/tg/Station 13

https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic ... ead#unread

Good luck.

Bring back ban requests

I think I have a decent record

If this dude apologizes that would be cool

You LOVE to see it

lol

bro i promise i didn't see the captain dragging the plant clown 3 tiles away from me i was looking at the doors that's why I was running PASSED the doors and only came back to clap at the captain before immediately leaving again bro blease

eh seth its only 7 days, you are a good sec dont let it phase you too much

This is quite a good defense and I sincerely hope his ban is made into a note or reduced significantly.

Some notable points of distinction from what is currently popular opinion:

Laughing wrote:I still announced on security which the captain could hear and respond to in order to let them if they wished to to verify their story (they didn't)"

This itself is enough to prove his primary goal wasn't to "steal the spare" for himself. Why would he announce on the security channel that he was taking the spare? Why wouldn't he just steal the spare and move along as if nothing had happened? Obviously because he was acting as a security officer in confiscating it, not a tider, and you report security actions on sec comms. The captain could hear sec comms, and he could hear Seth say this, so if he really thought the spare belonged to the clown, why wouldn't he send a simple ".s nah I gave it to the clown, it's theirs"? Probably because they thought to themselves, "hmm yeah security probably is just doing their job, no use getting in the way."

This loony argument that they walked past the clown and captain near each other in the bridge somehow meaning he should have known the clown was given the spare, is ridiculous. The log Naloac shared of the captain hosting some contest for the spare is also not enough, by itself, to prove to the sec officer that the clown has legitimate ownership of it. The only thing that would prove this is a statement from the captain himself.

Likewise, lying to the captain is not a crime, nor is confiscating the spare from a clown. The headmin opinion that the spare is not "valid for confiscation" seems insane to me, but even so, that is simply not the way sec has ever treated it. It is SoP to confiscate the spare from a non-head or non-command. At the end of the day the question is whether or not the officer knew it was given to the clown. And seeing them together in the bridge for a moment (if he even did see him) is far from proof of that.

Getting banned for 7/30 days for ahelping what, in the officer's view, looks like clear over-escalation, just seems excessive. And I definitely feel for them that the ban isn't even the most important thing, the important thing is that people are labeling them a "shitsec" and a redtider over this very publicized video. A round where traitors are handing out airlock cards, important doors and armory bolted open everywhere is a round where a clown with AA might be considered something you should probably do something about as sec.

If they truly didn't know the clown was given the spare legitimately, then the only thing they did "in bad faith" was lie to the captain about having it, which is not against spacelaw technically, but they apologized for it anyway and accepted this wasn't how they should have handled it. Indeed, lying to the captain removed the clown's sole non-violent venue of getting "his" ID back, and resulted in him having to use the e-lance. I think they are sorry for handling it like this and I really hope their case is heard charitably and not with prior bias from MooCow's appeal and the fervor it created.

EDIT: What makes this even worse is that if the ticket was ruled IC, this ban would have never happened. An admin making an honest mistake and not ruling it IC does not mean the ahelping player should be banned as a result.

the ahelper lied in his own ahelp cope

MSO wrote:yes, the clown didn't know, and normally their behavior could be bannable, but we can look at a situation and decide that the bad faith actions that created that situation override the bad ways it was handled by the victims in the situation.

Override it so much as to ban the person who was punished validly ICly for their misdeeds?


The round had some sort of "greytide" gimmick, there were traitors handing out contraband, and the captain was not helping by letting the spare out. The officer decided that's a pretty bad decision to make, and returning the spare to the cap would just be giving it back to the clown, and create an even worse security situation on the station. He should have given it back anyway, despite this, and was blown to bits for not doing so. And he apologized for not doing so. Is a 30-day sec ban and 7-day ban really necessary to drive that point home? It just bothers me that a situation which was resolved ICly ended up getting the victim (IC-victim) banned because an admin made an honest mistake afterwards.

sinfulbliss wrote: It is SoP to confiscate the spare from a non-head or non-command.

What I want to know, is that under your "its SoP" defense, under that world, how exactly IS the captain suppose to grant somebody access to the spare if who ever they give it to will just get it confiscated by security? Especially when said security officer won't even give it back to command for UP TO 20 MINUTES afterwards?

MrStonedOne wrote:

sinfulbliss wrote: It is SoP to confiscate the spare from a non-head or non-command.

What I want to know, is that under your "its SoP" defense, under that world, how exactly IS the captain suppose to grant somebody access to the spare if who ever they give it to will just get it confiscated by security? Especially when said security officer won't even give it back to command for UP TO 20 MINUTES afterwards?

By simply making an announcement, either via loud-speak radio or through the captain's desk, that the spare was given to them. And/or informing security via sec comms.

and was the announcement that they had already done saying that they were gonna give the spare to somebody who did a thing not enough for security to know that the SoP didn't apply because the captain intended to hand it out in a contest?

MrStonedOne wrote:and was the announcement that they had already done saying that they were gonna give the spare to somebody who did a thing not enough for security to know that the SoP didn't apply because the captain intended to hand it out in a contest?

Intended to hand it out to who is the question. The cap needs to say who has won it, or else sec doesn't know the random guy with the spare was the intended owner.
Once sec knows who the captain intended to give it to, they can even enforce that to help keep it in that person's possession.

Intended to hand it out to who is the question.

no its not, the moment security knew the captain planned to hand it out, they no longer had reason to assume it was stolen the moment they saw it in the hands of non-command.




how could security assume it was stolen (stolen being a crime, and crime relation being the only situation security is allowed to confiscate on station items) when they don't know who was suppose to have it?

Just waiting for Seth to cop a longer ban for lying in the ban appeal after lying in the ahelps

MrStonedOne wrote:how could security assume it was stolen (stolen being a crime, and crime relation being the only situation security is allowed to confiscate on station items) when they don't know who was suppose to have it?

By that logic a traitor could simply mug the clown, steal the spare, and sec can't do anything about it because "maybe that guy was the winner of the contest."
Failing an explicit name given by the cap, sec should just cuff them briefly until they can confirm it's the rightful owner. This is what Seth tried to do, although they should have been more proactive in trying to get ahold of the cap to confirm the story.

Laughing wrote:I arrested them and confiscated the ID as per standard procedure, listening to an excuse that the captain gave it to them [...] I announced on security which the captain could hear and respond to in order to let them if they wished to to verify their story (they didn't)

sinfulbliss wrote:

MrStonedOne wrote:how could security assume it was stolen (stolen being a crime, and crime relation being the only situation security is allowed to confiscate on station items) when they don't know who was suppose to have it?

By that logic a traitor could simply mug the clown, steal the spare, and sec can't do anything about it because "maybe that guy was the winner of the contest."
Failing an explicit name given by the cap, sec should just cuff them briefly until they can confirm it's the rightful owner. This is what Seth did.

Laughing wrote:I still announced on security which the captain could hear and respond to in order to let them if they wished to to verify their story (they didn't)

I don't think that was enough, if they didn't know who was authorized to have it, they shouldn't have assumed the clown was lying about the captain giving it to them. the captain in this situation (from the message seth said) could reasonably assume sec was taking it because the clown abused it, which would have been valid.

They should have asked the captain by name or rank, on comms or pda, if the clown was suppose to have it, and only then taken it once they had confirmation the clown was not suppose to have it.

The rules do not permit security to take items not related to a crime, and they can't claim they didn't know the clown wasn't suppose to have it if they also made no attempt to validate or contest the clowns stated reason for having it.

MrStonedOne wrote:

sinfulbliss wrote:

Laughing wrote:I still announced on security which the captain could hear and respond to in order to let them if they wished to to verify their story (they didn't)

I don't think that was enough, if they didn't know who was authorized to have it, they shouldn't have assumed the clown was lying about the captain giving it to them. the captain in this situation (from the message seth said) could reasonably assume sec was taking it because the clown abused it, which would have been valid.

Nothing he said implied the clown abused it. He simply said "clown has spare, taking it." The captain should have spoken up and said "I gave the spare to him."

MSO wrote: They should have asked the captain by name or rank, on comms or pda, if the clown was suppose to have it, and only then taken it once they had confirmation the clown was not suppose to have it.

The rules do not permit security to take items not related to a crime, and they can't claim they didn't know the clown wasn't suppose to have it if they also made no attempt to validate or contest the clowns stated reason.

I agree he could have been more proactive in confirming the clown's story given the knowledge a contest was held and it was quite plausible.

sinfulbliss wrote: Nothing he said implied the clown abused it. He simply said "clown has spare, taking it.

sinfulbliss wrote:The captain should have spoken up and said "I gave the spare to him."

>if the Captain takes a lax approach to leadership then security can do whatever the fuck they want

Seth's mindset is really the product of a security culture which places an officer's vision of a secure station before all else. In security, sometimes the only thing keeping a round from devolving into lawless chaos is a overzealous pursuit of domination and control. Obviously these aren't exactly friendly words and don't sound at home in a roleplaying game, but if you prioritize a station where security isn't a jumbled mess that has no idea what's going on, you just might find yourself in pursuit of them. In practice, this might take the appearance of an officer disregarding other aspects of the game (chain of command) in the hopes of keeping greater control of the station. By confiscating the spare (regardless of if you are aware the cap gave it or not), you remove an item which can cause mass chaos or harm from the round, and by putting it in your pocket, you can increase your response time and area coverage, therefore increasing your ability to respond to threats. With time I've come to realize this is a pretty unhealthy approach to the game (and mind you never completely agreed with it, just as I doubt Seth or anyone else does), but there was definitely a time where it was my outlook on security.

Ultimately I think the best attitude for security is realizing that you quite literally are a haphazard bandaid slapped over an unsolvable problem. Acting/thinking the way above definitely helps keep the station more secure and stable, but it also boxes the game into this binary of whether or not actions help towards that goal. It can end up denying and shutting down a lot of other factors at play, such as the wildcard role being given an item of great potential. Understand that everything you do contributes towards a story made of countless interlinking narratives, and it's better to promote interesting ones than deny them. And at the end of the round, you'll never truly "win", so you might as well not try to dominate the game.

At the end of the day I can definitely understand where Seth's motivations lay with this situation, and used to think/act that way as security in the past. There's definitely more players like him, so it's unfortunate for him that he was the one who was made an example of here, but in the end run probably a good thing. I'm interested to see if/how this will affect security culture and practices going forward. Hopefully it doesn't scare anyone off.

based soda take
it appears that he can still survive in this economy

wesoda25 wrote:There's definitely more players like him, so it's unfortunate for him that he was the one who was made an example of here, but in the end run probably a good thing. I'm interested to see if/how this will affect security culture and practices going forward. Hopefully it doesn't scare anyone off.

I mean, if he been like, "Yeah, I took the clown's gold ID even though the Captain gave it to him because I don't trust a clown with it, legit or not, and I just couldn't be fucked to tolerate whatever dangers might come from him having it, whether him doing a 'funny joke' later or because a tator robusts him for the gold" he wouldn't be here right now. He just, uh, lied in ahelps with the big "Why clown kill me I just don't get it" act. He wasn't really made an example of for sec behavior/attitude.

wesoda25 wrote:Seth's mindset is really the product of a security culture which places an officer's vision of a secure station before all else. In security, sometimes the only thing keeping a round from devolving into lawless chaos is a overzealous pursuit of domination and control. Obviously these aren't exactly friendly words and don't sound at home in a roleplaying game, but if you prioritize a station where security isn't a jumbled mess that has no idea what's going on, you just might find yourself in pursuit of them. In practice, this might take the appearance of an officer disregarding other aspects of the game (chain of command) in the hopes of keeping greater control of the station. By confiscating the spare (regardless of if you are aware the cap gave it or not), you remove an item which can cause mass chaos or harm from the round, and by putting it in your pocket, you can increase your response time and area coverage, therefore increasing your ability to respond to threats. With time I've come to realize this is a pretty unhealthy approach to the game (and mind you never completely agreed with it, just as I doubt Seth or anyone else does), but there was definitely a time where it was my outlook on security.

Ultimately I think the best attitude for security is realizing that you quite literally are a haphazard bandaid slapped over an unsolvable problem. Acting/thinking the way above definitely helps keep the station more secure and stable, but it also boxes the game into this binary of whether or not actions help towards that goal. It can end up denying and shutting down a lot of other factors at play, such as the wildcard role being given an item of great potential. Understand that everything you do contributes towards a story made of countless interlinking narratives, and it's better to promote interesting ones than deny them. And at the end of the round, you'll never truly "win", so you might as well not try to dominate the game.

At the end of the day I can definitely understand where Seth's motivations lay with this situation, and used to think/act that way as security in the past. There's definitely more players like him, so it's unfortunate for him that he was the one who was made an example of here, but in the end run probably a good thing. I'm interested to see if/how this will affect security culture and practices going forward. Hopefully it doesn't scare anyone off.

Very juicy post, wesoda.

You say sec are like a bandaid slapped over an unsolvable problem, and that sec will never truly "win" over the threats plaguing the station... That maintaining control of the station is a lost cause to begin with, and that doing so full throttle shuts down other facets of the game.

Here's the thing. Sec actually can succeed in maintaining control of the station. They can kill permabrig all the murderers and bad men, eliminate all the revs and cult and siphon all the evil out of the station, then ride in a peaceful shuttle back to Centcom with the good guys. Then they can relish in the redtext at the end and feel like they made a difference that round.

I really don't know how else you'd play it. Maybe for a couple dozen rounds you can play it with an open mind, but only because you're so lost in all the chaos that you don't have a hope of maintaining control over even your own baton much less the station. As a sec officer your job isn't to have all the threats under your grip necessarily, it's just to try and combat the bad ones by adding to their opposition (boots on the ground type of thing). But as HoS that's quite literally your job, to know about all the threats and stop them (preferably before the station is siphoned and everyone's beheaded in the hallways). To even have a hope of doing that you really need to have the attitude that your bandaid can stop the bleeding, or else you might as well just sit in your office watching cams and eating donuts, then take the gulag shuttle when the revs show up (unironically how HoS is played on Fulp + Bee MRP).

I'd like to know more about your thoughts on it though, I'm not sure I am judging your point accurately. What does the ideal sec officer look like to you?

sinfulbliss wrote:words

The big issue is you two are talking about two different kinds of "security".

The protect the station side of security vs Increasing/hardening the security of the station side of security.

One kills antags, and one takes the spare from somebody who is suppose to have it because they worry it could get into the wrong hands and lower the security of the station.

Somebody can (and often does) both kinds of security when playing the role, but the hardening side of security is where things can more easily become problematic or powergaming.

The length should take into account the delay of the ban as that isnt helpful for anyone to get smack with 24 hours on top of a month role ban day(s) after the actual incident happened. Its why ban requests are so shit, the actual issue isnt fixed because no one learns by response with a 24hr+ response delay (heck ban requests can easily take 3+ to weeks).

Also bringing up a note from Oct-2020 (im not even sure what note is being discussed here, I cant find anything related to it) which is nearly a year ago as justification for a month role ban (on top of notes that are last month, a month prior, and first of the year, not all of them really homerunning the history for me personally after reading them) seem a bit sussy. No wonder people worry about their old AF notes.

Do I think they were wrong? Yes. I also think they are (unfairly) getting the brunt of the frustration of the situation which really should be going to the admin. I DONT think they ahelped intentionally to be malicious (nor the admin responding) especially seeing the responses in the appeal, I just think the ahelp came from a misunderstanding regarding the protections sec has which he thought benefited him when it actually did not and this was compounded on the admin coming to the conclusion the ahelper was right.

The real result of this is that he eats the gameban and then during the 30 day roleban should he play, he learns that he can play assistant, actually be malicious ICly, do pretty much everything he was doing as security (you get to keep the items you steal too!), and not cop a ban or get nearly as many ahelps as actual security because "greys will be greys" or "they dont have access to nonlethals" or whatever. If you wanna talk about metaprotection, lets talk about what we let grey people get away with because they ARENT sec despite the department count fitting one hand constantly lol.

Cobby wrote:Also bringing up a note from Oct-2020 (im not even sure what note is being discussed here, I cant find anything related to it) which is nearly a year ago as justification for a month role ban (on top of notes that are last month, a month prior, and first of the year, not all of them really homerunning the history for me personally after reading them) seem a bit sussy. No wonder people worry about their old AF notes.

It wasn't a note, it was a message explaining that they do not have sec protections when stealing items from players as security and the players they stole from have cause to get it back with force. ie, the same situation that came up here.

Stone(d)-cold justice

To be honest a week ban + a month job is probably way too much for what mostly amounted to "You ahelped for dying when you were killed for being a gronk". As opposed to the actual act laughing is debating that he thinks is the issue.

MrStonedOne wrote:

sinfulbliss wrote:words

The big issue is you two are talking about two different kinds of "security".

The protect the station side of security vs Increasing/hardening the security of the station side of security.

One kills antags, and one takes the spare from somebody who is suppose to have it because they worry it could get into the wrong hands and lower the security of the station.

Somebody can (and often does) both kinds of security when playing the role, but the hardening side of security is where things can more easily become problematic or powergaming.

That’s a good distinction. The problem I have is with any suggestion sec should go out of their way to "un-powergame" themselves. In a job where 90% of what you do is patrol, arrest, confiscate, and kill antags, you end up gathering lots of items that are helpful in your hunt and survival. Whether that's an ID on the ground, a makarov, the hand tele, insuls, or a toolbelt, to suggest sec should waste time returning all these items to their departments, or to suggest they should just lock them away, rather than using them to become stronger forces for good, does not make sense to me.

Fulp actually is a good example because they will ban security for having any useful items that aren't "security" items under the guise of "powergaming." Whether that’s keeping traitor gear, a toolbelt, or even just holding onto an ID you found on the ground (I was banned for each of these actually), it's powergaming and bwoinked over. As a result sec dies constantly and is extraordinarily inefficient and passive, while the antags can do whatever they please almost unencumbered. It's the logical conclusion of tightening the leash around sec in that regard.

Agreed with Cobby's point, except I would add that allowing assistants to be little shitheads as they are is actually a good thing and it can add drama to a round that would otherwise be super dry. The catch is you can't tighten the leash around one without benefiting the other. If you prevent assistants from slipping sec/stealing their shoes, for instance, you indirectly create a tyrannical security force and hurt legitimate antags. Likewise if you force sec to ask cap for each execution and make them return all confiscated gear, you indirectly make it super easy for antags to slip under the cracks and take advantage of the inefficiency.

praying i never try to appeal an mso ban

Guy quite obviously lied and omitted info so he could live out his sec fantasy. Shocking how many can't see this. I hate people like this guy because they make sec look so fucking bad. At the point where he became aware he had done a bad and stolen the id did he make ANY effort to return it? Nope. Just kept it for some bullshit reason.

Get rekt

I really don`t like that other people are using my video against him, its edited (which I thought automatically made it unuse-able as evidence and expected it to get deleted.) and some of the jumps in time were pretty large.


Ya sure there is a few frames of him on screen when captain is dragging me into bridge, but he also saw me leaving the bridge with captain and the ID was still in my backpack and NOT my PDA (Until I got to a console to put my name on it and the job name to captain krunch)


I`m fine with the initial arrest/theft and hadnt`t argued against it, my only arguements were that he never gave it back after the fact and then when I found that captain asked him and he replied claiming he didnt know where it is it kind of became a smoking gun against the last thing shaps said to me before banning me.


That and him keeping it and not responding opened him up to escalation.

MooCow12 wrote:I really don`t like that other people are using my video against him, its edited (which I thought automatically made it unuse-able as evidence and expected it to get deleted.) and some of the jumps in time were pretty large.


Ya sure there is a few frames of him on screen when captain is dragging me into bridge, but he also saw me leaving the bridge with captain and the ID was still in my backpack and NOT my PDA (Until I got to a console to put my name on it and the job name to captain krunch)


I`m fine with the initial arrest/theft and hadnt`t argued against it, my only arguements were that he never gave it back after the fact and then when I found that captain asked him and he replied claiming he didnt know where it is it kind of became a smoking gun against the last thing shaps said to me before banning me.


That and him keeping it and not responding opened him up to escalation.

You know you can post in his appeal since you're part of the incident right?

Just did.

MSO wrote:regardless of this appeal, assuming that somebody who is not command with the spare could only have it because they stole it, can not be SoP anymore.

So if an assistant has the spare, sec isn't allowed to search him because he could have, potentially, been given it validly by the captain?

In my experience an assistant with a star next to their name is bad news, usually you don't even have time to search them and take the spare because they're gonna try murdering you with all the gamergear they have from their uplink and all access first. Imagine latejoining as sec and the cap was murdered by an assistant who stole his ID, and you can't search him because it's not SoP anymore. Like this guy. Ordinarily when someone is validly given the spare they get to keep the spare and sec fucks off, because they are informed of it or, failing that, cuff them until they can confirm. A latejoining seccie that arrests him anyway will be bitched at and humiliated by the rest of sec in brig for being a denthead. Moreover he should just ask on sec-comms if it was valid.

I always respect the hell out of admins that meticulously address all the relevant points and read the person's argument charitably, and MSO's response definitely fit that mold. 3 weeks is rough, and it's unfortunate that this all happened because the clown was wrongfully banned, but I hope Seth continues to play while they wait out their ban and maybe learn a job or two in the meantime.

tl;dr: Lesson at the end of the day is, don't fuck with the clown or you'll be blown to bits first IC and then OOC.

I don't think the seccie was so much in the wrong for jumping the clown and taking his ID, the wrongdoing starts when he conviently forgot to give the ""stolen property"" back to the guy who it belonged to and used it as his personal gamer gear for the next half hour, continues through to lying to the captain about not being the one who took it, and concludes with lying to the admin to get the clown banned for clowning on him.

Like if he'd just handed it back to the captain the captain would probbably have been like "haha i gave it to him but thanks" and nobody would have been angry ever again. we missed a chance for world peace here guys

Not-Dorsidarf wrote:I don't think the seccie was so much in the wrong for jumping the clown and taking his ID, the wrongdoing starts when he conviently forgot to give the ""stolen property"" back to the guy who it belonged to and used it as his personal gamer gear for the next half hour, continues through to lying to the captain about not being the one who took it, and concludes with lying to the admin to get the clown banned for clowning on him.

Like if he'd just handed it back to the captain the captain would probbably have been like "haha i gave it to him but thanks" and nobody would have been angry ever again. we missed a chance for world peace here guys

Thats kind of what I was giving him time for, I dont normally escalate this hard because usually I have easy access to nanites or something to force stun someone so I gave them the benefit of doubt and waited and complained and waited and complained, and got sick of it, made my weapons, talked to captain and got the info I wanted then went ahead and blew him up.



But then he acts like it was just instant death 20 minutes later without any significant reasoning involved, like if it takes you 20 minutes to deal with something that you confiscated for no real reason other than (just incase) it feels more and more like a robbery. And yes ill repeat its a greytide shift he was probably busy. But the item is of significant value and considering the bridge is at the core of the station and the airlocks were stuck open made it all the more easy for him to just stop by and talk to cap when moving from point A to point B.


And then I saw him talking to captain in the doorway of the bridge and leaving when I asked where my ID was which contributed to me finally doing it next time I catch up to him.

Tbh I'm a bit on the fence about Seth being retroactively banned. Should've been just a note explaining the situation for future reference.

The problem I have is with any suggestion sec should go out of their way to "un-powergame" themselves.

I suggest this, it’s a good idea.

For transparency though, my approach to security definitely makes me less efficient and effective. I just think it’s a better experience for both myself, those I interact with, and for the round in general.

sinfulbliss wrote: That’s a good distinction. The problem I have is with any suggestion sec should go out of their way to "un-powergame" themselves. In a job where 90% of what you do is patrol, arrest, confiscate, and kill antags, you end up gathering lots of items that are helpful in your hunt and survival. Whether that's an ID on the ground, a makarov, the hand tele, insuls, or a toolbelt, to suggest sec should waste time returning all these items to their departments, or to suggest they should just lock them away, rather than using them to become stronger forces for good, does not make sense to me.

If security being a "stronger force for good" was always a good thing, sec would have jannie powers.

sinfulbliss wrote:

MSO wrote:regardless of this appeal, assuming that somebody who is not command with the spare could only have it because they stole it, can not be SoP anymore.

-snip-

tl;dr: Lesson at the end of the day is, don't fuck with the clown or you'll be blown to bits first IC and then OOC.

Or maybe don't lie in ahelps is the lesson

Also god he's really saying he never hoards gamer gear when an emag literally exploded out of his hand when a lance hit him

Pandarsenic wrote:Also god he's really saying he never hoards gamer gear when an emag literally exploded out of his hand when a lance hit him

I'm sure he just forgot about having it like he forgot about the captains ID being directly in his backpack for 20 minutes right?

Pandarsenic wrote:

sinfulbliss wrote:

MSO wrote:regardless of this appeal, assuming that somebody who is not command with the spare could only have it because they stole it, can not be SoP anymore.

-snip-

tl;dr: Lesson at the end of the day is, don't fuck with the clown or you'll be blown to bits first IC and then OOC.

Or maybe don't lie in ahelps is the lesson

That's not nearly as funny though.
EDIT: Also hey wait a minute let's update the "peanut-knowledge" database for a second here. The alleged lie was him saying he "thought the clown stole the spare." They had good arguments that this was not, in fact, a lie. Even Moocow himself chimed in that the officer could not know the clown was rightfully given the spare via sechud because the spare was in his bag when he encountered the sec officer.

The ban isn't for lying in ahelps, it's for

MSO wrote:I still think you undersold your interaction with the clown and knowledge of why they killed you in the admin helps.

That's for the 3-day ban, to be sure. I think MSO wants to make the sec ban somewhat separate.

YOU CAN'T BAN ME I'M BANNING MYSELF
no please Seth come back no

Just read his "final word." Agreed with his points about sec operating as an "agent of the law" when confiscating contraband, and therefore not being considered thieves during the act of confiscation itself (or committing "assault" during the act of critting a bad hulk). In fact I'd encourage people to read his full response with an open mind because I don't think anything in it is disagreeable except the little jabs and tone here and there, but frankly I'd be surprised if anyone could conduct a ban appeal like this without expressing any emotion whatsoever. It's a damn shame they decided to quit rather than sit out the 3-week ban, although I understand it as 3 weeks off after actively gaming everyday is a long time to sit out, especially towards the end of the summer. Some players play the game for a certain job, so getting banned from that job is not much better than a full ban from the server for them.

I also agree that sec players can gather hate as a result of immature players bitching on dchat about them, simply because they lost their antag round. Although this place is 18+, not everyone is as graceful when they lose. Hell, even some of the extremely experienced and respected admins fuss and complain when they lose. It's okay to complain and be upset, but when that gets directed at a specific player, it can be harmful. Sec is usually the target of much of the salt, since if you encounter sec acting in a sec-capacity (i.e. you're getting arrested), your round will probably be worse because of it (you lose your weapons, serve brig time, etc.) And of course people aren't going to talk in dchat about how the seccie next to them killed the syndie assaulting them, they will talk about how they got a 5 minute timer for "just a little trolling."

As sec you could be acting in the best faith you can muster, doing your job your very best, and you will still probably catch shit from people angry they got caught for one reason or another. Then someone who you arrested for a gun confiscation will chime in agreeing you're shitsec because "he took muh gun >:(". Sec is a thankless job that people play because they get action, but it can be fun. I still remember this one round I left in a pod one other guy was in, and he said some nice things to me and mentioned that most sec mains end up leaving or burning out eventually. I still remember that conversation and it comes to mind now for some reason. Luckily this situation is rare and hardly ever happens, in fact it's the first I've encountered it, so that's good, but the fact it's rare probably doesn't mean much to Laughing right now.

You should join him in an act of protest