Bottom post of the previous page:
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=36176tbh CMO is 100% correct
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
I do it sometimes if it's clear that the person involved might actually be busy, otherwise I'd just rather give someone the reason I'm bothering them up-front. I don't like the anxiety that comes with being told something is wrong (via being bwoinked) without actually being told what is wrong, so I try to save others from that.WineAllWine wrote: ↑Sat May 25, 2024 7:38 pmYeah a bit odd. Almost every bwoink I see is "hey, can you tell me about what happened between you and him?"PapaMichael wrote: ↑Sat May 25, 2024 6:42 pm the unspoken elephant in the room here is that matrixone is asserting that this isn't just drag, but that every admin but duffy has been acting this way.
it's weird. it's not that i don't believe them, but i've literally never personally experienced anything remotely resembling this hostility myself; i don't think duffy's conduct in that ticket is anything interesting or exceptional, all my bwoinks have basically gone that way.
so... it's unclear how prolific of a problem this is from an outside perspective
(I looked in my own bwoink history, the most recent bwoink that wasn't like this was 'stop it.' to someone who was spanning alert level changes)
And I have NEVER seen a 'hey got a minute?' in the wild.
Maybe manuel admins run differently, idk
AliasTakuto wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 1:11 pm As for the ear replacing stuff, you can ask Anne but I don't think this is what I was banned for. If I was all I can say is "Sorry for being hilarious"...
Omega_DarkPotato wrote:This sucks, dude.
But the player wasn’t being aggressive at all! The entire situation was drag telling Selena to not mess with the chemist very aggressively, and Selena attempting to explain and deescalate the situation.Vekter wrote: ↑Sun May 26, 2024 12:00 am I suppose I've been guilty of doing a few of these things in my time. It's something I think we can all collectively work on, but I also think it's important to understand that admins are not customer service agents for a corporation's helpdesk. We are volunteers doing this for the sake of improving the community as a whole. If you talk shit or act like a jerk, I'm not going to pull punches beyond at least keeping some professionalism.
I can respect being asked by players to be less abrasive up-front, but I cannot respect being asked that and then having players treat me like shit because I dared to ask them why they did a thing.
I do it sometimes if it's clear that the person involved might actually be busy, otherwise I'd just rather give someone the reason I'm bothering them up-front. I don't like the anxiety that comes with being told something is wrong (via being bwoinked) without actually being told what is wrong, so I try to save others from that.WineAllWine wrote: ↑Sat May 25, 2024 7:38 pmYeah a bit odd. Almost every bwoink I see is "hey, can you tell me about what happened between you and him?"PapaMichael wrote: ↑Sat May 25, 2024 6:42 pm the unspoken elephant in the room here is that matrixone is asserting that this isn't just drag, but that every admin but duffy has been acting this way.
it's weird. it's not that i don't believe them, but i've literally never personally experienced anything remotely resembling this hostility myself; i don't think duffy's conduct in that ticket is anything interesting or exceptional, all my bwoinks have basically gone that way.
so... it's unclear how prolific of a problem this is from an outside perspective
(I looked in my own bwoink history, the most recent bwoink that wasn't like this was 'stop it.' to someone who was spanning alert level changes)
And I have NEVER seen a 'hey got a minute?' in the wild.
Maybe manuel admins run differently, idk
Correct. I wasn't talking about this specific instance, I was speaking in general.
AliasTakuto wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 1:11 pm As for the ear replacing stuff, you can ask Anne but I don't think this is what I was banned for. If I was all I can say is "Sorry for being hilarious"...
Omega_DarkPotato wrote:This sucks, dude.
Istoprocent1 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2024 4:36 pm Baseless claims. I have been to the vault minimum of 38 times, how many suicides?
I think it's just that admins souls leave their body a little bit more every time they open an appeal or a complaint and see the great wall of tgstation looking back at them.
Huh. I was under the impression that due to MSO's ruling that an admin's noting/banning conduct couldn't be the subject of a complaint without said note/ban being successfully appealed. Not to get too off-topic, but is this example not very much an outlier? A regular concern of mine is that a downside of this ruling is that it encourages admins to note for things they normally wouldn't since even if they slip up a bit with their behaviour, there's that extra barrier of needing to appeal a note first to be taken seriously when calling them out on it.Timberpoes wrote: ↑Sat May 25, 2024 5:20 pm In the above appeal, we removed a correct note because it was placed using incorrect procedure. One of the headmins back then which +1'd that decision is a current headmin again today, so it's not impossible in the hypothetical that this was another ctrl-c ctrl-v. The difficulty getting results like that being said term had me, and I was very willing to get into appeals and complaints to actually get them resolved fairly; which meant once an issue was highlighted players didn't have to fight hard to get a headmin to take it seriously.
That appeal also resulted in a conduct strike without the player having to open a complaint.
Logs are incomplete and don't really paint the full picture both with mechanics and player perspective. I could count two, maybe three specific situations where an admin just couldn't reliably help me because of things by the game that aren't tracked. Let the true text wall haters be the ones to code in the ability to rewatch rounds so that they can avoid this, or forever hold their tongues...Timberpoes wrote: ↑Sun May 26, 2024 8:51 am Yet every time they open the logs they're able to find the relevant bits of info they need rather quickly, and with much less fanfare and complaining about the literal megabytes of text they had to filter through to get there.
Curious.
In that instance the success of the appeal led to an immediate / automatic escalation to an admin conduct strike - bypassing the need for the player themselves to escalate the matter. It was a successful appeal that led to a free complaint, rather than a successful complaint that led to a free appeal, as it were.TypicalRig wrote: ↑Sun May 26, 2024 9:19 amHuh. I was under the impression that due to MSO's ruling that an admin's noting/banning conduct couldn't be the subject of a complaint without said note/ban being successfully appealed. Not to get too off-topic, but is this example not very much an outlier? A regular concern of mine is that a downside of this ruling is that it encourages admins to note for things they normally wouldn't since even if they slip up a bit with their behaviour, there's that extra barrier of needing to appeal a note first to be taken seriously when calling them out on it.
Absolutely it's a two way street. Having been in such a position myself I understand it can be stressful at times having to log dive/note dive/ask for multiple opinions and check facts whilst dealing with perhaps multiple bwoinks, and if someone is rude to you it can grate. But I like to believe the majority of players are decent and shouldn't be spoken to like crap just because someone else has rattled you (not you personally Vekter).Vekter wrote: ↑Sun May 26, 2024 12:00 am I suppose I've been guilty of doing a few of these things in my time. It's something I think we can all collectively work on, but I also think it's important to understand that admins are not customer service agents for a corporation's helpdesk. We are volunteers doing this for the sake of improving the community as a whole. If you talk shit or act like a jerk, I'm not going to pull punches beyond at least keeping some professionalism.
I can respect being asked by players to be less abrasive up-front, but I cannot respect being asked that and then having players treat me like shit because I dared to ask them why they did a thing.
I struggle a bit with boldfaced part of this because I've seen situations where both the admin and the player needed to be deadminned and banned respectively.Timberpoes wrote: ↑Sun May 26, 2024 10:03 am [valuable background abt the philosophy of appeal -> complaint]
The hope is that no sane headmin term would uphold a ban or note placed while breaching admin conduct, no matter how correct or valid that note or ban actually was. It would be a fundamental betrayal of trust and a failure in the fairness of how we are meant to operate as admins. That one hope is the keystone holding the entire structure in place and how MSO's ruling can function.
Players lost a bit of freedom in being able to complain about banning conduct without successfully contesting the ban itself first.
Admins lost a bit of freedom because headmins were more bound to consider conduct when deciding appeals, so if they want a note or ban to stick they have to play by the rules.
While I understand the concepts with regard to fruit of the poisoned tree and double jeopardy, I raise you a wonderful case from my area of expertise in English law: R v Sussex Justices, ex p. McCarthy [1924] 1 KB 256.Higgin wrote: ↑Sun May 26, 2024 3:59 pm A lot of the procedural fairness principles, i.e. the fruit of the poisoned tree and double jeopardy, end up misapplied if we don't consider that sometimes, in a case where the conduct breach is something like manner/professionalism unrelated to the note/ban, or that the original matter was not at all investigated/ruled on properly to begin with, there's still something "there" there. Flipside, just because a ban is valid doesn't mean conduct wasn't broken.
Having been in low-trust communities, I appreciate that conduct matters. It's no small part of what makes tg great and the whole thing work.Timberpoes wrote: ↑Sun May 26, 2024 7:23 pmWhile I understand the concepts with regard to fruit of the poisoned tree and double jeopardy, I raise you a wonderful case from my area of expertise in English law: R v Sussex Justices, ex p. McCarthy [1924] 1 KB 256.
(Emphasis mine)I agree with the above poster that our conduct is more important than banning or noting players. It is not merely of some importance, but is of fundamental importance to our standards as a whole team.Spoiler:
Those standards for being the best admin team of any SS13 server isn't that we always get the ban in the end. It's that we're mature enough to have a robust and fair process where not only are admins expected to be unbiased, that we're also expected to appear as an unbiased party to the community and each other. The mere evidenced possibility that there was some procedural impropriety in how an admin acted is enough to override whether the action itself was correct.
That approach maintains trust in the admins. It means you as an admin can trust a note or ban I placed. It means players can trust the system at all.
We don't need to even entertain shitty admin conduct and we can still make the servers better without it. I'd argue we can only make the servers better if we're avoiding shitty conduct.
In this case, I suspect the deliberations around conduct are going to be totally separate from the discussion of whether or not an RPR9 violation took place but rather the manner in which drag approached the players.The question therefore is not whether in this case the deputy clerk made any observation or offered any criticism which he might not properly have made or offered; the question is whether he was so related to the case in its civil aspect as to be unfit to act as clerk to the justices in the criminal matter.
At least in the case of the complaint this peanut is attached to, the two will be separate matters since drag's ruling on what they think heads of staff can and cannot do is not linked to their ticket conduct.
if the chefs a asshole its more acceptable if you cant get donks or cargo pizza (as a side note I mained cmo for the 2 months where food did not work at all)MatrixOne wrote: ↑Sat May 25, 2024 9:21 pmI can understand where people who don't like caramel are coming from. I think when there are chefs who are putting effort into cooking it's a totally asshole move to make caramel. But to me this is not a one and done issue; I believe that if the chefs are making troll food (death sandwiches, vomit rats) or no food at all, it's valid for a chemist to make caramel for their medbay. And that was when the admin deleted mine. So I can both understand and agree with the sentiment of not liking caramel, but also not approve of a decision which wasn't made in a vacuum. I don't like just blanket "all should be deleted," that seems not very reasonable and easy to say for someone who doesn't play medbay where people run on red hunger a bunch.Blacklist897 wrote: ↑Sat May 25, 2024 8:42 pm any caramel patch maker deserves to have the patches deleted
Im actually surprised it happened because that has been the first actual deadminning in a long while (coming from an admin complaint)Timberpoes wrote: ↑Sat May 25, 2024 11:22 pm I'd say more appeals and complaints get rejected because the player gave too little info than those where the player gave too much.
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
No such thing as a so called 'final' fantasy. It's either a fantasy or it isn't, finality has no place putting its boring time related judgemental shit into it. Fuck you time.MrStonedOne wrote: ↑Sun May 26, 2024 11:05 pm why would anybody go higher than the best final fantasy?
The system primarily works because we have people who want it to work and have the drive and passion to yell about the things they believe in to make it work.MatrixOne wrote: ↑Mon May 27, 2024 12:29 am ...
I was hesitant to open a complaint because I felt that admins would think of it as no harm done because it didn't result in a note, and not worth their time. I reasoned that, if I was made fun of by the admins further for making a waste of time issue post, I'd at least be able to point to it and say: that's how it is here. But instead, the first admin post I read about my issue was Timber's post early in this thread, and I was like: well shit. This person not only read my wordy complaint but they approached it in good faith. When a friend encouraged me to make a complaint, I looked at the 1 to 6 ratio of upheld to closed complaints and basically told them these don't look like great odds. I was wrong about what the response would be and I'm really happy to have been wrong.
how much did they pay you come on
Not accurate, part of it was the building space (Which as ive explained before, not only do you have to mine out the cave to make the space uniform and usable (A thin cave line of 5 straight squares is not particularly helpful for plumbing factories, yet for some reason people are saying "BUT LOOK THERE'S 999999 SQUARES", when half of them are not practically applicable without mining.), you have to tile the space to actually anchor equipment, meaning the CMO was forcing me to do even more work on top of the mining work), but the major part was them taking my job content. If they just asked me to make brute/burn meds, I would have done so.MooCow12 wrote: ↑Mon May 27, 2024 5:19 amFrom the social side of it, there wasnt any abuse from the cmo, rather it was a chemist making a fus and trying to escalate over a resource (building space) when there was plenty of it (this is like a scientist trying to stop rd from spending 10k points when there is currently 70k banked up somehow) and the admin didnt investigate this aspect of the situation either
MrStonedOne wrote:I always read dendy's walls of text
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
kieth4 wrote: infrequently shitting yourself is fine imo
There is a lot of very bizarre nonsense being talked on this forum. I shall now remain silent and logoff until my points are vindicated.
Player who complainted over being killed for looting cap office wrote: ↑Sun Jul 30, 2023 1:33 am Hey there, I'm Virescent, the super evil person who made the stupid appeal and didn't think it through enough. Just came here to say: screech, retards. Screech and writhe like the worms you are. Your pathetic little cries will keep echoing around for a while before quietting down. There is one great outcome from this: I rised up the blood pressure of some of you shitheads and lowered your lifespan. I'm honestly tempted to do this more often just to see you screech and writhe more, but that wouldn't be cool of me. So come on haters, show me some more of your high blood pressure please.![]()
Clara, the best captain player I know, getting noted by Bmon for fighting station threats on lowpop is absolutely insane. Glad they appealed and got it lifted.britgrenadier1 wrote: ↑Mon May 27, 2024 5:49 pm and yet, it is constantly used to curtail behavior that admins dont like. See the Clara White captain note and also this bwoink about caramel patches(??????).
your misdeeds will all become public and inshallah you shall be deadminned.
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
for the benefit of those who may not be familiar with how we resolve these rules disputes, this note was overturned by not 3 but a 5 headmin strong pantheon. we were in full agreement on this, and in an attempt to understand just how diversified the opinion was, i spent the time on a thread that proved the majority of us were in absolute unquestioning agreement, and a precedent was set that we expect to factor into enforcement going forward.MatrixOne wrote: ↑Mon May 27, 2024 6:53 pmClara, the best captain player I know, getting noted by Bmon for fighting station threats on lowpop is absolutely insane. Glad they appealed and got it lifted.britgrenadier1 wrote: ↑Mon May 27, 2024 5:49 pm and yet, it is constantly used to curtail behavior that admins dont like. See the Clara White captain note and also this bwoink about caramel patches(??????).
Captain is the one person who can fill in on every department... and has the IC grounds to do it. The station is theirs. The security team also works for them. And the antags are enemies of them, the station, and the corpo. Having captain Clara on lowpop has been amazing because they could deal with so many things that got in the way of player enjoyment, such as power, no research, and - yes - the superantags too. Without a competent hos or captain, the hyper antags absolutely roll through lowpop shifts.
MrStonedOne wrote:I always read dendy's walls of text
As long as serious enough matters aren't dropped even when the facts don't speak for themselves and may require relitigation or reinvestigation, I'm happy with that scale. Thank you for clarifying.Timberpoes wrote: ↑Sun May 26, 2024 11:12 pm...
And for any serious enough incident, poor admin conduct isn't going to factor in as procedure permits earlier bans with less investigation. Griefing evaders, for example, can be given no-bwoink no-knock bans. Non-griefing evaders may just be no-knock banned while they're offline when some admin checks new player logs.
The more serious the rule broken, the less procedure tends to be relevant where the facts clearly speak for themselves. That's the sliding scale you're looking for.
...
In fairness to myself and Timber - When obtaining an item (such as food) or outcome (such as not starving) is not available through it's primary route of access (such as the kitchen) and instead through an alternate route (such as chemistry), RPR 9 does not apply as per precedent 4.
MrStonedOne wrote:I always read dendy's walls of text
MrStonedOne wrote:I always read dendy's walls of text