/tg/Station 13

I got BWOINKed for reading something. (It wasn't pornographic exactly.) I thought I was doing my best to break it up into non-assholish, small chunks of text and to go slowly, but apparently the admin thought differently. I do not personally consider reading books over the radio to be inherently spam, but it's also the kind of policy that can easily be subjective.

When does reading books over the radio considered spam? And if the answer is "always," what's the fucking point of having a librarian and a sporadically enforced policy?

wait are we not allowed to read porn over the radio anymore?

And as far as I know its not spam unless you copypaste huge sections of the story.

Might have something to do with the no ERP rule, if it's pornographic.
But, uh, don't see why it's an issue if it's clean, unless you're saying a new line every three seconds.

No porn has been before the no ERP rule I believe...

Bandit. Also, was it pornographic/erotic or not. Considering you said "it wasn't pornographic exactly", which makes me doubt if it was non-pornographic.

It was one of those gimmicky "Woody's Got Wood For Kids" things.

If it's not porn, as long as it isn't taking over the chat window it should be fine.

WGW derivatives, on the other hand, are so lame.

bandit wrote:I got BWOINKed for reading something. (It wasn't pornographic exactly.) I thought I was doing my best to break it up into non-assholish, small chunks of text and to go slowly, but apparently the admin thought differently. I do not personally consider reading books over the radio to be inherently spam, but it's also the kind of policy that can easily be subjective.

When does reading books over the radio considered spam? And if the answer is "always," what's the fucking point of having a librarian and a sporadically enforced policy?

If you're one of the two I bwoinked about it last night, it was either 1: The clown spamming WGW. 2: Chaplain with five or so portable radios at your feet while you spout some random gimmick, the problem here is FIVE RADIOS which makes five separate lines of text for each thing you say.

copy paste radio spam is annoying as shit because most people literally give a fuck about what you're saying, and you're just shitting up the chatbox with random junk.

Saegrimr wrote:

bandit wrote:I got BWOINKed for reading something. (It wasn't pornographic exactly.) I thought I was doing my best to break it up into non-assholish, small chunks of text and to go slowly, but apparently the admin thought differently. I do not personally consider reading books over the radio to be inherently spam, but it's also the kind of policy that can easily be subjective.

When does reading books over the radio considered spam? And if the answer is "always," what's the fucking point of having a librarian and a sporadically enforced policy?

If you're one of the two I bwoinked about it last night, it was either 1: The clown spamming WGW. 2: Chaplain with five or so portable radios at your feet while you spout some random gimmick, the problem here is FIVE RADIOS which makes five separate lines of text for each thing you say.

I was the clown and

1) It wasn't even standard WGW (except for like one line), and
2) How was it "spamming"? This is the entire point of the thread.

Delicious wrote:Reading WGW over the intercom has always been an IC issue with the IC consequence that anyone can kill you. I think you need to lurk more, Saegrimr.

Whoops! Like many things I get blamed for enforcing. Once again I was not the one to suggest OOC action being taken against it.

I wish 'I got this much attention for enforcing policy.

I think booking spamming should be treat as any other form of spamming, its annoying and adds nothing to the game.

I don't even care whether it's bannable or not, either way is fine, I just would like to know which it is so I don't have to expect a fucking BWOINK! out of nowhere. I'd also like to know the definition of "spamming" (which, currently, is subjective) so I can know to do with it.

Saegrimr wrote:

Delicious wrote:Reading WGW over the intercom has always been an IC issue with the IC consequence that anyone can kill you. I think you need to lurk more, Saegrimr.

Whoops! Like many things I get blamed for enforcing. Once again I was not the one to suggest OOC action being taken against it.

Can't seem to find the thread that picture is from. Were the players informed beforehand of this?

bandit wrote:I don't even care whether it's bannable or not, either way is fine, I just would like to know which it is so I don't have to expect a fucking BWOINK! out of nowhere. I'd also like to know the definition of "spamming" (which, currently, is subjective) so I can know to do with it.

What's the problem with getting bwoinked? Usually I'd just ask you to stop unless you're being an obnoxious fuck about it.

Spacemanspark wrote:Can't seem to find the thread that picture is from. Were the players informed beforehand of this?

A lot of things get discussed, some unanimous agreement comes around, and doesn't get fully implemented anywhere which i've been (lazily) trying to get some headmin resolution to go "YES" or "NO" on things so maybe that rules page will be updated once in a while.

Vekter wrote:

bandit wrote:I don't even care whether it's bannable or not, either way is fine, I just would like to know which it is so I don't have to expect a fucking BWOINK! out of nowhere. I'd also like to know the definition of "spamming" (which, currently, is subjective) so I can know to do with it.

What's the problem with getting bwoinked? Usually I'd just ask you to stop unless you're being an obnoxious fuck about it.

Because it means:

A) I have to turn my sound on and keep it on for some indeterminate time because ignoring adminhelps is bannable and for some reason admins are against telling players "it's resolved, you can resume your normal business now"
B) The chance of my being banned just went up 500xfold, and if my responses are construed as "being rude," even if they're not meant to be rude, I can get banned regardless (case in point: that wizard apprentice who got BWOINKed for a mistake and then banned for "being rude" when he told the admin, quite reasonably, that he couldn't respond to adminhelps and flee from an angry validhunting mob at the same time)
C) Even if I don't get banned I might get a note from it, which is almost always permanent and usually affects rulings in future admin cases if they should happen, and I'll probably have no way of knowing because there's no codification for which warnings constitute permanent notes and which don't

bandit wrote:

Vekter wrote:

bandit wrote:I don't even care whether it's bannable or not, either way is fine, I just would like to know which it is so I don't have to expect a fucking BWOINK! out of nowhere. I'd also like to know the definition of "spamming" (which, currently, is subjective) so I can know to do with it.

What's the problem with getting bwoinked? Usually I'd just ask you to stop unless you're being an obnoxious fuck about it.

Because it means:

A) I have to turn my sound on and keep it on for some indeterminate time because ignoring adminhelps is bannable and for some reason admins are against telling players "it's resolved, you can resume your normal business now"
B) The chance of my being banned just went up 500xfold, and if my responses are construed as "being rude," even if they're not meant to be rude, I can get banned regardless (case in point: that wizard apprentice who got BWOINKed for a mistake and then banned for "being rude" when he told the admin, quite reasonably, that he couldn't respond to adminhelps and flee from an angry validhunting mob at the same time)
C) Even if I don't get banned I might get a note from it, which is almost always permanent and usually affects rulings in future admin cases if they should happen, and I'll probably have no way of knowing because there's no codification for which warnings constitute permanent notes and which don't

A) >playing with sound off; Also, most ahelps I've seen handled in the last week or so have had resolution noted to them. So unless you're pointing at the vague cloud of mystery admins and mystery ahelps that don't get resolution or noted resolution, I'm not sure where you're coming from.
B) Yes, generally drawing admin attention means you're more likely to be banned than if the admin didn't notice you. That's not really saying much. Pointing to a single case where an admin misinterpreted context on an ahelp situation and painting it to all admins and all ahelps is pretty useless too.
C) Notes don't really require ahelps and really only denote if you're entirely incapable of understanding why what you did was wrong or if you did something actually catastrophic. I can't speak for the rest of the admins, but notes in volume don't really mean much to me anyway unless the volume is met by its content. If you're being a shitter and your notes actually illustrate shitty behavior (Not "oh boy he's got lots of notes what a shit" but actual content) then that's entirely different from "oh god and admin spoke to me and asked me to stop so I did. Nobody's going to waste time on a note when you acknowledge something and adjust.

Funfact: One note doesn't matter. Ten do. All a note means is "Hey, this guy did something, you should probably make sure he doesn't do it again". If a pattern forms, we might use it as a basis for extended punishment, shit like that, but all it really means is you did something moderately not okay at some point and hopefully won't do it again.

All notes are permanent unless otherwise specified. Typically if someone shows a pattern of negative behavior (read: murder, rule 1 violations, just generally being a cock), then turns their shit around, they get a few notes of "hey okay he's doing better now, second chance go" and all is well.

cedarbridge wrote:C) Notes don't really require ahelps and really only denote if you're entirely incapable of understanding why what you did was wrong or if you did something actually catastrophic. I can't speak for the rest of the admins, but notes in volume don't really mean much to me anyway unless the volume is met by its content. If you're being a shitter and your notes actually illustrate shitty behavior (Not "oh boy he's got lots of notes what a shit" but actual content) then that's entirely different from "oh god and admin spoke to me and asked me to stop so I did. Nobody's going to waste time on a note when you acknowledge something and adjust.

This is demonstrably not true. I can only really point to cases I was involved in, but here is one example of my receiving a fairly caustic note after a bunch of tiders complained about me permabrigging them in deadchat.

bandit wrote:

cedarbridge wrote:C) Notes don't really require ahelps and really only denote if you're entirely incapable of understanding why what you did was wrong or if you did something actually catastrophic. I can't speak for the rest of the admins, but notes in volume don't really mean much to me anyway unless the volume is met by its content. If you're being a shitter and your notes actually illustrate shitty behavior (Not "oh boy he's got lots of notes what a shit" but actual content) then that's entirely different from "oh god and admin spoke to me and asked me to stop so I did. Nobody's going to waste time on a note when you acknowledge something and adjust.

This is demonstrably not true. I can only really point to cases I was involved in, but here is one example of my receiving a fairly caustic note after a bunch of tiders complained about me permabrigging them in deadchat.

I'm not really seeing what part of my post there your link in meant to contradict. A note was posted because the investigating admin saw some activity they ruled as not-ok but also not bannable (as I'm reading the thread, I can't really speak for Bluespace.) As it was discussed in the same thread, fault was disputed by other admins requesting the note removal. Its not like you were banned nor do I see any real evidence that this incident was used as reason to ban you at a later time.