Moderators: In-Game Head Admins, In-Game Admin, Game Server Operators
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.
Nabski wrote:so I replaced you to avoid making the round fucky for everyone else involved.
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?
Nabski wrote:The part where he declared he wasn't going to answer me.
Malkraz wrote:Nabski wrote:The part where he declared he wasn't going to answer me.
Which rule did that break?
Nabski wrote:Deliberately lying or misrepresenting facts in adminhelps will be dealt with harshly.
Nabski wrote:Deliberately lying or misrepresenting facts in adminhelps will be dealt with harshly.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Stickymayhem wrote:you're right!
Oldman Robustin wrote:Also @Cobby's deleted message...
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Return to Successful Complaints
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest