Officer asks roboticist to show it all (peanut)

[BrolyButterfingers]

Bottom post of the previous page:

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=34617

Can't you send people pictures of your ass?

[Cobby]

to be fair, he never WAS told what rule he was in violation of. it took a bit in the appeal itself for rule 8 to be brought up and explained

reading the ticket I feel like thats really splitting hairs, it was obvious from the start the issue was that he was getting in trouble for "...solicit[ing] sexual photos..." since thats how the ticket opened. It isnt as specific as reading him the rulelist direct but I feel like just reading the big bold text on the rule list you should be able to parse what rule the admin is upset with.

I feel like if they approached the conversation with a bit more care rather than just going "it was a joke" and "yep thats it." they could have saved themselves a lot of trouble pretending like they were interested in why the admin believed they were at fault. I dont really fault the admin for responding with a "ok see ya!" attitude after that.

Even in the appeal he still didnt grasp that there is no "well joking is actually permissible" clause in the rule. Id understand if the rule was a nuanced essay like some of the other rules but rule 8 is a single sentence, and you dont have to do anything to be in compliance w said rule. Then again we still let porn in books exist so we obviously have some unspoken nuance, but he lost any redeemable part here by not trying to understand that nuance and just go "yep thats it". REALLY needed to get off the defensive.

The REAL PEANUT takeaway is that people should learn to talk their way out of problems IC so they dont have negative charisma when talking to admins OOC and can get out of trouble in both

[oranges]

Trials can say w/e they want idgaf some of my takes are hotter than anything any admin would say fr

depends very strongly on the headadmin term in power.

page 3

[iwishforducks]

to be fair, he never WAS told what rule he was in violation of. it took a bit in the appeal itself for rule 8 to be brought up and explained

reading the ticket I feel like thats really splitting hairs, it was obvious from the start the issue was that he was getting in trouble for "...solicit[ing] sexual photos..." since thats how the ticket opened. It isnt as specific as reading him the rulelist direct but I feel like just reading the big bold text on the rule list you should be able to parse what rule the admin is upset with.

I feel like if they approached the conversation with a bit more care rather than just going "it was a joke" and "yep thats it." they could have saved themselves a lot of trouble pretending like they were interested in why the admin believed they were at fault. I dont really fault the admin for responding with a "ok see ya!" attitude after that.

Even in the appeal he still didnt grasp that there is no "well joking is actually permissible" clause in the rule. Id understand if the rule was a nuanced essay like some of the other rules but rule 8 is a single sentence, and you dont have to do anything to be in compliance w said rule. Then again we still let porn in books exist so we obviously have some unspoken nuance, but he lost any redeemable part here by not trying to understand that nuance and just go "yep thats it". REALLY needed to get off the defensive.

The REAL PEANUT takeaway is that people should learn to talk their way out of problems IC so they dont have negative charisma when talking to admins OOC and can get out of trouble in both

well sure, but the ticket never says that even if it's a joke it's still flat-out creepy. if we're going to get real Technical with the ticket, the only thing that it insinuates is that it's bad to solicit sexual images of people through other people's PDAs. never was stated that shitty jokes are creepy. like getting into the semantics of things, all he was defending was "im not genuinely soliciting explicit photos"- which is a completely fair defense. which, again, not that it makes it any less creepy or rule-breaking.

[Cobby]

Maybe im just taking the hindsight pill or something but when I see "that it" from an admin it kinda signals like "are you sure you want to do this" from a DM or lawyer. My other assumptions are the guy can read the rules (turns out he cant) and that he is trying to resolve the issue instead of just acting like "ok you caught me", which he didnt do.

Like maybe this is me coming in with the understanding from an admin but logically speaking if you know you are going to appeal the ban I dont understand why you wouldnt at least try to defend or get an understanding of what you are going to be appealing. At the very least I dont understand the apathy "just ban me" approach if you plan on writing a paragraph for your appeal anyways (assuming you actually want to get unbanned and you expect to be unbanned from your paragraph).

[CMDR_Gungnir]

I AM FUCKING TIRED OF TELLING PEOPLE THIS WHY DO THEY KEEP COMING TO THEIR OWN PEANUTS AND BECOMING SAD OR GETTING BANNED HARDER FFS

If I had a dollar for every time I've baited someone into getting themselves permabanned in their peanut thread, I'd have $2

Which isn't a lot, but it's weird that it's happened twice.

Edit: I think my favourite one was the one where the guy linked his account with his ban evasion one just so that he could get into the Player's Club and post in his peanut thread to argue with me.

[Jacquerel]

We've been talking about this for 3 pages and nobody has even posted nudes

[Fikou]

NSFW:

[Vekter]

to be fair, he never WAS told what rule he was in violation of. it took a bit in the appeal itself for rule 8 to be brought up and explained

If there's anything that was really mishandled in this situation, it was this. Chesh assumed that the action was so heinous that it would have clearly been against the rules, as opposed to just telling him what rule he'd broken.

Not trying to drag Chesh on this, by the way - I think it was mostly handled fine, but I also think he understands it could've been done a bit better.