/tg/Station 13

Posted: **Mon Jan 09, 2023 2:39 am**

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=33099

um, yikes

Posted: **Mon Jan 09, 2023 2:41 am**

all bans against sinful are valid because he is sinful

Posted: **Mon Jan 09, 2023 2:55 am**

So much spicy forum drama happening while I'm out enjoying my Sunday

Posted: **Mon Jan 09, 2023 2:59 am**

I want to express an opinion that disagrees with the (ab)use of administrative powers here, but I'm too afraid of 1984 to fully commit to it.
This is what these three bans have done to the player's club.

Posted: **Mon Jan 09, 2023 3:07 am**

bringing up THAT drama is the equivalent of a nuclear bomb with no real use other than to piss off everyone

Posted: **Mon Jan 09, 2023 3:17 am**

Archie700 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 09, 2023 3:07 am bringing up THAT drama is the equivalent of a nuclear bomb with no real use other than to piss off everyone

He wasn't even banned directly for bringing up the drama at hand, the metaphorical "straw that broke the camel's back" was him asking publicly why he was warned, which is frankly ridiculous.
It's honestly really easy to see this appeal thread and assume that Rave just hates Sinful and has it out for him, but I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt. I can see slight justification for the last warning in forum rule 7 if you tilt your head and look at it really hard, but... wat?

Posted: **Mon Jan 09, 2023 3:27 am**

datorangebottle wrote: ↑Mon Jan 09, 2023 3:17 am He wasn't even banned directly for bringing up the drama at hand, the metaphorical "straw that broke the camel's back" was him asking publicly why he was warned, which is frankly ridiculous.
It's honestly really easy to see this appeal thread and assume that Rave just hates Sinful and has it out for him, but I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt. I can see slight justification for the last warning in forum rule 7 if you tilt your head and look at it really hard, but... wat?

Yeah I'm not sure of that ban honestly, beside sinful has said more stupid things than that if Rave wanted to justify warning him

Posted: **Mon Jan 09, 2023 3:28 am**

Still waiting for my ban, I seconded his question Rave you gotta ban me too. I'm not living in a club with no timonk in it.

Posted: **Mon Jan 09, 2023 5:20 am**

datorangebottle wrote: ↑Mon Jan 09, 2023 3:17 am He wasn't even banned directly for bringing up the drama at hand, the metaphorical "straw that broke the camel's back" was him asking publicly why he was warned, which is frankly ridiculous.

You've got the timeline wrong, his post was in regards to Timonk's appeal. The warnings and ruling came after both posts.

Capsandi wrote: ↑Mon Jan 09, 2023 3:28 am Still waiting for my ban, I seconded his question Rave you gotta ban me too. I'm not living in a club with no timonk in it.

Say it again with a post history like his and I'll consider it.

Posted: **Mon Jan 09, 2023 5:23 am**

Wow what a surprise that the guy who brought us the word filter would turn out to be a nazi. I am really sad that I gotta say this but maybe don't vote for him again.

Posted: **Mon Jan 09, 2023 5:24 am**

Boot wrote: ↑Mon Jan 09, 2023 5:23 am Wow what a surprise that the guy who brought us the word filter would turn out to be a nazi. I am really sad that I gotta say this but maybe don't vote for him again.

This guy loves felinids

Posted: **Mon Jan 09, 2023 5:43 am**

iwishforducks wrote: ↑Sat Jan 07, 2023 3:13 pm the ban is poor form imo but the ban creates way way way more good than harm. hard to say i feel any sympathy

edit: they put themselves in this situation and should stop crying and live with the consequences

Posted: **Mon Jan 09, 2023 5:45 am**

actually this ban is dumb. this feels more like you’re trying to appease typhnox by doing some eye for an eye bullshit rather than being a grounded ban. but regardless sinful is an idiot

Posted: **Mon Jan 09, 2023 6:32 am**

Sinful sucks, but the ban was kinda stupid.

I don’t know if this is a skill issue or not.

Posted: **Mon Jan 09, 2023 7:32 am**

I think this is a dumb ban.

Posted: **Mon Jan 09, 2023 8:03 am**

should've voted for lukas bros. Reap what you sow

Posted: **Mon Jan 09, 2023 8:04 am**

this ban rips cheeks and yet it won't be overturned because of headmin jurisdiction
no more funny sinfulbliss schizoramblings

Posted: **Mon Jan 09, 2023 9:02 am**

unable to see what sinfulbliss has done wrong here, this was clearly a ban made by somebody in a high position of power and thus it won't be getting lifted even if it was a falseban

Posted: **Mon Jan 09, 2023 9:30 am**

I never bothered read his posts. Something about them just makes them unreadable.

Posted: **Mon Jan 09, 2023 9:30 am**

Ban RaveRadbury, he is literally the only one creating drama here.

Posted: **Mon Jan 09, 2023 9:47 am**

CPTANT wrote: ↑Mon Jan 09, 2023 9:30 am Ban RaveRadbury, he is literally the only one creating drama here.

Posted: **Mon Jan 09, 2023 12:25 pm**

Admin message should've been put on a more severely disruptive post but sinful really had it coming and was rarely funny.

Posted: **Mon Jan 09, 2023 12:44 pm**

Posted: **Mon Jan 09, 2023 1:22 pm**

admins literally blew up the world, how are we gonna play byond now

Posted: **Mon Jan 09, 2023 4:57 pm**

serxule wrote: ↑Mon Jan 09, 2023 1:22 pm admins literally blew up the world, how are we gonna play byond now

let’s recreate the earth in DM code

Posted: **Mon Jan 09, 2023 10:11 pm**

i will say that sinfuls ban appeal thread title is acceptable.

Posted: **Wed Jan 11, 2023 12:46 pm**

Timberpoes wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 11:38 amSpeaking from experience? When summoning MSO into something your cause better be objectively righteous. I'd exercise restraint when calling MSO into relatively minor topics that basically fall under headmin discretion. One finger on the Monkey's Paw curls.

Is this really a minor topic? If Axle decided tomorrow that he wished to apply for the admin team, I feel almost certain the fact he has a standing partial forum ban would be weighed in that decision, and would almost definitely be a major cause in a denial.

Posted: **Wed Jan 11, 2023 1:12 pm**

Imitates-The-Lizards wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 12:46 pm
Timberpoes wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 11:38 amSpeaking from experience? When summoning MSO into something your cause better be objectively righteous. I'd exercise restraint when calling MSO into relatively minor topics that basically fall under headmin discretion. One finger on the Monkey's Paw curls.
Is this really a minor topic? If Axle decided tomorrow that he wished to apply for the admin team, I feel almost certain the fact he has a standing partial forum ban would be weighed in that decision, and would almost definitely be a major cause in a denial.

This was originally posted in the ban appeal, but I split this out of the appeal because it's starting to get to peanut realms yet I wanted to respond.

Plus I can talk more candidly here.

Downside, Typhnox is player's club banned so did I just technically help them evade a ban? Wow, such power abuse. Time to 1984 me.

I'd actually consider being banned from one subforum to be a minor ban.

The standing ban would be weighed into any decision to admin him - but that weight is not applied without context. We have actually adminned a lot of players with recent notes and bans.

I was adminned not long after being banned. PositiveEntropy was banned while I was going through the process of recruiting him. Minor bans for minor reasons are minor.

If Sinful applied for admin, he wouldn't be denied because of this ban. He'd be denied because he's Sinful.

Posted: **Wed Jan 11, 2023 2:45 pm**

I think this ban boils down to asking the question; what is conversation and what is drama stirring? As sinful was banned for stirring drama I suppose it's important to differentiate the two.

A quick google search doesn't seem to reveal an exact match for the phrase in terms of words but I found a definition that's from the same source as the coming one and provides the same message as stirring up drama:

Phrases: make a drama out of — exaggerate the importance of (a minor problem or incident).
"Gwyneth makes such a drama out of things"

and the definition of a conversation is:

a talk, especially an informal one, between two or more people, in which news and ideas are exchanged.

Now, looking at sinful's three warnings as presented by him (Which may be a biased presentation but Rave didn't refute any really so we'll be going with what sinful said.)

The first one was for arguing in a policythread in Dec 2021 that ERP shouldn't be added to the word filter. Off-topic apparently for a policythread discussing what words would be added to the word-filter. I asked specifically how this was off-topic, to which Rave responded: "The word was already added and was done in a recent policy thread.

This to me does not seem like a purposeful attempt to cause drama, it's very possible that sinful simply missed the the other policy thread or was arguing against it- isn't the whole point of policy discussions to discuss various policies and throw around ideas? The user being warned for (as presented) conversing in good faith seems very silly in this regard. Even looking at the edited response put in the thread ( That was bizarrely edited?) seems very silly as he presents a viable point/argument.

The next sinful warning was:

"My post was deleted but it was something along the lines of stating ironically how Imitates got banned for """drama-stirring""" when clearly he got banned for defending loli, and only because the community made a callout video."

Although I don't disagree with the point made here, I can see how digging up previous drama may leave a bad look and can see how a warning here would be warranted. I don't agree with it, but I can see the justification behind it so have no problem with this one.

the straw that broke the camel's back however is...silly?

"Why is stirring drama against the rules? who cares man the world isn't going to blow up everything gonna be just fine just close the forum and in a week the issue will have resolved itself"

This is a conversational point! He isn't bringing up anything in specific he's not trying to make drama out of it he's simply once again presenting a conversation point; why is the player club so against drama? I don't agree with his point- I think that drama can usually lead to a super toxic environment for everyone involved but wouldn't it have been better just to refute his point?

Even with the warning about his second post nothing is said about him being allowed to express a simple opinion. It didn't mention the loli drama again or try to stir a new one he just went "why is drama bad" which is dumb but not ban-worthy?

He has also engaged in a variety of good faith discussion throughout the years. Implying that he's only here to cause drama (when the majority of his posts are just good faith arguments/debates) is absolutely goofy.

You chose to intentionally stir drama on a topic that has been especially problematic.

Sinful's goal is not to stir drama. He sometimes does have the ABSOLUTELY WORST TAKES KNOWN TO MANKIND but he is good faith in his arguments. Even now he was warned ONCE and banned before he could even respond to his warning.From my perspective, and a least a few others' this looks like a head admin simply sniping someone they didn't like with very little evidence. It looks especially bad when the headmin says something that's been interpreted as ; "don't bother appealing as it won't be discussed this bane is set in stone!" (obviously not as dramatic as this)

I'm excited to see Rave's response on the thread and if I'm wrong about my points!

Posted: **Wed Jan 11, 2023 8:36 pm**

Well, looks like sinful isn't getting unbanned this headmin term as Stoney isn't going to interfere. I think this ban is pretty awful, especially since the warning and the ban came packaged together, along with the fact that I don't think what he said warranted the ban in first place. Sure, he might have bad takes, but nothing he said breaks the rules, and I think everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I like to think that this ban will be reconsidered, but probably not. Again, I don't think banning someone like this serves to do much of anything other than paint the headmins in a bad light.

Posted: **Wed Jan 11, 2023 9:34 pm**

kieth4 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 2:45 pm snip

I feel this reinforces earlier conversations about notes.

Notes are punishments and there's no such thing as a minor note.

If you don't appeal bad notes they will be used to place future weaker notes and eventually ban you over things that in other context wouldn't even register on an admins radar.

Posted: **Wed Jan 11, 2023 10:35 pm**

MrStonedOne wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 8:11 pm I'm too sick of drama about or related to the™ video™ to intervene in minor subforum bans connected to it.

holy based

Posted: **Wed Jan 11, 2023 11:33 pm**

unbased

Posted: **Thu Jan 12, 2023 1:02 am**

Milked the lolcow too hard and summoned MSO to categorically state that he's officially over it.

I don't think that's much of a backfire to curl a finger on the paw, but all we can do is wait for a joined headmin ruling on it.

Posted: **Thu Jan 12, 2023 1:20 am**

Timberpoes wrote: ↑Thu Jan 12, 2023 1:02 am Milked the lolcow too hard and summoned MSO to categorically state that he's officially over it.

I don't think that's much of a backfire to curl a finger on the paw, but all we can do is wait for a joined headmin ruling on it.

I think at the very least Sinful (and the others) are owed an explanation for why they were banned and what both headmins besides Rave decided.

Posted: **Thu Jan 12, 2023 2:15 am**

Archie700 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 12, 2023 1:20 am
Timberpoes wrote: ↑Thu Jan 12, 2023 1:02 am Milked the lolcow too hard and summoned MSO to categorically state that he's officially over it.

I don't think that's much of a backfire to curl a finger on the paw, but all we can do is wait for a joined headmin ruling on it.
I think at the very least Sinful (and the others) are owed an explanation for why they were banned and what both headmins besides Rave decided.

There is none, simple as that. If there was rave would had said it already but instead pretty much said am the founding father of the club thus I make the rules. Now we are stuck in position where 1 player is banned in bad faith and the other 2 most likely as well.

Also yeah am voting for lukas next term. I want to see some change and am sick of these teams being filled with yes men.

Posted: **Thu Jan 12, 2023 7:18 am**

Shellton(Mario) wrote: ↑Thu Jan 12, 2023 2:15 am
I want to see some change and am sick of these teams being filled with yes men.

what does this even mean. a lot of change happened and people are discussing it. also every single term regardless of who is voted in will likely have “yes men”? I don’t understand why you’re using that term here because either you say yes or nothing happens as a headmin (in a typical charter they might be able to just do it without you but you still have to assent to said charter in the first place). I advise you read more on the subject. I could also be misunderstanding

Posted: **Thu Jan 12, 2023 8:27 am**

san7890 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 12, 2023 7:18 am
Shellton(Mario) wrote: ↑Thu Jan 12, 2023 2:15 am
I want to see some change and am sick of these teams being filled with yes men.
what does this even mean. a lot of change happened and people are discussing it. also every single term regardless of who is voted in will likely have “yes men”? I don’t understand why you’re using that term here because either you say yes or nothing happens as a headmin (in a typical charter they might be able to just do it without you but you still have to assent to said charter in the first place). I advise you read more on the subject. I could also be misunderstanding

Well you would honestly give a lot less of this impression if you were to actual reply to those ban appeals. Instead we only get a blanket "the headmins support me" from the guy who did the original banning.

Posted: **Thu Jan 12, 2023 9:10 am**

Peace sinful

, ill miss your silly sinful opinions (except the like, really bad ones)

Posted: **Thu Jan 12, 2023 10:42 pm**

CPTANT wrote: ↑Thu Jan 12, 2023 8:27 am
san7890 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 12, 2023 7:18 am
Shellton(Mario) wrote: ↑Thu Jan 12, 2023 2:15 am
I want to see some change and am sick of these teams being filled with yes men.
what does this even mean. a lot of change happened and people are discussing it. also every single term regardless of who is voted in will likely have “yes men”? I don’t understand why you’re using that term here because either you say yes or nothing happens as a headmin (in a typical charter they might be able to just do it without you but you still have to assent to said charter in the first place). I advise you read more on the subject. I could also be misunderstanding
Well you would honestly give a lot less of this impression if you were to actual reply to those ban appeals. Instead we only get a blanket "the headmins support me" from the guy who did the original banning.

did you read timberpoes' post in the appeal? i think that'll help. i've communicated my frustration with sinful's behavior leading to the ban with sinful at least once, but it wasn't in any formal capacity so it's not useful to place it to the appeal

Posted: **Fri Jan 13, 2023 1:40 am**

san7890 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 12, 2023 10:42 pm
CPTANT wrote: ↑Thu Jan 12, 2023 8:27 am
san7890 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 12, 2023 7:18 am
Shellton(Mario) wrote: ↑Thu Jan 12, 2023 2:15 am
I want to see some change and am sick of these teams being filled with yes men.
what does this even mean. a lot of change happened and people are discussing it. also every single term regardless of who is voted in will likely have “yes men”? I don’t understand why you’re using that term here because either you say yes or nothing happens as a headmin (in a typical charter they might be able to just do it without you but you still have to assent to said charter in the first place). I advise you read more on the subject. I could also be misunderstanding
Well you would honestly give a lot less of this impression if you were to actual reply to those ban appeals. Instead we only get a blanket "the headmins support me" from the guy who did the original banning.
did you read timberpoes' post in the appeal? i think that'll help. i've communicated my frustration with sinful's behavior leading to the ban with sinful at least once, but it wasn't in any formal capacity so it's not useful to place it to the appeal

Can you just repeat your frustration I am not digging through your 500 form posts to find it and neither should the player banned. CPTANT sums up my opinion pretty well. Just letting rave reply to it when hes the banning admin just makes it seem like you guys dont give a fuck and are just saying yes to whatever especially when the ban only offers 1 vague statement about how its drama stirring and the rest is just about how he has the right to ban you.

Posted: **Fri Jan 13, 2023 3:15 am**

Shellton(Mario) wrote: ↑Fri Jan 13, 2023 1:40 am -snip-

Can you just repeat your frustration I am not digging through your 500 form posts to find it and neither should the player banned. CPTANT sums up my opinion pretty well. Just letting rave reply to it when hes the banning admin just makes it seem like you guys dont give a fuck and are just saying yes to whatever especially when the ban only offers 1 vague statement about how its drama stirring and the rest is just about how he has the right to ban you.

you're right in that i should at least owe a proper explanation to sinful. otherwise, you are taking a video game forum way too seriously. thanks

Posted: **Fri Jan 13, 2023 3:37 am**

san7890 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 13, 2023 3:15 am you're right in that i should at least owe a proper explanation to sinful. otherwise, you are taking a video game forum way too seriously. thanks

I went to your discord link and I saw sinful basically take a big shit on the floor and call it a conversational piece while everyone was talking about something else.

But I don't think Sinful is being a baitmaster with what he does.

I think he's legitimately an idiot who actually believes that he's trying to spark a conversation.

It's just that he's stupid.

Posted: **Fri Jan 13, 2023 5:01 am**

Great ban.

Posted: **Fri Jan 13, 2023 5:27 am**

what part of "talking about politics in the politics channel" is so heinous and malicious? get a grip

Posted: **Fri Jan 13, 2023 5:51 am**

This appeal has devolved into sanplanations.
Come on guys all you gotta do is walk back the ban, everyone knows its flimsy as hell and san posting "Sorry bro, I can't support an unban cause like.. I don't like you" made me laugh. Thank you san for making me laugh on my b-day.

Posted: **Fri Jan 13, 2023 6:07 am**

in an appeal where the guy was literally banned for "stirring drama" randomly accusing the appealant of being a PEDO APOLOGIST is like the most fucking insane thing he could have done LOL

Posted: **Fri Jan 13, 2023 6:08 am**

what was he THINKING?

Posted: **Fri Jan 13, 2023 6:19 am**

man what the fuck is even going on anymore

Posted: **Fri Jan 13, 2023 6:30 am**

1. I hate to break it to the headmins, but sometimes people really do just be saying things to continue a conversation. the term "disguising bait" is nothing more than a made up word like friendzone or mansplaining, created simply to make the person feel better about themselves, that they are indeed virtuous and in no way wrong about anything

2. two of the current headmins have now made it not only completely fucking obvious of their bias for sinful, one of them has now come right out and stated it openly
I'm disappointed in both of you. unfortunately i'm very tired right now and don't feel like explaining to children with the newfound power to put anyone they want in a permanent timeout why people in power should put their fucking feelings a notch or five underneath the facts, which both of you have shown now to be completely incapable of. disgusting.

3.

"When I requested headmin review, I wanted someone to review the ban, not write a hit-piece on me and start pointing fingers at me goofing around in Discord or a game ban from 2021, neither of which have anything to do with whether or not I violated players-club rules in saying "why is drama stirring banned."
"You and Rave have stirred more drama with this than anything my and Timonk's posts could've dreamed to create. I'm sure you'll say that's unintentional - that you were both just giving your opinions and discussing the matter. Well guess what fucko, that's no different than what we were doing! We just say it in a slightly sillier way so it can be laughed about instead of coming across as a hateful rant."

absolutely blown the fuck out. put that shit on his tombstone.

also before i likely check out of this current shit show until spring, it would be really nice if the admin/headmins fucking did something about the absolute shit show sybil turns into in the evenings once reider comes on as HOS and is immediately and blatantly metagrudged by the same 10 people every round.

for hours straight in IC and OOC, nothing but fucking brainless morons screaming about how reider is a monster.

hint for the admins: as someone thats been playing this game for going on 7 years and considers themself a keen observer, the problem isnt reider.

consider perhaps spending your time fixing the current state of the server instead of typing out essays on how sinful is a bad person.

also let's all vote for goofball next election.
surely he can do better.

/tg/Station 13

The World Blew Up Peanut

The World Blew Up Peanut

Re: The World Blew Up Peanut

Re: The World Blew Up Peanut

Re: The World Blew Up Peanut

Re: The World Blew Up Peanut

Re: The World Blew Up Peanut

Re: The World Blew Up Peanut

Re: The World Blew Up Peanut

Re: The World Blew Up Peanut

Re: The World Blew Up Peanut

Re: The World Blew Up Peanut

Re: The World Blew Up Peanut

Re: The World Blew Up Peanut

Re: The World Blew Up Peanut

Re: The World Blew Up Peanut

Re: The World Blew Up Peanut

Re: The World Blew Up Peanut

Re: The World Blew Up Peanut

Re: The World Blew Up Peanut

Re: The World Blew Up Peanut

Re: The World Blew Up Peanut

Re: The World Blew Up Peanut

Re: The World Blew Up Peanut

Re: The World Blew Up Peanut

Re: The World Blew Up Peanut

Re: The World Blew Up Peanut

Re: The World Blew Up Peanut

Re: The World Blew Up Peanut

Re: The World Blew Up Peanut

Re: The World Blew Up Peanut

Re: The World Blew Up Peanut

Re: The World Blew Up Peanut

Re: The World Blew Up Peanut

Re: The World Blew Up Peanut

Re: The World Blew Up Peanut

Re: The World Blew Up Peanut

Re: The World Blew Up Peanut

Re: The World Blew Up Peanut

Re: The World Blew Up Peanut

Re: The World Blew Up Peanut

Re: The World Blew Up Peanut

Re: The World Blew Up Peanut

Re: The World Blew Up Peanut

Re: The World Blew Up Peanut

Re: The World Blew Up Peanut

Re: The World Blew Up Peanut

Re: The World Blew Up Peanut

Re: The World Blew Up Peanut

Re: The World Blew Up Peanut

Re: The World Blew Up Peanut