Security doesn't have chemistry with an assistant

[Dax Dupont]

Bottom post of the previous page:

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=35337

Not really sure how you're supposed to verify it unless shit is broken still. Having a circular saw is at least some evidence he's been in medbay or maybe cargo.

[Striders13]

NEVER play sec unless you wanna get banned, it is known.

[Timonk]

i have played over 250 hours of security with 0* bans

i got a 3 day ban back in 2019 where i spaced several people for having AA. i didnt know that i was supposed to only kill them

[dendydoom]

not so sure about the requests for TBM to obfuscate his actions to make things more palatable for paranoid players. is that really what you want? if he'd wanted to slip this one by you it'd be incredibly easy: make the note secret because it's an investigation into suspicions of metagrudging, then let another admin place the ban when it came out to be true. but instead he's as open about it as possible, does all his own dirty work and refuses to release info that a player has a right to privacy over to get everyone off his back.

maybe you don't agree with the ruling/note/ban/whatever, i can get that. but insinuating that TBM is crazy or abusive for being as open and transparent as possible while still respecting player privacy is not it to be honest. the only effect this has is reinforcing the notion that when things get stressful it's better that what player's club doesn't know won't hurt them.

[Constellado]

not so sure about the requests for TBM to obfuscate his actions to make things more palatable for paranoid players. is that really what you want? if he'd wanted to slip this one by you it'd be incredibly easy: make the note secret because it's an investigation into suspicions of metagrudging, then let another admin place the ban when it came out to be true. but instead he's as open about it as possible, does all his own dirty work and refuses to release info that a player has a right to privacy over to get everyone off his back.

maybe you don't agree with the ruling/note/ban/whatever, i can get that. but insinuating that TBM is crazy or abusive for being as open and transparent as possible while still respecting player privacy is not it to be honest. the only effect this has is reinforcing the notion that when things get stressful it's better that what player's club doesn't know won't hurt them.

I also agree with this.

Dendy are you going to campaign for headmin?

[Timonk]

i have played over 250 hours of security with 0* bans

i got a 3 day ban back in 2019 where i spaced several people for having AA. i didnt know that i was supposed to only kill them

while researching the validity of this i found this gem from me in 2020

looking at the ban appeal, i'd say that I believe any person with a triple digit IQ can see why this ban is completely justified. Luckily, we can keep this mongoloid off our Servers.

[Timonk]

i think it could only have gotten more upper crusty from me if i sipped on my tea with my pinky sticking out

[GPeckman]

not so sure about the requests for TBM to obfuscate his actions to make things more palatable for paranoid players. is that really what you want? if he'd wanted to slip this one by you it'd be incredibly easy: make the note secret because it's an investigation into suspicions of metagrudging, then let another admin place the ban when it came out to be true. but instead he's as open about it as possible, does all his own dirty work and refuses to release info that a player has a right to privacy over to get everyone off his back.

Honestly I do another admin should have placed the ban, simply because admins should not be placing bans/notes for things they themselves were involved in. Like, if a nonantagonist detonated a maxcap on the shuttle, and an admin happened to be playing at the time and got blown up, I'd still expect them to get a different admin to actually place the ban, even if its the most obvious ban in the world. Same thing applies here.

[RedBaronFlyer]

not so sure about the requests for TBM to obfuscate his actions to make things more palatable for paranoid players. is that really what you want? if he'd wanted to slip this one by you it'd be incredibly easy: make the note secret because it's an investigation into suspicions of metagrudging, then let another admin place the ban when it came out to be true. but instead he's as open about it as possible, does all his own dirty work and refuses to release info that a player has a right to privacy over to get everyone off his back.

maybe you don't agree with the ruling/note/ban/whatever, i can get that. but insinuating that TBM is crazy or abusive for being as open and transparent as possible while still respecting player privacy is not it to be honest. the only effect this has is reinforcing the notion that when things get stressful it's better that what player's club doesn't know won't hurt them.

To preface, I like TBM.

The thing is that trust and confidence take a while to build up, but can be lost almost instantly (or whittled away over time). TBM has had a couple of real bad misses when it comes to their notes and bans recently. Normally this isn't an issue since admins occasionally strike out with a note/ban and it gets overturned and/or they retract it later on, it's just part of it. The issue is TBM is in the spotlight because they're a headmin, which means everyone is watching what they do. This, combined with TBM having a couple of misses in regards to notes/bans, and not being the best at talking to players, leads to some not having the most confidence in them. I think this ban looks absolutely terrible from a non-admin perspective. A sec player got noted for acting on incomplete information, then when the note was withdrawn, they then get PERMA-ED for lying during said ahelp/apeal after the fact. It makes it look like TBM went rooting around for anything to use and comes across as petty, even if it was purely administrative. The lack of providing evidence, because of privacy, doesn't help and makes it look like "no bro he totally lied and I have evidence you can't see it though but it's totes real and damning"

I guess I'm just a bit confused about the whole "they lied about not knowing/hating that player" because if that's a perma-bannable case then a solid 70% of manuel could be banned for any note/ban involving Will Nodder because people assume the worst with that player to an unreasonable degree.

[Constellado]

I guess I'm just a bit confused about the whole "they lied about not knowing/hating that player" because if that's a perma-bannable case then a solid 70% of manuel could be banned for any note/ban involving Will Nodder because people assume the worst with that player to an unreasonable degree.

Will Nodder is a character I tell ya.
If we put all of his misadventures into a book it would be very entertaining to read.
I like how he plays AI. One time he got malf and instantly declared he was malf xD

[Kendrickorium]

A FUCKING SHITTER GREYTIDER SHITS AND GREYTIDES
GETS RIGHTFULLY ROBUSTED FOR HIS SHITTING AND GREYTIDING MULTIPLE TIMES
FUCKING AHELPS THE WARDEN THAT LAUGHED DANCED AND THEN RIGHTFULLY BRIGGED HIM FOR A LOW AMOUNT OF TIME
THE WARDEN IS FUCKING PERMAD BECAUSE SOMEHOW THE WARDENS NOTE APPEAL REVEALED THE SINISTER DARK SIDE OF HIM NOT LIKING A BLATANT SHITTER THAT BY THE LOOKS OF THEIR LOGS AND TIME SPENT ON TG WONT BE AROUND MUCH LONGER ANYWAYS
THIS WHOLE FUCKING THING COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED WITH A NICE BIG FAT IC ISSUE STAMPED AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SHITTERS TICKET

DO I HAVE THIS ABOUT RIGHT?????


holy FUCK this reeks of hippiestation adminship

EXPLAIN THIS BETTER THEN DENDY

SOMEONE EXPLAIN IT IN A WAY THAT MAKES THE ADMINS NOT LOOK LIKE CHUCKLEFUCKS

[Timonk]

A FUCKING SHITTER GREYTIDER SHITS AND GREYTIDES
GETS RIGHTFULLY ROBUSTED FOR HIS SHITTING AND GREYTIDING MULTIPLE TIMES
FUCKING AHELPS THE WARDEN THAT LAUGHED DANCED AND THEN RIGHTFULLY BRIGGED HIM FOR A LOW AMOUNT OF TIME
THE WARDEN IS FUCKING PERMAD BECAUSE SOMEHOW THE WARDENS NOTE APPEAL REVEALED THE SINISTER DARK SIDE OF HIM NOT LIKING A BLATANT SHITTER THAT BY THE LOOKS OF THEIR LOGS AND TIME SPENT ON TG WONT BE AROUND MUCH LONGER ANYWAYS
THIS WHOLE FUCKING THING COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED WITH A NICE BIG FAT IC ISSUE STAMPED AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SHITTERS TICKET

DO I HAVE THIS ABOUT RIGHT?????


holy FUCK this reeks of hippiestation adminship

EXPLAIN THIS BETTER THEN DENDY

SOMEONE EXPLAIN IT IN A WAY THAT MAKES THE ADMINS NOT LOOK LIKE CHUCKLEFUCKS

Assistant Fortnite danced one too many times in front of the warden, who fast built a note appeal instead of just running away and not getting involved in the fight which led to him ultimately getting a double sniper headshot by a third party (admin) because he didn't fast build correctly to cover his 6

[Timonk]

Actually the warden intentionally didn't cover his 6 because he knew his team mate would lose without him since the other team is a 3 man and the warden got banned from Fortnite for griefing and giving the admin a free kill

[Itseasytosee2me]

You know I'd really like to hear cacogen's opinion on this subject. Could we like, bring him back round here? I'm sure that he was just having a bad week, yea thats it. Lets bring cacogen back around here. Yea everyone seems to be agreeing with me, there's WineAllWine, nodding like a sipping bird, and Coconutwarrior, also nodding very loudly. TGMC admin AIIA, nodding to their heart's content. Can always trust a TGMC admin for a good judge of when to bring someone back around. I can hear oranges nodding from the other room, and- oh, whats that? Oranges also nods for ATHATH to be brought back around again. Well that sure was unexpected, but I'm glad our community here is so mature as to agree with everything I say. Yea this is one hell of a great community, nodding, community... of nodding fellows.

+1 to whatever kendrick is going on about

What happened to cacogen and wine? what did i miss?

[Kendrickorium]

i wonder how much further we'll get before a headmin comes along and says NOTHING TO SEE HERE and locks the thread and we all forget about it in 2 weeks

[kinnebian]

► Show Spoiler

OH WAIT I FORGOT CAN SOMEONE EXPLAIN TO ME HOW BRIGGING SOMEONE FOR 5 MINUTES AND LAUGHING ABOUT IT IS METAGRUDGING

OH NOES HE TOLD A SUPER SECRET PERSON OF WHICH THE NAME OF I TOTALLY DONT KNOW THAT THEY DIDNT LIKE THEM




THIS MAKES THE BLATANT METAGRUDGING BY WAY OF DOING THEIR JOB AND LIEING IN THE AHELP/NOTE APPEAL ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTING SURELY A PERMA IS WHAT SUN DESERVES


GOOD FUCKING GOD I WISH SINFUL WAS STILL HERE SO THAT HE COULD EXPLAIN TO THE CHUCKLE FUCK ADMINS WHY EXACTLY THEY ARE BEING SO GOD DAMN CHUCKLEFUCKLY IN THIS INSTANCE

sinful wouldve used his inside voice please

[CPTANT]

A sec player got noted for acting on incomplete information,

There was no incomplete information. The Secoff was correct and there was enough evidence provided. The dude was found with the weapon and tried to justify the assault rather than deny it.

[Jacquerel]

not so sure about the requests for TBM to obfuscate his actions to make things more palatable for paranoid players. is that really what you want? if he'd wanted to slip this one by you it'd be incredibly easy: make the note secret because it's an investigation into suspicions of metagrudging, then let another admin place the ban when it came out to be true. but instead he's as open about it as possible, does all his own dirty work and refuses to release info that a player has a right to privacy over to get everyone off his back.

Honestly I do another admin should have placed the ban, simply because admins should not be placing bans/notes for things they themselves were involved in. Like, if a nonantagonist detonated a maxcap on the shuttle, and an admin happened to be playing at the time and got blown up, I'd still expect them to get a different admin to actually place the ban, even if its the most obvious ban in the world. Same thing applies here.

Your premise here is that you think ahelp involvement is equivalent to literally playing the game and adminning at the same time and you think every time an issue comes up based on ahelps (for instance falsely attempting to get someone banned) a third party needs to involve themselves to be ethical?
that sounds stupid

[GPeckman]

Your premise here is that you think ahelp involvement is equivalent to literally playing the game and adminning at the same time and you think every time an issue comes up based on ahelps (for instance falsely attempting to get someone banned) a third party needs to involve themselves to be ethical?
that sounds stupid

I fail to see why playing the game and having an ahelp with a player are meaningfully different in this case. In both cases, the admin is directly involved in the situation where the rulebreak allegedly occurred. It only makes sense to get another admin to double check things.

[dendydoom]

Honestly I do another admin should have placed the ban, simply because admins should not be placing bans/notes for things they themselves were involved in. Like, if a nonantagonist detonated a maxcap on the shuttle, and an admin happened to be playing at the time and got blown up, I'd still expect them to get a different admin to actually place the ban, even if its the most obvious ban in the world. Same thing applies here.

admins have ownership over their rulings. no one else can touch them or get involved without permission. this is not a special case where TBM is overstepping his bounds or pulling some headmin shenanigans. this is how it is for all admins. even if TBM were a trialmin, i would have as much power as you do to overturn or modify his ruling. TBM started this, so he's fully within his right to finish it even if circumstances change and new evidence comes to light. we are always checking each other's work in bus, and are always encouraged to do so. it's the entire purpose of the channel, so we are always keeping each other in check by consulting a diverse range of admin voices. this ruling along with almost every other ruling is discussed.

To preface, I like TBM.

The thing is that trust and confidence take a while to build up, but can be lost almost instantly (or whittled away over time). TBM has had a couple of real bad misses when it comes to their notes and bans recently. Normally this isn't an issue since admins occasionally strike out with a note/ban and it gets overturned and/or they retract it later on, it's just part of it. The issue is TBM is in the spotlight because they're a headmin, which means everyone is watching what they do. This, combined with TBM having a couple of misses in regards to notes/bans, and not being the best at talking to players, leads to some not having the most confidence in them. I think this ban looks absolutely terrible from a non-admin perspective. A sec player got noted for acting on incomplete information, then when the note was withdrawn, they then get PERMA-ED for lying during said ahelp/apeal after the fact. It makes it look like TBM went rooting around for anything to use and comes across as petty, even if it was purely administrative. The lack of providing evidence, because of privacy, doesn't help and makes it look like "no bro he totally lied and I have evidence you can't see it though but it's totes real and damning"

he's one of the most active admins. the meme of headmins not playing the game exists for a reason: everything they do is in the spotlight. i just don't think he gives a shit. he does what he thinks is right without worrying about the optics or what people may think about it at first glance. some people may think that's a good quality for a headmin, some people may not. it is a concern with admins when you know that appeals are going to be public and the peanut gallery is going to not like how something is presented right off the bat. it is often the case that the initial post of the appeal sets the tone going forward: if they lie or misrepresent a situation, others are inclined to believe it and will take it as truth. the admin response is then scrutinized against this. but if making a ruling is the right thing to do with the information that you have, then it would be wrong to shy away from that decision because of what mean words player's club might write.

I guess I'm just a bit confused about the whole "they lied about not knowing/hating that player" because if that's a perma-bannable case then a solid 70% of manuel could be banned for any note/ban involving Will Nodder because people assume the worst with that player to an unreasonable degree.

yes. if i catch people doing this then they are dealt with. there are lots of manuel "shitters" who became beloved members of the community. players should not be taking OOCly motivated action to police the IC space from people they don't approve of. much like how the forums are not a good representation of the entire community, manuel's discord server is not a good representation of the entire playerbase of manuel. it's full of malding.

EXPLAIN THIS BETTER THEN DENDY

SOMEONE EXPLAIN IT IN A WAY THAT MAKES THE ADMINS NOT LOOK LIKE CHUCKLEFUCKS

sorry that this is upsetting, kendrick. i can't validate or explain the ruling because it isn't mine, i cannot reach into TBM's head and pull out his thought process throughout this to you. i wasn't in the round, i didn't see what went on, and i don't feel like i've seen the full extent of all the information available to really understand it fully. but it does not change what i said before: you can disagree with this ruling, and it would have value because that's why we read peanut threads at all. to understand player perspectives that we may not have fully thought about or considered. it's important for admins to hear that. what concerns me is then using that to extrapolate greater judgements about TBM's character. he is not crazy or abusive. he's a good admin that listens to reason when there is reason to be considered.

[Redrover1760]

If someone forced me to sit through ahelps because I arrested them for being a tiding assistant into medbay and having assaulting a doctor and gave a textbook space law 5 minure brig sentence and somehow I got noted for it I'd be pretty pissed at the assistant too, not gonna lie.

IC issues are truly dead.

[Kendrickorium]

not so sure about the requests for TBM to obfuscate his actions to make things more palatable for paranoid players. is that really what you want? if he'd wanted to slip this one by you it'd be incredibly easy: make the note secret because it's an investigation into suspicions of metagrudging, then let another admin place the ban when it came out to be true. but instead he's as open about it as possible, does all his own dirty work and refuses to release info that a player has a right to privacy over to get everyone off his back.

Honestly I do another admin should have placed the ban, simply because admins should not be placing bans/notes for things they themselves were involved in. Like, if a nonantagonist detonated a maxcap on the shuttle, and an admin happened to be playing at the time and got blown up, I'd still expect them to get a different admin to actually place the ban, even if its the most obvious ban in the world. Same thing applies here.

Your premise here is that you think ahelp involvement is equivalent to literally playing the game and adminning at the same time and you think every time an issue comes up based on ahelps (for instance falsely attempting to get someone banned) a third party needs to involve themselves to be ethical?
that sounds stupid

what the fuck are you babbling about dude

[Kendrickorium]

Honestly I do another admin should have placed the ban, simply because admins should not be placing bans/notes for things they themselves were involved in. Like, if a nonantagonist detonated a maxcap on the shuttle, and an admin happened to be playing at the time and got blown up, I'd still expect them to get a different admin to actually place the ban, even if its the most obvious ban in the world. Same thing applies here.

admins have ownership over their rulings. no one else can touch them or get involved without permission. this is not a special case where TBM is overstepping his bounds or pulling some headmin shenanigans. this is how it is for all admins. even if TBM were a trialmin, i would have as much power as you do to overturn or modify his ruling. TBM started this, so he's fully within his right to finish it even if circumstances change and new evidence comes to light. we are always checking each other's work in bus, and are always encouraged to do so. it's the entire purpose of the channel, so we are always keeping each other in check by consulting a diverse range of admin voices. this ruling along with almost every other ruling is discussed.

To preface, I like TBM.

The thing is that trust and confidence take a while to build up, but can be lost almost instantly (or whittled away over time). TBM has had a couple of real bad misses when it comes to their notes and bans recently. Normally this isn't an issue since admins occasionally strike out with a note/ban and it gets overturned and/or they retract it later on, it's just part of it. The issue is TBM is in the spotlight because they're a headmin, which means everyone is watching what they do. This, combined with TBM having a couple of misses in regards to notes/bans, and not being the best at talking to players, leads to some not having the most confidence in them. I think this ban looks absolutely terrible from a non-admin perspective. A sec player got noted for acting on incomplete information, then when the note was withdrawn, they then get PERMA-ED for lying during said ahelp/apeal after the fact. It makes it look like TBM went rooting around for anything to use and comes across as petty, even if it was purely administrative. The lack of providing evidence, because of privacy, doesn't help and makes it look like "no bro he totally lied and I have evidence you can't see it though but it's totes real and damning"

he's one of the most active admins. the meme of headmins not playing the game exists for a reason: everything they do is in the spotlight. i just don't think he gives a shit. he does what he thinks is right without worrying about the optics or what people may think about it at first glance. some people may think that's a good quality for a headmin, some people may not. it is a concern with admins when you know that appeals are going to be public and the peanut gallery is going to not like how something is presented right off the bat. it is often the case that the initial post of the appeal sets the tone going forward: if they lie or misrepresent a situation, others are inclined to believe it and will take it as truth. the admin response is then scrutinized against this. but if making a ruling is the right thing to do with the information that you have, then it would be wrong to shy away from that decision because of what mean words player's club might write.

I guess I'm just a bit confused about the whole "they lied about not knowing/hating that player" because if that's a perma-bannable case then a solid 70% of manuel could be banned for any note/ban involving Will Nodder because people assume the worst with that player to an unreasonable degree.

yes. if i catch people doing this then they are dealt with. there are lots of manuel "shitters" who became beloved members of the community. players should not be taking OOCly motivated action to police the IC space from people they don't approve of. much like how the forums are not a good representation of the entire community, manuel's discord server is not a good representation of the entire playerbase of manuel. it's full of malding.

EXPLAIN THIS BETTER THEN DENDY

SOMEONE EXPLAIN IT IN A WAY THAT MAKES THE ADMINS NOT LOOK LIKE CHUCKLEFUCKS

sorry that this is upsetting, kendrick. i can't validate or explain the ruling because it isn't mine, i cannot reach into TBM's head and pull out his thought process throughout this to you. i wasn't in the round, i didn't see what went on, and i don't feel like i've seen the full extent of all the information available to really understand it fully. but it does not change what i said before: you can disagree with this ruling, and it would have value because that's why we read peanut threads at all. to understand player perspectives that we may not have fully thought about or considered. it's important for admins to hear that. what concerns me is then using that to extrapolate greater judgements about TBM's character. he is not crazy or abusive. he's a good admin that listens to reason when there is reason to be considered.

I DONT FEEL ALL THE WAY BETTER DENDY

[Jacquerel]

not so sure about the requests for TBM to obfuscate his actions to make things more palatable for paranoid players. is that really what you want? if he'd wanted to slip this one by you it'd be incredibly easy: make the note secret because it's an investigation into suspicions of metagrudging, then let another admin place the ban when it came out to be true. but instead he's as open about it as possible, does all his own dirty work and refuses to release info that a player has a right to privacy over to get everyone off his back.

Honestly I do another admin should have placed the ban, simply because admins should not be placing bans/notes for things they themselves were involved in. Like, if a nonantagonist detonated a maxcap on the shuttle, and an admin happened to be playing at the time and got blown up, I'd still expect them to get a different admin to actually place the ban, even if its the most obvious ban in the world. Same thing applies here.

Your premise here is that you think ahelp involvement is equivalent to literally playing the game and adminning at the same time and you think every time an issue comes up based on ahelps (for instance falsely attempting to get someone banned) a third party needs to involve themselves to be ethical?
that sounds stupid

what the fuck are you babbling about dude

I said:
Your premise here is that you think ahelp involvement is equivalent to literally playing the game and adminning at the same time and you think every time an issue comes up based on ahelps (for instance falsely attempting to get someone banned) a third party needs to involve themselves to be ethical?
that sounds stupid

[kinnebian]

dendy has a way of putting exactly what im thinking into words that are smart

[RedBaronFlyer]

I guess I'm just a bit confused about the whole "they lied about not knowing/hating that player" because if that's a perma-bannable case then a solid 70% of manuel could be banned for any note/ban involving Will Nodder because people assume the worst with that player to an unreasonable degree.

Will Nodder is a character I tell ya.
If we put all of his misadventures into a book it would be very entertaining to read.
I like how he plays AI. One time he got malf and instantly declared he was malf xD

I have a love hate relationship with that guy (leaning more towards love recently, he used to be really annoying) but I honestly think you could stab yourself with a knife, throw it on the floor, scream that nodder stabbed you over the radio, and he'd get arrested

[BonChoi]

I thought this was over with and I looked at the public bans and saw this person was perma'd for lying in an ahelp that shouldn't have happened in the first place. lmao.

[Kendrickorium]

not so sure about the requests for TBM to obfuscate his actions to make things more palatable for paranoid players. is that really what you want? if he'd wanted to slip this one by you it'd be incredibly easy: make the note secret because it's an investigation into suspicions of metagrudging, then let another admin place the ban when it came out to be true. but instead he's as open about it as possible, does all his own dirty work and refuses to release info that a player has a right to privacy over to get everyone off his back.

Honestly I do another admin should have placed the ban, simply because admins should not be placing bans/notes for things they themselves were involved in. Like, if a nonantagonist detonated a maxcap on the shuttle, and an admin happened to be playing at the time and got blown up, I'd still expect them to get a different admin to actually place the ban, even if its the most obvious ban in the world. Same thing applies here.

Your premise here is that you think ahelp involvement is equivalent to literally playing the game and adminning at the same time and you think every time an issue comes up based on ahelps (for instance falsely attempting to get someone banned) a third party needs to involve themselves to be ethical?
that sounds stupid

what the fuck are you babbling about dude

I said:
Your premise here is that you think ahelp involvement is equivalent to literally playing the game and adminning at the same time and you think every time an issue comes up based on ahelps (for instance falsely attempting to get someone banned) a third party needs to involve themselves to be ethical?
that sounds stupid

what the FUCK are you rambling about

[Jacquerel]

not so sure about the requests for TBM to obfuscate his actions to make things more palatable for paranoid players. is that really what you want? if he'd wanted to slip this one by you it'd be incredibly easy: make the note secret because it's an investigation into suspicions of metagrudging, then let another admin place the ban when it came out to be true. but instead he's as open about it as possible, does all his own dirty work and refuses to release info that a player has a right to privacy over to get everyone off his back.

Honestly I do another admin should have placed the ban, simply because admins should not be placing bans/notes for things they themselves were involved in. Like, if a nonantagonist detonated a maxcap on the shuttle, and an admin happened to be playing at the time and got blown up, I'd still expect them to get a different admin to actually place the ban, even if its the most obvious ban in the world. Same thing applies here.

Your premise here is that you think ahelp involvement is equivalent to literally playing the game and adminning at the same time and you think every time an issue comes up based on ahelps (for instance falsely attempting to get someone banned) a third party needs to involve themselves to be ethical?
that sounds stupid

what the fuck are you babbling about dude

I said:
Your premise here is that you think ahelp involvement is equivalent to literally playing the game and adminning at the same time and you think every time an issue comes up based on ahelps (for instance falsely attempting to get someone banned) a third party needs to involve themselves to be ethical?
that sounds stupid

what the FUCK are you rambling about

I said:
Your premise here is that you think ahelp involvement is equivalent to literally playing the game and adminning at the same time and you think every time an issue comes up based on ahelps (for instance falsely attempting to get someone banned) a third party needs to involve themselves to be ethical?
that sounds stupid

[Not-Dorsidarf]

i think the rorium means they dont understand what you mean or its importance to their point or maybe they do and think your point is dumb and want it elaborated on or maybe theyre just an obtuse dick who knows its CE 2023

[Archie700]

Ok here’s how it went down (probably not 100% accurate as I am a secondary source but mostly)

Ok imagine two people in a bar, talking rowdy about a bad (recent) ban

Now, imagine one of the bar patrons calling the cops because they believe they don’t enjoy it

The cops kick down the door to find our two people, along with others in the bar (including other cops)

The police use Chinese water torture on the other officers (this is a joke)

The police then demand the bar security footage (most/all of it).
Using that footage, they were able to pursue deadmins, retirements, permabans(for metagrudge) and blacklists.

If any of this is TMI it can be deleted but just to help clear some of the confusion. I called the ban fair (in an “I guess” way) bc it makes sense why the bans happened objectively, I just see it as heavy handed (disclaimer though: I see a lot of bans as such). It’s easy to let real hatred through when dooming, and I imagine sinful and pepper let a bit too much hatred slip while dooming a while ago which was revealed, along with the cops joining in which is a very bad look, sun catton was picked up as a sidequest for a 100% run on this wave too

I don’t think I can talk about why it was a blacklist specifically, but it seems more like a technicality

huh

[c4g]

huh

muh muh guh guh guh