[Nabski] Shark-sie temporary ban

Appeals which have been closed.

Moderators: In-Game Admin, Game Server Operators, In-Game Head Admins

Shark-sie
 
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2018 3:10 am

[Nabski] Shark-sie temporary ban

Unread postby Shark-sie » Sun Sep 09, 2018 10:47 pm #438646

Post Content:
Byond account and character name: Shark-sie and Lexus Black
Banning admin: Nabski
Ban type (What are you banned from?): Server
Ban reason and length: You have been banned by Nabski.
Reason: Blew the borgs for attempting to follow their laws and prevent human harm. Blew both because he didn't catch the name of which one did it. Do not blow borgs for following their laws as asimov.

This is a temporary ban, it will be removed in 2880 minutes. The round ID is 93680.

To try to resolve this matter head to viewforum.php?f=7

Your ticket has been resolved by an admin. The Adminhelp verb will be returned to you shortly.
Time ban was placed (including time zone): 6:25 pm US eastern
Server you were playing when banned (Sybil or Bagil): Bagil
Your side of the story:
Revs round. I am the captain, I have been micromanaging security because every other head was incompetent. The HOS is dead, 90% of the crew is or was converted, and most of them are still out to get us. I was doing my best not to kill anyone, and up to this point only one person has died cause I got attacked while arresting them.
Cue Eileen killing our QM, the only person ensuring we have a steady stream of implants.
Considering we just ran out of implants, this is a devastating blow to the team while we attempt to turn the tide. I caught Eileen because the AI called out and I arrived too late to save QM. Took her down, started chopping at the head because I cant tell if shes a headrev or not but at the point of no implants it doesnt really matter.
Cue borgo noticing, and doing his borgo best to prevent harm. While I understand this, he has pulled eileen away from me while I was slipped on water in the brig, and took her straight to medical. Instead of chasing the borg to medical, I ran to the RDs office and blew the borgs. I wasnt sure which it was, and had a person with a stunprod just behind me, so I didnt have time to think about what I was doing. I blew both, and resigned to fixing them after when we get the brig back under control. I can easily hold robotics down on my own, but not with Nabski breathing down my neck.
I took some screenshots, but with only myself and the RD surviving in the round, the situation was dire, and literally as soon as I blew the borgs secs doors were beaten down. Hopefully these give you an idea the state the round was in.
https://gyazo.com/a91a2c1ea16966de1455b641cce2e648
https://gyazo.com/49283626539ad6581233b4bb37719cdf
https://gyazo.com/cb64a943e7dc0496138c0dddea465b1d
https://gyazo.com/442688de9cfc54f1c88efd52f8146447 here we see eileen, alive and well, caught by security once again. No thanks to the borgs.
I would have taken more, however nabski refused to allow me time to take more screenshots. Check the logs, I asked for time to take them.
Why you think you should be unbanned: I did my best with the situation I had. I was under attack, and injured for the entire round with a compromised medical department attacking me. Chemist ended up killing me not but 3 minutes later. As the objective of the enemy in this round type, I was doing my best to keep sec moving through the chaos, and the last thing we needed was borgs bringing revs back into the round constantly.
I removed the force working against us, and would have put them back into play when the round was under our control. If it never got back under our control, they wouldnt have to worry because they wouldnt be out of the round long. I dont think a ban is fair for doing my part in playing the round. As captain I can order anyone to be executed should the need arise, and I deemd the borgs need arose. We cant have competent revs being constantly cloned while we are losing and have no more implants. Locking them down just gets the other borg or the AI to remove it and we are back at square 1. Theres no good solution for both crew and the borgs.
Last edited by CitrusGender on Sun Sep 09, 2018 10:59 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: edited que to cue, just to make sure it's spelled right (I got your back shark)



Shark-sie
 
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2018 3:10 am

Re: [Nabski] Shark-sie temporary ban

Unread postby Shark-sie » Sun Sep 09, 2018 11:05 pm #438654

To further stress, these borgs seem to have it coming to them. This one instance was one of many conflcits in the round. The borgs appear to have been intentionally siding with the revs rather than helping both sides. Fwoosh attested to the peacekeeper ALSO pulling eileen away. https://gyazo.com/4ca4e0e44202b476bec47b813f83fe05
Also, some silicon policy.
As an Asimov silicon, you cannot punish past harm if ordered not to, only prevent future harm. : I was not actively hurting eileen, yet the borg opted to still take her from the brig and heal her rather than keep our obvious prisoner in brig. She was not dead at the time.

That being said, eileen was captive in cuffs by the captain, making her definitively a prisoner. So lets move on to:

Releasing prisoners, locking down security without likely future harm, or otherwise sabotaging the security team when not obligated to by laws is a violation of Server Rule 1. Act in good faith.
Intentionally acting without adequate information about security situations, particularly to hinder security, is a violation of Server Rule 1. : Eileen was clearly a prisoner, and I was not actively attacking her at the time the borg removed her, as I was on the floor from a slip. The borg could have taker her away, and locked them in a room where she can be healed but is still contained within brig. The borgs were instead opting to remove prisoners from brig, breaking these rules.

User avatar
oranges
Code Maintainer
 
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 9:16 pm
Location: #CHATSHITGETBANGED
Byond Username: Optimumtact
Github Username: optimumtact

Re: [Nabski] Shark-sie temporary ban

Unread postby oranges » Sun Sep 09, 2018 11:06 pm #438655

I do not agree with this ban and I think it fails to consider another of our rules

Rule 10
Losing is part of the game.
Your character will frequently die, sometimes without even a possibility of avoiding it. Events will often be out of your control. No matter how good or prepared you are, sometimes you just lose.

I think their behaviour here was justified, they were under stress, the borgs were getting in the way and they can be rebuilt later if possible.

Does it suck for the uninvolved borgs? Yes, somewhat it does, but that's ss13 and that's rule 10, the borg went out of it's way to inconvenience security in the middle of a rev round, almost certainly knowing that doing so would bring heat upon the silicons. We can't be jumping into the middle of every time this happens and making people afraid to act decisively, and I don't think we can turn around and tell the borgs not to RP their laws either, even though I suspect some malicious intent here, it would never be provable.

I believe this should be an IC matter, as per rule 10.

I'd recommend that we lift this ban, and I instead propose that we remove the destruct all borgs button or make it require two head level id's, to ensure most borg destructions are targeted and do not unduly impact the other borgs.
Image

Dajcie mi człowieka, a paragraf się znajdzie

User avatar
FantasticFwoosh
Confined to the shed
 
Joined: Mon May 04, 2015 11:25 pm
Byond Username: FantasticFwoosh

Re: [Nabski] Shark-sie temporary ban

Unread postby FantasticFwoosh » Sun Sep 09, 2018 11:23 pm #438663

I was said QM in the original statment Tyson T. & you've seen my discord comment, Eileen did not kill me only incapacitate me as a discrepency in the OP by cutting my leg off leading me into the care of the Warden who stabilised me and dragged me around, generally co-operating helping with chores like getting more mindshields before he could properly reattach my leg in the holodeck.

To re-iterate i saw a peacekeeper borg take them (Eileen) away from brig but i don't recall anybody law 2'ing them back despite prompting the warden who screamed loudly on general comms to bring them back (i would myself but i was in stable softcrit), though i would say that the borg's performance appeared to be poor (despite me not having a lot of personal interaction with them) since they seemed to be unconstructive to helping the situation with harm prevention (specially built in modules on peacekeepers) given how badly the round had gone with 2 borg units active and alive, not flashed and killed for being 'good little troopers' and helping organise the efforts to repel the revolution.

I agree with Oranges, but also in the concept that if borgs implausibly are being very slow to respond the "act like a antag, be treated like a antag" clause comes into effect as it may be percieved that they are compromised. Because the OP died, from what i have managed to gleam information-wise, admin did not prompt them to take their MMI's back (somehow) to the robotics lab, but the active full swing revolution might have made this tricky anyway. This doesn't default to slapping the ban for doing nothing to amend it because they can't though.

If this was a carbon mob they'd be given a window of time to clone them, theres no reason a replacable borg can't be waited upon to simply be re-delivered and rebuilt in a accidental or misdirected borg blowing.

User avatar
zxaber
 
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2018 12:00 am
Byond Username: Zxaber

Re: [Nabski] Shark-sie temporary ban

Unread postby zxaber » Mon Sep 10, 2018 12:06 am #438679

Oh hey, I was one of the borgs that got blown.

Not that it mattered at that exact moment, as I was being flashed and smashed by a bunch of revs in medbay, but my last action was attempting to get the HoS cloned. Had I not been currently disabled, your action would have possibly prevented that. A good alternative to blowing borgs is to lock them down. This would have prevented the borg from interfering just as well, and is a good choice especially if you don't actually know which borg was the problem.

Shark-sie
 
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2018 3:10 am

Re: [Nabski] Shark-sie temporary ban

Unread postby Shark-sie » Mon Sep 10, 2018 12:11 am #438681

I agree, a much better choice in HINDSIGHT, is to not blow the borgs. However they were obstructing security, and a borg is not going to suddenly stop that type of behavior within one round. If anything, a lockdown will server to worsen their behavior, if not just stave it off for a few moments.
That is my thought process, in this situation, this decision is critical and is life and death for many other players, not just myself. If I make the wrong one, many more players are inconvenienced. In that moment, my head said blow them its the better choice. Would I lockdown if I could go back with my current knowledge? Sure, but my adrenaline is gone and im not currently the captain of a losing revs round. It is good to consider the position of all the people involved at the moment, and I try my best but as obviously shown do not always make the BEST possible choice, when acting decisively

User avatar
Nabski
In-Game Admin
 
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 5:42 pm
Location: TN
Byond Username: Nabski
Github Username: Nabski89

Re: [Nabski] Shark-sie temporary ban

Unread postby Nabski » Mon Sep 10, 2018 1:50 am #438703

From your last ban appeal "IF issues do come back I will not hesitate to reban you and be MUCH less lenient in future". For most players this would have been just a warning/note.

I talked to the borg in question and yes, they had seen you actively harming a human.

Blowing the borgs for following their laws has been against the rules for about four years now. See this policy thread viewtopic.php?f=33&t=2233#p49924 , which is also listed under the wiki article on headmin rulings.

If they were repeatedly being such a hassle to security, then changing their laws would have also been a good choice.

Additionally this ban was lengthened by a half day for you wordlessly chasing down a scientist who had not interacted with you in any way and killing him in his lab, then silently leaving without making any attempt to interact with him or even figure out if he might remotely be a revolutionary. This is not reflected in the banning note but be aware that that kind of behavior is highly frowned upon.

You appeal does not tell me anything that I did not already know during the round, and it is unlikely that I will be lifting this.
ImageImageImageImage
Unused but hilarious sprite repository.

User avatar
Nabski
In-Game Admin
 
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 5:42 pm
Location: TN
Byond Username: Nabski
Github Username: Nabski89

Re: [Nabski] Shark-sie temporary ban

Unread postby Nabski » Mon Sep 10, 2018 1:52 am #438705

Citrus I agree that it might be useful to require a little more effort to blow borgs, or maybe have lockdown be slightly more effective so that it takes the AI more than a single click to lift it. However that plays badly into the balance of malfunctioning AI. Imperfect code does not excuse making this level of poor choices.
ImageImageImageImage
Unused but hilarious sprite repository.

User avatar
D&B
 
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 2:23 am
Location: *teleports behind you*
Byond Username: Repukan

Re: [Nabski] Shark-sie temporary ban

Unread postby D&B » Mon Sep 10, 2018 2:03 am #438708

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=19467&view=unread#unread

There's precedent for security being able to kill cultists and revolutionaries without a single word spoken or interaction having been had in the past and just recently when the situation is dire.

Why the fuck are you extending bans for it?

Shark-sie
 
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2018 3:10 am

Re: [Nabski] Shark-sie temporary ban

Unread postby Shark-sie » Mon Sep 10, 2018 2:06 am #438709

Youre going to have to be more specific. If you mean the scientist who was clearly making bombs, It was either I take him out there and not let the bombs become a problem because I did not approve bombing for my crew nor do I want my brig bombed.
I had someone in tow already, I cant detain TWO people at once. Im one person, doing the best I can, to complete the objective of the round. At the point where we are losing and have no mindshields I would like to point out YET AGAIN that I can choose to kill any unimplanted person as the captain as I see fit. A scientist making toxins bomb is someone I chose fit to be executed, given that I had no backup, a rev in tow, and calling for backup while the brig is getting attacked is not going to turn any results.

Shark-sie
 
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2018 3:10 am

Re: [Nabski] Shark-sie temporary ban

Unread postby Shark-sie » Mon Sep 10, 2018 2:10 am #438715

D&B wrote:https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=19467&view=unread#unread

There's precedent for security being able to kill cultists and revolutionaries without a single word spoken or interaction having been had in the past and just recently when the situation is dire.

Why the fuck are you extending bans for it?


Not to mention, as one of the two people on station who have the rules and IC power to authorize such an action. He also fails to mention the person I had in tow, or the fact that I was attacked by several other scientists.

User avatar
D&B
 
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 2:23 am
Location: *teleports behind you*
Byond Username: Repukan

Re: [Nabski] Shark-sie temporary ban

Unread postby D&B » Mon Sep 10, 2018 2:11 am #438717

viewtopic.php?f=33&t=13577

Here's another precedent for that extension where it shows killing people in departments is fine if they cannot make sure they're implanted.

Did you check if they were implanted, Nabski? Did you check the context in which you found the captain? Or did you just need to stroke your fucking dick and add as much time to a ban as you needed?

User avatar
Nabski
In-Game Admin
 
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 5:42 pm
Location: TN
Byond Username: Nabski
Github Username: Nabski89

Re: [Nabski] Shark-sie temporary ban

Unread postby Nabski » Mon Sep 10, 2018 2:31 am #438721

D&B wrote:https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=19467&view=unread#unread

There's precedent for security being able to kill cultists and revolutionaries without a single word spoken or interaction having been had in the past and just recently when the situation is dire.

Why the fuck are you extending bans for it?


Because they weren't a rev, science wasn't one of the hotbeds of revolutionary activity, and I had actually watched him do it say "wew what a kill" I was in the area as a ghost. I left it alone until the guy ahelped it after the shift. Making bombs is a mandatory part of science if tech webs are to be remotely completed.
ImageImageImageImage
Unused but hilarious sprite repository.

Shark-sie
 
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2018 3:10 am

Re: [Nabski] Shark-sie temporary ban

Unread postby Shark-sie » Mon Sep 10, 2018 2:33 am #438722

1: The entire station was a hotbed of revolutionary activity
2: Go ahead and get me some logs on that "wew what a kill"
3: Again, the round was FULLSWING revs, its not longer a part of making research points. Not to mention the amount of points generated by that time should have covered most if not all research. So please do try again. I performed a site execution in response to the high volume of revs and a situation requiring it when I couldnt incapacitate and drag another person. In those same logs youll notice I went for his arms in an attempt to prevent him from making any bombs until I could bring him in at a later date. So again, go ahead and get some.
Last edited by Shark-sie on Mon Sep 10, 2018 2:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Nabski
In-Game Admin
 
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 5:42 pm
Location: TN
Byond Username: Nabski
Github Username: Nabski89

Re: [Nabski] Shark-sie temporary ban

Unread postby Nabski » Mon Sep 10, 2018 2:37 am #438724

I think you misunderstood me, I was the one that commented on the killed, not you. You just lasered a guy silently.

[2018-09-09 22:13:16.311] ADMINPRIVATE: ASAY: Nabski/(Gene Ball) "wait what the fuck was that" (Security Post - Research Division (119, 107, 2))
[2018-09-09 22:13:22.124] ADMINPRIVATE: ASAY: Nervere/(Scurra Bardus) "?" (Fore Primary Hallway (107, 154, 2))
[2018-09-09 22:13:36.511] ADMINPRIVATE: ASAY: Nabski/(Gene Ball) "they just gave the chop to some random scientist in toxins and I have no clue why" (Security Post - Research Division (119, 107, 2))
[2018-09-09 22:14:38.928] ADMINPRIVATE: ASAY: Nervere/(Scurra Bardus) "best not to look into it unless they ahelp" (Brig (101, 167, 2))

At which point I went back to whatever it was I was doing.
ImageImageImageImage
Unused but hilarious sprite repository.

Shark-sie
 
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2018 3:10 am

Re: [Nabski] Shark-sie temporary ban

Unread postby Shark-sie » Mon Sep 10, 2018 3:14 am #438730

I took the liberty of doing it myself. See here is everything up before the time that you claim I did this.
https://gyazo.com/d30c2430820131e870b96f84aeb22e19
youll notice my name comes up once, saying "its done." That is in regards to the people asking when are we raiding to secure cargo. Of which I did myself, and responded to their query.

https://gyazo.com/fc76196d5c82d172b5e9e93afdaab304
Shortly after, youll see I am VERY AWARE of implant status. Im telling the rev that stole a bunch of sec gear and weapons that im not an idiot and could clearly tell he was a rev. I arrested him for toting, then dropping and trying to re-grab a spear. fumbling trying to attack me. Fairly sure he was a robo, his ID was purple but the icon is fuzzy in my memory.
I am very aware of implant status, my status as captain in the round, and my responsibility to not only prevent harm to the other players who are actively trying to remove the threat, but survive so that those other players efforts are not wasted. I do not go around needlessly killing people who pose no threat. Nor do I say "wew what a kill"

EDIT : https://gyazo.com/39e02f02a1b99b4ab59ad02a9f18d896
More evidence that I am painfully aware of how many implants we have left, and the fact that we are losing crew faster than I would like.

User avatar
Nabski
In-Game Admin
 
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 5:42 pm
Location: TN
Byond Username: Nabski
Github Username: Nabski89

Re: [Nabski] Shark-sie temporary ban

Unread postby Nabski » Mon Sep 10, 2018 3:39 am #438738

So are you saying the spear carrying roboticist, who was clearly a threat and revolutionary, is the guy that you were hauling around when you killed the toxins scientist?
ImageImageImageImage
Unused but hilarious sprite repository.

Shark-sie
 
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2018 3:10 am

Re: [Nabski] Shark-sie temporary ban

Unread postby Shark-sie » Mon Sep 10, 2018 3:41 am #438739

Nabski wrote:So are you saying the spear carrying roboticist, who was clearly a threat and revolutionary, is the guy that you were hauling around when you killed the toxins scientist?

The one wearing riot gear with no implant yes to the best of my knowledge.

EDIT: Is that what youre choosing to focus on, despite me calling you out on blatantly lying, with pictures added?

Edit2: They are in fact Bella rouge the roboticist [2018-09-09 21:56:32.084] ACCESS: 21:56:32.084] ACCESS: Mob Login: MortoSasye/(Bella Rouge) was assigned to a /mob/living/carbon/human

[2018-09-09 21:56:32.087] GAME: 21:56:32.087] GAME: MortoSasye/(Bella Rouge) Client MortoSasye/(Bella Rouge) has taken ownership of mob (/mob/living/carbon/human) (Robotics Lab (115, 82, 2))

User avatar
Nabski
In-Game Admin
 
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 5:42 pm
Location: TN
Byond Username: Nabski
Github Username: Nabski89

Re: [Nabski] Shark-sie temporary ban

Unread postby Nabski » Mon Sep 10, 2018 3:57 am #438746

This was a simple question but I did not know who you were dragging around.

The pictures don't add much to this conversation to me because I was already in the round.

You still seem to be failing to understand that I was the one that said "wew", and think I am trying to put words in your mouth.

I am currently trying to figure out your side of the story on what happened there because I only had the scientists at the time because you were already banned. That's also why it's not currently reflected in the note, because I am unsure if with more details I would have applied it or not.
ImageImageImageImage
Unused but hilarious sprite repository.

Shark-sie
 
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2018 3:10 am

Re: [Nabski] Shark-sie temporary ban

Unread postby Shark-sie » Mon Sep 10, 2018 4:01 am #438748

Then how about I refer you to the two threads already posted that allow security to execute people as the need arises in conversion game modes.
I see a scientist performing toxins in a round where science is compromised by revs. This screams "brig bombing" . I prevented brig bombing, and attack logs will show I went for his arms to attempt to pacify him without killing him. A cuff would only give me 60 seconds to get to the brig, drop off the guy, get back to science, find and capture the scientist, and then bring him through the rev infested station to brig.

You are trying to play this off like it wasnt a full swing heads-losing rev round with three heads of staff killed. Everyone that has attested to the round has said as much.

User avatar
FantasticFwoosh
Confined to the shed
 
Joined: Mon May 04, 2015 11:25 pm
Byond Username: FantasticFwoosh

Re: [Nabski] Shark-sie temporary ban

Unread postby FantasticFwoosh » Mon Sep 10, 2018 9:39 am #438788

A good alternative to blowing borgs is to lock them down. This would have prevented the borg from interfering just as well, and is a good choice especially if you don't actually know which borg was the problem


Practically applying this would not have been effective since due to other priorities, said borgs would have been for the remainder of the round probably static and locked into place, which would have been interesting to see if the revs obviously felt non-threatened enough to release the motors again, killed them or just felt free to continue to leave them there until the occupants ghosted or logged out.

Ideal example, poor in practice requiring discretion for the conditions of the round but it would have only ended in the borgs being removed anyway or confirming to the remainder IC'ly that they were co-operating rather than counteracting the violent revolutionaries. Blowing & releasing them to deadchat was probably the most sympathetic option for the reasons stated behind locking them down mid-full swing revolt

If they were repeatedly being such a hassle to security, then changing their laws would have also been a good choice.


Physically travelling between the brig & the AI upload of metastation was dangerous, this is a ideal not a relative scenario in which the enforcing admin should have took into account how severe the situation, as multiple people have attested to in this thread and can't really be explained rather than on-site admin discretion having no sympathy for the pressure currently, to which all the major hallways were dangerous to travel and virtually impossible to walk down without some sort of encounter.

Across that round towards the end of it, though i was recovering poorly from my bad leg command & security seemed holed up entirely in brig last i saw them and the (purple haired?) fake officer (which the screenshots sharksie presents seems to be Bella Rouge) later used that disguise to kill, loot & stuff me in a locker as per usual revolutionary protocol because i was implanted. Full security gear with discarded taser & stun baton, adding to the threat presented in the halls.

There's quite a lot of room to discuss the possibility that if the borgs acted so poorly on loyal ASIMOV, whether adding more laws would have even made any sort of change to the situation especially since you can argue that the nature of instigating enough mistrust over your ablitiies was ban baiting the captain precisely into blowing supposedly already subverted borgs. The OP at the time without being able to leave brig because of the revolt wouldn't have known if a relatively simple law upload had taken place already because relative to where they were in the brig, the AI upload is detached from all departments next to a major hallway out of sight.

Nabski wrote:This was a simple question but I did not know who you were dragging around.

The pictures don't add much to this conversation to me because I was already in the round.

You still seem to be failing to understand that I was the one that said "wew", and think I am trying to put words in your mouth.

I am currently trying to figure out your side of the story on what happened there because I only had the scientists at the time because you were already banned. That's also why it's not currently reflected in the note, because I am unsure if with more details I would have applied it or not.


If you wouldn't mind me being brash, a fair amount of responsibility lies on you under rule 0's clause that your choice of option was to as the OP says ignore the circumstances of the round you were also present in in favour of applying rigid rule application to which some more leeway might have de-escalated this ban entirely to a warning to not indiscriminately blow borgs (who would have rule 10 applied onto them marked a IC issue)

User avatar
BeeSting12
In-Game Admin
 
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2016 1:11 am
Location: 'Murica
Byond Username: BeeSting12
Github Username: BeeSting12

Re: [Nabski] Shark-sie temporary ban

Unread postby BeeSting12 » Mon Sep 10, 2018 12:26 pm #438798

By the borg's own admission, it was being killed by the revs before it was blown. Locking it down would've gotten it killed just as much as blowing it. Players have limited information in this game. This is intended- if it wasn't then security officers would have an antagHUD and admin logs would be narrated to everyone on the server. Would Sharksie have been banned for locking it down, leaving it vulnerable to the revs that were killing it anyway?

The borgs were actively hindering security in a round type where it's generally accepted that so much as staying on a security officer's screen a second too long is seen as reason to kill them. (exaggeration). There's nothing wrong with what the borgs did, that's their lawset- they had to. Their laws happened to conflict with security and the rev's goals though, and both sides ended up killing them. This is an intended conflict- if it wasn't then borgs wouldn't have laws.

As for the scientist: Making bombs on a rev round is one of those things that is certainly an executable offense. Consider all productive station activities suspended while there's an ongoing mutiny.

Overall, Nabski's ban failed to take into account the round's circumstances (station is full of people wanting to kill sharksie, the borgs are stopping security from killing those people) when banning for the borgs, and then he extended the ban after they were gone for the scientist.
Stickymayhem wrote:you're right!

Edward Sloan, THE LAW
Melanie Flowers, Catgirl
Borgasm, Cyborg
Spoiler:
OOC: Hunterh98: to be fair sloan is one of the, if not the, most robust folks on tg

DEAD: Schlomo Gaskin says, "sloan may be a faggot but he gets the job done"

DEAD: Rei Ayanami says, "YOU'RE EVERYWHERE WHERE BAD SHIT IS HAPPENING"
DEAD: Rei Ayanami says, "IT'S ALWAYS FUCKING EDWARD SLOAN"
oranges wrote:Bee sting is honestly the nicest admin, I look forward to seeing him as a headmin one day

Click here to make incoherent rants about my badminning.

PostThis post was deleted by PKPenguin321 on Tue Sep 11, 2018 11:36 pm.
Reason: Peanut gallery post

User avatar
Nabski
In-Game Admin
 
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 5:42 pm
Location: TN
Byond Username: Nabski
Github Username: Nabski89

Re: [Nabski] Shark-sie temporary ban

Unread postby Nabski » Mon Sep 10, 2018 5:58 pm #438831

I'm not exactly happy about the way you did the scientist guy, but it shows you at least put some thought into it. That part of the ban is removed.

I don't think that your jumping to blow the borgs rather than another option was acceptable and am not lifting this part of it. Your actions throughout this round fall back into your overly valid hunter ways that you were previously banned for. (and still are if you include the significant number of jobs that you have requested to not have lifted).

Be aware I really don't enjoy discord pings in this style.
Image
ImageImageImageImage
Unused but hilarious sprite repository.

User avatar
FantasticFwoosh
Confined to the shed
 
Joined: Mon May 04, 2015 11:25 pm
Byond Username: FantasticFwoosh

Re: [Nabski] Shark-sie temporary ban

Unread postby FantasticFwoosh » Mon Sep 10, 2018 6:24 pm #438835

Sharksie was not in the screenshot and none of the people within (to my knowledge) are directly relevant to this thread, therefore that's off topic and not meant to actually be flung around in a ban appeal seperate to the topic. A imprudent remark would be to grow a thicker skin for drama.

I don't think that your jumping to blow the borgs rather than another option was acceptable and am not lifting this part of it.


With a lack of counter-acting the points put against this line of thought, in lieu of consquences of the borgs being locked, probably acknowledging they could be less obstructionist and taking their death with sportsmanship under rule 10 to summarise what people have said on the thread i feel thats a rather simplistic course of action for a admin to take in which more thought in general should have been put in the round as multiple people have mentioned and tried to convey how bad things were even on account of you saying you were there.

But still implausibly don't seem to have a grip of what actually happpened as like you try to convey here, do you even step down into the shoes of a player to get a grasp of high stress situations yourself enough to recognise one? (gross-exaggeration)

User avatar
Nabski
In-Game Admin
 
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 5:42 pm
Location: TN
Byond Username: Nabski
Github Username: Nabski89

Re: [Nabski] Shark-sie temporary ban

Unread postby Nabski » Mon Sep 10, 2018 7:42 pm #438849

FantasticFwoosh wrote:Sharksie was not in the screenshot and none of the people within (to my knowledge) are directly relevant to this thread, therefore that's off topic and not meant to actually be flung around in a ban appeal seperate to the topic. A imprudent remark would be to grow a thicker skin for drama.

He started it with the pinging last night, and those were in regards to a comment he had made. Don't ping admins about bans on discord and expect any kind of response.
ImageImageImageImage
Unused but hilarious sprite repository.

Shark-sie
 
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2018 3:10 am

Re: [Nabski] Shark-sie temporary ban

Unread postby Shark-sie » Mon Sep 10, 2018 8:06 pm #438851

I didnt not start it. Someone else pinged on my behalf. Get your facts straight.

PostThis post was deleted by PKPenguin321 on Tue Sep 11, 2018 11:35 pm.
Reason: off topic

PostThis post was deleted by PKPenguin321 on Mon Sep 10, 2018 9:20 pm.
Reason: Peanut gallery post

Shark-sie
 
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2018 3:10 am

Re: [Nabski] Shark-sie temporary ban

Unread postby Shark-sie » Mon Sep 10, 2018 9:28 pm #438892

I would like to point out for the record here that Nabski just called , AS THE CAPTAIN, killing revolutionaries, hunting people with potential weapons of mass destruction, and defending myself and my security against borgs as valid hunting. For the record.

He also has not provided a single log to back his claims, had his own claims refuted by even his own screenshots, and has assumed me to be the instigator of an insult session brought on by his own behavior, of which I was not.

Shark-sie
 
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2018 3:10 am

Re: [Nabski] Shark-sie temporary ban

Unread postby Shark-sie » Tue Sep 11, 2018 3:23 am #438961

I would like to point out that Nabski has even failed to reduce the ban which he claimed has already been deducted. This is as of 11:15pm september 10th. https://gyazo.com/e4468855ad0172d79d7b3312039c6f37

User avatar
Nabski
In-Game Admin
 
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 5:42 pm
Location: TN
Byond Username: Nabski
Github Username: Nabski89

Re: [Nabski] Shark-sie temporary ban

Unread postby Nabski » Tue Sep 11, 2018 3:46 am #438964

The first ban was 2880 for two deaths. It got bumped up to 3456, then lowered back down to two days for two shitty kills.
ImageImageImageImage
Unused but hilarious sprite repository.

Shark-sie
 
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2018 3:10 am

Re: [Nabski] Shark-sie temporary ban

Unread postby Shark-sie » Tue Sep 11, 2018 3:54 am #438965

So youre saying you wantonly added to a ban, without alerting the player. Is that correct?

User avatar
Nabski
In-Game Admin
 
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 5:42 pm
Location: TN
Byond Username: Nabski
Github Username: Nabski89

Re: [Nabski] Shark-sie temporary ban

Unread postby Nabski » Tue Sep 11, 2018 4:16 am #438967

I added additional time as additional issues came to my attention. I brought it to your attention the next time I was in contact with you, which since I've never banned you without you appealing I assumed (correctly) would be soon.

The standard used to be when a player was dc'd permanent ban them and have them explain on the forums. It has more recently moved to "assume worst case scenario and apply that length of ban". The standard for bad kills is a day. I added a little under half a day because while his death was super shitty from his perspective your situation wasn't good either, and I acknowledged that in the length. You gave me two decent reasons that you wouldn't have handled it better and they were acceptable so I removed the time for it.
ImageImageImageImage
Unused but hilarious sprite repository.

Shark-sie
 
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2018 3:10 am

Re: [Nabski] Shark-sie temporary ban

Unread postby Shark-sie » Tue Sep 11, 2018 4:22 am #438968

So rather than seeking me out on discord, which you are obviously well aware I use, or forum messaging me to have official documentation to act on, you acted on your own and decided with no quantification to your own claims. You claim to have kept such a close ye on the round, yet you can't follow your own official channels to keep records and apply appropriate punishments. You decided adding to the punishment without any consultation to any other sdmin, or the player who was NOT DISCONNECTED but BANNED by you, was a better idea.

User avatar
Dax Dupont
In-Game Admin
 
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2014 9:07 pm
Location: Belgium
Byond Username: DaxYeen
Github Username: DaxDupont

Re: [Nabski] Shark-sie temporary ban

Unread postby Dax Dupont » Tue Sep 11, 2018 5:17 am #438971

Shark-sie wrote:So rather than seeking me out on discord, which you are obviously well aware I use, or forum messaging me to have official documentation to act on, you acted on your own and decided with no quantification to your own claims. You claim to have kept such a close ye on the round, yet you can't follow your own official channels to keep records and apply appropriate punishments. You decided adding to the punishment without any consultation to any other sdmin, or the player who was NOT DISCONNECTED but BANNED by you, was a better idea.

Admins are only required to contact through the ingame tools and completely aren't allowed to talk about this stuff on discord.
Forum PMs are clunky and don't ensure that people read them or see them.

The ban for maximum time for the situation when there's a d/c is standard practise, it used to be perma.

PostThis post was deleted by PKPenguin321 on Tue Sep 11, 2018 11:00 pm.
Reason: Off topic

PostThis post was deleted by PKPenguin321 on Tue Sep 11, 2018 11:00 pm.
Reason: Response to delete

User avatar
Lazengann
In-Game Admin
 
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 2:26 pm
Byond Username: Lazengann

Re: [Nabski] Shark-sie temporary ban

Unread postby Lazengann » Tue Sep 11, 2018 4:16 pm #439065

Silicon protections, rule 5 states this.

As a nonantagonist human, killing or detonating silicons in the presence of a viable and reasonably expedient alternative and without cause to be concerned of potential subversion is a violation of Server Rule 1.

This is the correct rule to look at, because this is a discussion about detonating the cyborgs.

Was changing the laws viable?
No. The AI is required by law to prevent a harmful Captain from changing the laws. The AI would enable turrets to stunlock you which spells death in Revolution. There's a chance the AI wouldn't notice you or the motion alarms, but I don't consider a strategy requiring horrible incompetence to be "viable."

Would changing the laws be reasonably expedient?
Absolutely not. Defeating the turrets would take time, and if you ever pulled it off, the AI would disable power to the upload. At that point, you would need to hack the APC, find the AI control wire, and get everything back online. This is a tough task when the AI is sending cyborgs to stop you.

Under our current rules, blowing the cyborgs was allowed. If you feel this should not be allowed, please ask the new set of headmins to revise the rule, and do not rule on what you think the rules SHOULD be.

PostThis post was deleted by PKPenguin321 on Tue Sep 11, 2018 11:00 pm.
Reason: Response to delete

User avatar
lntigracy
Confined to the shed
 
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2016 9:23 pm
Location: Commiefornia
Byond Username: Intigracy

Re: [Nabski] Shark-sie temporary ban

Unread postby lntigracy » Tue Sep 11, 2018 6:20 pm #439082

Dax Dupont wrote:This policy mostly exists for people just logging off and trying to avoid a ban this way.

Except he didn't log off, he was banned.

Then his ban was extended because Nabski forgot to talk to him about it and just assumed the worst.

User avatar
Nabski
In-Game Admin
 
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 5:42 pm
Location: TN
Byond Username: Nabski
Github Username: Nabski89

Re: [Nabski] Shark-sie temporary ban

Unread postby Nabski » Tue Sep 11, 2018 6:26 pm #439085

lntigracy wrote:
Dax Dupont wrote:This policy mostly exists for people just logging off and trying to avoid a ban this way.

Except he didn't log off, he was banned.

Then his ban was extended because Nabski forgot to talk to him about it and just assumed the worst.


The second ahelp didn't come in until after the ban. Rather than assume the worst, which would have been a day, I assumed medium fault, which was ~40% of a day.
ImageImageImageImage
Unused but hilarious sprite repository.

User avatar
Dax Dupont
In-Game Admin
 
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2014 9:07 pm
Location: Belgium
Byond Username: DaxYeen
Github Username: DaxDupont

Re: [Nabski] Shark-sie temporary ban

Unread postby Dax Dupont » Tue Sep 11, 2018 6:33 pm #439089

lntigracy wrote:
Dax Dupont wrote:This policy mostly exists for people just logging off and trying to avoid a ban this way.

Except he didn't log off, he was banned.

Then his ban was extended because Nabski forgot to talk to him about it and just assumed the worst.

Reread my post and pick out the modifier

Shark-sie
 
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2018 3:10 am

Re: [Nabski] Shark-sie temporary ban

Unread postby Shark-sie » Tue Sep 11, 2018 6:38 pm #439091

I like the part where Nabski acknowledged the people arguing over policy regarding changing bans, and not Lazengann who completely destroyed nabskis reasoning for using the Borg blowing rule, a deduction no player can be expected to make especially in the middle of a high action round. However it IS his job to know that rule better than I am, and should be expected to make this deduction himself as well.

But no hes not dodging his responsibilities BECAUSE hes replaying. The susbstance and validity of those replies must hold no weigtlht

Kingtrin
 
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2018 12:29 am
Byond Username: Kingtrin

Re: [Nabski] Shark-sie temporary ban

Unread postby Kingtrin » Tue Sep 11, 2018 9:45 pm #439135

If we think about what the silicons were doing in another context, say a human dragging off a detained greytider to medical, it opens up that human to be arrested as well. Silicons are expected to understand the threat of a revolution and how security as a whole is important to a round. Borgs are indeed expected to save revolutionaries from harm under asimov, but it is also expected that they prevent harm. If the borg in question does nothing to detain someone who harmed someone else then they are ultimately breaking their laws. You cannot hide under asimov like this because otherwise you open silicons to being a vehicle for trolling sec.

The AI and all silicons are expected to be helping the station stay together while avoiding as much harm as possible. Obstructing sec is pushing it, but understandable when sec is hurting a human. Obstructing sec, dragging off a clearly harm-intending human to medical, and failing to make an attempt to detain them is willfully allowing potential harm to sec and heads of staff. Also we seem to be glossing over how the borg in question ignored an order over general comms to bring them back. If you act like a piece of shit you get treated like one. The only real regret here is that other borgs were affected.

Do you, or anyone else for that matter, want to legitimize this kind of fuck-awful behavior?

Not-Dorsidarf
In-Game Admin
 
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 4:14 pm
Location: Space outside the Brig
Byond Username: Dorsidwarf

Re: [Nabski] Shark-sie temporary ban

Unread postby Not-Dorsidarf » Tue Sep 11, 2018 10:24 pm #439139

Kingtrin wrote: Also we seem to be glossing over how the borg in question ignored an order over general comms to bring them back. If you act like a piece of shit you get treated like one. The only real regret here is that other borgs were affected.


Law 2: Bring Me The Prisoner < Law 1: Don't Let Sec Beat The Prisoner's Head In Again
Image
Still, my support will always go towards the rightful Lord of Yurop, God-Emperor Donald Trump the Trumpst. Trumpingrad for life. He'll make an indiscriminate number of countries great again.


Deadcomic

User avatar
Nabski
In-Game Admin
 
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 5:42 pm
Location: TN
Byond Username: Nabski
Github Username: Nabski89

Re: [Nabski] Shark-sie temporary ban

Unread postby Nabski » Tue Sep 11, 2018 11:30 pm #439147

Doris/Kintrin, there were no attempts at giving orders to borg/AI at any point during round, at least none that made it into the logs.

This ban is now expired.
ImageImageImageImage
Unused but hilarious sprite repository.

Shark-sie
 
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2018 3:10 am

Re: [Nabski] Shark-sie temporary ban

Unread postby Shark-sie » Tue Sep 11, 2018 11:57 pm #439149

Oh look nabski has no idea what hes talking about again. Several people have stated the wardens attempt in general chat to stop the borgs. Heres mine too
[2018-09-09 22:14:37.220] SAY: 22:14:37.220] SAY: Shark-sie/(Lexus Black) "BORG NOP" (Brig (102, 167, 2))
[2018-09-09 22:15:20.427] SAY: 22:15:20.427] SAY: Ishotjr8/(A Bee In A Jar) "Borg has been instructed to stop." (AI Chamber (214, 143, 2))
[2018-09-09 22:15:13.684] SAY: 22:15:13.684] SAY: Ishotjr8/(A Bee In A Jar) "Borg, stop." (AI Chamber (214, 143, 2))
[2018-09-09 22:15:05.135] SAY: 22:15:05.135] SAY: Valoros/(Kristopher Richter) "TELL YOUR BORG TO STOP" (Brig (97, 170, 2))
[2018-09-09 22:15:00.861] SAY: 22:15:00.861] SAY: Valoros/(Kristopher Richter) "DO NOT SAVE EILEEN, BORG" (Brig (97, 170, 2))
[2018-09-09 22:14:48.082] WHISPER: 22:14:48.082] WHISPER: FantasticFwoosh/(Tyson T.) "law 2 that borg to stop saving eileen" (Brig (103, 166, 2))
[2018-09-09 22:14:22.809] SAY: 22:14:22.809] SAY: Hi_Im_Chros/(Anjin Stall) "borg stop" (Cloning Lab (93, 91, 2))
[2018-09-09 22:09:42.461] SAY: 22:09:42.461] SAY: Barbedwireqtip/(Mac Tenn) "BORGS ROGUE NOT FOLLOWING ORDERS!!!!" (Brig (105, 162, 2))

EDIT: I think this is solid proof Nabski has no idea what hes talking about, made no attempt to look into the logs, and simply applied a ban and tried to extend it in any way possible.

User avatar
Nabski
In-Game Admin
 
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 5:42 pm
Location: TN
Byond Username: Nabski
Github Username: Nabski89

Re: [Nabski] Shark-sie temporary ban

Unread postby Nabski » Wed Sep 12, 2018 12:07 am #439150

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOP

You literally yelled "Borg I am not giving you an order".

The correct verbage here would be. "Excuse me INSERT BORG NAME HERE. I, under law 2, order you to not interact with the person that I was interacting with as I have reason to believe that my minor accidental harm is a direct result of their major harm that they were in the middle of committing."

If you don't have this on a macro I don't know what you're even doing.

At which point the borg says "lol git fukt law 1 nerd".

Which obviously they also need to have macro'd.
ImageImageImageImage
Unused but hilarious sprite repository.

User avatar
BeeSting12
In-Game Admin
 
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2016 1:11 am
Location: 'Murica
Byond Username: BeeSting12
Github Username: BeeSting12

Re: [Nabski] Shark-sie temporary ban

Unread postby BeeSting12 » Wed Sep 12, 2018 12:20 am #439152

Nabski wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOP

You literally yelled "Borg I am not giving you an order".

what???

i could understand the borg not following the order on that technicality but it's obvious that he attempted to get the borg to stop as well as several others. your ban literally contradicts the rules page. im not gonna type out why because three other people already have and it's a waste of energy at this point.

Lazengann wrote:Silicon protections, rule 5 states this.

As a nonantagonist human, killing or detonating silicons in the presence of a viable and reasonably expedient alternative and without cause to be concerned of potential subversion is a violation of Server Rule 1.

This is the correct rule to look at, because this is a discussion about detonating the cyborgs.

Was changing the laws viable?
No. The AI is required by law to prevent a harmful Captain from changing the laws. The AI would enable turrets to stunlock you which spells death in Revolution. There's a chance the AI wouldn't notice you or the motion alarms, but I don't consider a strategy requiring horrible incompetence to be "viable."

Would changing the laws be reasonably expedient?
Absolutely not. Defeating the turrets would take time, and if you ever pulled it off, the AI would disable power to the upload. At that point, you would need to hack the APC, find the AI control wire, and get everything back online. This is a tough task when the AI is sending cyborgs to stop you.

Under our current rules, blowing the cyborgs was allowed. If you feel this should not be allowed, please ask the new set of headmins to revise the rule, and do not rule on what you think the rules SHOULD be.
Stickymayhem wrote:you're right!

Edward Sloan, THE LAW
Melanie Flowers, Catgirl
Borgasm, Cyborg
Spoiler:
OOC: Hunterh98: to be fair sloan is one of the, if not the, most robust folks on tg

DEAD: Schlomo Gaskin says, "sloan may be a faggot but he gets the job done"

DEAD: Rei Ayanami says, "YOU'RE EVERYWHERE WHERE BAD SHIT IS HAPPENING"
DEAD: Rei Ayanami says, "IT'S ALWAYS FUCKING EDWARD SLOAN"
oranges wrote:Bee sting is honestly the nicest admin, I look forward to seeing him as a headmin one day

Click here to make incoherent rants about my badminning.

Next

Return to Resolved Appeals

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests