Bottom post of the previous page:
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=35589I'm putting as much effort into this as he did the appeal.
Bottom post of the previous page:
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=35589AliasTakuto wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 1:11 pm As for the ear replacing stuff, you can ask Anne but I don't think this is what I was banned for. If I was all I can say is "Sorry for being hilarious"...
Omega_DarkPotato wrote:This sucks, dude.
dendydoom wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2023 1:43 pm this is why i sincerely believe we'll have a few months after a big new policy change like this where we'll see edge cases crop up and shonky rulings made that will need to be deliberated on by the community and headmins will need to make rulings on it. obviously the wording should be as clear and concise as possible, but ultimately it will take time for the "spirit" of what the rule is trying to accomplish to come out and be understood by the wider community, rather than regarding it in a rigidly codified way.
MrStonedOne wrote:I always read dendy's walls of text
I mean, the 'no legitimate reason' part of the precedent is doing a lot of the carrying in this argument, and choosing to shoot first ask questions never will not prove whether or not there is a legitimate reason for someone being in the bridge. That clause in that precedent does allow for the guy to be there if they have reason. This guy didn't care, he just shot. I don't know how using the talk key even once and shooting the guy if he moves to attack is a tall ask.Itseasytosee2me wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 6:57 pm The argument in the ban appeal seems to be that the player did not engage in sufficient roleplay before taking action against the player, which is a premise I find rather distasteful. Because this ban would not have been dolled out if the player simply ignored the intruder, although I would say that that is even worse roleplay than if they were wordlessly gunned down.
They couldn't even be bothered to pull up the banning admin, even though it was in the screenshot. I just think they could've like at least said anything on the appeal itself.Timberpoes wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 7:10 pm The player engaged with the ticket and the admin said "bored arguing go to the forums if you have anything more to say". That's fine and what we're trained to do when tickets are getting bogged down with technicalities. Rule 6 is there for a reason.
I also don't think the player needed to put any meaningful effort into the appeal because everything they wanted to say was in the ticket. Any admin can pull up and read the ticket if necessary. We're not helpless children. And the ticket was, in due course, provided so the player didn't have the Ctrl-C Ctrl-V.
Despite the fact the player took it to the forums without anything more to say, it was only because they believed under the wording of the precedent that they had an express right under the rules to act that way. It doesn't need to be a high effort or complex appeal. In all honesty it actually needed 5 minutes of a headmin's time in explaining the precedent that this term modified as a condition precedent to the appeal itself being able to proceed.
A headmin being kind enough to provide that time and insight was the only way this appeal was even going to get started for real. It could have just as easily been a policy post, but it was attached to a ban so it's being done via appeal.
No I certainly agree the way this situation was handeled by the captain was exceedingly lame. But no rules were broken.NecromancerAnne wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 7:32 pmI mean, the 'no legitimate reason' part of the precedent is doing a lot of the carrying in this argument, and choosing to shoot first ask questions never will not prove whether or not there is a legitimate reason for someone being in the bridge. That clause in that precedent does allow for the guy to be there if they have reason. This guy didn't care, he just shot. I don't know how using the talk key even once and shooting the guy if he moves to attack is a tall ask.Itseasytosee2me wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 6:57 pm The argument in the ban appeal seems to be that the player did not engage in sufficient roleplay before taking action against the player, which is a premise I find rather distasteful. Because this ban would not have been dolled out if the player simply ignored the intruder, although I would say that that is even worse roleplay than if they were wordlessly gunned down.
I'm not sure how you've reached the backwards understanding of roleplay that you have, but I don't think the 'letter of the law' interpretations can protect someone who is only picking and choosing the convenient parts of that rule.
Much how admins have some chagrin when they percieve poor appeals, players have those exact same vibes when they percieve poor bans and notes. We're all only human.TheRex9001 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 7:51 pm They couldn't even be bothered to pull up the banning admin, even though it was in the screenshot. I just think they could've like at least said anything on the appeal itself.
Of course we all get those vibes. So why reinforce them? Should we not expect that minimum amount of effort from everyone? I don't think it would've been a complete waste of time to at least put the banning admin in the title.Timberpoes wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 8:24 pmMuch how admins have some chagrin when they percieve poor appeals, players have those exact same vibes when they percieve poor bans and notes. We're all only human.TheRex9001 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 7:51 pm They couldn't even be bothered to pull up the banning admin, even though it was in the screenshot. I just think they could've like at least said anything on the appeal itself.
This was a dayban for a single unjust kill when the player thought a newly modified precedent permitted them to make that kill and the admin didn't.
Lacking anything that rules scholars like myself tend to dig up from time to time in appeals, it needs like 2 minutes of a headmin for clarification on ambiguities and then the ticket can start for real as the player or admin better understands the rule they're trying to rely on.
Once TBM got involved the appeal started to unwind back to being like a ticket, since the intent, goal and nuance of the precedent could be explained clearer by one of the parties that drafted it. That's the system working and I don't think either side arguing the craic in the appeal would have been more than a waste of time before a headmin showed up.
it’s just virtue signaling at this point. which can be important because we don’t want dumbass people who don’t care about the game playing here. but also it’s dumb to expect everyone to bend over 107 degrees whenever an admin does Anything. i dont know i thought the appeal was fine. all’s well that ends well at this point, though. appealer learned more. thunder11 learned more. rules getting clarified. you’re getting caught up on something that, at the end of the day, doesnt really matterTheRex9001 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 8:29 pmOf course we all get those vibes. So why reinforce them? Should we not expect that minimum amount of effort from everyone? I don't think it would've been a complete waste of time to at least put the banning admin in the title.Timberpoes wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 8:24 pmMuch how admins have some chagrin when they percieve poor appeals, players have those exact same vibes when they percieve poor bans and notes. We're all only human.TheRex9001 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 7:51 pm They couldn't even be bothered to pull up the banning admin, even though it was in the screenshot. I just think they could've like at least said anything on the appeal itself.
This was a dayban for a single unjust kill when the player thought a newly modified precedent permitted them to make that kill and the admin didn't.
Lacking anything that rules scholars like myself tend to dig up from time to time in appeals, it needs like 2 minutes of a headmin for clarification on ambiguities and then the ticket can start for real as the player or admin better understands the rule they're trying to rely on.
Once TBM got involved the appeal started to unwind back to being like a ticket, since the intent, goal and nuance of the precedent could be explained clearer by one of the parties that drafted it. That's the system working and I don't think either side arguing the craic in the appeal would have been more than a waste of time before a headmin showed up.
Sometimes we'll demand the person appealing fill out the template in a certain way or add some missing information.TheRex9001 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 8:29 pm Of course we all get those vibes. So why reinforce them? Should we not expect that minimum amount of effort from everyone? I don't think it would've been a complete waste of time to at least put the banning admin in the title.
I'm glad it ended how it ended, I just think it might be good to virtue signal that you put effort in. I don't really think its bending over to just say "Yeah this didnt break the rules cause you can shoot a guy for breaking in" or whatever.iwishforducks wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 8:53 pmit’s just virtue signaling at this point. which can be important because we don’t want dumbass people who don’t care about the game playing here. but also it’s dumb to expect everyone to bend over 107 degrees whenever an admin does Anything. i dont know i thought the appeal was fine. all’s well that ends well at this point, though. appealer learned more. thunder11 learned more. rules getting clarified. you’re getting caught up on something that, at the end of the day, doesnt really matterTheRex9001 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 8:29 pmOf course we all get those vibes. So why reinforce them? Should we not expect that minimum amount of effort from everyone? I don't think it would've been a complete waste of time to at least put the banning admin in the title.Timberpoes wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 8:24 pmMuch how admins have some chagrin when they percieve poor appeals, players have those exact same vibes when they percieve poor bans and notes. We're all only human.TheRex9001 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 7:51 pm They couldn't even be bothered to pull up the banning admin, even though it was in the screenshot. I just think they could've like at least said anything on the appeal itself.
This was a dayban for a single unjust kill when the player thought a newly modified precedent permitted them to make that kill and the admin didn't.
Lacking anything that rules scholars like myself tend to dig up from time to time in appeals, it needs like 2 minutes of a headmin for clarification on ambiguities and then the ticket can start for real as the player or admin better understands the rule they're trying to rely on.
Once TBM got involved the appeal started to unwind back to being like a ticket, since the intent, goal and nuance of the precedent could be explained clearer by one of the parties that drafted it. That's the system working and I don't think either side arguing the craic in the appeal would have been more than a waste of time before a headmin showed up.
edit: i meant to trim the quotes but i guess im subconsciously trying to invoke the curse of the tower at this point cuz i subconsciously hate this thread. mods? take me away.
and yes, even though i just edited this, im not just going to trim the quotes. it’s funnier this way
I'm glad it reached that state but its a lot easier to reach it if information like the banning admin and ticket and maybe a reason for your opinion. Alls well that ends well thoughTimberpoes wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 8:53 pmSometimes we'll demand the person appealing fill out the template in a certain way or add some missing information.TheRex9001 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 8:29 pm Of course we all get those vibes. So why reinforce them? Should we not expect that minimum amount of effort from everyone? I don't think it would've been a complete waste of time to at least put the banning admin in the title.
But the truth is all our lives end up easier if we could but stop being obstacles for the sake of being an obstacle. It's wasted time caring as long as the appeal reaches a state that it can be handled and the key information is documented somewhere in it.
something about sec mains, cant remember though.
joooks wrote:Quoting a legend, at least im not a faggot lolNaloac wrote:
In short, this appeal is denied. Suck my nuts retard.
See you in 12 months unless you blacklist me for this
Timberpoes wrote: ↑ I'm going to admin timonk [...]. Fuck it, he's also now my second host vote if goof rejects.
pikeyeskey13 wrote: ↑ ok don't forget to shove it up your ass lmao oops u can delete this one I just wanted to make sure it went through
Agux909 wrote:Woah bravo there sir, post of the month you saved the thread. I feel overwhelmed by the echo of unlimited wisdom and usefulness sprouting from you post. Every Manuel player now feels embarrased to exist because of your much NEEDED wise words, you sure teached'em all, you genius, IQ lord.Timonk wrote:This is why we make fun of Manuel
big think
Istoprocent1 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2024 4:36 pm Baseless claims. I have been to the vault minimum of 38 times, how many suicides?
Istoprocent1 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2024 4:36 pm Baseless claims. I have been to the vault minimum of 38 times, how many suicides?
and for this, you will be destroyed
kieth4 wrote: infrequently shitting yourself is fine imo
There is a lot of very bizarre nonsense being talked on this forum. I shall now remain silent and logoff until my points are vindicated.
Player who complainted over being killed for looting cap office wrote: ↑Sun Jul 30, 2023 1:33 am Hey there, I'm Virescent, the super evil person who made the stupid appeal and didn't think it through enough. Just came here to say: screech, retards. Screech and writhe like the worms you are. Your pathetic little cries will keep echoing around for a while before quietting down. There is one great outcome from this: I rised up the blood pressure of some of you shitheads and lowered your lifespan. I'm honestly tempted to do this more often just to see you screech and writhe more, but that wouldn't be cool of me. So come on haters, show me some more of your high blood pressure please.
i need you to post more so I can make one of those funny diagrams with all the red circles and lines on them.
Do not associate me with bonchoi please
I have the most hos hrs on tg so sec tickets interest me. Sinful was like, very high hours too probably most total sec dept
Maybe it also has something to do with you posting this thread in the Discord server we are both active in
you've saved me from executing heretics, traitors, and mega lings. Without you they would have been dead in a ditch.DrAmazing343 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 1:09 pmnever lethal a tider when you have a gun, winstick, secdogs, bridge assistant, and AI all around you and they're unarmed.
shame them instead.
it's true one time you gave me a direct order to execute a traitor while he was in cuffs and because I DIDN'T you got to have a kickass trial don't gimme that look BUDDYJonathan Gupta wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 1:29 pmyou've saved me from executing heretics, traitors, and mega lings. Without you they would have been dead in a ditch.
the kickass trial in question was ten people on my ass for a traitor that was bombing the station, and they said free this man he didnt do nothing wrong. HE FUCKING DID SOMETHING WRONG AND EVERYONE WAS AFTER ME THAT WAS UNDENIABLY YOUR FAULT!DrAmazing343 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 4:40 pmit's true one time you gave me a direct order to execute a traitor while he was in cuffs and because I DIDN'T you got to have a kickass trial don't gimme that look BUDDYJonathan Gupta wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 1:29 pmyou've saved me from executing heretics, traitors, and mega lings. Without you they would have been dead in a ditch.
The last bastion of spacelawsec on Sybil... and I will stay that way :3Jonathan Gupta wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 5:17 pmthe kickass trial in question was ten people on my ass for a traitor that was bombing the station, and they said free this man he didnt do nothing wrong. HE FUCKING DID SOMETHING WRONG AND EVERYONE WAS AFTER ME THAT WAS UNDENIABLY YOUR FAULT!DrAmazing343 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 4:40 pm-my own goddamn snip(x2)-Jonathan Gupta wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 1:29 pm-waaaah waaaah-
SPACE LAW ALLOWS ME TO EXECUTE THEM, I TOLD YOU THIS. AND I DONT GIVE A SHIT IF IT SAID OTHERWISE HE WRONGED NOT ONLY ME BUT OTHERS. DEATH IS A DESERVING PUNISHMENT FOR RATS AND VERMIN.DrAmazing343 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 5:52 pmThe last bastion of spacelawsec on Sybil... and I will stay that way :3Jonathan Gupta wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 5:17 pmthe kickass trial in question was ten people on my ass for a traitor that was bombing the station, and they said free this man he didnt do nothing wrong. HE FUCKING DID SOMETHING WRONG AND EVERYONE WAS AFTER ME THAT WAS UNDENIABLY YOUR FAULT!DrAmazing343 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 4:40 pm-my own goddamn snip(x2)-Jonathan Gupta wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 1:29 pm-waaaah waaaah-
YOU CANT TELL ME WHAT I CAN AND CANNOT DO MODULATOR
joooks wrote:Quoting a legend, at least im not a faggot lolNaloac wrote:
In short, this appeal is denied. Suck my nuts retard.
See you in 12 months unless you blacklist me for this
Timberpoes wrote: ↑ I'm going to admin timonk [...]. Fuck it, he's also now my second host vote if goof rejects.
pikeyeskey13 wrote: ↑ ok don't forget to shove it up your ass lmao oops u can delete this one I just wanted to make sure it went through
Agux909 wrote:Woah bravo there sir, post of the month you saved the thread. I feel overwhelmed by the echo of unlimited wisdom and usefulness sprouting from you post. Every Manuel player now feels embarrased to exist because of your much NEEDED wise words, you sure teached'em all, you genius, IQ lord.Timonk wrote:This is why we make fun of Manuel
Yeah it's cringe!!!EmpressMaia wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2024 5:41 pmThis makes me think of the people who ahelp when they get killed for breaking onto the shuttles cockpit
how do you even get killed for breaking onto shuttle cockpit i've like never had that happen.EmpressMaia wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2024 5:41 pmThis makes me think of the people who ahelp when they get killed for breaking onto the shuttles cockpit
these things happen exclusively on manuel where people take their job too seriouslycelularLAmp wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 10:34 amhow do you even get killed for breaking onto shuttle cockpit i've like never had that happen.EmpressMaia wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2024 5:41 pmThis makes me think of the people who ahelp when they get killed for breaking onto the shuttles cockpit
joooks wrote:Quoting a legend, at least im not a faggot lolNaloac wrote:
In short, this appeal is denied. Suck my nuts retard.
See you in 12 months unless you blacklist me for this
Timberpoes wrote: ↑ I'm going to admin timonk [...]. Fuck it, he's also now my second host vote if goof rejects.
pikeyeskey13 wrote: ↑ ok don't forget to shove it up your ass lmao oops u can delete this one I just wanted to make sure it went through
Agux909 wrote:Woah bravo there sir, post of the month you saved the thread. I feel overwhelmed by the echo of unlimited wisdom and usefulness sprouting from you post. Every Manuel player now feels embarrased to exist because of your much NEEDED wise words, you sure teached'em all, you genius, IQ lord.Timonk wrote:This is why we make fun of Manuel
I'd argue it doesn't happen on manuel because you're going to get banned if you do it and you'll have to hash it out in an appeal that'll span a longer time than your ban was for.Timonk wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 12:40 pmthese things happen exclusively on manuel where people take their job too seriouslycelularLAmp wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 10:34 amhow do you even get killed for breaking onto shuttle cockpit i've like never had that happen.EmpressMaia wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2024 5:41 pmThis makes me think of the people who ahelp when they get killed for breaking onto the shuttles cockpit
Istoprocent1 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2024 4:36 pm Baseless claims. I have been to the vault minimum of 38 times, how many suicides?
Ahhh I see.. I just always end up eating donuts in the corner of the cockpit or grabbing a space suit and sitting in that room while rest of the shuttle gets bombed.Timonk wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 12:40 pmthese things happen exclusively on manuel where people take their job too seriouslycelularLAmp wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 10:34 amhow do you even get killed for breaking onto shuttle cockpit i've like never had that happen.EmpressMaia wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2024 5:41 pmThis makes me think of the people who ahelp when they get killed for breaking onto the shuttles cockpit
SameTheLoLSwat wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 4:01 pm I try to kill people entering the shuttle cockpit because they r commoners and we (command) deserve to be away from them
Users browsing this forum: CursedBirb, GPeckman, Sightld2