/tg/Station 13

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=35589

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

snarky comment about notes

response

Joke about notes and punishment

spam

starsector

Vekter wrote: ↑Fri Jan 12, 2024 10:24 pm Joke about notes and punishment

disagreement

TheRex9001 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 12, 2024 10:39 pm

Vekter wrote: ↑Fri Jan 12, 2024 10:24 pm Joke about notes and punishment

disagreement

Insult about your mother.

Vekter wrote: ↑Fri Jan 12, 2024 10:41 pm

TheRex9001 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 12, 2024 10:39 pm

Vekter wrote: ↑Fri Jan 12, 2024 10:24 pm Joke about notes and punishment

disagreement

Insult about your mother.

Long winded post about previous irrelevant drama

kinnebian wrote: ↑Fri Jan 12, 2024 10:50 pm -snip-

disagreement, loudly.

further snarky comment about subject of peanut.

kinnebian wrote: ↑Fri Jan 12, 2024 10:50 pm long essaypilled ramblepost

Rant about derailment

Didn't read the thread, but, an opinion.

Attempt at a joke that nobody but I get

Post by person involved in the appeal (cringe)

plea for you to apply to be a sybil admin

underage b&

Don't even play game, here only through tenure, provide $0.02 anyway

I think I took a wrong turn at stop light. HELP

I thought you can shoot people for being in the bridge

Unless the bridge assistant let him in I guess

I like this appeal. There's no mega paragraphs or walls of text. The banning admin quickly moves out of the way to headmin review. The player understands what he did and why he did it, and from his interpretation of the rules he thinks he is right. His interpretation is just a touch overly literal.

I want to say that more of this should have been hashed out during the ticket itself but that was already a 20 minute ticket despite the small amount of back and forth. I guess it's ended with "come argue about it on the forums" and yeah here he is.

Timberpoes wrote: ↑Fri Jan 12, 2024 11:58 pm Don't even play game, here only through tenure, provide $0.02 anyway

Angry tirade about essayposting.

this reads to me like a "you didn't play the game enough to do that" ban and i get it when you're adminning cus it can be quite annoying to see.

if you wield the rules like a club then eventually someone still might want to talk to you about it. yea, the rules say you can kill someone for trespassing on the bridge, but did they determine the context of the situation before jumping to action? did they have enough time to investigate or were they pressed with other matters and just needed this person out of a secure area? or did they have all the time in the world and just couldn't be bothered? did they use their words at all before shooting? did they believe that the intruder was enough of a threat to warrant not giving them any mercy?

you could argue that none of this matter and what mans did was fully within the rules, but i would also argue that playing in a lazy and absolutist way makes the game shit.

hope the conversation is productive and opinion opinion opinion opinion opinion opinion opinion opinion opinion opinion opinion opinion opinion opinion opinion

Look, if we're breaking the joke here;

This guys logic doesn't follow to me. If the cult being a big enough danger to not take any chances with anyone present on the bridge, then I could possibly see that angle, but I would still have some questions. A) Did you check them for any obvious tells they were cult once you disabled/killed them? B) If you didn't think he was cult, just a threat on the bridge, why did you leave the corpse out in the open and expect someone else to come clean it up, even while that may present an opportunity for the cult itself?

The latter question could be handwaved away as thinking too much in terms of optimization. We don't ban for incompetency if it isn't malicious, right? But choosing violence before talking is an optimization and one of the bluntest our playerbase employs. It can almost certainly be malicious as well. Not even communicating before gunning someone down is raw mechanics. It is just placing the consequences of that being an incorrect assumption onto the person unlucky enough not to have been given a chance to verbally explain themselves.

From that perspective, I think it puts a hole in their reasoning as well. Why was it that they're so concerned about the cult as to be killing people without giving them a chance to explain themselves in restricted areas, yet then not be concerned enough to prevent them from being A) recovered by the cult if they are a cultist or B) recovered at all if they thought they were a threat. People in these positions during cult rounds are ruthless about preventing recovery by any means. It's a common decision even for inexperienced players, because a lot of players assume 'bad guy? Keep him dead'. I think, in the moment, there being a cult wasn't their consideration for why they chose to do this. That's only a justification that has come after the fact. I really do think he just saw someone on the bridge he didn't invite and thought he had the freedom to kill that guy and took it. Since that is the angle he presented in the ticket, I think it is the actual reason he did it.

The former question would be important for proving his considerations. Cult, unlike revs, has a fantastic threat level gauge. Red eyes and halos. A dude on the bridge with a weapon during a rev round is a corpse as far as I'm concerned, That his bad luck; revs do not have these convenient tells. But if this guy is a cultist, he'd have at least red eyes if the cult is gaining any kind of foothold to be a major threat. Pulling off a mask or glasses after he's been put down (ideally, into crit) will prove his allegiance to the cult at the very least. Obviously, he could be some other threat, or he could really be just an obstructive tider. But if cult presence and threat was what was at the forefront of his mind, he'd surely at least bag search/check their eyes to determine more about why he was there if he wasn't willing to let the guy act in any way.

ban type: Evil Ban is some jutsu I've never heard of, what did Thunder do to unlock that one

Nabski wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 2:45 am I like this appeal. There's no mega paragraphs or walls of text. The banning admin quickly moves out of the way to headmin review. The player understands what he did and why he did it, and from his interpretation of the rules he thinks he is right. His interpretation is just a touch overly literal.

I want to say that more of this should have been hashed out during the ticket itself but that was already a 20 minute ticket despite the small amount of back and forth. I guess it's ended with "come argue about it on the forums" and yeah here he is.

Hot take: if you bring no arguments to your ban appeal, in the very least why you think it's wrong, there's absolutely no reason the banning admin should unban you.

tbm is being very generous here.

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

kieth4 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 12:53 pm 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.

conrad wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 11:52 am

Nabski wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 2:45 am I like this appeal. There's no mega paragraphs or walls of text. The banning admin quickly moves out of the way to headmin review. The player understands what he did and why he did it, and from his interpretation of the rules he thinks he is right. His interpretation is just a touch overly literal.

I want to say that more of this should have been hashed out during the ticket itself but that was already a 20 minute ticket despite the small amount of back and forth. I guess it's ended with "come argue about it on the forums" and yeah here he is.

Hot take: if you bring no arguments to your ban appeal, in the very least why you think it's wrong, there's absolutely no reason the banning admin should unban you.

tbm is being very generous here.

They didn't feel like rehashing the ticket.

They disagreed with the admin's application or interpretation of the rule from the outset of the ticket based on their own interpretation of the wording of the rule.

Since we have no existing precedents to point to, this appeal is/has defined how the rule is meant to be applied.

That process of clearly defining how the rule is interpreted was necessary first, with a repeat of the ticket after now everyone is on a similar page.

I typed a reply and timber posted before it was done with better worded versions. Darn you timber.

Yeah this is more policy discussion instead of a ticket, and both parties clearly care but have an attitude of it's just a game. It's refreshing and I hope they walk away with a better understanding of the rules after.

DrAmazing343 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 1:09 pm

kieth4 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 12:53 pm 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.

Hate the idea that you need to coddle people who are breaking into dangerous areas.

Edit: fact that the assistant who makes his way into bridge for literally no reason ("to talk to someone") ahelps when he gets shot is frankly absurd.

Had he had permission from a head of staff or w/e fair sure. But he just seemingly broke in like come on man. Why is the empowerment given to these people and not the ones defending the area.

Feels like this has been an issue for a while where people breaking in just get protection fnr and that kind of pisses me off as I'm on the side of fuck around and find out. There was no reason for him to be there and when he gets shot for it (not even killed) homie nets a 1 day ban

Miss the days of shitter assistants engaging with a department and getting ic destroyed for it

Even the guys say logs are him taunting the bridge assistant (?) LOL...

The og ban appeal should've just been rejected because it breaks rule 11 of the ban appeals forums, there was no attempt to talk before headmin review. Thunder said they were gonna deny it if they didnt bring anything up to the their defence and they just instantly went for the headmin review.

TheRex9001 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 1:39 pm The og ban appeal should've just been rejected because it breaks rule 11 of the ban appeals forums, there was no attempt to talk before headmin review. Thunder said they were gonna deny it if they didnt bring anything up to the their defence and they just instantly went for the headmin review.

He says he didn't break the rule and the admin says he does he doesn't really have anything else to bring to the table in this case

Timberpoes wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 1:17 pm

conrad wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 11:52 am

Nabski wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 2:45 am I like this appeal. There's no mega paragraphs or walls of text. The banning admin quickly moves out of the way to headmin review. The player understands what he did and why he did it, and from his interpretation of the rules he thinks he is right. His interpretation is just a touch overly literal.

I want to say that more of this should have been hashed out during the ticket itself but that was already a 20 minute ticket despite the small amount of back and forth. I guess it's ended with "come argue about it on the forums" and yeah here he is.

Hot take: if you bring no arguments to your ban appeal, in the very least why you think it's wrong, there's absolutely no reason the banning admin should unban you.

tbm is being very generous here.

They didn't feel like rehashing the ticket.

They disagreed with the admin's application or interpretation of the rule from the outset of the ticket based on their own interpretation of the wording of the rule.

Since we have no existing precedents to point to, this appeal is/has defined how the rule is meant to be applied.

That process of clearly defining how the rule is interpreted was necessary first, with a repeat of the ticket after now everyone is on a similar page.

This isn't what I was talking about. Rex's comment is closer to it. What could've gone differently here? Should Thunder have pulled logs rather than denying it?

Could you clarify what you meant?

kieth4 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 1:41 pm He says he didn't break the rule and the admin says he does he doesn't really have anything else to bring to the table in this case

Have your term not pushed back any appeals that went like "Unban I did nothing wrong", "Elaborate", "headmin review"?

kieth4 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 1:41 pm

TheRex9001 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 1:39 pm The og ban appeal should've just been rejected because it breaks rule 11 of the ban appeals forums, there was no attempt to talk before headmin review. Thunder said they were gonna deny it if they didnt bring anything up to the their defence and they just instantly went for the headmin review.

He says he didn't break the rule and the admin says he does he doesn't really have anything else to bring to the table in this case

"11. You are able to request that head admins review an appeal that is unable to come to an amicable resolution, however you are not entitled to a review occurring. Efforts must still be made by both you and the banning admin to resolve an appeal regardless of the request for reviewal." This guy put zero effort in his appeal and when the admin asks them to bring up something not from the ticket (maybe logs would help) they just instantly went headmin review

keith wrote:anything

Opinions from HoS mains dont matter

This ban is straight garbage lol, I'm not one to just instantly lethal people who walk into restricted areas but you gotta take it into account before entering a restricted area that per the rules, it is permissible for someone to use lethal force against you if you have no good reason to be there, which the person who walked onto the bridge didn't.

conrad wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 1:56 pm

Timberpoes wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 1:17 pm

conrad wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 11:52 am

Nabski wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 2:45 am I like this appeal. There's no mega paragraphs or walls of text. The banning admin quickly moves out of the way to headmin review. The player understands what he did and why he did it, and from his interpretation of the rules he thinks he is right. His interpretation is just a touch overly literal.

I want to say that more of this should have been hashed out during the ticket itself but that was already a 20 minute ticket despite the small amount of back and forth. I guess it's ended with "come argue about it on the forums" and yeah here he is.

Hot take: if you bring no arguments to your ban appeal, in the very least why you think it's wrong, there's absolutely no reason the banning admin should unban you.

tbm is being very generous here.

They didn't feel like rehashing the ticket.

They disagreed with the admin's application or interpretation of the rule from the outset of the ticket based on their own interpretation of the wording of the rule.

Since we have no existing precedents to point to, this appeal is/has defined how the rule is meant to be applied.

That process of clearly defining how the rule is interpreted was necessary first, with a repeat of the ticket after now everyone is on a similar page.

This isn't what I was talking about. Rex's comment is closer to it. What could've gone differently here? Should Thunder have pulled logs rather than denying it?

Could you clarify what you meant?

kieth4 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 1:41 pm He says he didn't break the rule and the admin says he does he doesn't really have anything else to bring to the table in this case

Have your term not pushed back any appeals that went like "Unban I did nothing wrong", "Elaborate", "headmin review"?

This is a somewhat clear cut example of the rules though? Maybe if there was some kind of thing to argue but it's just "rule says x" when there is an argument to be made sure but what would you expect him to argue in this case?

If I was in his position I'm not entirely sure I'd be able to dredge anything up. Guy is in bridge when he's not meant to be and he gets shot. Maybe I'd say it wasn't a kill but to crit but that's grasping for straws kinda. When it's a clear cut rule it's somewhat hard to actually argue around it.

I guess he couldve brought forward what he said in the ticket but like, what new would you bring to the table if you were in his shoes here?

Isn't a dig or anything, I'm just interested in how you would approach it

to me it seems that appealer and the admin are taking the same rule and approaching in 2 diff ways but it's VERY clear cut like super duper clear cut imo

I love when purplenames write 4 paragraphs of quantum backseating to explain why a sec player shouldn't have secured a secure area.

kieth4 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 2:48 pm This is a somewhat clear cut example of the rules though? Maybe if there was some kind of thing to argue but it's just "rule says x" when there is an argument to be made sure but what would you expect him to argue in this case?

If I was in his position I'm not entirely sure I'd be able to dredge anything up. Guy is in bridge when he's not meant to be and he gets shot. Maybe I'd say it wasn't a kill but to crit but that's grasping for straws kinda. When it's a clear cut rule it's somewhat hard to actually argue around it.

I guess he couldve brought forward what he said in the ticket but like, what new would you bring to the table if you were in his shoes here?

Isn't a dig or anything, I'm just interested in how you would approach it

Personally, I'd have to be there man. I don't know exactly which side to take because on one hand, there was cult, which gives a legitimate reason for laser poisoning to happen. On another, he didn't behave like a tider or like an antag when he entered the bridge. It honestly feels that nowel's player doesn't care about the "for no legitimate reason" of the rule just as much as tbm doesn't care about the fact that there was a cult on that round.

"Breaking into the captain's office, head of personnel's office, bridge or armory for no legitimate reason put themselves at risk of being killed by the captain, heads of staff, or security." leads me to believe that the onus of providing a legitimate reason lies on the person breaking in the bridge, but the captain should at least try to get something out of that person before lasering them to death. Else he's putting himself, like it happened, at risk of killing a nonantag without knowing why they're there in the first place.

Which is what was said on the ticket. "Non-authorized person on bridge = valid" is the argument he's using.

I wont grace the crit not dead with a response 'cos hellfire lasers aren't used for the ability to leave someone alive. In this at least we agree that that'd be grasping for straws.

Anyway my point in this thread ain't wether the ban was legit or not but the fact the dude went "headmin review" rather than at least trying to talk to the banning admin. It was basically *slams hand on table* chop chop admin boy remove ban now plx

yttriums wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 3:40 pm I love when purplenames write 4 paragraphs of quantum backseating to explain why a sec player shouldn't have secured a secure area.

realest

Pretty clear cut rule, and it's pretty much never been interpreted in any other way. Not sure why thunder and TBM are trying to lawyer around it meaning something else considering no-one else has applied it in this way. He really doesn't need to provide any "RP/IC reasoning" considering that I think we know why players who tide into high-security areas are under no OOC protections.

A "bridge assistant" has no authority over how the bridge is controlled, and reading further into the appeal and logs we can even see that the player broke into the bridge (with or without the use of the AI), providing even more reason for his actions. I remember once breaking into mainsec by asking the AI to open, something I got killed for, but I never complained because its pretty obvious why I was killed.

The way I see it, the whole "legitimate reason" thing boils down to if the captain (someone with authority over the bridge) were to provide them explicit permission to enter bridge and then kill them, which is obviously rule breaking. This guy had no reason to be in bridge and Nowell had full authority to kill them.

I also don't see why admins are saying his appeal has no substance considering it's pretty clear that what he did was not against the rules and that's all he needs to say.

i think the key with this is just making sure that you're providing more than an entirely OOC-based justification for your actions if questioned about them.

lol

Striders13 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 12, 2024 10:29 pmspam

Someone kill this STUPID Owlmin for spamming

conrad wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 3:45 pm

kieth4 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 2:48 pm This is a somewhat clear cut example of the rules though? Maybe if there was some kind of thing to argue but it's just "rule says x" when there is an argument to be made sure but what would you expect him to argue in this case?

If I was in his position I'm not entirely sure I'd be able to dredge anything up. Guy is in bridge when he's not meant to be and he gets shot. Maybe I'd say it wasn't a kill but to crit but that's grasping for straws kinda. When it's a clear cut rule it's somewhat hard to actually argue around it.

I guess he couldve brought forward what he said in the ticket but like, what new would you bring to the table if you were in his shoes here?

Isn't a dig or anything, I'm just interested in how you would approach it

Personally, I'd have to be there man. I don't know exactly which side to take because on one hand, there was cult, which gives a legitimate reason for laser poisoning to happen. On another, he didn't behave like a tider or like an antag when he entered the bridge. It honestly feels that nowel's player doesn't care about the "for no legitimate reason" of the rule just as much as tbm doesn't care about the fact that there was a cult on that round.

"Breaking into the captain's office, head of personnel's office, bridge or armory for no legitimate reason put themselves at risk of being killed by the captain, heads of staff, or security." leads me to believe that the onus of providing a legitimate reason lies on the person breaking in the bridge, but the captain should at least try to get something out of that person before lasering them to death. Else he's putting himself, like it happened, at risk of killing a nonantag without knowing why they're there in the first place.

Which is what was said on the ticket. "Non-authorized person on bridge = valid" is the argument he's using.

I wont grace the crit not dead with a response 'cos hellfire lasers aren't used for the ability to leave someone alive. In this at least we agree that that'd be grasping for straws.

Anyway my point in this thread ain't wether the ban was legit or not but the fact the dude went "headmin review" rather than at least trying to talk to the banning admin. It was basically *slams hand on table* chop chop admin boy remove ban now plx

yttriums wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 3:40 pm I love when purplenames write 4 paragraphs of quantum backseating to explain why a sec player shouldn't have secured a secure area.

► Show Spoiler

realest

ye I just think it's super hard to argue something like this esp when looking at the ticket already having had it all argued out

"If no, please provide more details: I believe "this wasn't even a rule break and you shouldn't have been noted?(banned)" i dont think any punishment should have been dealt since i was acting within the rules"
I think this is zero effort cause they just didn't say WHY they believed they were acting within the rules, or any justification why they were acting within the rules. Thats what I find to be zero effort. And when told to provide it they just asked for a headmin review.

TheRex9001 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 4:05 pm "If no, please provide more details: I believe "this wasn't even a rule break and you shouldn't have been noted?(banned)" i dont think any punishment should have been dealt since i was acting within the rules"
I think this is zero effort cause they just didn't say WHY they believed they were acting within the rules, or any justification why they were acting within the rules. Thats what I find to be zero effort. And when told to provide it they just asked for a headmin review.

I think that's fair- but when the rule is "you can kill people in x situation" and they kill people in x situation it seems difficult

kieth4 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 4:10 pm

TheRex9001 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 4:05 pm "If no, please provide more details: I believe "this wasn't even a rule break and you shouldn't have been noted?(banned)" i dont think any punishment should have been dealt since i was acting within the rules"
I think this is zero effort cause they just didn't say WHY they believed they were acting within the rules, or any justification why they were acting within the rules. Thats what I find to be zero effort. And when told to provide it they just asked for a headmin review.

I think that's fair- but when the rule is "you can kill people in x situation" and they kill people in x situation it seems difficult

Yeah but they can just add that to their appeal, instead what they have says like nothing. They could've quoted the rules.

TheRex9001 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 4:29 pm

kieth4 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 4:10 pm

TheRex9001 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 4:05 pm "If no, please provide more details: I believe "this wasn't even a rule break and you shouldn't have been noted?(banned)" i dont think any punishment should have been dealt since i was acting within the rules"
I think this is zero effort cause they just didn't say WHY they believed they were acting within the rules, or any justification why they were acting within the rules. Thats what I find to be zero effort. And when told to provide it they just asked for a headmin review.

I think that's fair- but when the rule is "you can kill people in x situation" and they kill people in x situation it seems difficult

Yeah but they can just add that to their appeal, instead what they have says like nothing. They could've quoted the rules.

That's true I suppose, it seems a bit silly when it was all hashed out in the ticket but I guess they could have brought more of the ticket to the forums.

uninformed four word shitpost

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,

dendydoom wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2023 1:43 pm 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.