Shard had a low kill count, only dusted 3 non-antags and one wasn't consented! but all of this, what humors me reviewing checking the logs I had to do. Arar was actively trying to make SM better during our ticket. I don't know if that scores brownie points for radiation. Christ.
Re: Banned for making a safe Supernutter.
Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2024 1:24 am
by britgrenadier1
"Safe" SM. Open air, anyone can walk in, infront of a delivery chute, brig cells are nice and toasty (Iansdoor doesn't understand this as Europe does not have AC). Very safe/10.
Terry's most safe SM setup (It has only killed 3 people)
Re: Banned for making a safe Supernutter.
Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2024 1:29 am
by Redbert
ah the old delivery chute into SM. The entrance that is there by default, easy to accidentally walk into, and too far away from the destination to see what's at the exit. very safe, very non-antag esque
Re: Banned for making a safe Supernutter.
Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2024 2:09 am
by gameaddict07
That ban reason.
As a non-antag Atmos tech, had a failure of confirmation to build a SM shard in front brig, resulting in one security officer dusting someone in. This is second time in 24 hours that your radiation projects in up in security area. You also went on half and question the HoS ofr the ahelp on the behalf on "centcom". Players can't duscuss adminhalps ICly, it's OOC information in IC.
What does it even mean? "This is second time in 24 hours that your radiation projects in up in security area."? "You also went on half and question the HoS ofr the ahelp on the behalf on "centcom""? I know some admins are ESL but this was actually incomprehensible to me without the context provided by the player. Judging by that context it also seems wrong - if the issue was someone getting dusted, what does radiation have to do with it?
And then the ticket. The admin says they asked the HoS if they approved of the SM and the HoS said no, but the logs say otherwise:
08:58:01 SAY H3skan/(Arar 'Makita' Dreizehn) (mob_3450) "this is fine right" (106, 160, 2) Fore Primary Hallway
08:58:04 SAY H3skan/(Arar 'Makita' Dreizehn) (mob_3450) "secoff said yes" (106, 160, 2) Fore Primary Hallway
08:58:04 SAY Lizardboreansupersoldier/(Michel Garland) (mob_3414) "ye" (108, 159, 2) Fore Primary Hallway
Admin provides what is presumably the HoS's response to them questioning them about being asked for permission for the SM, "nope? I was just like sure someone else did before me." But they don't provide what they asked specifically. I feel that's important because this admin doesn't seem to have a full grasp on the English language and might have worded their question awkwardly/incorrectly, or incorrectly interpreted the HoS's answer. Then they start getting on the player's case over them trying to ICly gather proof from the HoS that they did in fact ask if the SM was alright to have around. I don't blame the player at all there, since the admin is claiming that they did NOT ask the HoS about the SM, and that the HoS told them likewise.
Spoiler:
09:20:45 SAY H3skan/(Arar 'Makita' Dreizehn) (mob_3450) "halt" (108, 147, 2) Fore Primary Hallway
09:20:52 SAY H3skan/(Arar 'Makita' Dreizehn) (mob_3450) "talking to centcom officials right now as we speak" (108, 148, 2) Fore Primary Hallway
09:20:58 SAY H3skan/(Arar 'Makita' Dreizehn) (mob_3450) "they stil lsay i never talked to you" (108, 148, 2) Fore Primary Hallway
09:21:06 SAY Lizardboreansupersoldier/(Michel Garland) (mob_3414) "no clue" (107, 145, 2) Central Primary Hallway
09:21:10 SAY Lizardboreansupersoldier/(Michel Garland) (mob_3414) "I just said sure" (107, 145, 2) Central Primary Hallway
09:21:10 SAY H3skan/(Arar 'Makita' Dreizehn) (mob_3450) "i" (107, 146, 2) Central Primary Hallway
09:21:13 SAY H3skan/(Arar 'Makita' Dreizehn) (mob_3450) "yeah" (107, 146, 2) Central Primary Hallway
09:21:15 SAY H3skan/(Arar 'Makita' Dreizehn) (mob_3450) "AND I TALKED TO YOU" (107, 146, 2) Central Primary Hallway
09:21:20 SAY H3skan/(Arar 'Makita' Dreizehn) (mob_3450) "RIGHT?!" (108, 145, 2) Central Primary Hallway
09:21:22 SAY H3skan/(Arar 'Makita' Dreizehn) (mob_3450) "YOU ARE REAL!?" (108, 145, 2) Central Primary Hallway
09:21:26 SAY Lizardboreansupersoldier/(Michel Garland) (mob_3414) "you said someone else allowed you before me" (108, 144, 2) Central Primary Hallway
09:21:33 SAY H3skan/(Arar 'Makita' Dreizehn) (mob_3450) "yeah and i asked you as the hos too" (108, 145, 2) Central Primary Hallway
09:21:35 SAY H3skan/(Arar 'Makita' Dreizehn) (mob_3450) "and you said sure" (108, 145, 2) Central Primary Hallway
09:21:37 SAY H3skan/(Arar 'Makita' Dreizehn) (mob_3450) "right?" (108, 145, 2) Central Primary Hallway
09:21:44 SAY Lizardboreansupersoldier/(Michel Garland) (mob_3414) "honestly I dont give a shit" (108, 144, 2) Central Primary Hallway
09:21:48 SAY Lizardboreansupersoldier/(Michel Garland) (mob_3414) "sure build it" (108, 144, 2) Central Primary Hallway
09:21:51 SAY H3skan/(Arar 'Makita' Dreizehn) (mob_3450) "but i did ask you" (108, 145, 2) Central Primary Hallway
09:21:55 SAY H3skan/(Arar 'Makita' Dreizehn) (mob_3450) "before i started it" (107, 145, 2) Central Primary Hallway
09:22:05 SAY Lizardboreansupersoldier/(Michel Garland) (mob_3414) "you told me something" (104, 144, 2) Central Primary Hallway
09:22:09 SAY H3skan/(Arar 'Makita' Dreizehn) (mob_3450) "yuh" (106, 145, 2) Central Primary Hallway
And the HoS tells them that they did ask them about the SM. The admin ignores this, instead focusing on the fact that they were referred to ICly as "centcom officials", tells them "your SM is interesting and has dusted a few folks since its front of security" (why did they say it dusted only one person in the ban reason?), does not interact with the player any further, and then bans them 22 minutes later.
Re: Banned for making a safe Supernutter.
Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2024 2:40 am
by mrmelbert
It's safe compared to the "average" supermatter setup
Unfortunately the "average" supermatter setup is statistically skewed from all the times a supermatter shard gets misplaced or misused, making "comparatively safe to other supermatters" not actually all that safe
Re: Banned for making a safe Supernutter.
Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2024 2:53 am
by Archie700
gameaddict07 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 07, 2024 2:09 am
That ban reason.
As a non-antag Atmos tech, had a failure of confirmation to build a SM shard in front brig, resulting in one security officer dusting someone in. This is second time in 24 hours that your radiation projects in up in security area. You also went on half and question the HoS ofr the ahelp on the behalf on "centcom". Players can't duscuss adminhalps ICly, it's OOC information in IC.
What does it even mean? "This is second time in 24 hours that your radiation projects in up in security area."? "You also went on half and question the HoS ofr the ahelp on the behalf on "centcom""? I know some admins are ESL but this was actually incomprehensible to me without the context provided by the player. Judging by that context it also seems wrong - if the issue was someone getting dusted, what does radiation have to do with it?
SM produces radiation by default.
Also this wasn't the first radiation project they made.
Could stand to be more clear though
Re: Banned for making a safe Supernutter.
Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2024 5:09 am
by TypicalRig
nobody is forced to make a SM in a highly public area. you take the risk of doing the funny you eat the punishment when it goes wrong in any capacity with no right to complain. this goes for any gimmick
Re: Banned for making a safe Supernutter.
Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2024 7:49 am
by Shellton(Mario)
hot take, doing silly, potentially unsafe gimmicks is fine every once in while as long as its oked by the captain and head of the department's its happening in, players are able to avoid the possible danger it poses & the player in question takes reasonable precautions like what this player said they did. It spices up the around without relying on antags to do it & as long as players are bitching about you doing it too much in discord/ooc its fine. If a player that isn't cap/the head doesn't want doing it they have 3 options, alt f4 if they don't wanna deal with it, talk with their head/captain or take matters into their own hands. I think allowing players to do silly shit in game adds to the round & can create decent conflict as long as its done in moderation.
To add on as long as the command staff isn't approving silly projects too often it is also fine and I don't think they should be accountable ooc
"Safe" SM. Open air, anyone can walk in, infront of a delivery chute, brig cells are nice and toasty (Iansdoor doesn't understand this as Europe does not have AC). Very safe/10.
Incredibly based SM.
Re: Banned for making a safe Supernutter.
Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2024 12:29 pm
by BonChoi
This ban is justified and deserved, but I agree with gameaddict07. The ban reason is sloppy, even coming from someone that is ESL, and I can imagine that if the ban reason is that sloppy that there are holes elsewhere in the tickets.
Re: Banned for making a safe Supernutter.
Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2024 1:30 pm
by BonChoi
The second response from iansdoor is a lot better out together though, so that's cool.
Re: Banned for making a safe Supernutter.
Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2024 1:59 pm
by iansdoor
BonChoi wrote: ↑Sun Apr 07, 2024 1:30 pm
The second response from iansdoor is a lot better out together though, so that's cool.
Yeah... you know being up for like 19 hours and trying to talk with folks in "late" night for me. Not the best of ideas. I gave them what I was looking at before, I went to bed. Then I really thought thru the logs this morning and looking at how to improve myself, what to actual look for. I did come across gold! The intern Security officer caught the clown and flexed on them.
20:41:08.494] SAY: Redemptionarc/(Aoife Everwood) "gonna CRY?" (Brig (100,165,2))
20:41:12.632] EMOTE: Redemptionarc/(Aoife Everwood) FLEXES (Brig (100,165,2))
20:41:15.437] SAY: Redemptionarc/(Aoife Everwood) "yeah" (Brig (100,165,2))
20:41:18.535] SAY: Redemptionarc/(Aoife Everwood) "yeah i am a bitch" (Brig (101,165,2))
20:41:22.094] SAY: Redemptionarc/(Aoife Everwood) "im the cutest bitch in the world" (Brig (101,165,2))
20:41:39.921] SAY: Redemptionarc/(Aoife Everwood) "you cant have a trial unless HoS verifies it" (Brig (100,165,2))
Re: Banned for making a safe Supernutter.
Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2024 2:05 pm
by DrAmazing343
I need to track down this secoff for a flex-off
Re: Banned for making a safe Supernutter.
Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2024 10:52 pm
by Constellado
LOL THE WAY THE APPEALANT EXPLAINED IT MADE IT SOUND SUPER SAFE AHAHAHHAHAH
now this. this right here is some rule 0 territory
Re: Banned for making a safe Supernutter.
Posted: Mon Apr 08, 2024 7:37 am
by MooCow12
Okay so im looking at the code and i think only plastitanium glass actually has good rad insulation, reinforced/normal plasma glass is bait and doesnt seem to have any.
name = "plastitanium window"
(snip)
rad_insulation = RAD_EXTREME_INSULATION
Nevermind reinforced plasma has heavy plasma insulation and non reinforced plasma has medium
name = "plasma window"
(snip)
rad_insulation = RAD_MEDIUM_INSULATION
name = "reinforced plasma window"
(snip)
rad_insulation = RAD_HEAVY_INSULATION
The only thing that seems to block radiation spread entirely 100% is rad collectors and as we all know they were removed...which means SM setups will never be as safe as they were when rad collectors were obtainable.
But you can still probably block almost all radiation by using multiple layers of reinforced plasma glass windows (The thin variants) 2 of them should give more effective rad insulation per tile than plastitanium glass and you can technically have 4 per tile.
If thin variants dont work then just use 2 layers of plastitanium glass and not only will it block almost all radiation from coming out it will protect everyone in the event that the sm shard blows up or something.
Re: Banned for making a safe Supernutter.
Posted: Mon Apr 08, 2024 11:28 am
by BonChoi
Heskan wrote: ↑Sun Apr 07, 2024 10:57 am
The picture above is after the borg has removed two layers of rplasmaglass and one can clearly see that the shard is still not taking issue with it. The layers of radiation shielding were by all means sufficient even when things were thrown in, and as a failsafe there were ample radiation meds provided which this roundend picture also does not show, since they got dragged in and dusted after said borg took the glass away. The setup was, prior to interference, one other people and I have often put on BYOS shuttles and whatnot.
I wonder if this part is getting looked over too much, if what they're saying is true then I believe that they would've had no particular hand in irradiating security (although the supermatter shard being out in the open is kinda the reason, the borg dismantling some of the protection (FNR?) might be the cause of security getting a little toasty.)
Of course, all of this could've been avoided if they had just not built the SM shard setup in front of security, but it seems like a lot of other players failed this guy and now they're getting ultimately punished for it, which is alright I guess. I just hope that next time they'll remove all ways to access the shard whatsoever and that they'll beat the piss out of anyone that tries to dismantle the safeties, we'll see.
P.S. I originally posted this in the actual ban appeals thread, point and laugh at me please.
Very funny image melbert, big fan, however, I would like to present to the nutting court exhibit B: the guy says that eventually a reporter cyborg sabotaged this man's beautiful work by removing some plasma glass. It just so happens that there's a perfectly sized plasma-glass sized hole to the right. The "maze or plasma glass" might have been real at one point.
Re: Banned for making a safe Supernutter.
Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2024 9:32 pm
by EmpressMaia
who up irradiating they brig
Re: Banned for making a safe Supernutter.
Posted: Wed Apr 10, 2024 9:02 pm
by BonChoi
Uh, he got a job ban as well? What did he do?
Re: Banned for making a safe Supernutter.
Posted: Thu Apr 11, 2024 2:30 am
by gameaddict07
BonChoi wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2024 9:02 pm
Uh, he got a job ban as well? What did he do?
Presumably it was the poorly set up public SM but from what I can tell this guy wasn't even aware he was job banned.
Re: Banned for making a safe Supernutter.
Posted: Thu Apr 11, 2024 6:28 pm
by BonChoi
This has to be one of the strangest appeals I've seen in a while.
Re: Banned for making a safe Supernutter.
Posted: Thu Apr 11, 2024 11:04 pm
by Constellado
Imho if the public supermatter does not blow up, make a fire or kill a person BY ACCIDENT we are good. Radiation is annoying but all you need *in my opinion* is a ton of radiation signs everywhere
From what I can tell the people died there by another person's hand putting them in on purpose... Why wouldn't sec use a public easy to access execution chamber...
Re: Banned for making a safe Supernutter.
Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2024 2:51 am
by BonChoi
What I want to know is if the HoS really did approve it, Heskan keeps providing log entries of the HoS saying "ye" to it but iansdoor just keeps going "No, that didn't happen." Weird.
Re: Banned for making a safe Supernutter.
Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2024 12:44 pm
by iansdoor
BonChoi wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2024 2:51 am
What I want to know is if the HoS really did approve it, Heskan keeps providing log entries of the HoS saying "ye" to it but iansdoor just keeps going "No, that didn't happen." Weird.
In the ticket of theirs, I give them the exact wording of what the Michael Garland said to me "nope? I was just like sure someone else did before me." The only other person is Aoife Everwood and looking at that conversation. Arar wasn't part of it? did I read that wrong?
This appeal sucks because I am not sure when they stopped playing Arar and went on the ooc in ic damage control. My ticket warped their round from the norm and all I can see is that when they are caught in a radiation project, without ic permission and couldn't really explain the any conversation other than I saw them but boggles me that they didn't even point out Aoife Everwood the OG person.
They talked to and tunneled on Michael Garland to prove me that they did get permission, that HoS was under the impression that someone give permission to Arar. That reality was no one did, every a okay was just Arar and their assuming and the placement and radiation was annoying to security.
This is round after where they placed an HFR in detectives room for petty reasons.
What is this SM spot for?
iansdoor ➡ h3skan
2024-04-06 21:12:02
The checklist! Sec and the hos agreed on it, thing's safe in terms of rads.
h3skan ➡ iansdoor
2024-04-06 21:12:26
I am not seeing the HoS sign off on it. did you ask the captain or warden?
iansdoor ➡ h3skan
2024-04-06 21:15:31
the hos, pretty sure?
h3skan ➡ iansdoor
2024-04-06 21:15:40
like the guy in full riot gear, 99% sure i didnt hallucinate the hos card
h3skan ➡ iansdoor
2024-04-06 21:15:55
Nope, I just asked him. he wasn't near you at all and he didn't sign off on that. So who did you talk to?
iansdoor ➡ h3skan
2024-04-06 21:20:32
he literally just confirmed a second time i talked to him before starting it
h3skan ➡ iansdoor
2024-04-06 21:22:17
nope? I was just like sure someone else did before me. this is what he told me. He wasn't there for the decision. Arar, what is the purpose of the checklist?
iansdoor ➡ h3skan
2024-04-06 21:23:18
Was it Aoife Everwood?
iansdoor ➡ h3skan
2024-04-06 21:25:21
21:13:06.073] ADMIN: Iansdoor/(Vents-Hot-Air) checked the individual player panel for Lizardboreansupersoldier/(Michel Garland). HoS
21:15:39.801] ADMIN: Iansdoor/(Vents-Hot-Air) checked the individual player panel for HomoBird/(Honda Mothra). warden
21:18:04.528] ADMIN: Iansdoor/(Vents-Hot-Air) checked the individual player panel for *no key*/(Maks Glen). security
21:18:28.634] ADMIN: Iansdoor/(Vents-Hot-Air) checked the individual player panel for VelocityMagnet/(Ronald Burns). Captain
21:18:49.128] ADMIN: Iansdoor/(Vents-Hot-Air) checked the individual player panel for Redemptionarc/(Aoife Everwood). Security
Re: Banned for making a safe Supernutter.
Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2024 1:00 pm
by BonChoi
Heskan wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2024 2:29 pm
20:57:58.311] H3skan/(Arar 'Makita' Dreizehn) points at the floor (Fore Primary Hallway (106,160,2))
20:58:01.114] SAY: H3skan/(Arar 'Makita' Dreizehn) "this is fine right" (Fore Primary Hallway (106,160,2))
20:58:04.227] SAY: H3skan/(Arar 'Makita' Dreizehn) "secoff said yes" (Fore Primary Hallway (106,160,2))
20:58:04.452] SAY: Lizardboreansupersoldier/(Michel Garland) "ye" (Fore Primary Hallway (108,159,2))
20:58:55.785] SAY: H3skan/(Arar 'Makita' Dreizehn) "i made second sm at sec" (Fore Primary Hallway (104,160,2))
Okay so is this part being made up by the appellant or is it inadmissible for any reason? I don't understand because it seems like the HoS walks past the supermatter where the engineer points it out and asks if it's okay, to which the HoS replies "ye" which I would certainly take as an approval.
Heskan wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2024 2:29 pm
20:57:58.311] H3skan/(Arar 'Makita' Dreizehn) points at the floor (Fore Primary Hallway (106,160,2))
20:58:01.114] SAY: H3skan/(Arar 'Makita' Dreizehn) "this is fine right" (Fore Primary Hallway (106,160,2))
20:58:04.227] SAY: H3skan/(Arar 'Makita' Dreizehn) "secoff said yes" (Fore Primary Hallway (106,160,2))
20:58:04.452] SAY: Lizardboreansupersoldier/(Michel Garland) "ye" (Fore Primary Hallway (108,159,2))
20:58:55.785] SAY: H3skan/(Arar 'Makita' Dreizehn) "i made second sm at sec" (Fore Primary Hallway (104,160,2))
Okay so is this part being made up by the appellant or is it inadmissible for any reason? I don't understand because it seems like the HoS walks past the supermatter where the engineer points it out and asks if it's okay, to which the HoS replies "ye" which I would certainly take as an approval.
You pulled exactly what confuses me. 20:58:04.227] SAY: H3skan/(Arar 'Makita' Dreizehn) "secoff said yes" (Fore Primary Hallway (106,160,2))
Heskan wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2024 2:29 pm
20:57:58.311] H3skan/(Arar 'Makita' Dreizehn) points at the floor (Fore Primary Hallway (106,160,2))
20:58:01.114] SAY: H3skan/(Arar 'Makita' Dreizehn) "this is fine right" (Fore Primary Hallway (106,160,2))
20:58:04.227] SAY: H3skan/(Arar 'Makita' Dreizehn) "secoff said yes" (Fore Primary Hallway (106,160,2))
20:58:04.452] SAY: Lizardboreansupersoldier/(Michel Garland) "ye" (Fore Primary Hallway (108,159,2))
20:58:55.785] SAY: H3skan/(Arar 'Makita' Dreizehn) "i made second sm at sec" (Fore Primary Hallway (104,160,2))
Okay so is this part being made up by the appellant or is it inadmissible for any reason? I don't understand because it seems like the HoS walks past the supermatter where the engineer points it out and asks if it's okay, to which the HoS replies "ye" which I would certainly take as an approval.
You pulled exactly what confuses me. 20:58:04.227] SAY: H3skan/(Arar 'Makita' Dreizehn) "secoff said yes" (Fore Primary Hallway (106,160,2))
WHO said that, at this point again.
This conversation literally took place in front of the SM shard with the HoS directly looking at it and saying "yes" it was okay before it was turned on.
Re: Banned for making a safe Supernutter.
Posted: Sat Apr 13, 2024 11:50 pm
by Constellado
The word of the HoS is above word of a sec off.
If he says secoff said yes, and you are confused ask about THAT not about permission from the hos.
But even then if he was mistaken and misunderstood some sec off thing... The HoS word is above the sec offs word. And he said ye.
