included) and Jimmy bombing the kitchen (probably related to multiple CQCs and people asking him to cook food)

If you're going to post logs, don't be disengengous. If you would look into the logs you could find out why Jimmy decided to escalate to bombing an entire department to the ground (hint: it wasn't a good or valid reason). At this point you're peanut posting with this assumption to push a narrative you believe in.

My bad, I reread and I found out that was on Jimmy since he attacked you with the axe and got it confiscated twice for that

[Ezel]

i still wonder if jimmy got the L for the bombing or not

[BlueMemesauce]

Do you member when CQC was kitchen only? I member.
This is the coders fault for making CQC viable outside of the kitchen and in the mess area.
You (as in the admin side) have made the entire mess hall the chef's domain and now you're feigning surprise when they act accordingly.
IC issue if anything, lizards should have complained, captain should have asserted authority.
If admins are tired of the gimmick it should be a job ban for a week or a month or something. Perma seems unjustifiably long.

Some coders have tried to remove it multiple times, but they were all closed because the chef is supposed to have CQC to defend the restaurant bots with now. Even though the restaurant bots basically instantly crit you if you try to touch them.

[oranges]

chef is supposed to have CQC to defend the restaurant bots with now. Even though the restaurant bots basically instantly crit you if you try to touch them.

this is simply not true, it's an under siege reference and it's funny.

[saprasam]

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. Whomever you engage is entitled to respond to your actions. If the conflict leads to violence and you had a poor reason for causing conflict in the first place, you may face administrative action.

If you are wronged, you are expected to handle the conflict non-lethally whenever possible, escalating in severity as the conflict continues. As the defending party the rate of escalation increases with you, up to and including violence, while the instigator is always able to respond in kind.

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.

Instead of mindlessly quoting the rules you should make an argument as to why enforcing them in this instance helped make the game more fun, because that's what the rules are actually supposed to accomplish, ideally

and then he never got a response

[dirk_mcblade]

chef is supposed to have CQC to defend the restaurant bots with now. Even though the restaurant bots basically instantly crit you if you try to touch them.

this is simply not true, it's an under siege reference and it's funny.

It should be restricted to the kitchen is all I'm saying, it's pretty op

[TypicalRig]

in older code chefs had a chance of spawning as a navy seals chef during nuke op rounds. this did nothing but gave them a free .357 revolver with some flavour text. when this forbidden fruit was destroyed by the coder menace, a new era of chef cqcs was eventually brought in... and here we are...

[Ezel]

we still got garbage day

[BlueMemesauce]

chef is supposed to have CQC to defend the restaurant bots with now. Even though the restaurant bots basically instantly crit you if you try to touch them.

this is simply not true, it's an under siege reference and it's funny.

The original reference was just inside the kitchen, it was only expanded in PR 57503 in order to allow the chef to defend the restaurant bots. A revert for this was attempted in PR 69994, although you closed it without giving a reason. You also made PR 73878 where you yourself said it wasn't part of the original reference, although it was again closed for seemingly no reason.

[Archie700]

chef is supposed to have CQC to defend the restaurant bots with now. Even though the restaurant bots basically instantly crit you if you try to touch them.

this is simply not true, it's an under siege reference and it's funny.

The original reference was just inside the kitchen, it was only expanded in PR 57503 in order to allow the chef to defend the restaurant bots. A revert for this was attempted in PR 69994, although you closed it without giving a reason. You also made PR 73878 where you yourself said it wasn't part of the original reference, although it was again closed for seemingly no reason.

John provided a reason for the second reject though, it had dead code remaining and oranges didn't care to remove it.

[BlueMemesauce]

I just didn't understand why oranges didn't remove those things even though it would be simple to, it seemed like he wanted it to be closed for some reason

[dirk_mcblade]

"while wholeheartedly understandable, it still pains me to no end that this PR exists when people can literally delete the chef’s ability to CQC by using blueprints to rename/reshape an area, and that expanding the kitchen does not work to expand CQC dong."
Is CE hard counter to chefs?

[Not-Dorsidarf]

I wish as many people wanted to come into the restaurants ive stocked with piled high-food as want to come into Owens empty burg pit.

[TypicalRig]

I wish as many people wanted to come into the restaurants ive stocked with piled high-food as want to come into Owens empty burg pit.

Have you tried saying no lizards allowed?