/tg/Station 13

Bottom post of the previous page:

cringe ban note

saprasam wrote:

bandit wrote:because I have literally pointed out a great deal of precedent, have been backed up by several admins including former headmins that this, in fact, is precedent, and yet people choose to ignore it or deny that it exists? the reason I have not said "oh shit I didn't realize it was changed" is because it was not, in fact, changed.

on another note do you have a single fact to back any of this up

who are the admins and past headmins backing up bgo? sorry i must have missed them theres a lot of info in this thread!

saprasam wrote:

bandit wrote:because I have literally pointed out a great deal of precedent, have been backed up by several admins including former headmins that this, in fact, is precedent, and yet people choose to ignore it or deny that it exists? the reason I have not said "oh shit I didn't realize it was changed" is because it was not, in fact, changed.

on another note do you have a single fact to back any of this up

Yes, I have provided many pieces of precedent from current admins and former headmins, and this thread has more admins and former headmins backing up. Just because you choose to ignore something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

EDIT: The admins in question, all but one actually who are former headmins:

- Kor, linked in ban appeal
- Ausops, linked in ban appeal
- CitrusGender, linked in ban appeal
- Atlanta-Ned, linked in policy discussion
- PKPenguin, in this thread

bandit wrote:

saprasam wrote:

bandit wrote:because I have literally pointed out a great deal of precedent, have been backed up by several admins including former headmins that this, in fact, is precedent, and yet people choose to ignore it or deny that it exists? the reason I have not said "oh shit I didn't realize it was changed" is because it was not, in fact, changed.

on another note do you have a single fact to back any of this up

Yes, I have provided many pieces of precedent from current admins and former headmins, and this thread has more admins and former headmins backing up. Just because you choose to ignore something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

EDIT: The admins in question, all but one actually who are former headmins:

- Kor, linked in ban appeal
- Ausops, linked in ban appeal
- CitrusGender, linked in ban appeal
- Atlanta-Ned, linked in policy discussion
- PKPenguin, in this thread

i'm looking really fucking hard
LIKE REALLY HARD
and these are all fucking rulings from 2-3 years ago

Almost every rule we have was a ruling from like 8 years ago. That doesn't mean they're suddenly not rules.

bandit wrote:Almost every rule we have was a ruling from like 8 years ago. That doesn't mean they're suddenly not rules.

it's almost like this rule was made to deal with a very specific code issue that has since been adressed and the rule is not relevant anymore as it was written at the time
welcome to the thread you are now up to speed

bandit wrote:Almost every rule we have was a ruling from like 8 years ago. That doesn't mean they're suddenly not rules.

and who said that they couldn't be changed or modified in the timespan, or different via headmin rulings? i've jumped into the SM multiple times and not once have i ever been bwoinked for it. why is sm suicide a big deal if all the bad things that have come out of it can be mitigated, or outright prevented?

saprasam wrote:

bandit wrote:Almost every rule we have was a ruling from like 8 years ago. That doesn't mean they're suddenly not rules.

and who said that they couldn't be changed or modified in the timespan, or different via headmin rulings? i've jumped into the SM multiple times and not once have i ever been bwoinked for it. why is sm suicide a big deal if all the bad things that have come out of it can be mitigated, or outright prevented?

it's not a big deal, bgo just doesn't like to be wrong

saprasam wrote:

bandit wrote:Almost every rule we have was a ruling from like 8 years ago. That doesn't mean they're suddenly not rules.

and who said that they couldn't be changed or modified in the timespan, or different via headmin rulings? i've jumped into the SM multiple times and not once have i ever been bwoinked for it. why is sm suicide a big deal if all the bad things that have come out of it can be mitigated, or outright prevented?

Except that it was not modified or changed in the timespan, and so far there has never been a headmin ruling stating it's no longer bannable to suicide into the SM. See for yourself: https://tgstation13.org/wiki/Headmin_Rulings (a moderated page, so you can't go WAAAAAAAAAAAAHH I DON'T HAVE TO FOLLOW THE WIKI)

bandit wrote:

saprasam wrote:

bandit wrote:Almost every rule we have was a ruling from like 8 years ago. That doesn't mean they're suddenly not rules.

and who said that they couldn't be changed or modified in the timespan, or different via headmin rulings? i've jumped into the SM multiple times and not once have i ever been bwoinked for it. why is sm suicide a big deal if all the bad things that have come out of it can be mitigated, or outright prevented?

Except that it was not modified or changed in the timespan, and so far there has never been a headmin ruling stating it's no longer bannable to suicide into the SM. See for yourself: https://tgstation13.org/wiki/Headmin_Rulings (a moderated page, so you can't go WAAAAAAAAAAAAHH I DON'T HAVE TO FOLLOW THE WIKI)

if you admit you're wrong and remove the note you won't have to get overruled by the headmins later............ and I will send you a MONKEY!

bandit wrote:

saprasam wrote:

bandit wrote:Almost every rule we have was a ruling from like 8 years ago. That doesn't mean they're suddenly not rules.

and who said that they couldn't be changed or modified in the timespan, or different via headmin rulings? i've jumped into the SM multiple times and not once have i ever been bwoinked for it. why is sm suicide a big deal if all the bad things that have come out of it can be mitigated, or outright prevented?

Except that it was not modified or changed in the timespan, and so far there has never been a headmin ruling stating it's no longer bannable to suicide into the SM. See for yourself: https://tgstation13.org/wiki/Headmin_Rulings (a moderated page, so you can't go WAAAAAAAAAAAAHH I DON'T HAVE TO FOLLOW THE WIKI)

whats your point theres no headmin ruling stating that it is bannable to suicide into the sm

Fikou wrote:

bandit wrote:

saprasam wrote:

bandit wrote:Almost every rule we have was a ruling from like 8 years ago. That doesn't mean they're suddenly not rules.

and who said that they couldn't be changed or modified in the timespan, or different via headmin rulings? i've jumped into the SM multiple times and not once have i ever been bwoinked for it. why is sm suicide a big deal if all the bad things that have come out of it can be mitigated, or outright prevented?

Except that it was not modified or changed in the timespan, and so far there has never been a headmin ruling stating it's no longer bannable to suicide into the SM. See for yourself: https://tgstation13.org/wiki/Headmin_Rulings (a moderated page, so you can't go WAAAAAAAAAAAAHH I DON'T HAVE TO FOLLOW THE WIKI)

whats your point theres no headmin ruling stating that it is bannable to suicide into the sm

I have linked four headmins stating exactly this. The link to the page is to show that there have been zero headmin rulings that the rule is changed, and so far nobody has come up with one.

bandit wrote:

Fikou wrote:

bandit wrote:

saprasam wrote:

bandit wrote:Almost every rule we have was a ruling from like 8 years ago. That doesn't mean they're suddenly not rules.

and who said that they couldn't be changed or modified in the timespan, or different via headmin rulings? i've jumped into the SM multiple times and not once have i ever been bwoinked for it. why is sm suicide a big deal if all the bad things that have come out of it can be mitigated, or outright prevented?

Except that it was not modified or changed in the timespan, and so far there has never been a headmin ruling stating it's no longer bannable to suicide into the SM. See for yourself: https://tgstation13.org/wiki/Headmin_Rulings (a moderated page, so you can't go WAAAAAAAAAAAAHH I DON'T HAVE TO FOLLOW THE WIKI)

whats your point theres no headmin ruling stating that it is bannable to suicide into the sm

I have linked four headmins stating exactly this.

no

Saying "no" and linking a picture of a monkey doesn't change the fact that you have no argument.

bandit wrote:Saying "no" and linking a picture of a monkey doesn't change the fact that you have no argument.

You dont have any either

bgo I don't think you should be the one talking about not having an argument

My argument: Suiciding into the SM, according to the current policy, is bannable. I have linked multiple admins and headmins stating that suiciding into the SM is bannable, that it is acceptable to leave a note for it, as well as public-facing pages telling players not to suicide into the SM because it is bannable. I don't know how much more clear that can be.

bandit wrote:My argument: Suiciding into the SM, according to the current policy, is bannable. I have linked multiple admins and headmins stating that suiciding into the SM is bannable, that it is acceptable to leave a note for it, as well as public-facing pages telling players not to suicide into the SM because it is bannable. I don't know how much more clear that can be.

no

I don't know how to argue that reality exists against people who continually deny it.

bandit wrote:I don't know how to argue that reality exists against people who continually deny it.

I don't know how to argue that reality exists against a person who continually denies it.*

edit: monkey

All I say is, that you and your stupid note caused more "cringe" than a guy asking you out for the summerball ever could.

BONERMASTER wrote:All I say is, that you and your stupid note caused more "cringe" than a guy asking you out for the summerball ever could.

you sound mad
why are you mad?

bandit wrote:I don't know how to argue that reality exists against people who continually deny it.

i gave up on arguing with you as soon as i realized that you're more stubborn then a brick wall

If someone says "four headmins said this," links to proof that those four headmins did indeed say that thing, and someone responds with "actually, they didn't," then disagreeing with that person isn't being "stubborn," it's acknowledging reality.

bandit wrote:If someone says "four headmins said this," links to proof that those four headmins did indeed say that thing, and someone responds with "actually, they didn't," then disagreeing with that person isn't being "stubborn," it's acknowledging reality.

wrong

bandit wrote:If someone says "four headmins said this," links to proof that those four headmins did indeed say that thing, and someone responds with "actually, they didn't," then disagreeing with that person isn't being "stubborn," it's acknowledging reality.

the ban appeal that you said was precedent wasn't entirely based because of him jumping into the SM, it was because and i quote "Deleted for actual mass greytiding at roundstart as a non-antag, proceeded to take a drone role and walk into the supermatter on deltastation. This is on top of previous notes."
you are exclusively taking the part of "he jumped into the SM" as the SOLE REASON for why he was banned.
you yourself on the topic of the SM suicide have said

bandit wrote:If your "suicide" takes out other people you will be punished as if you killed them without the suicide. This has always been policy. Just as you can't bomb the main hallway because suicide, you can't fuck over the SM because suicide.

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

saprasam wrote:

bandit wrote:If someone says "four headmins said this," links to proof that those four headmins did indeed say that thing, and someone responds with "actually, they didn't," then disagreeing with that person isn't being "stubborn," it's acknowledging reality.

the ban appeal that you said was precedent wasn't entirely based because of him jumping into the SM, it was because and i quote "Deleted for actual mass greytiding at roundstart as a non-antag, proceeded to take a drone role and walk into the supermatter on deltastation. This is on top of previous notes."
you are exclusively taking the part of "he jumped into the SM" as the SOLE REASON for why he was banned.
you yourself on the topic of the SM suicide have said

bandit wrote:If your "suicide" takes out other people you will be punished as if you killed them without the suicide. This has always been policy. Just as you can't bomb the main hallway because suicide, you can't fuck over the SM because suicide.

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

bgo isn't going to admit that they're wrong just because you presented valid evidence

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

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

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

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

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

bandit wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

retard

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

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

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

we need that tunnel to china jin

lame bait thread

Imagine taking the time to shit on someone for 150 posts

let it be, come on

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

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

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

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

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

teepeepee wrote:

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

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

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

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

PKPenguin321 wrote:

teepeepee wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

sorry we're not talking about manuel

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

teepeepee wrote:

PKPenguin321 wrote:

teepeepee wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It was a note that's being appealed.

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

teepeepee wrote:

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

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

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

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