/tg/Station 13

After the recent appeal by the guy limski banned for plasma flooding, further investigation showed he was lying about not knowing what he was doing and in fact was attempting to grief and then lie about it. I think that if further investigation shows that their crime is worse than the ban originally is and they attempt to lie about it in the appeal then they should be banned longer.

BeeSting12 wrote:After the recent appeal by the guy limski banned for plasma flooding, further investigation showed he was lying about not knowing what he was doing and in fact was attempting to grief and then lie about it. I think that if further investigation shows that their crime is worse than the ban originally is and they attempt to lie about it in the appeal then they should be banned longer.

On one hand I agree because:
1. We expect people to learn from their mistakes when they appeal and they way they bring their case is vital if it's accepted even if they are in the wrong IE: they show remorse
2. They're trying to make it seem like the admin is trying to lie and make it seem worse than it is.
3. Dishonesty makes investigations harder and wastes time.

On the other:
Extending bans for people who make ban appeals is a slippery slope and can arguably be considered unfair, if a policy is made it should be clear that it CAN happen instead of it WILL happen, so people don't get punished for misremembering or having a different or incomplete view of the situations. In cases like this ban appeal it's clear there's malicious intent and this would be a case where it could apply. We'd need to thread very carefully and only apply this if the actions are severe enough rather than have it being a common thing. If we do get a policy like this it should not be applied ex post facto to this or other older cases and should only be applied on newer cases.

memes wrote:le slippery slope

It is entirely precedented.

Example A
Example B

Dax summed up my thoughts quite nicely. On one hand, yeah we can get rid of a lot of trash players who seem to only exist to grief and be shitheads, but yeah on the other it’s a very slippery slope that could landslide into people getting their bans extended for genuine mistakes or misremembering facts.

We're already down the slippery slope, why do you keep using that phrase? The deliberate lying in ahelps and appeals in rule 6 pretty much overlaps with rule 0. Genuine mistakes in remembering details happen but for a case like this it is pretty obvious it is blatant and deliberate.

god damn I'm involved in both.


Here's a great example that stirred incident in my past. I admit I wasn't a clean jewel back then, but this ban almost set a precedent where pointing out discrepancies and complaining could get you banned.

Appealing and not being apologetic or whatever shouldn't get you banned. Extensions should only happen when the persons lying in their appeal which is meant to a) say you're innocent/ bring new evidence to the table to prove your innocence or b) act apologetic and get forgiven. Lying should be treated as it would ingame: with a longass ban.

Deliberately lying in ban appeals seems like a perfectly fine reason to get an extra ban to me.

Note: It has to be really obvious that it is deliberate, misremembering event's should not be grounds for a ban.

The type of person whos lying to that extent in ban appeals is not going to last long on the server anyways. This just serves to open the way for people being banned for making mistakes in their appeal.

The way is already open.

ohnopigeons wrote:

memes wrote:le slippery slope

It is entirely precedented.

Example A
Example B

This is why I do have my reservations.

Dax Dupont wrote:This is why I do have my reservations.

And what are these reservations? Both of these cases were extreme and edge-case, and ultimately the decisions to replace a ban with an even longer ban were done by a headmin. This notion that not even headmins are allowed to extend bans from ban appeal threads seems to have been conjured out of thin air and I can't find any literature to support such an existing policy, when clearly just the opposite has existed in the history of ban appeals.

Is there even a "Ban Appeal Policy"?

I can't understand this notion that "admins might abuse bans in ban appeals!!!!" when they can already abuse such bans in game. The banning process is essentially the same. Players that have been applied with another ban in a ban appeal thread then appeal the new ban in another ban appeal, which is usually denied. There is nothing "dangerous" about this outside of having admins in the first place.

ohnopigeons wrote:

Dax Dupont wrote:This is why I do have my reservations.

And what are these reservations? Both of these cases were extreme and edge-case, and ultimately the decisions to replace a ban with an even longer ban were done by a headmin. This notion that not even headmins are allowed to extend bans from ban appeal threads seems to have been conjured out of thin air and I can't find any literature to support such an existing policy, when clearly just the opposite has existed in the history of ban appeals.

Is there even a "Ban Appeal Policy"?

I don't know it just feels like it's kinda a bad idea. Mostly feelings based I guess.

It should be locked behind headmins only with a majority vote and there should be a very clear and concise reasoning for doing so at the very least.

Dax Dupont wrote:

ohnopigeons wrote:

Dax Dupont wrote:This is why I do have my reservations.

And what are these reservations? Both of these cases were extreme and edge-case, and ultimately the decisions to replace a ban with an even longer ban were done by a headmin. This notion that not even headmins are allowed to extend bans from ban appeal threads seems to have been conjured out of thin air and I can't find any literature to support such an existing policy, when clearly just the opposite has existed in the history of ban appeals.

Is there even a "Ban Appeal Policy"?

I don't know it just feels like it's kinda a bad idea. Mostly feelings based I guess.

It should be locked behind headmins only with a majority vote and there should be a very clear and concise reasoning for doing so at the very least.

Sure, but no less, and we shouldn't be expected to do it. Headmins review every ban appeal so it should work out ok.

Dax Dupont wrote:I don't know it just feels like it's kinda a bad idea. Mostly feelings based I guess.

It should be locked behind headmins only with a majority vote and there should be a very clear and concise reasoning for doing so at the very least.

I don't like using the phrase "Not an argument", but not an argument. I'm not against the headmin lock, but not for the points you've made.

Armhulen wrote:Sure, but no less, and we shouldn't be expected to do it. Headmins review every ban appeal so it should work out ok.

"Shouldn't expected to do it" sure, in the sense that an individual shouldn't expect a particular outcome in a headmin ruling, but headmins are expected to act in the best interest of the community, and the actions that entails.

What I feel gets lost in the weeds in this discussion is that opponents mix "Extended ban for blatantly lying in an appeal" with "Extended ban for making an appeal." This shifts the purpose of the extension from why it is suggested to be added and attributes it more broadly to the circumstance where it is applied. Technically, they're being banned for "making an appeal" in the sense that they intentionally and knowingly used falsehoods to make an appeal. Often this includes implications against the character or competence of the banning admin. When faced with evidence that their statement is false the response is either to double down on the lie or to respond "haha you got me." Neither of these responses should be rewarded. However, the question this thread will have to answer is: Is the denial of the appeal sufficient to punish the player who intentionally lies in the same appeal? Part of me feels that it isn't. I suppose its the same part of me that's not very convinced by the "We'll just let them go and if they fuck up again THEN we'll ban them" logic that often appears again. Yes, bad players that fuck up often fuck up again later and that later incident generally gets them banned. We shouldn't be using potential future bans to do the lifting for bans that should be properly applied in present cases.

With that said, I'm still not entirely sure its worth going back into the rabbit hole to extend bans basd on ahelp content. I can, however, see denial of future appeals based on lies made in past appeals as justifiable in some cases.

To be more specific over the case in question where the player plasma flooded, his ban appeal really merits additional punishment. Dishonest appeals are always annoying and terrible but this one in particular was really egregious and obvious. An honest appealer would most likely have gotten the same verdict (a denial), but this shitter tried to go the whole nine yards, playing off his plasma flood as a newbie mistake. If, and a big if, he succeeded, he probably would have earned leniency and time off his ban and notes. He failed, but, at least publicly, is no worse off than if he were honest in his appeal or didn't make an appeal at all.

>beestung12

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmhmhmmhmmmmmmmmmmmmm

It's not a slippery slope though to remove people who lie ingame or on the forums about not griffing. If anyone is worried just make it a separate ban.

I don't think we really need policy on this, it's a pretty basic understanding that if you lie and get caught you get bopped.

ohnopigeons wrote:

memes wrote:le slippery slope

It is entirely precedented.

Example A
Example B

IIRC things like these specifically were the reason we changed it so that we never upgrade bans for appealing. Look at the dates from those posts. Those are outdated precedents because the rules have since changed. You're essentially saying "It's okay for me to own a slave, look at these documents from the USA when it was still colonies!"

That said the specific incident in the OP is a different case where I do think we should make an exception

PKPenguin321 wrote:IIRC things like these specifically were the reason we changed it so that we never upgrade bans for appealing. Look at the dates from those posts. Those are outdated precedents because the rules have since changed. You're essentially saying "It's okay for me to own a slave, look at these documents from the USA when it was still colonies!"

That said the specific incident in the OP is a different case where I do think we should make an exception

I'd understand if the rules have changed since these given examples, but I've never heard of such a change. Could you point to any sort of reference regarding this rule change? I'd like to read up on the details myself, and I can't find anything of the sort on the forums or wiki.

ohnopigeons wrote:

PKPenguin321 wrote:IIRC things like these specifically were the reason we changed it so that we never upgrade bans for appealing. Look at the dates from those posts. Those are outdated precedents because the rules have since changed. You're essentially saying "It's okay for me to own a slave, look at these documents from the USA when it was still colonies!"

That said the specific incident in the OP is a different case where I do think we should make an exception

I'd understand if the rules have changed since these given examples, but I've never heard of such a change. Could you point to any sort of reference regarding this rule change? I'd like to read up on the details myself, and I can't find anything of the sort on the forums or wiki.

https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=9527
iirc there was also a big kerfuffle about it in the /secret admin board/ where basically the general idea was "DO NOT DO IT"

Thank you for that.

I agree with the general intention that, the fact of a ban appeal itself should not warrant ban extensions of the same ban reason, no matter how much arguing or "rules lawyering" the appealer engages in. However new evidence of new rulebreaking is a separate issue, as others argued in that thread.

Even then the final headmin ruling was that ban extensions are to be used infrequently and exclusive to headmins/hosts, which still fits both of the examples. There doesn't seem to be anything more elaborate than that. Maybe there was more specifics in the /secret admin board/ but I wouldn't know about that.

PKPenguin321 wrote: Look at the dates from those posts. Those are outdated precedents because the rules have since changed.

youre aware its been almost a full year since the more recent of those two

I'm aware. But your statement is simply not the truth.
In regards that in this case, this was a ban that was successfully appealed.

Except that it wasn't. The successful appeal was - on the spot - increased to a permaban, that was also rule 0, which also required a 2 headmin majority vote.

This was a ban that got turned into a headmin rule 0 because I appealed it.

That... doesn't seem to have anything to do with the topic at hand? If anything it only proves my point further, since we're talking about appeals that were not only unsuccessful but also the appealer was found to have lied or done something even worse in the process.

PKPenguin321 wrote:That... doesn't seem to have anything to do with the topic at hand? If anything it only proves my point further, since we're talking about appeals that were not only unsuccessful but also the appealer was found to have lied or done something even worse in the process.

well you said that the policy discussed about not extended bans that are appealed occurred in Feb 2017 where my ban was July 2017.

My appeal was also successful and no lies or "done something worse in the process" had occurred.

Unless appealing a ban is "doing something worse" I think it's very relevant to the topic at hand.

And not to mention, you backed up a rule0 ban for appealing a ban; https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic ... 50#p322953

this is fine, it's where someone extends someones ban for things that are outside the scope of the appeal, or due to their behaviour in the appeal thread that it's not okay.

J_Madison wrote:god damn I'm involved in both.


Here's a great example that stirred incident in my past. I admit I wasn't a clean jewel back then, but this ban almost set a precedent where pointing out discrepancies and complaining could get you banned.

I remember when you were straight up a bad egg. You've cleaned up your act now however.

Lying to a admin is never a good thing. My position is that it should go in their notes.

starmute wrote:

J_Madison wrote:god damn I'm involved in both.


Here's a great example that stirred incident in my past. I admit I wasn't a clean jewel back then, but this ban almost set a precedent where pointing out discrepancies and complaining could get you banned.

I remember when you were straight up a bad egg. You've cleaned up your act now however.

Lying to a admin is never a good thing. My position is that it should go in their notes.

Oh yeah. I know, I think people also get notes for excessive rule lawyering, sovereign citizen, and other intrusive personalities and I'm fully for it. but it shouldn't get people banned when they appeal.

and aren't you a rotten egg, I swear somewhere buried in my braincels l is the reason why saeg and others persecuted you so hard.

what was it you did? whatever it was, I can't remember it because all I can remember is your upbeat positive attitude.

J_Madison wrote:
what was it you did? whatever it was, I can't remember it because all I can remember is your upbeat positive attitude.

Just drama that happened between HBL, Intigracy, and the whole crew. There was so much toxicity that everyone involved as a admin back then has either been deadmined or you straight up left in a hissy fit. Some people have come back, some people have left forever and some people have been banned from the community.

That being said everything has mellowed with time.

J_Madison wrote:

PKPenguin321 wrote:That... doesn't seem to have anything to do with the topic at hand? If anything it only proves my point further, since we're talking about appeals that were not only unsuccessful but also the appealer was found to have lied or done something even worse in the process.

well you said that the policy discussed about not extended bans that are appealed occurred in Feb 2017 where my ban was July 2017.

My appeal was also successful and no lies or "done something worse in the process" had occurred.

Unless appealing a ban is "doing something worse" I think it's very relevant to the topic at hand.

And not to mention, you backed up a rule0 ban for appealing a ban; https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic ... 50#p322953

Yep yep, as we're talking about now, if it comes about in your appeal that you've done something worse than what you're appealing for, it should be upgradable. Here ausops found that your record was more than bad enough to warrant upgrading the ban, which was unrelated from your initial appeal, so it falls under exactly what we're saying should be allowed.

Also those PMs you sent me in IRC which were essentially a threat with no basis (you lied about the whole hippie thing?). Still confused about what the fuck you meant by this and I think lying in appeals like that definitely falls under rule 6, so again, you broke another rule during an appeal which justified the upgraded ban.

So yeah, your ban falls under exactly what we're talking about and only serves to aid my argument.

Except it was uncovered that the Hippie thing wasn't a lie and I'll dig through my puush for it if you'd like.

Let's not get off topic here, if something was found it should have been stated.

The ban was because I was "impatient and didn't wait to appeal a ban I felt unjust".
if that wasn't true, they should have stated it on the appeal or made a ban request.

>The ban was because I was "impatient and didn't wait to appeal a ban I felt unjust".
>if that wasn't true, they should have stated it on the appeal or made a ban request.
dont know where youre getting this from or even what point youre trying to make with it

but yeah this is off topic this isnt he jmad hour

imo what the OP suggests, that people break additional rules but dont get caught until they try to appeal should have their bans extended, is totally fine

>get banned
>appeal ban
>get banned for appealing a ban

Is what we're saying is unjust, whether that be Legoscape or even my first rule0 or this guy, or anyone else for that matter.

There should never be any stigma or punishment for speaking out or appealing a ban they feel unjust. There is no such thing as "appealing too early". Too early is subjective.

You should and must be able to appeal a ban whether its a 1 day ban or a 1 year ban or even 1 second ban without fear for retaliation and revenge, and if the ban was unjust the admin reprimanded.

"Being banned for making an appeal" is a different issue, this is about evidence surfacing after the ban that shows the ban should've been longer. This isn't a court of law where you can't be forced to testify against yourself, there are no lawyers here so you're supposed to cooperate with admins and say the truth (or at least what you believe is the truth), if you lie and deceive to get a shorter sentence and you get caught, it's only fair to give you the correct ban length instead.

To clarify, I don't think you should get a longer ban for lying, only the ban length that is appropriate given the new evidence. This is because it's easier to say that information was incorrect/incomplete, than prove the guy was lying. They should of course be punished if this becomes a frequent behavior in their appeals.

J_Madison wrote:>get banned
>appeal ban
>get banned for appealing a ban

Is what we're saying is unjust, whether that be Legoscape or even my first rule0 or this guy, or anyone else for that matter.

There should never be any stigma or punishment for speaking out or appealing a ban they feel unjust. There is no such thing as "appealing too early". Too early is subjective.

You should and must be able to appeal a ban whether its a 1 day ban or a 1 year ban or even 1 second ban without fear for retaliation and revenge, and if the ban was unjust the admin reprimanded.

This thread isn't about being banned "for making an appeal." This is a thread about being banned for, while making an appeal, intentionally misrepresenting facts to a degree of falsehood (Lying) or intentionally obfuscating those facts to present them in a false light (misleading). So, no, there's nothing unjust about banning somebody for intentionally lying as part of an attempt to escape an already properly placed ban.

>Get banned
>Make a ban appeal
>There's no way I'm getting off on the truth so what if I just tell them bullshit or try to pawn it off on somebody else
>Oh shit they caught me, haha just a prank guys wouldn't want to be unjust and "punish me for making an appeal" haha
>You are here

Alright, fair enough. I've misread it.

Has anyone factored in a common human error; memory.
It would not be ideal for people to be banned for mistakes and gaps in their memory. Memories can be misinterpreted and there's a benefit of the doubt of someone forgetting or having false memories of events.

How do you discern human error from intention?

And would you punish human error?

brain
no

J_Madison wrote:Alright, fair enough. I've misread it.

Has anyone factored in a common human error; memory.
It would not be ideal for people to be banned for mistakes and gaps in their memory. Memories can be misinterpreted and there's a benefit of the doubt of someone forgetting or having false memories of events.

How do you discern human error from intention?

And would you punish human error?

Grazyn wrote:To clarify, I don't think you should get a longer ban for lying, only the ban length that is appropriate given the new evidence. This is because it's easier to say that information was incorrect/incomplete, than prove the guy was lying. They should of course be punished if this becomes a frequent behavior in their appeals.

Also the op explicitly mentions giving just the correct ban to someone who lied, not extending it

tbh this is why forum banning should be a part of blacklisting

Grazyn wrote:
Also the op explicitly mentions giving just the correct ban to someone who lied, not extending it

Alright, my mistake. I was addressing Dax Dupont and ohnopigeons's examples.

Part of the premise as to the existence of this policy thread in the first place was that neither admins nor headmins had the authority to extend a ban in a ban appeal. This was from another thread.

I really think it should be extended if you out and out lie in your appeal

oranges wrote:this is fine, it's where someone extends someones ban for things that are outside the scope of the appeal, or due to their behaviour in the appeal thread that it's not okay.

Can you explain why it's not ok? Not in general, but specifically around purposefully lying in your appeal.

If it's because it will deter people from appealing as you said in the past, I think in this instance we would actually want these individuals to not appeal. They're wasting our time when I could be gaming!!!

The Clowns Pocket wrote:I really think it should be extended if you out and out lie in your appeal

Uh... I was under the impression that this is always how it worked. You lie to admins, you get hit harder. Didn't think ban appeals were any different.

Cobby wrote:

oranges wrote:this is fine, it's where someone extends someones ban for things that are outside the scope of the appeal, or due to their behaviour in the appeal thread that it's not okay.

Can you explain why it's not ok? Not in general, but specifically around purposefully lying in your appeal.

If it's because it will deter people from appealing as you said in the past, I think in this instance we would actually want these individuals to not appeal. They're wasting our time when I could be gaming!!!

A) punishing someone for appealing is dumb and unfair, even if they are rude and misleading

B) it gives too much power to the banning admin which can lead to abuse

C) historically we've not punished people in server for their behaviour out of server