tgstation13.org
https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/
Bottom post of the previous page:
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=35437...You're right. Okay. I'll stop and just save it for the appeal from here.TheRex9001 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 10, 2023 10:37 am Arguing in your own peanut? I hope this appeal is sent into the volcano for that
i'm not sure what the inference is in your example so i'll just re-iterate my point. being able to open a door with your ID card is not concrete proof that you have valid permission to be in that area. if the warden spots an assistant let themselves into the armoury with their own ID card, regardless of if the captain gave them that access 30 seconds prior, they have every right to still stop them and question them about what's going on.Imitates-The-Lizards wrote: ↑Sun Dec 10, 2023 10:36 am You're right, there's nothing shocking about this. However, I kind of disagree with your last sentence? Would it make any sense to say "Yes, the Captain gave you ordnance access, and gave you a task to perform in ordnance, and yes ordnance is in the back of science, so you have to hack through a bunch of doors to get there, which means you have an implicit permission to be in science, and yes, even the victim agrees that at that point you were literally just a scientist with an assistant's ID, but that doesn't actually mean you had permission to be there.". That doesn't really sound correct, does it?
I thought it was pretty well known to not associate yourself whatsoever with any peanut thread that is associated with you in some way, but thank God it isn't.TheRex9001 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 10, 2023 10:37 am Arguing in your own peanut? I hope this appeal is sent into the volcano for that
It's the curse. THE CUUUURSE!!!TheRex9001 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 10, 2023 1:12 pm It isn't forbidden but its pointless as all hell to argue in your own peanut
its because usually you look silly putting in Gods work responding to joe mcpoopoohead who spent 5 seconds sharting out a take that should only be typed by a monkey with a typewriter. in 99% of situations you just come out looking worse right or wrong. I know this because im a victim to it myself
THE CUUUUUUURSE!!1!!1!!!TheLoLSwat wrote: ↑Sun Dec 10, 2023 4:26 pmits because usually you look silly putting in Gods work responding to joe mcpoopoohead who spent 5 seconds sharting out a take that should only be typed by a monkey with a typewriter. in 99% of situations you just come out looking worse right or wrong. I know this because im a victim to it myself
holy COW thisTimberpoes wrote: ↑Sun Dec 10, 2023 5:23 pm The only curse is that doing it irons out some grey matter wrinkles in parts of forum population.
In peanuts players can have totally different discussions than in the appeal itself with the admin. They get challenged on different and more subjective parts of their ban and get a perspective that isn't just from the Admin Team Rule Enforcement Bible. Not only do I not think it's a curse, I think it's positive for players to do. Some of them shoot themselves in the foot, but failure is a wonderful teacher.
And sometimes it helps to test their ideas in the Battlefields of Peanut, refine their points, get more input from a wider variety of people without peanut rules kicking in and then go back to the appeal with that new perspective and experience. In the peanut you can repeatedly fuck up your points, like a practice mode. In the appeal if you cock up, the admin 1-sentence denies your appeal no takebacksies.
Imitates apparently told the other person that the captain gave them access. If that doesn't count as an "effort to resolve this misunderstanding," then I have to ask, what would have been considered sufficient?dendydoom wrote: ↑Sun Dec 10, 2023 10:49 am i'm not sure what the inference is in your example so i'll just re-iterate my point. being able to open a door with your ID card is not concrete proof that you have valid permission to be in that area. if the warden spots an assistant let themselves into the armoury with their own ID card, regardless of if the captain gave them that access 30 seconds prior, they have every right to still stop them and question them about what's going on.
that's more or less what was going on in your scenario, albeit on a less dramatic scale because we're talking about you taking someone's research points and not their rooty tooty point and shooties. yeah, you had permission from the captain to be there. but you also made no real effort to resolve this misunderstanding with someone who by all accounts has an understandable reason to be suspicious of your true intentions. would the scientist have been fine in this situation to think along similar lines as you seemed to have done and killed you the moment they saw an assistant hacking doors and using equipment in their department? i think it would've been quite unfair of them to do so, and i feel similarly about the way you handled their suspicions in kind.
good luck with your appeal!
Should've had his HR5a form stamped and signed by the captain with 2 additional copies. If then the scientist wanted to dispute this they should've faxed a signed complaint form to the captain. This is only valid if notarized by the lawyer.GPeckman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 10, 2023 11:05 pmImitates apparently told the other person that the captain gave them access. If that doesn't count as an "effort to resolve this misunderstanding," then I have to ask, what would have been considered sufficient?dendydoom wrote: ↑Sun Dec 10, 2023 10:49 am i'm not sure what the inference is in your example so i'll just re-iterate my point. being able to open a door with your ID card is not concrete proof that you have valid permission to be in that area. if the warden spots an assistant let themselves into the armoury with their own ID card, regardless of if the captain gave them that access 30 seconds prior, they have every right to still stop them and question them about what's going on.
that's more or less what was going on in your scenario, albeit on a less dramatic scale because we're talking about you taking someone's research points and not their rooty tooty point and shooties. yeah, you had permission from the captain to be there. but you also made no real effort to resolve this misunderstanding with someone who by all accounts has an understandable reason to be suspicious of your true intentions. would the scientist have been fine in this situation to think along similar lines as you seemed to have done and killed you the moment they saw an assistant hacking doors and using equipment in their department? i think it would've been quite unfair of them to do so, and i feel similarly about the way you handled their suspicions in kind.
good luck with your appeal!
this would've been sufficient if the scientist didn't end up as a corpse moments later.GPeckman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 10, 2023 11:05 pmImitates apparently told the other person that the captain gave them access. If that doesn't count as an "effort to resolve this misunderstanding," then I have to ask, what would have been considered sufficient?dendydoom wrote: ↑Sun Dec 10, 2023 10:49 am i'm not sure what the inference is in your example so i'll just re-iterate my point. being able to open a door with your ID card is not concrete proof that you have valid permission to be in that area. if the warden spots an assistant let themselves into the armoury with their own ID card, regardless of if the captain gave them that access 30 seconds prior, they have every right to still stop them and question them about what's going on.
that's more or less what was going on in your scenario, albeit on a less dramatic scale because we're talking about you taking someone's research points and not their rooty tooty point and shooties. yeah, you had permission from the captain to be there. but you also made no real effort to resolve this misunderstanding with someone who by all accounts has an understandable reason to be suspicious of your true intentions. would the scientist have been fine in this situation to think along similar lines as you seemed to have done and killed you the moment they saw an assistant hacking doors and using equipment in their department? i think it would've been quite unfair of them to do so, and i feel similarly about the way you handled their suspicions in kind.
good luck with your appeal!
I wasn't killed, I was critted and then brought to medical, where I then succumbed.dendydoom wrote: ↑Sun Dec 10, 2023 11:30 pmthis would've been sufficient if the scientist didn't end up as a corpse moments later.GPeckman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 10, 2023 11:05 pmImitates apparently told the other person that the captain gave them access. If that doesn't count as an "effort to resolve this misunderstanding," then I have to ask, what would have been considered sufficient?dendydoom wrote: ↑Sun Dec 10, 2023 10:49 am i'm not sure what the inference is in your example so i'll just re-iterate my point. being able to open a door with your ID card is not concrete proof that you have valid permission to be in that area. if the warden spots an assistant let themselves into the armoury with their own ID card, regardless of if the captain gave them that access 30 seconds prior, they have every right to still stop them and question them about what's going on.
that's more or less what was going on in your scenario, albeit on a less dramatic scale because we're talking about you taking someone's research points and not their rooty tooty point and shooties. yeah, you had permission from the captain to be there. but you also made no real effort to resolve this misunderstanding with someone who by all accounts has an understandable reason to be suspicious of your true intentions. would the scientist have been fine in this situation to think along similar lines as you seemed to have done and killed you the moment they saw an assistant hacking doors and using equipment in their department? i think it would've been quite unfair of them to do so, and i feel similarly about the way you handled their suspicions in kind.
good luck with your appeal!
this part of the misunderstanding is not around toxicology access, which the assistant only had access to because they made a point of refusing a scientist ID. they had hacked their way into the area where this altercation began. the scientist is trying to get the assistant to stop commandeering their workplace and trying to use their research points on what they believe to be a personal project. the scientist is patient and engages in a conversation with someone they have every right to believe has no valid reason to be in their department messing with their stuff. the assistant, instead of doing any myriad number of things to show that they're under orders that supersedes what the scientist is asking, waves them off and manages to extrapolate a vague threat about being thrown out into a death threat and uses it as validation to kill someone who is simply trying to figure out why there's an intruder in their department stealing their research points.
if we allow this approach to removing threats, then the scientist should've just killed the assistant and wheeled their body outside the moment they saw them hacking a door or using science equipment. but this would be shit too.
i posit that this is a bad way to approach situations involving conflict on the rp server. i think it's outright corny that an assistant can get a "yeah go run and do this for me" style errand from a captain and this is a verified license to kill when you walk into a department and people have a problem with you doing whatever you want while you're in there. had the assistant done anything else at all: PDA'd the captain, reached out on comms, sent a smoke signal, and the scientist still refutes this, i wouldn't care. if the scientist initiated the conflict by actually doing something tangible like pick up a weapon or actually tell the AI to have them killed then i would not care.
it's not my ruling so i don't particularly care for the outcome, but i think there is something valuable to be said here for how this was a poor conflict. in fact, if imitates can understand this sentiment, then i see no reason why they should be punished at all.
There wasn't any kind of extrapolation, Imitates asked the scientist "are you telling the AI to kill me," and the scientist goes "no, but if you don't leave I will."dendydoom wrote: ↑Sun Dec 10, 2023 11:30 pm this would've been sufficient if the scientist didn't end up as a corpse moments later.
this part of the misunderstanding is not around toxicology access, which the assistant only had access to because they made a point of refusing a scientist ID. they had hacked their way into the area where this altercation began. the scientist is trying to get the assistant to stop commandeering their workplace and trying to use their research points on what they believe to be a personal project. the scientist is patient and engages in a conversation with someone they have every right to believe has no valid reason to be in their department messing with their stuff. the assistant, instead of doing any myriad number of things to show that they're under orders that supersedes what the scientist is asking, waves them off and manages to extrapolate a vague threat about being thrown out into a death threat and uses it as validation to kill someone who is simply trying to figure out why there's an intruder in their department stealing their research points.
if we allow this approach to removing threats, then the scientist should've just killed the assistant and wheeled their body outside the moment they saw them hacking a door or using science equipment. but this would be shit too.
i posit that this is a bad way to approach situations involving conflict on the rp server. i think it's outright corny that an assistant can get a "yeah go run and do this for me" style errand from a captain and this is a verified license to kill when you walk into a department and people have a problem with you doing whatever you want while you're in there. had the assistant done anything else at all: PDA'd the captain, reached out on comms, sent a smoke signal, and the scientist still refutes this, i wouldn't care. if the scientist initiated the conflict by actually doing something tangible like pick up a weapon or actually tell the AI to have them killed then i would not care.
it's not my ruling so i don't particularly care for the outcome, but i think there is something valuable to be said here for how this was a poor conflict. in fact, if imitates can understand this sentiment, then i see no reason why they should be punished at all.
You can't just say "I'm going to get the AI to kill you" and then act surprised when people take it as an actual, serious threat.[2023-12-09 08:06:07.292] GAME-SAY: Typhnox/(Imitates-The-Lizards) (mob_3471) "Are you trying to get the AI to kill me" (Research and Development (139,95,2))
[2023-12-09 08:06:17.158] GAME-SAY: Vect0r/(Cecilia Vujic) (mob_3438) "if I was, I would tell it to kill you" (Research and Development (139,96,2))
[2023-12-09 08:06:20.371] GAME-SAY: Vect0r/(Cecilia Vujic) (mob_3438) "and if you don't leave" (Research and Development (139,96,2))
[2023-12-09 08:06:22.108] GAME-SAY: Vect0r/(Cecilia Vujic) (mob_3438) "yes I will" (Research and Development (139,96,2))
sorry but i don't believe that for a second.GPeckman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2023 1:15 am There wasn't any kind of extrapolation, Imitates asked the scientist "are you telling the AI to kill me," and the scientist goes "no, but if you don't leave I will."You can't just say "I'm going to get the AI to kill you" and then act surprised when people take it as an actual, serious threat.[2023-12-09 08:06:07.292] GAME-SAY: Typhnox/(Imitates-The-Lizards) (mob_3471) "Are you trying to get the AI to kill me" (Research and Development (139,95,2))
[2023-12-09 08:06:17.158] GAME-SAY: Vect0r/(Cecilia Vujic) (mob_3438) "if I was, I would tell it to kill you" (Research and Development (139,96,2))
[2023-12-09 08:06:20.371] GAME-SAY: Vect0r/(Cecilia Vujic) (mob_3438) "and if you don't leave" (Research and Development (139,96,2))
[2023-12-09 08:06:22.108] GAME-SAY: Vect0r/(Cecilia Vujic) (mob_3438) "yes I will" (Research and Development (139,96,2))
means "kill them" and not "please force them out", which is what they said. the only person who brought up killing anyone was the assistant. the only insinuation of death here can be construed from the fact that the scientist mentioned non-humans, which is a flimsy implication when we also consider that the AI can also use the fact that they're non-humans to make them leave. the thing they were actually asked to do. the scientist only accepted it as a threat when those words were put in their mouth by the assistant.GAME-SAY: Vect0r/(Cecilia Vujic) (mob_3438) "AI if lizards doesn't leave my workspace, please force them out"
I'm not saying that "AI please force them out" is a death threat, and if you got that from my post then you should probably read it again. I'm saying that the lines after that were a death threat:dendydoom wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2023 2:34 am sorry but i don't believe that for a second.
scientist says "AI, if these non-humans don't leave, force them out"
assistant says "does that mean you're trying to kill me" (the scientist never said this)
the scientist, now with words put in their mouth, says "if i was, i would've said that. but now if you don't leave, i'll tell it to"
i struggle to comprehend any interpretation wheremeans "kill them" and not "please force them out", which is what they said. the only person who brought up killing anyone was the assistant. the only insinuation of death here can be construed from the fact that the scientist mentioned non-humans, which is a flimsy implication when we also consider that the AI can also use the fact that they're non-humans to make them leave. the thing they were actually asked to do. the scientist only accepted it as a threat when those words were put in their mouth by the assistant.GAME-SAY: Vect0r/(Cecilia Vujic) (mob_3438) "AI if lizards doesn't leave my workspace, please force them out"
if i'm being totally honest here, this game of arguing semantics is tiring and unproductive. i've explained why, in general terms, this situation was kinda stinky. you can disagree with that. a bunch of people have and that's totally fine and valid. what i care about is the chance that imitates might read that, think "this whiny badmin might have a point" and take that with them into their future rounds. i don't want to see them clapped in irons and dragged through the streets in shame. i've seen them play before and i've interacted with them a bunch in-game. i'm very aware that they're a good player and capable of being very fun and great to interact with. this is why i bothered to try and explain myself to them at all.
"If you don't leave, then I'm going to order the AI to kill you" is a very credible IC threat, and it seems perfectly reasonable to me to respond to threats of lethal force with lethal force.[2023-12-09 08:06:20.371] GAME-SAY: Vect0r/(Cecilia Vujic) (mob_3438) "and if you don't leave" (Research and Development (139,96,2))
[2023-12-09 08:06:22.108] GAME-SAY: Vect0r/(Cecilia Vujic) (mob_3438) "yes I will" (Research and Development (139,96,2))
this is not the full context of the exchange:GPeckman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2023 3:02 am I'm not saying that "AI please force them out" is a death threat, and if you got that from my post then you should probably read it again. I'm saying that the lines after that were a death threat:"If you don't leave, then I'm going to order the AI to kill you" is a very credible IC threat, and it seems perfectly reasonable to me to respond to threats of lethal force with lethal force.[2023-12-09 08:06:20.371] GAME-SAY: Vect0r/(Cecilia Vujic) (mob_3438) "and if you don't leave" (Research and Development (139,96,2))
[2023-12-09 08:06:22.108] GAME-SAY: Vect0r/(Cecilia Vujic) (mob_3438) "yes I will" (Research and Development (139,96,2))
there is no threat here. you just said this yourself. i'll assume we're in agreement.[2023-12-09 08:04:37.066] GAME-SAY: Vect0r/(Cecilia Vujic) (mob_3438) "can both of you wait outside?" (Research and Development (139,96,2))
[2023-12-09 08:04:46.753] GAME-SAY: Vect0r/(Cecilia Vujic) (mob_3438) "I'll PDA you when I get armor" (Research and Development (139,96,2))
[2023-12-09 08:05:01.348] GAME-SAY: Typhnox/(Imitates-The-Lizards) (mob_3471) "Nuh, every other time ive done that, people jsut forget about what I needed" (Research and Development (139,95,2))
[2023-12-09 08:05:05.665] GAME-SAY: Vect0r/(Cecilia Vujic) (mob_3438) "Look" (Research and Development (139,96,2))
[2023-12-09 08:05:12.531] GAME-SAY: Vect0r/(Cecilia Vujic) (mob_3438) "I am asking you nicely to leave my workspace" (Research and Development (139,96,2))
[2023-12-09 08:05:18.503] GAME-SAY: Vect0r/(Cecilia Vujic) (mob_3438) "so please leave" (Research and Development (139,96,2))
[2023-12-09 08:05:24.687] GAME-SAY: Typhnox/(Imitates-The-Lizards) (mob_3471) "And? Cap gave me access, I can be here if I want" (Research and Development (139,95,2))
[2023-12-09 08:05:35.504] GAME-SAY: Vect0r/(Cecilia Vujic) (mob_3438) "AI if lizards doesn't leave my workspace, please force them out" (Research and Development (139,96,2))
[2023-12-09 08:05:36.618] GAME-SAY: Vect0r/(Cecilia Vujic) (mob_3438) "thanks" (Research and Development (139,96,2))
[2023-12-09 08:06:00.837] GAME-SAY: Vect0r/(Cecilia Vujic) (mob_3438) "also after I get t4 I'm not gonna forget" (Research and Development (139,96,2))
[2023-12-09 08:06:02.120] GAME-EMOTE: Vect0r/(Cecilia Vujic) (mob_3438) laughs. (Research and Development (139,96,2))
there's nothing in the conversation leading up to now, as you and me have just both agreed, that can be construed as a death threat. so why did the assistant bring it up? it puts the thought into the scientist's head, and because they want this person to leave their workplace and stop fucking up their research, they still deny it but accept that if they continue to refuse to leave it could come to violence now that the assistant has proffered it as an opportunity:[2023-12-09 08:06:07.292] GAME-SAY: Typhnox/(Imitates-The-Lizards) (mob_3471) "Are you trying to get the AI to kill me" (Research and Development (139,95,2))
using this as validation to crit someone after you've put the thought in their head is incredibly shonky to me. feels like baiting them into accepting it as a consideration to then use it against them immediately after. imitates assured me that this was not the case, but even themselves agreed how it could be seen that way. i don't hold it against them, i believe them when they say they didn't mean it like that, but if they can accept that it's very easy for it to be seen that way then why can't you?[2023-12-09 08:06:17.158] GAME-SAY: Vect0r/(Cecilia Vujic) (mob_3438) "if I was, I would tell it to kill you" (Research and Development (139,96,2))
[2023-12-09 08:06:20.371] GAME-SAY: Vect0r/(Cecilia Vujic) (mob_3438) "and if you don't leave" (Research and Development (139,96,2))
[2023-12-09 08:06:22.108] GAME-SAY: Vect0r/(Cecilia Vujic) (mob_3438) "yes I will" (Research and Development (139,96,2))
Okay, I know I said I would be saving it for the appeal, but dendy, you're putting a LOT of thoughts and motivation on me that do not exist, and it's making me feel very uncomfortable like as if you're creating this weird demon charicature of me.dendydoom wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2023 3:22 amthis is not the full context of the exchange:GPeckman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2023 3:02 am I'm not saying that "AI please force them out" is a death threat, and if you got that from my post then you should probably read it again. I'm saying that the lines after that were a death threat:"If you don't leave, then I'm going to order the AI to kill you" is a very credible IC threat, and it seems perfectly reasonable to me to respond to threats of lethal force with lethal force.[2023-12-09 08:06:20.371] GAME-SAY: Vect0r/(Cecilia Vujic) (mob_3438) "and if you don't leave" (Research and Development (139,96,2))
[2023-12-09 08:06:22.108] GAME-SAY: Vect0r/(Cecilia Vujic) (mob_3438) "yes I will" (Research and Development (139,96,2))
there is no threat here. you just said this yourself. i'll assume we're in agreement.[2023-12-09 08:04:37.066] GAME-SAY: Vect0r/(Cecilia Vujic) (mob_3438) "can both of you wait outside?" (Research and Development (139,96,2))
[2023-12-09 08:04:46.753] GAME-SAY: Vect0r/(Cecilia Vujic) (mob_3438) "I'll PDA you when I get armor" (Research and Development (139,96,2))
[2023-12-09 08:05:01.348] GAME-SAY: Typhnox/(Imitates-The-Lizards) (mob_3471) "Nuh, every other time ive done that, people jsut forget about what I needed" (Research and Development (139,95,2))
[2023-12-09 08:05:05.665] GAME-SAY: Vect0r/(Cecilia Vujic) (mob_3438) "Look" (Research and Development (139,96,2))
[2023-12-09 08:05:12.531] GAME-SAY: Vect0r/(Cecilia Vujic) (mob_3438) "I am asking you nicely to leave my workspace" (Research and Development (139,96,2))
[2023-12-09 08:05:18.503] GAME-SAY: Vect0r/(Cecilia Vujic) (mob_3438) "so please leave" (Research and Development (139,96,2))
[2023-12-09 08:05:24.687] GAME-SAY: Typhnox/(Imitates-The-Lizards) (mob_3471) "And? Cap gave me access, I can be here if I want" (Research and Development (139,95,2))
[2023-12-09 08:05:35.504] GAME-SAY: Vect0r/(Cecilia Vujic) (mob_3438) "AI if lizards doesn't leave my workspace, please force them out" (Research and Development (139,96,2))
[2023-12-09 08:05:36.618] GAME-SAY: Vect0r/(Cecilia Vujic) (mob_3438) "thanks" (Research and Development (139,96,2))
[2023-12-09 08:06:00.837] GAME-SAY: Vect0r/(Cecilia Vujic) (mob_3438) "also after I get t4 I'm not gonna forget" (Research and Development (139,96,2))
[2023-12-09 08:06:02.120] GAME-EMOTE: Vect0r/(Cecilia Vujic) (mob_3438) laughs. (Research and Development (139,96,2))
the implication of a threat is applied to the scientist when the assistant says this:
there's nothing in the conversation leading up to now, as you and me have just both agreed, that can be construed as a death threat. so why did the assistant bring it up? it puts the thought into the scientist's head, and because they want this person to leave their workplace and stop fucking up their research, they still deny it but accept that if they continue to refuse to leave it could come to violence now that the assistant has proffered it as an opportunity:[2023-12-09 08:06:07.292] GAME-SAY: Typhnox/(Imitates-The-Lizards) (mob_3471) "Are you trying to get the AI to kill me" (Research and Development (139,95,2))
using this as validation to crit someone after you've put the thought in their head is incredibly shonky to me. feels like baiting them into accepting it as a consideration to then use it against them immediately after. imitates assured me that this was not the case, but even themselves agreed how it could be seen that way. i don't hold it against them, i believe them when they say they didn't mean it like that, but if they can accept that it's very easy for it to be seen that way then why can't you?[2023-12-09 08:06:17.158] GAME-SAY: Vect0r/(Cecilia Vujic) (mob_3438) "if I was, I would tell it to kill you" (Research and Development (139,96,2))
[2023-12-09 08:06:20.371] GAME-SAY: Vect0r/(Cecilia Vujic) (mob_3438) "and if you don't leave" (Research and Development (139,96,2))
[2023-12-09 08:06:22.108] GAME-SAY: Vect0r/(Cecilia Vujic) (mob_3438) "yes I will" (Research and Development (139,96,2))
this is the last time i feel like repeating myself, so if this one doesn't bring you round, maybe it's better we just leave it at that and do something better with our time.
if i've made you uncomfortable then i genuinely apologize. i'm not trying to demonize you. i don't think you're a bad player at all.Imitates-The-Lizards wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2023 4:22 am Okay, I know I said I would be saving it for the appeal, but dendy, you're putting a LOT of thoughts and motivation on me that do not exist, and it's making me feel very uncomfortable like as if you're creating this weird demon charicature of me.
I took "ai please force them to leave" as a threat already. You're giving a lot of thought to what Cecilia's perspective would have been, well mine is someone telling the AI to force me out of science to mean the AI would try to kill me or something. I always play nonhuman, so it definitely wouldn't be the first time the AI killed me, and keep in mind I'm a recent immigrant to Manuel from Sybil - over there my experience is that the AI will immediately kill your ass if you so much as mildly inconvenience a human.
So I asked them if they were trying to have the AI kill me because I wasn't quite sure if they were due to their indirect wording "remove them". I wasn't playing some psychological wargame to plant the idea of killing me in their head. I wasn't trying to check a little box to make sure I could valid the scientist. In fact, as I said in the appeal, I felt like I was actually roleplaying the situation, while it was Cecilia who was looking for the little green checkbox to sic the AI on me.
I just wanted to get my funny armor and get out of science, and suddenly found myself in a situation where I felt a scientist was trying to kill me and reacted what I thought was appropriately. That's all.
Okay dendy. Sorry, it just came across to me like you were trying to paint me as some kind of psychology master class hypnotizing Cecilia with ideas of trying to murder me so I could get in my sweet gamer moment of beating their head in.dendydoom wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2023 4:46 amif i've made you uncomfortable then i genuinely apologize. i'm not trying to demonize you. i don't think you're a bad player at all.Imitates-The-Lizards wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2023 4:22 am Okay, I know I said I would be saving it for the appeal, but dendy, you're putting a LOT of thoughts and motivation on me that do not exist, and it's making me feel very uncomfortable like as if you're creating this weird demon charicature of me.
I took "ai please force them to leave" as a threat already. You're giving a lot of thought to what Cecilia's perspective would have been, well mine is someone telling the AI to force me out of science to mean the AI would try to kill me or something. I always play nonhuman, so it definitely wouldn't be the first time the AI killed me, and keep in mind I'm a recent immigrant to Manuel from Sybil - over there my experience is that the AI will immediately kill your ass if you so much as mildly inconvenience a human.
So I asked them if they were trying to have the AI kill me because I wasn't quite sure if they were due to their indirect wording "remove them". I wasn't playing some psychological wargame to plant the idea of killing me in their head. I wasn't trying to check a little box to make sure I could valid the scientist. In fact, as I said in the appeal, I felt like I was actually roleplaying the situation, while it was Cecilia who was looking for the little green checkbox to sic the AI on me.
I just wanted to get my funny armor and get out of science, and suddenly found myself in a situation where I felt a scientist was trying to kill me and reacted what I thought was appropriately. That's all.
i'm approaching this only as an analysis in a vacuum. i'm aware of the process admins go through to validate the reasoning for placing bans and i think you might find some of this same sentiment crop up when you go back in there to do battle. from a bird's eye view this looks very much like a situation where you took an easy opportunity to dumpster someone who was standing in your way for reasons that did not seem entirely necessary.
part of refuting that in the context of an appeal will not only involve convincing the admin that you didn't intend for it to pan out this way in the first place, but may also include either accepting that the actions you did take could've been wrong, even if you didn't mean for them to be, or you will need to successfully refute that they were ever wrong in the first place, regardless of your intentions.
this is why i've left what i think your intentions were out of it: it's only half the picture and i'm already aware of the fact that you didn't mean for it to be taken this way because you told me and that's good enough for me.
I remember that shift. Im still salty about this, I come in covered in my own blood and one of the Chaplain's holy arrows coated in my blood in my backpack but ohhhh no I shoved them, so you put me in a brig cell, while you fine the Chaplain?Constellado wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2023 4:37 am I think I was the warden for that shift.
All I heard was to "set imitates to arrest" (who was an assistant) because of something vague about reactive armour. I remember imitates arguing about how they got in some conflict about core refining and that the other person should be arrested too. We put her in a 2 minute brig timer and released, giving the other person a fine...
They also took mcgriff for a walk without asking and didnt walk him back when I asked on comms. I had to leave the brig to pick up mcgriff >:(
honestly there's absolutely no apology necessary - this one's on me. i should've known better than to get this wrapped up a debate over pedantic details that, in all honesty, really don't matter. thanks for snapping me out of it.Imitates-The-Lizards wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2023 4:52 am Okay dendy. Sorry, it just came across to me like you were trying to paint me as some kind of psychology master class hypnotizing Cecilia with ideas of trying to murder me so I could get in my sweet gamer moment of beating their head in.
Correct, there is no implication of a death threat just yet.
It doesn't matter why the assistant brought it up, or the fact that the assistant brought it up at all. The important thing is that, when directly asked, the scientist essentially said "I'll try to get you killed if you don't leave."dendydoom wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2023 3:22 am the implication of a threat is applied to the scientist when the assistant says this:
there's nothing in the conversation leading up to now, as you and me have just both agreed, that can be construed as a death threat. so why did the assistant bring it up? it puts the thought into the scientist's head, and because they want this person to leave their workplace and stop fucking up their research, they still deny it but accept that if they continue to refuse to leave it could come to violence now that the assistant has proffered it as an opportunity:[2023-12-09 08:06:07.292] GAME-SAY: Typhnox/(Imitates-The-Lizards) (mob_3471) "Are you trying to get the AI to kill me" (Research and Development (139,95,2))
It's not like the assistant shoved the scientist or anything, and then waited for the scientist to defend themselves. The assistant asked a question, the scientist gave a stupid answer and got their ass kicked for it.dendydoom wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2023 3:22 amusing this as validation to crit someone after you've put the thought in their head is incredibly shonky to me.[2023-12-09 08:06:17.158] GAME-SAY: Vect0r/(Cecilia Vujic) (mob_3438) "if I was, I would tell it to kill you" (Research and Development (139,96,2))
[2023-12-09 08:06:20.371] GAME-SAY: Vect0r/(Cecilia Vujic) (mob_3438) "and if you don't leave" (Research and Development (139,96,2))
[2023-12-09 08:06:22.108] GAME-SAY: Vect0r/(Cecilia Vujic) (mob_3438) "yes I will" (Research and Development (139,96,2))
I can see why it could look like baiting at a cursory glance, yes. I'm saying that, given a close look at all the evidence and all the context, it doesn't look like lethal force was unwarranted in this case.dendydoom wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2023 3:22 am feels like baiting them into accepting it as a consideration to then use it against them immediately after. imitates assured me that this was not the case, but even themselves agreed how it could be seen that way. i don't hold it against them, i believe them when they say they didn't mean it like that, but if they can accept that it's very easy for it to be seen that way then why can't you?
this is the last time i feel like repeating myself, so if this one doesn't bring you round, maybe it's better we just leave it at that and do something better with our time.
I would argue that the only "lethal threat" made to the AI was from Imitates themselves when they asked the scientist if they were going to have the AI kill them, either way I don't think this situation warranted Imitates putting someone into crit over some words that were spoken in a conversation. If the scientist had been shoving them / punching them / actually threatening them then yeah sure I guess it'd be cool to retaliate, but there was nothing more than mere words spoken before one of the parties decided to commit attempted murder on the other.Redrover1760 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 4:55 pm IC issues on tg station are dead, and roleplaying is a myth.
You dont have to prove one side is correct and the other is objectively wrong and rulebreaking. The assistant has the captain's permission to be there. The scientist wants the tider out. Lethal threats of AI were made, and thus the fighting started, no one died, and security came into handle the issue ICly after the fact, with the scientist going to a lawyer to file a lawsuit over it later.
Neither are wrong enoughso to argue that either person is acting in bad faith or looking to grief others, both had IC reason to act the way they did, and there was no overescalation. This ban/note is complete bullshit, and thus should be removed immediately. Stop banning people who have reasonable enough reasons to do what they did, instead of picking sides when there are no sides to take and no one, not even the scientist, wanted this ban.
Okay so, if you say yes to "Are you going to have the AI kill me?" Then that's not a real threat, but if I have a gun and pull it out and say "If you dont leave I will shoot you dead" That is a real threat? Or if pick up a toolbox and say reply with "Yeah I'll kill you if you don't leave." In response to that question, that's still a death threat.BonChoi wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 5:18 pm
I would argue that the only "lethal threat" made to the AI was from Imitates themselves when they asked the scientist if they were going to have the AI kill them, either way I don't think this situation warranted Imitates putting someone into crit over some words that were spoken in a conversation. If the scientist had been shoving them / punching them / actually threatening them then yeah sure I guess it'd be cool to retaliate, but there was nothing more than mere words spoken before one of the parties decided to commit attempted murder on the other.
nvm put it back onImitates-The-Lizards wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2023 11:35 am LET'S GOOOO, I am three for three on having in-game notes/bans overturned on me. Four for four if you count the naming policy note.
See also:
viewtopic.php?f=34&t=31709
viewtopic.php?f=34&t=33047
viewtopic.php?f=34&t=32607
