ADMIN CAUGHT STACKING NOTES FOR QC BAN: OWN MCPAIN STRIKES BACK
Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2023 6:33 pm
Good thread.
I call dibs on the peanut thread for the admin complaint this will lead to.
/tg/Station 13
tgstation13.org
https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/
ADMIN CAUGHT STACKING NOTES FOR QC BAN: OWN MCPAIN STRIKES BACK
Page 1 of 4
Re: ADMIN CAUGHT STACKING NOTES FOR QC BAN: OWN MCPAIN STRIKES BACK
Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2023 6:40 pm
Re: ADMIN CAUGHT STACKING NOTES FOR QC BAN: OWN MCPAIN STRIKES BACK
Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2023 6:43 pm
chef doesn’t like CQC or specisim or conflict or any of those awful things you post with them they like apple pie baking cookies and friends and that’s that
Re: ADMIN CAUGHT STACKING NOTES FOR QC BAN: OWN MCPAIN STRIKES BACK
Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2023 6:44 pm
This looks really bad for the admin holy shit.
You take a conflict that seemingly followed escalation guidelines, lie in ahelps regarding a complaint, and then overstate the severity?
The only way to salvage this is if another lizard complained that wasn't mentioned I think.
You take a conflict that seemingly followed escalation guidelines, lie in ahelps regarding a complaint, and then overstate the severity?
The only way to salvage this is if another lizard complained that wasn't mentioned I think.
Re: ADMIN CAUGHT STACKING NOTES FOR QC BAN: OWN MCPAIN STRIKES BACK
Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2023 6:59 pm
>this admin
Re: ADMIN CAUGHT STACKING NOTES FOR QC BAN: OWN MCPAIN STRIKES BACK
Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2023 6:59 pm
Its pretty clear that this is just a ban to remove Owen from the chef role, honestly should have been done way earlier. Owen just CQC baits the entire shift, never once in my life do I see them cook and make food without a shitty additional that leads to them CQCing someone. This ban should as said been placed WAAAAAYYY earlier.
Re: ADMIN CAUGHT STACKING NOTES FOR QC BAN: OWN MCPAIN STRIKES BACK
Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2023 7:00 pm
Good luck?Adam Klein wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2023 6:40 pm Good thread.
I call dibs on the peanut thread for the admin complaint this will lead to.
Re: ADMIN CAUGHT STACKING NOTES FOR QC BAN: OWN MCPAIN STRIKES BACK
Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2023 7:03 pm
Yeah but banning shitters doesn't justify (potentially) terrible admin conduct.TheRex9001 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2023 6:59 pm Its pretty clear that this is just a ban to remove Owen from the chef role, honestly should have been done way earlier. Owen just CQC baits the entire shift, never once in my life do I see them cook and make food without a shitty additional that leads to them CQCing someone. This ban should as said been placed WAAAAAYYY earlier.
Re: ADMIN CAUGHT STACKING NOTES FOR QC BAN: OWN MCPAIN STRIKES BACK
Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2023 7:06 pm
I don't see the issue with the ban or anything. Is there something I'm missing?
Re: ADMIN CAUGHT STACKING NOTES FOR QC BAN: OWN MCPAIN STRIKES BACK
Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2023 7:10 pm
Re: ADMIN CAUGHT STACKING NOTES FOR QC BAN: OWN MCPAIN STRIKES BACK
Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2023 7:11 pm
Apparently the issue is that midway of juggling adminbus, 3 log windows and two ticket windows i started one response with "yeah" without registering that i was asked a question of if they complained
Re: ADMIN CAUGHT STACKING NOTES FOR QC BAN: OWN MCPAIN STRIKES BACK
Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2023 7:16 pm
why would you randomly say “yeah” in response to a question if it wasn’t to answer that questionKubisopplay wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2023 7:11 pmApparently the issue is that midway of juggling adminbus, 3 log windows and two ticket windows i started one response with "yeah" without registering that i was asked a question of if they complained
Re: ADMIN CAUGHT STACKING NOTES FOR QC BAN: OWN MCPAIN STRIKES BACK
Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2023 7:18 pm
>that meme in the appeal
I'm fucking dying, holy shit.
I'm fucking dying, holy shit.
Re: ADMIN CAUGHT STACKING NOTES FOR QC BAN: OWN MCPAIN STRIKES BACK
Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2023 7:28 pm
"Yeah, and"Kubisopplay wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2023 7:11 pmApparently the issue is that midway of juggling adminbus, 3 log windows and two ticket windows i started one response with "yeah" without registering that i was asked a question of if they complained
You were asked a question and you answered yes to it I don't know why you would read the question and start with "yeah, and" if you weren't responding to what they just asked you.
It seems more likely that you answered yes because it was the answer that was easiest to give, as no would lead to push back and explaining you can't answer that takes more words. Not admitting it is a weird move.
If the issue at play here is escalation bait, and both parties engaged in the escalation wilfully, who is being baited?
Re: ADMIN CAUGHT STACKING NOTES FOR QC BAN: OWN MCPAIN STRIKES BACK
Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2023 7:28 pm
pretty sure he was saying "yeah, continue to explain this for me" not "yeah, he complained"sinfulbliss wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2023 7:10 pmuhhh the fact that he was roleplaying with another player consensually and the admin banned him for it?
and then lied in the ahelp that the other player complained about it?
also, imagine fucking with the chef for any reason whatsoever
if the chef is fucking with you you immediately apologize and beg his forgiveness
Re: ADMIN CAUGHT STACKING NOTES FOR QC BAN: OWN MCPAIN STRIKES BACK
Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2023 7:31 pm
Splendid.
The banning administrator a could not find a proper way to defend his actions in the appeal thread...
So, he linked another appeal,
of a different person,
under different circumstances...
Claimed it's exactly the same situation (and SEE? it got denied!)
That's it.
The banning administrator a could not find a proper way to defend his actions in the appeal thread...
So, he linked another appeal,
of a different person,
under different circumstances...
Claimed it's exactly the same situation (and SEE? it got denied!)
That's it.
Re: ADMIN CAUGHT STACKING NOTES FOR QC BAN: OWN MCPAIN STRIKES BACK
Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2023 7:36 pm
the victims in the lucy cicero ban were the doctors and other staff being caught in these fights between the two consenting combatants. considering this instance of fighting has no third party being harmed it is pretty safe to assume this will be overturned.
Re: ADMIN CAUGHT STACKING NOTES FOR QC BAN: OWN MCPAIN STRIKES BACK
Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2023 7:37 pm
The appeal he linked was not about escalation bait at all, it was about brawling with metafriends in OTHER people's workplaces.
Fighting with someone who is presumably not a metafriend, in your own workplace is not similar to the Lucy appeal and is definitely not escalation baiting so wtf is the ban for.
Fighting with someone who is presumably not a metafriend, in your own workplace is not similar to the Lucy appeal and is definitely not escalation baiting so wtf is the ban for.
Re: ADMIN CAUGHT STACKING NOTES FOR QC BAN: OWN MCPAIN STRIKES BACK
Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2023 7:42 pm
admins are literally using lucy's grave as a prop to ban people for having fun. If I knew it was gonna get this bad I would've just fixed those glass tables instead of yelling at them.
Re: ADMIN CAUGHT STACKING NOTES FOR QC BAN: OWN MCPAIN STRIKES BACK
Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2023 7:44 pm
Re: ADMIN CAUGHT STACKING NOTES FOR QC BAN: OWN MCPAIN STRIKES BACK
Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2023 7:47 pm
I may be a minority opinion among admins, but I see picking fights to be pretty healthy for the game as long as you are acting in character. We have pretty defined escalation rules, and it doesn’t look like any were broken by either of the parties.
Re: ADMIN CAUGHT STACKING NOTES FOR QC BAN: OWN MCPAIN STRIKES BACK
Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2023 7:54 pm
This isn't entirely correct.
The point that's getting missed is "we don't want Lucy Cicero fucking up other peoples' workplaces and disrupting other peoples' shifts to randomly fight her friends".
A) None of the doctors actually got physically harmed during the lucy cicero debacle.
B) Per mothblocks, it's not a general ruling- it's admins telling Lucy to switch her gimmick up because she was fighting with her friends in workplaces and trashing everything every round, dragging her buddies' faces across every glass table in medbay in that particular instance.
As of that second point I have an actual opinion about this ban: it stinks. It's foetid. It reeks of rotting fish.Mothblocks in the Lucy thread wrote: To answer your concerns in the appeal:When several admins repeatedly tell you to stop using the same public places as a playground for you to buzz around like a mosquito with your hive, then you should stop. There is nothing general about this, it is admins telling you to tweak your gimmick.are people not allowed to fight in public places anymore?
Re: ADMIN CAUGHT STACKING NOTES FOR QC BAN: OWN MCPAIN STRIKES BACK
Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2023 10:20 pm
I'm gonna try not to comment on Kubi's behavior in the ahelp, since I don't think I have anything valuable to add that hasn't already been said except that lying implies intent. I don't believe he said what he did to mislead or intentionally give incorrect information and I also think it's worth questioning whether or not Maxoess knew the lizard complained is relevant to the outcome of the ban.
As for the ban itself, Max does tend to play cook in a way that seems to intentionally lead to fighting one way or another, either by purposefully cooking bad food or refusing access to specific species. I think there's definitely an argument to be made that he does this for escalation baiting (as I can't imagine another reason to do it other than "funny man bad at job). The REAL part that I think he's not understanding is that it's completely irrelevant whether or not someone consents to an action if you're breaking the rules. If you go and just immediately escalate straight to beating someone to death and they say "no actually I'm okay with it", you've still broken the rules and are subject to punishment. Kubi even puts in the thread a specific instance where we've acted on someone despite the fight being consensual between the two of them.
I think the idea of someone attacking somebody for not letting them into the bar is perfectly fine, especially if it's explicitly speciesist in nature (which this was), but Max's history is starting to paint a picture of someone who's explicitly only doing it to bait people into fights because he thinks it's funny when he wins.
tl;dr I think Max is cruising for a cook ban one way or another, but I'm not sure this specific instance is enough of a violation to stick. The lizard not wanting to pursue punishment here is completely irrelevant.
As for the ban itself, Max does tend to play cook in a way that seems to intentionally lead to fighting one way or another, either by purposefully cooking bad food or refusing access to specific species. I think there's definitely an argument to be made that he does this for escalation baiting (as I can't imagine another reason to do it other than "funny man bad at job). The REAL part that I think he's not understanding is that it's completely irrelevant whether or not someone consents to an action if you're breaking the rules. If you go and just immediately escalate straight to beating someone to death and they say "no actually I'm okay with it", you've still broken the rules and are subject to punishment. Kubi even puts in the thread a specific instance where we've acted on someone despite the fight being consensual between the two of them.
I think the idea of someone attacking somebody for not letting them into the bar is perfectly fine, especially if it's explicitly speciesist in nature (which this was), but Max's history is starting to paint a picture of someone who's explicitly only doing it to bait people into fights because he thinks it's funny when he wins.
tl;dr I think Max is cruising for a cook ban one way or another, but I'm not sure this specific instance is enough of a violation to stick. The lizard not wanting to pursue punishment here is completely irrelevant.
Re: ADMIN CAUGHT STACKING NOTES FOR QC BAN: OWN MCPAIN STRIKES BACK
Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2023 10:30 pm
This is just like, patently false man. Nearly every single time I saw Dean Ivanov we would get into scuffles and fights that led to one of us being crit or horribly injured, usually over nothing more than a slip or something that started out trivial. We were both totally fine with it and it made our rounds fun, neither of us had ever been bwoinked for it. Were we technically “escalation baiting” and “overescalating” on each other? Yeah. But did we both consent to this OOCly because it made for fun rounds and stories that we enjoyed? Also yeah.Vekter wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2023 10:20 pm The REAL part that I think he's not understanding is that it's completely irrelevant whether or not someone consents to an action if you're breaking the rules. If you go and just immediately escalate straight to beating someone to death and they say "no actually I'm okay with it", you've still broken the rules and are subject to punishment. Kubi even puts in the thread a specific instance where we've acted on someone despite the fight being consensual between the two of them.
In fact he was an admin (and a better one than the vast majority), so I don’t really think you’re accurate at all saying this is against the rules, it may be your own personal opinion but once again it’s not held by the vast majority of even other admins.
Re: ADMIN CAUGHT STACKING NOTES FOR QC BAN: OWN MCPAIN STRIKES BACK
Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2023 10:40 pm
There's a massive difference between beating up your pal who you know is fine with it and beating up several different people and then one of them says after the fact that he was fine with it and so its retroactively oksinfulbliss wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2023 10:30 pmThis is just like, patently false man. Nearly every single time I saw Dean Ivanov we would get into scuffles and fights that led to one of us being crit or horribly injured, usually over nothing more than a slip or something that started out trivial. We were both totally fine with it and it made our rounds fun, neither of us had ever been bwoinked for it. Were we technically “escalation baiting” and “overescalating” on each other? Yeah. But did we both consent to this OOCly because it made for fun rounds and stories that we enjoyed? Also yeah.Vekter wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2023 10:20 pm The REAL part that I think he's not understanding is that it's completely irrelevant whether or not someone consents to an action if you're breaking the rules. If you go and just immediately escalate straight to beating someone to death and they say "no actually I'm okay with it", you've still broken the rules and are subject to punishment. Kubi even puts in the thread a specific instance where we've acted on someone despite the fight being consensual between the two of them.
In fact he was an admin (and a better one than the vast majority), so I don’t really think you’re accurate at all saying this is against the rules, it may be your own personal opinion but once again it’s not held by the vast majority of even other admins.
Re: ADMIN CAUGHT STACKING NOTES FOR QC BAN: OWN MCPAIN STRIKES BACK
Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2023 10:50 pm
ok but he was bwoinked over the one who said they were fine with it. so why are you using the others as fodder? do you even know how those conflicts transpired? why are you automatically assuming he just CQCd a bunch of people FNRNoxVS wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2023 10:40 pmThere's a massive difference between beating up your pal who you know is fine with it and beating up several different people and then one of them says after the fact that he was fine with it and so its retroactively oksinfulbliss wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2023 10:30 pmThis is just like, patently false man. Nearly every single time I saw Dean Ivanov we would get into scuffles and fights that led to one of us being crit or horribly injured, usually over nothing more than a slip or something that started out trivial. We were both totally fine with it and it made our rounds fun, neither of us had ever been bwoinked for it. Were we technically “escalation baiting” and “overescalating” on each other? Yeah. But did we both consent to this OOCly because it made for fun rounds and stories that we enjoyed? Also yeah.Vekter wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2023 10:20 pm The REAL part that I think he's not understanding is that it's completely irrelevant whether or not someone consents to an action if you're breaking the rules. If you go and just immediately escalate straight to beating someone to death and they say "no actually I'm okay with it", you've still broken the rules and are subject to punishment. Kubi even puts in the thread a specific instance where we've acted on someone despite the fight being consensual between the two of them.
In fact he was an admin (and a better one than the vast majority), so I don’t really think you’re accurate at all saying this is against the rules, it may be your own personal opinion but once again it’s not held by the vast majority of even other admins.
logs were already posted showing the lizard expressed they were totally okay with it IC, not retroactively
Re: ADMIN CAUGHT STACKING NOTES FOR QC BAN: OWN MCPAIN STRIKES BACK
Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2023 10:50 pm
Like how is the chef robusting a grey after throwing him out once and telling him he ain't welcome even a bwoink in the first place!?
"if you want to kill each other go to the holodeck" So I the holodeck not a public area now?
"if you want to kill each other go to the holodeck" So I the holodeck not a public area now?
Re: ADMIN CAUGHT STACKING NOTES FOR QC BAN: OWN MCPAIN STRIKES BACK
Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2023 10:53 pm
got a feeling the headmins are gonna side with the admin on this one boys
the whole "angry chef abuses as many people as possible with cqc" doesnt stop being a thing just because it was the guys friend in this specific instance
its already been pointed out in the thread or the appeal i forget that he does this all the time
the whole "angry chef abuses as many people as possible with cqc" doesnt stop being a thing just because it was the guys friend in this specific instance
its already been pointed out in the thread or the appeal i forget that he does this all the time
Re: ADMIN CAUGHT STACKING NOTES FOR QC BAN: OWN MCPAIN STRIKES BACK
Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2023 10:58 pm
Just another to add the to the pile of "no notes totally arn't punishments honest 
" then.
" then.Re: ADMIN CAUGHT STACKING NOTES FOR QC BAN: OWN MCPAIN STRIKES BACK
Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2023 11:01 pm
Mfrs with 12 bans and 30 notes about the same behaviour when it worsens their next ban (what a fucking revelation)
Re: ADMIN CAUGHT STACKING NOTES FOR QC BAN: OWN MCPAIN STRIKES BACK
Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2023 11:08 pm
It's nonetheless reasonable on the other person's side to believe you're lying when you talk like that.Kubisopplay wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2023 7:11 pmApparently the issue is that midway of juggling adminbus, 3 log windows and two ticket windows i started one response with "yeah" without registering that i was asked a question of if they complained
This is why people need to stop using yeah as a mannerism of speech. It adds nothing of value and only increases miscommunication. Furthermore it makes you come across like Bill Lumbergh.
Re: ADMIN CAUGHT STACKING NOTES FOR QC BAN: OWN MCPAIN STRIKES BACK
Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2023 11:10 pm
okay but he didn’t abuse anyone EXCEPT his friend, everyone else he tossed out nonlethally, and the BAN IS ABOUT HIS FRIEND not the “many people”Kendrickorium wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2023 10:53 pm got a feeling the headmins are gonna side with the admin on this one boys
the whole "angry chef abuses as many people as possible with cqc" doesnt stop being a thing just because it was the guys friend in this specific instance
its already been pointed out in the thread or the appeal i forget that he does this all the time
just because kubi and a couple admins in the peanut say “shitter does this all the time, good ban” doesn’t mean it should be upheld. that’s an insane view. you need proof, a history of repetition, and then on top of that you need to show this was a similar case. we have nothing except a couple admins saying “he had it coming,” how is that enough for you to wash your hands and say “yup he’s in the wrong”?
Re: ADMIN CAUGHT STACKING NOTES FOR QC BAN: OWN MCPAIN STRIKES BACK
Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2023 11:11 pm
Re: ADMIN CAUGHT STACKING NOTES FOR QC BAN: OWN MCPAIN STRIKES BACK
Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2023 11:22 pm
Do you member when CQC was kitchen only? I member.
This is the coders fault for making CQC viable outside of the kitchen and in the mess area.
You (as in the admin side) have made the entire mess hall the chef's domain and now you're feigning surprise when they act accordingly.
IC issue if anything, lizards should have complained, captain should have asserted authority.
If admins are tired of the gimmick it should be a job ban for a week or a month or something. Perma seems unjustifiably long.
Re: ADMIN CAUGHT STACKING NOTES FOR QC BAN: OWN MCPAIN STRIKES BACK
Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2023 11:24 pm
Re: ADMIN CAUGHT STACKING NOTES FOR QC BAN: OWN MCPAIN STRIKES BACK
Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2023 11:26 pm
I agree, which is why I am saying this ban should have been placed way earlier.Lacran wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2023 7:03 pmYeah but banning shitters doesn't justify (potentially) terrible admin conduct.TheRex9001 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2023 6:59 pm Its pretty clear that this is just a ban to remove Owen from the chef role, honestly should have been done way earlier. Owen just CQC baits the entire shift, never once in my life do I see them cook and make food without a shitty additional that leads to them CQCing someone. This ban should as said been placed WAAAAAYYY earlier.
Re: ADMIN CAUGHT STACKING NOTES FOR QC BAN: OWN MCPAIN STRIKES BACK
Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2023 11:29 pm
If this guy is the biggest shitter since Lucy it ought to be pretty easy to just accept that the admin fucked up, overturn the ban and actually ban him from doing something wrong yeah?
Re: ADMIN CAUGHT STACKING NOTES FOR QC BAN: OWN MCPAIN STRIKES BACK
Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2023 11:32 pm
You are free to disagree. That doesn't change the fact that you aren't allowed to do it. Feel free to open a policy discussion thread if you want to change the rules around it.
Re: ADMIN CAUGHT STACKING NOTES FOR QC BAN: OWN MCPAIN STRIKES BACK
Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2023 11:37 pm
Re: ADMIN CAUGHT STACKING NOTES FOR QC BAN: OWN MCPAIN STRIKES BACK
Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2023 11:44 pm
you made it look so fun I wanted to give it a shot.
Re: ADMIN CAUGHT STACKING NOTES FOR QC BAN: OWN MCPAIN STRIKES BACK
Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2023 11:51 pm
because i looked at the logs and saw he CQCd a bunch of people FNRsinfulbliss wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2023 10:50 pm ok but he was bwoinked over the one who said they were fine with it. so why are you using the others as fodder? do you even know how those conflicts transpired? why are you automatically assuming he just 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.
Re: ADMIN CAUGHT STACKING NOTES FOR QC BAN: OWN MCPAIN STRIKES BACK
Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2023 12:01 am
Man, either you were very quick to read my logs or you logdived to checkNoxVS wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2023 11:51 pmbecause i looked at the logs and saw he CQCd a bunch of people FNRsinfulbliss wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2023 10:50 pm ok but he was bwoinked over the one who said they were fine with it. so why are you using the others as fodder? do you even know how those conflicts transpired? why are you automatically assuming he just 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.
Also the worst part of the logs was trying to remove this clutter in the middle of fights
Code: Select all
02:36:08 ATTACK Maxoess/(Owen McShain) slipped on the [floor] (130, 130, 2) Bar Lounge
02:36:09 ATTACK Maxoess/(Owen McShain) slipped on the [floor] (131, 130, 2) Bar Lounge
02:36:09 ATTACK Maxoess/(Owen McShain) slipped on the [floor] (132, 130, 2) Bar Lounge
02:36:12 ATTACK Maxoess/(Owen McShain) slipped on the [floor] (133, 130, 2) Bar Lounge
02:36:13 ATTACK Maxoess/(Owen McShain) slipped on the [floor] (132, 130, 2) Bar Lounge
02:36:13 ATTACK Maxoess/(Owen McShain) slipped on the [floor] (131, 130, 2) Bar Lounge
02:36:13 ATTACK Maxoess/(Owen McShain) slipped on the [floor] (130, 130, 2) Bar Lounge
02:36:17 ATTACK Maxoess/(Owen McShain) slipped on the [floor] (129, 130, 2) Bar Lounge
02:36:24 ATTACK Maxoess/(Owen McShain) slipped on the [floor] (130, 130, 2) Bar Lounge
02:36:24 ATTACK Maxoess/(Owen McShain) slipped on the [floor] (131, 130, 2) Bar Lounge
02:36:24 ATTACK Maxoess/(Owen McShain) slipped on the [floor] (132, 130, 2) Bar Lounge
02:36:25 ATTACK Maxoess/(Owen McShain) slipped on the [floor] (133, 130, 2) Bar Lounge
02:36:25 ATTACK Maxoess/(Owen McShain) slipped on the [floor] (134, 130, 2) Bar Lounge
02:36:26 ATTACK Maxoess/(Owen McShain) slipped on the [floor] (134, 129, 2) Bar Lounge
02:36:26 ATTACK Maxoess/(Owen McShain) slipped on the [floor] (135, 129, 2) Bar Lounge
02:36:26 ATTACK Maxoess/(Owen McShain) slipped on the [floor] (136, 129, 2) Bar Lounge
02:36:26 ATTACK Maxoess/(Owen McShain) slipped on the [floor] (136, 128, 2) Bar Lounge
02:38:06 ATTACK Maxoess/(Owen McShain) slipped on the [floor] (134, 130, 2) Bar Lounge
02:38:06 ATTACK Maxoess/(Owen McShain) slipped on the [floor] (133, 130, 2) Bar Lounge
02:38:07 ATTACK Maxoess/(Owen McShain) slipped on the [floor] (132, 130, 2) Bar Lounge
02:38:07 ATTACK Maxoess/(Owen McShain) slipped on the [floor] (131, 130, 2) Bar Lounge
02:38:10 ATTACK Maxoess/(Owen McShain) slipped on the [floor] (132, 130, 2) Bar LoungeRe: ADMIN CAUGHT STACKING NOTES FOR QC BAN: OWN MCPAIN STRIKES BACK
Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2023 12:02 am
Nah, I feel you on this. As long as you're not dragging others into the fight (it's their fault for joining in as some bloodthirsty lynchsquad) and getting people involved in your business (they should really mind their own business), it's fun, and it's always wonderful to watch the victor. After one contestant is out cold, it shouldn't be an issue to subject them to "tends wounds, brute, basic" hell for a bit. It should be quite self-explanatory when it's not a fight to wrestle the corpse from the winner. Alas, we can't have nice things because a space Lucy crawled her lobster ass through medbay and got doctors involved in some Peter Griffin vs Chicken fight for the umpteenth time. Granted... it was funny to watch Lucy get her ass kicked, so no complaints from me. I honestly felt that aside from how common it occurred, it added some hilarious spice to the round of "WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON?!!" to break the monotony.Itseasytosee2me wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2023 7:47 pm I may be a minority opinion among admins, but I see picking fights to be pretty healthy for the game as long as you are acting in character. We have pretty defined escalation rules, and it doesn’t look like any were broken by either of the parties.
Re: ADMIN CAUGHT STACKING NOTES FOR QC BAN: OWN MCPAIN STRIKES BACK
Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2023 12:10 am
Notepad++ is great. CTRL + F, Mark, search using a word in the logs you want removed "slipped on the [floor]", mark all, Search, Bookmark, Removed Bookmarked Lines.Archie700 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2023 12:01 am Also the worst part of the logs was trying to remove this clutter in the middle of fightsCode: Select all
02:36:08 ATTACK Maxoess/(Owen McShain) slipped on the [floor] (130, 130, 2) Bar Lounge 02:36:09 ATTACK Maxoess/(Owen McShain) slipped on the [floor] (131, 130, 2) Bar Lounge 02:36:09 ATTACK Maxoess/(Owen McShain) slipped on the [floor] (132, 130, 2) Bar Lounge 02:36:12 ATTACK Maxoess/(Owen McShain) slipped on the [floor] (133, 130, 2) Bar Lounge 02:36:13 ATTACK Maxoess/(Owen McShain) slipped on the [floor] (132, 130, 2) Bar Lounge 02:36:13 ATTACK Maxoess/(Owen McShain) slipped on the [floor] (131, 130, 2) Bar Lounge 02:36:13 ATTACK Maxoess/(Owen McShain) slipped on the [floor] (130, 130, 2) Bar Lounge 02:36:17 ATTACK Maxoess/(Owen McShain) slipped on the [floor] (129, 130, 2) Bar Lounge 02:36:24 ATTACK Maxoess/(Owen McShain) slipped on the [floor] (130, 130, 2) Bar Lounge 02:36:24 ATTACK Maxoess/(Owen McShain) slipped on the [floor] (131, 130, 2) Bar Lounge 02:36:24 ATTACK Maxoess/(Owen McShain) slipped on the [floor] (132, 130, 2) Bar Lounge 02:36:25 ATTACK Maxoess/(Owen McShain) slipped on the [floor] (133, 130, 2) Bar Lounge 02:36:25 ATTACK Maxoess/(Owen McShain) slipped on the [floor] (134, 130, 2) Bar Lounge 02:36:26 ATTACK Maxoess/(Owen McShain) slipped on the [floor] (134, 129, 2) Bar Lounge 02:36:26 ATTACK Maxoess/(Owen McShain) slipped on the [floor] (135, 129, 2) Bar Lounge 02:36:26 ATTACK Maxoess/(Owen McShain) slipped on the [floor] (136, 129, 2) Bar Lounge 02:36:26 ATTACK Maxoess/(Owen McShain) slipped on the [floor] (136, 128, 2) Bar Lounge 02:38:06 ATTACK Maxoess/(Owen McShain) slipped on the [floor] (134, 130, 2) Bar Lounge 02:38:06 ATTACK Maxoess/(Owen McShain) slipped on the [floor] (133, 130, 2) Bar Lounge 02:38:07 ATTACK Maxoess/(Owen McShain) slipped on the [floor] (132, 130, 2) Bar Lounge 02:38:07 ATTACK Maxoess/(Owen McShain) slipped on the [floor] (131, 130, 2) Bar Lounge 02:38:10 ATTACK Maxoess/(Owen McShain) slipped on the [floor] (132, 130, 2) Bar Lounge
I was just diving before you posted your logs
Re: ADMIN CAUGHT STACKING NOTES FOR QC BAN: OWN MCPAIN STRIKES BACK
Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2023 12:12 am
I get you, I was just rushing for time because I had to leave home and just searched Owen McShain on scrubby
Also, per the ban reason
This sounds like more of a QC ban with past incidents taken into accountBanned from Roles: Cook permanently - This is a discretionary permaban from chef, prompted by repeated incidents of baiting people into conflict by witholding food, and then abusing CQC to escalate the conflict. You were warned for it before, and you were banned for it before. If you believe it to be a mistake, appeal on forums
Re: ADMIN CAUGHT STACKING NOTES FOR QC BAN: OWN MCPAIN STRIKES BACK
Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2023 12:24 am
you two are so cute
Re: ADMIN CAUGHT STACKING NOTES FOR QC BAN: OWN MCPAIN STRIKES BACK
Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2023 12:24 am
little logdiving buddies
Re: ADMIN CAUGHT STACKING NOTES FOR QC BAN: OWN MCPAIN STRIKES BACK
Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2023 12:45 am
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?
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?
Re: ADMIN CAUGHT STACKING NOTES FOR QC BAN: OWN MCPAIN STRIKES BACK
Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2023 12:47 am
It is a chef perma job ban.TypicalRig wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2023 12:45 am 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?
Re: ADMIN CAUGHT STACKING NOTES FOR QC BAN: OWN MCPAIN STRIKES BACK
Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2023 1:43 am
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 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2023 12:47 amIt is a chef perma job ban.TypicalRig wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2023 12:45 am 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?