/tg/Station 13

Posted: **Mon Sep 13, 2021 3:56 pm**

https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=29907

itt: mothblocks cockblocks by dropping the docs, coquette connection blocked

Posted: **Mon Sep 13, 2021 4:35 pm**

Books should have been a veteod list years ago, we have persistent art but don't have a persistent pool of books that aren't tosh.

Posted: **Mon Sep 13, 2021 4:41 pm**

FantasticFwoosh wrote:Books should have been a veteod list years ago, we have persistent art but don't have a persistent pool of books that aren't tosh.

Did you mean vetted, vetoed or restricted area?

Posted: **Mon Sep 13, 2021 5:08 pm**

moonlighted onto the pyre.

Posted: **Mon Sep 13, 2021 5:20 pm**

At this point, just ban all adult book content. Their existence is a complete contradiction, rulewise.

Posted: **Mon Sep 13, 2021 5:25 pm**

Holy fuck, a permaban for that? That's super harsh especially with no prior history.
Also in the logs it seems they got the false impression that Hudson wrote the book, and then gave it to moths trying to flirt.

Spoiler:

Later I suppose they found out it wasn't him who wrote the book, but "leaning into it" was still enough for a perma? I think judging by his comments it's perfectly plausible that he never read it, and simply was trying to make a joke off of what Nar Nar told him about it. A bad joke, since it equates giving someone a book with rape in it to "flirting," but not nearly as creepy as knowingly giving the book with that in it.

It's quite likely he "doubled down" because of the awkward position he was in after learning what the book had in it. Trying to make light of it in a humorous way to save the situation. Didn't work of course, but if that's what it was then it's definitely not worthy of anywhere near a permaban.

Posted: **Mon Sep 13, 2021 5:34 pm**

sinfulbliss wrote:Holy fuck, a permaban for that? That's super harsh especially with no prior history.

he did have a prior history, something mentioned in the actual ban reason- which he conveniently edited out

Posted: **Mon Sep 13, 2021 5:35 pm**

Also it seems a bit improper for Mothblocks to comment in the appeal thread itself. Providing logs is one thing, but providing argumentation supporting the ban is another. An appeal should be between the banning admin and the appealer. Allowing not only descriptive but evaluative commentary from other admins encourages dogpiling and makes it that much more difficult for the appealer to merit a defense.

Posted: **Mon Sep 13, 2021 5:37 pm**

Sinful this is like
the second time that you've defended necrophilia or necrophilia-adjacent tastes

should I be concerned??

Posted: **Mon Sep 13, 2021 5:44 pm**

Omega_DarkPotato wrote:Sinful this is like
the second time that you've defended necrophilia or necrophilia-adjacent tastes

should I be concerned??

I didn't read the book and don't plan on it, did it have that in it?
But no, I think necrophilia is pretty disgusting.

The one thing that you can always guarantee, is the instant you criticize a ban, you will be accused of being the very thing you are defending, along with many PURPLE voices there to defend it... BUT THAT HAS NEVER STOPPED US HARD-LINED PEANUT POSTERS BEFORE, AND IT NEVER WILL. HOLD FIRM.

Posted: **Mon Sep 13, 2021 5:47 pm**

sinfulbliss wrote:Also it seems a bit improper for Mothblocks to comment in the appeal thread itself. Providing logs is one thing, but providing argumentation supporting the ban is another. An appeal should be between the banning admin and the appealer. Allowing not only descriptive but evaluative commentary from other admins encourages dogpiling and makes it that much more difficult for the appealer to merit a defense.

Sinful cmon my man. All Mothblocks posted is purely factual, no evaluative aspect to it whatshowever. What he pointed out is not only backed up by the logs within the same post, but also following peanut policy.

There's no dogpiling here.

Also, same question as Omega.

Posted: **Mon Sep 13, 2021 5:49 pm**

sinfulbliss wrote:
Omega_DarkPotato wrote:Sinful this is like
the second time that you've defended necrophilia or necrophilia-adjacent tastes

should I be concerned??
I didn't read the book and don't plan on it, did it have that in it?
But no, I think necrophilia is pretty disgusting.

The one thing that you can always guarantee, is the instant you criticize a ban, you will be accused of being the very thing you are defending, along with many PURPLE voices there to defend it... BUT THAT HAS NEVER STOPPED US HARD-LINED PEANUT POSTERS BEFORE, AND IT NEVER WILL. HOLD FIRM.

truly an example of forumposting that we must commemorate

Posted: **Mon Sep 13, 2021 6:01 pm**

Agux909 wrote:
sinfulbliss wrote:Also it seems a bit improper for Mothblocks to comment in the appeal thread itself. Providing logs is one thing, but providing argumentation supporting the ban is another. An appeal should be between the banning admin and the appealer. Allowing not only descriptive but evaluative commentary from other admins encourages dogpiling and makes it that much more difficult for the appealer to merit a defense.
Sinful cmon my man. All Mothblocks posted is purely factual, no evaluative aspect to it whatshowever. What he pointed out is not only backed up by the logs within the same post, but also following peanut policy.

I disagree. This is how the second comment starts:

Mothblocks wrote:That being said, there's inconsistencies in your story.

From this sentence on he becomes part of the prosecution. Not to mention that the logs are chosen specifically to assign blame to the defendant.

It is actually incredibly difficult to post "purely factual" logs because which logs you decide to highlight are determined by your motive for posting them, which obviously in this case is to show that the defendant is blameworthy and was doing something intentionally creepy. I agree peanut policy wasn't violated, but this type of thing stacks the odds against the appealer.

Timberpoes often posts in appeals threads that aren't his, but usually it is just to add context/information which is unbiased. E.g.,

Timberpoes wrote:Full ban reason:
Playing as a non-antag cyborg, opened a half-dozen N2O canisters in addition to five plasma canisters in both atmos and toxins, resulting in massive fires and the deaths of at least two other players. Disconnected after being contacted by an admin. Please appeal on our forums if you feel like playing here again.

This is a good example of what should be considered purely factual.

Posted: **Mon Sep 13, 2021 6:05 pm**

I’m done reading appeals and forming an opinion, honestly way too much work. From now on I’m just gonna believe in the opposite of whatever sinful says.

Posted: **Mon Sep 13, 2021 6:21 pm**

wesoda25 wrote:I’m done reading appeals and forming an opinion, honestly way too much work. From now on I’m just gonna believe in the opposite of whatever sinful says.

I understand perfectly, Wesoda. You want to be safe. You don't want to stir things up, mess with the status quo, ruffle any feathers... And you'll be safe, all right. But will you be right, Wesoda? Will you be right like the Nazis were right when they all blindly followed Hitler in his slaughter of the 6 billion, OR, or... Will you take a stand? For what you believe? Do you still believe?

Here is a passage to rekindle your youthful dissent:

"Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light."

Posted: **Mon Sep 13, 2021 6:33 pm**

Posted: **Mon Sep 13, 2021 6:37 pm**

wesoda25 wrote:What

it's just a prank bro

Posted: **Mon Sep 13, 2021 6:40 pm**

wesoda25 wrote:I’m done reading appeals and forming an opinion, honestly way too much work. From now on I’m just gonna believe in the opposite of whatever sinful says.

Posted: **Mon Sep 13, 2021 6:50 pm**

Farquaar wrote:At this point, just ban all adult book content. Their existence is a complete contradiction, rulewise.

In hindsight, books should receive a critical refactor.

1) Orderable skill books, make books worthwhile. If this was goonstation with a hidden development half to prevent web-diving git for the answers, books would offer closed URL peeks into specific recipies you can't search yourself.

2) By default, adult books and other books deemed a IC danger to society like contraband should be premium and have the ckey of who bought them, they should also be sealed in anti-pornographic wrappers.
a) Adult books apply fiscal restrictions and are mapped onto seperate private bookcases that are electronically locked, if your character is below 17 years old ingame you can't buy them even if you have the funds.

3) Book-bots could loan novels, in order to earn the writer royalties in purchase and give the curator income, books could also be written by bots and collecting the set of randomly dispersed books could create a collection bonus of cash.

Posted: **Mon Sep 13, 2021 6:50 pm**

sinful is one step ahead of gupta , he already has a fan club

Posted: **Mon Sep 13, 2021 7:00 pm**

sinfulbliss wrote:
wesoda25 wrote:I’m done reading appeals and forming an opinion, honestly way too much work. From now on I’m just gonna believe in the opposite of whatever sinful says.
I understand perfectly, Wesoda. You want to be safe. You don't want to stir things up, mess with the status quo, ruffle any feathers... And you'll be safe, all right. But will you be right, Wesoda? Will you be right like the Nazis were right when they all blindly followed Hitler in his slaughter of the 6 billion, OR, or... Will you take a stand? For what you believe? Do you still believe?

Here is a passage to rekindle your youthful dissent:

"Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light."

Posted: **Mon Sep 13, 2021 7:10 pm**

wesoda25 wrote:I’m done reading appeals and forming an opinion, honestly way too much work. From now on I’m just gonna believe in the opposite of whatever sinful says.

every appealer dreads the black mark that is support from sinfulbliss

Posted: **Mon Sep 13, 2021 7:11 pm**

about to make the mistake of taking a peanut seriously after I just said I didn't (don't tell the admins)
the problem here, sinful, is that rule 8's against both actual ERP and just plain old creepy shit

Giving someone a book containing rape and necrophilia, saying it's "supporting your freedom" (realize the implication about what you are therefore free to do) and then calling that "flirting" with someone after
is profoundly weird

I'm wavy on rule 8 being a perm off the bat, but considering that seal's chimed in that they do have a prior history that they decided to be a bad actor about (and hide) I don't think this is abnormal.

also mothblocks just called them out for being a liar with logs, how more impartial do you want other than "you said x, logs ic say y, therefore it's inconsistent"

edit: also because this is peanut posting sinful you said 6 billion instead of 6 million this spelling mistake/extremely minor error means i win you lose
stay owned :)

Posted: **Mon Sep 13, 2021 7:44 pm**

FantasticFwoosh wrote:
2) By default, adult books and other books deemed a IC danger to society like contraband should be premium and have the ckey of who bought them, they should also be sealed in anti-pornographic wrappers.
a) Adult books apply fiscal restrictions and are mapped onto seperate private bookcases that are electronically locked, if your character is below 17 years old ingame you can't buy them even if you have the funds.

Literally literally 1984

Posted: **Mon Sep 13, 2021 8:13 pm**

Rohen_Tahir wrote:Literally literally 1984

Just drink some old timer brew until you qualify, skill issue.

Posted: **Mon Sep 13, 2021 8:32 pm**

Omega_DarkPotato wrote: snip

also mothblocks just called them out for being a liar with logs, how more impartial do you want other than "you said x, logs ic say y, therefore it's inconsistent"

snip

Ok I was gonna say almost exactly this in response to Sinful's post but you beat me to it. Nuff said.

Posted: **Mon Sep 13, 2021 8:40 pm**

FantasticFwoosh wrote:
Rohen_Tahir wrote:Literally literally 1984
Just drink some old timer brew until you qualify, skill issue.

Clearly you didn't read 1984.

Posted: **Mon Sep 13, 2021 9:10 pm**

Omega_DarkPotato wrote:about to make the mistake of taking a peanut seriously after I just said I didn't (don't tell the admins)
Giving someone a book containing rape and necrophilia, saying it's "supporting your freedom" (realize the implication about what you are therefore free to do) and then calling that "flirting" with someone after
is profoundly weird

Yes, but the charge is that they knew its contents before sharing it, which makes it significantly more weird. If they did not know it had this in it prior to sharing it, and simply shared it because it was a "moth book," it would not be nearly as weird, and not worthy of a perma. My claim is that it's plausible they didn't know, and simply tried to play it off as a joke by saying they were "flirting" after being informed of the contents.

Omega_DarkPotato wrote:also mothblocks just called them out for being a liar with logs, how more impartial do you want other than "you said x, logs ic say y, therefore it's inconsistent"

Calling someone out for being a liar is not impartial, it doesn't matter if it's backed 100% by logs and logic, the fact that it is a 3rd party being added to the appeal against the appealer is unfair for the appealer. If you think 3rd party voices are okay so long as it's backed by logical reasoning, then surely we can all start posting on appeals and show inconsistencies in admin conduct, right?

Of course that wouldn't be tolerated, because the appeal is supposed to be between the appealer and the admin. If an admin is handling it wrong we shouldn't be allowed to jump on them in the appeals thread itself, even if we are supported 100% by the evidence, because that's the job of the headmins to do. Likewise justifying/modifying the ban is the job of the admin handling the appeal to do.

Omega_DarkPotato wrote:edit: also because this is peanut posting sinful you said 6 billion instead of 6 million this spelling mistake/extremely minor error means i win you lose
stay owned

I was going to put 6 gorillion at first to be tongue-in-cheek but then I realized that might come across as being insensitive, but 6 million was too serious so I settled at 6 billion. That's right. Try and find another hole, scrub.

Posted: **Mon Sep 13, 2021 9:23 pm**

sinfulbliss wrote:
Omega_DarkPotato wrote:also mothblocks just called them out for being a liar with logs, how more impartial do you want other than "you said x, logs ic say y, therefore it's inconsistent"
Calling someone out for being a liar is not impartial, it doesn't matter if it's backed 100% by logs and logic, the fact that it is a 3rd party being added to the appeal against the appealer is unfair for the appealer. If you think 3rd party voices are okay so long as it's backed by logical reasoning, then surely we can all start posting on appeals and show inconsistencies in admin conduct, right?

I wish I didn't have to use the ultimate card on you sinful
you're my buddy and all

but as per the FNR forum rules policy on peanut posting

THE PEANUT POLICY:

Adding to/adjusting the definitions so that players can post in a thread regarding something they weren't involved in, IF IT IS TO BRING UP/POINT TO/HIGHLIGHT a rule, precedent, or piece of evidence that was missed that is relevant to the situation.

This does NOT include:
"This happened to me once and I didn't get banned for it" or the reverse "This happened to me once and I got banned for it."
"My opinion is..." or "I feel like..."

This WOULD cover:
"Rule 3 says..."
"These admins have always allowed..."
"Actually in the logs it says..."

This would allow players who are invested in the rules, have the experience, and can conduct themselves well to advocate in threads. Reminder that this applies to uninvolved admins except Headmins.

Mothblocks is bringing up a piece of evidence missed (not mentioned) and is basically word-for-word going off that bottom example of what's covered. ("Actually, in the logs it says...")
so it doesn't matter if you think they're impartial or not, it's allowed

also,

just because you didn't make it doesn't change what you proceed to do next with it and even if you didn't know the contents of the book the way you reacted when confronted with it and used it as a way of flirting is pretty creepy.

It Doesn't Matter Anyway

because just because it's not world's creepiest possible method of acting it's still creepy

sinfulbliss wrote:That's right. Try and find another hole, scrub.

watch as I respond to this and get rule 8 banned

Posted: **Mon Sep 13, 2021 9:31 pm**

Omega_DarkPotato wrote:Mothblocks is bringing up a piece of evidence missed (not mentioned) and is basically word-for-word going off that bottom example of what's covered. ("Actually, in the logs it says...")
so it doesn't matter if you think they're impartial or not, it's allowed

SinfulBliss wrote:I agree peanut policy wasn't violated, but this type of thing stacks the odds against the appealer.

Omega_DarkPotato wrote:also,
just because you didn't make it doesn't change what you proceed to do next with it and even if you didn't know the contents of the book the way you reacted when confronted with it and used it as a way of flirting is pretty creepy.
It Doesn't Matter Anyway because just because it's not world's creepiest possible method of acting it's still creepy

Read: "it doesn't matter how creepy it was, any degree of creepy is a permaban"
A permaban should be saved for the cases where both the motive and the outcome is creepy. If they didn't know the book's contents, their motive would not have been creepy, and it would be excessive for a permaban. Believe it or not it matters for the appealing player whether they are banned for 3 months or for eternity...

Omega_DarkPotato wrote:watch as I respond to this and get rule 8 banned

A perfect opportunity passed up. Why? Because of bans like these, which instill the fear of God in players who intend nothing more than to get a few laughs from a joke in poor taste.

Posted: **Mon Sep 13, 2021 9:34 pm**

SinfulBliss wrote:I agree peanut policy wasn't violated, but this type of thing stacks the odds against the appealer.

you mean... the facts?

Posted: **Mon Sep 13, 2021 9:38 pm**

Armhulen wrote:
SinfulBliss wrote:I agree peanut policy wasn't violated, but this type of thing stacks the odds against the appealer.
you mean... the facts?

I mean the ability for 3rd parties to point out specific facts. 9/10 attempt trying to obfuscate the point though blue man...

Posted: **Mon Sep 13, 2021 9:40 pm**

so, the facts though.

Posted: **Mon Sep 13, 2021 9:40 pm**

sinfulbliss wrote: Calling someone out for being a liar is not impartial, it doesn't matter if it's backed 100% by logs and logic, the fact that it is a 3rd party being added to the appeal against the appealer is unfair for the appealer. If you think 3rd party voices are okay so long as it's backed by logical reasoning, then surely we can all start posting on appeals and show inconsistencies in admin conduct, right?

Yes sure we can, thing is forum jannies do whatever they want and nobody bats an eye if they decide to delete your post even if it contained useful information and constructive reflection (which has happened), so why even bother at this point?

Posted: **Mon Sep 13, 2021 9:41 pm**

Agux909 wrote:
sinfulbliss wrote: Calling someone out for being a liar is not impartial, it doesn't matter if it's backed 100% by logs and logic, the fact that it is a 3rd party being added to the appeal against the appealer is unfair for the appealer. If you think 3rd party voices are okay so long as it's backed by logical reasoning, then surely we can all start posting on appeals and show inconsistencies in admin conduct, right?
Yes sure we can, thing is forum jannies do whatever they want and nobody bats an eye if they decide to delete your post even if it contained useful information and constructive reflection (which has happened), so why even bother at this point?

It's really funny hearing sinful 100% describe our rules for posting in ban appeals. If you have relevant information you can post it just fine

also hey we're not that bad about ban appeals, last cleanup i did was all the ATHATH posturing in the thread about discord conduct in admin channels

Posted: **Mon Sep 13, 2021 9:48 pm**

Armhulen wrote: It's really funny hearing sinful 100% describe our rules for posting in ban appeals. If you have relevant information you can post it just fine

Who decides what's relevant? The forum admins which are all also part of the admin team. Now, even supposing there is no incentive to side with a fellow admin's decision (which there is), it would surely cause an uproar to delete one of their posts in an appeals thread. Or if not an uproar you'd at least be hearing about it in the INTERNAL DISCUSSIONS tower.

At the end of the day whatever is the acceptable opinion to have will be kept up, and the dissenting opinion, even if it also uses facts and logic, will be removed for peanut. That's why there's never a dissenting opinion ever posted on the appeals threads, it's always in peanut. The only dissenting opinions that hold water are the headmins, because it's their job to express it if needed.

Posted: **Mon Sep 13, 2021 9:53 pm**

If you make a complaint against someone who deletes your post it goes to the site admins + MSO, or just MSO if it's against a site admin.

Interesting to note that the separation between forum and administration is also true in that people gain ranks regardless of their ranks in a different branch much like coderbus adminbus separation, it's just that you don't see it as much since forum mod is a very small group with few rank changes

Posted: **Mon Sep 13, 2021 9:56 pm**

Armhulen wrote:
SinfulBliss wrote:I agree peanut policy wasn't violated, but this type of thing stacks the odds against the appealer.
you mean... the facts?

come on man you can prove just about any crazy thing with facts

Posted: **Mon Sep 13, 2021 9:57 pm**

sinfulbliss wrote:
Armhulen wrote: It's really funny hearing sinful 100% describe our rules for posting in ban appeals. If you have relevant information you can post it just fine
Who decides what's relevant? The forum admins which are all also part of the admin team. Now, even supposing there is no incentive to side with a fellow admin's decision (which there is), it would surely cause an uproar to delete one of their posts in an appeals thread. Or if not an uproar you'd at least be hearing about it in the INTERNAL DISCUSSIONS tower.

At the end of the day whatever is the acceptable opinion to have will be kept up, and the dissenting opinion, even if it also uses facts and logic, will be removed for peanut. That's why there's never a dissenting opinion ever posted on the appeals threads, it's always in peanut. The only dissenting opinions that hold water are the headmins, because it's their job to express it if needed.

Ye, this also applies when admins are the ones chosen to enforce the rules with their own discretion. That's why they're the admins and not you, not me. You either cope... or cope.

Posted: **Mon Sep 13, 2021 9:58 pm**

Armhulen wrote:If you make a complaint against someone who deletes your post it goes to the site admins + MSO, or just MSO if it's against a site admin.

Interesting to note that the separation between forum and administration is also true in that people gain ranks regardless of their ranks in a different branch much like coderbus adminbus separation, it's just that you don't see it as much since forum mod is a very small group with few rank changes

In that case I hereby submit my application for your position so that I may from an unbiased 3rd party perspective enforce global peanut posting freedom.

IF YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO BWOINK, YOU ARE NOT PART OF THE RESISTANCE “ARMHULEN,” I DON’T CARE HOW VIBRANT THE BLUE IS I CAN SEE THE PURPLE BLEEDING OUT OF IT.

Posted: **Mon Sep 13, 2021 10:02 pm**

Agux909 wrote:You either cope... or cope.

I disagree, you can also seethe.

Also intentionally double-posting to dare Armhulen to violate my rights.

Posted: **Mon Sep 13, 2021 10:03 pm**

sinfulbliss wrote:
Agux909 wrote:You either cope... or cope.
I disagree, you can also seethe.

Also intentionally double-posting to dare Armhulen to violate my rights.

Neither of us are wrong, for seething is a way of coping.

Posted: **Mon Sep 13, 2021 11:05 pm**

sinfulbliss wrote: Calling someone out for being a liar is not impartial, it doesn't matter if it's backed 100% by logs and logic

Posted: **Mon Sep 13, 2021 11:08 pm**

It is actually incredibly difficult to post "purely factual" logs because which logs you decide to highlight are determined by your motive for posting them

it is actually relatively easy to post purely factual logs by visiting the logs website and pressing Ctrl+C (copy) and Ctrl+V (paste)

Posted: **Mon Sep 13, 2021 11:08 pm**

how can someone be consistently wrong every time, even a broken clock gets it right sometimes you doofus

Posted: **Mon Sep 13, 2021 11:41 pm**

Maybe if someone is factually, demonstrably being an incredible fucking creepy weirdo, and the logs prove it, they should be banned

Just

Saying

Also lying in a ban appeal is a bannable offense itself, last I checked, which clearly ought to include editing your ban reason or telling blatant untruths about the ban's course of events.

Posted: **Mon Sep 13, 2021 11:55 pm**

Pandarsenic wrote: Also lying in a ban appeal is a bannable offense itself, last I checked, which clearly ought to include editing your ban reason or telling blatant untruths about the ban's course of events.

to be fair, it was less them editing something out and more them writing their ban reason in their own words. i dont think that should be considered, it caused confusion but in hindsight it was probably an honest mistake by someone who didnt follow our ban appeal template

Posted: **Tue Sep 14, 2021 12:19 am**

Man, always these snitches...

With distrustful regards
-BONERMASTER

Posted: **Tue Sep 14, 2021 12:54 am**

BONERMASTER wrote:Man, always these snitches...

Posted: **Tue Sep 14, 2021 2:16 am**

this is what happens when you don't disassemble the library to make baseball bats and bucklers round start

/tg/Station 13

banned books peanut

banned books peanut

Re: banned books peanut

Re: banned books peanut

Re: banned books peanut

Re: banned books peanut

Re: banned books peanut

Re: banned books peanut

Re: banned books peanut

Re: banned books peanut

Re: banned books peanut

Re: banned books peanut

Re: banned books peanut

Re: banned books peanut

Re: banned books peanut

Re: banned books peanut

Re: banned books peanut

Re: banned books peanut

Re: banned books peanut

Re: banned books peanut

Re: banned books peanut

Re: banned books peanut

Re: banned books peanut

Re: banned books peanut

Re: banned books peanut

Re: banned books peanut

Re: banned books peanut

Re: banned books peanut

Re: banned books peanut

Re: banned books peanut

Re: banned books peanut

Re: banned books peanut

Re: banned books peanut

Re: banned books peanut

Re: banned books peanut

Re: banned books peanut

Re: banned books peanut

Re: banned books peanut

Re: banned books peanut

Re: banned books peanut

Re: banned books peanut

Re: banned books peanut

Re: banned books peanut

Re: banned books peanut

Re: banned books peanut

Re: banned books peanut

Re: banned books peanut

Re: banned books peanut

Re: banned books peanut

Re: banned books peanut

Re: banned books peanut