/tg/Station 13

tgstation13.org
https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/

Security doesn't have chemistry with an assistant

https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=83&t=35338

Page 2 of 3

Security doesn't have chemistry with an assistant

Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2023 7:30 pm
by Dax Dupont

Bottom post of the previous page:

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=35337

Not really sure how you're supposed to verify it unless shit is broken still. Having a circular saw is at least some evidence he's been in medbay or maybe cargo.

Re: Security doesn't have chemistry with an assistant

Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2023 7:09 pm
by Redrover1760
GPeckman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2023 7:08 pm
Redrover1760 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2023 6:53 pm Well actualllyy :geek:

Yeah, there is. Its the new fucking policy made by the headmins literally no one likes and that needs to be revisited and removed as soon as possible.

viewtopic.php?f=33&t=35283
That is a proposal thread, its not policy yet and hopefully the headmins won't implement it.
Incorrect. Scroll partway through. It is policy.
Cheshify wrote: ↑Tue Nov 14, 2023 6:35 pm This is being addressed with the updated Rule 5 rework we're taking a crack at. Sec should generally be following rule 1, not allowing tiders/antags to get away with whatever unless there's some kind of roleplay, and doing their job to some extent. If you don't want to handle crimes, don't play security. Reasons for a secoff to not do their job if it benefits the round quality can be handled under rule 0 (letting an antag go 'by mistake' to keep the round interesting, accepting a bribe to be elsewhere when someone is hacking into tech storage, etc.)

Admins should not be banning secoffs for "not doing enough" if they're at least trying or have a roleplay reason for not handling something. This could be more of an issue in the case of "Hey admins I called for a nearby officer to help me and they watched a tider beat me to death."

Cheshify - Wrote it
TBM - Sounds Good
Fikou - Approved

Re: Security doesn't have chemistry with an assistant

Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2023 7:12 pm
by chocolate_bickie
https://tgstation13.org/parsed-logs/syb ... 5/game.txt

Just for fun, relevant logs
► Show Spoiler
Assistant breaks into Pharmacy
► Show Spoiler
Gets a nonlethal hit from the moth
► Show Spoiler
A completely unrelated guy robusts him
► Show Spoiler
He heals up
► Show Spoiler
He's back for more
► Show Spoiler
More nonlethal moffing
► Show Spoiler
The assistant pulls out the circular saw
► Show Spoiler
Still loses
► Show Spoiler

Re: Security doesn't have chemistry with an assistant

Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2023 7:58 pm
by CPTANT
MrStonedOne wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2023 6:23 pm
[2023-11-21 02:36:25.881] GAME-SAY: 02:36:25.881] GAME-SAY: Pepperoni Playboy/(Turbo Junior) "Go do your job rete" (Fourth Floor Aft Hallway (125,127,5))
[2023-11-21 02:36:32.939] GAME-SAY: 02:36:32.939] GAME-SAY: Pepperoni Playboy/(Turbo Junior) "give me my money back too" (Fourth Floor Aft Hallway (125,127,5))
[2023-11-21 02:36:33.411] GAME-SAY: 02:36:33.411] GAME-SAY: Tjatpbnj/(Acco) "this guy broke into chem and attacked me with a saw" (Fourth Floor Aft Hallway (124,127,5))
[2023-11-21 02:36:37.500] GAME-SAY: 02:36:37.500] GAME-SAY: Pepperoni Playboy/(Turbo Junior) "YOU STOLE MY CASH" (Fourth Floor Aft Hallway (125,127,5))
[2023-11-21 02:36:46.759] GAME-SAY: 02:36:46.759] GAME-SAY: Pepperoni Playboy/(Turbo Junior) "good GOD dude" (Fourth Floor Aft Hallway (125,127,5))
[2023-11-21 02:36:47.954] GAME-SAY: 02:36:47.954] GAME-SAY: Tjatpbnj/(Acco) "i have a normal amount of credits" (Fourth Floor Aft Hallway (123,127,5))
[2023-11-21 02:36:53.407] GAME-SAY: 02:36:53.407] GAME-SAY: Pepperoni Playboy/(Turbo Junior) "I just want my fucking money back." (Fourth Floor Aft Hallway (124,128,5))
Did the security officer even attempt to ask about this thou?

Security officers should not be assuming the assistant is in the wrong because they are an assistant, that is meta and ooc. TBM was right here and you all are just ignoring the context that is inconvenient to your reeee'ing.

it sounds like both could have needed to be brigged. one for simple theft and the other for trying to murder death kill over simple theft.
But the assistant didn't deny anything, he tried to justify it and he was found with the weapon. what more do you want? Also it's true, he DID attack the chemist when the chemist tried to shove him out of the pharmacy.

Re: Security doesn't have chemistry with an assistant

Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2023 9:53 pm
by GPeckman
Redrover1760 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2023 7:09 pm Incorrect. Scroll partway through. It is policy.
I stand corrected. Nonetheless, there was still plenty of IC reason for the sec player to ignore the assistant.

Re: Security doesn't have chemistry with an assistant

Posted: Thu Nov 23, 2023 7:06 am
by Kendrickorium
conrad wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2023 12:38 pm
Bepis wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2023 9:37 am secnut doesn't have chemnut with an assnut
THANK YOU
0/10

Re: Security doesn't have chemistry with an assistant

Posted: Thu Nov 23, 2023 7:10 am
by Kendrickorium
chocolate_bickie wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2023 7:12 pm https://tgstation13.org/parsed-logs/syb ... 5/game.txt

Just for fun, relevant logs
► Show Spoiler
Assistant breaks into Pharmacy
► Show Spoiler
Gets a nonlethal hit from the moth
► Show Spoiler
A completely unrelated guy robusts him
► Show Spoiler
He heals up
► Show Spoiler
He's back for more
► Show Spoiler
More nonlethal moffing
► Show Spoiler
The assistant pulls out the circular saw
► Show Spoiler
Still loses
► Show Spoiler
okay but who took his money is what i want to know

also reading through the logs im gonna give this guy a couple more weeks before hes permad

Re: Security doesn't have chemistry with an assistant

Posted: Thu Nov 23, 2023 8:29 am
by Bepis
Kendrickorium wrote: ↑Thu Nov 23, 2023 7:06 am
conrad wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2023 12:38 pm
Bepis wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2023 9:37 am secnut doesn't have chemnut with an assnut
THANK YOU
0/10
:c

Re: Security doesn't have chemistry with an assistant

Posted: Fri Nov 24, 2023 7:10 pm
by Kendrickorium
Bepis wrote: ↑Thu Nov 23, 2023 8:29 am
Kendrickorium wrote: ↑Thu Nov 23, 2023 7:06 am
conrad wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2023 12:38 pm
Bepis wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2023 9:37 am secnut doesn't have chemnut with an assnut
THANK YOU
0/10
:c
ITS NOT FUCKING CLEVER TO JUST ADD NUT TO THE END OF THREE WORDS OKAY

ITS LIKE THE MUMBLE RAP OF PEANUT TITLES

THIS IS NOT OKAY

CHRIST I CANNOT WAIT TO GIVE UP MY POSITION AS JUDGE

Re: Security doesn't have chemistry with an assistant

Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2023 9:27 am
by conrad
Kendrickorium wrote: ↑Fri Nov 24, 2023 7:10 pm
Bepis wrote: ↑Thu Nov 23, 2023 8:29 am
Kendrickorium wrote: ↑Thu Nov 23, 2023 7:06 am
conrad wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2023 12:38 pm
Bepis wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2023 9:37 am secnut doesn't have chemnut with an assnut
THANK YOU
0/10
:c
ITS NOT FUCKING CLEVER TO JUST ADD NUT TO THE END OF THREE WORDS OKAY

ITS LIKE THE MUMBLE RAP OF PEANUT TITLES

THIS IS NOT OKAY

CHRIST I CANNOT WAIT TO GIVE UP MY POSITION AS JUDGE
Copenut

Re: Security doesn't have chemistry with an assistant

Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2023 11:04 am
by Constellado
Well well well.
Screenshot_2023-11-27-00-01-13-57.jpg
The plot thickens.

What happened here?

Re: Security doesn't have chemistry with an assistant

Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2023 11:18 am
by CPTANT
The fuck, how can you metagrudge with valid actions???

I repeat, the assistant DID break into chemistry and DID attack the chemist with the saw, jailing him was 100% IC justified.

This needs more information, but right now it feels like fishing or looking for an excuse to ban him to me.

Re: Security doesn't have chemistry with an assistant

Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2023 2:22 pm
by kinnebian
weird

Re: Security doesn't have chemistry with an assistant

Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2023 2:49 pm
by AsbestosSniffer
Don't like that banning reason one bit, I find it quite "sus" and TBM strikes me lately as having gone a bit mental.
Could very well be wrong of course, and there could very well be some legitimacy, I'm just going off what I know.

Re: Security doesn't have chemistry with an assistant

Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2023 5:05 pm
by conrad
AsbestosSniffer wrote: ↑Sun Nov 26, 2023 2:49 pm Don't like that banning reason one bit, I find it quite "sus" and TBM strikes me lately as having gone a bit mental.
Could very well be wrong of course, and there could very well be some legitimacy, I'm just going off what I know.
You are very well wrong, yes.

Re: Security doesn't have chemistry with an assistant

Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2023 5:24 pm
by Itseasytosee2me
That tracks for what I know about wolf

Re: Security doesn't have chemistry with an assistant

Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2023 5:29 pm
by TheBibleMelts
CPTANT wrote: ↑Sun Nov 26, 2023 11:18 am The fuck, how can you metagrudge with valid actions???

I repeat, the assistant DID break into chemistry and DID attack the chemist with the saw, jailing him was 100% IC justified.

This needs more information, but right now it feels like fishing or looking for an excuse to ban him to me.
during the ticket, which was created over metagrudging accusations, i initially investigated it neutrally in a "why did you decide with 30 seconds into the round that this guy was instantly in the wrong, and go out of your way to taunt him over it" line of questioning, because something felt off about it. during that questioning, i finally just asked if they had prior history with this player and was told they've never seen him around and had no bias against him, and i took them at their word in good faith. i have since been made aware of reliable proof otherwise wherein they admitted directly that is was done as a metagrudge, and that the appeal itself was being made in bad faith to begin with.

Re: Security doesn't have chemistry with an assistant

Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2023 6:03 pm
by tjatpbnj
Kendrickorium wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2023 6:36 pm
MrStonedOne wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2023 6:23 pm
[2023-11-21 02:36:25.881] GAME-SAY: 02:36:25.881] GAME-SAY: Pepperoni Playboy/(Turbo Junior) "Go do your job rete" (Fourth Floor Aft Hallway (125,127,5))
[2023-11-21 02:36:32.939] GAME-SAY: 02:36:32.939] GAME-SAY: Pepperoni Playboy/(Turbo Junior) "give me my money back too" (Fourth Floor Aft Hallway (125,127,5))
[2023-11-21 02:36:33.411] GAME-SAY: 02:36:33.411] GAME-SAY: Tjatpbnj/(Acco) "this guy broke into chem and attacked me with a saw" (Fourth Floor Aft Hallway (124,127,5))
[2023-11-21 02:36:37.500] GAME-SAY: 02:36:37.500] GAME-SAY: Pepperoni Playboy/(Turbo Junior) "YOU STOLE MY CASH" (Fourth Floor Aft Hallway (125,127,5))
[2023-11-21 02:36:46.759] GAME-SAY: 02:36:46.759] GAME-SAY: Pepperoni Playboy/(Turbo Junior) "good GOD dude" (Fourth Floor Aft Hallway (125,127,5))
[2023-11-21 02:36:47.954] GAME-SAY: 02:36:47.954] GAME-SAY: Tjatpbnj/(Acco) "i have a normal amount of credits" (Fourth Floor Aft Hallway (123,127,5))
[2023-11-21 02:36:53.407] GAME-SAY: 02:36:53.407] GAME-SAY: Pepperoni Playboy/(Turbo Junior) "I just want my fucking money back." (Fourth Floor Aft Hallway (124,128,5))
Did the security officer even attempt to ask about this thou?

Security officers should not be assuming the assistant is in the wrong because they are an assistant, that is meta and ooc. TBM was right here and you all are just ignoring the context that is inconvenient to your reeee'ing.

it sounds like both could have needed to be brigged. one for simple theft and the other for trying to murder death kill over simple theft.
i'm assuming the guy was acting like a fucking asshole, got layed out on the floor by acco for it, then had his money stolen

also what a great thanksgiving thread where we can all come together in our opinions for once
I just shuttered them a bit and then shoved them off the desk befor they could break the window. Then they came back through a door that was left open and i shoved them into the locker. I don't think he had his money stolen at all I think he was just lying

He wasn't ever in crit

Re: Security doesn't have chemistry with an assistant

Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2023 6:10 pm
by tjatpbnj
I think this ticket should have been marked as an IC issue in the first place. The guy was just mad that he got owned for tiding into chemistry so he wanted to mess up someones round with a ticket instead

There was a lot of reasons to believe me over an assistant, anyways, like the assistant being in a chemistry locker, and having a bloodied circular saw.

Re: Security doesn't have chemistry with an assistant

Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2023 6:13 pm
by CPTANT
TheBibleMelts wrote: ↑Sun Nov 26, 2023 5:29 pm
CPTANT wrote: ↑Sun Nov 26, 2023 11:18 am The fuck, how can you metagrudge with valid actions???

I repeat, the assistant DID break into chemistry and DID attack the chemist with the saw, jailing him was 100% IC justified.

This needs more information, but right now it feels like fishing or looking for an excuse to ban him to me.
during the ticket, which was created over metagrudging accusations, i initially investigated it neutrally in a "why did you decide with 30 seconds into the round that this guy was instantly in the wrong, and go out of your way to taunt him over it" line of questioning, because something felt off about it. during that questioning, i finally just asked if they had prior history with this player and was told they've never seen him around and had no bias against him, and i took them at their word in good faith. i have since been made aware of reliable proof otherwise wherein they admitted directly that is was done as a metagrudge, and that the appeal itself was being made in bad faith to begin with.
Can we see this proof just so everyone is on the same page?

Still feels weird to me to ban someone for metagrudging for an action that was 100% fine IC and even the correct verdict.

Re: Security doesn't have chemistry with an assistant

Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2023 6:15 pm
by TheBibleMelts
CPTANT wrote: ↑Sun Nov 26, 2023 6:13 pm
TheBibleMelts wrote: ↑Sun Nov 26, 2023 5:29 pm
CPTANT wrote: ↑Sun Nov 26, 2023 11:18 am The fuck, how can you metagrudge with valid actions???

I repeat, the assistant DID break into chemistry and DID attack the chemist with the saw, jailing him was 100% IC justified.

This needs more information, but right now it feels like fishing or looking for an excuse to ban him to me.
during the ticket, which was created over metagrudging accusations, i initially investigated it neutrally in a "why did you decide with 30 seconds into the round that this guy was instantly in the wrong, and go out of your way to taunt him over it" line of questioning, because something felt off about it. during that questioning, i finally just asked if they had prior history with this player and was told they've never seen him around and had no bias against him, and i took them at their word in good faith. i have since been made aware of reliable proof otherwise wherein they admitted directly that is was done as a metagrudge, and that the appeal itself was being made in bad faith to begin with.
Can we see this proof just so everyone is on the same page?

Still feels weird to me to ban someone for metagrudging for an action that was 100% fine IC and even the correct verdict.
"Deliberately lying or misrepresenting facts in adminhelps will be dealt with harshly. Lying in adminhelps, misrepresenting facts deliberately, or logging off when an admin has asked a question may result in permabans. Admins will not automatically place bans for players logging off however, and will generally wait a while in case real life situations caused a player to disconnect or go AFK."
no, i'm not throwing a players privacy to the peanut threads. if they'd like the proof, they can request it themselves.

Re: Security doesn't have chemistry with an assistant

Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2023 7:42 pm
by Not-Dorsidarf
i'm glad to see that this ticket ended the only way it possibly could have, with the reveal that literally every person involved was lying to each other about the facts.
CPTANT wrote: ↑Sun Nov 26, 2023 11:18 am The fuck, how can you metagrudge with valid actions???
Its easy: You admit to someone else in your metafriend discord that you were just doing it because you hate the person in question.

They or an outside observer goes "wow this guys a dick" and sends proof to a headmin.

The headmin then bans you for blatantly lying to them in a ticket and appeal.

Something like this happens pretty much every year.

Re: Security doesn't have chemistry with an assistant

Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2023 7:58 pm
by CPTANT
Not-Dorsidarf wrote: ↑Sun Nov 26, 2023 7:42 pm i'm glad to see that this ticket ended the only way it possibly could have, with the reveal that literally every person involved was lying to each other about the facts.
CPTANT wrote: ↑Sun Nov 26, 2023 11:18 am The fuck, how can you metagrudge with valid actions???
Its easy: You admit to someone else in your metafriend discord that you were just doing it because you hate the person in question.

They or an outside observer goes "wow this guys a dick" and sends proof to a headmin.

The headmin then bans you for blatantly lying to them in a ticket and appeal.

Something like this happens pretty much every year.
This is the pie all over again. You can't metagrudge with perfectly fine IC actions.

Re: Security doesn't have chemistry with an assistant

Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2023 7:59 pm
by GPeckman
TheBibleMelts wrote: ↑Sun Nov 26, 2023 6:15 pm no, i'm not throwing a players privacy to the peanut threads. if they'd like the proof, they can request it themselves.
You have to understand how bad this looks to all us non-admins, right? First you noted them for something that was absolutely not noteworthy, regardless of what their note history may have looked like. Then they rightfully appealed, and now you personally banned them and refuse to share the evidence that prompted this ban? Sure, I get that player privacy is a big issue. But could you really not have gotten another admin to place the ban? That alone would have made this look so much less shady.

Re: Security doesn't have chemistry with an assistant

Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2023 8:03 pm
by conrad
GPeckman wrote: ↑Sun Nov 26, 2023 7:59 pm
TheBibleMelts wrote: ↑Sun Nov 26, 2023 6:15 pm no, i'm not throwing a players privacy to the peanut threads. if they'd like the proof, they can request it themselves.
You have to understand how bad this looks to all us non-admins, right? First you noted them for something that was absolutely not noteworthy, regardless of what their note history may have looked like. Then they rightfully appealed, and now you personally banned them and refuse to share the evidence that prompted this ban? Sure, I get that player privacy is a big issue. But could you really not have gotten another admin to place the ban? That alone would have made this look so much less shady.
No.

TBM placing the ban like this is the entire headmin team placing the ban. The ban was placed for lying in the appeal.

You should only be concerned if you plan to lie in appeals.

Re: Security doesn't have chemistry with an assistant

Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2023 8:06 pm
by tjatpbnj
Maybe I should have let the assistant attack me into crit so they'd get banned instead of the security officer

Re: Security doesn't have chemistry with an assistant

Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2023 8:07 pm
by CPTANT
conrad wrote: ↑Sun Nov 26, 2023 8:03 pm
GPeckman wrote: ↑Sun Nov 26, 2023 7:59 pm
TheBibleMelts wrote: ↑Sun Nov 26, 2023 6:15 pm no, i'm not throwing a players privacy to the peanut threads. if they'd like the proof, they can request it themselves.
You have to understand how bad this looks to all us non-admins, right? First you noted them for something that was absolutely not noteworthy, regardless of what their note history may have looked like. Then they rightfully appealed, and now you personally banned them and refuse to share the evidence that prompted this ban? Sure, I get that player privacy is a big issue. But could you really not have gotten another admin to place the ban? That alone would have made this look so much less shady.
No.

TBM placing the ban like this is the entire headmin team placing the ban. The ban was placed for lying in the appeal.

You should only be concerned if you plan to lie in appeals.
If that is what actually happened of course.

Re: Security doesn't have chemistry with an assistant

Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2023 8:08 pm
by GPeckman
conrad wrote: ↑Sun Nov 26, 2023 8:03 pm No.

TBM placing the ban like this is the entire headmin team placing the ban. The ban was placed for lying in the appeal.

You should only be concerned if you plan to lie in appeals.
Alright then. Can you point to the exact statement in the appeal that was a lie? Because the only person who said "metagrudging" in the appeal thread was TBM, so I don't really see how the appealer could have lied about it in the appeal.

Re: Security doesn't have chemistry with an assistant

Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2023 8:11 pm
by TheBibleMelts
GPeckman wrote: ↑Sun Nov 26, 2023 7:59 pm
TheBibleMelts wrote: ↑Sun Nov 26, 2023 6:15 pm no, i'm not throwing a players privacy to the peanut threads. if they'd like the proof, they can request it themselves.
You have to understand how bad this looks to all us non-admins, right? First you noted them for something that was absolutely not noteworthy, regardless of what their note history may have looked like. Then they rightfully appealed, and now you personally banned them and refuse to share the evidence that prompted this ban? Sure, I get that player privacy is a big issue. But could you really not have gotten another admin to place the ban? That alone would have made this look so much less shady.
it was my ticket they lied in to avoid what would have probably been a short break from security roles for metagrudging. instead, i took their word on their claim that it wasn't due to any sort of prior history with the player, and only gave them a warning for what i still thought was suspiciously harsh action, in the event that the complaint against their playstyle did, in fact, hold water and continue being a problem. that note is gone, but the entire basis of it was created off of lies given to me during the ticket.

Re: Security doesn't have chemistry with an assistant

Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2023 8:13 pm
by conrad
CPTANT wrote: ↑Sun Nov 26, 2023 8:07 pm If that is what actually happened of course.
Oh grow up.
GPeckman wrote: ↑Sun Nov 26, 2023 8:08 pm Alright then. Can you point to the exact statement in the appeal that was a lie? Because the only person who said "metagrudging" in the appeal thread was TBM, so I don't really see how the appealer could have lied about it in the appeal.
I'd point to the part where it was said the cause for the whole supposedly IC situation was the OOC in IC speech from the assistant.

Btw, try no to assume that one person getting punished means both getting punished. I didn't check the assistant's notes (and even if I did, I wouldn't share them here), but I would conjecture the course of events was:

Secoff was noted for shitseccing.
Assistant was noted for ocky icky.
Secoff appealed.
Secoff got note removed.
Later shown to have lied on appeal.
lmao permabanned for lying on appeal.

It's really that simple. This shadow council crap is just childish.

E: apparently the place he lied was in the ticket, see above. I didn't check that, again, 'cos even if I did I wouldn't share it here.

Re: Security doesn't have chemistry with an assistant

Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2023 8:16 pm
by CPTANT
conrad wrote: ↑Sun Nov 26, 2023 8:13 pm
CPTANT wrote: ↑Sun Nov 26, 2023 8:07 pm If that is what actually happened of course.
Oh grow up.
GPeckman wrote: ↑Sun Nov 26, 2023 8:08 pm Alright then. Can you point to the exact statement in the appeal that was a lie? Because the only person who said "metagrudging" in the appeal thread was TBM, so I don't really see how the appealer could have lied about it in the appeal.
I'd point to the part where it was said the cause for the whole supposedly IC situation was the OOC in IC speech from the assistant.

Btw, try no to assume that one person getting punished means both getting punished. I didn't check the assistant's notes (and even if I did, I wouldn't share them here), but I would conjecture the course of events was:

Secoff was noted for shitseccing.
Assistant was noted for ocky icky.
Secoff appealed.
Secoff got note removed.
Later shown to have lied on appeal.
lmao permabanned for lying on appeal.

It's really that simple. This shadow council crap is just childish.

E: apparently the place he lied was in the ticket, see above. I didn't check that, again, 'cos even if I did I wouldn't share it here.
You are going "trustmebro" on an issue that has been handled poorly from the start.

Re: Security doesn't have chemistry with an assistant

Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2023 8:18 pm
by oranges
conrad wrote: ↑Sun Nov 26, 2023 8:03 pm You should only be concerned if you plan to lie in appeals.
and tell other people about it

Re: Security doesn't have chemistry with an assistant

Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2023 8:18 pm
by oranges
CPTANT wrote: ↑Sun Nov 26, 2023 8:16 pm You are going "trustmebro" on an issue that has been handled poorly from the start.
it's all you're going to get unless they appeal so it is what it is.

Re: Security doesn't have chemistry with an assistant

Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2023 8:21 pm
by CPTANT
oranges wrote: ↑Sun Nov 26, 2023 8:18 pm
CPTANT wrote: ↑Sun Nov 26, 2023 8:16 pm You are going "trustmebro" on an issue that has been handled poorly from the start.
it's all you're going to get unless they appeal so it is what it is.
Indeed. I just remain sceptical until I see what was actually said.

Re: Security doesn't have chemistry with an assistant

Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2023 8:25 pm
by conrad
CPTANT wrote: ↑Sun Nov 26, 2023 8:21 pm
oranges wrote: ↑Sun Nov 26, 2023 8:18 pm
CPTANT wrote: ↑Sun Nov 26, 2023 8:16 pm You are going "trustmebro" on an issue that has been handled poorly from the start.
it's all you're going to get unless they appeal so it is what it is.
Indeed. I just remain sceptical until I see what was actually said.
What a waste of time. Are you paranoid 'cos you think you're next or what?

Re: Security doesn't have chemistry with an assistant

Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2023 8:32 pm
by AsbestosSniffer
This is space cat all over again. Gonna need to grab some popcorn.

Also Conrad, let another admin do the talking. No player wants to hear your condescending crap right now.

Re: Security doesn't have chemistry with an assistant

Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2023 8:33 pm
by CPTANT
conrad wrote: ↑Sun Nov 26, 2023 8:25 pm
CPTANT wrote: ↑Sun Nov 26, 2023 8:21 pm
oranges wrote: ↑Sun Nov 26, 2023 8:18 pm
CPTANT wrote: ↑Sun Nov 26, 2023 8:16 pm You are going "trustmebro" on an issue that has been handled poorly from the start.
it's all you're going to get unless they appeal so it is what it is.
Indeed. I just remain sceptical until I see what was actually said.
What a waste of time. Are you paranoid 'cos you think you're next or what?
I'm "paranoid" because this was a shitshow from the start, as I already said.

Re: Security doesn't have chemistry with an assistant

Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2023 8:47 pm
by conrad
AsbestosSniffer wrote: ↑Sun Nov 26, 2023 8:32 pm This is space cat all over again. Gonna need to grab some popcorn.

Also Conrad, let another admin do the talking. No player wants to hear your condescending crap right now.
No need to go about namecalling. You might hurt someone's feelings.

Re: Security doesn't have chemistry with an assistant

Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2023 8:49 pm
by AsbestosSniffer
conrad wrote: ↑Sun Nov 26, 2023 8:47 pm
AsbestosSniffer wrote: ↑Sun Nov 26, 2023 8:32 pm This is space cat all over again. Gonna need to grab some popcorn.

Also Conrad, let another admin do the talking. No player wants to hear your condescending crap right now.
No need to go about namecalling. You might hurt someone's feelings.
You're just making yourself look worse, as I said, let another admin handle the talking. Another player here has a genuine concern, however paranoid it may appear to you.

Re: Security doesn't have chemistry with an assistant

Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2023 9:23 pm
by TheRex9001
I get the concern. The full information behind the ban can not be disclosed, I understand how frustrating that can be but the full picture is for headmin eyes only. For now, you'll just have to take the ban at face value instead of assuming that the headmins wanted Wolfmoy gone and fabricated a lie in their appeal. Again, I've been on this side of frustration plenty of times but I'm sure as the days go by the picture of this whole thing will be revealed, whether through statements or appeals.

Re: Security doesn't have chemistry with an assistant

Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2023 9:34 pm
by Donglesplonge
if the headmins disclosed their permaban bingo card to players club i'd like that and i think everyone else would too i wanna know whos the closest to getting the free papa johns pizza for winning

my moneys on chesh chesh has been real quiet they probably made a really fuckin good bingo card

Re: Security doesn't have chemistry with an assistant

Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2023 10:26 pm
by MooCow12
Ignoring the metagrudge arguement going on

….While assuming an assistant is in the wrong is “meta and ooc” would you rather be on an assistant’s bad side or someone with a departmental job, circular saw isnt just a weapon its lowkey evidence that the assistant was in the medical department ,( not solid evidence cause you can get it from a few other places but its still evidence)

And clearly the medical staffie didnt want them in that department anymore, yes medbay does tend to get flooded with people who arnt even hurt often and its often treated as a public place but medical staff still have a right to get help from sec to stop people from tress-passing in general


If i played sec and i was in this situation id have wordlessly brigged them too because nothing they said actually constituted a defense , the only thing that would change my mind is (“i wasnt in medbay i was in sci/cargo”) or (“i printed that from my own autolathe”) but he didnt he just malded at the other person

Re: Security doesn't have chemistry with an assistant

Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2023 11:24 pm
by Kendrickorium
A FUCKING SHITTER GREYTIDER SHITS AND GREYTIDES
GETS RIGHTFULLY ROBUSTED FOR HIS SHITTING AND GREYTIDING MULTIPLE TIMES
FUCKING AHELPS THE WARDEN THAT LAUGHED DANCED AND THEN RIGHTFULLY BRIGGED HIM FOR A LOW AMOUNT OF TIME
THE WARDEN IS FUCKING PERMAD BECAUSE SOMEHOW THE WARDENS NOTE APPEAL REVEALED THE SINISTER DARK SIDE OF HIM NOT LIKING A BLATANT SHITTER THAT BY THE LOOKS OF THEIR LOGS AND TIME SPENT ON TG WONT BE AROUND MUCH LONGER ANYWAYS
THIS WHOLE FUCKING THING COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED WITH A NICE BIG FAT IC ISSUE STAMPED AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SHITTERS TICKET

DO I HAVE THIS ABOUT RIGHT?????


holy FUCK this reeks of hippiestation adminship

Re: Security doesn't have chemistry with an assistant

Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2023 11:48 pm
by saprasam
the message of the day is that if you dislike somebody you can never be vocal about it
good thing we'll never know if there was any actual super important details that would incriminate wolfmoy in something more sinister

Re: Security doesn't have chemistry with an assistant

Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2023 11:53 pm
by GPeckman
TheRex9001 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 26, 2023 9:23 pm For now, you'll just have to take the ban at face value instead of assuming that the headmins wanted Wolfmoy gone and fabricated a lie in their appeal.
I'm not saying that the headmins necessarily lied to get Wolfmoy banned. They may have simply seen something that wasn't banworthy and placed a ban based on that, much like how the note was placed for something that wasn't noteworthy. And after the note, people aren't inclined to just take the permaban at face value, for obvious reasons.
conrad wrote: ↑Sun Nov 26, 2023 8:13 pm Btw, try no to assume that one person getting punished means both getting punished. I didn't check the assistant's notes (and even if I did, I wouldn't share them here), but I would conjecture the course of events was:
I honestly don't care at all about whether or not the assistant also got noted.
conrad wrote: ↑Sun Nov 26, 2023 8:13 pm Secoff was noted for shitseccing.
The secoff got noted for entirely normal security stuff, that was explicitly sanctioned by the rules. The note never should have been placed to begin with.

Allow me to use a comparison. Should we have taken TBM at the word regarding the original note? Obviously no, it was a terrible note. So why should people be expected to just take them at their word now, after that?

Re: Security doesn't have chemistry with an assistant

Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2023 12:21 am
by Kendrickorium
OH WAIT I FORGOT CAN SOMEONE EXPLAIN TO ME HOW BRIGGING SOMEONE FOR 5 MINUTES AND LAUGHING ABOUT IT IS METAGRUDGING

OH NOES HE TOLD A SUPER SECRET PERSON OF WHICH THE NAME OF I TOTALLY DONT KNOW THAT THEY DIDNT LIKE THEM
Image



THIS MAKES THE BLATANT METAGRUDGING BY WAY OF DOING THEIR JOB AND LIEING IN THE AHELP/NOTE APPEAL ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTING SURELY A PERMA IS WHAT SUN DESERVES


GOOD FUCKING GOD I WISH SINFUL WAS STILL HERE SO THAT HE COULD EXPLAIN TO THE CHUCKLE FUCK ADMINS WHY EXACTLY THEY ARE BEING SO GOD DAMN CHUCKLEFUCKLY IN THIS INSTANCE

Re: Security doesn't have chemistry with an assistant

Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2023 12:40 am
by Capsandi
You know I'd really like to hear cacogen's opinion on this subject. Could we like, bring him back round here? I'm sure that he was just having a bad week, yea thats it. Lets bring cacogen back around here. Yea everyone seems to be agreeing with me, there's WineAllWine, nodding like a sipping bird, and Coconutwarrior, also nodding very loudly. TGMC admin AIIA, nodding to their heart's content. Can always trust a TGMC admin for a good judge of when to bring someone back around. I can hear oranges nodding from the other room, and- oh, whats that? Oranges also nods for ATHATH to be brought back around again. Well that sure was unexpected, but I'm glad our community here is so mature as to agree with everything I say. Yea this is one hell of a great community, nodding, community... of nodding fellows.

+1 to whatever kendrick is going on about

Re: Security doesn't have chemistry with an assistant

Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2023 12:45 am
by MooCow12
TheRex9001 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 26, 2023 9:23 pm I get the concern. The full information behind the ban can not be disclosed, I understand how frustrating that can be but the full picture is for headmin eyes only. For now, you'll just have to take the ban at face value instead of assuming that the headmins wanted Wolfmoy gone and fabricated a lie in their appeal. Again, I've been on this side of frustration plenty of times but I'm sure as the days go by the picture of this whole thing will be revealed, whether through statements or appeals.
Or we just ask the permabanned person to release everything themselves, including the ahelps and what they said after the fact that got them to be found as a liar.

Re: Security doesn't have chemistry with an assistant

Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2023 12:52 am
by RedBaronFlyer
the absolute state of this headmin term

Re: Security doesn't have chemistry with an assistant

Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2023 1:05 am
by Constellado
Kendrickorium wrote: ↑Sun Nov 26, 2023 11:24 pm A FUCKING SHITTER GREYTIDER SHITS AND GREYTIDES
GETS RIGHTFULLY ROBUSTED FOR HIS SHITTING AND GREYTIDING MULTIPLE TIMES
FUCKING AHELPS THE WARDEN THAT LAUGHED DANCED AND THEN RIGHTFULLY BRIGGED HIM FOR A LOW AMOUNT OF TIME
THE WARDEN IS FUCKING PERMAD BECAUSE SOMEHOW THE WARDENS NOTE APPEAL REVEALED THE SINISTER DARK SIDE OF HIM NOT LIKING A BLATANT SHITTER THAT BY THE LOOKS OF THEIR LOGS AND TIME SPENT ON TG WONT BE AROUND MUCH LONGER ANYWAYS
THIS WHOLE FUCKING THING COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED WITH A NICE BIG FAT IC ISSUE STAMPED AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SHITTERS TICKET

DO I HAVE THIS ABOUT RIGHT?????


holy FUCK this reeks of hippiestation adminship
As I was reading and thinking about this, I was trying to figure how to put into words why I feel unhappy with the ban. Logically it makes sense, the ban...

Till I read this. this explains very nicely why I am not happy with the perma.

Re: Security doesn't have chemistry with an assistant

Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2023 1:24 am
by MooCow12
Kendrickorium wrote: ↑Sun Nov 26, 2023 11:24 pm A FUCKING SHITTER GREYTIDER SHITS AND GREYTIDES
GETS RIGHTFULLY ROBUSTED FOR HIS SHITTING AND GREYTIDING MULTIPLE TIMES
FUCKING AHELPS THE WARDEN THAT LAUGHED DANCED AND THEN RIGHTFULLY BRIGGED HIM FOR A LOW AMOUNT OF TIME
THE WARDEN IS FUCKING PERMAD BECAUSE SOMEHOW THE WARDENS NOTE APPEAL REVEALED THE SINISTER DARK SIDE OF HIM NOT LIKING A BLATANT SHITTER THAT BY THE LOOKS OF THEIR LOGS AND TIME SPENT ON TG WONT BE AROUND MUCH LONGER ANYWAYS
THIS WHOLE FUCKING THING COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED WITH A NICE BIG FAT IC ISSUE STAMPED AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SHITTERS TICKET

DO I HAVE THIS ABOUT RIGHT?????


holy FUCK this reeks of hippiestation adminship
Maybe they didnt ic issue and instead purposefully made this drama to deliver us bread and circuses.


Do you feel as though you are immersed in TG? Do you feel invested in the LORE being made before us.

Re: Security doesn't have chemistry with an assistant

Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2023 1:27 am
by Striders13
NEVER play sec unless you wanna get banned, it is known.
All times are UTC
Page 2 of 3

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited