[COMPLAINT] [Lumi] <gpinrgrmoma>

[gpinrgrmoma]

BYOND account: <gpinrgrmoma>
Character name: <N/A>
Admin in question: <Lumi>
When did it take place: <4:30-4:50>
Round ID in which ban was placed: <27053>
Evidence: <Attached screenshots, plus logs>
Your side of the story: <TO pilot (forgot name, but not overall relevant) had filled TAD with Flare Launcher Systems (see attached image) to the point where it was acting as cades. Previous admins have ruled this as being against the rules in the past, so I ahelped it. Lumi answered the ahelp, saying that it was apparently fine, as they were slash-able and jumpable. I questioned this, saying that it defeats the purpose of removing cades from TAD, when they then closed the ticket without resolving the issue. I then tested what they said, attempting to jump into TAD, which did not work, resulting in my death as a baneling. I then informed Lumi that what he said was incorrect, and then he corrected himself, saying he meant leapable (presumably as runner/hunter). I then reiterated that it still completely defeats the purpose of removing cades from TAD, which he then tells me to fix it myself in a PR, and does not resolve the ahelp before round ends.

Overall, left the issue unresolved, and attempting to put the responsibility to fix what is ultimately, a staff-resolvable issue onto me, a player, is extremely unbecoming of an admin. >

[lumipharon]

Firstly apologies for the confusion on what is or isn't allowed on the tad. It's something that hadn't been entirely clarified and I brought it up after that round. The headmins have now rules that placing any dense objects on the tad that can be shot over excluding deployable guns of all kinds is no longer allowed.

That said, at the time it was my understanding that placing things on the tad was fine.
The original PR that forbade construction on tadpoles was just that - forbidding construction. Without any further context I had no specific reason to think that dropping makeshift cades was unintentionally excluded.

You asked if they were damagable and I said they were damagable and was as far as I knew, intended behavior (its a code change to stop this).
You later mentioned you thought it was still cheesy and I said they were terrible cades as they can be leapt over. I specifically said leapt or something to that effect instead of jump because I knew you couldn't use a normal jump to get over them, I even checked first to be sure.
When you came back to me after the fact saying it wasn't jumpable, I simply pointed out that wasn't what I said to begin with.

Saying to make a PR it if you think it is cheesy and shouldn't be allowable is a genuine response. I became a coder by PR'ing changes I wanted to see, and more people should do it. It's an open source game and as far as I could see this was a code issue, not an administrative one.

As mentioned, this isn't going to be a problem going forwards as headmins have clarified that they just want a blanket ban on everything dense except guns, but apologies for the inconvenience.

[gpinrgrmoma]

The reason I included the PR part is because it’s just rather frustrating to feel as if responsibility to fix an issue is put onto someone who didn’t ask for it, but with that aside now that there’s a consistent ruling for things like this I feel like my issue has been resolved. Unless headmins still wish to do logs, I don’t feel as if this is an issue anymore.

[Naaanii]

Apologies for the wait. It seems like the issue has been resolved as the precedent for 'defences' on tadpole wasn't clear to every admin. Sorry for the unfortunate experience and now that we have set policies regarding this, hopefully it won't happen again.