Captain gets banned for making a prisoner play Russian Roulette

[ekaterina]

Bottom post of the previous page:

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=34358

A month-long ban for this? That is beyond insane. Unless he's done stuff like this before, all this should result in is "hey, you can't do that, don't round remove people who haven't committed capital crimes" and maybe a standard 1 day ban for 1 kill.

[conrad]

Why are people blaming the victim for being round removed because "they failed to clarify what death meant".

Because at least three people in this thread are coming up with rulings based on their feelings rather than what the rules actually say or are meant to signify, when otherwise they should be making policy threads.

[ekaterina]

And the deal doesn’t HAVE TO BE good. Yeah RR would make it a shit deal, but that’s irrelevant. If you agree to a shit deal it doesn’t mean it’s malicious because you always had the option not to agree. Again it was a miscommunication in what the deal entailed.

There's a notion in Law of an unconscionable contract: "one that is so one-sided or so unfair that it shocks the conscience". I think "50% chance to be round removed instead of a 7 minute brig sentence" might fall into that category. Unconscionable contracts are generally disregarded by courts. In our context, this would be what the admins are already doing: ignoring the deal despite the player having technically accepted (under a misunderstanding, no less).

[EmpressMaia]

how can yall not understand that this is a RP video game and that this isnt a court case. being RR'd for a minor crime is no bueno

[dendydoom]

And the deal doesn’t HAVE TO BE good. Yeah RR would make it a shit deal, but that’s irrelevant. If you agree to a shit deal it doesn’t mean it’s malicious because you always had the option not to agree. Again it was a miscommunication in what the deal entailed.

There's a notion in Law of an unconscionable contract: "one that is so one-sided or so unfair that it shocks the conscience". I think "50% chance to be round removed instead of a 7 minute brig sentence" might fall into that category. Unconscionable contracts are generally disregarded by courts. In our context, this would be what the admins are already doing: ignoring the deal despite the player having technically accepted (under a misunderstanding, no less).

100% agree, i think this is a decent comparison.

i've mentioned it before but there are numerous ways that i'd gladly allow this sort of situation to play out. anything from gladiatorial combat between prisoners to some sort of twisted gameshow for their freedom to the lawyer simply writing up a plea deal that fucks them over in some inexplicable legalese sort of way. these are all interesting stories that have effort put into them and make them fun to be a part of, even if you were to "lose." the situation from the appeal is, frankly, just sort of shitty? low effort? even if you remove the discussion around whether the terms were RR or revivable death.

[mstachife]

watching people go full circle into essentially defending shitsec behavior in this just to have a contrarian take is fascinating.

[TheLoLSwat]

rules lawyering aside this is a good ban, and 7 days is a good length for the ban.

Rule 1
We're all here to have a good time, supposedly. Going out of your way to seriously negatively impact or end the round for someone with little IC justification is against the rules ...

If a player is asking permission to kill someone and prevent their revival, it's VERY important this is communicated in full.

Any ambiguity can be held against the person suggesting the idea. Players should be able to play expecting that everyone else is also playing in good faith.

And turning a 7 minute brig sentence into an execution with denied permission to revive is moving the needle directly towards bad faith unless everyone understands completely and without question what's about to happen. Round removal is no trivial matter to fuck around with on a whim. Even the HoS had to be told not to revive them in response to asking if they'd be "rez?"d, so clearly the message that this was meant to be a permanent death was lost on more than just the victim.

Making sure the other party understands the consequences of your actions is a key part of "we can hand waive things when everyone consents".

I don't think any player (at least on MRP) would expect to have their revival prevented in those above circumstances, and suggesting your game's conditions without clearly stating they were not going to be revived is highly negligent at the absolute best of times.

There's also a question of fairness to the other player when your game consisted of "guess what number is in my head"; using any of the in-game mechanics such as dice rolls and coin flips is a more transparent method to pull off games of chance and provides more legitimacy when things go awry.

good take, and rules lawyering aside this is a good ban with 7 days being an optimal length. put effort into being a bad person!

[CMDR_Gungnir]

People need to stop throwing out buzzwords like malicious and bad faith. The captain was giving them the chance for RR as well as instant release. Assuming the game wasn't rigged, this was a two-way miscommunication error.

RR vs release from a 7 minute sentence is in absolutely no way a fair or good deal and thus there is absolutely zero fucking reason to believe anyone would ever be offering that when the rules generally say you have to act in good faith.

Also Manuel players only agreeing to do things ICly because they are acting on OOC metaprotections saving them is awfully fail RP for the MRP server and not something Dendy, or any admin, should be encouraging lol.

One of the core tenets of Improv is the concept of "Yes, and" and one of the things you should always strive to do is avoid saying "No". In improv, you don't want to shut down the other person, you want to build on what they've done.

However, at the same time, it's a game (and improv session) that we're doing for fun. If we're RR'd, we're taken out of it, and we no longer get to participate. So we have the OOC metaprotections, we have the rules about antag goals being to make the round more fun/interesting for people, so that people can feel like they can say that "Yes, and" without having their time wasted.

You're absolutely correct, it's Fail RP that I'd be willing to agree to something because the metaprotections are in place, there.

But when the alternative "True RP" is that I say "no" do you know what the outcome is? Instead of going along with any gimmicks, I sit in my workstation. Bolt the doors down when any sign of danger happens and hide. I sit around and do absolutely nothing and roleplay with noone because I know that there's probably someone delusional and psychopathic on this station that they want to stab me because I said I didn't like their football team.

What happens to that person who I said "no" to? Well, they didn't get to do their gimmick. They might even give up on trying to do fun gimmicks because nobody will go along with it. If they're an antag, they'll definitely give up on gimmicks because now not only did they not get to do something interesting, but their target is now aware of and suspicious of them and much harder to grab.

If all of that is the alternative to "You agreed to something you otherwise wouldn't because there are rules and metaprotections in place" then I know which one I'd choose.

I'll take a small hit of FailRP for the sake of allowing interesting stories.

[blackdav123]

-long snip-

Okay this helps put into perspective why this ban is valid thank you for this

[TypicalRig]

RR vs release from a 7 minute sentence is in absolutely no way a fair or good deal and thus there is absolutely zero fucking reason to believe anyone would ever be offering that when the rules generally say you have to act in good faith.

I think we just can't see eye to eye on this one as I think the very act of offering an alternative to a boring cell sentence where you just afk until release, even if a risky alternative, is in its self a good faith act. Neither of us can really prove the player's intent though, so really we are just going in circles.

However, at the same time, it's a game (and improv session) that we're doing for fun. If we're RR'd, we're taken out of it, and we no longer get to participate. So we have the OOC metaprotections, we have the rules about antag goals being to make the round more fun/interesting for people, so that people can feel like they can say that "Yes, and" without having their time wasted.

I don't really agree that just because you die or are round removed that your time is wasted. We are storycrafters here, and sometimes a person's story meets a premature end. I won't go off on a SinfulBliss "RR is sacred" tangent, but I also don't think people should be that blatantly afraid of it. It would be nicer if dynamic was better at reintroducing people into the shifts like intended, though, but that's a seperate discussion and more of a code/config issue.

But when the alternative "True RP" is that I say "no" do you know what the outcome is? Instead of going along with any gimmicks, I sit in my workstation. Bolt the doors down when any sign of danger happens and hide. I sit around and do absolutely nothing and roleplay with noone because I know that there's probably someone delusional and psychopathic on this station that they want to stab me because I said I didn't like their football team.

This seems like we are arguing two different things. What you are describing seems like an argument against heavy realism in RP, which I'm against. What I described is players refusing to take any risks and only going along with something when they think metaprotections are keeping them in the round. I guess there's a slight correlation between the two, but not that heavy of an overlap? I don't expect people to blatantly risk round removal and death every shift.

I'll take a small hit of FailRP for the sake of allowing interesting stories.

We seem to agree on this, but appear to be arguing two different things, yet again?

[oranges]

If he had used the coin that I have so slavishly coded flipping mechanics for, I would have supported him, however because he did not, I support the ban

[CMDR_Gungnir]

RR vs release from a 7 minute sentence is in absolutely no way a fair or good deal and thus there is absolutely zero fucking reason to believe anyone would ever be offering that when the rules generally say you have to act in good faith.

I think we just can't see eye to eye on this one as I think the very act of offering an alternative to a boring cell sentence where you just afk until release, even if a risky alternative, is in its self a good faith act. Neither of us can really prove the player's intent though, so really we are just going in circles.

Quite possibly! For me, the offering of it is a good thing, but a 50/50 that "tab out for 7 minutes and watch youtube" is instead "Tab out for 30-40 minutes until the round ends or you maybe get lucky on a midround" is so ludicrous that nobody would take that deal. That's why it doesn't feel so good faith to me. Especially since we have no way to know if he truly gave a 50/50, or just wanted to be able to execute someone. But he was pushing for it pretty hard.

However, at the same time, it's a game (and improv session) that we're doing for fun. If we're RR'd, we're taken out of it, and we no longer get to participate. So we have the OOC metaprotections, we have the rules about antag goals being to make the round more fun/interesting for people, so that people can feel like they can say that "Yes, and" without having their time wasted.

I don't really agree that just because you die or are round removed that your time is wasted. We are storycrafters here, and sometimes a person's story meets a premature end. I won't go off on a SinfulBliss "RR is sacred" tangent, but I also don't think people should be that blatantly afraid of it. It would be nicer if dynamic was better at reintroducing people into the shifts like intended, though, but that's a seperate discussion and more of a code/config issue.

You're certainly correct! But as a storycrafter, if your story has to come to a premature end, you want it to continue the narrative in an interesting way, right? An antag killing them to gain more power certainly qualifies as that, even if I think it can be rather lame when it's just "unga unga me kill objective" personally; but does this? Everyone just kinda shrugged and went along with what the Captain said. It didn't create a narrative where the Captain is showing his tyrannical, insane side. It wouldn't have lead to a mutiny or rebellion. Even Sec, the only people who would've known, didn't try to undermine it by slipping the head to Medbay.

On the contrary, what benefit could they have added to the shift if they were revived later? What benefit to the story could their death have inspired then?

But when the alternative "True RP" is that I say "no" do you know what the outcome is? Instead of going along with any gimmicks, I sit in my workstation. Bolt the doors down when any sign of danger happens and hide. I sit around and do absolutely nothing and roleplay with noone because I know that there's probably someone delusional and psychopathic on this station that they want to stab me because I said I didn't like their football team.

This seems like we are arguing two different things. What you are describing seems like an argument against heavy realism in RP, which I'm against. What I described is players refusing to take any risks and only going along with something when they think metaprotections are keeping them in the round. I guess there's a slight correlation between the two, but not that heavy of an overlap? I don't expect people to blatantly risk round removal and death every shift.

Let's say you're John Prisoner. You've got a relatively short, all things considered, prison sentence. But the Warden says if you guess whether the number he's thinking of is Odd or Even, you get to go free. If you guess wrong, he'll kill you. Let's assume for this example, that you are aware that Death means No More Life Ever.

The only way that you'd ever take that deal, is if you're some deranged nihilistic lunatic with no self-preservation instincts. Or maybe you have a really bad gambling problem, but we can honestly factor that in under the deranged.

Without factoring in the metaprotections, only a very specific type of person will take that deal. Only a very specific person will go along with the gimmick.

Now, let's say instead of killing you, he's going to break your ribs. You know this'll put you in the hospital for about...five to six months, and your prison sentence is seven months. In your time in the hospital, you may as well be in prison for all of the things you'll get to do, but you'll also be in extreme pain, because, y'know. You have broken ribs and it pierced your lung or something. Breathing is hard and it hurts.

There are suddenly a lot more people willing to take this deal. Someone who's been to prison, maybe, and doesn't want to go back. Someone who thinks they can take those 50/50 odds. Hey, maybe you'll be in pain, but hospital food's a lot nicer than prison food, and at least you'll have some cute nurses instead of prison guards who want to break your legs.

As you said, we're both largely in agreement, but we just disagree on the finer details. And I think that's okay, I think that's what separates MRP and LRP and I don't think there's anything wrong with that. On LRP everyone's characters are already basically deranged psychopaths with all of the tiding and toolboxing. So the willingness to go along with something like that despite knowing full well the outcome is most likely irreversible death is something that makes sense to a lot of the people and characters there. But because of the other restrictions with MRP, that type of character is a lot less common. Which means it's really the only way to get the gimmicks to function, y'know?

As an aside, unrelated to our conversation, something I find vaguely amusing will always be the people saying "RR is sacred so that death means something". With how easily and often you/people die, if every death was permanent it would lose the impact. But when RR is rare, THOSE deaths truly matter. They have meaning.

[Fikou]

>guess a number in my head (i can make it up to be the wrong one)
>guesses
>permanently removed from the round
lol

[Ryusenshu]

>guess a number in my head (i can make it up to be the wrong one)
>guesses
>permanently removed from the round
lol

pretty much what i had in mind when i read about that ban aswell

should have really insisted on coin, less (possible) cheat

[Bawhoppennn]

To be very clear, I do not believe this would have been allowed in LRP either, because this would fall under Rule 1 - don't be a dick.

Okay but do you see the issue with how every action that impacts another player in a negative way could be interpreted as breaking rule 1. We've seen this massive expansion of rule 1 in the past few years, rather than saving it for the clear cases where someone is a total asshole. It needs to be used very conservatively IMO is what I'm saying. This guy can still be banned for normally killing someone without a good reason, but a rule 1 is a no thanks for it I think.

[Fikou]

To be very clear, I do not believe this would have been allowed in LRP either, because this would fall under Rule 1 - don't be a dick.

Okay but do you see the issue with how every action that impacts another player in a negative way could be interpreted as breaking rule 1. We've seen this massive expansion of rule 1 in the past few years, rather than saving it for the clear cases where someone is a total asshole. It needs to be used very conservatively IMO is what I'm saying. This guy can still be banned for normally killing someone without a good reason, but a rule 1 is a no thanks for it I think.

which rule do you think handles people killing other people without good reason

[sinfulbliss]

>guess a number in my head (i can make it up to be the wrong one)
>guesses
>permanently removed from the round
lol

you don’t understand how fucking based and bigdick energy this is

[sinfulbliss]

IM THINKIN OF A NUMBER… BETWEEN ONE AND TWO. WHAT IS IT?

“U-UM… ONE?”

WRONG!

*TOSSES YOU INTO A PIT OF FUCKING LAVA

[Fikou]

name something a burglar would not wanna see when he breaks into a house

[TypicalRig]

name something a burglar would not wanna see when he breaks into a house

sinfulbliss in the nude?

[Jonathan Gupta]

fuck offfffff

[Archie700]

To be very clear, I do not believe this would have been allowed in LRP either, because this would fall under Rule 1 - don't be a dick.

Okay but do you see the issue with how every action that impacts another player in a negative way could be interpreted as breaking rule 1. We've seen this massive expansion of rule 1 in the past few years, rather than saving it for the clear cases where someone is a total asshole. It needs to be used very conservatively IMO is what I'm saying. This guy can still be banned for normally killing someone without a good reason, but a rule 1 is a no thanks for it I think.

Random murders are not acceptable nor is the killing of other players for poor or little reasoning such as ‘My character is insane’. Each unjustified kill is normally met with one 24 hour ban.

If killing a player for little reason isn't being a dick, what is.

Do admins literally have to write down what numbered rule was broken in the ban reason in order for the rule to be considered "used" now?

[Bawhoppennn]

No you guys are way overthinking this

[Bawhoppennn]

Grr you successfully baited me into double-posting this but if you don't see the different between the precedents (which are actually rules in disguise) and then the overarching theme of rule 1/0... then...
well fair enough cause you're technically right, but I feel there is a very key distinction when you look at it in practice

[Archie700]

If you're going to argue about how admins are using rule 1 judiciously, maybe don't use the "killing someone without a good reason" as an example to argue your point.

We're all here to have a good time, supposedly. Going out of your way to seriously negatively impact or end the round for someone with little IC justification is against the rules, this also includes harassing a player OOC (Out of character). Legitimate conflicts where people get upset do happen however, as detailed in the escalation section of the rules.

[mstachife]

Do admins literally have to write down what numbered rule was broken in the ban reason in order for the rule to be considered "used" now?

AI LAW TWO

[conrad]

Do admins literally have to write down what numbered rule was broken in the ban reason in order for the rule to be considered "used" now?

Nah, both the admin and the person banned, and probably five or six other admins involved, know exactly why they were banned. Especially considering expiring bans, which are private in /tg/station.

People asking for "WHAT RULE HE BROKE" are just peanutting pedantic people paralleling punishing procedure as per real-life examples like that made any sense lmao

[ekaterina]

Do admins literally have to write down what numbered rule was broken in the ban reason in order for the rule to be considered "used" now?

That would be supremely based.
Will the headmins make it happen?
I expect it would cut down on shitty bans.

[sinfulbliss]

Nah, both the admin and the person banned, and probably five or six other admins involved, know exactly why they were banned. Especially considering expiring bans, which are private in /tg/station.

no one cares if you and a few other admins know the "real" reasons. what's the point of even saying this on a peanut thread in players' club?
do you want everyone to just nod like good little sheeple and say ah yes sir sorry sir, there are factors we can't possibly know, I trust things are as they should be

thats the whole point of discussing these things in the peanut threads. if you don't like that discussion because you're privy to info other people don't have, then cope i guess. or do as dendy and timber have done and try to actually discuss the ban in terms of the policies and rules broken instead of getting on your makeshift trialmin high horse and shouting platitudes like a pedant

just sayin.

[conrad]

Nah, both the admin and the person banned, and probably five or six other admins involved, know exactly why they were banned. Especially considering expiring bans, which are private in /tg/station.

what's the point of even saying this on a peanut thread in players' club?

To answer Archie's question.

[conrad]

Double posting 'cos i just saw this.

Do admins literally have to write down what numbered rule was broken in the ban reason in order for the rule to be considered "used" now?

That would be supremely based.
Will the headmins make it happen?
I expect it would cut down on shitty bans.

I wouldn't be opposed, but what you conceptualize as "shitty bans" could very well just be labeled Rule 1 or Rule 7 bans.

Make a policy thread though. Bear in mind, though, that every ban (with an appeal) has at least four/five (depending on headmin term) people involved: the banning admin, the banned player and the headmins. Every ban or note can be appealed. So an upheld, appealed ban means that four people agree that you fucked up enough that not even explaining yourself is enough. On the other hand, every succesful appeal is warranted an admin complaint if the banned person is up for it.

Not lecturing here, just trying to give perspective on it.

[conrad]

Triple posting to say good evening america and good morning europe

[sinfulbliss]

Nah, both the admin and the person banned, and probably five or six other admins involved, know exactly why they were banned. Especially considering expiring bans, which are private in /tg/station.

what's the point of even saying this on a peanut thread in players' club?

To answer Archie's question.

archie's question was clearly rhetorical i think you just used it as a springboard to cope about us noble peanutters

[conrad]

Nah, both the admin and the person banned, and probably five or six other admins involved, know exactly why they were banned. Especially considering expiring bans, which are private in /tg/station.

what's the point of even saying this on a peanut thread in players' club?

To answer Archie's question.

archie's question was clearly rhetorical i think you just used it as a springboard to cope about us noble peanutters

Nah. Unlike you, I don't stir shit for the purpose of stirring shit.

"Noble peanutters" gave me a hearty giggle.

[Lacran]

Nah, both the admin and the person banned, and probably five or six other admins involved, know exactly why they were banned. Especially considering expiring bans, which are private in /tg/station.

no one cares if you and a few other admins know the "real" reasons. what's the point of even saying this on a peanut thread in players' club?
do you want everyone to just nod like good little sheeple and say ah yes sir sorry sir, there are factors we can't possibly know, I trust things are as they should be

thats the whole point of discussing these things in the peanut threads. if you don't like that discussion because you're privy to info other people don't have, then cope i guess. or do as dendy and timber have done and try to actually discuss the ban in terms of the policies and rules broken instead of getting on your makeshift trialmin high horse and shouting platitudes like a pedant

just sayin.

Sinful even if admins did explain everything to you you'd just dismiss it on the basis of it not matching your headcanon of the event, or that it did but the ruling didn't match your ideals for the community which seem to change depending on whatever is more contrarian for you to advocate for.


An admin alluding to a player's history is a lot more relevant to the bans fairness than you going from "Faustian bargains aren't malicious" to "yeah ok it's a terrible deal but abusing prisoner's is based"

[sinfulbliss]

Nah. Unlike you, I don't stir shit for the purpose of stirring shit.

i’m sorry my takes aren’t the vanilla bog standard cookie cutter copy pasta of the admin rules of conduct your trainer gave you but SOME people have souls conrad, souls which get expressed in peanut threads

An admin alluding to a player's history is a lot more relevant to the bans fairness than you going from "Faustian bargains aren't malicious" to "yeah ok it's a terrible deal but abusing prisoner's is based"

what history? how’s it apply? you ain’t got the foggiest and neither do i. you’re like cattle that’s content to graze upon whatever corn-mash slop is placed in front of you. exert an ounce of skepticism

[conrad]

i’m sorry my takes aren’t the vanilla bog standard cookie cutter copy pasta of the admin rules of conduct your trainer gave you but SOME people have souls conrad, souls which get expressed in peanut threads

No, mate, you got literally banned from the player's club for stirring shit for its own sake. There is no soul there, just childish humour. The façade of attacking me for "not having soul" is flimsy when one notices the only reason you're doing this is because I didn't say the things you agree with.

There is no world in which I take people like you seriously. Improve and rise above such motives. Or continue seething over what I said in a peanut thread. Whatever rocks your boat Thanks for another "lmao trialmin" comment though, I'll cherrish it forever.

[Lacran]

You aren't a rebellious free thinker Sinful. You are just a dude that struggles with introspection and basic logic.

If you held yourself to the scrutiny you held admins to I don't think you'd like what you found. This isn't saying Conrad is above scrutiny or even correct but to dismiss evidence or opinion because it requires a leap of faith you can't verify is dumb because unverifiable interpretation has been the premise of you defending this players motivation.

The other argument you've made is just that you think it's based, which is really strange seeing as you're normally the first person to rally against shitsec and prisoner abuse, the only reason I can think as to why that's changed is because in this context it's the majority opinion.

If you just do the opposite of what the sheeple do, it doesn't make you any smarter than them, you're still basing your desicions off sheep.

[conrad]

I'd like to add to Lacran's that the core reason why notes and bans aren't made public (unless permanent) is to protect players that get noted or banned from bad faith actors.

Countless ahelps I've responded to end with "so what happened to them?" after I say that "I handled it". It's none of your business, and you wanting to know serves to show your poor sensibility to someone's note or ban history. I have zero respect for drama queens.

Peanut thread discussion is based on conjecture, and their effectiveness is the same as washing sand on the beach. I don't disagree with the ban length of one 1 month for two roles in this case, but I also wouldn't be opposed to a reduction in it, since it's quite long. Ultimately it's about what the banning admin, the player and, potentally the headmins can come to an agreement with.

Which is tough when the player goes:

To the admin, the reason I appealed so fast is because I believe I haven't done anything wrong.

[sinfulbliss]

i’m sorry my takes aren’t the vanilla bog standard cookie cutter copy pasta of the admin rules of conduct your trainer gave you but SOME people have souls conrad, souls which get expressed in peanut threads

No, mate, you got literally banned from the player's club for stirring shit for its own sake. There is no soul there, just childish humour. The façade of attacking me for "not having soul" is flimsy when one notices the only reason you're doing this is because I didn't say the things you agree with.

conrad i got banned from the players club before your forum account even existed. which was like 5 months ago. you have no idea what you’re talking about

i’m sorry if your incompetence is a sore subject but if you want a more grounded discussion you should try to engage in good faith instead of shitposting snobby little jabs

[AsbestosSniffer]

i’m sorry my takes aren’t the vanilla bog standard cookie cutter copy pasta of the admin rules of conduct your trainer gave you but SOME people have souls conrad, souls which get expressed in peanut threads

No, mate, you got literally banned from the player's club for stirring shit for its own sake. There is no soul there, just childish humour. The façade of attacking me for "not having soul" is flimsy when one notices the only reason you're doing this is because I didn't say the things you agree with.

conrad i got banned from the players club before your forum account even existed. which was like 5 months ago. you have no idea what you’re talking about

i’m sorry if your incompetence is a sore subject but if you want a more grounded discussion you should try to engage in good faith instead of shitposting snobby little jabs

Ah yes, the perfect way to remain unbanned after stirring shit, putting up the middle finger at admemes and continuing to stir shit.

[conrad]

Ah yes, the perfect way to remain unbanned after stirring shit, putting up the middle finger at admemes and continuing to stir shit.

As much as I appreciate this, there is a very important ruling from MSO that I agree with that dictates that players shouldn't feel afraid or intimidated to speak to admins or other staff in a different way they would speak to another player. (i.e.: admins shouldn't abuse their position of authority for social clout)

That being said, it would take a lot for Sinfulbliss to achieve any level of sympathy from me in the future based on his little tirade here lol

[sinfulbliss]

I'd like to add to Lacran's that the core reason why notes and bans aren't made public (unless permanent) is to protect players that get noted or banned from bad faith actors.

what are you protecting them from exactly? from the ahelper knowing you actually did something?

Countless ahelps I've responded to end with "so what happened to them?" after I say that "I handled it". It's none of your business, and you wanting to know serves to show your poor sensibility to someone's note or ban history. I have zero respect for drama queens.

have you considered that the people ahelping were just griefed, wronged in some way, and they’re asking because they want to see that it was rectified?

calling them drama queens with poor sensibilities just for asking you what happened with the ticket they entrusted you to handle is just a rotten attitude for an admin to have

[ekaterina]

i’m sorry my takes aren’t the vanilla bog standard cookie cutter copy pasta of the admin rules of conduct your trainer gave you but SOME people have souls conrad, souls which get expressed in peanut threads

No, mate, you got literally banned from the player's club for stirring shit for its own sake. There is no soul there, just childish humour. The façade of attacking me for "not having soul" is flimsy when one notices the only reason you're doing this is because I didn't say the things you agree with.

conrad i got banned from the players club before your forum account even existed. which was like 5 months ago. you have no idea what you’re talking about

i’m sorry if your incompetence is a sore subject but if you want a more grounded discussion you should try to engage in good faith instead of shitposting snobby little jabs

Ah yes, the perfect way to remain unbanned after stirring shit, putting up the middle finger at admemes and continuing to stir shit.

He's not "stirring shit", he's paving the way for constructive dialogue about game mechanics and admin behaviour.
He has as much a right to express his opinion as you do. It's not his fault that there are bozos who feel the need to shit all over him for having an opinion they don't like.
"noooo you can't disagree with admins noooooo admins are infallible players shouldn't dare criticise them because they have muh privileged informations"

[RedBaronFlyer]

I'd like to add to Lacran's that the core reason why notes and bans aren't made public (unless permanent) is to protect players that get noted or banned from bad faith actors.

what are you protecting them from exactly? from the ahelper knowing you actually did something?

Countless ahelps I've responded to end with "so what happened to them?" after I say that "I handled it". It's none of your business, and you wanting to know serves to show your poor sensibility to someone's note or ban history. I have zero respect for drama queens.

have you considered that the people ahelping were just griefed, wronged in some way, and they’re asking because they want to see that it was rectified?

calling them drama queens with poor sensibilities just for asking you what happened with the ticket they entrusted you to handle is just a rotten attitude for an admin to have

I don't completely disagree with Sinful here. A downside of the “it’s been dealt with” approach is that, for the ahelping player, it can feel like nothing has been done. Especially when the person in question continues to do the thing, but just enough to not get immediately ahelped again.

It’s something that requires faith in the admins, but understandably people get fed up when that guy seemingly keeps getting away with slaps on the wrist.

[conrad]

I don't completely disagree with Sinful here. A downside of the “it’s been dealt with” approach is that, for the ahelping player, it can feel like nothing has been done. Especially when the person in question continues to do the thing, but just enough to not get immediately ahelped again.

I tend to respond to the question with "you won't be seeing them in the round anymore" when someone's banned, out of principle of assuming good faith. But over time you learn to associate that certain people are only asking that to bathe in drama. Each admin deals with this differently, but if you don't have faith in the admin team and the fact we're trying our best, welp, that's what complaints are for. Bollockings do happen when admins fuck up and there are discussions into preventing them from happening again. We're only human. This is also why ban appeals and admin complaints are public. When we fuck up, you all see it.

It’s something that requires faith in the admins, but understandably people get fed up when that guy seemingly keeps getting away with slaps on the wrist.

As Timber says, the wheels of administration turn slowly, but they do turn. A note isn't a slap on the wrist, it's someone being put into (possibly short term) probation over an issue. This is what Rule 7 is for. Repeated behaviour of something not worthy of a ban will trigger a ban. I know that sometimes seems unfair, especially when you see someone in the round just after the admin says they've been handled, but believe me, that person is walking on eggshells unless they're really stupid or don't care about being banned.

In which case, they won't last long.

[Lacran]

It frustrates me too that when someone wrongs me I just have to trust admins handled the manner properly. I know there's been times they haven't and they don't seem to treat complaints regarding them being too lenient with much regard.

But the main criticism Sinful had is allusions to information he can't access doesn't have a place here. Despite me and him literally arguing about a player's motivation which is the same level of evidence to discuss.

The reason it's a practice to keep a player's history private is because admins want to see a player reform.

If you are a shitter, you get treated like one, players do treat players worse if they have a reputation which can make mending their ways that much harder. Players can also use your history as a means to banbait you, or just as an excuse to be disrespectful. (People discussing sinfuls forum ban here is a case and point)

When you have records public you go from trusting a select group of people to be fair to you, to trusting everyone in the community. Any peanut should prove that's a fucking dumb idea.

[conrad]

Lacran I want you to know I appreciate you as a person.

[sinfulbliss]

Countless ahelps I've responded to end with "so what happened to them?" after I say that "I handled it". It's none of your business, and you wanting to know serves to show your poor sensibility to someone's note or ban history. I have zero respect for drama queens.

Telling players the outcome isn't forbidden.
[…]
I believe that little bit of catharsis that players get from knowing a major griefer who just merc'd them FNR has been excluded from the server can often erase all the negativity that comes from an incident and show that the admin had some genuine empathy for them.

These two statements just could not read differently. One treats the playerbase antagonistically and skeptically, like a bunch of wild shitters who you dislike and need to monitor. The other is empowering and treats the playerbase like something you’re trying to nurture.

If I saw the first in awho I would choose not to ahelp and handle it myself instead. If I saw the second in awho I’d have much more trust in giving the admin the reigns. It really makes all the difference in how you approach it.

[conrad]

Countless ahelps I've responded to end with "so what happened to them?" after I say that "I handled it". It's none of your business, and you wanting to know serves to show your poor sensibility to someone's note or ban history. I have zero respect for drama queens.

Telling players the outcome isn't forbidden.
[…]
I believe that little bit of catharsis that players get from knowing a major griefer who just merc'd them FNR has been excluded from the server can often erase all the negativity that comes from an incident and show that the admin had some genuine empathy for them.

These two statements just could not read differently. One treats the playerbase antagonistically and skeptically, like a bunch of wild shitters who you dislike and need to monitor. The other is empowering and treats the playerbase like something you’re trying to nurture.

Only if you apply what I said to the entire playerbase. Something said about lack of good faith, no?

[dendydoom]

admins are just impartial referees to the never-ending game of d&d in space that we're all playing. i try not to leave people hanging with the copy paste "it's resolved" and i will try to give them a shoulder to cry on when it's a genuinely frustrating situation, but ultimately players on either side of an ahelp are biased and emotionally invested in the situation and giving them more information and letting them in on the decision making process just stokes the flames. even when admins are playing and they're involved in a situation that they need to ahelp, they don't readmin and deal with it themselves, they ahelp for another admin to help them. they leave the admin to figure it out and give their ruling. they don't go into adminbus and start fighting their corner either. we just let it get handled.

sometimes from a player pov that looks like nothing is getting done, but there are reasons for not wanting to impart information to a player that might feed their desire for revenge or to use OOCly motivated metagamey tactics to take matters into their own hands. we want you to just get back to playing.

imagine a scenario like this: you're randomly killed by someone. you have no idea why and you're pissed about it. you ahelp it. the admin investigates, comes back after 10 minutes and says "yeah actually it's all good because they're a traitor and you're their objective and it's all valid so don't worry!" because they don't want to leave you upset about what happened. then you get rezzed. you conveniently "find" some flimsy evidence that they're an antag, but there are doubts. you ignore those doubts because you already know the truth. you get into a questionable altercation and kill them, and don't get them revived. they ahelp. we investigate and find that your IC reasons were incredibly flimsy for knowing they were an antag. now what do we do? punish you after setting you up for failure because we let you in on too much information? that's fucked up. it's better to just avoid it altogether.

now take that very rare straightforward scenario and add a hundred other factors to it that you need to consider. a hundred voices in your ear giving you takes and opinions based on half baked information. and the fact that everyone is waiting on you to have it resolved because the round clock is still ticking and more people are asking for your attention.

consider another situation that has happened where someone killed someone else because they were fed incorrect information by an antagonist as part of a scheme to turn the crew against their target. to be the hapless victim of that would suck, but to give you more information to soothe your wounds would unravel the scheme and potentially put you on a path that could harm the round.

this is why we let players in on their notes and bans and give them the choice of how much they want to share, and have checks and balances to ensure that they have avenues of appeal and discussion outside of the game so that their voice is heard. in that case, the discussion reaches the wider community and we have these raucous and boisterous intellectual peanut debates. it is part of why i like playing here, because in any other community the admins would just tell you to fuck off if you had a problem. we don't do that here.

of course, there are times where i can tell you more, and if i can, then as a courtesy i will (if it's a straightforward scenario where a bad player broke the rules and was removed for it, as an example.) it's a call that you have to make on top of the call you just made about your ruling. and if i can't, then like i said, i will do my best to give you a shoulder to cry on and understand that sometimes the game is very frustrating and pisses you off. it happens to all of us.

[conrad]

If dendydoom goes for headmin I'll vote for them and if they lose I'll pretend they won.