ADMIN CAUGHT STACKING NOTES FOR QC BAN: OWN MCPAIN STRIKES BACK

[sinfulbliss]

Bottom post of the previous page:

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=34269

first ticket ive seen where it was the admin lying in the ahelp

[TypicalRig]

I once had Iain note him because roundstart he cooked food, put it on the inside of the kitchen, and pretended to afk inside of a closet so he could CQC anyone that climbed the table to get food with no visible chef around for ages. And he told me that he was already observing him pre-ahelp. So he does have a tendency to roll chef just to attack people with shoddy reasoning and even if this particular instance seems particularly harmless I can definitely understand why an admin would see this and think "Holy shit man needs to stop." You know someone's behavior is sketchy when kindmin Iain is monitoring them near roundstart as a ghost for hiding in a closet. Go chef and use it to self-antag, wonder why an admin doesn't believe that one of your many fights as chef is in good faith.

Lucy Cicero got in trouble for doing it round after round after round. Owen is getting the same treatment. But why the hell isn't this just a chef job ban in this scenario?

It is a chef perma job ban.

Ah misread and only saw the "permanent." Cheers! Then I think there's nothing wrong with the ban. It's just for repeat CQC abuse.

[Archie700]

To note, this is not the first time Owen has gotten in trouble for abuse of chef role

viewtopic.php?f=34&t=33556&p=669234&hil ... ss#p669234

[Tegun]

Very good ban, if the stack of notes mentioned in the title was actually used it could easily be a perma. That's the thing which has me the most curious though, his trajectory earlier was definitely a permaban sooner or later but he got very good at toeing the line and getting away with a talk rather than a note. It's almost like you could use the fact that he puts so much effort into fabricating plausible conflict in which he has the upper hand as a reason for a more severe ban

On a more serious note, a pacifism "ban" of some sort would be lovely for these situations. A bit like a 1 point gulag sentence.

[sinfulbliss]

Crazy idea: admins don’t insert themselves into IC conflicts in which no one complains or asks for their help.

Just a thought!

[dirk_mcblade]

Crazy idea: admins don’t insert themselves into IC conflicts in which no one complains or asks for their help.

Just a thought!

It's for your own good

[sinfulbliss]

I still think it was super extreme for jimmy to explode his kitchen over a fireaxe as a non antag and hope something was done against that
(the bomb wiped the whole kitchen of the map)

i can bet my left fuckin testicle that this guy wasn’t handled administratively

cause he’s not in the admin QC crosshairs!!

[oranges]

glad the admins are doing this, otherwise I'd have to remove CQC from chef and then all the same people here arguing against this ban would shit their pants about how we are removing fun.

[AlamoTurtle]

I just disagree with the whole "if you wanna kill each other, do it in the holodeck" part of Kubi's argument, but this isn't about that, and I really hope this isn't held as some stupid precedence in future cases about public fights breaking out. Nonetheless, Owen's repeat bullshit is clearly enough to warrant a ban, since it's a clear use of funni CQC to get easy kills and escalation bait. I mean, if it's the only thing Owen does as chef, and it's only as chef... then it's just using CQC for easy 'robustness." For McShame, Owen...

[AlamoTurtle]

Crazy idea: admins don’t insert themselves into IC conflicts in which no one complains or asks for their help.

Just a thought!

Also, uhhh, I agree with that sentiment most of the time, but when it's a mass escalation bait that has been repeated over and over and people mention their detest over this stupid gimmick every time Owen's chef, someone's gonna step in, ahelp or not. Once more, it's not about this fight alone, it's about the repeat abuse of CQC and the chef role to bait people into a quarrel, in which Owen has the clear upper hand. Repeat a gimmick too much and it becomes annoying. Repeat it so much it becomes a constant pain to the crew, it becomes actionable enough to warrant admin intervention. I'm with you on not having stupid IC quarrels interfered with, but this is more than that in this case, Sinful.

[Striders13]

title

should've been stacking bans

[Ezel]

I still think it was super extreme for jimmy to explode his kitchen over a fireaxe as a non antag and hope something was done against that
(the bomb wiped the whole kitchen of the map)

i can bet my left fuckin testicle that this guy wasn’t handled administratively

cause he’s not in the admin QC crosshairs!!

I saw him buy explosives from a chemist and even lied to me it was lube(i had bloodjaunt sl i saw it happen in dorms comfronted him that if the grenade explodes instead of lubing i would kill him but he insisted it was lube knowlingly it was an auctall decent explosion

[Kubisopplay]

glad the admins are doing this, otherwise I'd have to remove CQC from chef and then all the same people here arguing against this ban would shit their pants about how we are removing fun.

You can still do this, its more often abused than used for its intended purpose.

[Lacran]

So this admin questions one person about this event, and that person was completely aware and consenting to this escalation.

The Admin answers a question with yeah, apologises that the chef "misunderstood them" instead of just taking responsibility for at best, bad communication.

They opt for a discretionary ban, highlighting Lucy Ciceros appeal, which does not match the issues at play. Metafriend fights that are constantly disruptive to other people's workplaces aren't the same thing as escalation baiting randoms in your own workplace. Like at all.

Following this other admins raise important logs of other people fighting with the chef. The issue here is why are these people not the focus of the investigation by the admin?

This just seems all so sloppy and lazy, the least you could do is put effort into your argument within the appeal and that didn't happen either, you just passed it on to headmins.

Coming across as burnt out and snarky doesn't lend much credibility to a discretionary ban. The usage of the discretionary ban looks more like a substitute for actually investigating the matter.

[Kendrickorium]

i am so excited for Timber's Final Thoughts™

[conrad]

Crazy idea: admins don’t insert themselves into IC conflicts in which no one complains or asks for their help.

Just a thought!

Owen's conflicts constantly trigger admin intervention. You're picking one thing to harp over instead of looking at the bigger picture.

[sinfulbliss]

Crazy idea: admins don’t insert themselves into IC conflicts in which no one complains or asks for their help.

Just a thought!

Owen's conflicts constantly trigger admin intervention. You're picking one thing to harp over instead of looking at the bigger picture.

source?

[TheRex9001]

Crazy idea: admins don’t insert themselves into IC conflicts in which no one complains or asks for their help.

Just a thought!

Owen's conflicts constantly trigger admin intervention. You're picking one thing to harp over instead of looking at the bigger picture.

source?

You would have to Ask Owen, admins don’t leak ahelp logs to prove a point in a peanut

[sinfulbliss]

Crazy idea: admins don’t insert themselves into IC conflicts in which no one complains or asks for their help.

Just a thought!

Owen's conflicts constantly trigger admin intervention. You're picking one thing to harp over instead of looking at the bigger picture.

source?

You would have to Ask Owen, admins don’t leak ahelp logs to prove a point in a peanut

so does “having ahelp logs” make someone enough of a shitter to whack with a QC ban? that’s sort of ridiculous. past notes and bans should be the only factor

[conrad]

Crazy idea: admins don’t insert themselves into IC conflicts in which no one complains or asks for their help.

Just a thought!

Owen's conflicts constantly trigger admin intervention. You're picking one thing to harp over instead of looking at the bigger picture.

source?

I am a Terry admin. We're not a secret police, Sinful, we help manage a videogame. Calm your tatas.

[TheRex9001]

Crazy idea: admins don’t insert themselves into IC conflicts in which no one complains or asks for their help.

Just a thought!

Owen's conflicts constantly trigger admin intervention. You're picking one thing to harp over instead of looking at the bigger picture.

source?

You would have to Ask Owen, admins don’t leak ahelp logs to prove a point in a peanut

so does “having ahelp logs” make someone enough of a shitter to whack with a QC ban? that’s sort of ridiculous. past notes and bans should be the only factor

Certainly not! But tickets with following notes and bans do, and the ahelp logs add a lot of context. Qc bans are placed on players who make the game worse and are typically placed with headmin permission, and your tickets do play a factor though it may be a small one.

[sinfulbliss]

Crazy idea: admins don’t insert themselves into IC conflicts in which no one complains or asks for their help.

Just a thought!

Owen's conflicts constantly trigger admin intervention. You're picking one thing to harp over instead of looking at the bigger picture.

source?

You would have to Ask Owen, admins don’t leak ahelp logs to prove a point in a peanut

so does “having ahelp logs” make someone enough of a shitter to whack with a QC ban? that’s sort of ridiculous. past notes and bans should be the only factor

Certainly not! But tickets with following notes and bans do, and the ahelp logs add a lot of context. Qc bans are placed on players who make the game worse and are typically placed with headmin permission, and your tickets do play a factor though it may be a small one.

his last chef related issue was 3 months ago

but i’m sure you knew that!

[sinfulbliss]

i have an issue with admins assuming “this guy generates a lot of ahelps, ergo he is bad!”

that’s sort of how it sounds. when you play in an impactful way and get into lots of engagements (viz: the shit that actually makes rounds fun), you run the risk of getting ahelped more, it’s very simple. that shouldnt be held against players or EVER brought up as an “issue.” that’s why you have the power to note people. if it’s an issue, note it! don’t use ahelps that result in nothing (presumably because the player was innocent??) as some sort of weird evidence the player is bad and “had it coming”!

[TypicalRig]

Crazy idea: admins don’t insert themselves into IC conflicts in which no one complains or asks for their help.

Just a thought!

Owen's conflicts constantly trigger admin intervention. You're picking one thing to harp over instead of looking at the bigger picture.

source?

You would have to Ask Owen, admins don’t leak ahelp logs to prove a point in a peanut

so does “having ahelp logs” make someone enough of a shitter to whack with a QC ban? that’s sort of ridiculous. past notes and bans should be the only factor

Certainly not! But tickets with following notes and bans do, and the ahelp logs add a lot of context. Qc bans are placed on players who make the game worse and are typically placed with headmin permission, and your tickets do play a factor though it may be a small one.

his last chef related issue was 3 months ago

but i’m sure you knew that!

man couldn't even say issue.. he had to specify it down to chef issue and something so specific STILL happened only 3 months ago.. average sinfulbliss L

[sinfulbliss]

Crazy idea: admins don’t insert themselves into IC conflicts in which no one complains or asks for their help.

Just a thought!

Owen's conflicts constantly trigger admin intervention. You're picking one thing to harp over instead of looking at the bigger picture.

source?

You would have to Ask Owen, admins don’t leak ahelp logs to prove a point in a peanut

so does “having ahelp logs” make someone enough of a shitter to whack with a QC ban? that’s sort of ridiculous. past notes and bans should be the only factor

Certainly not! But tickets with following notes and bans do, and the ahelp logs add a lot of context. Qc bans are placed on players who make the game worse and are typically placed with headmin permission, and your tickets do play a factor though it may be a small one.

his last chef related issue was 3 months ago

but i’m sure you knew that!

man couldn't even say issue.. he had to specify it down to chef issue and something so specific STILL happened only 3 months ago.. average sinfulbliss L

i thought you were kendrickorium at first and was about to feel bad for needing to begrudgingly say you had a low IQ since i like kendrick. happy to see it is murmic

the ban is a chef permaban so obviously the only relevant “issues” are similar chef issues in the past?

[Kendrickorium]

Crazy idea: admins don’t insert themselves into IC conflicts in which no one complains or asks for their help.

Just a thought!

Owen's conflicts constantly trigger admin intervention. You're picking one thing to harp over instead of looking at the bigger picture.

source?

You would have to Ask Owen, admins don’t leak ahelp logs to prove a point in a peanut

so does “having ahelp logs” make someone enough of a shitter to whack with a QC ban? that’s sort of ridiculous. past notes and bans should be the only factor

Certainly not! But tickets with following notes and bans do, and the ahelp logs add a lot of context. Qc bans are placed on players who make the game worse and are typically placed with headmin permission, and your tickets do play a factor though it may be a small one.

his last chef related issue was 3 months ago

but i’m sure you knew that!

man couldn't even say issue.. he had to specify it down to chef issue and something so specific STILL happened only 3 months ago.. average sinfulbliss L

i thought you were kendrickorium at first and was about to feel bad for needing to begrudgingly say you had a low IQ since i like kendrick. happy to see it is murmic

the ban is a chef permaban so obviously the only relevant “issues” are similar chef issues in the past?

i was about to post the bingo sheet having unmedicated sinfulbliss post checked off but now i'm not

[TypicalRig]

Crazy idea: admins don’t insert themselves into IC conflicts in which no one complains or asks for their help.

Just a thought!

Owen's conflicts constantly trigger admin intervention. You're picking one thing to harp over instead of looking at the bigger picture.

source?

You would have to Ask Owen, admins don’t leak ahelp logs to prove a point in a peanut

so does “having ahelp logs” make someone enough of a shitter to whack with a QC ban? that’s sort of ridiculous. past notes and bans should be the only factor

Certainly not! But tickets with following notes and bans do, and the ahelp logs add a lot of context. Qc bans are placed on players who make the game worse and are typically placed with headmin permission, and your tickets do play a factor though it may be a small one.

his last chef related issue was 3 months ago

but i’m sure you knew that!

man couldn't even say issue.. he had to specify it down to chef issue and something so specific STILL happened only 3 months ago.. average sinfulbliss L

i thought you were kendrickorium at first and was about to feel bad for needing to begrudgingly say you had a low IQ since i like kendrick. happy to see it is murmic

the ban is a chef permaban so obviously the only relevant “issues” are similar chef issues in the past?

correct. and a specific chef related problem happened at least three months ago. not a huge gap of a break for a repeat offender. and that's only factoring in times noted and not times it was grey enough of an area for him to weasel out of notes. what's not making sense for you.

nobody is asking him not to play fight. the thread is "stop baiting randoms into combat so you can abuse CQC." why do you choose to die on the strangest of hills

[sinfulbliss]

correct. and a specific chef related problem happened at least three months ago. not a huge gap of a break for a repeat offender. and that's only factoring in times noted and not times it was grey enough of an area for him to weasel out of notes. what's not making sense for you.

nobody is asking him not to play fight. the thread is "stop baiting randoms into combat so you can abuse CQC." why do you choose to die on the strangest of hills

three months ago is a pretty long time for a chef QC permaban, particularly if this individual case is a non violation.

[BrianBackslide]

Smells of IC issue. You don't like that the chef is a racist prick? Get the HoP/cap to demote them, run your own kitchen, stage a protest, get sec to forcibly remove their CQC skillchip. There's possibilities that can only exist if the character is being abrasive. At the end of the day, it's the chef's kitchen, they can do what they want with it. (Until the HoP gets mad)

Do they do it too often? Maybe, maybe not. Not my place to call. Either way, bans that carry the potential of squelching IC conflict through precedent don't sit well. Particularly when the damaged party comes forward and speaks against that very ban.

[Indie-ana Jones]

I wouldn't use the event mentioned to stick this ban. If the player is being chef-banned for a history of CQC abuse, the last incident was 3 months ago, and this incident wasn't an incident at all, a chef permaban seems like massive overreach. Why can't you wait for him to actually violate the rules again and then ban him? Surely if the player is that much of a problem that you claim him to be, it wouldn't be that long of a wait.

If you're too afraid of letting him off for a nothingburger, perhaps a final warning instead if you're that bloodthirsty?

[sinfulbliss]

Why can't you wait for him to actually violate the rules again and then ban him? Surely if the player is that much of a problem that you claim him to be, it wouldn't be that long of a wait.

because it's not about enforcing the rules, it's about eliminating the players whose playstyles you dislike, and ushering in the culture you personally want to play in!

the chef should silently cook food in his kitchen and serve it to the populace. banning "liggers" (gasp!) from the kitchen is so NRP and uncozy, just be nice! it's not that hard!

with hugboxing regards,

-SinfulBliss

[Kubisopplay]

Now we can definitely mark off unmedicated sinful post, anyone has the bingo image?

[sinfulbliss]

Now we can definitely mark off unmedicated sinful post, anyone has the bingo image?

a tiny speck of introspection would go a long way

[Kendrickorium]

Now we can definitely mark off unmedicated sinful post, anyone has the bingo image?

he made a funny about murmic so i'm not posting it in this thread

[saprasam]

when the player gets jobbanned for being speciest (???)

[iansdoor]

Why can't you wait for him to actually violate the rules again and then ban him? Surely if the player is that much of a problem that you claim him to be, it wouldn't be that long of a wait.

because it's not about enforcing the rules, it's about eliminating the players whose playstyles you dislike, and ushering in the culture you personally want to play in!

the chef should silently cook food in his kitchen and serve it to the populace. banning "liggers" (gasp!) from the kitchen is so NRP and uncozy, just be nice! it's not that hard!

with hugboxing regards,

-SinfulBliss

But... they already do that every shift by making every single food with wheat in the recipe. It's rare to see something made, that's not a burger, pie, Easter desserts or just lazy donk pockets.

I just ponder what the phrase means to you.
"Owen banning lizards from the bar to Owen getting his kitchen bombed."

[Ezel]

Why can't you wait for him to actually violate the rules again and then ban him? Surely if the player is that much of a problem that you claim him to be, it wouldn't be that long of a wait.

because it's not about enforcing the rules, it's about eliminating the players whose playstyles you dislike, and ushering in the culture you personally want to play in!

the chef should silently cook food in his kitchen and serve it to the populace. banning "liggers" (gasp!) from the kitchen is so NRP and uncozy, just be nice! it's not that hard!

with hugboxing regards,

-SinfulBliss

But... they already do that every shift by making every single food with wheat in the recipe. It's rare to see something made, that's not a burger, pie, Easter desserts or just lazy donk pockets.

I just ponder what the phrase means to you.
"Owen banning lizards from the bar to Owen getting his kitchen bombed."

thats because most of the botanists tend to now grow stuff for you on terry and growing it yourself can be tiring if its repeated every round a d the produce console is a very limited assortement

[Kubisopplay]

Now we can definitely mark off unmedicated sinful post, anyone has the bingo image?

a tiny speck of introspection would go a long way

Well, I am not the one who's working with fragmentaric info here, and who is declaring doomsday scenarios over one ban.

[sinfulbliss]

Now we can definitely mark off unmedicated sinful post, anyone has the bingo image?

a tiny speck of introspection would go a long way

Well, I am not the one who's working with fragmentaric info here, and who is declaring doomsday scenarios over one ban.

you literally changed your username to like “the darkest timeline” and said TG would be ruined after lukas got elected i am not the doomsday guy here pal

[Boot]

Yeah fuck em up Sinful

[MooCow12]

What does being chef and abusing cqc have to do with this ban though, it was a consensual conflict, he could be a sec officer that is racist against lizards and ends up batoning them or a mime that abuses their wall ability to stop lizards from going to theatre or a hulk geneticist that spinthrows lizards for trying to get in genetics and get temp adapt

Yes im giving owen more ideas for future use outside of playing chef because believe it or not, this is a roleplaying game and conflict is one of the most powerful forces that sparks interaction, even when its staged/consensual (which is the healthiest and most untouchable form of conflict) , regardless of what some nrp shitmin thinks.

[kinnebian]

What does being chef and abusing cqc have to do with this ban though

probably the part where he got in trouble for abusing cqc as a chef

[MooCow12]

probably the part where he got in trouble for abusing cqc as a chef

Please elaborate on what exactly he did with cqc to justify the ban that you couldnt already do with a stun baton or a slip/knockdown + shove stun + grab grab cuff


Youre making it sound like hes exploiting not just using x item / ability for ic conflict.

[kinnebian]

probably the part where he got in trouble for abusing cqc as a chef

Please elaborate on what exactly he did with cqc to justify the ban that you couldnt already do with a stun baton or a slip/knockdown + shove stun + grab grab cuff


Youre making it sound like hes exploiting not just using x item / ability for ic conflict.

did we read the same appeal? kek

[MooCow12]

did we read the same appeal? kek

Okay correct me if im wrong

He "baited" a conflict with lizards in general and when a lizard (target audience) joined in as an opposing side of that conflict and made it remotely clear they wanted to be a part of that conflict they both escalated and owen started using a job unique ability to win that conflict.

A job unique ability that

A. Doesn`t cause collateral
B. Doesn`t prevent revival of the other party
C. Is limited to the confines of a minority of the station
D. Doesn`t have to be lethal but can be used lethally, especially after disabling the other party.

Even if the ability was an instant KO on the other party no matter what they do or where they are, its still a consensual ic conflict.

But its not an instant KO and the ability itself isnt a unique asset either, things that stun or take agency away from the other party in a conflict (stun combat) rule the game and every single player has access to that. Chef simply has access to a unique flavor that gets completely gutted/mostly countered by slips (cant grab while on floor)




The only reasonable explanation you are sticking to this ban is because you think for some reason that chef cqc is op and musn`t be "abused" even in consensual conflicts, at which point you`re already mistaken at the "op" part given that power is relative.

[kinnebian]

did we read the same appeal? kek

Okay correct me if im wrong

He "baited" a conflict with lizards in general and when a lizard (target audience) joined in as an opposing side of that conflict and made remotely it clear they wanted to be a part of that conflict they both escalated and owen started using a job unique ability to win that conflict.

A job unique ability that

A. Doesn`t cause collateral
B. Doesn`t prevent revival of the other party
C. Is limited to the confines of a minority of the station
D. Doesn`t have to be lethal but can be used lethally, especially after disabling the other party.

Even if the ability was an instant KO on the other party no matter what they do or where they are, its still a consensual ic conflict.

But its not an instant KO and the ability itself isnt a unique asset either, things that stun or take agency away from the other party in a conflict (stun combat) rule the game and every single player has access to that. Chef simply has access to a unique flavor that gets completely gutted/mostly countered by slips (cant grab while on floor)

i dont understand how its possible to read this appeal and come out with this story? did you read the appeal or just the peanut posts

[MooCow12]

i dont understand how its possible to read this appeal and come out with this story? did you read the appeal or just the peanut posts

Okay explain how my summary is inaccurate, you dont need to waste your time going into detail if you dont want to just give a general idea.

[kinnebian]

i dont understand how its possible to read this appeal and come out with this story? did you read the appeal or just the peanut posts

Okay explain how my summary is inaccurate, you dont need to waste your time going into detail if you dont want to just give a general idea.

he yells fuck liggers then to quote nox:

because i looked at the logs and saw he CQCd a bunch of people FNR

do the others magically not count? Ignoring the one who said they were fine with it just, they CQCd:

Phoebe Mehlmotte, no prior attack logs. Only grabbed and thrown.
Quirky-Lizard, no prior attack logs. Grabbed, beat, knocked out, thrown.
Xil-Go, no prior attack logs. Grabbed, beat, knocked out, thrown. Returned and was beat, cuffed, robbed, crit, thrown. Returned and unsuccessfully tried to stop Owen.
Dank O'Honker, no prior attack logs. Only grabbed and thrown, twice.
Eternius Lament, no prior attack logs, in the kitchen at the time. Only grabbed and thrown. Included for the sake of not leaving out information.
Jimmy Jimmy, prior fight. CQC used defensively, although Owen appears to be the aggressor in the prior fight.
Richard Walker, prior shoving. Just a CQC shove, not meaningful
Sergei Bobrov, no prior attack logs, in the kitchen at the time. Only grabbed and thrown. Later shoved Owen multiple times, was CQCd into crit and thrown. Returned to the kitchen, knocked out and thrown.
Bites-The-Dust, no prior attack logs. Grabbed, knocked out, failed disposal attempt, slightly beat up. Attempted to arrest Owen, seemingly unsuccessfully.
Keith Alex, no prior attack logs. Slightly beat, grabbed, thrown.
Gregory Henderson, no prior attack logs, in the kitchen at the time. Grabbed, knocked out, thrown.

my point is he attacked more than the one consenting guy and hes had problems with it in the past

[Ezel]

I would have done the same if people entered my kitchen

[kinnebian]

I would have done the same if people entered my kitchen

this wasnt exclusive to the kitchen it was the whole bar area

[Ezel]

I would have done the same if people entered my kitchen

this wasnt exclusive to the kitchen it was the whole bar area

sounds like a security issue tbh

[kinnebian]

I would have done the same if people entered my kitchen

this wasnt exclusive to the kitchen it was the whole bar area

sounds like a security issue tbh

youre so true