It Keeps Happening

[Vekter]

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=35271

I think the problem is that people aren't understanding that you can't say something reprehensible and then make everything better by saying "IT WAS A JOKE BRO".

I'm enjoying this hardline "if you tell someone to kill themselves you get slapped" ruling. That's not something anyone should be telling anybody. You don't know what they're going through outside of the game.

[conrad]

Careful Vekter they're gonna say you're advocating turning tg into a hugbox.

[iwishforducks]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PmqeJ0fYyM

[Vekter]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PmqeJ0fYyM

This is objectively funny and I'd be lying if I said I didn't laugh when someone insults me when I bwoink them.

I'm still going to ban them, but it's funny.

[Imitates-The-Lizards]

I think he doesn't understand. Yes, it's based to tell authority figures to fuck off. Very rebellious and edgy. However, the reason it's based is because doing so demonstrates you aren't afraid of the repercussions of doing so, in this case, being banned.

If you turn around after being banned and snivel and cry "B-b-but I'm based! I'm based! You can't hecking bannerino me!" then you're just cringe.

Like, turning around and seeking reconciliation, or saying you maybe took it too far would be fine, but the way he did it is very cringe.

I hope banning admeme tells him as much in the appeal, too.

[iwishforducks]

this is about the most appropriate use of the term “based” ive seen. “based” shall not be used as a measure of righteousness but by a measure of valor- the question is if it’s true bravery or dumb ignorance (methinks the latter)

[dirk_mcblade]

I dunno that didn't really cross the line in my opinion but on the other hand it's only a warning. Both parties should touch grass.

[iwishforducks]

I dunno that didn't really cross the line in my opinion but on the other hand it's only a warning. Both parties should touch grass.

they were banned from the discord, admin hasnt stated for how long though

[dirk_mcblade]

I dunno that didn't really cross the line in my opinion but on the other hand it's only a warning. Both parties should touch grass.

they were banned from the discord, admin hasnt stated for how long though

That's stupid then. I 100% agree with having a red line for telling people to kill themselves but what's the point of a red line if you ban people for not even crossing it?

[Timberpoes]

I had discussions about it in the admin channels when it was brought up at the time it was posted. We shifted from banning people that said kys to banning people that didn't condemn them and supported them in any form.

I don't think it needed to be actioned at all, and it was very easy to imprint your own biases into the message and any subsequent investigations.

Quoting myself talking about this when the message was first discussed:

Again, I think that's imprinting biases on their message. You're putting a LOT of weight on their ambiguous response 100% being support of the exact words said.

Rather than the response in general of rebelling against the admins when a player gets banned.

To me, it doesn't read like an endorsement of kysing at admins. Just support of throwing a tizzy when people you like are banned. It reads as an edgy retort.

[Snip more discussion]

I think with the current wonderful wave of very strong bans, there has to be a time to just let things settle down lest we spend the next month just chain banning people for being edgy.

Of course given the context this wasn't a massively popular opinion, and there's no concept of ticket ownership on Discord so all it takes it 1 DJ to take issue with something even if another has looked into it and decided not to take action.

In this case it was prompted by headmin nudging to the next day though so it is what it is. My decision and discussion not to handle it got overruled by that.

[dirk_mcblade]

I had discussions about it in the admin channels when it was brought up at the time it was posted. We shifted from banning people that said kys to banning people that didn't condemn them and supported them in any form.

I don't think it needed to be actioned at all, and it was very easy to imprint your own biases into the message and any subsequent investigations.

Quoting myself talking about this when the message was first discussed:

Again, I think that's imprinting biases on their message. You're putting a LOT of weight on their ambiguous response 100% being support of the exact words said.

Rather than the response in general of rebelling against the admins when a player gets banned.

To me, it doesn't read like an endorsement of kysing at admins. Just support of throwing a tizzy when people you like are banned. It reads as an edgy retort.

[Snip more discussion]

I think with the current wonderful wave of very strong bans, there has to be a time to just let things settle down lest we spend the next month just chain banning people for being edgy.

Of course given the context this wasn't a massively popular opinion, and there's no concept of ticket ownership on Discord so all it takes it 1 DJ to take issue with something even if another has looked into it and decided not to take action.

In this case it was prompted by headmin nudging to the next day though so it is what it is. My decision and discussion not to handle it got overruled by that.

This headmin term seems kind of aggressive. Ultimately I agree with the metacom and kys permas but seems like there's a lot of collateral damage going on.

[conrad]

this is about the most appropriate use of the term “based” ive seen. “based” shall not be used as a measure of righteousness but by a measure of valor- the question is if it’s true bravery or dumb ignorance (methinks the latter)

Honestly hard agree. Based has been recently used for the usual "It was a really dumb thing to do. So I did it anyway".

[Turbonerd]

Based and bluepilled.

[Archie700]

This was the conversation.

[dirk_mcblade]

So would Chris Rock's bit where he joked about understanding why OJ would kill Nicole Simpson get him banned as well? I don't see what line is being crossed here, the dude wasn't bullying any admins by expressing his opinion.
This ban makes it seem like the admins involved were mad about the funeral incident rather than enforcing a certain standard of behavior on the playerbase.

[Imitates-The-Lizards]

Time to bully Archie for making a typo

[Turbonerd]

This was the conversation.

So he's saying it's based and redpilled. He's a liar and a loser fuvk him.

[Archie700]

Time to bully Archie for making a typo

[wesoda25]

On one hand these discord bans really rub me the wrong way, on the other defending this type of person is almost always a mistake. This shit blows

[conrad]

He asked for a headmin review. Does he really expect it to turn out any different?

[iwishforducks]

what a weird admin response

[conrad]

what a weird admin response

Hmm, why do you think so? I read it as a "Sorry, but no." in the end.

[EmpressMaia]

can we perma ban them forever and ever for using "yeah it was based in my eyes" as an argument

[Timberpoes]

He asked for a headmin review. Does he really expect it to turn out any different?

He might as well take it, it was offered. What's the worst that'll happen? He's already permabanned.

I still think this final outcome is lost in translation and there's some hope.

The banned player's final comment in the Discord ticket with Omega before being banned was that it was not rightful but was based. I think it's clear they understand it's not right (or in the terms of the the language used, it's not a "rightful response") versus an admin's actions, but they respect the act of rebelling against authority. I don't think that's necessarily a bannable opinion and is the very last comment they said.

From the appeal OP, they believe that kys can be acceptable in a non-sincere context - as a joking response to something dumb. Expressing this opinion doesn't offend any of our rules although actually carrying it will, as we generally don't accept even joking kys on Discord to keep us clear of the Discord Trust & Safety Team taking a liking to us. They clearly state in the appeal they don't condone when kys is done seriously.

Exercising a little two-time headmin critical thinking and trying to keep an open mind, I can still square this circle without I believe reaching at all. Featherfield probably doesn't believe the kys calls during the Terry Chapel Incident were serious in the respect that the players seriously and sincerely wanted anyone to actually and genuinely kill themselves IRL. Featherfield agrees that calling for kys in response to admin actions is not a rightful response, but they respect either the backbone or the stupidity (it's "based") of the people that did it.

[Imitates-The-Lizards]

Unban them on the condition they state in the appeal that telling people to kys is cringe, not based.

[iwishforducks]

what a weird admin response

Hmm, why do you think so? I read it as a "Sorry, but no." in the end.

i disagree with the nature of these scorched-earth you-shall-not-disagree bans, for more or less the same reasons as timber has stated. omega sort of came out of the gates swinging, and im glad they admitted to that as much, but i still think they are letting their emotions play this one out. it’s a bit ridiculous to leave someone hanging on “banned” with no indication of duration. would’ve understood a 2 week ban similar to pepper’s just as a way to simmer things down

i think many people are making very rash decisions based off of their in-the-moment emotions, and i wish people would stop lighting bridges on fire here. it all feels witch-hunty. and i mean this in both admin decisions and clear name-calling by players. even thunder’s forum post felt witch-hunty to me. cooler heads will prevail in the upcoming weeks.

this is all compounded by my trust in the original QC ban faltering. with it being closed so quickly with no real indication that a QC ban was needed, and the long and confused response from sk1 followed shortly after. sometimes folks just get heated- not that it’s excusable but some of the folks HAVE contributed many great things to the community. i dont know if it feels appropriate to burn the bridge and then ban anyone who dares weigh in anything other than condemnation

long and winded response but the point is that omega’s response just feels so disconnected from the situation, which is why i simply find it “weird”. the entire situation rubs me the wrong way.

[NoxVS]

i disagree with the nature of these scorched-earth you-shall-not-disagree bans, for more or less the same reasons as timber has stated. omega sort of came out of the gates swinging, and im glad they admitted to that as much, but i still think they are letting their emotions play this one out. it’s a bit ridiculous to leave someone hanging on “banned” with no indication of duration. would’ve understood a 2 week ban similar to pepper’s just as a way to simmer things down

i think many people are making very rash decisions based off of their in-the-moment emotions, and i wish people would stop lighting bridges on fire here. it all feels witch-hunty. and i mean this in both admin decisions and clear name-calling by players. even thunder’s forum post felt witch-hunty to me. cooler heads will prevail in the upcoming weeks.

this is all compounded by my trust in the original QC ban faltering. with it being closed so quickly with no real indication that a QC ban was needed, and the long and confused response from sk1 followed shortly after. sometimes folks just get heated- not that it’s excusable but some of the folks HAVE contributed many great things to the community. i dont know if it feels appropriate to burn the bridge and then ban anyone who dares weigh in anything other than condemnation

long and winded response but the point is that omega’s response just feels so disconnected from the situation, which is why i simply find it “weird”. the entire situation rubs me the wrong way.

Simple solution - do not tell people to kill themselves and do not support other players for telling people to kill themselves

It's not rocket science

You are perfectly free to disagree - I mean look, you're doing it and so far there isn't a mob with torches and pitchforks knocking at your door calling for your immediate banning. Just as long as you don't tell others to kill themselves or support telling others to kill themselves you won't be banned. You can, and have done so repeatedly without any repercussions, weigh in with anything other than condemnation and still not be banned.

The only bridge burning here is being carried out by the people who, upon seeing someone get banned for telling someone to kill themselves, proceeded to either join in or applaud it. It doesn't matter how much they have contributed to the community, this was a clearly defined line that they decided to cross for no fucking reason.

[CMDR_Gungnir]

Honestly the guy's an idiot because the very easy way out of this problem is to go "I think a bunch of players protesting their friend's ban by doing the very thing that got him banned is kinda based. The part where that's telling people to kys maybe less so"

Because from reading it, it's looks like it's what he means. All he has to do is just make it clear that he's not endorsing telling people to kill themselves, just the rebellious attitude.

[Jacquerel]

Honestly the guy's an idiot because the very easy way out of this problem is to go "I think a bunch of players protesting their friend's ban by doing the very thing that got him banned is kinda based. The part where that's telling people to kys maybe less so"

Because from reading it, it's looks like it's what he means. All he has to do is just make it clear that he's not endorsing telling people to kill themselves, just the rebellious attitude.

90% of appeals have extremely easy outs which would instantly get the appealer unbanner or unnoted or what have you and only take saying one very short sentence, but they'd rather be "right" than not have their appeal rejected.

[conrad]

Honestly the guy's an idiot because the very easy way out of this problem is to go "I think a bunch of players protesting their friend's ban by doing the very thing that got him banned is kinda based. The part where that's telling people to kys maybe less so"

Because from reading it, it's looks like it's what he means. All he has to do is just make it clear that he's not endorsing telling people to kill themselves, just the rebellious attitude.

90% of appeals have extremely easy outs which would instantly get the appealer unbanner or unnoted or what have you and only take saying one very short sentence, but they'd rather be "right" than not have their appeal rejected.

Nah Jacquerel it's much more based to die on the hill you have created than be seen as a pussy that licks the steel sabattons of the evil administration.