banned books peanut
Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2021 3:56 pm
Bottom post of the previous page:
https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=29907itt: mothblocks cockblocks by dropping the docs, coquette connection blocked
Bottom post of the previous page:
https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=29907No one man can hold all that power...wesoda25 wrote:I’m done reading appeals and forming an opinion, honestly way too much work. From now on I’m just gonna believe in the opposite of whatever sinful says.
Hey my question is why should anyone care about who is or isn't impartial? This has never been a metric for what is and isn't good posting conduct in FNR because if it were, as you've cleverly demonstrated, any punk with a bee up his ass about a ban could whinge about why something isn't impartial and suddenly everyone has to engage with insane diatribes about a post that was made days before the fact for pages upon pages, ultimately going nowhere because hypothetical sinfulbliss didn't even bother to read anything before blasting into the thread.sinfulbliss wrote:To answer Mothblocks: copying and pasting logs is not purely factual because **WHICH LOGS** YOU COPY AND PASTE IS DETERMINED BY A MOTIVE. I could copy and paste the logs that make him look less guilty, you could copy and paste the logs that show him calling the book “flirting,” at the end of the day neither of us are impartial. Only way to impartially post logs is to Ctrl+C Ctrl+V the entire round, but that’s silly.
if there's anything I've learned from irony-poisoned dorks on the internets, it's that you can always read between the lines. One has to wonder how much of this post was coming from a genuine place inside your head, and the only proper response is that you're clearly not effective with this devil's advocate stuff since you're not good at arguing, you need to refocus your energy into a healthier place.sinfulbliss wrote:The one thing that you can always guarantee, is the instant you criticize a ban, you will be accused of being the very thing you are defending, along with many PURPLE voices there to defend it... BUT THAT HAS NEVER STOPPED US HARD-LINED PEANUT POSTERS BEFORE, AND IT NEVER WILL. HOLD FIRM.
yes??? do you think before you write these posts?? have you read our rules??sinfulbliss wrote:If you think 3rd party voices are okay so long as it's backed by logical reasoning, then surely we can all start posting on appeals and show inconsistencies in admin conduct, right?
why is it unfair if you're literally lying on your appeal???? are you implying that if you're good at lying and headmins don't notice you deserve an unban???sinfulbliss wrote:Calling someone out for being a liar is not impartial, it doesn't matter if it's backed 100% by logs and logic, the fact that it is a 3rd party being added to the appeal against the appealer is unfair for the appealer.
HewwoSuper Aggro Crag wrote:Hey sinfulbliss
Third time's the charm I guess:IkeTG wrote:Hey my question is why should anyone care about who is or isn't impartial? This has never been a metric for what is and isn't good posting conduct in FNR
Towards your ad hominem jabs: if you aren't able to differentiate between irony and sobriety, you have a reading comprehension problem. I will continue to put both in my posts sometimes, if it's confusing for you that's not really my problem.SinfulBliss wrote:I agree peanut policy wasn't violated, but this type of thing stacks the odds against the appealer.
Do you ever wonder why there isn't a single dissenting opinion ever posted on appeals threads aside from headmins directly correcting the admin? Do you ever wonder why everyone chooses the peanut threads to express their disagreement, instead of arguing their point with logic and logs on the thread itself? I offered an explanation several posts ago.wubli wrote:yes??? do you think before you write these posts?? have you read our rules??sinfulbliss wrote:If you think 3rd party voices are okay so long as it's backed by logical reasoning, then surely we can all start posting on appeals and show inconsistencies in admin conduct, right?
I gave an alternate explanation for why he responded the way he did, which would not be "to lie." It is not an objective fact that he lied on his appeal.wubli wrote:why is it unfair if you're literally lying on your appeal???? are you implying that if you're good at lying and headmins don't notice you deserve an unban???
dude you are hopeless lolsinfulbliss wrote:Towards your ad hominem jabs: if you aren't able to differentiate between irony and sobriety, you have a reading comprehension problem. I will continue to put both in my posts sometimes, if it's confusing for you that's not really my problem.
Bitchsinfulbliss wrote:HewwoSuper Aggro Crag wrote:Hey sinfulbliss
stay madIkeTG wrote:dude you are hopeless lolsinfulbliss wrote:Towards your ad hominem jabs: if you aren't able to differentiate between irony and sobriety, you have a reading comprehension problem. I will continue to put both in my posts sometimes, if it's confusing for you that's not really my problem.
This is a fair point, they might just be a total creep and admit to it in the next post and beg to be unbanned, in which case I will look pretty stupid. That's fine though.Agux909 wrote:Sinful I think you should really wait to see what the appealer has to say in their defense. They have yet to respond to this "unfair dogpiling".
You could literally be advocating for the devil here and making a fool of yourself, why choose to die on such a hill prematurely?
Here's my thought process, for what it's worth: what someone says IC and what someone says when questioned OOC are very different. Players are allowed to lie, make up things, and say all kinds of stuff IC, but when they are questioned OOC they are expected to conduct themselves in a serious and factual manner.Agux909 wrote:Also I don't get your take about lies. Are you really getting philosophical about what lies are and what they aren't?
If you say "I read the book", then when questioned, and without any further clarification you say "I didn't read the book", it's objectively a lie to whoever's reviewing facts.
sinfulbliss wrote:Do you ever wonder why there isn't a single dissenting opinion ever posted on appeals threads aside from headmins directly correcting the admin? Do you ever wonder why everyone chooses the peanut threads to express their disagreement, instead of arguing their point with logic and logs on the thread itself?wubli wrote:yes??? do you think before you write these posts?? have you read our rules??sinfulbliss wrote:If you think 3rd party voices are okay so long as it's backed by logical reasoning, then surely we can all start posting on appeals and show inconsistencies in admin conduct, right?
sinful you laser focused on the irony part, I was talking about other people. How is it ad hominem to say that I've hung around a lot of irony-poisoned people that it made me realize that even jokes have truth in them? Like bro you were JUST talking about impartialness and omission of logs, the natural conclusion to that line of questioning is straight up reading the intent in someone's post and then you say I'm doin a logical fallacy on you!sinfulbliss wrote:stay madIkeTG wrote:dude you are hopeless lolsinfulbliss wrote:Towards your ad hominem jabs: if you aren't able to differentiate between irony and sobriety, you have a reading comprehension problem. I will continue to put both in my posts sometimes, if it's confusing for you that's not really my problem.
You know the signature field is for a signature so you don't have to type a signature every time you postBONERMASTER wrote: With warm regards
-BONERMASTER
he stole the bee's shtick. shamelessHulkamania wrote:You know the signature field is for a signature so you don't have to type a signature every time you postBONERMASTER wrote: With warm regards
-BONERMASTER
But how are you sooo sure they didn't read the book? They even said how at the bottom of it there was rape, and got creepy with another player about it. So I don't get your angle as to why you'd be defending this regardless. Even if they didn't actually read the book, they played stupid games, won stupid prizes.sinfulbliss wrote:Here's my thought process, for what it's worth: what someone says IC and what someone says when questioned OOC are very different. Players are allowed to lie, make up things, and say all kinds of stuff IC, but when they are questioned OOC they are expected to conduct themselves in a serious and factual manner.Agux909 wrote:Also I don't get your take about lies. Are you really getting philosophical about what lies are and what they aren't?
If you say "I read the book", then when questioned, and without any further clarification you say "I didn't read the book", it's objectively a lie to whoever's reviewing facts.
If a player is being accused of lying in an appeals thread, the lie ought to be OOC. That is, they stated one thing in an ahelp, and then contradicted themselves later in the ahelp. Or: what they said in the appeals thread contradicted what they said in the ahelp. Their IC-statements should never be taken as "facts-of-the-matter" and held up against their OOC statements to thereby accuse them of lying.
Example:
Joan Sex says, "See that dead assistant there? I fucking killed them."
*bwoink* "Hey, did you kill that assistant?"
Joan-OOC-Reply-to-Admins: "nah."
Appeals thread: Mothblocks: "clearly there is an inconsistency here, they claimed they did not kill the assistant but according to the following logs: [logs] they said that they did!
Now this is a simple example and obviously a murder is a much simpler thing to investigate, but hopefully that clarifies my point.
Thank you BONERMASTER for providing substance to my claims.BONERMASTER wrote:A few months ago, I believe it was when Crag was banned, I spent my fucking time log diving and fishing out the logs that proved that the guy he was accused of escalating against was actually targetting him, and unprovoked on that, and then timberpoes deletes the entire fucking thing and claims that me explaining what the logs show was making too much of an assumption and it violated peanut policy.
Even if that part wasn't ad hominem, saying "you're not good at arguing" and "you aren't taken seriously here" is ad hominem. I laser focus on the trees so you can't hide behind them!! Only thing worse than pure ad hominem is thinly veiled ad hominem.. You're correct irony has truth in it, too, but assuming I'm acting in bad-faith because of a few ironic posts is silly.IkeTG wrote:sinful you laser focused on the irony part, I was talking about other people. How is it ad hominem to say that I've hung around a lot of irony-poisoned people that it made me realize that even jokes have truth in them?
I'm not 100% sure, I simply think it's extremely uncertain whether they read it or not, and it's quite plausible they didn't read it. I also think the "getting creepy" about it could be interpreted as a joke trying to play it off once they found out it had rape in it. Or maybe they were trying to be intentionally provocative to get an inflammatory response (which they did). Both of these explanations are at least as likely, if not more likely, than what was assumed.Agux909 wrote:But how are you sooo sure they didn't read the book? They even said how at the bottom of it there was rape, and got creepy with another player about it. So I don't get your angle as to why you'd be defending this regardless. Even if they didn't actually read the book, they played stupid games, won stupid prizes.
There are no mild possibilities when joking about rape and such Sinful, especially if you're joking with someone who isn't even in a circle of trust with you. Please for the love of god abandon this way of thinking that everything's just "not a big deal". People are behind the characters and showing some basic human decency in a social game like this is a good starting point for everyone.sinfulbliss wrote:I'm not 100% sure, I simply think it's extremely uncertain whether they read it or not, and it's quite plausible they didn't read it. I also think the "getting creepy" about it could be interpreted as a joke trying to play it off once they found out it had rape in it. Or maybe they were trying to be intentionally provocative to get an inflammatory response (which they did). Both of these explanations are at least as likely, if not more likely, than what was assumed.Agux909 wrote:But how are you sooo sure they didn't read the book? They even said how at the bottom of it there was rape, and got creepy with another player about it. So I don't get your angle as to why you'd be defending this regardless. Even if they didn't actually read the book, they played stupid games, won stupid prizes.
It matters whether they read it or not, too, because if they did read it, as was claimed, then it means they were literally intending another player to read a book about their species being raped, and calling it "flirting." That's just straight up rule 8 permaban town. The other possibilities are significantly milder and amount to just a pour response after learning of its contents.
Object to form.Hulkamania wrote:You know the signature field is for a signature so you don't have to type a signature every time you postBONERMASTER wrote: With warm regards
-BONERMASTER
You're being a complete hypocrite here. By outright saying you're laser focusing on the trees, you're doing exactly what you said was bad with omitting logs to make a more compelling argument. The reason the saying "Missing the forest for the trees" exists in the first place is because it's poor form in arguments or disagreements to break down an entire message down to bite-sized parts in order to more easily make an argument.sinfulbliss wrote:Even if that part wasn't ad hominem, saying "you're not good at arguing" and "you aren't taken seriously here" is ad hominem. I laser focus on the trees so you can't hide behind them!! Only thing worse than pure ad hominem is thinly veiled ad hominem.. You're correct irony has truth in it, too, but assuming I'm acting in bad-faith because of a few ironic posts is silly.IkeTG wrote:sinful you laser focused on the irony part, I was talking about other people. How is it ad hominem to say that I've hung around a lot of irony-poisoned people that it made me realize that even jokes have truth in them?
Dude this is the fuckin point of ban appeals, you clamor on about da jannies and then expect them to read people's mind and intent? If the situation looks really bad, the best thing to do is to avoid making unnecessary assumptions, otherwise people like you will jump down the admin's throat because they tried to read the situation and sometimes will read it wrong!sinfulbliss wrote: I'm not 100% sure, I simply think it's extremely uncertain whether they read it or not, and it's quite plausible they didn't read it. I also think the "getting creepy" about it could be interpreted as a joke trying to play it off once they found out it had rape in it. Or maybe they were trying to be intentionally provocative to get an inflammatory response (which they did). Both of these explanations are at least as likely, if not more likely, than what was assumed.
It matters whether they read it or not, too, because if they did read it, as was claimed, then it means they were literally intending another player to read a book about their species being raped, and calling it "flirting." That's just straight up rule 8 permaban town. The other possibilities are significantly milder and amount to just a pour response after learning of its contents.
Mothblocks is an admin, and also one of the moths who this was directed towards iirc.BONERMASTER wrote:Listen, the guy did read the book, 100%. Nobody grabs a sex-book and starts flinging it at other people without having taken a peek in it themselves. It's a weak defense to claim that "you never read it", and the admin would have easily dismantled it himself. That isn't even something that we should be arguing here. Another thing though is an uninvolved coder dropping logs and posting his theories in the appeal thread against the accused. If you want to kick off a huge argument, you should focus on that, not on the ban itself, because even though he got ratted out in the appeal, the ban reason is legitimate.
he' s just ugly irlsaprasam wrote:is sinful like schizophrenic or something everything he's saying is fucking stupid
Given how much text sinfulbliss is spitting out here and the fact that in the morgue necrophilia peanut he posted about several of his friends getting banned for "barely" violating rule 8 or something like that, I am inclined to believe that it's because he knows the appealer.Agux909 wrote:Sinful I think you should really wait to see what the appealer has to say in their defense. They have yet to respond to this "unfair dogpiling".
You could literally be advocating for the devil here and making a fool of yourself, why choose to die on such a hill prematurely?
I'd expect this behaviour from an idiot on an anonymous imageboard or Twitter, but this is getting bizarre.sinfulbliss wrote:A year for a pedo smut book seems kind of harsh by itself, but considering he straight up lied in the appeal it makes sense.
As is timberpoes who was mentioned earlier. If you're going to try and use an uninvolved party with a green name posting in a ban appeal as a gotcha about the coding team, boner, I'd advise two things before doing so:cSeal wrote:Mothblocks is an admin, and also one of the moths who this was directed towards iirc.BONERMASTER wrote:Listen, the guy did read the book, 100%. Nobody grabs a sex-book and starts flinging it at other people without having taken a peek in it themselves. It's a weak defense to claim that "you never read it", and the admin would have easily dismantled it himself. That isn't even something that we should be arguing here. Another thing though is an uninvolved coder dropping logs and posting his theories in the appeal thread against the accused. If you want to kick off a huge argument, you should focus on that, not on the ban itself, because even though he got ratted out in the appeal, the ban reason is legitimate.
Stunts like these are enough to get you disbarred, bonermanBONERMASTER wrote:My bad for assuming information that is openly displayed and not investigating every single person like a coked out detective to see what rank and title they actually have on TG-station.
With warm regards
-BONERMASTER
EOBGames wrote:As is timberpoes who was mentioned earlier. If you're going to try and use an uninvolved party with a green name posting in a ban appeal as a gotcha about the coding team, boner, I'd advise two things before doing so:cSeal wrote:Mothblocks is an admin, and also one of the moths who this was directed towards iirc.BONERMASTER wrote:Listen, the guy did read the book, 100%. Nobody grabs a sex-book and starts flinging it at other people without having taken a peek in it themselves. It's a weak defense to claim that "you never read it", and the admin would have easily dismantled it himself. That isn't even something that we should be arguing here. Another thing though is an uninvolved coder dropping logs and posting his theories in the appeal thread against the accused. If you want to kick off a huge argument, you should focus on that, not on the ban itself, because even though he got ratted out in the appeal, the ban reason is legitimate.
1. Make sure they're not actually an admin too.
2. Make sure they actually are uninvolved.
Given mothblocks meets neither of these criteria, I'm not quite sure what you're railing against here.
hey, I'm just saying, if you're going to start railing against things, make sure they actually *are* what you're railing against, that's all. maybe your keen interest in ban appeals could have helped you in seeing that both timberpoes and mothblocks have had several ban appeals to their name? or, perhaps, you could *not* make uninformed statements, that's also an option.BONERMASTER wrote:My bad for assuming information that is openly displayed and not investigating every single person like a coked out detective to see what rank and title they actually have on TG-station.
With warm regards
-BONERMASTER
yeah in hindsight, neither of those things are that obvious just from this appeal, sorry if I came off as being a smug shit or something when I corrected you, wasn't my intention ?BONERMASTER wrote:My bad for assuming information that is openly displayed and not investigating every single person like a coked out detective to see what rank and title they actually have on TG-station.
With warm regards
-BONERMASTER
What what did I do this time?BONERMASTER wrote:and then timberpoes deletes the entire fucking thing and claims that me explaining what the logs show was making too much of an assumption and it violated peanut policy
I agree. I don't think the joke was in good taste, either.Agux909 wrote:There are no mild possibilities when joking about rape and such Sinful, especially if you're joking with someone who isn't even in a circle of trust with you. Please for the love of god abandon this way of thinking that everything's just "not a big deal". People are behind the characters and showing some basic human decency in a social game like this is a good starting point for everyone.
Rohen_Tahir wrote:Given how much text sinfulbliss is spitting out here and the fact that in the morgue necrophilia peanut he posted about several of his friends getting banned for "barely" violating rule 8 or something like that, I am inclined to believe that it's because he knows the appealer.
saprasam wrote:is sinful like schizophrenic or something everything he's saying is fucking stupid
Farquaar wrote:Sinful has quickly developed a reputation for defending abject degeneracy.
Don't know the appealer, not ugly IRL, don't support behaving like a degenerate IC.Super Aggro Crag wrote:he' s just ugly irl
For whatever reason, it's mind-bendingly difficult for some of you to understand that you can defend someone without condoning their actions.SinfulBliss wrote:The one thing that you can always guarantee, is the instant you criticize a ban, you will be accused of being the very thing you are defending
Blacklist is for those beyond reform. Permaban is for saying "we really don't want to deal with this shit again so prove you can behave and then you can come back"sinfulbliss wrote:I agree. I don't think the joke was in good taste, either.Agux909 wrote:There are no mild possibilities when joking about rape and such Sinful, especially if you're joking with someone who isn't even in a circle of trust with you. Please for the love of god abandon this way of thinking that everything's just "not a big deal". People are behind the characters and showing some basic human decency in a social game like this is a good starting point for everyone.
Rohen_Tahir wrote:Given how much text sinfulbliss is spitting out here and the fact that in the morgue necrophilia peanut he posted about several of his friends getting banned for "barely" violating rule 8 or something like that, I am inclined to believe that it's because he knows the appealer.saprasam wrote:is sinful like schizophrenic or something everything he's saying is fucking stupidFarquaar wrote:Sinful has quickly developed a reputation for defending abject degeneracy.Don't know the appealer, not ugly IRL, don't support behaving like a degenerate IC.Super Aggro Crag wrote:he' s just ugly irl
I simply have the belief that a permaban is excessive in many cases. A 3-month or even 6-month ban would accomplish the very same goal while allowing the player a chance to re-integrate into the community. I also could have been permabanned for something I did, but I was given a chance to take a break and come back. Permabans should be reserved for those beyond reform.For whatever reason, it's mind-bendingly difficult for some of you to understand that you can defend someone without condoning their actions.SinfulBliss wrote:The one thing that you can always guarantee, is the instant you criticize a ban, you will be accused of being the very thing you are defending
My bad that *I'm* not *hacked* into the *NSA-Server* to be *correctly* *aware* of *every* *single* *bit* of *information* before *calling out* *somebody* for being a *fucking* *snitch*.EOBGames wrote:hey, I'm just saying, if you're going to start railing against things, make sure they actually *are* what you're railing against, that's all. maybe your keen interest in ban appeals could have helped you in seeing that both timberpoes and mothblocks have had several ban appeals to their name? or, perhaps, you could *not* make uninformed statements, that's also an option.BONERMASTER wrote:My bad for assuming information that is openly displayed and not investigating every single person like a coked out detective to see what rank and title they actually have on TG-station.
With warm regards
-BONERMASTER
All the best,
EOBGames
The funny thing about the lavaland labor camp, is that when you get stuck there for 1000 pts, it's actually much quicker to just break out and free yourself illegally than go through the legal avenue. If we take a look at the public bans page, it looks to me like 90% of it are ban evasions.NoxVS wrote: Blacklist is for those beyond reform. Permaban is for saying "we really don't want to deal with this shit again so prove you can behave and then you can come back"
in otherwords, permabans function identically to lavaland labor camp in that its where you send people you are tired of dealing with in the hopes they either put in the bare minimum effort required or they vanish never to be seen again
a permaban is a chance to come back, but it entirely relies on you going out of your way to show you've improved. I don't see why we should care about people who just cant be bothered to do that, especially since we have people that do work to show that they can play on here with no issues and get their perma appealed.sinfulbliss wrote: 12 months is simply too long to realistically expect someone to wait to appeal. They will simply find a new game entirely, do something else, or evade, rather than wait that long. To which you may respond, "fuck 'em." That's fine, but if that's the response then don't act like a perma is a second chance.
this should be adressed at the next UN general summitwubli wrote:this might shock you but tgstation is not a human right
Can someone tell me again why we have to pity people who go out of their way to make other people uncomfortable with weird sex shitsinfulbliss wrote: The funny thing about the lavaland labor camp, is that when you get stuck there for 1000 pts, it's actually much quicker to just break out and free yourself illegally than go through the legal avenue. If we take a look at the public bans page, it looks to me like 90% of it are ban evasions.
Many players are TG-players. That is, they don't like other servers. They made friends here, they play here, they don't care to play somewhere else, it's just not fun. But your appeal will be denied without a referral. Your option is to play somewhere else you don't enjoy playing for 12 months in order to get a referral that may or may not even get you unbanned in the end. And that's all supposing you are even still remotely interested in the game after 12 months away from it.
12 months is simply too long to realistically expect someone to wait to appeal. They will simply find a new game entirely, do something else, or evade, rather than wait that long. To which you may respond, "fuck 'em." That's fine, but if that's the response then don't act like a perma is a second chance.