admin goes radio silent and bans you harder for disconnecting

[Thaumic]

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=33221
hey guys its my first nut am i doing it right

[Shellton(Mario)]

Beyond the disconnecting part, ticket sounds good and makes sense

[BONERMASTER]

Alternative title: New admin meta motivates players to tell their side of the story by waiting until they disconnect and then banning them.


With lagging regards
-BONERMASTER

[Thaumic]

Alternative title: New admin meta motivates players to tell their side of the story by waiting until they disconnect and then banning them.


With lagging regards
-BONERMASTER

brevity is the soul of wit

[conrad]

This warrants dissection:
Ban reason

ban reason: I made a combat mech and killed a borg and disconnected mid ticket

Actual ban reason

As a non antagonist built a combat mech named "child murderer" and killed a borg for the justified reason of "they were bored" and "it was lowpop".

Ban appeal

yes i did make a combat mech with an lmg and drill but i didnt really used it on anyone besides that borg who was i presume malf since i think it was malf because we were handling a malfed ai at that time and...

Logs

man im bored its low pop and theres nothing to do and ive yet to kill someone besides that one borg shell

Server

Manuel

Do people not know how to communicate anymore?

Mech dude was indeed a tiding lil' shit, or just incredibly fucking dumb for not communicating properly to the bwoink. MRP is not a server where you make a combat mech 4noraisin, and if you do make one, you don't get to drive it. Do that on Terry.

HOWEVER

It was 20 minutes between their reply and Drag's action. Escalating the ban for disconnecting after 20 minutes of radio silence is fucking unfair. Shoulda just done a normal ban and call it a day.

Typical ban appeal where everyone is wrong. Peanuts are getting boring.

brevity is the soul of wit

As you can see, I possess no wit.

[CPTANT]

Seems to be a communication error where he is responding to why he build the mech but the admin interpreted as the reason for why he killed the borg.

[BlueMemesauce]

What rule says you can't make a combat mech, even on Manuel? Is Robo really just sit and wait until a borg wants upgrades simulator?

[Ryusenshu]

you can make a combat mech
but if you try to just validhunt with it, or try to create valids, thats another issue

that round the robo was piloting the mech to break upload doors because of rumors that the ai is "malf", ai noticed the intrusion late and announced into binary
one borg went there to check, got flashed by sec, and shot to death by the robo who then said "its a shell" (borg was revived WAY later into the round, might have been dc'd at that point)

Only after they reset the ai they actually found out it was subverted, there was no hostilities from ai side at all before that

[conrad]

What rule says you can't make a combat mech, even on Manuel? Is Robo really just sit and wait until a borg wants upgrades simulator?

I think I very clearly said "4noraisin". You can make a combat mech, say, to hand it over to sec. Keeping and piloting one and going after antags is not part of the Roboticist's job.

[MooCow12]

He said there was a malf ai, roboticists tend to pay a lot of attention to signs of it.

Also he didnt roam the halls with it to look for antags (otherwise it would say on the ban), it seemed like he just went to upload cuz malf ai, then went to fight blob.

[iwishforducks]

Seems to be a communication error where he is responding to why he build the mech but the admin interpreted as the reason for why he killed the borg.

[conrad]

A reminder that we're talking about MRP.

He said there was a malf ai, roboticists tend to pay a lot of attention to signs of it.

Also he didnt roam the halls with it to look for antags (otherwise it would say on the ban), it seemed like he just went to upload cuz malf ai

Going after upload 'cos of malf/subverted ai is, again, not the Roboticist's job. RD's job is to lock down borgs for law desyncing, and the Roboticist's job is to desync the laws (I don't remember if RD can do that through the computer in their office). Sec goes after the core/upload.

, then went to fight blob.

See THAT I can understand, because of the message saying "All crew must contain the outbreak" Rule 4 covering confirmed global threats... althought, even then, I would defer the piloting of the combat mech to sec.

Sec's job is to go after antags, not the rest of station staff. You can defend yourself, sure, but leaving mech bay and killing borgs 'cos "you heard AI is malf" is not what you should do, and saying "I got bored and I've yet to kill someone besides that borg" is just tiding.

EDIT: I read Rule 4

[Super Aggro Crag]

i have never once seen a roboticist give a fucking combat mech to sec on manuel. even the most generous of roboticists make combat mechs and then put posibrains in them and tell them to kill things instead of giving them to sec. combat mechs only purpose is for a roboticist to sit in on the shuttle in prep for EORG

[Bawhoppennn]

Good first peanut
Constructive criticism: Title is fantastic but body text is lacking- something witty and ridiculous is often a good choice there

I eagerly look forward to more

[CMDR_Gungnir]

A reminder that we're talking about MRP.

He said there was a malf ai, roboticists tend to pay a lot of attention to signs of it.

Also he didnt roam the halls with it to look for antags (otherwise it would say on the ban), it seemed like he just went to upload cuz malf ai

Going after upload 'cos of malf/subverted ai is, again, not the Roboticist's job. RD's job is to lock down borgs for law desyncing, and the Roboticist's job is to desync the laws (I don't remember if RD can do that through the computer in their office). Sec goes after the core/upload.

, then went to fight blob.

See THAT I can understand, because of the message saying "All crew must contain the outbreak" Rule 4 covering confirmed global threats... althought, even then, I would defer the piloting of the combat mech to sec.

Sec's job is to go after antags, not the rest of station staff. You can defend yourself, sure, but leaving mech bay and killing borgs 'cos "you heard AI is malf" is not what you should do, and saying "I got bored and I've yet to kill someone besides that borg" is just tiding.

EDIT: I read Rule 4

you can make a combat mech
but if you try to just validhunt with it, or try to create valids, thats another issue

that round the robo was piloting the mech to break upload doors because of rumors that the ai is "malf", ai noticed the intrusion late and announced into binary
one borg went there to check, got flashed by sec, and shot to death by the robo who then said "its a shell" (borg was revived WAY later into the round, might have been dc'd at that point)

Only after they reset the ai they actually found out it was subverted, there was no hostilities from ai side at all before that

I actually remember this round distinctly. The AI wasn't Malf, but it WAS subverted. Security was two dudes (including a Detective), and I'd figured out pretty quickly that the AI was subverted. I told Sec that I had a very strong suspicion that it was Subverted, which would be why they went after it. I can't fault the Roboticist for helping out in a mech given the circumstances.

[CPTANT]

As a non antagonist built a combat mech named "child murderer" and killed a borg for the justified reason of "they were bored" and "it was lowpop" in tickets. You being bored is not valid justification for breaking the rules. You have been warned already for doing things for no reason. Later appealed and changed their reasoning to them responding to a malf/subverted ai threat. Please make sure you inform admins of what you are doing and why are you doing it when they ask.

This is a pure bullshit response when it is the admin who is being the one who doesn't respond to the ticket.

[conrad]

i have never once seen a roboticist give a fucking combat mech to sec on manuel. even the most generous of roboticists make combat mechs and then put posibrains in them and tell them to kill things instead of giving them to sec. combat mechs only purpose is for a roboticist to sit in on the shuttle in prep for EORG

Well that's fuckin sad 'cos I'd did when I played manny

I actually remember this round distinctly. The AI wasn't Malf, but it WAS subverted. Security was two dudes (including a Detective), and I'd figured out pretty quickly that the AI was subverted. I told Sec that I had a very strong suspicion that it was Subverted, which would be why they went after it. I can't fault the Roboticist for helping out in a mech given the circumstances.

Given the complete absolute bullshit justification on the log, yeah, one can easily fault the Roboticist.
"Why did you built a combat mech, etc.?"
"tehres malf ai and 2 sec im helping"
Problem solved.

This ban would be a lot less interesting if Drag didn't fuck up.

[Timberpoes]

I still think there's a lot of miscommunication even in this appeal. I'm hoping that my post sheds a little light on what appears to have gone wrong at all stages of this ticket and onwards to now.

[BeeSting12]

Seems like investigation is lacking in this one.

[Timberpoes]

I spent a couple of hours looking into it because well, I'll quote what I said in adminbus:
From the opening ticket onwards there's a lot of hazy fog.
Maybe I'm going senile, but none of the puzzle pieces fit.
Looks like you're both playing totally different jigsaws.

Things like this definitely need time put into them, and I'm sensing the whole thing was rushed from the very start.

We're also taught not to open tickets with accusations and candidates/trialmins have been brought to task on it in the past.

From our internal guide to rule enforcement/admin conduct, which really isn't going to bring up many surprises:

General Ahelp Procedure
- Most situations require the admin to gain a full and unbiased understanding of a situation as possible. Only then can an admin apply the rules and their own accumulated sense of right and wrong from past experiences to a situation.
...

Admins initiating a conversation should do so with the following points in mind,
- Be neutral in tone and avoid being accusatory. While it is not necessary to build a rapport with the individual being talked to, it is essential to maintain at least a neutral relationship between you and the player. This is so the conversation is less likely to become hostile and the player is less likely to become defensive or evasive. Players that are not defensive or evasive may provide more information. If the player is expected to be evasive, remaining non-accusatory also makes it less likely for what you say to tip off the player on what they want to be evasive/deceptive about.
...

Every admin will be familiar with this stuff. It does lead me to say that "Hey, why are you making a combat mech with no reason to do so (accusatory, you don't know that yet) and attacking people as a non antagonist with said mech? (accusatory, you better have your facts straight if you say this)" as an opening ahelp is PROBABLY not going to lead to a very productive ticket.

Add in the 10+ minute delayed radio silence with no attempt to gather more information/confirm understanding that the player just said they did it FNR, the logs and everything else on top, and I think we have a wonderful misunderstanding fruit plucked from the tree that grew from those misunderstanding roots.

[chocolate_bickie]

As a non antagonist built a combat mech named "child murderer" and killed a borg for the justified reason of "they were bored" and "it was lowpop" in tickets. You being bored is not valid justification for breaking the rules. You have been warned already for doing things for no reason. Later appealed and changed their reasoning to them responding to a malf/subverted ai threat. Please make sure you inform admins of what you are doing and why are you doing it when they ask.

This is a pure bullshit response when it is the admin who is being the one who doesn't respond to the ticket.

Everytime I have asked an admin if I can do anything non-standard the responce has been one word;

No

[BeeSting12]

As a non antagonist built a combat mech named "child murderer" and killed a borg for the justified reason of "they were bored" and "it was lowpop" in tickets. You being bored is not valid justification for breaking the rules. You have been warned already for doing things for no reason. Later appealed and changed their reasoning to them responding to a malf/subverted ai threat. Please make sure you inform admins of what you are doing and why are you doing it when they ask.

This is a pure bullshit response when it is the admin who is being the one who doesn't respond to the ticket.

Everytime I have asked an admin if I can do anything non-standard the responce has been one word;

No

Ask for forgiveness later. If it's something within the rules, you can appeal it and take it all the way up to the headmins. If it's not, then they were saying no for a reason. Most likely though, they just don't want to make your actions admin-sanctioned which might cause you to go further with it than you normally would or should, or they don't want the blame for your actions.

[Misdoubtful]

As a non antagonist built a combat mech named "child murderer" and killed a borg for the justified reason of "they were bored" and "it was lowpop" in tickets. You being bored is not valid justification for breaking the rules. You have been warned already for doing things for no reason. Later appealed and changed their reasoning to them responding to a malf/subverted ai threat. Please make sure you inform admins of what you are doing and why are you doing it when they ask.

This is a pure bullshit response when it is the admin who is being the one who doesn't respond to the ticket.

Everytime I have asked an admin if I can do anything non-standard the responce has been one word;

No

Ask for forgiveness later. If it's something within the rules, you can appeal it and take it all the way up to the headmins. If it's not, then they were saying no for a reason. Most likely though, they just don't want to make your actions admin-sanctioned which might cause you to go further with it than you normally would or should, or they don't want the blame for your actions.

I always like to say:

Sure but you live with the consequences if you biff it.

Its never failed me yet.

[Timberpoes]

"Yes, [with these conditions]." is a favourite of mine.

I once got the dagger stare on Manuel when a traitor blew up a HFR for no reason in the maints near medbay on like, Meta or something and it turned out I'd okayed it beforehand.

I told them to pick a non-public location and minimise intentional collateral - I.e. don't invite people to die. If they fucked it up, the consequences were on them.

They agreed and I successfully gave them immunity from admin retaliation.

[iwishforducks]

i dont get why people are so adamant about sticking absolutely bloody useless notes after essentially going through the riff raffs of conceding in removing the ban- even if it's passed its prime. like really, what use is there to the note that was left? leaving a note on a player does not mean you walk away with a win. it only makes bureaucracy harder when someone gets banned for "having too many notes" and then we pull up their notes and one of the notes is "Was asked to say please and thanks in tickets." like it's just embarrassing bro

[bastardblaster]

i dont get why people are so adamant about sticking absolutely bloody useless notes after essentially going through the riff raffs of conceding in removing the ban- even if it's passed its prime. like really, what use is there to the note that was left? leaving a note on a player does not mean you walk away with a win. it only makes bureaucracy harder when someone gets banned for "having too many notes" and then we pull up their notes and one of the notes is "Was asked to say please and thanks in tickets." like it's just embarrassing bro

are you British if so please stop

[iwishforducks]

My question was not confusing, there was no hidden meaning behind any of what I opened the ticket with. I asked two questions, why the mech was made and why the mech was used.

yes, your question was confusing. it was loaded with accusations. you asked why they made a combat for no reason, not if. you implied they also had no reason to be attacking people with said mech because they were a non-antagonist. additionally, it also implied that they had been attacking multiple people with the mech.

admins are trained to ask neutral questions, as timber has stated. a simple "Hey, why do you have a combat mech? What happened between you and the borg?" and then ended the ticket with "Hey, can you also not name your mech child murderer? This is completely separate from what went down but please try to keep the name of your mechs in good taste." would have resulted in much better results

I feel like this is setting a standard if you claim in an appeal you just didn't read the ahelp ticket properly and you just misunderstood this puts admins more on the line then they already are.

Additionally this appeal is frankly hard to read and interpret.

if you can't see the hypocrisy of these two statements then... i don't know.

this is an aside, but i read their appeal just fine. i agree that the response they gave on the ticket could have been interpreted as poor form but you also set them up for failure with your first message.

[iwishforducks]

i dont get why people are so adamant about sticking absolutely bloody useless notes after essentially going through the riff raffs of conceding in removing the ban- even if it's passed its prime. like really, what use is there to the note that was left? leaving a note on a player does not mean you walk away with a win. it only makes bureaucracy harder when someone gets banned for "having too many notes" and then we pull up their notes and one of the notes is "Was asked to say please and thanks in tickets." like it's just embarrassing bro

are you British if so please stop

no i just think it's fun to say bloody and riff raff

[Ryusenshu]

I wish i would record my rounds, because i saw the entire thing happening

[Thaumic]

I like how the note just outright lies. I think Drags logic is that their ticket was just so clear that the only possibility is that scremboi didn't read it

[BONERMASTER]

I wish i would record my rounds, because i saw the entire thing happening

FYI, if you are witness you are always free to post your statement to give more insight into the case. Something like "I was present in the round and I did not see them gun down anyone or behave in an erratic matter" etc. A recording is of course chefs kiss, but you don't have to be a master chef to provide solid, good evidence.


With compelling regards
-BONERMASTER

[CPTANT]

This is 100% Drag failing at communicating. The player answered both parts of his question. "Why did you make the mech" -> I was bored, "Why did you go around killing people" -> I didn't I only killed 1 borg.

Noting people for your own failure at basic communication is just sad.

[Thaumic]

This is 100% Drag failing at communicating. The player answered both parts of his question. "Why did you make the mech" -> I was bored, "Why did you go around killing people" -> I didn't I only killed 1 borg.

Noting people for your own failure at basic communication is just sad.

ya and they tried to pass it off as the player being confused even though they understood the ticket perfectly and drag was the only one who dropped the spaghetti here
:/

[CPTANT]

This is really the end? Drag just gets away with it and nobody thinks hmmmmmmm?

[Tearling]

This is really the end? Drag just gets away with it and nobody thinks hmmmmmmm?

Yup. Player might not have known to ask for a headmin review, maybe?
Unless you want to get a forum warning you have to go around and privately inform the poster they can request a headmin review.

[Sightld2]

Only tangentially related, but it'd be neat if we had indicators that someone was typing in an ahelp.

[Bawhoppennn]

Only tangentially related, but it'd be neat if we had indicators that someone was typing in an ahelp.

Yeah I mean since it already does that for admins, why don't we have it do it on the player side as well?

[Sightld2]

Only tangentially related, but it'd be neat if we had indicators that someone was typing in an ahelp.

Yeah I mean since it already does that for admins, why don't we have it do it on the player side as well?

It doesn't. But yeah that'd make sense too

[Bawhoppennn]

Only tangentially related, but it'd be neat if we had indicators that someone was typing in an ahelp.

Yeah I mean since it already does that for admins, why don't we have it do it on the player side as well?

It doesn't. But yeah that'd make sense too

The last time I remember responding to ahelps on the live server (never tested on local cause why), I recall it saying "Other_Admin_X has started replying to ahelp" "Other_Admin_X has stopped replying"

[Sightld2]

Only tangentially related, but it'd be neat if we had indicators that someone was typing in an ahelp.

Yeah I mean since it already does that for admins, why don't we have it do it on the player side as well?

It doesn't. But yeah that'd make sense too

The last time I remember responding to ahelps on the live server (never tested on local cause why), I recall it saying "Other_Admin_X has started replying to ahelp" "Other_Admin_X has stopped replying"

Ah, yeah I'd thought you meant from the players perspective.