ERT Nut. ee arr teanut. ERPeanut?

[Pandarsenic]

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=30703

BYOND account: timonk
Character name: some random emergency squad name
Ban type: Deathsquad, Sentience Potion Spawn
Ban length: 20160 minutes (2 weeks)
Ban reason: Spawned in as an ERT and decided to immediately just start shoving and tabling the commander. Was gibbed. Rather not waste time or the spawn on someone who wont take it seriously.
Time ban was placed: 2022-01-12 23:41:52
Server you were playing on when banned: Terry

[Shadowflame909]

i warned you about MRP/HRP bro

less freedom

[Timberpoes]

This is your bi-annual reminder that LRP is not NRP. And Terry is LRP and not NRP. And if you do an NRP/FNR funni to an admin trying to do a bit of RP, you are at their discretion.

And sometimes that discretion doesn't fall in your favour.

[Shadowflame909]

This is your bi-annual reminder that LRP is not NRP. And Terry is LRP and not NRP. And if you do an NRP/FNR funni to an admin trying to do a bit of RP, you are at their discretion.

And sometimes that discretion doesn't fall in your favour.

This is the future maintainers want

[bbvideo]https://www.youtube.com/embed/x3-4ue8Kv-w[/bbvideo]

[Pandarsenic]

This is your bi-annual reminder that LRP is not NRP. And Terry is LRP and not NRP. And if you do an NRP/FNR funni to an admin trying to do a bit of RP, you are at their discretion.

And sometimes that discretion doesn't fall in your favour.

I'm just saying

"Roll for ERT spawn, actually get it, and immediately start being a shithead to the admin who spawned it" is the most Terry thing I can imagine that doesn't involve slurs

[Itseasytosee2me]

It was cool of him to make other posts on the forum while he's here, business and pleasure.

[Kendrickorium]

This is your bi-annual reminder that LRP is not NRP. And Terry is LRP and not NRP. And if you do an NRP/FNR funni to an admin trying to do a bit of RP, you are at their discretion.

And sometimes that discretion doesn't fall in your favour.

instead of RPing back the admin gibbed him and banned him from ghost roles

rules for thee, etc

[iain0]

instead of RPing back the admin gibbed him and banned him from ghost roles

rules for thee, etc

They RPed? Ahahahaha, not even a word left their lips.

Edit: Also stunlocked and taking damage.

Edit edit: Also not that unreasonable that NT would have some kinda loyalty implant that activates like that NT lie between godlike and gloriously incompetent. I did casually RP about events and about needing a janitor later on. Sure gave more than I got.

[Omega_DarkPotato]

Join as admin spawned creation
Immediately fuck with admin
get banned from being able to join as admin spawned creation for purposefully fucking with the admin who spawned you
pikawow

[Qbmax32]

>looks for reaction
>gets reaction
>not like that!!

owned

[GamerAndYeahMick]

Dumb appeal

[Vekter]

LRP is not no RP.

Terry

There's your problem.

I'm not entirely sure a two week ban from ghost roles was warranted, but the rest of the interaction was fine. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Act like an idiot, expect to be treated like one.

[iain0]

It's just deathsquad / sentience roles, not all ghost roles. Limited numbers of those generally combined with a generally low chance of winning the slot makes for very low overall effect on the player's options. IMO.

[Pandarsenic]

He used his ERT role to just shovespam the person who spawned him so

No big loss there, either

[Kendrickorium]

im pretty sure watching the reactions between the commander and the guy tabling him, plus the surrounding ert would have been a lot more enjoyable to watch or experience rather than him exploding into gibs but hey its not like this is an 8bit pixel game for other peoples amusement or anything

i think the guy was just mad he got tabled

[Rohen_Tahir]

Timonk

[Sylphet]

Yeah taking an ERT role and immediately fucking around with it is pretty cringe and the gibbing was fine, I'd do it myself.

...ERT banning over a shove, for two weeks -- when you're the shoved person ? Thaaaaaat's misconduct. If it's so bad, get another jannie to pull the trigger.

[EOBGames]

Yeah taking an ERT role and immediately fucking around with it is pretty cringe and the gibbing was fine, I'd do it myself.

...ERT banning over a shove, for two weeks -- when you're the shoved person ? Thaaaaaat's misconduct. If it's so bad, get another jannie to pull the trigger.

That's not misconduct, though. The rule you're talking about is for admins who are playing in a round (i.e. acting as a player, not an admin)- it's getting a bit disingenuous to stretch that to an admin who has spawned in for the sake of directing an ERT team at Centcom (and who is taking administrative action directly against said ERT team), in which they're still directly acting as an admin and not as a player.

[Sylphet]

Yeah taking an ERT role and immediately fucking around with it is pretty cringe and the gibbing was fine, I'd do it myself.

...ERT banning over a shove, for two weeks -- when you're the shoved person ? Thaaaaaat's misconduct. If it's so bad, get another jannie to pull the trigger.

That's not misconduct, though. The rule you're talking about is for admins who are playing in a round (i.e. acting as a player, not an admin)- it's getting a bit disingenuous to stretch that to an admin who has spawned in for the sake of directing an ERT team at Centcom, in which they're still directly acting as an admin and not as a player.

It's as simple as being the injured party, and then using your admin powers in return for something done to you. The shove could have coloured the admin's judgement, this is why we have the rule. It breaks the spirit of the rule, if not the direct text. We can't be impartial when someone does a bad thing to us, no matter how much we want to think that we can. Would they have ruled the same if they watched the player do this to another admin ? Their ticket conduct in the posted logs reads to me like they're upset over the entire thing. It's a hostile tone, and that these questions can be raised at all is because they chose not to pass the ticket to someone else. If they couldn't have found another jannie to deal with it, then it should have been let go. It's honestly fine to be upset by something and to lose your head, we're human - as long as you can recognise when this is happening and take the right steps to avoid bias. It looks like that didn't happen here, and that's what makes this possible misconduct.

[thebleh]

Flatulent cannot post in here so they've kindly asked me to post the following:

the ban is entirely justified according to this passage:

“Like behaviour (of the) people (of) Firaun and those from before them. They denied Our signs, so they were seized by Allah for their sins. And Allah (is) severe (in) [the] punishment.” (Surah Al-Imran 3:11)

I have recently visited my local mosque and asked the theologian what he thinks of the ban, and his answer is clear. The Imam Mohammad Ibragimov is clear in his judgement and endorses this ban. Emir iain0 (ليحكم إلى الأبد) is just and sees the truth. So far everything I’ve seen from him confirms that this pious man does everything in accordance with Quran and teachings of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

Timonk is a known infidel and a repeated violator of sharia law on Terry. His prayer attendance is terrible, and he never showed up on Fridays for mandatory mass prayers for unbanning of Sherrid-Al-ERPi and Charlott-Al-Melindi. A known apostate, Poly P. Rotector has been continously banbaiting young impressionable muslim men and turning them into sinners by making them participate in very graphic gay sex. His feline nature does not inherently make his nature haram, but his love for dogs and parrot-dogs is clear and this is NOT acceptable.

Timonk is NOT worthy of being the part of Islamic ERT who are meant to wage jihad on the station. ERT are supposed to be enforcing sharia norms such as mandatory hijab for females and catumcision (removal of tails) for all spacemen. His belief that he is worthy of being part of this pious squad of individuals (they aren’t called the Emir Reinforcer Terminators for no reason) is blasphemous. Timonk must be given one last chance to embrace islamic norms or be permabanned.

[WineAllWine]

Good ban

[kieth4]

back in my day the admin would take out their unica and light you up...

[Sylphet]

back in my day the admin would take out their unica and light you up...

That would be the fun and normal thing to do.

[Pandarsenic]

Yeah taking an ERT role and immediately fucking around with it is pretty cringe and the gibbing was fine, I'd do it myself.

...ERT banning over a shove, for two weeks -- when you're the shoved person ? Thaaaaaat's misconduct. If it's so bad, get another jannie to pull the trigger.

That's not misconduct, though. The rule you're talking about is for admins who are playing in a round (i.e. acting as a player, not an admin)- it's getting a bit disingenuous to stretch that to an admin who has spawned in for the sake of directing an ERT team at Centcom, in which they're still directly acting as an admin and not as a player.

It's as simple as being the injured party, and then using your admin powers in return for something done to you. The shove could have coloured the admin's judgement, this is why we have the rule. It breaks the spirit of the rule, if not the direct text. We can't be impartial when someone does a bad thing to us, no matter how much we want to think that we can. Would they have ruled the same if they watched the player do this to another admin ? Their ticket conduct in the posted logs reads to me like they're upset over the entire thing. It's a hostile tone, and that these questions can be raised at all is because they chose not to pass the ticket to someone else. If they couldn't have found another jannie to deal with it, then it should have been let go. It's honestly fine to be upset by something and to lose your head, we're human - as long as you can recognise when this is happening and take the right steps to avoid bias. It looks like that didn't happen here, and that's what makes this possible misconduct.

If you press a Ghost Fun RP button (like ERT) to get people who will be ERTs
and someone proceeds to take it and shit up the ERTing for everyone else by being NRP obnoxious so that you can't even give the ERT their assignment
you're well within your goodmin rights to send that player off until/unless they demonstrate that they're not going to shit up the button press for their own self + the admin running it + everyone else who opted in.

It actually costs them nothing to just Not Shit It Up For Everyone, and it costs the same to just not press the Be ERT button if they don't intend to actually Be ERT!

I don't really see it as any different from shutting down someone who intentionally sabotaged any other sort of event or event-adjacent thing.

I don't expect that rule to apply to the case of DMPCs, which the "commander" here presumably is. "Player" does not mean "has a mob being controlled".

Like I said in more detail in the peanut - it absolutely applies for the spirit of the rule, if not the text. This was a stressful shift where tensions were high, a player did something to irritate the admin, and they were banned for it, by that same admin. Two weeks for an unprovoked shove is harsh. Would the ban still have been two weeks if an uninvolved admin ruled on it, rather than the one trying to keep a hellshift under control who had something really obnoxious happen to them ? This is why we have that rule, to stop these exact questions needing to be raised.

The spirit of the rule is that they don't involve themselves as admins when they are players (e.g. deciding whether escalation against their own character was valid)

ERT Commander is, by definition, not a player role; it is part of initializing and contextualizing an event/button press. There is no "winning" or "losing" in even the broadest imaginable terms as an ERT commander.

If another admin had ruled on it, it probably would've (and perhaps should've) been longer, because 2 weeks of "No ERT or Sentience Potion" probably does nothing, tbh

[Sylphet]

If you press a Ghost Fun RP button (like ERT) to get people who will be ERTs
and someone proceeds to take it and shit up the ERTing for everyone else by being NRP obnoxious so that you can't even give the ERT their assignment
you're well within your goodmin rights to send that player off until/unless they demonstrate that they're not going to shit up the button press for their own self + the admin running it + everyone else who opted in.

It actually costs them nothing to just Not Shit It Up For Everyone, and it costs the same to just not press the Be ERT button if they don't intend to actually Be ERT!

I don't really see it as any different from shutting down someone who intentionally sabotaged any other sort of event or event-adjacent thing.

Timonk played a stupid game and won a stupid prize by getting gibbed. The only difference here is that if someone fucked up my event, I know that I'd be annoyed. And I'd feel obligated as a jannie to have someone else deal with it because of that. I know that I couldn't be impartial, but that wasn't done here. It's the fact that the long term consequences are coming from the same person managing the event, who has some emotional involvement in it that bothers me about this.

[iain0]

"Long term consequences"

Genuinely curious, partly because my own "assumptions" about frequencies are part of what determines the length of the ban, I genuinely feel this ban has little to no actual effect.


How often do people normally *WIN* a sentience spawn / ERT spawn role? (ignoring the 60 second EORG opportunities)

[Sylphet]

"Long term consequences"

Genuinely curious, partly because my own "assumptions" about frequencies are part of what determines the length of the ban, I genuinely feel this ban has little to no actual effect.


How often do people normally *WIN* a sentience spawn / ERT spawn role? (ignoring the 60 second EORG opportunities)

They don't - it's completely irrelevant if they win or lose, and yeah, the ban has pretty much no impact. The issue is the principle of it much more than it being super unfair jannie bullying me or actual admin abuse - I don't like to see something like this normalised.

[iain0]

Good. The ban is mostly "food for thought" and probably has more impact in terms of remembering it when everyone else is talking about the spawn poll than anything the player actually gets to do. Be nice if they miss one IMO, thats kinda where I was aiming.

[Timberpoes]

If an admin is trying to organise an event and spawns in to DM a briefing with some roleplay as a precursor to said event, then someone fucks around because the dent in their skull is so expansive that it has long since replaced the Grand Canyon as one of the Seven Wonders of the World, visible enough from space that digg karma bots regularly repost pictures of it taken from the ISS...

Well, let's just say that sometimes it won't work out the way they imagined it would with their mastermind-level intellect.

The ban length is long, but the actual ban impact is incredibly limited in scope with only two fairly narrowly defined ghost roles selected.

[Timonk]

Yeah taking an ERT role and immediately fucking around with it is pretty cringe and the gibbing was fine, I'd do it myself.

...ERT banning over a shove, for two weeks -- when you're the shoved person ? Thaaaaaat's misconduct. If it's so bad, get another jannie to pull the trigger.

That's not misconduct, though. The rule you're talking about is for admins who are playing in a round (i.e. acting as a player, not an admin)- it's getting a bit disingenuous to stretch that to an admin who has spawned in for the sake of directing an ERT team at Centcom, in which they're still directly acting as an admin and not as a player.

It's as simple as being the injured party, and then using your admin powers in return for something done to you. The shove could have coloured the admin's judgement, this is why we have the rule. It breaks the spirit of the rule, if not the direct text. We can't be impartial when someone does a bad thing to us, no matter how much we want to think that we can. Would they have ruled the same if they watched the player do this to another admin ? Their ticket conduct in the posted logs reads to me like they're upset over the entire thing. It's a hostile tone, and that these questions can be raised at all is because they chose not to pass the ticket to someone else. If they couldn't have found another jannie to deal with it, then it should have been let go. It's honestly fine to be upset by something and to lose your head, we're human - as long as you can recognise when this is happening and take the right steps to avoid bias. It looks like that didn't happen here, and that's what makes this possible misconduct.

If you press a Ghost Fun RP button (like ERT) to get people who will be ERTs
and someone proceeds to take it and shit up the ERTing for everyone else by being NRP obnoxious so that you can't even give the ERT their assignment
you're well within your goodmin rights to send that player off until/unless they demonstrate that they're not going to shit up the button press for their own self + the admin running it + everyone else who opted in.

It actually costs them nothing to just Not Shit It Up For Everyone, and it costs the same to just not press the Be ERT button if they don't intend to actually Be ERT!

I don't really see it as any different from shutting down someone who intentionally sabotaged any other sort of event or event-adjacent thing.

I don't expect that rule to apply to the case of DMPCs, which the "commander" here presumably is. "Player" does not mean "has a mob being controlled".

Like I said in more detail in the peanut - it absolutely applies for the spirit of the rule, if not the text. This was a stressful shift where tensions were high, a player did something to irritate the admin, and they were banned for it, by that same admin. Two weeks for an unprovoked shove is harsh. Would the ban still have been two weeks if an uninvolved admin ruled on it, rather than the one trying to keep a hellshift under control who had something really obnoxious happen to them ? This is why we have that rule, to stop these exact questions needing to be raised.

The spirit of the rule is that they don't involve themselves as admins when they are players (e.g. deciding whether escalation against their own character was valid)

ERT Commander is, by definition, not a player role; it is part of initializing and contextualizing an event/button press. There is no "winning" or "losing" in even the broadest imaginable terms as an ERT commander.

If another admin had ruled on it, it probably would've (and perhaps should've) been longer, because 2 weeks of "No ERT or Sentience Potion" probably does nothing, tbh

it is confirmed, shoving and tabling is NRP

[Timonk]

instead of RPing back the admin gibbed him and banned him from ghost roles

rules for thee, etc

They RPed? Ahahahaha, not even a word left their lips.

Edit: Also stunlocked and taking damage.

Edit edit: Also not that unreasonable that NT would have some kinda loyalty implant that activates like that NT lie between godlike and gloriously incompetent. I did casually RP about events and about needing a janitor later on. Sure gave more than I got.

stunlocked? you arent even completely stunned if you get tabled, you just take a bit of stamina damage

[sinfulbliss]

Yeah, if the admin is the player being wronged in the ban, then they probably shouldn't handle it. Seems disingenuous to fiddle around with this "player =! mob being controlled" argument. Admin controlling mob + mob being involved in the transgression = different admin should handle.

Cringe anyway to shove ERT commander as a trooper, gibbing was justified and I could even see a ghostrole ban being justified (although 2 weeks is sort of insane). Otherwise everyone could just take ERT and bully the commander then get gibbed for fun.

[GamerAndYeahMick]

laughable to say its admin misconduct really, the point was they can't be trusted with admin event spawns so they got banned from it, it's a far different story than getting permabanned for killing an admin in maint

[sinfulbliss]

Fact is the admin was the commander. The player got banned for their behavior towards the commander. The admin playing the commander handled the ahelp. Ban should be thrown out for that alone.

[Timonk]

with no note history since july might i add

[WineAllWine]

laughable to say its admin misconduct really, the point was they can't be trusted with admin event spawns so they got banned from it, it's a far different story than getting permabanned for killing an admin in maint

This, your behaviour to an admin, when they're in the capacity of an admin can totally change outcomes. People get banned or noted for acting evasively in ahelps all the time. Clearly the centcom commander is DMing so they are in an admin capacity, not a player one.

I'm grateful to Iain that any ERT teams I make in the next two weeks will be of a higher quality`1

[Sylphet]

laughable to say its admin misconduct really, the point was they can't be trusted with admin event spawns so they got banned from it, it's a far different story than getting permabanned for killing an admin in maint

This, your behaviour to an admin, when they're in the capacity of an admin can totally change outcomes. People get banned or noted for acting evasively in ahelps all the time. Clearly the centcom commander is DMing so they are in an admin capacity, not a player one.

I'm grateful to Iain that any ERT teams I make in the next two weeks will be of a higher quality`1

Breaking news : New research shows that being adminned in a 2d clown vore game makes you unable to be annoyed by someone taking your event spawn and using it to shove you into a table. Behavioural scientists puzzled and shocked. More at eleven !

[GamerAndYeahMick]

Getting annoyed at someones bad behavior in a ghost role that you gave to them because SHOCKER they are being annoying, who said you can't get annoyed, it's just not wrong or badminnery to stop them from taking further admin event roles, brainworms on your end

[GamerAndYeahMick]

Also the spirit of that rule is to stop playing admins from re-adminning and banning your ass because they are PERSONALLY involved in the ongoings of the round, whenever they are already acting in an admin capacity - A DM role for an Epic Runescape Troll event doesn't really count as that

[Itseasytosee2me]

He fucked around and found out

[Sylphet]

Getting annoyed at someones bad behavior in a ghost role that you gave to them because SHOCKER they are being annoying, who said you can't get annoyed, it's just not wrong or badminnery to stop them from taking further admin event roles, brainworms on your end

I invite some people to a tee gee station thirteen dinner party. It's not going well. The cops showed up and are beating the hired entertainment. They're dead, occasional thumps and soft honks from their suit reminding me that I'm not getting back my security deposit on this place. It's a really bad time, no one's really okay, but I'm trying to hold it together by bringing out dessert for the guests. As soon as I set the desserts on the table, someone throws an entire banana cream pie in my face. It's really sticky and takes forever to clean up. There's whipped cream in my hair. My efforts to make things better were spit on ! I'm kinda pissed off at this point, naturally. I think that I should literally stab the offending guest with a fork for it. The other guests agree that they're a real asshole, but think I should just not invite them in future. I am clearly unbiased here, because I am the one who invited them to the dinner party. I could ask one of the... let's say around 50 a̶d̶m̶i̶n̶s̶ ̶o̶n̶ ̶d̶i̶s̶c̶o̶r̶d̶ ̶a̶t̶ ̶a̶ ̶g̶i̶v̶e̶n̶ ̶t̶i̶m̶e̶ other party guests what they think should be done, but that would be really hard, I'd have to find someone to ask... and besides - we don't need to since I am literally incapable of being biased ever. Never ever. Promise. The guest is stabbed in the face. There is no question that this is a fair escalation.


Shitposting aside - it's shocking how admins should not handle things involving themselves in any capacity is such a controversial take. It doesn't matter if the banning admin was really super pissed off or not. Allowing a ban like this to stand when the injured party is the one responsible for the punishment is a terrible image. The possibility of bias can't be ruled out. This is why we have this rule. This is why it applies here. No one was happy with this situation. No one is saying to drag them over to admin complaints and get them super deadminned forever because they ban me 4no raisin. This was inherently mishandled because an impartial party must always decide what the punishment is if there is one.

[GamerAndYeahMick]

You don't need another admin to step in to handle this, you're acting in an admin capacity and someone is unable to not act like a 12 year old whilst you're trying to sort stuff out so you just ban them from being able to be part of those admin events (so they don't waste other admins time) very simple and doesn't need another admin at all, and yes admins should be able to handle things involving themselves in certain scenarios such as this one being a perfect example of that

EDIT:
Another good example would be you ask someone why they did X in ahelp and they call you names instead of answering.
Would you really expect an admin to have to supportmin ping to take over because they got insulted and are now personally involved? it's ridiculous to expect that an admin can NEVER get involved with something because they were somehow tangled in it or could POSSIBLY be annoyed, especially whenever they aren't even playing the round. Being in control of a mob in an admin capacity on the admin z level for an admin event does not equate to playing in the round and such high level expectations would not benefit anyone on the server.

[WineAllWine]

Let's look at the actual wording of this admin rule

- Don't handle an adminhelp that involves you. Admins can't involve themselves as both an admin and player in a matter. This also means adminhelping like any other player would if you want to report an issue. Another admin will be needed to help you.

It's clear the purpose is to separate the 'admin as an admin' and 'admin as a player'.
In this ban, Iain wasn't involved as both and admin and a player - he was just the admin.

[Timonk]

i cant believe how many of you think i would've killed him if he didnt stop me

[CMDR_Gungnir]

If you press a Ghost Fun RP button (like ERT) to get people who will be ERTs
and someone proceeds to take it and shit up the ERTing for everyone else by being NRP obnoxious so that you can't even give the ERT their assignment
you're well within your goodmin rights to send that player off until/unless they demonstrate that they're not going to shit up the button press for their own self + the admin running it + everyone else who opted in.

It actually costs them nothing to just Not Shit It Up For Everyone, and it costs the same to just not press the Be ERT button if they don't intend to actually Be ERT!

I don't really see it as any different from shutting down someone who intentionally sabotaged any other sort of event or event-adjacent thing.

Timonk played a stupid game and won a stupid prize by getting gibbed. The only difference here is that if someone fucked up my event, I know that I'd be annoyed. And I'd feel obligated as a jannie to have someone else deal with it because of that. I know that I couldn't be impartial, but that wasn't done here. It's the fact that the long term consequences are coming from the same person managing the event, who has some emotional involvement in it that bothers me about this.

When you dress it up with the extra details of "Admin spawned event -> player takes role and immediately uses it to just be a shitter and not actually play to the event -> Player gets slapped" it's more or less okay, but if you strip those extra details away, it's still "Something is done to admin -> admin punishes" which is a weird precedent, is what I think you're trying to say if I understand correctly?

It's definitely a strange situation. I can totally get the reasoning behind the ban, as it's pretty minor and at least means if there's a repeat situation any time soon they can at least know there'll be one less potential shitter ruining it. But the fact that it leaves a lingering note which paints a picture of the player makes the fact that it's being left by the admin who was griefed an uncomfy precedent.

[kieth4]

If you want I can handle this appeal and the ban, my inbox is open. Hit me up.

[Sylphet]

Timonk played a stupid game and won a stupid prize by getting gibbed. The only difference here is that if someone fucked up my event, I know that I'd be annoyed. And I'd feel obligated as a jannie to have someone else deal with it because of that. I know that I couldn't be impartial, but that wasn't done here. It's the fact that the long term consequences are coming from the same person managing the event, who has some emotional involvement in it that bothers me about this.

When you dress it up with the extra details of "Admin spawned event -> player takes role and immediately uses it to just be a shitter and not actually play to the event -> Player gets slapped" it's more or less okay, but if you strip those extra details away, it's still "Something is done to admin -> admin punishes" which is a weird precedent, is what I think you're trying to say if I understand correctly?

It's definitely a strange situation. I can totally get the reasoning behind the ban, as it's pretty minor and at least means if there's a repeat situation any time soon they can at least know there'll be one less potential shitter ruining it. But the fact that it leaves a lingering note which paints a picture of the player makes the fact that it's being left by the admin who was griefed an uncomfy precedent.

Pretty much this. I hate the idea of do something to admin personally -> admin handles punishment as a precedent a lot more than I have a problem with the ban. It's not a weird precedent, it's an actively bad one. Between the hostile tone of the jannie in handling the appeal and the number of admins trying to justify it because they don't like what the player did, I think it's important to argue it. Allowing stuff like this damages trust in the admin team and people's faith that they'll be handled fairly, which is much, much more important than one guy doing a bad thing getting punished.

[CMDR_Gungnir]

Timonk played a stupid game and won a stupid prize by getting gibbed. The only difference here is that if someone fucked up my event, I know that I'd be annoyed. And I'd feel obligated as a jannie to have someone else deal with it because of that. I know that I couldn't be impartial, but that wasn't done here. It's the fact that the long term consequences are coming from the same person managing the event, who has some emotional involvement in it that bothers me about this.

When you dress it up with the extra details of "Admin spawned event -> player takes role and immediately uses it to just be a shitter and not actually play to the event -> Player gets slapped" it's more or less okay, but if you strip those extra details away, it's still "Something is done to admin -> admin punishes" which is a weird precedent, is what I think you're trying to say if I understand correctly?

It's definitely a strange situation. I can totally get the reasoning behind the ban, as it's pretty minor and at least means if there's a repeat situation any time soon they can at least know there'll be one less potential shitter ruining it. But the fact that it leaves a lingering note which paints a picture of the player makes the fact that it's being left by the admin who was griefed an uncomfy precedent.

Pretty much this. I hate the idea of do something to admin personally -> admin handles punishment as a precedent a lot more than I have a problem with the ban. It's not a weird precedent, it's an actively bad one. Between the hostile tone of the jannie in handling the appeal and the number of admins trying to justify it because they don't like what the player did, I think it's important to argue it. Allowing stuff like this damages trust in the admin team and people's faith that they'll be handled fairly, which is much, much more important than one guy doing a bad thing getting punished.

Yeah. There's another angle too of the "if the approach in the ticket went different from the Admin's perspective, would the ticket have gone that way, too?" which I can speak to personally. I've got a ban on my record for admin shopping, when the story is that throughout my entire ticket, I was treated with hostility and made to feel bad for ahelping a situation (which I'd been repeatedly told to do if I witness things, by many admins previously), so rather childishly went "FINE I'LL JUST ADMINSHOP. HEY OTHER ADMIN, I HAVE A TICKET FOR YOU"

Absolutely a case of "Chat Shit, Get Banged", I was a fucking childish dumbass and shouldn't have done that, but if the admin had even just treated my ticket as "Hey, sorry I don't really think this is worth doing anything about. Hope you have a good round tho" it'd never have ever reached that point.

So I actually think this raises a case where if an admin knows that they're frustrated or pissed off about the situation, they should seek to pass off the ticket to someone else, if possible. Maybe it wasn't possible here, but the discussion about (where reasonable) whether admins should only handle a ticket with a clear head is an interesting one, imo.

[SuperNovaa41]

mfw you act like a shitter in an admin spawned ghost role and get punished for it
Why are you even appealing this bro what is your issue

[Timonk]

mfw you act like a shitter in an admin spawned ghost role and get punished for it
Why are you even appealing this bro what is your issue

my issue is that i caught a ban for an incredibly minor action, it literally has almost no effect on anyone, does not linger in the round as hes just going to despawn himself after talking to us

also i never said i dont want to play