/tg/Station 13

by **Oldman Robustin** » Sat Oct 13, 2018 1:35 am #445125

Byond account and character name: ForcefulCJS/Oldman Robustin
Admin: Nabski
Time and Server(Bagil or Sybil) incident occurred: 830pm EST - Bagil
ROUND ID HERE: 95365
Detailed summary:

1) Be Captain
2) Set Station Name to "WHY ARE MY FEET SO LOUD AHH I COULDNT HEAR YOU OVER MY FEET"
3) Nabski blows my legs off
4) Have to grovel in Ahelp to get my legs back
5) Read command report
6) Notice Revolutionary activity has two entries, along with one for Nukeops and some other shit.
7) Tell Security, "Get patrolling, and be on the lookout for revolutionary behavior" since apparently Centcom is TWICE as worried about them, honk.
8) 2 seconds later AI reports the RD getting beat to death in middle of science, attacker is arrested and resists implant.
9) NABSKIS BACK, BWOINK BWOINK BWOINK I NEED A BWOINK FOR EACH SENTENCE TO CONVEY HOW IMPORTANT THIS IS, YOU NEED TO TELL ME IMMEDIATELY WHY YOU TOLD SECURITY TO WATCH FOR REVS
10) Im in middle of a revolution as Captain and Nabski's been a shitter to me since I've been back (last night I ahelped about the HOS (Fred Best) instantly executed me while I was repairing then engine because I was wearing captain shit that another engineer had stolen and dumped - Nabski blew me off and gave me the Ol' IC ISSUE auto response), so I gave him a snarky response:

"PM to-Admins: Ill spend as long explaining to you as you did investigating Fred Best killing me last night, oh wait out of time!"

11) Nabski, without any further warning, kicks me out of my character and I'm dead for the rest of the round.

"Admin PM from-Nabski: there we go, I've made time so that you're able to talk to me now"

12) "PM to-Admins: My official answer is that I like to keep security on their toes for major threats and Nukeops wouldn't show up the beginning of the shift. If you stop being a cunt for 24 hours maybe I'll go into more details."

13) More PM's from Nabski, remember ONE BWOINK FOR EACH CLAUSE OF A SENTENCE BECAUSE THATS HOW HE SHOWS WHAT A SERIOUS ADMIN HE IS:

Admin PM from-Nabski: option one

Admin PM from-Nabski: you nicely answer my question

Admin PM from-Nabski: I'm pretty sure I know what the answer is already, I just want to confirm it

Admin PM from-Nabski: option two

Admin PM from-Nabski: I ban you for a week and you argue on the forums with me

14) I remind him that it was an IC-statement from a Captain regarding IC-information that ultimately had no influence on the round. No rules were broken and since I've always reported major bugs so there was absolutely 0 reason for him to be a power-tripping cunt.

NEXT ROUND, IM CAPTAIN AGAIN, MORE VIVA ENSUES:

15) BWOINK BWOINK BWOINK BWOINK BWOINK.

Admin PM from-Nabski: alright last chance-

Admin PM from-Nabski: was it the report?

Admin PM from-Nabski: where I can close this and move on

Admin PM from-Nabski: or are you sticking to your "I don't have to tell you nuffin"

PM to-Admins: Ill post whatever I figure out in my issue report on Github, which is where discussions like this belong, not with Nabski, adminbuser ace shittective over an IC statement I made as captain.

16) You have been banned by Nabski. replying "Ill post whatever I figure out in my issue report on Github, which is where discussions like this belong, not with Nabski,(?|F) adminbuser ace shittective over an IC statement I made as captain "

So there's about 10 ways to go about explaining why Nabski was abusing his powers here but it kinda speaks for itself so I'll keep it short. If a player doesn't break the rules, an admin has no authority to ban them. Even if there was a bug that caused the Command Report to ONLY show Revolution as a warning, there is nothing wrong with saying "Get patrolling, and be on the lookout for revolutionary behavior". If an admin suspects that the person made that statement because of a bug in the Command Report, they are absolutely free to inquire - but to remove them from the round and threaten them with a ban if THEY DONT TELL YOU EVERYTHING THEY KNOW is just the straightest admin power-tripping I've seen in years. I made it absolutely clear to Nabski that IF there was a code issue that I had always, and would always, report them - but him removing me from the round and trying to bully it out of me was going to be a hard no from me.

Even by the end he straight up says "Admit it was the report or I'll ban you". What role is the admin playing in that situation? If it was a code issue, he admits he has no grounds to ban me and will move on. However if I won't tell him it was a code issue (which would mean he has even LESS grounds to ban me since that would just mean it was a completely innocuous statement I made), then he's actually going to ban me because his fragile ego is being bruised. Only a stellar admin like Nabski would straight up explain that he has no actual interest in resolving an issue but that a ban was imminent because I wasn't being nice to him after he had blown off my legs, killed me, then threatened to ban me, HMMMM.

This post was deleted by Nervere on Sat Oct 13, 2018 1:45 am.
Reason: Stop shitposting in complaints.

This post was deleted by Nervere on Sat Oct 13, 2018 1:45 am.
Reason: Stop shitposting in complaints.

by **Karp** » Sat Oct 13, 2018 1:45 am #445131

robustin was in the right using the report is fine quit being a baby nabski if someone's upset at something it's in the moment and if they dont reply it doesnt mean they're being a malicious asshole

Robustin stop being a manchild just have a fake smile and pretend you like the person to avoid them being a dumbass

I did the headmins job for them thank me later

Jesus christ nabski dont force people out like that again you shouldn't use admin verbs like that, robustin was the one who got the station report nerfed in the first place and it's intended to be used by captains if they wish

https://github.com/tgstation/tgstation/issues/40895 Robustin made an issue report on it

by **Oldman Robustin** » Sat Oct 13, 2018 1:49 am #445133

I mean, really, in what 3rd tier shithouse server is it acceptable to kill the person playing Captain in a revolution so that they can "devote" more time to their ahelp responses? Because, as I explained to Nabski, in all my time here I've NEVER seen an admin power trip hard enough to pull THAT stunt on me.

*Devote doesn't actually imply spending more time on the responses, but rather the quotes indicate that it's an obvious cover for the fact that it's an Adminbuse 101 power play designed to intimidate the player in acquiescing where otherwise legitimate authority might be lacking.

by **Nabski** » Sat Oct 13, 2018 1:56 am #445136

Your response's made it seem like if I sat there and tried to get an answer the crew was going to be more or less captainless, so I replaced you to avoid making the round fucky for everyone else involved.

I wanted to use admin prison but captain in a rev round.

by **Oldman Robustin** » Sat Oct 13, 2018 2:08 am #445138

Nabski wrote:Your response's made it seem like if I sat there and tried to get an answer the crew was going to be more or less captainless, so I replaced you to avoid making the round fucky for everyone else involved.

I wanted to use admin prison but captain in a rev round.

You realize that me playing captain while juggling your pedantic and spammy ahelps is still more of a captain than the crew gets in 99% of rev rounds? I can multi-task, that's not an excuse.

Also the mere fact you contemplated using admin prison to get your way just reinforces that you're not a good fit for admin. Nobody ever uses prisons as admin because any decent admin immediately realized "Oh this is just a tool for griefing players who haven't been found guilty of anything bannable (because then they'd be, you know, banned)" and then promptly never used it.

by **Malkraz** » Sat Oct 13, 2018 2:12 am #445139

Nabski wrote:so I replaced you to avoid making the round fucky for everyone else involved.

Which part of that required you to ban him from the server?

by **Nabski** » Sat Oct 13, 2018 2:15 am #445140

Malkraz wrote:
Nabski wrote:so I replaced you to avoid making the round fucky for everyone else involved.

Which part of that required you to ban him from the server?

The part where he declared he wasn't going to answer me.

by **Malkraz** » Sat Oct 13, 2018 2:23 am #445143

Nabski wrote:The part where he declared he wasn't going to answer me.

Which rule did that break?

by **Nabski** » Sat Oct 13, 2018 2:28 am #445144

Malkraz wrote:
Nabski wrote:The part where he declared he wasn't going to answer me.

Which rule did that break?

6, with a dash of 0 for flavor.
In-game administration rulings are final.
Incidences of admin abuse, negligence or disputed rulings can be taken to the forums. If an admin says something was 'looked into, handled, resolved' etc, regarding an issue, it is unlikely an admin will provide any further information. Admins are under no obligation to reveal IC information. Deliberately lying or misrepresenting facts in adminhelps will be dealt with harshly.

This post was deleted by Nervere on Sat Oct 13, 2018 4:39 pm.
Reason: Rule 2 of complaint subforum - if you're uninvolved, stop posting.

by **Malkraz** » Sat Oct 13, 2018 2:40 am #445148

Nabski wrote:Deliberately lying or misrepresenting facts in adminhelps will be dealt with harshly.

Can you point to where he lied or misrepresented anything that happened?
Admin PM from-Nabski: I'm pretty sure I know what the answer is already, I just want to confirm it
"I remind him that it was an IC-statement from a Captain regarding IC-information that ultimately had no influence on the round"
It may be surmised from this that you knew how he got that information (presumably also knowing he got it through an IC method, which he told you it was), but you were using the ban as a threat to force him to confirm what you already knew because he was acting belligerent towards you. If it's a rule 0 then that's how it goes (which also carries with it this part "Admins are fully accountable for any consequences should they invoke this rule."), but I have trouble seeing how you can say he gave you inaccurate information and broke rule 6.

EDIT: I forgot this piece from Rule 0 precedents:
1. Rule 0 should only be invoked by admins when it is in the best interests of the server.

This post was deleted by Nervere on Sat Oct 13, 2018 5:16 pm.
Reason: Peanut posting. If you're not going to contribute in a civil or productive manner, stop posting.

by **Nabski** » Sat Oct 13, 2018 4:17 am #445178

Oh shoot, I thought this was a ban appeal not an admin complaint, and I had been treating it as such.
The first round this took place in was 95364, the second round was 95365 when the ban was applied.

I'll respond point by point as a result.

1.Yes.
2.This name was stupid, so I rejected it. It was so extremely OOC and kinda silly so I decided to go mess with the captain who did it by removing their legs.
3.I did this via deletion rather than "blowing them off" as that might actually damage something. I was glad to see they hadn't gotten past roundstart taking the laser gun so no-one would be impacted by it.
4.The first person to say something about your legs being gone was me, with a headset reply of "We made your feet less loud" to the announcement name. You prayed asking where they went, I responded again in kind, then ahealed you. This entire thing took about a minute and you didn't even interact with another player during it.
5-7. These actually happened before 2 and 3, You made the announcement 2 minutes in. Subject notices 7 (you telling security to be on the look out and says in asay and we discuss the different ways that you might have known if it was revs. Someone attacked the RD pretty early on and the AI caught on too. We have some discussion about what it could have been but I'm not sure so I just bwoink you and ask. I figure it'll either be something about the command report, as he noticed that it was on there twice. Personally I was betting you heard flashing.
8.Yep, nicely done revs.
9.It was three bwoinks because in the middle I copy and pasted your comment at you so you knew what I was asking about.
10. I actually did investigate that. They had reports of an engineer stealing from the captains office. You were an engineer running around with captains gear. They executed you.
11. You weren't "dead". Someone was still in your body running around since it was a revolution.
12. If you had left out the "quit being a cunt for 24 hours" and "my official answer" part then I likely would have believed you. I would have probably owed you some kind of token for this.
13. Since this is a complaint if someone wants to say I need to do bigger sentences so people don't get as many bwoinks then cool I'll do that. That's the style that I tend to write in. In this case I was trying to be as clear as I could where we were going to go, and I suspect I didn't make it clear enough that option one had no negative to it, while option two did.
14)We argue a bit more which is part of why it bled into the next round. Subject keeps chiming in with solid advice. At some point I make a comment that shows that I didn't even realize you were talking about an ahelp I handled last night with kangtut (I had originally thought you had been complaining about an ahelp that he answered for you).
15. Nerveres on at this point, there's some discussion in asay about what to do and he leave before I feel like I really have an answer. He tells me that I've messed up, which I already know. You've trash-talked semi hard at this point and I really want just a simple answer of "was it the report or not".
16. I once again said "answer the question" and you once again responded with "no I don't respect you". It's really hard to get shit done when people won't answer simple questions as an admin and that's an awful behavior that I didn't want to reward in any way, even by just letting it pass.

The leg bit was kinda power abuse, but also funny. If there actually was a BUG that caused the report to be wrong, taking advantage of that would be "bug abuse" which you're not allowed to do. Refusing to answer admin questions is gonna be a hard no from me here.

by **Malkraz** » Sat Oct 13, 2018 4:46 am #445186

11. You weren't "dead". Someone was still in your body running around since it was a revolution.
What would happen to that person if Oldman had given you an answer you wanted to a question you already knew the answer to?
12. If you had left out the "quit being a cunt for 24 hours" and "my official answer" part then I likely would have believed you. I would have probably owed you some kind of token for this.
Instead you gave him a ban for being belligerent in response to you threatening him with an illegitimate ban.
15. Nerveres on at this point, there's some discussion in asay about what to do and he leave before I feel like I really have an answer. HE TELLS ME THAT I'VE MESSED UP, WHICH I ALREADY KNOW. You've trash-talked semi hard at this point and I really want just a simple answer of "was it the report or not".
16. I once again said "answer the question" and you once again responded with "no I don't respect you". It's really hard to get shit done when people won't answer simple questions as an admin and that's an awful behavior that I didn't want to reward in any way, even by just letting it pass.
So you make up some reason to ban him for behavior in response to your own that isn't breaking any rules despite already knowing how he did it and being told by a headmin that you've messed up.
The leg bit was kinda power abuse, but also funny. If there actually was a BUG that caused the report to be wrong, taking advantage of that would be "bug abuse" which you're not allowed to do. Refusing to answer admin questions is gonna be a hard no from me here.
The entire thing was power abuse. According to Oldman, the command report listed revolution twice. Even without the bug, he had sufficient reason to be wary of a revolution occurring, making use of IC information. By his own statement was going to submit an issue report after the round. In fact, why even bring this up? At no point in this thread have you said you banned him for bug abuse. By your own statement, he was banned under Rules 0 and 6 for refusing to answer you (which neither covers).
And no point were any rules broken by Oldman, you were just looking for a reason against all reason to punish him for being disrespectful.

This post was deleted by Nervere on Sat Oct 13, 2018 5:19 pm.
Reason: Peanut posting. If you're not going to contribute in a civil or productive manner, stop posting.

by **iamgoofball** » Sat Oct 13, 2018 5:15 am #445190

Nabski wrote:Deliberately lying or misrepresenting facts in adminhelps will be dealt with harshly.

Let's look at this in specific, since it's the part of the rule you cherrypicked to """get away with this""".

Not only did he not lie, or deliberately misrepresent facts, but the rest of this rule does not apply.

You literally just asspulled rule 0 in order to get away with this.

You are a horrible, horrible person. I hope you pay for your deplorable actions by getting deadminned.

by **Nabski** » Sat Oct 13, 2018 5:28 am #445195

You absolutely should not give out your personal real life information, because it has nothing to do with the game.

I would however say that yes, you are obligated to share information you possess when it comes to the game. If you want to play the free game you give the free answers.

There's a difference there and it's not minor.

He didn't make the "I'm filling out a report" comment until the very end.

This post was deleted by TribeOfBeavers on Sat Oct 13, 2018 8:16 am.
Reason: Peqnut posting, not related to the complaint. Take it to fredback please.

This post was deleted by TribeOfBeavers on Sat Oct 13, 2018 8:17 am.
Reason: Empty quoting

by **Malkraz** » Sat Oct 13, 2018 5:34 am #445198

Nabski wrote:I would however say that yes, you are obligated to share information you possess when it comes to the game. If you want to play the free game you give the free answers.
There's a difference there and it's not minor.

Whether or not you feel he's obligated to do so, you banned him for a reason that isn't covered under any rules. Haven't you already been told in previous threads that you're stepping over the line with this shit by making up your own rules?

EDIT: Yes
viewtopic.php?p=438799#p438799

BeeSting12 wrote:Additionally, Nabski apparently likes to push what he wants the rules to be rather than what the rules actually are. Most recently, the thing about going out of his way to tell people off for usage of the word rape, and the "no nicknames" thing even though it's specifically allowed in naming policy.
If this was a small isolated instance on another admin, I wouldn't complain so much. However, this consistent hamfisted use of admin tools does not benefit the server or players. These things might not be complaint worthy on their own, but when a chain of incidents like these happen with the same admin, it's time for the admin to go.

by **iamgoofball** » Sat Oct 13, 2018 9:28 am #445224

Nabski wrote:You absolutely should not give out your personal real life information, because it has nothing to do with the game.

I would however say that yes, you are obligated to share information you possess when it comes to the game. If you want to play the free game you give the free answers.

There's a difference there and it's not minor.

He didn't make the "I'm filling out a report" comment until the very end.

So you're not going to address how zero rules were broken here except you asspulling rule 0? Nice attempt to dodge, except that I'm not a five year old and I have object permanence.

A rule was not broken here. You banned him for shits and giggles.

by **Nervere** » Sat Oct 13, 2018 1:42 pm #445263

Ahelp logs for round 95364:

Spoiler:

Ahelp logs for round 95365:

Spoiler:

[2018-10-13 00:08:50.332] ADMINPRIVATE: Ticket #1: ForcefulCJS/(ForcefulCJS): Ive reported every issue ive ever discovered that has a significant gameplay impact, you being a shitter admin does not benefit that process in the slightest - heard by 4 non-AFK admins who have +BAN.
[2018-10-13 00:15:27.471] ADMINPRIVATE: PM: Nabski/(Nabski)->ForcefulCJS/(Oldman Robustin): I appreciate that you've been here for a while, but that status does not give you excemption to the rules that everyone needs to follow
[2018-10-13 00:16:01.590] ADMINPRIVATE: PM: Nabski/(Nabski)->ForcefulCJS/(Oldman Robustin): I had simply wanted to know if there was still some kind of issue with the round start reports, or if there was something IC that had happened
[2018-10-13 00:16:14.642] ADMINPRIVATE: PM: Nabski/(Nabski)->ForcefulCJS/(Oldman Robustin): since you had some level of history of using the reports to meta things out
[2018-10-13 00:18:23.854] ADMINPRIVATE: PM: ForcefulCJS/(Oldman Robustin)->Nabski/(Nabski): If you were aware of that history then you would have known I worked harder than anyone to get rid of the report-meta issue. Fuck my last PR got closed because people still wanted some level of reliable information to be present in the report.
[2018-10-13 00:19:53.546] ADMINPRIVATE: PM: Nabski/(Nabski)->ForcefulCJS/(Oldman Robustin): I am really bad at coding, so I only follow github issues moderately. I had tried (and failed) to revive your modular room code for station goals and failed when it got stale and my branch got broken. I honestly can't remember who's PR's were what, I just remember there was DRAMA about it
[2018-10-13 00:21:12.783] ADMINPRIVATE: PM: ForcefulCJS/(Oldman Robustin)->Nabski/(Nabski): and since my statement was completely in character, you had absolutely no business using admin powers to punish me for not answering you to your satisfaction. Youre probably the only admin I would ever NOT tell about issues, you and that one retard who tried to ban me when I actually Ahelp'd a bug in camera links.
[2018-10-13 00:23:26.955] ADMINPRIVATE: PM: Nabski/(Nabski)->ForcefulCJS/(Oldman Robustin): I disagree about that. Admin powers are often an important tool for resolving peoples tickets. In this case you had dickishly implied you didn't have time to handle it so I replaced you rather than mess up the round by removing you/sending you to prison.
[2018-10-13 00:29:03.362] ADMINPRIVATE: PM: Nabski/(Nabski)->ForcefulCJS/(Oldman Robustin): alright last chance
[2018-10-13 00:29:40.336] ADMINPRIVATE: PM: Nabski/(Nabski)->ForcefulCJS/(Oldman Robustin): was it the report?
[2018-10-13 00:29:44.972] ADMINPRIVATE: PM: Nabski/(Nabski)->ForcefulCJS/(Oldman Robustin): aka a code issue
[2018-10-13 00:29:57.527] ADMINPRIVATE: PM: Nabski/(Nabski)->ForcefulCJS/(Oldman Robustin): where I can close this and move on
[2018-10-13 00:30:24.508] ADMINPRIVATE: PM: Nabski/(Nabski)->ForcefulCJS/(Oldman Robustin): or are you sticking to your "I don't have to tell you nuffin"
[2018-10-13 00:31:14.140] ADMINPRIVATE: PM: ForcefulCJS/(Oldman Robustin)->Nabski/(Nabski): Ill post whatever I figure out in my issue report on Github, which is where discussions like this belong, not with Nabski, adminbuser ace shittective over an IC statement I made as captain
[2018-10-13 00:34:27.332] ADMINPRIVATE: Nabski/(Gene Ball) has banned ForcefulCJS/(Oldman Robustin). - Reason: ForcefulCJS/(Oldman Robustin) - This will be removed in 60 minutes.

The ban reason in the ahelp logs is a bit weird. This is the ban reason:

Spoiler:

by **Cobby** » Sat Oct 13, 2018 2:39 pm #445277

Using a bug to influence your IC decisions pulls it into the OOC realm. Had this been with me I’d have banned you until the GitHub issue came since you weren’t going to explain it to me.

Also naming the station a meme opens yourself to memes. You don’t get immunity because you’re a head during a rev round.

Also reason 99999 why having the roundstart report to cheese modes is a bad feature.

This post was deleted by Arianya on Sat Oct 13, 2018 5:22 pm.
Reason: Yeah even with peanut policy this is violating.

by **Nervere** » Sat Oct 13, 2018 5:02 pm #445311

Originally, I purged most of the posts in this thread because they violated the old rule 2 of the complaints subforum.

Admins Complaints Rules wrote:2. If you are not directly involved with the complaint (You are the guy who was banned, you saw what happened, you were his victim, etc.) then do not post in the complaint.

I decided that's stupid, talked it over with the other headmins, and we're going to replace this rule with Peanut Policy as seen in the Ban Appeals subforum.
This will allow uninvolved parties to make relevant, civil contributions to threads like this.

by **Oldman Robustin** » Sat Oct 13, 2018 5:07 pm #445312

"This entire thing took about a minute and you didn't even interact with another player during it." - One of the reasons I don't play Captain much is that I take the role seriously and when you play Captain seriously it's a very involved process. Therefore it's extremely frustrating when some Hyuckity admin decides to fuck with you and do something like literally cut your legs off instead of just rejecting the station name if they didn't like it.

"I actually did investigate that. They had reports of an engineer stealing from the captains office. You were an engineer running around with captains gear. They executed you." - I had already explained to both the HOS, and you, that the suicided engineer that was literally adjacent to the Captain's locker was the one responsible. They had stolen the locker, and once the emitters popped it open they said something like "my job here is done" and suicided. I made no secret of this and took the ID and sword and crown, when a real captain showed up I gave them their sword on the arrival shuttle. When the engine began to delam about 10 minutes later, HOS arrests me as I'm turning off emitters next to the popped locker and suicide engineer. I explained that the suicide engineer was the one responsible for stealing the locker but in typical Fred Best style he just went ahead and killed me. The HOS could've easily verified my story with a fingerprint scan, or even asking who had stolen the locker on radio (the HOP was already who was acting captain, had witnessed the original theft, was already cool with me keeping Cap Swag). So it's pretty fucked up when Acting Captain, then Actual Captain, both don't give a shit about you looting from an already-stolen locker but 10 minutes later when you're fixing the engine the HOS just pops in and kills you and the only admin signs off on it using 1st Grader logic "Engineer stole locker, another Engineer has Cap Swag, valid salad IC issue". Personally speaking I can say its incredibly common for Cap's locker to get dragged into public and find people stomping around in parade vests, capes, etc. for the rest of the round, and I know if I just went around executing everyone in Captain Gear for "grand theft", there are plenty of admins who would've banned me for that... it's not an easy issue so that's why I was pissy about you just rejecting the AHelp.

"You weren't dead" - I was playing the round, and then I was a ghost. It was less disruptive to the round for other players but from my perspective, I was killed with no warning by an admin trying to swing their dick around.

"If you had left out the "quit being a cunt for 24 hours" and "my official answer" part then I likely would have believed you. I would have probably owed you some kind of token for this." - The entire point of the lesson was that you'll get more out of players if you act professionally. This entire conversation was littered with opportunities for either of us to back down and say "Sorry, things got off on the wrong foot" and de-escalate. Unfortunately I have the kind of personality where I'd rather eat a ban than reward you for adminbuse - and unfortunately you have the kind of personality where you'd rather drop a ban than admit you were just using your powers to bully someone for giving you snark. Lastly you blew the best chance to de-escalate when you ghosted me after ONE snarky response to your first ahelp about the radio message - I've never had an admin pull that stunt on me before, even with previous notorious dick-swingers - they'd at least stick to ban threats.

"I once again said "answer the question" and you once again responded with "no I don't respect you"." This was the part where you should have realized this had become about your ego, you couldn't walk away after a player had dissed you. My answer to the question had 0 bearing on the new round and there was nothing for you to do about it anyway since I had already told you about my history of trying to reduce Command Report meta. I made my last point very clear, if there was an issue I was going to take the most efficient and direct route to solving it - the discussion in Ahelp had become 100% about your bruised ego and had no coherent relationship to any conceivable rule enforcement.

by **ishortjr33** » Sat Oct 13, 2018 5:18 pm #445314

Nervere wrote:Originally, I purged most of the posts in this thread because they violated the old rule 2 of the complaints subforum.
Admins Complaints Rules wrote:2. If you are not directly involved with the complaint (You are the guy who was banned, you saw what happened, you were his victim, etc.) then do not post in the complaint.

I decided that's stupid, talked it over with the other headmins, and we're going to replace this rule with Peanut Policy as seen in the Ban Appeals subforum.
This will allow uninvolved parties to make relevant, civil contributions to threads like this.

That's awesome of you guys it's a shame some quality posts are now gone though that really took Nabski to task for this.

Nabski was one of the first and one of the worst admin interactions I've ever had here. Nervere you've talked to me before right, with Lmevil, and it took awhile but we shook hands. That's the way admin interactions should be more or less. Amicable, without prejudice, without malice and without bias. I appreciate that about the current administration team but Nabski does not seem to be onboard with that at all.

He validhunts as a fucking admin and that's so incredibly toxic. It calls any of his notes, bans and conduct into question.

by **Oldman Robustin** » Sat Oct 13, 2018 5:42 pm #445326

Also @Cobby's deleted message. You take things waaayyy too far there bro. Revolution showed up in the Command Report. I warned Security to watch for Revolutionary Activity. For admins that should 100% be the end of any scrutiny about my statement - if an admin wants to scrutinize a possible bug - they should do so in a completely co-operative stance, basically re-assuring the player that they only want info to help them improve the game, basically the opposite of what Nabski did. My character had IC information about a possible revolutionary threat and chose to communicate that potential threat to my Security Team. It would be a different story if I had said "WEVE GOT REVS BOYS" and started ordering implants. I read the command report because AFAIK it still provides useful intel and my last PR to make it borderline useless was closed. The only high-level threats on the report were Nukeops and Revs, and so I did the rational thing: I warned security about possible Revs and took the usual precautions with the disk. Revolutions are best stopped as early as possible in the shift and the first step towards mitigation is something that security should be doing anyway, patrolling. Since the community has decided to keep useful information about the round inside the command report, it feels insane to try and persecute a captain who uses it for that explicit purpose.

I had also noticed that Revs did show up 2x on the report and I obviously wondered if it was a new bug, it was my first round as captain since I've been back so I had no basis to assume it meant the round type was Revs. It was only until the next round when the same bug happened (and it was Revs again), that I began to have a firmer basis to believe that the Report might be revealing the mode.

Also @Nabski. Did anyone ever actually ahelp my message? Your messages indicated that you "needed" answers from me to resolve tickets from "other players", but the logs seem to indicate that nobody even ahelped about it.

by **ishortjr33** » Sat Oct 13, 2018 6:45 pm #445336

viewtopic.php?f=54&t=16275
viewtopic.php?f=54&t=19186
viewtopic.php?f=54&t=19604
viewtopic.php?f=34&t=19886

You are demonstrably a shitmin, beyond that the same behavior is being exhibited more than once even after your betters have asked you to either reign it in or consult with them. Users are held to a higher standard and accountability than you. Like I said this calls into question your conduct, your notes and your bans. It makes me question how many people did NOT speak up on the forums due to effort or thinking you'd reprise them for it. I let your interaction slide because I thought what would the point be? I feel stupid for doing that now.

From the OP.
" (last night I ahelped about the HOS (Fred Best) instantly executed me while I was repairing then engine because I was wearing captain shit that another engineer had stolen and dumped - Nabski blew me off and gave me the Ol' IC ISSUE "
If this was anyone but another admin, in this case KangTut one of your friends, would you feel you would have done the same? How was what KangTut did valid as per the rules? Does he get a pass because he's an admin and admins are somehow better than users? I'm only going by your behavior when dealing with users is all.

by **Nabski** » Sat Oct 13, 2018 9:56 pm #445375

I agree that we both hit a point where we were frustrated by the other person and stopped handling things well.

The reason I continued to press it into the new round was because I don't think it's acceptable for a player to just decide that he doesn't want to answer an admins question.

No, no-one ever ahelped your comment/message. I looked into it because the other admin online at the time questioned why you acted that way. I figured the best way to get to the bottom of it was just ask, but then attitudes got in the way on both sides and it ended up here.

by **Nilons** » Sat Oct 13, 2018 10:17 pm #445377

"Not answering an admins question" is not against the rules

The closest thing as far as I can tell is rule 6 precedent 2

Lying in adminhelps, misrepresenting facts deliberately, or logging off when an admin has asked a question may result in permabans. Admins will not automatically place bans for players logging off however, and will generally wait a while in case real life situations caused a player to disconnect or go afk.

Which can loosely be connected by players logging off not answering the admins questions in which case they're asked to explain on the forums. However he wasn't fully ignoring you, you just didn't like his answers and that he was being a snarky cunt, which can be tied to the recent admin disrespect thread

viewtopic.php?f=33&t=18721&p=426927&hilit=admin+disrespect#p426927

But even then the last post by a headmin said it was reserved for very egregious cases.

CitrusGender wrote:Still, you won't get banned for "being mean to admins in ahelps" unless you're really going out of your way to do so.

So he didn't answer your question(in a way that you liked), but he didnt log off, and he was a bit of a prick in ahelps, but he wasnt really going that far out of his way to do so, there's no real precedent or basis for this ban as far as the rules and the policy I dug up goes

by **ishortjr33** » Sat Oct 13, 2018 10:32 pm #445378

Nabski wrote:I agree that we both hit a point where we were frustrated by the other person and stopped handling things well.

The reason I continued to press it into the new round was because I don't think it's acceptable for a player to just decide that he doesn't want to answer an admins question.

No, no-one ever ahelped your comment/message. I looked into it because the other admin online at the time questioned why you acted that way. I figured the best way to get to the bottom of it was just ask, but then attitudes got in the way on both sides and it ended up here.

Hello. You reap what you sew, from the logs you were a piece of garbage to him right off the hop with the way you conducted yourself so please don't try to defuse it, dilute it or refute it by pointing a finger at him and going "b-b-but he mean toooooo" Grow a spine and realize the onus is on you to be professional as an admin which in the threads I've linked you obviously have a very hard time with. Don't deflect by pointing a finger at your accuser like such because it only adds to you looking like an asshole, asshole.
There's no justification for your behavior towards this guy, nor what you did to Freddy. You can't use headcanon to administrate or your personal feelings. You're incapable of grasping these simple concepts and it makes you completely unfit for adminship. I say again it calls in all your previous ban appeals, admin complaints, event fuckery, and just how many times you may have toed this same line with other players.

If you do not feel that you should be deadminned you should at the very least go back to trialmin and start some kind of probation where your behaviors can be monitored. Users don't get the same graces you do unfortunately so I'd call yourself lucky if you receive no punishment from this. A head admin has warned you about shit like this previously.

by **Malkraz** » Sat Oct 13, 2018 10:35 pm #445379

Cobby wrote:Using a bug to influence your IC decisions pulls it into the OOC realm. Had this been with me I’d have banned you until the GitHub issue came since you weren’t going to explain it to me.

This reasoning is totally understandable, because the threat of ban is founded upon an actual rule violation and choosing not to defend himself against that suspicion doesn't do him any favors.
However, I believe whether or not he broke a rule by exploiting a bug is not a relevant discussion regarding this ban and complaint because by Nabski's own statements he was banned under Rules 0 and 6 "for refusing to respond".

Nabski wrote:The reason I continued to press it into the new round was because I don't think it's acceptable for a player to just decide that he doesn't want to answer an admins question.

You're so close to admitting you didn't ban him for breaking the rules.

This post was deleted by TribeOfBeavers on Sat Oct 13, 2018 11:31 pm.
Reason: Please don't shitpost in complaints

by **Fatal** » Sun Oct 14, 2018 8:34 am #445529

I don't understand why the Captain telling people to watch for rev activity is any sort of bwoinkable situation at all, even if there is some bug with the report

If he had said, hey go implant a bunch of people randomly and beat people around the head before anything happened, then for sure

And then kicking him out of his body so he can answer some questions, well, I get Forceful was being an ass, but you basically ruined his round, and then expected him to answer more questions, I doubt any player is going to respond reasonably after that

We're all here to have fun, when an admin actively ruins someones round like that, it stops being fun

by **Dax Dupont** » Sun Oct 14, 2018 8:41 am #445531

Fatal wrote:I don't understand why the Captain telling people to watch for rev activity is any sort of bwoinkable situation at all, even if there is some bug with the report

If he had said, hey go implant a bunch of people randomly and beat people around the head before anything happened, then for sure

And then kicking him out of his body so he can answer some questions, well, I get Forceful was being an ass, but you basically ruined his round, and then expected him to answer more questions, I doubt any player is going to respond reasonably after that

We're all here to have fun, when an admin actively ruins someones round like that, it stops being fun

I think Nabski was concerned about someone either 1. gaming the round type or 2. metagaming.

Those can be bwoinkable situations if you're like wtf they can't possible know for sure it's revs out of the blue and you enquire.

Bwoink doesn't mean something you've done something bad but most of the time it's information gathering. I'm not stating this applies or doesn't apply to this situation and it's pure from administrative point of view how this are normally done.

by **BeeSting12** » Sun Oct 14, 2018 5:07 pm #445632

Nabski had no reason to forcefully (see what I did there?) eject Robustin from his body during the conversation. Robustin's response was a bit dickish and filled with salt from the previous night's IC issue, yes, but he was obviously active and responding to ahelps. The only time that sort of thing should be used is when you bwoink someone, they're not responding, and they're currently mass murdering the whole station. Other than that extremely edge case situation, it's been a precedent that IC happenings take priority over explaining to an admin why you killed So And So. A captain in the middle of a rev round doesn't have time to argue about that sort of thing.

The whole time, Nabski antagonized Robustin through admin PMs, examples below. I just highlighted two, but the whole ticket should be put in a trialmin guide on how not to bwoink someone. You're supposed to be nonconfrontational throughout it rather than acting like a dick the whole time. I can easily see where Robustin got the whole "powerboner" impression, that's exactly what I thought when I was reading too. Assuming you stay an admin I'd recommend reading the guide to handling adminhelps we give every new trialmin because you went against about half of the points in that guide.

Spoiler:

by **Cobby** » Mon Oct 15, 2018 4:41 am #445799

Oldman Robustin wrote:Also @Cobby's deleted message...

If I asked you what prompted it then it should end with a "Command report had it twice so figured it needed extra attention, I'll fix/report it end of round if it's a bug that reveals the mode", yes.

Is that how this situation went?

by **Oldman Robustin** » Mon Oct 15, 2018 5:11 pm #446060

Cobby wrote:
Oldman Robustin wrote:Also @Cobby's deleted message...

If I asked you what prompted it then it should end with a "Command report had it twice so figured it needed extra attention, I'll fix/report it end of round if it's a bug that reveals the mode", yes.

Is that how this situation went?

I think you're still missing the point here.

The command report mentioned Revs, the captain told security to be on the lookout for revolutionary activity.

At that point there is no ground for any investigation of "rule-breaking". If you suspect that a bug was the cause of the captain's statement, then an admin should approach them in a collaborative manner.

If the player doesn't give the admin a straight answer because, I don't know, maybe because the admin had just removed their legs as a lame gimmick and blown off an ahelp from them the last round you had been together - that doesn't suddenly empower you to kick them out of their body and threaten to ban them. It seems pretty weird that you're still here looking for ways to criticize me instead of acknowledging how out-of-line Nabski was - or that you're acting like players and admins are held to the same standard when interacting in ahelps.

by **WarbossLincoln** » Mon Oct 15, 2018 6:24 pm #446099

Threads like these are why I love the Space Jailhouse Report boards.

Gotta agree with Oldman, and I definitely see why he got rude in the ahelps, I would have too. Sounds like he's been getting shit on by Nabski over multiple rounds and got pissed when Nabski started grilling him over telling Security to watch out for the obvious and dangerous threat on the round start report. Oldman handled the round and possible bug in a completely reasonable way but Nabski blew a gasket and fucked with him because he didn't want to deal with Nabski's BS at the time.

by **Nabski** » Mon Oct 15, 2018 8:04 pm #446131

Oldman Robustin wrote:
Cobby wrote:
Oldman Robustin wrote:Also @Cobby's deleted message...

If I asked you what prompted it then it should end with a "Command report had it twice so figured it needed extra attention, I'll fix/report it end of round if it's a bug that reveals the mode", yes.

Is that how this situation went?

SNIP.

I don't see why a previous ruling from another round that you didn't like the outcome of meant that you felt you didn't need to answer my investigative question.

The first time that I "threatened to ban you" was here, after I realized that things were becoming argumentative and tried to state that our two options were collaborative or hostile, with hostile being the one that ends poorly.

Spoiler:

To which you replied in a manner that was hostile again.

The first time you actually mentioned the command report was after I had brought it up, in the second round.

by **Malkraz** » Mon Oct 15, 2018 10:27 pm #446194

Nabski wrote:The first time that I "threatened to ban you" was here, after I realized that things were becoming argumentative and tried to state that our two options were collaborative or hostile, with hostile being the one that ends poorly.

For a reason that isn't covered by any of the rules. Can you just say it already so I can stop posting?

by **NikNakFlak** » Mon Oct 15, 2018 10:42 pm #446200

I don't know why you and others reference not answering an admin as "not covered by the rules." If an admin questions you, and you blow them off, expect rebuttals in the form of attitude or bans.

Bwoink: "Hey why did you space the clown?"
Player: "Fuck you, where in the rules does it state I have to respond"

I'm not saying nabski handled this the best, but that argument is just pants on really dumb.

by **Malkraz** » Mon Oct 15, 2018 10:44 pm #446202

NikNakFlak wrote:I don't know why you and others reference not answering an admin as "not covered by the rules."
I'm not saying nabski handled this the best, but that argument is just pants on really dumb.

Because it isn't. If you're being talked to about something bannable and you blow off the admin, expect to be banned for the thing that's bannable because you decided not to defend yourself, validating the idea that you did it. Nabski never once said that Oldman was being talked to about something that was going to potentially get him banned, only that he was banned because Nabski didn't like the way he responded.

by **Nilons** » Mon Oct 15, 2018 10:45 pm #446203

NikNakFlak wrote:I don't know why you and others reference not answering an admin as "not covered by the rules." If an admin questions you, and you blow them off, expect rebuttals in the form of attitude or bans.

Bwoink: "Hey why did you space the clown?"
Player: "Fuck you, where in the rules does it state I have to respond"

I'm not saying nabski handled this the best, but that argument is just pants on really dumb.

Yeah but if you looked in the logs and he didn't space the clown I doubt you'd be justified in banning him for telling you to fuck off

by **NikNakFlak** » Mon Oct 15, 2018 10:54 pm #446207

Getting told to fuck off for inquiring about something even before bans were brought up due to a past unrelated incident is shit. Bans threats are bad but so is being a shitter and hindering an inquiry. Nabski blew up in a bad way but all that was needed is oldman not being an egolord too. Both people are in the wrong here.

by **Malkraz** » Mon Oct 15, 2018 11:15 pm #446219

NikNakFlak wrote:Bans threats are bad but so is being a shitter and hindering an inquiry. Nabski blew up in a bad way but all that was needed is oldman not being an egolord too. Both people are in the wrong here.

I think most of us are in agreement from this. The complaint is due to the fact that admins should be held to a higher standard and are expected to not ban people when they haven't broken any rules. Oldman being mean doesn't justify banning Oldman for being mean.

by **Lazengann** » Mon Oct 15, 2018 11:46 pm #446224

this is just the napkin ban again but CJS is less napkin