Peanut
Forum rules
Only Certified™ Players™ may post in here.
If you are not able to post in here, you are not a Certified™ Player™. Play on a mainline /tg/ game server to gain posting powers in this forum. (certified gamers are only calculated once per day)
Only Certified™ Players™ may post in here.
If you are not able to post in here, you are not a Certified™ Player™. Play on a mainline /tg/ game server to gain posting powers in this forum. (certified gamers are only calculated once per day)
- Blacklist897
- Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2023 5:48 am
- Byond Username: Blacklist897
Re: Peanut
snarky comment about notes
profile picture by "Cowboy Owlbear"
I play alexander Moore on Manuel
I play alexander Moore on Manuel
- TheRex9001
- In-Game Admin
- Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2022 7:41 am
- Byond Username: Rex9001
Re: Peanut
response
- Vekter
- In-Game Admin
- Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 10:25 pm
- Byond Username: Vekter
- Location: Fucking around with the engine.
Re: Peanut
Joke about notes and punishment
- Striders13
- In-Game Admin Trainer
- Joined: Tue May 07, 2019 7:59 am
- Byond Username: Striders13
- datorangebottle
- Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2019 9:53 am
- Byond Username: Datorangebottle
Re: Peanut
starsector
Timberpoes wrote: ↑Fri Jul 07, 2023 9:16 pm I highly doubt any other admin on the team would have given you this chance, except maybe Kieth because his brain worms are almost as bad as mine.
Vekter wrote: ↑Tue May 16, 2023 4:45 pm At what point does someone's refusal or failure to improve become malice in and of itself? If you give someone a year to stop shitting on the carpet and they keep doing it but get slightly closer to the bathroom every time and sometimes they get to the toilet before it happens, at what point does it become acceptable to just ask them to go shit in someone else's house?
Timberpoes wrote: ↑Fri Apr 28, 2023 7:00 pm I'm sorry, can we get a real player to resolve this appeal? I don't like this trial player. They can't even set their own name.
sinfulbliss wrote: ↑I almost prefer Rave's AI-generated "We cannot accept this appeal at this time. If you would like assistance appealing in the future, please dial 1-800-1984-1488."
Pandarsenic wrote: ↑Mon Dec 12, 2022 2:25 pm I think we can all agree that someone throwing a reverse revolver at Zyb as a secret test of character, and Zyb immediately fucking himself with it, is the best thing we all could have received for Christmas this year
- TheRex9001
- In-Game Admin
- Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2022 7:41 am
- Byond Username: Rex9001
- Vekter
- In-Game Admin
- Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 10:25 pm
- Byond Username: Vekter
- Location: Fucking around with the engine.
Re: Peanut
Insult about your mother.
- TheRex9001
- In-Game Admin
- Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2022 7:41 am
- Byond Username: Rex9001
- kinnebian
- Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2021 2:15 pm
- Byond Username: Kinnebian
- Location: answering irelands call
- DrAmazing343
- In-Game Head Admin
- Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2023 11:06 pm
- Byond Username: DrAmazing343
- Location: right here :3
- Contact:
Re: Peanut
disagreement, loudly.
further snarky comment about subject of peanut.
- TheRex9001
- In-Game Admin
- Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2022 7:41 am
- Byond Username: Rex9001
Re: Peanut
Rant about derailment
- NecromancerAnne
- Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2018 6:55 pm
- Byond Username: NecromancerAnne
- Location: Don't touch me, motherfucker...
Re: Peanut
Didn't read the thread, but, an opinion.
- PapaMichael
- Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2022 4:08 pm
- Byond Username: PapaMichael
- Thunder11
- In-Game Admin
- Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 12:55 pm
- Byond Username: Thunder12345
- Github Username: Thunder12345
- Location: Scotland, UK
Re: Peanut
Post by person involved in the appeal (cringe)
Spoiler:
- Scriptis
- In-Game Admin
- Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2021 12:05 am
- Byond Username: Scriptis
- Togopal
- In-Game Admin
- Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2017 6:38 pm
- Byond Username: Togopal
- Location: 41.3071749, -74.8459928
- Timberpoes
- In-Game Head Admin
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:54 pm
- Byond Username: Timberpoes
Re: Peanut
Don't even play game, here only through tenure, provide $0.02 anyway
/tg/station Codebase Maintainer
/tg/station Game Master/Discord Jannie: Feed me back in my thread.
/tg/station Admin Trainer: Service guarantees citizenship. Would you like to know more?
Feb 2022-Sep 2022 Host Vote Headmin
Mar 2023-Sep 2023 Admin Vote Headmin
Sep 2024 Player and Admin Vote Headmin
/tg/station Game Master/Discord Jannie: Feed me back in my thread.
/tg/station Admin Trainer: Service guarantees citizenship. Would you like to know more?
Feb 2022-Sep 2022 Host Vote Headmin
Mar 2023-Sep 2023 Admin Vote Headmin
Sep 2024 Player and Admin Vote Headmin
- iansdoor
- In-Game Admin
- Joined: Wed May 19, 2021 2:49 am
- Byond Username: Iansdoor
- Location: Texas
Re: Peanut
I think I took a wrong turn at stop light. HELP
An average yellow rock hater and the main reason you may get your shuttle recalled.
- Rageguy505
- In-Game Admin
- Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2021 12:42 am
- Byond Username: Rageguy505
Re: Peanut
I thought you can shoot people for being in the bridge
- Rageguy505
- In-Game Admin
- Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2021 12:42 am
- Byond Username: Rageguy505
Re: Peanut
Unless the bridge assistant let him in I guess
- Nabski
- Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 5:42 pm
- Byond Username: Nabski
- Github Username: Nabski89
- Location: TN
Re: Peanut
I like this appeal. There's no mega paragraphs or walls of text. The banning admin quickly moves out of the way to headmin review. The player understands what he did and why he did it, and from his interpretation of the rules he thinks he is right. His interpretation is just a touch overly literal.
I want to say that more of this should have been hashed out during the ticket itself but that was already a 20 minute ticket despite the small amount of back and forth. I guess it's ended with "come argue about it on the forums" and yeah here he is.
I want to say that more of this should have been hashed out during the ticket itself but that was already a 20 minute ticket despite the small amount of back and forth. I guess it's ended with "come argue about it on the forums" and yeah here he is.
- datorangebottle
- Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2019 9:53 am
- Byond Username: Datorangebottle
Re: Peanut
Angry tirade about essayposting.Timberpoes wrote: ↑Fri Jan 12, 2024 11:58 pm Don't even play game, here only through tenure, provide $0.02 anyway
Timberpoes wrote: ↑Fri Jul 07, 2023 9:16 pm I highly doubt any other admin on the team would have given you this chance, except maybe Kieth because his brain worms are almost as bad as mine.
Vekter wrote: ↑Tue May 16, 2023 4:45 pm At what point does someone's refusal or failure to improve become malice in and of itself? If you give someone a year to stop shitting on the carpet and they keep doing it but get slightly closer to the bathroom every time and sometimes they get to the toilet before it happens, at what point does it become acceptable to just ask them to go shit in someone else's house?
Timberpoes wrote: ↑Fri Apr 28, 2023 7:00 pm I'm sorry, can we get a real player to resolve this appeal? I don't like this trial player. They can't even set their own name.
sinfulbliss wrote: ↑I almost prefer Rave's AI-generated "We cannot accept this appeal at this time. If you would like assistance appealing in the future, please dial 1-800-1984-1488."
Pandarsenic wrote: ↑Mon Dec 12, 2022 2:25 pm I think we can all agree that someone throwing a reverse revolver at Zyb as a secret test of character, and Zyb immediately fucking himself with it, is the best thing we all could have received for Christmas this year
- dendydoom
- Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2020 10:40 am
- Byond Username: Dendydoom
Re: Peanut
this reads to me like a "you didn't play the game enough to do that" ban and i get it when you're adminning cus it can be quite annoying to see.
if you wield the rules like a club then eventually someone still might want to talk to you about it. yea, the rules say you can kill someone for trespassing on the bridge, but did they determine the context of the situation before jumping to action? did they have enough time to investigate or were they pressed with other matters and just needed this person out of a secure area? or did they have all the time in the world and just couldn't be bothered? did they use their words at all before shooting? did they believe that the intruder was enough of a threat to warrant not giving them any mercy?
you could argue that none of this matter and what mans did was fully within the rules, but i would also argue that playing in a lazy and absolutist way makes the game shit.
hope the conversation is productive and opinion opinion opinion opinion opinion opinion opinion opinion opinion opinion opinion opinion opinion opinion opinion
if you wield the rules like a club then eventually someone still might want to talk to you about it. yea, the rules say you can kill someone for trespassing on the bridge, but did they determine the context of the situation before jumping to action? did they have enough time to investigate or were they pressed with other matters and just needed this person out of a secure area? or did they have all the time in the world and just couldn't be bothered? did they use their words at all before shooting? did they believe that the intruder was enough of a threat to warrant not giving them any mercy?
you could argue that none of this matter and what mans did was fully within the rules, but i would also argue that playing in a lazy and absolutist way makes the game shit.
hope the conversation is productive and opinion opinion opinion opinion opinion opinion opinion opinion opinion opinion opinion opinion opinion opinion opinion
MrStonedOne wrote:I always read dendy's walls of text
NSFW:
- NecromancerAnne
- Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2018 6:55 pm
- Byond Username: NecromancerAnne
- Location: Don't touch me, motherfucker...
Re: Peanut
Look, if we're breaking the joke here;
This guys logic doesn't follow to me. If the cult being a big enough danger to not take any chances with anyone present on the bridge, then I could possibly see that angle, but I would still have some questions. A) Did you check them for any obvious tells they were cult once you disabled/killed them? B) If you didn't think he was cult, just a threat on the bridge, why did you leave the corpse out in the open and expect someone else to come clean it up, even while that may present an opportunity for the cult itself?
The latter question could be handwaved away as thinking too much in terms of optimization. We don't ban for incompetency if it isn't malicious, right? But choosing violence before talking is an optimization and one of the bluntest our playerbase employs. It can almost certainly be malicious as well. Not even communicating before gunning someone down is raw mechanics. It is just placing the consequences of that being an incorrect assumption onto the person unlucky enough not to have been given a chance to verbally explain themselves.
From that perspective, I think it puts a hole in their reasoning as well. Why was it that they're so concerned about the cult as to be killing people without giving them a chance to explain themselves in restricted areas, yet then not be concerned enough to prevent them from being A) recovered by the cult if they are a cultist or B) recovered at all if they thought they were a threat. People in these positions during cult rounds are ruthless about preventing recovery by any means. It's a common decision even for inexperienced players, because a lot of players assume 'bad guy? Keep him dead'. I think, in the moment, there being a cult wasn't their consideration for why they chose to do this. That's only a justification that has come after the fact. I really do think he just saw someone on the bridge he didn't invite and thought he had the freedom to kill that guy and took it. Since that is the angle he presented in the ticket, I think it is the actual reason he did it.
The former question would be important for proving his considerations. Cult, unlike revs, has a fantastic threat level gauge. Red eyes and halos. A dude on the bridge with a weapon during a rev round is a corpse as far as I'm concerned, That his bad luck; revs do not have these convenient tells. But if this guy is a cultist, he'd have at least red eyes if the cult is gaining any kind of foothold to be a major threat. Pulling off a mask or glasses after he's been put down (ideally, into crit) will prove his allegiance to the cult at the very least. Obviously, he could be some other threat, or he could really be just an obstructive tider. But if cult presence and threat was what was at the forefront of his mind, he'd surely at least bag search/check their eyes to determine more about why he was there if he wasn't willing to let the guy act in any way.
This guys logic doesn't follow to me. If the cult being a big enough danger to not take any chances with anyone present on the bridge, then I could possibly see that angle, but I would still have some questions. A) Did you check them for any obvious tells they were cult once you disabled/killed them? B) If you didn't think he was cult, just a threat on the bridge, why did you leave the corpse out in the open and expect someone else to come clean it up, even while that may present an opportunity for the cult itself?
The latter question could be handwaved away as thinking too much in terms of optimization. We don't ban for incompetency if it isn't malicious, right? But choosing violence before talking is an optimization and one of the bluntest our playerbase employs. It can almost certainly be malicious as well. Not even communicating before gunning someone down is raw mechanics. It is just placing the consequences of that being an incorrect assumption onto the person unlucky enough not to have been given a chance to verbally explain themselves.
From that perspective, I think it puts a hole in their reasoning as well. Why was it that they're so concerned about the cult as to be killing people without giving them a chance to explain themselves in restricted areas, yet then not be concerned enough to prevent them from being A) recovered by the cult if they are a cultist or B) recovered at all if they thought they were a threat. People in these positions during cult rounds are ruthless about preventing recovery by any means. It's a common decision even for inexperienced players, because a lot of players assume 'bad guy? Keep him dead'. I think, in the moment, there being a cult wasn't their consideration for why they chose to do this. That's only a justification that has come after the fact. I really do think he just saw someone on the bridge he didn't invite and thought he had the freedom to kill that guy and took it. Since that is the angle he presented in the ticket, I think it is the actual reason he did it.
The former question would be important for proving his considerations. Cult, unlike revs, has a fantastic threat level gauge. Red eyes and halos. A dude on the bridge with a weapon during a rev round is a corpse as far as I'm concerned, That his bad luck; revs do not have these convenient tells. But if this guy is a cultist, he'd have at least red eyes if the cult is gaining any kind of foothold to be a major threat. Pulling off a mask or glasses after he's been put down (ideally, into crit) will prove his allegiance to the cult at the very least. Obviously, he could be some other threat, or he could really be just an obstructive tider. But if cult presence and threat was what was at the forefront of his mind, he'd surely at least bag search/check their eyes to determine more about why he was there if he wasn't willing to let the guy act in any way.
-
- In-Game Admin
- Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 6:39 pm
- Byond Username: Higgin
Re: Peanut
ban type: Evil Ban is some jutsu I've never heard of, what did Thunder do to unlock that one
feedback appreciated here <3
- conrad
- Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2023 11:57 am
- Byond Username: Conrad Thunderbunch
- Location: Set free
Re: Peanut
Hot take: if you bring no arguments to your ban appeal, in the very least why you think it's wrong, there's absolutely no reason the banning admin should unban you.Nabski wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 2:45 am I like this appeal. There's no mega paragraphs or walls of text. The banning admin quickly moves out of the way to headmin review. The player understands what he did and why he did it, and from his interpretation of the rules he thinks he is right. His interpretation is just a touch overly literal.
I want to say that more of this should have been hashed out during the ticket itself but that was already a 20 minute ticket despite the small amount of back and forth. I guess it's ended with "come argue about it on the forums" and yeah here he is.
tbm is being very generous here.
I play the old man Ricky Paxton, and sometimes the borg Z.E.E.P.
Tell me how'd I do here. ⋆ 𝒯𝒶𝓀𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝒶 𝓈𝒶𝒷𝒶𝓉𝒾𝒸𝒶𝓁. ⋆
And now a word from our sponsors:
Tell me how'd I do here. ⋆ 𝒯𝒶𝓀𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝒶 𝓈𝒶𝒷𝒶𝓉𝒾𝒸𝒶𝓁. ⋆
And now a word from our sponsors:
Armhulen wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2023 11:08 pmThe Spessmen Times wrote:Prohibition agent Sam Salamander bragged that he could find a metacord in any server in under 30 minutes. In Bagil it took him 21 minutes. In Sybil 17 minutes, and Manuel just 11 minutes. But Terry set the record of 35 seconds. Sam asked an assistant on the arrivals shuttle where to get a discord invite, and the assistant linked him one.
RedBaronFlyer wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 3:52 pmIt would somehow manage to pick Birdshot Station for headmin if we did that
- kieth4
- Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2020 6:17 pm
- Byond Username: Kieth4
- DrAmazing343
- In-Game Head Admin
- Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2023 11:06 pm
- Byond Username: DrAmazing343
- Location: right here :3
- Contact:
Re: Peanut
never lethal a tider when you have a gun, winstick, secdogs, bridge assistant, and AI all around you and they're unarmed.
shame them instead.
- Timberpoes
- In-Game Head Admin
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:54 pm
- Byond Username: Timberpoes
Re: Peanut
They didn't feel like rehashing the ticket.conrad wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 11:52 amHot take: if you bring no arguments to your ban appeal, in the very least why you think it's wrong, there's absolutely no reason the banning admin should unban you.Nabski wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 2:45 am I like this appeal. There's no mega paragraphs or walls of text. The banning admin quickly moves out of the way to headmin review. The player understands what he did and why he did it, and from his interpretation of the rules he thinks he is right. His interpretation is just a touch overly literal.
I want to say that more of this should have been hashed out during the ticket itself but that was already a 20 minute ticket despite the small amount of back and forth. I guess it's ended with "come argue about it on the forums" and yeah here he is.
tbm is being very generous here.
They disagreed with the admin's application or interpretation of the rule from the outset of the ticket based on their own interpretation of the wording of the rule.
Since we have no existing precedents to point to, this appeal is/has defined how the rule is meant to be applied.
That process of clearly defining how the rule is interpreted was necessary first, with a repeat of the ticket after now everyone is on a similar page.
/tg/station Codebase Maintainer
/tg/station Game Master/Discord Jannie: Feed me back in my thread.
/tg/station Admin Trainer: Service guarantees citizenship. Would you like to know more?
Feb 2022-Sep 2022 Host Vote Headmin
Mar 2023-Sep 2023 Admin Vote Headmin
Sep 2024 Player and Admin Vote Headmin
/tg/station Game Master/Discord Jannie: Feed me back in my thread.
/tg/station Admin Trainer: Service guarantees citizenship. Would you like to know more?
Feb 2022-Sep 2022 Host Vote Headmin
Mar 2023-Sep 2023 Admin Vote Headmin
Sep 2024 Player and Admin Vote Headmin
- Nabski
- Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 5:42 pm
- Byond Username: Nabski
- Github Username: Nabski89
- Location: TN
Re: Peanut
I typed a reply and timber posted before it was done with better worded versions. Darn you timber.
Yeah this is more policy discussion instead of a ticket, and both parties clearly care but have an attitude of it's just a game. It's refreshing and I hope they walk away with a better understanding of the rules after.
Yeah this is more policy discussion instead of a ticket, and both parties clearly care but have an attitude of it's just a game. It's refreshing and I hope they walk away with a better understanding of the rules after.
- kieth4
- Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2020 6:17 pm
- Byond Username: Kieth4
Re: Peanut
Hate the idea that you need to coddle people who are breaking into dangerous areas.DrAmazing343 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 1:09 pmnever lethal a tider when you have a gun, winstick, secdogs, bridge assistant, and AI all around you and they're unarmed.
shame them instead.
Edit: fact that the assistant who makes his way into bridge for literally no reason ("to talk to someone") ahelps when he gets shot is frankly absurd.
Had he had permission from a head of staff or w/e fair sure. But he just seemingly broke in like come on man. Why is the empowerment given to these people and not the ones defending the area.
Feels like this has been an issue for a while where people breaking in just get protection fnr and that kind of pisses me off as I'm on the side of fuck around and find out. There was no reason for him to be there and when he gets shot for it (not even killed) homie nets a 1 day ban
Miss the days of shitter assistants engaging with a department and getting ic destroyed for it
Even the guys say logs are him taunting the bridge assistant (?) LOL...
Last edited by kieth4 on Sat Jan 13, 2024 1:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.
- TheRex9001
- In-Game Admin
- Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2022 7:41 am
- Byond Username: Rex9001
Re: Peanut
The og ban appeal should've just been rejected because it breaks rule 11 of the ban appeals forums, there was no attempt to talk before headmin review. Thunder said they were gonna deny it if they didnt bring anything up to the their defence and they just instantly went for the headmin review.
- kieth4
- Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2020 6:17 pm
- Byond Username: Kieth4
Re: Peanut
He says he didn't break the rule and the admin says he does he doesn't really have anything else to bring to the table in this caseTheRex9001 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 1:39 pm The og ban appeal should've just been rejected because it breaks rule 11 of the ban appeals forums, there was no attempt to talk before headmin review. Thunder said they were gonna deny it if they didnt bring anything up to the their defence and they just instantly went for the headmin review.
- conrad
- Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2023 11:57 am
- Byond Username: Conrad Thunderbunch
- Location: Set free
Re: Peanut
This isn't what I was talking about. Rex's comment is closer to it. What could've gone differently here? Should Thunder have pulled logs rather than denying it?Timberpoes wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 1:17 pmThey didn't feel like rehashing the ticket.conrad wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 11:52 amHot take: if you bring no arguments to your ban appeal, in the very least why you think it's wrong, there's absolutely no reason the banning admin should unban you.Nabski wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 2:45 am I like this appeal. There's no mega paragraphs or walls of text. The banning admin quickly moves out of the way to headmin review. The player understands what he did and why he did it, and from his interpretation of the rules he thinks he is right. His interpretation is just a touch overly literal.
I want to say that more of this should have been hashed out during the ticket itself but that was already a 20 minute ticket despite the small amount of back and forth. I guess it's ended with "come argue about it on the forums" and yeah here he is.
tbm is being very generous here.
They disagreed with the admin's application or interpretation of the rule from the outset of the ticket based on their own interpretation of the wording of the rule.
Since we have no existing precedents to point to, this appeal is/has defined how the rule is meant to be applied.
That process of clearly defining how the rule is interpreted was necessary first, with a repeat of the ticket after now everyone is on a similar page.
Could you clarify what you meant?
Have your term not pushed back any appeals that went like "Unban I did nothing wrong", "Elaborate", "headmin review"?
I play the old man Ricky Paxton, and sometimes the borg Z.E.E.P.
Tell me how'd I do here. ⋆ 𝒯𝒶𝓀𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝒶 𝓈𝒶𝒷𝒶𝓉𝒾𝒸𝒶𝓁. ⋆
And now a word from our sponsors:
Tell me how'd I do here. ⋆ 𝒯𝒶𝓀𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝒶 𝓈𝒶𝒷𝒶𝓉𝒾𝒸𝒶𝓁. ⋆
And now a word from our sponsors:
Armhulen wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2023 11:08 pmThe Spessmen Times wrote:Prohibition agent Sam Salamander bragged that he could find a metacord in any server in under 30 minutes. In Bagil it took him 21 minutes. In Sybil 17 minutes, and Manuel just 11 minutes. But Terry set the record of 35 seconds. Sam asked an assistant on the arrivals shuttle where to get a discord invite, and the assistant linked him one.
RedBaronFlyer wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 3:52 pmIt would somehow manage to pick Birdshot Station for headmin if we did that
- TheRex9001
- In-Game Admin
- Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2022 7:41 am
- Byond Username: Rex9001
Re: Peanut
"11. You are able to request that head admins review an appeal that is unable to come to an amicable resolution, however you are not entitled to a review occurring. Efforts must still be made by both you and the banning admin to resolve an appeal regardless of the request for reviewal." This guy put zero effort in his appeal and when the admin asks them to bring up something not from the ticket (maybe logs would help) they just instantly went headmin reviewkieth4 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 1:41 pmHe says he didn't break the rule and the admin says he does he doesn't really have anything else to bring to the table in this caseTheRex9001 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 1:39 pm The og ban appeal should've just been rejected because it breaks rule 11 of the ban appeals forums, there was no attempt to talk before headmin review. Thunder said they were gonna deny it if they didnt bring anything up to the their defence and they just instantly went for the headmin review.
- Timonk
- Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2018 6:27 pm
- Byond Username: Timonk
- Location: ur mum
Re: Peanut
Opinions from HoS mains dont matterkeith wrote:anything
joooks wrote:Quoting a legend, at least im not a faggot lolNaloac wrote:
In short, this appeal is denied. Suck my nuts retard.
See you in 12 months unless you blacklist me for this
Timberpoes wrote: ↑ I'm going to admin timonk [...]. Fuck it, he's also now my second host vote if goof rejects.
pikeyeskey13 wrote: ↑ ok don't forget to shove it up your ass lmao oops u can delete this one I just wanted to make sure it went through
Agux909 wrote:Woah bravo there sir, post of the month you saved the thread. I feel overwhelmed by the echo of unlimited wisdom and usefulness sprouting from you post. Every Manuel player now feels embarrased to exist because of your much NEEDED wise words, you sure teached'em all, you genius, IQ lord.Timonk wrote:This is why we make fun of Manuel
The hut has perished at my hands.
The pink arrow is always right.
- BonChoi
- Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2018 1:07 pm
- Byond Username: BonChoi
Re: Peanut
This ban is straight garbage lol, I'm not one to just instantly lethal people who walk into restricted areas but you gotta take it into account before entering a restricted area that per the rules, it is permissible for someone to use lethal force against you if you have no good reason to be there, which the person who walked onto the bridge didn't.
Another bad take provided by yours truly.
Istoprocent1 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2024 4:36 pm Baseless claims. I have been to the vault minimum of 38 times, how many suicides?
- kieth4
- Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2020 6:17 pm
- Byond Username: Kieth4
Re: Peanut
This is a somewhat clear cut example of the rules though? Maybe if there was some kind of thing to argue but it's just "rule says x" when there is an argument to be made sure but what would you expect him to argue in this case?conrad wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 1:56 pmThis isn't what I was talking about. Rex's comment is closer to it. What could've gone differently here? Should Thunder have pulled logs rather than denying it?Timberpoes wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 1:17 pmThey didn't feel like rehashing the ticket.conrad wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 11:52 amHot take: if you bring no arguments to your ban appeal, in the very least why you think it's wrong, there's absolutely no reason the banning admin should unban you.Nabski wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 2:45 am I like this appeal. There's no mega paragraphs or walls of text. The banning admin quickly moves out of the way to headmin review. The player understands what he did and why he did it, and from his interpretation of the rules he thinks he is right. His interpretation is just a touch overly literal.
I want to say that more of this should have been hashed out during the ticket itself but that was already a 20 minute ticket despite the small amount of back and forth. I guess it's ended with "come argue about it on the forums" and yeah here he is.
tbm is being very generous here.
They disagreed with the admin's application or interpretation of the rule from the outset of the ticket based on their own interpretation of the wording of the rule.
Since we have no existing precedents to point to, this appeal is/has defined how the rule is meant to be applied.
That process of clearly defining how the rule is interpreted was necessary first, with a repeat of the ticket after now everyone is on a similar page.
Could you clarify what you meant?
Have your term not pushed back any appeals that went like "Unban I did nothing wrong", "Elaborate", "headmin review"?
If I was in his position I'm not entirely sure I'd be able to dredge anything up. Guy is in bridge when he's not meant to be and he gets shot. Maybe I'd say it wasn't a kill but to crit but that's grasping for straws kinda. When it's a clear cut rule it's somewhat hard to actually argue around it.
I guess he couldve brought forward what he said in the ticket but like, what new would you bring to the table if you were in his shoes here?
Isn't a dig or anything, I'm just interested in how you would approach it
to me it seems that appealer and the admin are taking the same rule and approaching in 2 diff ways but it's VERY clear cut like super duper clear cut imo
- yttriums
- Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2023 1:56 am
- Byond Username: Yttriums
Re: Peanut
I love when purplenames write 4 paragraphs of quantum backseating to explain why a sec player shouldn't have secured a secure area.
- conrad
- Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2023 11:57 am
- Byond Username: Conrad Thunderbunch
- Location: Set free
Re: Peanut
Personally, I'd have to be there man. I don't know exactly which side to take because on one hand, there was cult, which gives a legitimate reason for laser poisoning to happen. On another, he didn't behave like a tider or like an antag when he entered the bridge. It honestly feels that nowel's player doesn't care about the "for no legitimate reason" of the rule just as much as tbm doesn't care about the fact that there was a cult on that round.kieth4 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 2:48 pm This is a somewhat clear cut example of the rules though? Maybe if there was some kind of thing to argue but it's just "rule says x" when there is an argument to be made sure but what would you expect him to argue in this case?
If I was in his position I'm not entirely sure I'd be able to dredge anything up. Guy is in bridge when he's not meant to be and he gets shot. Maybe I'd say it wasn't a kill but to crit but that's grasping for straws kinda. When it's a clear cut rule it's somewhat hard to actually argue around it.
I guess he couldve brought forward what he said in the ticket but like, what new would you bring to the table if you were in his shoes here?
Isn't a dig or anything, I'm just interested in how you would approach it
"Breaking into the captain's office, head of personnel's office, bridge or armory for no legitimate reason put themselves at risk of being killed by the captain, heads of staff, or security." leads me to believe that the onus of providing a legitimate reason lies on the person breaking in the bridge, but the captain should at least try to get something out of that person before lasering them to death. Else he's putting himself, like it happened, at risk of killing a nonantag without knowing why they're there in the first place.
Which is what was said on the ticket. "Non-authorized person on bridge = valid" is the argument he's using.
I wont grace the crit not dead with a response 'cos hellfire lasers aren't used for the ability to leave someone alive. In this at least we agree that that'd be grasping for straws.
Anyway my point in this thread ain't wether the ban was legit or not but the fact the dude went "headmin review" rather than at least trying to talk to the banning admin. It was basically *slams hand on table* chop chop admin boy remove ban now plx
► Show Spoiler
I play the old man Ricky Paxton, and sometimes the borg Z.E.E.P.
Tell me how'd I do here. ⋆ 𝒯𝒶𝓀𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝒶 𝓈𝒶𝒷𝒶𝓉𝒾𝒸𝒶𝓁. ⋆
And now a word from our sponsors:
Tell me how'd I do here. ⋆ 𝒯𝒶𝓀𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝒶 𝓈𝒶𝒷𝒶𝓉𝒾𝒸𝒶𝓁. ⋆
And now a word from our sponsors:
Armhulen wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2023 11:08 pmThe Spessmen Times wrote:Prohibition agent Sam Salamander bragged that he could find a metacord in any server in under 30 minutes. In Bagil it took him 21 minutes. In Sybil 17 minutes, and Manuel just 11 minutes. But Terry set the record of 35 seconds. Sam asked an assistant on the arrivals shuttle where to get a discord invite, and the assistant linked him one.
RedBaronFlyer wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 3:52 pmIt would somehow manage to pick Birdshot Station for headmin if we did that
- Prussen
- Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2022 3:37 pm
- Byond Username: Prussen
Re: Peanut
Pretty clear cut rule, and it's pretty much never been interpreted in any other way. Not sure why thunder and TBM are trying to lawyer around it meaning something else considering no-one else has applied it in this way. He really doesn't need to provide any "RP/IC reasoning" considering that I think we know why players who tide into high-security areas are under no OOC protections.
A "bridge assistant" has no authority over how the bridge is controlled, and reading further into the appeal and logs we can even see that the player broke into the bridge (with or without the use of the AI), providing even more reason for his actions. I remember once breaking into mainsec by asking the AI to open, something I got killed for, but I never complained because its pretty obvious why I was killed.
The way I see it, the whole "legitimate reason" thing boils down to if the captain (someone with authority over the bridge) were to provide them explicit permission to enter bridge and then kill them, which is obviously rule breaking. This guy had no reason to be in bridge and Nowell had full authority to kill them.
I also don't see why admins are saying his appeal has no substance considering it's pretty clear that what he did was not against the rules and that's all he needs to say.
A "bridge assistant" has no authority over how the bridge is controlled, and reading further into the appeal and logs we can even see that the player broke into the bridge (with or without the use of the AI), providing even more reason for his actions. I remember once breaking into mainsec by asking the AI to open, something I got killed for, but I never complained because its pretty obvious why I was killed.
The way I see it, the whole "legitimate reason" thing boils down to if the captain (someone with authority over the bridge) were to provide them explicit permission to enter bridge and then kill them, which is obviously rule breaking. This guy had no reason to be in bridge and Nowell had full authority to kill them.
I also don't see why admins are saying his appeal has no substance considering it's pretty clear that what he did was not against the rules and that's all he needs to say.
loli think the key with this is just making sure that you're providing more than an entirely OOC-based justification for your actions if questioned about them.
► Show Spoiler
- Justice12354
- In-Game Admin
- Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2021 1:41 am
- Byond Username: Justice12354
- kieth4
- Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2020 6:17 pm
- Byond Username: Kieth4
Re: Peanut
ye I just think it's super hard to argue something like this esp when looking at the ticket already having had it all argued outconrad wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 3:45 pmPersonally, I'd have to be there man. I don't know exactly which side to take because on one hand, there was cult, which gives a legitimate reason for laser poisoning to happen. On another, he didn't behave like a tider or like an antag when he entered the bridge. It honestly feels that nowel's player doesn't care about the "for no legitimate reason" of the rule just as much as tbm doesn't care about the fact that there was a cult on that round.kieth4 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 2:48 pm This is a somewhat clear cut example of the rules though? Maybe if there was some kind of thing to argue but it's just "rule says x" when there is an argument to be made sure but what would you expect him to argue in this case?
If I was in his position I'm not entirely sure I'd be able to dredge anything up. Guy is in bridge when he's not meant to be and he gets shot. Maybe I'd say it wasn't a kill but to crit but that's grasping for straws kinda. When it's a clear cut rule it's somewhat hard to actually argue around it.
I guess he couldve brought forward what he said in the ticket but like, what new would you bring to the table if you were in his shoes here?
Isn't a dig or anything, I'm just interested in how you would approach it
"Breaking into the captain's office, head of personnel's office, bridge or armory for no legitimate reason put themselves at risk of being killed by the captain, heads of staff, or security." leads me to believe that the onus of providing a legitimate reason lies on the person breaking in the bridge, but the captain should at least try to get something out of that person before lasering them to death. Else he's putting himself, like it happened, at risk of killing a nonantag without knowing why they're there in the first place.
Which is what was said on the ticket. "Non-authorized person on bridge = valid" is the argument he's using.
I wont grace the crit not dead with a response 'cos hellfire lasers aren't used for the ability to leave someone alive. In this at least we agree that that'd be grasping for straws.
Anyway my point in this thread ain't wether the ban was legit or not but the fact the dude went "headmin review" rather than at least trying to talk to the banning admin. It was basically *slams hand on table* chop chop admin boy remove ban now plx
realest► Show Spoiler
- TheRex9001
- In-Game Admin
- Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2022 7:41 am
- Byond Username: Rex9001
Re: Peanut
"If no, please provide more details: I believe "this wasn't even a rule break and you shouldn't have been noted?(banned)" i dont think any punishment should have been dealt since i was acting within the rules"
I think this is zero effort cause they just didn't say WHY they believed they were acting within the rules, or any justification why they were acting within the rules. Thats what I find to be zero effort. And when told to provide it they just asked for a headmin review.
I think this is zero effort cause they just didn't say WHY they believed they were acting within the rules, or any justification why they were acting within the rules. Thats what I find to be zero effort. And when told to provide it they just asked for a headmin review.
- kieth4
- Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2020 6:17 pm
- Byond Username: Kieth4
Re: Peanut
I think that's fair- but when the rule is "you can kill people in x situation" and they kill people in x situation it seems difficultTheRex9001 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 4:05 pm "If no, please provide more details: I believe "this wasn't even a rule break and you shouldn't have been noted?(banned)" i dont think any punishment should have been dealt since i was acting within the rules"
I think this is zero effort cause they just didn't say WHY they believed they were acting within the rules, or any justification why they were acting within the rules. Thats what I find to be zero effort. And when told to provide it they just asked for a headmin review.
- TheRex9001
- In-Game Admin
- Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2022 7:41 am
- Byond Username: Rex9001
Re: Peanut
Yeah but they can just add that to their appeal, instead what they have says like nothing. They could've quoted the rules.kieth4 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 4:10 pmI think that's fair- but when the rule is "you can kill people in x situation" and they kill people in x situation it seems difficultTheRex9001 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 4:05 pm "If no, please provide more details: I believe "this wasn't even a rule break and you shouldn't have been noted?(banned)" i dont think any punishment should have been dealt since i was acting within the rules"
I think this is zero effort cause they just didn't say WHY they believed they were acting within the rules, or any justification why they were acting within the rules. Thats what I find to be zero effort. And when told to provide it they just asked for a headmin review.
- kieth4
- Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2020 6:17 pm
- Byond Username: Kieth4
Re: Peanut
That's true I suppose, it seems a bit silly when it was all hashed out in the ticket but I guess they could have brought more of the ticket to the forums.TheRex9001 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 4:29 pmYeah but they can just add that to their appeal, instead what they have says like nothing. They could've quoted the rules.kieth4 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 4:10 pmI think that's fair- but when the rule is "you can kill people in x situation" and they kill people in x situation it seems difficultTheRex9001 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 4:05 pm "If no, please provide more details: I believe "this wasn't even a rule break and you shouldn't have been noted?(banned)" i dont think any punishment should have been dealt since i was acting within the rules"
I think this is zero effort cause they just didn't say WHY they believed they were acting within the rules, or any justification why they were acting within the rules. Thats what I find to be zero effort. And when told to provide it they just asked for a headmin review.
- Jacquerel
- Code Maintainer
- Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 8:10 pm
- Byond Username: Becquerel
Re: Peanut
uninformed four word shitpost
- dendydoom
- Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2020 10:40 am
- Byond Username: Dendydoom
Re: Peanut
honestly i've thought over this a bit today and the only part that gets to me is not getting them medical help afterwards. imo you should have more of a responsibility to reasonably ensure they're gonna get treated, like if a paramed takes them off or you drop them in full view of the doctors in medbay then this is enough but to just toss them out like "yea det get to this plz" is kinda ass. but ultimately it's impossible to tell without knowing how pressing the cult is. if there is reason to believe that stepping outside is just gonna be suicide for the captain at that point, then eh alright i guess, but there was a bridge assistant?
also,
also,
dendydoom wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2023 1:43 pm this is why i sincerely believe we'll have a few months after a big new policy change like this where we'll see edge cases crop up and shonky rulings made that will need to be deliberated on by the community and headmins will need to make rulings on it. obviously the wording should be as clear and concise as possible, but ultimately it will take time for the "spirit" of what the rule is trying to accomplish to come out and be understood by the wider community, rather than regarding it in a rigidly codified way.
MrStonedOne wrote:I always read dendy's walls of text
NSFW:
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users