Peanut

[Vekter]

Bottom post of the previous page:

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=35589

I'm putting as much effort into this as he did the appeal.

[dendydoom]

honestly i've thought over this a bit today and the only part that gets to me is not getting them medical help afterwards. imo you should have more of a responsibility to reasonably ensure they're gonna get treated, like if a paramed takes them off or you drop them in full view of the doctors in medbay then this is enough but to just toss them out like "yea det get to this plz" is kinda ass. but ultimately it's impossible to tell without knowing how pressing the cult is. if there is reason to believe that stepping outside is just gonna be suicide for the captain at that point, then eh alright i guess, but there was a bridge assistant?

also,

this is why i sincerely believe we'll have a few months after a big new policy change like this where we'll see edge cases crop up and shonky rulings made that will need to be deliberated on by the community and headmins will need to make rulings on it. obviously the wording should be as clear and concise as possible, but ultimately it will take time for the "spirit" of what the rule is trying to accomplish to come out and be understood by the wider community, rather than regarding it in a rigidly codified way.

[Itseasytosee2me]

So, this players actions were obviously justified by the rules. Unless you are saying that wanting to speak with someone is a legitimate reason to break into a high security area, its pretty clear cut.

The argument in the ban appeal seems to be that the player did not engage in sufficient roleplay before taking action against the player, which is a premise I find rather distasteful. Because this ban would not have been dolled out if the player simply ignored the intruder, although I would say that that is even worse roleplay than if they were wordlessly gunned down.

There is no logical workaround of the rules to uphold it, and doing so would set the precedent that you can not rely on this rule for any protections, even in the cases it was specifically intended for.

[Itseasytosee2me]

Claim that this is a code issue.

[iwishforducks]

everything about this from the admins posting on this thread to the ban itself just puts a really sour taste in my mouth

[Timberpoes]

The player engaged with the ticket and the admin said "bored arguing go to the forums if you have anything more to say". That's fine and what we're trained to do when tickets are getting bogged down with technicalities. Rule 6 is there for a reason.

I also don't think the player needed to put any meaningful effort into the appeal because everything they wanted to say was in the ticket. Any admin can pull up and read the ticket if necessary. We're not helpless children. And the ticket was, in due course, provided so the player didn't have the Ctrl-C Ctrl-V.

Despite the fact the player took it to the forums without anything more to say, it was only because they believed under the wording of the precedent that they had an express right under the rules to act that way. It doesn't need to be a high effort or complex appeal. In all honesty it actually needed 5 minutes of a headmin's time in explaining the precedent that this term modified as a condition precedent to the appeal itself being able to proceed.

A headmin being kind enough to provide that time and insight was the only way this appeal was even going to get started for real. It could have just as easily been a policy post, but it was attached to a ban so it's being done via appeal.

[Timberpoes]

And going into appeal to clarify recent rule changes is the life of a headmin.

Admins shouldn't mald about players doing low-effort appeals when the appeal subject matter doesn't warrant high effort burnout-inducing walls of text.

Sometimes the appeal is indeed as simple as "The rules say I can do X" "Well I don't think the rules say you can do X, so you're banned." "I disagree." "Then go to the forums." "I disagree on the forums." "I'm not backing down." "Headmins pls halp."

[NecromancerAnne]

The argument in the ban appeal seems to be that the player did not engage in sufficient roleplay before taking action against the player, which is a premise I find rather distasteful. Because this ban would not have been dolled out if the player simply ignored the intruder, although I would say that that is even worse roleplay than if they were wordlessly gunned down.

I mean, the 'no legitimate reason' part of the precedent is doing a lot of the carrying in this argument, and choosing to shoot first ask questions never will not prove whether or not there is a legitimate reason for someone being in the bridge. That clause in that precedent does allow for the guy to be there if they have reason. This guy didn't care, he just shot. I don't know how using the talk key even once and shooting the guy if he moves to attack is a tall ask.

I'm not sure how you've reached the backwards understanding of roleplay that you have, but I don't think the 'letter of the law' interpretations can protect someone who is only picking and choosing the convenient parts of that rule.

I think the important thing to think about here is that, in hindsight, we have the convenience of being able to assess the legitimacy of this person's presence on the bridge. And during the given situation, that player probably shouldn't have been there. However, if by circumstance this player did have a legitimate reason; let's say he somehow ended up accidentally teleported onto the bridge and is now stuck. That's a legitimate reason to be there, he never wanted to be there. But the captain, in the moment, does not know this. His only thinking is 'He is here, he is valid', so legitimate or not, his only thinking is 'valid'. And that isn't what that rule says, nor would he have the opportunity to find out given his application of it.

[TheRex9001]

The player engaged with the ticket and the admin said "bored arguing go to the forums if you have anything more to say". That's fine and what we're trained to do when tickets are getting bogged down with technicalities. Rule 6 is there for a reason.

I also don't think the player needed to put any meaningful effort into the appeal because everything they wanted to say was in the ticket. Any admin can pull up and read the ticket if necessary. We're not helpless children. And the ticket was, in due course, provided so the player didn't have the Ctrl-C Ctrl-V.

Despite the fact the player took it to the forums without anything more to say, it was only because they believed under the wording of the precedent that they had an express right under the rules to act that way. It doesn't need to be a high effort or complex appeal. In all honesty it actually needed 5 minutes of a headmin's time in explaining the precedent that this term modified as a condition precedent to the appeal itself being able to proceed.

A headmin being kind enough to provide that time and insight was the only way this appeal was even going to get started for real. It could have just as easily been a policy post, but it was attached to a ban so it's being done via appeal.

They couldn't even be bothered to pull up the banning admin, even though it was in the screenshot. I just think they could've like at least said anything on the appeal itself.

[MrStonedOne]

The bridge/brig execution precedent originally specified round-start, and was designed to cover the often seen at the time cases of assistants doing their round start tide playbook trying to go after the spare id or brig guns.

On the other hand, the captain has ic powers to authorize executions.

On the other other hand, if red alert wasn't set then the captain can't really use any ic justification of an emergency to do the execution outside of the transfer center.

On the other other other hand bans and ban lengths should take into account rather or not it was reasonable for the player to think their conduct was inline with the rules.

[Itseasytosee2me]

The argument in the ban appeal seems to be that the player did not engage in sufficient roleplay before taking action against the player, which is a premise I find rather distasteful. Because this ban would not have been dolled out if the player simply ignored the intruder, although I would say that that is even worse roleplay than if they were wordlessly gunned down.

I mean, the 'no legitimate reason' part of the precedent is doing a lot of the carrying in this argument, and choosing to shoot first ask questions never will not prove whether or not there is a legitimate reason for someone being in the bridge. That clause in that precedent does allow for the guy to be there if they have reason. This guy didn't care, he just shot. I don't know how using the talk key even once and shooting the guy if he moves to attack is a tall ask.

I'm not sure how you've reached the backwards understanding of roleplay that you have, but I don't think the 'letter of the law' interpretations can protect someone who is only picking and choosing the convenient parts of that rule.

No I certainly agree the way this situation was handeled by the captain was exceedingly lame. But no rules were broken.

The captain ignoring the intruder would also be very lame, but they would never get banned for it.

My argument is if the only reason this person isn't protected by the rules is because there actions were not in character, then we are applying a double standard. The rule specifically never mentions in character justification, it only mentions legitimacy of the intruders reasons for the break in. If the rule was, "Given sufficient IC reasoning, you may gun down any high risk break ins" it would be different.

I'm not arguing moralistically, I'm arguing that this ban is wrong because the player didn't break any rules. If the players behavior is something that we don't desire (it is) the rules should be changed to reflect this.

[Timberpoes]

They couldn't even be bothered to pull up the banning admin, even though it was in the screenshot. I just think they could've like at least said anything on the appeal itself.

Much how admins have some chagrin when they percieve poor appeals, players have those exact same vibes when they percieve poor bans and notes. We're all only human.

This was a dayban for a single unjust kill when the player thought a newly modified precedent permitted them to make that kill and the admin didn't.

Lacking anything that rules scholars like myself tend to dig up from time to time in appeals, it needs like 2 minutes of a headmin for clarification on ambiguities and then the ticket can start for real as the player or admin better understands the rule they're trying to rely on.

Once TBM got involved the appeal started to unwind back to being like a ticket, since the intent, goal and nuance of the precedent could be explained clearer by one of the parties that drafted it. That's the system working and I don't think either side arguing the craic in the appeal would have been more than a waste of time before a headmin showed up.

[TheRex9001]

They couldn't even be bothered to pull up the banning admin, even though it was in the screenshot. I just think they could've like at least said anything on the appeal itself.

Much how admins have some chagrin when they percieve poor appeals, players have those exact same vibes when they percieve poor bans and notes. We're all only human.

This was a dayban for a single unjust kill when the player thought a newly modified precedent permitted them to make that kill and the admin didn't.

Lacking anything that rules scholars like myself tend to dig up from time to time in appeals, it needs like 2 minutes of a headmin for clarification on ambiguities and then the ticket can start for real as the player or admin better understands the rule they're trying to rely on.

Once TBM got involved the appeal started to unwind back to being like a ticket, since the intent, goal and nuance of the precedent could be explained clearer by one of the parties that drafted it. That's the system working and I don't think either side arguing the craic in the appeal would have been more than a waste of time before a headmin showed up.

Of course we all get those vibes. So why reinforce them? Should we not expect that minimum amount of effort from everyone? I don't think it would've been a complete waste of time to at least put the banning admin in the title.

[oranges]

[iwishforducks]

They couldn't even be bothered to pull up the banning admin, even though it was in the screenshot. I just think they could've like at least said anything on the appeal itself.

Much how admins have some chagrin when they percieve poor appeals, players have those exact same vibes when they percieve poor bans and notes. We're all only human.

This was a dayban for a single unjust kill when the player thought a newly modified precedent permitted them to make that kill and the admin didn't.

Lacking anything that rules scholars like myself tend to dig up from time to time in appeals, it needs like 2 minutes of a headmin for clarification on ambiguities and then the ticket can start for real as the player or admin better understands the rule they're trying to rely on.

Once TBM got involved the appeal started to unwind back to being like a ticket, since the intent, goal and nuance of the precedent could be explained clearer by one of the parties that drafted it. That's the system working and I don't think either side arguing the craic in the appeal would have been more than a waste of time before a headmin showed up.

Of course we all get those vibes. So why reinforce them? Should we not expect that minimum amount of effort from everyone? I don't think it would've been a complete waste of time to at least put the banning admin in the title.

it’s just virtue signaling at this point. which can be important because we don’t want dumbass people who don’t care about the game playing here. but also it’s dumb to expect everyone to bend over 107 degrees whenever an admin does Anything. i dont know i thought the appeal was fine. all’s well that ends well at this point, though. appealer learned more. thunder11 learned more. rules getting clarified. you’re getting caught up on something that, at the end of the day, doesnt really matter

edit: i meant to trim the quotes but i guess im subconsciously trying to invoke the curse of the tower at this point cuz i subconsciously hate this thread. mods? take me away.

and yes, even though i just edited this, im not just going to trim the quotes. it’s funnier this way

[Timberpoes]

Of course we all get those vibes. So why reinforce them? Should we not expect that minimum amount of effort from everyone? I don't think it would've been a complete waste of time to at least put the banning admin in the title.

Sometimes we'll demand the person appealing fill out the template in a certain way or add some missing information.

But the truth is all our lives end up easier if we could but stop being obstacles for the sake of being an obstacle. It's wasted time caring as long as the appeal reaches a state that it can be handled and the key information is documented somewhere in it.

[TheRex9001]

They couldn't even be bothered to pull up the banning admin, even though it was in the screenshot. I just think they could've like at least said anything on the appeal itself.

Much how admins have some chagrin when they percieve poor appeals, players have those exact same vibes when they percieve poor bans and notes. We're all only human.

This was a dayban for a single unjust kill when the player thought a newly modified precedent permitted them to make that kill and the admin didn't.

Lacking anything that rules scholars like myself tend to dig up from time to time in appeals, it needs like 2 minutes of a headmin for clarification on ambiguities and then the ticket can start for real as the player or admin better understands the rule they're trying to rely on.

Once TBM got involved the appeal started to unwind back to being like a ticket, since the intent, goal and nuance of the precedent could be explained clearer by one of the parties that drafted it. That's the system working and I don't think either side arguing the craic in the appeal would have been more than a waste of time before a headmin showed up.

Of course we all get those vibes. So why reinforce them? Should we not expect that minimum amount of effort from everyone? I don't think it would've been a complete waste of time to at least put the banning admin in the title.

it’s just virtue signaling at this point. which can be important because we don’t want dumbass people who don’t care about the game playing here. but also it’s dumb to expect everyone to bend over 107 degrees whenever an admin does Anything. i dont know i thought the appeal was fine. all’s well that ends well at this point, though. appealer learned more. thunder11 learned more. rules getting clarified. you’re getting caught up on something that, at the end of the day, doesnt really matter

edit: i meant to trim the quotes but i guess im subconsciously trying to invoke the curse of the tower at this point cuz i subconsciously hate this thread. mods? take me away.

and yes, even though i just edited this, im not just going to trim the quotes. it’s funnier this way

I'm glad it ended how it ended, I just think it might be good to virtue signal that you put effort in. I don't really think its bending over to just say "Yeah this didnt break the rules cause you can shoot a guy for breaking in" or whatever.

[JusticeGoat]

The way he responds to the appeal right away is off putting and a bit rude. If people are bringing down the servers fun they should be corrected or told to leave.

[TheRex9001]

Of course we all get those vibes. So why reinforce them? Should we not expect that minimum amount of effort from everyone? I don't think it would've been a complete waste of time to at least put the banning admin in the title.

Sometimes we'll demand the person appealing fill out the template in a certain way or add some missing information.

But the truth is all our lives end up easier if we could but stop being obstacles for the sake of being an obstacle. It's wasted time caring as long as the appeal reaches a state that it can be handled and the key information is documented somewhere in it.

I'm glad it reached that state but its a lot easier to reach it if information like the banning admin and ticket and maybe a reason for your opinion. Alls well that ends well though

[DrAmazing343]

Regardless of rules I will make fun of you for lethalling in this situation or defending the usage of lethals here. You have so many other options it’s not even funny and you choose the most NRP draw steel blackguard affix bayonets goofy ass bullshit option??? I WILL point and laugh.

[Ezel]

I had the same scenario with honda today which didn't involve the bridge assistant station trait where he broke into bridge, i lasered him and brought him to medbay granted i could disable it didn't really come to mind since its just really the "old tradiational way" of the bridge situation i brought him to medbay, but sometimes when people break into bridge without reason and you pull a non lethal option they tend to go to the fight more and flip the table then if you were to go to the laser option where they don't really have much to win there because it could be round ending so you have a easier time chasing them off.

[oranges]

you guys ever notice how every sec peanut has keith4, bonchoi and prussen show up to argue the same case.

sinful would show up but he was banned.

[Hernacious]

Nowell has such a way with words.

[Timonk]

you guys ever notice how every sec peanut has keith4, bonchoi and prussen show up to argue the same case.

sinful would show up but he was banned.

something about sec mains, cant remember though.

[TheBibleMelts]

you guys ever notice how every sec peanut has keith4, bonchoi and prussen show up to argue the same case.

sinful would show up but he was banned.

big think

[BonChoi]

Oh god I've drawn the ire of the powers that be. It's time to campaign for headmin in order to survive.

[BonChoi]

FR though me being lumped in with those two is funny because we disagree on so much, only thing we have in common is that we probably spend WAY too much time in the Player's Club.

[TheBibleMelts]

FR though me being lumped in with those two is funny because we disagree on so much, only thing we have in common is that we probably spend WAY too much time in the Player's Club.

and for this, you will be destroyed

[Not-Dorsidarf]

sorry bud, you've had a circle drawn around you, you're basically an interchangeable faceless shitter now.

[oranges]

FR though me being lumped in with those two is funny because we disagree on so much, only thing we have in common is that we probably spend WAY too much time in the Player's Club.

i need you to post more so I can make one of those funny diagrams with all the red circles and lines on them.

[Prussen]

you guys ever notice how every sec peanut has keith4, bonchoi and prussen show up to argue the same case.

sinful would show up but he was banned.

Do not associate me with bonchoi please

[kieth4]

you guys ever notice how every sec peanut has keith4, bonchoi and prussen show up to argue the same case.

sinful would show up but he was banned.

I have the most hos hrs on tg so sec tickets interest me. Sinful was like, very high hours too probably most total sec dept

[oranges]

keith and prussen not even trying to hide their coordination now they're posting wtihin seconds of each other!!

[Prussen]

keith and prussen not even trying to hide their coordination now they're posting wtihin seconds of each other!!

Maybe it also has something to do with you posting this thread in the Discord server we are both active in

[Jonathan Gupta]

Dogshit ban, don't break into high security places if you do not want to be dealt with

never lethal a tider when you have a gun, winstick, secdogs, bridge assistant, and AI all around you and they're unarmed.

shame them instead.

you've saved me from executing heretics, traitors, and mega lings. Without you they would have been dead in a ditch.

[DrAmazing343]

Dogshit ban, don't break into high security places if you do not want to be dealt with

-my own goddamn snip-

you've saved me from executing heretics, traitors, and mega lings. Without you they would have been dead in a ditch.

it's true one time you gave me a direct order to execute a traitor while he was in cuffs and because I DIDN'T you got to have a kickass trial don't gimme that look BUDDY

[Jonathan Gupta]

Dogshit ban, don't break into high security places if you do not want to be dealt with

-my own goddamn snip-

you've saved me from executing heretics, traitors, and mega lings. Without you they would have been dead in a ditch.

it's true one time you gave me a direct order to execute a traitor while he was in cuffs and because I DIDN'T you got to have a kickass trial don't gimme that look BUDDY

the kickass trial in question was ten people on my ass for a traitor that was bombing the station, and they said free this man he didnt do nothing wrong. HE FUCKING DID SOMETHING WRONG AND EVERYONE WAS AFTER ME THAT WAS UNDENIABLY YOUR FAULT!

[DrAmazing343]

Dogshit ban, don't break into high security places if you do not want to be dealt with

-my own goddamn snip-

-waaaah waaaah-

-my own goddamn snip(x2)-

the kickass trial in question was ten people on my ass for a traitor that was bombing the station, and they said free this man he didnt do nothing wrong. HE FUCKING DID SOMETHING WRONG AND EVERYONE WAS AFTER ME THAT WAS UNDENIABLY YOUR FAULT!

The last bastion of spacelawsec on Sybil... and I will stay that way :3
(I was round-removed my a traitor with Fist of the North Star literally five minutes after the events described)

[Jonathan Gupta]

Dogshit ban, don't break into high security places if you do not want to be dealt with

-my own goddamn snip-

-waaaah waaaah-

-my own goddamn snip(x2)-

the kickass trial in question was ten people on my ass for a traitor that was bombing the station, and they said free this man he didnt do nothing wrong. HE FUCKING DID SOMETHING WRONG AND EVERYONE WAS AFTER ME THAT WAS UNDENIABLY YOUR FAULT!

The last bastion of spacelawsec on Sybil... and I will stay that way :3

SPACE LAW ALLOWS ME TO EXECUTE THEM, I TOLD YOU THIS. AND I DONT GIVE A SHIT IF IT SAID OTHERWISE HE WRONGED NOT ONLY ME BUT OTHERS. DEATH IS A DESERVING PUNISHMENT FOR RATS AND VERMIN.

[dendydoom]

indoor voices please

[Timonk]

indoor voices please

YOU CANT TELL ME WHAT I CAN AND CANNOT DO MODULATOR

[DrAmazing343]

hi dendy

[Jonathan Gupta]

indoor voices please

FUCK YOU TG STATION!

[EmpressMaia]

Dogshit ban, don't break into high security places if you do not want to be dealt with

This makes me think of the people who ahelp when they get killed for breaking onto the shuttles cockpit

[kieth4]

Dogshit ban, don't break into high security places if you do not want to be dealt with

This makes me think of the people who ahelp when they get killed for breaking onto the shuttles cockpit

Yeah it's cringe!!!

[kieth4]

I tide, I break in but I do not ahelp...it is the role of the tider to make a mess and be killed not to make a mess then cry to admins

[celularLAmp]

Dogshit ban, don't break into high security places if you do not want to be dealt with

This makes me think of the people who ahelp when they get killed for breaking onto the shuttles cockpit

how do you even get killed for breaking onto shuttle cockpit i've like never had that happen.

[Timonk]

Dogshit ban, don't break into high security places if you do not want to be dealt with

This makes me think of the people who ahelp when they get killed for breaking onto the shuttles cockpit

how do you even get killed for breaking onto shuttle cockpit i've like never had that happen.

these things happen exclusively on manuel where people take their job too seriously

[BonChoi]

Dogshit ban, don't break into high security places if you do not want to be dealt with

This makes me think of the people who ahelp when they get killed for breaking onto the shuttles cockpit

how do you even get killed for breaking onto shuttle cockpit i've like never had that happen.

these things happen exclusively on manuel where people take their job too seriously

I'd argue it doesn't happen on manuel because you're going to get banned if you do it and you'll have to hash it out in an appeal that'll span a longer time than your ban was for.

[celularLAmp]

Dogshit ban, don't break into high security places if you do not want to be dealt with

This makes me think of the people who ahelp when they get killed for breaking onto the shuttles cockpit

how do you even get killed for breaking onto shuttle cockpit i've like never had that happen.

these things happen exclusively on manuel where people take their job too seriously

Ahhh I see.. I just always end up eating donuts in the corner of the cockpit or grabbing a space suit and sitting in that room while rest of the shuttle gets bombed.

[TheLoLSwat]

I try to kill people entering the shuttle cockpit because they r commoners and we (command) deserve to be away from them

[EmpressMaia]

I try to kill people entering the shuttle cockpit because they r commoners and we (command) deserve to be away from them

Same