Immovable note supplexed by headmin review nut

[conrad]

Bottom post of the previous page:

viewtopic.php?f=7&p=705624#p705624

20 minutes. Can we get any lower?

[conrad]

I THINK ITS GETTING TO BE ABOUT THAT TIME

I had to fight the urge to start a count with an internal jihad on my mind palace.

[Timberpoes]

I'd be careful with premature Starsectoring. The cost of having counters banned from derailing peanuts is that Starsectorites may also find their classic mode of derailling peanuts gets treated the same.

My ex's husband hated it when I prematurely Starsectored all over the place.

[Nabski]

It's a discord ticket. The platform where neither party is always going to be there at the same time. You can cover twelve hours of discord discussion with 3 messages.

I am going to take a wild guess that it wasn't twelve hours of constant discussion in which Vekter had a gun pointed at Sinful the entire time, demanding immediate responses. If the ticket dragged on for twelve hours, eleven of those were probably spent waiting for the other person to respond.

The ticket was opened at three in the morning and was responded to the next day. The reason it's dragged out so long is because Vekter closed the ticket then rebwoinked sinful for the same thing like 10 hours later.

I could have sworn that by our powers combined we created a ruling that all administrative matters are handled in game where there's a record.

[Boot]

this mess here

I don't remember being the one that said that part of the stunbaton I just replied that "it's ok if sec on red uniform has baton" with "it's a chemist on uniform with syringe gun" and you've left me confused now so I'm not responding to any of that lmao

I understand what happened here, I was trying to see what else you said in this thread so I went to your posts and you were quoting the line "Chloral Hydrate is nonlethal in the same way a stun baton is nonlethal". For some reason it didn't have it in the quote box but I can see what happened. Sorry about that, you are being consistent even if I think your reading of escalation policy is wrong.

[Wolfmoy]

Getting bwoinked over the same thing is a little whacky, much less on discord.

[oranges]

From how hard pepper was pushing the "the other person deserved it because they were creepy IC" angle, I assumed sinfulbliss was permabanned, only to discover it was simply a note???? what on earth?

either way character assassinating an admin for their part in the ban is not going to help your case.

Also boot is it possible for you to post in a ban appeal without mentioning the l word or the filter?

[Timberpoes]

I could have sworn that by our powers combined we created a ruling that all administrative matters are handled in game where there's a record.

We have an alternative setup on Discord with a ticketing system that can be used in lieu of in-game tickets. It's how we handle Discord issues, but admins can also use it to handle in-game issues when players aren't in-game.

[Nabski]

Ah the future how far we have come.

[Boot]

From how hard pepper was pushing the "the other person deserved it because they were creepy IC" angle, I assumed sinfulbliss was permabanned, only to discover it was simply a note???? what on earth?

either way character assassinating an admin for their part in the ban is not going to help your case.

Also boot is it possible for you to post in a ban appeal without mentioning the l word or the filter?

I also didn't mention playtime, of which you don't have enough to be posting here so why don't you roll your ass back to the git fruit.

[Capsandi]

idk how many angels can fit on the plunger of a chloral hydrate needle but the note on its own merits is a soft disapproval from this forums account masquerading as a human being.

[oranges]

From how hard pepper was pushing the "the other person deserved it because they were creepy IC" angle, I assumed sinfulbliss was permabanned, only to discover it was simply a note???? what on earth?

either way character assassinating an admin for their part in the ban is not going to help your case.

Also boot is it possible for you to post in a ban appeal without mentioning the l word or the filter?

I also didn't mention playtime, of which you don't have enough to be posting here so why don't you roll your ass back to the git fruit.

NSFW:

[RedBaronFlyer]

I'd be careful with premature Starsectoring. The cost of having counters banned from derailing peanuts is that Starsectorites may also find their classic mode of derailling peanuts gets treated the same.

My ex's husband hated it when I prematurely Starsectored all over the place.

Yeah Starsector posting can be funny when the thread is reaching its conclusion but the issue is still ongoing and it is related to a serious issue to the point that I don’t think it should happen at all in this thread.

[Archie700]

I THINK ITS GETTING TO BE ABOUT THAT TIME

No.

[conrad]

this mess here

I don't remember being the one that said that part of the stunbaton I just replied that "it's ok if sec on red uniform has baton" with "it's a chemist on uniform with syringe gun" and you've left me confused now so I'm not responding to any of that lmao

I understand what happened here, I was trying to see what else you said in this thread so I went to your posts and you were quoting the line "Chloral Hydrate is nonlethal in the same way a stun baton is nonlethal". For some reason it didn't have it in the quote box but I can see what happened. Sorry about that, you are being consistent even if I think your reading of escalation policy is wrong.

It's ok to disagree. Notes and bans are all case by case (except for some clear cut cases but those are pretty rare) and on the vast majority of cases appeals are bespoke.

I'll tell you though, my reading of escalation rules aren't my own. I formulate very few of the opinions I voice myself. I take them from more acknowledged admins than me and bring them forth to try and bring order to chaos. I've been yelled plenty for interpreting the rules incorrectly, and that has allowed me to, I hope, bring a fairer judgement when drafting a note, ban or even casting my peanut.

You might have your own formulated opinion of escalation policy, or any rule for that matter, but that won't mean jack shit if you fail to convince the admin that noted/banned you, and perhaps the involved headmins, of why YOUR version of that rule makes more sense than THEIRS.

So whatever interpretation you have, I wish you good luck and plenty of fun on your conflicts. Just be careful to not ruin someone's fun over your own slights and you'll be fine is what I say.

[Boot]

this mess here

I don't remember being the one that said that part of the stunbaton I just replied that "it's ok if sec on red uniform has baton" with "it's a chemist on uniform with syringe gun" and you've left me confused now so I'm not responding to any of that lmao

I understand what happened here, I was trying to see what else you said in this thread so I went to your posts and you were quoting the line "Chloral Hydrate is nonlethal in the same way a stun baton is nonlethal". For some reason it didn't have it in the quote box but I can see what happened. Sorry about that, you are being consistent even if I think your reading of escalation policy is wrong.

It's ok to disagree. Notes and bans are all case by case (except for some clear cut cases but those are pretty rare) and on the vast majority of cases appeals are bespoke.

I'll tell you though, my reading of escalation rules aren't my own. I formulate very few of the opinions I voice myself. I take them from more acknowledged admins than me and bring them forth to try and bring order to chaos. I've been yelled plenty for interpreting the rules incorrectly, and that has allowed me to, I hope, bring a fairer judgement when drafting a note, ban or even casting my peanut.

You might have your own formulated opinion of escalation policy, or any rule for that matter, but that won't mean jack shit if you fail to convince the admin that noted/banned you, and perhaps the involved headmins, of why YOUR version of that rule makes more sense than THEIRS.

So whatever interpretation you have, I wish you good luck and plenty of fun on your conflicts. Just be careful to not ruin someone's fun over your own slights and you'll be fine is what I say.

Conrad as an admin who has talked with many in the internal discussion tower. You've done this for months now, you got a better finger on the pulse of what they think then I and that has shaped how you view the rules. Can you tell me what you think "to avenge damage" is talking about in the escalation rules? It goes out of its way to say OR recover stolen items so clearly just nickin something wouldn't apply here. If it doesn't apply to dismembering then what does it apply to?

E: I would like to point out that the policy thread that talks about adding this phrase explicitly talks about delimbing a body and is in response to someone who RR the captain in response to them taking their legs and getting their note removed. I actually, honestly, 100% can't imagine a WORLD where Sinful's actions wouldn't fall under protection of the current escalation rules BEFORE he walked up and slit their throat after they got rez'd.

[conrad]

Conrad as an admin who has talked with many in the internal discussion tower. You've done this for months now, you got a better finger on the pulse of what they think then I and that has shaped how you view the rules. Can you tell me what you think "to avenge damage" is talking about in the escalation rules? It goes out of its way to say OR recover stolen items so clearly just nickin something wouldn't apply here. If it doesn't apply to dismembering then what does it apply to?

I think the bigger picture here is whether sinful was the agressor towards the chemist or not. The defending party is the one that controls the rate of escalation.

Sinful attacks clown -> aggressor (like you said)

Route A - Chemist is the defending party

Chemist fires syringe to defend their department from a rampaging tider (check tbm's log readout). Syringe is sleepy chem.
Sinful kills chemist. Conflict is over.

Insofar all is forgiven since Sinful didn't know chloral hydrate was nonlethal when in a single syringe quantity.

Sinful then delimbs them. <- This right here is where overescalation warrants a note.

Sinful then comes back and kills them thinking they're an antag. <- This is where I would dayban since "firing at someone who's starting fights where I work" isn't really acting like an antag.

Route B - Chemist is the agressor

Chemist fires syringe 'cos of reasons waves hands maybe he's pretending to be sec. Sinful is the defending party.
Sinful kills chemist. Conflict is over.

Sinful delimbs chemist, prolonging conflict. That's where your avenge damage clause could come into place, since the chemist was the agressor, and he now has cause to go after Sinful. <- I would not note them here.

Sinful then comes back and kills them thinking they're an antag. <- I would STILL dayban Sinful since the earlier conflict is not proof that they're an antag.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

This case stinks of Route A to me, because it's a chemist in medbay stopping a fight. I had an almost identical case with lawlolawl's dayban on Saturday. If you don't have good cause to believe someone is an antag besides "I was fucking around and found out", you don't really have a strong case.

An addendum: I didn't read the logs or the massive essay that is that ban appeal and didn't actually read the bit where sinful comes back to slit the guys throat if that's not a thing that happened please disregard the previous relevant reading.

A closing thought: escalation policy needs a better writeout like a bullet point list 'cos it's not rocket science and people still misinterpret it.

[Boot]

Conrad as an admin who has talked with many in the internal discussion tower. You've done this for months now, you got a better finger on the pulse of what they think then I and that has shaped how you view the rules. Can you tell me what you think "to avenge damage" is talking about in the escalation rules? It goes out of its way to say OR recover stolen items so clearly just nickin something wouldn't apply here. If it doesn't apply to dismembering then what does it apply to?

I think the bigger picture here is whether sinful was the agressor towards the chemist or not. The defending party is the one that controls the rate of escalation.

Sinful attacks clown -> aggressor (like you said)

Route A - Chemist is the defending party

Chemist fires syringe to defend their department from a rampaging tider (check tbm's log readout). Syringe is sleepy chem.
Sinful kills chemist. Conflict is over.

Insofar all is forgiven since Sinful didn't know chloral hydrate was nonlethal when in a single syringe quantity.

Sinful then delimbs them. <- This right here is where overescalation warrants a note.

Sinful then comes back and kills them thinking they're an antag. <- This is where I would dayban since "firing at someone who's starting fights where I work" isn't really acting like an antag.

Route B - Chemist is the agressor

Chemist fires syringe 'cos of reasons waves hands maybe he's pretending to be sec. Sinful is the defending party.
Sinful kills chemist. Conflict is over.

Sinful delimbs chemist, prolonging conflict. That's where your avenge damage clause could come into place, since the chemist was the agressor, and he now has cause to go after Sinful. <- I would not note them here.

Sinful then comes back and kills them thinking they're an antag. <- I would STILL dayban Sinful since the earlier conflict is not proof that they're an antag.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

This case stinks of Route A to me, because it's a chemist in medbay stopping a fight. I had an almost identical case with lawlolawl's dayban on Saturday. If you don't have good cause to believe someone is an antag besides "I was fucking around and found out", you don't really have a strong case.

An addendum: I didn't read the logs or the massive essay that is that ban appeal and didn't actually read the bit where sinful comes back to slit the guys throat if that's not a thing that happened please disregard the previous relevant reading.

A closing thought: escalation policy needs a better writeout like a bullet point list 'cos it's not rocket science and people still misinterpret it.

1. I don't think that delimbing them is over escalation because the escalation policy says that delimbing is covered by it leaving the aggressor open to further escalation.
2.This is the third time I've asked this question. What do you think "A player who uses the state of incapacitation to take further action against the downed party chooses to extend the ongoing conflict past its original endpoint, and opens themselves up to further reprisal to avenge damage or recover stolen possessions." means when it talks about avenging damage. I know you say we need to take into account the entire escalation policy and I agree but you seem to just ignore this part. I do agree that this is route A.

[conrad]

1. I don't think that delimbing them is over escalation because the escalation policy says that delimbing is covered by it leaving the aggressor open to further escalation.

It is, because the defender sets the pace of conflict, not the agressor. If route A is the one we're going for, delimbing after incapacitation is going beyond the conflict. i.e.: you can delimb if you're the defending party and the agressor can later clap your cheeks.

2.This is the third time I've asked this question. What do you think "A player who uses the state of incapacitation to take further action against the downed party chooses to extend the ongoing conflict past its original endpoint, and opens themselves up to further reprisal to avenge damage or recover stolen possessions." means when it talks about avenging damage. I know you say we need to take into account the entire escalation policy and I agree but you seem to just ignore this part. I do agree that this is route A.

I think I explained it quite well on the route B example and you're not gonna see that response unless you try to shift your perspective.

[Boot]

1. I don't think that delimbing them is over escalation because the escalation policy says that delimbing is covered by it leaving the aggressor open to further escalation.

It is, because the defender sets the pace of conflict, not the agressor. If route A is the one we're going for, delimbing after incapacitation is going beyond the conflict. i.e.: you can delimb if you're the defending party and the agressor can later clap your cheeks.

2.This is the third time I've asked this question. What do you think "A player who uses the state of incapacitation to take further action against the downed party chooses to extend the ongoing conflict past its original endpoint, and opens themselves up to further reprisal to avenge damage or recover stolen possessions." means when it talks about avenging damage. I know you say we need to take into account the entire escalation policy and I agree but you seem to just ignore this part. I do agree that this is route A.

I think I explained it quite well on the route B example and you're not gonna see that response unless you try to shift your perspective.

Ok I just think that is abit silly to think that only the defender can trigger the final paragraph but I understand your viewpoint more. I disagree because everything being done to the body COULD have already been done after one person is dead(loss of blood, losing limbs, eye stabs) and we wouldn't divide these up past "does violence" but we now? Seems odd to me but I understand where you stand now. Thanks for running through this train of thought with me. Hope you have a nice rest of the night.

[conrad]

Ok I just think that is abit silly to think that only the defender can trigger the final paragraph but I understand your viewpoint more.

As the defending party the rate of escalation increases with you, up to and including violence, while the instigator is always able to respond in kind.

They control the pace, so they control how far it goes. I personally don't like how the rules are written 'cos they're very open ended and each person can have their own interpretation. This is bad for the players 'cos they're always gonna be subjected to the admin's interpretation, not something easily understood by everyone.

Seems odd to me but I understand where you stand now. Thanks for running through this train of thought with me. Hope you have a nice rest of the night.

No worries dude we vibin'. Have a good night as well.

[BrolyButterfingers]

if i see someone being beaten while they're in crit then i will often step in to stop the attacker because it seems like a reasonable and human response to seeing violence enacted against someone who can't defend themselves. the exception obviously being if they're dealing with an obvious antagonist but i didn't read anywhere that the clown was in a blood red hardsuit or had an armblade out. i don't personally see someone trying to stop you from killing someone else as antagonistic behaviour given the circumstances.

where i will agree with sinful (gasp) is that knowing how much chloral hydrate will fuck you up is not necessarily common knowledge. i know 15u isn't enough to kill someone but then again i don't know how much IS. i would probably react the same way if it happened in a vacuum, ie i was standing around minding my own business and a doctor shot me in the ass with a mystery syringe, but since the inciting incident was your boot connecting with the skull of a limp and supine clown over and over again, it doesn't take a genius to figure out why they might've tried to take you down from a distance to stop you from doing that.

but i'm an mrp cretin so what do i know? this is an enlightened lrp situation my views are worthless.

I have like 700 hours in SS13 and I know literally nothing about what the vast majority of chemicals do. My last chemist round had me learning about pH and then walking downstairs, planting a syndicate bomb and blowing myself up because I couldn't take it anymore

I fucking hate chemistry, if someone shoots me with a syringe I assume it's attempted murder and beat the piss out of them.

[cSeal]

A clown was being a shitter and then got lynched, and then someone with no way to have any kind of context came in and shot someone involved with a syringe. If they had asked people to fuck off, or there was a general ruckus of trying to get people out, or they had been involved at the start of the conflict, I would understand, but if the take is "if person fights in your dept at all ever you can shit on them" that's frankly silly.

I fully believe the chemist should count as the aggressor in this conflict just because it sets a really shitty precedent otherwise.

I don't want to have to worry about getting my head turned into a crater by some trigger happy scientist just because I ran into his department and killed a ling that was chasing after me.

People should be empowered to fuck with shitters in their department, but c'mon. CMOOOOON.

[TheBibleMelts]

A clown was being a shitter and then got lynched, and then someone with no way to have any kind of context came in and shot someone involved with a syringe. If they had asked people to fuck off, or there was a general ruckus of trying to get people out, or they had been involved at the start of the conflict, I would understand, but if the take is "if person fights in your dept at all ever you can shit on them" that's frankly silly.

I fully believe the chemist should count as the aggressor in this conflict just because it sets a really shitty precedent otherwise.

I don't want to have to worry about getting my head turned into a crater by some trigger happy scientist just because I ran into his department and killed a ling that was chasing after me.

People should be empowered to fuck with shitters in their department, but c'mon. CMOOOOON.

I SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO LYNCH PEOPLE FOR BEING SHITTERS

I DON'T WANT TO BE LYNCHED BECAUSE I LOOKED LIKE A SHITTER

I SHOULD BE EMPOWERED TO LYNCH SHITTERS

UNLESS I'M THE SHITTER

[TheBibleMelts]

thanks for reading my poetry

[cSeal]

Blah blah blah

Bad faith post + unnecessarily mean + reflects poorly on the janitorial staff, mods give this guy a warning and a three day ban as well

[TheBibleMelts]

Blah blah blah

Bad faith post + unnecessarily mean + reflects poorly on the janitorial staff, mods give this guy a warning and a three day ban as well

i write you beautiful poetry and this is how you treat me

[cSeal]

Blah blah blah

Bad faith post + unnecessarily mean + reflects poorly on the janitorial staff, mods give this guy a warning and a three day ban as well

i write you beautiful poetry and this is how you treat me

I dont cotton to poets, thespians, or philosophizers, them types are too wordy for me....

[TheBibleMelts]

Blah blah blah

Bad faith post + unnecessarily mean + reflects poorly on the janitorial staff, mods give this guy a warning and a three day ban as well

i write you beautiful poetry and this is how you treat me

I dont cotton to poets, thespians, or philosophizers, them types are too wordy for me....

i hate words too, let's be friends.

[cSeal]

i hate words too, let's be friends.

<3

[Miczu555]

Chemist decided to get involved, tries to stop lynching and got his ass handed to him what's the deal?
He shouldn't get involved unless he was ready to get hurt.

[Jacquerel]

Chemist decided to get involved, tries to stop lynching and got his ass handed to him what's the deal?
He shouldn't get involved unless he was ready to get hurt.

if it had stopped with an ass-handing there wouldn't have been a problem, it was the subsequent removal of his limbs that was the reason for the note

[TypicalRig]

Why is it so hard for Bible to believe that Sinful didn't know what chloral did? The reason people believe it's lethal is because it's associated with the sleepy pen, which is usually used to give people the opportunity to finish someone off (or hypnoflash them, but the hypnoflash is still relatively new in terms of SS13 features). If Bible is sincere about the "chloral has been the knockout juice for as long as I have played" tidbit they should be capable of understanding that usually when someone knocks you out with chloral hydrate, you aren't going to get the chance to wake up again, so it's normal to make that association/assumption. Stuns are a death sentence here.

It's asinine to expect someone to know every feature of the game and a good faith approach to this would be giving him the benefit of the doubt and tailoring the note to include that he claimed he didn't know chloral hydrate was only lethal in super high doses, AND not holding that part against him (yes I know it's already in the note this is a two parter), so he can't make the same claim. Not going "lol don't believe you!"

Not really sure how I feel about the note its self, but Sinful does have a habit of reacting to any slight against him with crit and a trip to medical because he feels OOCly that he can get away with it, rather than handling things in proportion to their actual damage, but as a botany main I get how being injected with random chems could make anyone jumpy. The only way you know what's in you is if you get a health analyzer or scan yourself with the pay scanner in medical, and usually that's unwise since you want to chug multiver as soon as possible.

[WineAllWine]

Why is it so hard for Bible to believe that Sinful didn't know what chloral did? -snip-

Yeah I agree with you a lot here - If someone had asked me whether chloral was lethal a few days ago I would've said yes.

The amount of effort from so many different people into this note appeal is frankly insane. Think what we could have achieved if we all used the hours spent on this note productively.

[cSeal]

[cSeal]

[cSeal]

[cSeal]

WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON WITH THIS FORMATTING SHIT WHY IS IT DUPLICATING MY POSTS

[cSeal]

Okay since for some reason it wont let me delete those posts I edited them to all be flom instead of that messy disorganized rant I didn't even mean to send yet, if a forummin wants to delete these innocent and whimsical beasts theyre welcome to do it

[iwishforducks]

please do not delete the cats it’s really funny

[Jacquerel]

[TheBibleMelts]

i hate words too, let's be friends.

<3

Tldr

[warbluke]

If the chemist had said "Stop folding people in med over words" BEFORE shooting and getting bodied, this whole deal would be a lot easier to adjudicate. I'm not suggesting we expand sec policy to all crewmembers, but there's got to be a way to encourage using your words.

[wesoda25]

I think it’s a waste of time to dig as deep into escalation as it looks like they are in that appeal. More important is the big picture, in which sinfuls behavior was kind of gross and runs afoul of… rule 1? Maybe 12? I can’t concretely point at any one thing he did and say, “Yeah this is wrong,” but I CAN fault his overall playstyle. Were it based on that I’d say yeah, fair note (or even ban). Given the creepy sexual comments made, though, I’d say just scrap it. If there’s a pattern of problematic behavior, this won’t be your only “chance” (gross phrasing, sorry) at establishing it. If not then there is nothing to be concerned about. I think it’d just be better to wait for a scenario that doesn’t involve such a sensitive topic (since you can never truly establish how much such a thing bothers someone, for all you know they aren’t fully aware of that themselves).

I’d say the argument that you should ahelp stuff like that as opposed to taking it into your hands is a valid one, but then why not just make the note stating as much? Were I an admin, that’s the only possible version of this note that I would be comfortable factoring into later administrative action.

That’s just me though. It all seems needlessly complex and I dislike that. RIP everyone involved

[dendydoom]

the other aspect where i do agree with sinful is that players can't always tell when something is explicitly ooc and should be ahelped. admins have a much different sense for that kind of thing because we're taught it and we discuss in obtuse debates about it all day every day whereas players just see what's in front of them and react to it naturally in the moment. it's also not guaranteed that you'll have an admin rule in your favour (they could IC issue you and now you're fucked because you didn't take the opportunity at the time to respond ICly) or even if you'll get a response at all.

while i also don't like oocly motivated behaviour muddying the IC waters, i can often see where a player will not be able to accurately determine when something is so ooc that they shouldn't respond IC and should instead entirely disengage and contact an admin. it is a difficult balancing act.

where i agree with TBM is the idea that a lot of gameplay over the years has devolved into "escalation policy simulator" where people get too lost in the weeds on this policy alone and have forgotten the spirit of why it exists in the first place. it's better to just play your character so you can point to a valid IC motive and chain of events that support it because you were playing the game normally rather than trying to game the system. not saying that's explicitly what sinful has done here, but it's the general vibe i get from a lot of these kinds of altercations. people are more aware of escalation policy rather than the roleplay opportunities right in front of them.

[Archie700]

I think it’s a waste of time to dig as deep into escalation as it looks like they are in that appeal. More important is the big picture, in which sinfuls behavior was kind of gross and runs afoul of… rule 1? Maybe 12? I can’t concretely point at any one thing he did and say, “Yeah this is wrong,” but I CAN fault his overall playstyle. Were it based on that I’d say yeah, fair note (or even ban). Given the creepy sexual comments made, though, I’d say just scrap it. If there’s a pattern of problematic behavior, this won’t be your only “chance” (gross phrasing, sorry) at establishing it. If not then there is nothing to be concerned about. I think it’d just be better to wait for a scenario that doesn’t involve such a sensitive topic (since you can never truly establish how much such a thing bothers someone, for all you know they aren’t fully aware of that themselves).

I’d say the argument that you should ahelp stuff like that as opposed to taking it into your hands is a valid one, but then why not just make the note stating as much? Were I an admin, that’s the only possible version of this note that I would be comfortable factoring into later administrative action.

That’s just me though. It all seems needlessly complex and I dislike that. RIP everyone involved

https://scrubby.melonmesa.com/round/215210

Thing is , this round was before all the other creepy sexual comments were made, the only creepy comment made by Turbo Junior on this round was

Code: Select all

07:06:02	SAY	Pepperoni Playboy/(Turbo Junior) "axle is well known as a twinky femboy with no sense of humor"	(145, 121, 4)	Medbay Central

Which was more likely intended as an insult.

Yeah I did handle sinful's later ahelp of Turbo Junior metagrudging him because he spawned in as a comms agent masquerading as Axle Brady and saying sexual shit on comms. Yes, it was a note to warn him not to do it again or face harsh punishment. Was I too soft? Yes, maybe, but I wouldn't really say it was due to bias, since I would have done the same regardless if it wasn't sinful, as I haven't dealt with a soft rulebreak of rule 8 before.

But this was two rounds after this, and I believe this initial incident was why he later harassed sinful via printing paintings and later impersonating, to piss him off. Turbo Junior being a major creep towards Sinful was, I feel, because of the initial incident, but the note should not be scrapped because of this alone, because most of those comments happened in later rounds due to a metagrudge.

[wesoda25]

Meh, I’d sooner blindly take someone at their word and look like an idiot in doing so than attempt to quantify how much creepiness is “too much.” Admittedly however I may have too readily taken the assertion of creepiness as a fact. Take what i say with a grain of salt as always, I probably got a little too caught up in constructing an argument than wondering whether or not it actually applied

Fwiw I certainly don’t fault you for merely warning the player, I (probably) would have done the same :flom:

[cSeal]

Dont bring flom into such things young man...

Also, it feels like theres been a rather large shift in how people handle rule 8 shit, I remember not too long ago when people would be chomping at the bit to perma people for one offense (which I cant say I necessarily disagree with!)
I guess I dont know the full context, but imo if someone has shown repeatedly that theyre willing to target a specific person with sexual shit, they should be permad until they can get a vouch that theyre not a freak, thats a very very gross line to cross

[Archie700]

There's no way to know if people are doing it repeatedly based on one ahelp.

The ahelp I handled was the only ahelp that sinful did, all the other shit was found out during investigation and sinful handled that IC by beating them to shit.

I would also note that the ingame paintings were done by someone else months ago and "axle femboy" wasn't exactly a single instance instigated by that guy but apparently some shitty injoke among sybil players, based on a art piece by wubli.

People would use them to irritate Axle Brady (not sinfulbliss) IC and make him beat them up.

This was happening for months and yet nothing was done about it apparently, prior to this incident.

[AsbestosSniffer]

A player on Manuel ate an instant permaban for something similar.

Only in that case it was a comment targeting a cat girl, just sayin'.
(The Felinid deep state strikes again...)

[kieth4]

A player on Manuel ate an instant permaban for something similar.

Only in that case it was a comment targeting a cat girl, just sayin'.
(The Felinid deep state strikes again...)

Rule 8 fluctuates between like, insta perma ban grr and pretty lenient stuff. It's hard to get right.

[Imitates-The-Lizards]

we're going to look purely at the note, what it describes, and if said note is inaccurate. notes are meant to establish behavior patterns, leave context for admins in future situations, and tell those admins if you stick your hand in the candy bowl too many times.

By the way, just want to call out TBM here for bringing up the many, MANY times debunked narrative that notes are merely administrative record-keeping. Notes are a punishment, including this note.