/tg/Station 13

Bottom post of the previous page:

cringe ban note

saprasam wrote:the ban appeal that you said was precedent wasn't entirely based because of him jumping into the SM, it was because and i quote "Deleted for actual mass greytiding at roundstart as a non-antag, proceeded to take a drone role and walk into the supermatter on deltastation. This is on top of previous notes."

I already addressed this in the ban appeal; the reason for the ban is walking into the supermatter, and the rest is backstory leading up to it. Ausops' comments in the appeal thread make this clear that it is about "griefing engineering," in his words.

...in which the person did neither of these things that are so heinous. why is this a note? the SM was set up and no harm was done, not a single person got cancer from it, not a single person took damage, and the radcollectors got MORE power.

I was specifically referencing bans in that quote. If people died, then I probably would placed a 1-day ban per person that died, as is the rule of thumb, possibly more or less depending on external circumstances. To my knowledge, no one died, hence it being a note and not a ban. But the reason for the note is that the rule that currently exists is that suiciding into the SM is punishable on its own.

Who gives a crap what some retard said X years ago about the supermatter? The code was a hell of a lot different back then.
Fact of the matter is that nothing bad happened because the guy suicided into the SM. It was properly setup. Crystal stability was fine.
Applying any sort of admin punishment for that is banbot behavior.

bandit wrote:

saprasam wrote:the ban appeal that you said was precedent wasn't entirely based because of him jumping into the SM, it was because and i quote "Deleted for actual mass greytiding at roundstart as a non-antag, proceeded to take a drone role and walk into the supermatter on deltastation. This is on top of previous notes."

I already addressed this in the ban appeal; the reason for the ban is walking into the supermatter, and the rest is backstory leading up to it. Ausops' comments in the appeal thread make this clear that it is about "griefing engineering," in his words.

...in which the person did neither of these things that are so heinous. why is this a note? the SM was set up and no harm was done, not a single person got cancer from it, not a single person took damage, and the radcollectors got MORE power.

I was specifically referencing bans in that quote. If people died, then I probably would placed a 1-day ban per person that died, as is the rule of thumb, possibly more or less depending on external circumstances. To my knowledge, no one died, hence it being a note and not a ban. But the reason for the note is that the rule that currently exists is that suiciding into the SM is punishable on its own.

I had no idea it was possible to be such a hard ass. The SM was set up, suiciding into it didn't cause problems for anyone in the round, and the guy had to go. When you signed up to be an admin, did you think "I am going to enforce the rules exactly as they're written" or "I am going to do my best to keep this game enjoyable for everyone"? If it was the former, you're doing something wrong.

There's BGO on a normal day and then some days he just

Jin and bgo are locked in a desperate struggle to see who can out bait the other

I'm not trying to "bait" anyone, I'm trying to show that there is, in fact, this precedent, and that I am just working off precedent, which is what admins are supposed to rather than have 10 admins interpreting rules 10 different ways.

wesoda25 wrote:Jin and bgo are locked in a desperate struggle to see who can out bait the other

whaaaaaat? noooooo, you can't just call out my bait!

bgo is now a precedent to how boomers shouldnt have admin powers

retard

bgo is just a precedent to why bgo shouldn't have admin powers

How hard is it to understand that your precedents are void because the conditions when they were set no longer apply? You’re banning just for the sake of it, there’s no other way to put it since the suiciders actions hurt nobody, as proved to you several times already. You are so obsessed with the few ancient statements from admins which agree with you, but casually ignore the numerous admins who have condemned you for this, even a former headmin (whose tenure was more recent than those you referenced) saying you are wrong.

I feel like every post in this thread is bait to make bgo say something even stupider

we need that tunnel to china jin

lame bait thread

Imagine taking the time to shit on someone for 150 posts

let it be, come on

I can't believe that Bandit would note someone for something that is, by the books, bannable. How dare they demonstrate a reasonable stance and point out what the current rules are.

Bandit is a great member of the community and its shameful to dogpile them like this. We can disagree while being respectful.

RaveRadbury wrote:I can't believe that Bandit would note someone for something that is, by the books, bannable. How dare they demonstrate a reasonable stance and point out what the current rules are.

Bandit is a great member of the community and its shameful to dogpile them like this. We can disagree while being respectful.

great post by the retard that noted a lizard for having a name they're allowed to have

teepeepee wrote:

RaveRadbury wrote:I can't believe that Bandit would note someone for something that is, by the books, bannable. How dare they demonstrate a reasonable stance and point out what the current rules are.

Bandit is a great member of the community and its shameful to dogpile them like this. We can disagree while being respectful.

great post by the retard that noted a lizard for having a name they're allowed to have

which, you might recall, was argued against by... bgo...
https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic ... 20#p563608
hmmm... it's almost like there's some nuance here..... nope, admin bad! admin bad admin bad admin bad admin bad admin bad admin bad admin bad admin bad admin bad

PKPenguin321 wrote:

teepeepee wrote:

RaveRadbury wrote:I can't believe that Bandit would note someone for something that is, by the books, bannable. How dare they demonstrate a reasonable stance and point out what the current rules are.

Bandit is a great member of the community and its shameful to dogpile them like this. We can disagree while being respectful.

great post by the retard that noted a lizard for having a name they're allowed to have

which, you might recall, was argued against by... bgo...
https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic ... 20#p563608
hmmm... it's almost like there's some nuance here..... nope, admin bad! admin bad admin bad admin bad admin bad admin bad admin bad admin bad admin bad admin bad

yes, there are retards in the admin team
thanks for agreeing with me

RaveRadbury wrote:I can't believe that Bandit would note someone for something that is, by the books, bannable. How dare they demonstrate a reasonable stance and point out what the current rules are.

Bandit is a great member of the community and its shameful to dogpile them like this. We can disagree while being respectful.

sorry we're not talking about manuel

I know you're in the dootdoom discord baiting this thread.

teepeepee wrote:

PKPenguin321 wrote:

teepeepee wrote:

RaveRadbury wrote:I can't believe that Bandit would note someone for something that is, by the books, bannable. How dare they demonstrate a reasonable stance and point out what the current rules are.

Bandit is a great member of the community and its shameful to dogpile them like this. We can disagree while being respectful.

great post by the retard that noted a lizard for having a name they're allowed to have

which, you might recall, was argued against by... bgo...
https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic ... 20#p563608
hmmm... it's almost like there's some nuance here..... nope, admin bad! admin bad admin bad admin bad admin bad admin bad admin bad admin bad admin bad admin bad

yes, there are retards in the admin team
thanks for agreeing with me

this post made me think so hard that my brain expanded three sizes and im now a being of pure energy

RaveRadbury wrote:I can't believe that Bandit would note someone for something that is, by the books, bannable. How dare they demonstrate a reasonable stance and point out what the current rules are.

Bandit is a great member of the community and its shameful to dogpile them like this. We can disagree while being respectful.

Come on, buddy.
Rules are there for justification, not to-the-letter enforcement.
Nothing bad happened. Therefore, no punishment should be dealt out. No one had their round ruined besides the person BGO banned.

Nervere wrote:Therefore, no punishment should be dealt out. No one had their round ruined besides the person BGO banned.

It was a note that's being appealed.

Also, why do we still have faggots on the forums if they're meatballs in game now? I'm going to spend an entire shift making and renaming meatballs into faggots.

teepeepee wrote:

RaveRadbury wrote:I can't believe that Bandit would note someone for something that is, by the books, bannable. How dare they demonstrate a reasonable stance and point out what the current rules are.

Bandit is a great member of the community and its shameful to dogpile them like this. We can disagree while being respectful.

great post by the retard that noted a lizard for having a name they're allowed to have

Thanks for coming in this thread just to talk about me. I didn't know you felt that way~

Nervere wrote:

RaveRadbury wrote:I can't believe that Bandit would note someone for something that is, by the books, bannable. How dare they demonstrate a reasonable stance and point out what the current rules are.

Bandit is a great member of the community and its shameful to dogpile them like this. We can disagree while being respectful.

Come on, buddy.
Rules are there for justification, not to-the-letter enforcement.
Nothing bad happened. Therefore, no punishment should be dealt out. No one had their round ruined besides the person BGO banned.

Thanks for taking the time to respond to my post. It seems to me that our attitude of "spirit, not letter" has caused our existing rules to become outdated and decrepit, as evidenced by this note appeal and the one that I had recently. If we are to continue with our "spirit, not letter" approach, we must still do maintenance and due diligence to our ruleset. I would think this is not unreasonable, and I hope our headmin team can find the time and energy to update our rulesets to prevent things like this from happening in the future.

wesoda25 wrote:

RaveRadbury wrote:stuff

I’ve only ever read Fahrenheit 451 and martian chronicles, and noticed that Fahrenheit was really just a refined version of some of the ideas in chronicles. I still found the book (chronicles) interesting, but wasn’t quite as motivated to read his other stuff since I thought the same would apply to that. For the other stuff you mentioned, are they different enough to justify reading?

If you haven't read The Illustrated Man I highly recommend it. It's widely considered to be his best work, and I find it hard to disagree. Something Wicked This Way Comes is fantasy and is in the vein of all of his "man growing up in the midwest was great" stories. I'd highly recommend the two Venus stories. A lot of Bradbury's work falls into "growing up in the midwest was great" (Dandelion Wine), "technology bad"(The Veldt), and for some reason "latin america is cool". S is for Space and R is for Rocket are solid space collections and worth reading.

A Sound of Thunder literally coined the concept of "oh fuck we traveled back in time and fucked everything up" so it's absolutely worth reading.

RaveRadbury wrote:

teepeepee wrote:

RaveRadbury wrote:I can't believe that Bandit would note someone for something that is, by the books, bannable. How dare they demonstrate a reasonable stance and point out what the current rules are.

Bandit is a great member of the community and its shameful to dogpile them like this. We can disagree while being respectful.

great post by the retard that noted a lizard for having a name they're allowed to have

Thanks for coming in this thread just to talk about me. I didn't know you felt that way~

I've already called bandit a retard like two pages ago, I did not "come" to this thread for you
I'm just keeping in character and calling you out as another admin that did one of those shabbat elevator-tier reasonings to justify noting an innocent player

teepeepee wrote:

RaveRadbury wrote:

teepeepee wrote:

RaveRadbury wrote:I can't believe that Bandit would note someone for something that is, by the books, bannable. How dare they demonstrate a reasonable stance and point out what the current rules are.

Bandit is a great member of the community and its shameful to dogpile them like this. We can disagree while being respectful.

great post by the retard that noted a lizard for having a name they're allowed to have

Thanks for coming in this thread just to talk about me. I didn't know you felt that way~

I've already called bandit a retard like two pages ago, I did not "come" to this thread for you
I'm just keeping in character and calling you out as another admin that did one of those shabbat elevator-tier reasonings to justify noting an innocent player

Oh my god you're so tsundere I can hardly stand it!~

I think it would benefit everyone to remember this part of the forum rules:

Global Forum Rules wrote:when you post: think: "what will this post bring to the conversation".

If you're out of things to say, sometimes it's better to say nothing at all!

Cheery break of day
A tiny janitor runs
Ari is mad

Ikoden wrote:This whole issue, this thread, this note is just so bizzare. If Bandit acted like a human and admitted that humans make mistakes it wouldn't be such a shitshow. It's just such a waste of time and shit. Drama for drama sake. Goddamn.

I imagine if they had did, the same people would be posting in this thread still calling them a ban bot and a failed admin

according to youtube no one has watched the proof I posted in the appeal thread....

Naloac wrote:according to youtube no one has watched the proof I posted in the appeal thread....

I did

Naloac wrote:according to youtube no one has watched the proof I posted in the appeal thread....

Youtube is lying

Ikoden wrote:Perhaps, but some of them surely would respect the change of heart.

Pretty much this. I can respect Vekter since he's shown he can change his mind without requiring headmins to set him straight (like with Florran). Bandit is just digging his feet into "um but it's policy I HAD to act!". Rules exist so admins can use them to clean up problem cases from the community (nobody wants a ffa deathmatch so self-antagging gets you banned). Nobody likes validhunting admins I don't get why this is hard to grasp.

Also fucking imagine removing "off topic" posts on a fucking peanut thread, christ.

XivilaiAnaxes wrote:

Ikoden wrote:Perhaps, but some of them surely would respect the change of heart.

Pretty much this. I can respect Vekter since he's shown he can change his mind without requiring headmins to set him straight (like with Florran). Bandit is just digging his feet into "um but it's policy I HAD to act!". Rules exist so admins can use them to clean up problem cases from the community (nobody wants a ffa deathmatch so self-antagging gets you banned). Nobody likes validhunting admins I don't get why this is hard to grasp.

Also fucking imagine removing "off topic" posts on a fucking peanut thread, christ.

If this was a ban I'd be inclined to agree, but seeing as it's a low-severity note that highlights a gap between our understanding of the rules and the rules as written, I think that the discourse here has been vital to the growth and upkeep of our ruleset.

it's still just a fucking note. it could be the worst ruling in admin history and it's still just a fucking note. why you dipshits keep posting for 4 fucking pages about a note is beyond me

actioninja wrote:it's still just a fucking note. it could be the worst ruling in admin history and it's still just a fucking note. why you dipshits keep posting for 4 fucking pages about a note is beyond me

notes catalog behavior. lots of (bad) notes lead to higher ban times. Its a note that shouldnt even exist.

actioninja wrote:it's still just a fucking note. it could be the worst ruling in admin history and it's still just a fucking note. why you dipshits keep posting for 4 fucking pages about a note is beyond me

Because notes are used as justification for bans later and it's still a bad note. Also because nobody here plays, they'd rather spend their time debating policy instead.

The worst part isn't the note anyway, it's that bgobandit keeps doubling down on it like they did with the death squad. Being able to admit one's mistakes is important. This is pure ban bot behavior. The first question that should be asked before noting/banning someone is: "Does this shitten up someone else's experience?" and I can tell that question wasn't asked here.

Banbot admins love to say "oh but you have a note about this!" to add false credence to a shitty ban.

actioninja wrote:it's still just a fucking note. it could be the worst ruling in admin history and it's still just a fucking note. why you dipshits keep posting for 4 fucking pages about a note is beyond me

lol is this number two or three now? you seem quite upset

Naloac wrote:notes catalog behavior. lots of (bad) notes lead to higher ban times. Its a note that shouldnt even exist.

BeeSting12 wrote:Because notes are used as justification for bans later and it's still a bad note. Also because nobody here plays, they'd rather spend their time debating policy instead.

You're both admins, you should both know that notes aren't a magic counter that more of them means you get longer bans.

BeeSting12 wrote:The worst part isn't the note anyway, it's that bgobandit keeps doubling down on it like they did with the death squad. Being able to admit one's mistakes is important. This is pure ban bot behavior. The first question that should be asked before noting/banning someone is: "Does this shitten up someone else's experience?" and I can tell that question wasn't asked here.

Haven't some of the biggest pissbaby tantrums as of recent happened because of an admin's interpretation of the rules? Are you saying that admins should selectively enforce rules based on whether or not they think they're important?
This is yet another reflection of that tg's rules are absolutely atrocious and need a total reform.

XivilaiAnaxes wrote:Banbot admins love to say "oh but you have a note about this!" to add false credence to a shitty ban.

has this ever actually happened, it's sure claimed a lot by people who are chronic shitters

wesoda25 wrote:lol is this number two or three now? you seem quite upset

"haha you're mad," the classic rallying cry of someone who has nothing else to say

https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic ... 34&t=26276

Yes. Bad notes are used as an excuse to ban.

Note and ban both by the same admin too.

XivilaiAnaxes wrote:https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic ... 34&t=26276

Yes. Bad notes are used as an excuse to ban.

Note and ban both by the same admin too.

and notice how it got overturned

actioninja wrote:and notice how it got overturned

Now if you'll do me the favour of looking at the dates and doing the sliiiiight bit of math required to note that it took ~10 days for the headmins to tell floran he's a dumbass because he couldn't budge from his stupid position on his own, it takes just a little more mental effort to understand that 10 days is longer than the 7 day ban.

The stupid note that Floran gave him led to him having to take the ban anyway because it takes forever for headmins to overturn anything.

actioninja wrote:

wesoda25 wrote:lol is this number two or three now? you seem quite upset

"haha you're mad," the classic rallying cry of someone who has nothing else to say

You’re literally just screaming into a void because people aren’t happy with a shitty note that could cause shitty precedent. Half of the posts here are because people such as bgo and rave are engaging those against the note. I’d be more worried if a shitty note like this generated no discussion than 4 pages worth

oranges wrote:Cheery break of day
A tiny janitor runs
Ari is mad

dumb fuck ari is mad is 4 syllabes its not a haiku

actioninja wrote:

XivilaiAnaxes wrote:https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic ... 34&t=26276

Yes. Bad notes are used as an excuse to ban.

Note and ban both by the same admin too.

and notice how it got overturned

goalposts: moved

bobbahbrown wrote:goalposts: moved

XivilaiAnaxes wrote:Now if you'll do me the favour of looking at the dates and doing the sliiiiight bit of math required to note that it took ~10 days for the headmins to tell floran he's a dumbass because he couldn't budge from his stupid position on his own, it takes just a little more mental effort to understand that 10 days is longer than the 7 day ban.

The stupid note that Floran gave him led to him having to take the ban anyway because it takes forever for headmins to overturn anything.

If the guy thought the note was bad he should have appealed it 3 months before he got banned based off it later.
I never said anywhere you shouldn't appeal notes.

I understand dootdoom and his harem of older men are stirring up this thread?