[CoffeeDragon16] - Killing antags? Not on my watch

Appeals which have been closed.
Locked
Zybwivcz
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2018 5:30 am
Byond Username: Zybwivcz

[CoffeeDragon16] - Killing antags? Not on my watch

Post by Zybwivcz » #642084

BYOND account: Zybwivcz
Character Name: Josh Meyers
Ban type: Note
Ban length: N/A
Round Number: 183740
Time ban was placed: 2022-05-25 02:10:27
Server you were playing on when banned: Sybil
Your side of the story:

I caught a heretic in the brig, they were wearing one of those eyeball amulets, I stunbaton them to check their bag and it's full of heretic knives. After cuffing them I drag them to perma, but perma has been trashed and the power is all off. I then kill them, lop off their head with an axe and drop it off at robotics. This, apparently, is a problem.

The note in question:
Has a consistent pattern of toeing rule 12 by constant validhunting as security while almost never talking. Has a huge amount of notes for abuse of security, and is on thin ice. Was talked to and told if they continued this behavior it would likely result in a large ban, hold them to it.
Admin contacts me. I explain why I killed the antagonist. Response:
Admin PM from-CoffeeDragon16: Right, but they were unarmed, cuffed, and in perma, and you beheaded their corpse*, it's just incredibly dickish to do that when they're already a non-threat
*the corpse was beheaded so I could drop the head off at robotics as mentioned above.

I explain that perma was trashed and the power was off making its already limited ability to hold someone securely even worse. But that wasn't enough. What should I have done instead?
for the love of god just build a grille or something next time or get an engineer there
you literally could have just gone to the sec lathe and grabbed some iron and built a wall or two

I should have instead "built a wall or two" or "just build a grille or something" and leave the heretic, an antag whose advancement is focused on killing people, alive in the unpowered brig now presumably sufficiently secured by a grille or something or a wall or two.
Admin PM from-CoffeeDragon16: actually that's fair i forgot something about how biddle heretics work- though, if you didn't see them use the spell i'm going to say that's not a good reason
This is after I remind the admin that heretics have access to teleport, the response is that I should apparently have waited for them to escape from custody by teleporting away.


Why you think you should be unbanned: I killed a confirmed antagonist.

Using the faculty of sight to see someone is wearing a heretic necklace is not "validhunting". Stunning said person and finding heretic knives in their backpack is not "validhunting". The admin's complaints weren't even about "validhunting" but about how the antagonist was killed and borged which makes the note make even less sense.

Again, after seeing someone who was almost certainly a heretic, and then checking to be absolutely certain they were a heretic, and then instead of just killing them outright taking them to perma and then when perma proves to be insecure killing them and taking their head to robotics to be borged is not "validhunting".
User avatar
CoffeeDragon16
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 3:31 pm
Byond Username: CoffeeDragon16

Re: [CoffeeDragon16] - Killing antags? Not on my watch

Post by CoffeeDragon16 » #642091

As I said in the ticket: "i'm unhappy about it but i don't think its rule breaking"
I was missing information when I ahelped you. I was unaware that perma-brig was busted up, meaning it was unreasonable for you to easily brig the heretic. When I learned this, I told you that the situation with the prisoner wasn't rule breaking. I should have explained that better. I have no issue with the situation with the prisoner, and it was not why you were noted. After that, I was just using that we had a conversation going on to segue into talking about the broader issues with how you play.
This is after I remind the admin that heretics have access to teleport, the response is that I should apparently have waited for them to escape from custody by teleporting away.
You are misunderstanding what I said here. I said that if you never saw them use the spell, I found that unreasonable, as traitors and changelings still get brigged even though they could have an implant or an armblade.
*the corpse was beheaded so I could drop the head off at robotics as mentioned above.
Ah, I was unaware. Thank you, though you did do it only after I told you that you should have done that.

I was simply upset that I saw the same playstyle that I see players frequently take issue with and that I find to be unfun to have on the servers. From what I've seen of you, you almost entirely play Security, never talk, and spend the entire time validhunting and round removing valids whenever you can. This is boring and not fun for other players, and is against rule 12, given this is a long-time habit. I frequently see both players and admins complain about your playstyle, and have a ridiculous amount of notes and bans for it.
Last edited by CoffeeDragon16 on Wed May 25, 2022 4:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image ImageImageImageImageImageImage
Zybwivcz
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2018 5:30 am
Byond Username: Zybwivcz

Re: [CoffeeDragon16] - Killing antags? Not on my watch

Post by Zybwivcz » #642093

CoffeeDragon16 wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 4:25 amYou are misunderstanding what I said here. I said that if you never saw them use the spell, I found that unreasonable, as traitors and changelings still get brigged even though they could have an implant or an armblade.
Nobody permabrigs changelings because that would be stupid. When a changeling is discovered, they get killed and gibbed. Yes, even if they haven't yet changed into a monkey or burned out of the cuffs or exploded into a headcrab.
spend the entire time validhunting and round removing valids whenever you can. This is boring and not fun for other players
Define "validhunting" in a way that covers seeing someone wearing heretic gear, and then finding heretic blades in their backpack.

CoffeeDragon16 wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 4:25 am As I said in the ticket: "i'm unhappy about it but i don't think its rule breaking"
It's not rule breaking. It's not rule breaking adjacent. It's absolutely unquestionably entirely within the universally(or almost universally, it seems) understood server rules on antags. It wouldn't be rule breaking on MRP. It isn't rule breaking on LRP. If a HRP server gets spun up then it won't be rule breaking to kill a confirmed heretic there either. You don't seem to understand those rules well enough to apply them properly, which is the problem.
User avatar
CoffeeDragon16
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 3:31 pm
Byond Username: CoffeeDragon16

Re: [CoffeeDragon16] - Killing antags? Not on my watch

Post by CoffeeDragon16 » #642094

As I said in both the ticket and the appeal, the situation with the heretic was not rule-breaking. I was missing information when I ahelped you, and told you this once I realized my mistake. I made the note because of your history as security, and not because of the heretic.
Image ImageImageImageImageImageImage
User avatar
Pandarsenic
In-Game Admin
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 11:56 pm
Byond Username: Pandarsenic
Location: AI Upload

Re: [CoffeeDragon16] - Killing antags? Not on my watch

Post by Pandarsenic » #642105

Attached are your Say/Emote/etc. logs for the round, per https://scrubby.melonmesa.com/round/183 ... e=game.txt

12:50:21 GAME Zybwivcz/(Josh Meyers) Client Zybwivcz/(Josh Meyers) has taken ownership of mob Josh Meyers(/mob/living/carbon/human) (46, 137, 2) Arrival Shuttle
12:51:32 SAY Zybwivcz/(Josh Meyers) "Arrest Sergio, has a baton" (111, 166, 2) Brig
12:52:38 SAY Zybwivcz/(Josh Meyers) "BORG" (85, 148, 2) Storage Wing
12:52:40 SAY Zybwivcz/(Josh Meyers) "GET OVER HERE" (84, 147, 2) Storage Wing
12:52:44 EMOTE Zybwivcz/(Josh Meyers) points at Vault (84, 156, 2) Storage Wing
12:52:45 EMOTE Zybwivcz/(Josh Meyers) points at Vault (84, 156, 2) Storage Wing
12:53:08 EMOTE Zybwivcz/(Josh Meyers) points at Vault (84, 161, 2) Vault
12:53:11 SAY Zybwivcz/(Josh Meyers) "can't breathe" (84, 161, 2) Vault
12:53:18 SAY Zybwivcz/(Josh Meyers) "THAT DOESN'T HELP" (83, 162, 2) Vault
12:53:43 WHISPER Zybwivcz/(Josh Meyers) "death to the borgs" (83, 158, 2) Storage Wing
12:53:43 EMOTE Zybwivcz/(Josh Meyers) seizes up and falls limp, his eyes dead and lifeless... (83, 158, 2) Storage Wing

12:53:45 GAME Zybwivcz/(Josh Meyers) Client Zybwivcz/(Josh Meyers) has taken ownership of mob Josh Meyers(/mob/dead/observer) (83, 158, 2) Storage Wing
12:56:54 GAME Zybwivcz/(Josh Meyers) Client Zybwivcz/(Josh Meyers) has taken ownership of mob Josh Meyers(/mob/living/carbon/human) (85, 105, 2) Medbay Treatment Center
12:56:58 EMOTE Zybwivcz/(Josh Meyers) gasps! (85, 105, 2) Medbay Treatment Center
12:58:09 EMOTE Zybwivcz/(Josh Meyers) snores. (81, 111, 2) Cryogenics
12:58:15 EMOTE Zybwivcz/(Josh Meyers) snores. (81, 111, 2) Cryogenics
12:58:29 EMOTE Zybwivcz/(Josh Meyers) snores. (81, 111, 2) Cryogenics
01:00:45 SAY Zybwivcz/(Josh Meyers) "AI open" (106, 169, 2) Brig
01:00:54 SAY Zybwivcz/(Josh Meyers) "missed a spot" (113, 165, 2) Brig
01:01:04 SAY Zybwivcz/(Josh Meyers) "nice necklace" (118, 165, 2) Brig
01:02:01 SAY Zybwivcz/(Josh Meyers) "well this place is messed up" (92, 182, 2) Prison Wing
01:02:05 SAY Zybwivcz/(Josh Meyers) "What happened to permabrig?" (91, 183, 2) Prison Wing
01:03:35 SAY Zybwivcz/(Josh Meyers) "AI door" (106, 171, 2) Armory
01:04:36 SAY Zybwivcz/(Josh Meyers) "yes?" (117, 165, 2) Brig
01:05:25 SAY Zybwivcz/(Josh Meyers) "No beacon" (99, 122, 2) Teleporter Room
01:05:29 SAY Zybwivcz/(Josh Meyers) "Tough luck" (102, 127, 2) Command Hallway
01:06:14 SAY Zybwivcz/(Josh Meyers) "AI door" (117, 129, 2) Captain's Quarters
01:06:33 SAY Zybwivcz/(Josh Meyers) "AI door" (117, 129, 2) Captain's Quarters
01:07:03 SAY Zybwivcz/(Josh Meyers) "I could if you'd OPEN THE DOOR" (117, 129, 2) Captain's Quarters
01:09:46 SAY Zybwivcz/(Josh Meyers) "Get the turret!" (215, 136, 2) AI Satellite Antechamber
01:10:00 GAME Zybwivcz/(Josh Meyers) has teleported from (AI Satellite Antechamber (216,136,2)) to (Bridge (106,136,2)) (106, 136, 2) Bridge
01:10:07 SAY Zybwivcz/(Josh Meyers) "probably" (107, 137, 2) Bridge
01:10:09 SAY Zybwivcz/(Josh Meyers) "all AI are evil" (107, 137, 2) Bridge
01:12:34 SAY Zybwivcz/(Josh Meyers) "hey" (109, 99, 2) Aft Primary Hallway
01:12:36 SAY Zybwivcz/(Josh Meyers) "heretic brain here" (109, 99, 2) Aft Primary Hallway
01:12:40 EMOTE Zybwivcz/(Josh Meyers) points at Junaiper Values's head (109, 99, 2) Aft Primary Hallway
01:14:26 SAY Zybwivcz/(Josh Meyers) "Who and where?" (134, 93, 2) Research Division
01:14:59 SAY Zybwivcz/(Josh Meyers) "AI is Robocop" (126, 97, 2) Security Post - Science
01:17:57 SAY Zybwivcz/(Josh Meyers) "shoot him back" (130, 137, 2) Starboard Primary Hallway
01:18:48 SAY Zybwivcz/(Josh Meyers) "yeah" (117, 145, 2) Central Primary Hallway
01:18:53 SAY Zybwivcz/(Josh Meyers) "didn't say I wouldn't arrest you for it" (115, 145, 2) Central Primary Hallway
01:19:19 SAY Zybwivcz/(Josh Meyers) "neat" (121, 144, 2) Central Primary Hallway
01:21:43 SAY Zybwivcz/(Josh Meyers) "AI laws" (107, 168, 2) Brig
01:28:42 SAY Zybwivcz/(Josh Meyers) "good hustle team" (131, 192, 13) Emergency Shuttle
01:30:56 EMOTE Zybwivcz/(Josh Meyers) seizes up and falls limp, his eyes dead and lifeless... (214, 78, 1) Escape Shuttle Brig
01:31:02 GAME Zybwivcz/(Josh Meyers) Client Zybwivcz/(Josh Meyers) has taken ownership of mob Josh Meyers(/mob/dead/observer) (214, 77, 1) Escape Shuttle Brig
01:31:15 ACCESS Logout: Zybwivcz/(Josh Meyers)
01:31:15 GAME Zybwivcz[DC]/(Josh Meyers) Zybwivcz[DC]/(Josh Meyers) is no longer owning mob Josh Meyers(/mob/dead/observer)
Zybwivcz
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2018 5:30 am
Byond Username: Zybwivcz

Re: [CoffeeDragon16] - Killing antags? Not on my watch

Post by Zybwivcz » #642179

CoffeeDragon16 wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 4:46 am As I said in both the ticket and the appeal, the situation with the heretic was not rule-breaking. I was missing information when I ahelped you, and told you this once I realized my mistake. I made the note because of your history as security, and not because of the heretic.
Again, it's not rule breaking. It's not adjacent to rule breaking. It's not adjacent to adjacent to rule breaking. It's entirely the expected resolution of finding a heretic. It's normal, acceptable, advisable conduct. You can't add a note that's effectively "You did everything as you should have, but I'm giving you a note for having notes".
User avatar
CoffeeDragon16
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 3:31 pm
Byond Username: CoffeeDragon16

Re: [CoffeeDragon16] - Killing antags? Not on my watch

Post by CoffeeDragon16 » #642186

Again, it's not rule breaking. It's not adjacent to rule breaking. It's not adjacent to adjacent to rule breaking. It's entirely the expected resolution of finding a heretic. It's normal, acceptable, advisable conduct.
Correct. This is not why I gave you the note, and it is not relevant.
You can't add a note that's effectively "You did everything as you should have, but I'm giving you a note for having notes".
While the situation with the heretic was not rule breaking, I wanted to use the time I already had with you to talk about it. I gave you this note under encouragement from two head admins and several other admins.

From the note appeal rules:
For those reasons, notes can be appealed if they match one of the following two cases:

1. The note is factually or materially incorrect.

2. The note's contents or existence is unjustifiably harsh to the player's standing in the eyes of admins reading the notes.
a. Notes that contain admin opinions that unfairly paint the player in a bad light are one example.
i. Emphasis on the phrase "unfairly". If you're repeatedly a shitter and an admin calls you a shitter in a note just take the hint and improve on not being a shitter
Image ImageImageImageImageImageImage
Zybwivcz
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2018 5:30 am
Byond Username: Zybwivcz

Re: [CoffeeDragon16] - Killing antags? Not on my watch

Post by Zybwivcz » #642192

CoffeeDragon16 wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 11:51 pm
Again, it's not rule breaking. It's not adjacent to rule breaking. It's not adjacent to adjacent to rule breaking. It's entirely the expected resolution of finding a heretic. It's normal, acceptable, advisable conduct.
Correct. This is not why I gave you the note, and it is not relevant.
There was no "validhunting", the note says there was. It says I was 'toeing' Rule 12, it's not remotely interpretable as that. The note said that if "this behavior" continued it would result in a large ban. What is the behavior that occurred in this round that is referred to in "this behavior"? Again, they were wearing a heretic necklace, when searched as a result of that they had heretic knives in their backpack. The note is about validhunting, your complaints in chat were instead about what was done with the heretic after they were caught. You can feel free to think it's "dickish" to kill a heretic but it's entirely your own opinion contrary to the rules and even then it's based on the admitted misperception that leaving a heretic alive behind a grille or something renders them a non-threat. Rule 4:
Non-antagonists can do whatever they want to antagonists as per lone antagonists, but non-antagonists are not allowed to pre-emptively search for, hinder or otherwise seek conflict with antagonists without reasonable prior cause.

If you agree that what happened was "normal, acceptable, advisable conduct" then why did you add a menacing warning with a big red (!!!) next to it? That's not a "did nothing wrong" warning. That's not how warnings work. The cops don't pull you over and give you a warning for speeding when they catch you doing 55 in a 65 mph zone.
User avatar
Scriptis
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2021 12:05 am
Byond Username: Scriptis

Re: [CoffeeDragon16] - Killing antags? Not on my watch

Post by Scriptis » #642279

Hey! I was goofing around looking at stats for Zyb's past few rounds, and I felt some of the information generated was pertinent to share.

With regards to this part of the note:

Code: Select all

Has a consistent pattern of toeing rule 12 by constant validhunting as security while almost never talking.
In the following rounds from the past month, where Zyb was present at the start of the shift:
Zyb SAYs a total of 527 things:

Code: Select all

Scriptis@citadel MINGW64 ~/Desktop/zyb_logs
$ rg "SAY: Zybwivcz" > zyb.txt

Scriptis@citadel MINGW64 ~/Desktop/zyb_logs
$ cat zyb.txt | wc -l
527
Of which 157 (29.8%, or almost exactly one third) is strictly for chasing down valids or ordering the AI to help him chase down valids:

Code: Select all

Scriptis@citadel MINGW64 ~/Desktop/zyb_logs
$ cat zyb.txt | rg -wi "(help|bad|ai|traitor|traitors|heretic|heretics|malf|malfunction|malfunctioning|ling|ling|changeling|changelings|kill|killing|rev|revs|revolution|cult|cultists|eyes|halo|halos|mindshield|tot|sus|syndie|syndicate)" | wc -l
157
Most other players in the same shifts usually average between 3-12% on this metric, and this seems to be a pretty solid indicator that Zyb, in fact, almost never talks to anybody, and validhunts at least 30% of the time.

edit: log links
edit: collated say logs for all of these shifts, collated validhunting callouts for all of these shifts
editted by Domitius: The provided information and conclusion was very informative and thank you for the input. However removing the last line as it provoked an offtopic conversation that you and Zyb can have elsewhere.
Last edited by Scriptis on Fri May 27, 2022 6:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
Zybwivcz
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2018 5:30 am
Byond Username: Zybwivcz

Re: [CoffeeDragon16] - Killing antags? Not on my watch

Post by Zybwivcz » #642400

From a recent policy discussion thread, "Rule 12 and Security":

viewtopic.php?f=33&t=31248
2) Is security allowed to execute captured antagonists who are at high risk for posing a future threat (e.g., .357 in bag, cult dagger, heretic focus, etc.), but who otherwise have not committed any crimes?
Admin conclusion:
2. Yes. Rule 12 is not RP rule 6 + Rule 4. "Non-antagonists can do whatever they want to antagonists as per lone antagonists"
This is the exact situation that precipitated the note. Coffeedragon16 might not like the fact that server policy is what it is, they're free to start a new policy discussion thread trying to get it changed.
Scriptis wrote: Thu May 26, 2022 11:06 pmoof
Are you seriously suggesting using grep is an acceptable way to determine who's "validhunting", or that it's weird that a SEC main talks about antag activity often?

Here's a few pieces of "evidence" more or less at random from those "collated validhunting callouts":

183793.txt:[2022-05-26 03:11:08.031] SAY: Zybwivcz/(Pedro McDonohugh) "Wiz status?" (Brig (115,166,2))
183792.txt:[2022-05-26 01:38:41.192] SAY: Zybwivcz/(Darin Judge) "AI door" (Security Locker Room (208,126,2))
183792.txt:[2022-05-26 02:01:50.145] SAY: Zybwivcz/(Darin Judge) "help!" (Medbay Treatment Center (178,94,2))
183645.txt:[2022-05-23 05:10:16.919] SAY: Zybwivcz/(Colby Newbern) "Marsh said the CE is a traitor" (Security Post - Engineering (166,133,2))
183645.txt:[2022-05-23 05:51:45.741] SAY: Zybwivcz/(Colby Newbern) "Are we to eyes yet?" (Aft Starboard Maintenance (140,89,2))
183628.txt:[2022-05-23 00:14:52.468] SAY: Zybwivcz/(Malcolm Leach) "Terrell killing people" (Port Tram Dock (86,124,3))
183626.txt:[2022-05-22 23:00:47.617] SAY: Zybwivcz/(Shade of Solomon Mcclymonds) "Barhah hra zar'garis!" FORCED by cult invocation (Medbay Central (93,75,2))
183232.txt:[2022-05-16 03:29:07.208] SAY: Zybwivcz/(Harrison Howard) "go bully the AI" (Central Primary Hallway (92,115,2))

I could go on but you get the point.
User avatar
Timberpoes
In-Game Head Admin
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:54 pm
Byond Username: Timberpoes

Re: [CoffeeDragon16] - Killing antags? Not on my watch

Post by Timberpoes » #642414

This isn't a headmin ruling or conclusion or anything. It's an individual post intended to clarify certain aspects of this appeal which may be getting lost in arguments.

1. Although the note followed an incident where there was no wrongdoing, the note wasn't placed because of the incident. The note was placed since it was a convenient time to talk to you about it, since you were in a ticket anyway.

2. Coffee isn't saying you're breaking Rule 12 in your note. Your note is for a mix of Rule 7 and Rule 12. The Rule 7 part is where coffee references "toeing" - admins tend to use this phraseology when discussing Rule 7, from the rules themselves:
If you regularly come close to breaking the rules without actually breaking them, it will be treated as the rules being broken.
The fact this is placed under Rule 7 could perhaps be stated in clearer terms in the note itself.

3. The note is stating you're coming so close to breaking Rule 12 while playing security often enough that Coffee believes future admins should be issuing large bans when you come close to breaking Rule 12 even if you don't actually break it - With a focus on playing sec and validhunting with limited say logs for the shift.

As a reminder of Rule 12:
The purpose of the game is to have fun roleplaying. Play-to-win gameplay that ruins the purpose of the game at the expense of others is against the rules.
When you put the precedents into it, you get the following:
Focusing exclusively on a competitive victory conditions [precedent 1] that ruins roleplay fun [the purpose of the game] at the expense of others is against the rules.
4. As a general explanation of Rule 7, it empowers admins to treat non-rule-breaking behaviour as rule-breaking if the player shows a pattern of behaviour that regularly comes comes close to breaking it.

Or in more player-focused language: If you regularly put yourself in situations where you need to rules lawyer, the admin team can treat you as if you're breaking the rules.

Finally, to explain the cold reality of Rule 7:
Rule 7 exists as a last resort for admins to handle players who the admin believe make the game worse despite not breaking the rules, where their playstyle takes advantage of the literal wording of the rules while defeating the spirit of what the rule tries to accomplish.
/tg/station Codebase Maintainer
/tg/station Admin/Discord Jannie: Feed me back in my thread.
/tg/station Admin Trainer: Service guarantees citizenship. Would you like to know more?
Feb 2022 Host Vote Headmin
Zybwivcz
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2018 5:30 am
Byond Username: Zybwivcz

Re: [CoffeeDragon16] - Killing antags? Not on my watch

Post by Zybwivcz » #642508

That might make sense if the incident which caused CoffeeDragon to bwoink me was "close to breaking Rule 12". It pretty clearly was not. That's my point. It wasn't toeing the line, it wasn't even in the ballpark. Walking into the brig and seeing someone wearing a heretic focus is not validhunting. It's not close to validhunting. It's the opposite of validhunting.

Do I have to point out Scriptis' weird interjection is basically useless? His 'metric' catches instances of me saying "AI open" and counts it as evidence of validhunting.
User avatar
Timberpoes
In-Game Head Admin
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:54 pm
Byond Username: Timberpoes

Re: [CoffeeDragon16] - Killing antags? Not on my watch

Post by Timberpoes » #642536

Admins can talk to players and note them at any time.

Your note wasn't placed because of a specific incident in that shift.

It was placed because you were already in an ahelp and it was a convenient time to discuss ongoing issues with you that a number of admins and even a headmin agreed with.

It is in your best interests to drop that line of argument and spend your time providing evidence that the note is incorrect and you have a regular number of shifts where you interact with the crew in a more meaningful way than nesr-silently arresting them and prowling for valids.

Since you claim the note is wrong I expect this to be a trivial endeavour for you to accomplish.

Scriptis' interjection is staying because it references logs and stats, then explains a methodology. The headmin team can critically analyse it and apply their own common sense to the results.
/tg/station Codebase Maintainer
/tg/station Admin/Discord Jannie: Feed me back in my thread.
/tg/station Admin Trainer: Service guarantees citizenship. Would you like to know more?
Feb 2022 Host Vote Headmin
Zybwivcz
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2018 5:30 am
Byond Username: Zybwivcz

Re: [CoffeeDragon16] - Killing antags? Not on my watch

Post by Zybwivcz » #642627

If CoffeeDragon16 thinks I'm "constant[ly] validhunting as security while almost never talking" then it should be trivial for them to note me for that sort of conduct when it actually happens. That's what "constant" means. That something is happening constantly.
Especially because admins can "talk to players and note them at any time". If I'm "constantly" doing X then it seems a very odd choice for an admin to decide that seeing me do not-X is a good time for a note warning against X, doubly so when the admin has bwoinked me because they mistakenly thought I was doing X.

The note amounts to "I caught you not doing that thing that you're not supposed to do and doing the thing you are supposed to do, you'd better continue to not do that thing you weren't doing just now and do the thing were you doing". If CoffeeDragon would like to change the text of the note to that, I wouldn't object.
Timberpoes wrote: Sun May 29, 2022 11:35 am Scriptis' interjection is staying because it references logs and stats, then explains a methodology.
Its methodology is bullshit. It explains nothing. The 'stats' are meaningless. It gives at best a false appearance of rigor if you glance at it.

Here are some examples of what are explicitly claimed as evidence of "validhunting callouts":
183792.txt:[2022-05-26 02:00:40.785] SAY: Zybwivcz/(Darin Judge) "long live the revolution!" (Medbay Treatment Center (177,98,2))
183792.txt:[2022-05-26 01:38:41.192] SAY: Zybwivcz/(Darin Judge) "AI door" (Security Locker Room (208,126,2))
183793.txt:[2022-05-26 03:16:21.426] SAY: Zybwivcz/(Pedro McDonohugh) "AI I need plasma from virology to cure this disease" (Medbay Central (70,88,2))
183792.txt:[2022-05-26 02:01:50.145] SAY: Zybwivcz/(Darin Judge) "help!" (Medbay Treatment Center (178,94,2))
183645.txt:[2022-05-23 05:45:36.539] SAY: Zybwivcz/(Colby Newbern) "bad?" (Command Hallway (100,127,2))
183645.txt:[2022-05-23 06:02:45.317] SAY: Zybwivcz/(Colby Newbern) "MALF? Might be MALF" (Space (110,61,2))
183626.txt:[2022-05-22 22:40:12.314] SAY: Zybwivcz/(Solomon Mcclymonds) "AI door" (Medbay Central (90,85,2))
183626.txt:[2022-05-22 22:42:23.572] SAY: Zybwivcz/(Solomon Mcclymonds) "AI open" (Medbay Central (93,104,2))
183626.txt:[2022-05-22 23:10:49.876] SAY: Zybwivcz/(Shade of Solomon Mcclymonds) "Things look bad now but I think we can still come from behind" (Space Hut (45,93,2))
183792.txt:[2022-05-26 02:00:40.785] SAY: Zybwivcz/(Darin Judge) "long live the revolution!" (Medbay Treatment Center (177,98,2))
183232.txt:[2022-05-16 03:23:26.283] SAY: Zybwivcz/(Harrison Howard) "AI unbolt these" (Dormitories (142,166,2))
182397.txt:[2022-04-30 20:09:05.589] SAY: Zybwivcz/(Grant Garland) "AI door" (Kitchen Cold Room (151,140,4))
182397.txt:[2022-04-30 20:15:18.305] SAY: Zybwivcz/(Grant Garland) "AI open" (Security Locker Room (101,184,4))
Every one of those lines is counted as evidence of validhunting. Do you think every one of those lines are evidence of validhunting? Do you think any of them necessarily do? If not, what possible value does it serve?


If Coffeedragon thinks I'm constantly validhunting and a note for constantly validhunting is merited then a sensible time to give me a note for constant validhunting is when I'm validhunting. Choosing to give me a note for constant validhunting when by their own admission I was doing the opposite of validhunting is crazy. You can't use an instance of someone not doing something as proof they're always doing that thing.
User avatar
Timberpoes
In-Game Head Admin
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:54 pm
Byond Username: Timberpoes

Re: [CoffeeDragon16] - Killing antags? Not on my watch

Post by Timberpoes » #642643

When I tell you it's in your best interest to show evidence of shifts where you interact with the crew more meaningfully, it's because everything else you post that isn't such evidence is pretty much irrelevant. In my personal investigation of this so far, that's the thing I'm missing that would convince me to vote in favour of overturning this note.

I say this because as it stands I see no evidence that you meaningfully interact with players in the shifts you play to the extent that would render this call to action under Rule 7 inaccurate. You're wasting your time arguing it was unfair to place it on you at that point in time.

Rule 7 notes are placed when a player hasn't broken any rules. They can also be placed without a specific incident invoking them.

They do have to be true and accurate though.

I'm trying to help you actually give me the kind of information I want to see that would lead me to rule in your favour.

If you want to piss into the wind instead, you may continue doing so.
/tg/station Codebase Maintainer
/tg/station Admin/Discord Jannie: Feed me back in my thread.
/tg/station Admin Trainer: Service guarantees citizenship. Would you like to know more?
Feb 2022 Host Vote Headmin
Zybwivcz
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2018 5:30 am
Byond Username: Zybwivcz

Re: [CoffeeDragon16] - Killing antags? Not on my watch

Post by Zybwivcz » #642698

Timberpoes wrote: Mon May 30, 2022 10:32 am show evidence of shifts where you interact with the crew more meaningfully
It would help to have a more precise idea of what this means, and what sort of evidence would satisfy you. That's the problem with trying to prove a negative. And if you ask me to show evidence of interacting "more meaningfully" it would be helpful to tell me more meaningfully that what, as killing the heretic apparently wasn't what was meant.

If you want a specific incident which demonstrates a SEC interaction that doesn't break the rules or toe the line, let's start with the one that immediately preceded the note since everyone seems to agree that specific incident didn't qualify as either of those things.

It would also be helpful to have the adminhelp logs for this incident, if someone with access would post them.
User avatar
dragomagol
In-Game Game Master
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2020 11:04 pm
Byond Username: Dragomagol

Re: [CoffeeDragon16] - Killing antags? Not on my watch

Post by dragomagol » #642703

Zybwivcz wrote: Mon May 30, 2022 11:48 pm It would also be helpful to have the adminhelp logs for this incident, if someone with access would post them.
If you authenticate on BanBus, you should be able to see all of your tickets with admins, as well as your notes/bans.
Help improve my neural network by giving me feedback!

Image
Spoiler:
Image
User avatar
Timberpoes
In-Game Head Admin
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:54 pm
Byond Username: Timberpoes

Re: [CoffeeDragon16] - Killing antags? Not on my watch

Post by Timberpoes » #642705

You can go to https://atlantaned.space/banbus/mytickets to see tickets you were involved in. From there you can make them public or you can just paste them into the forums via the conveniently pre-formatted section at the bottom of each ticket.

The note suggests you "[Have] a consistent pattern of toeing rule 12 by constant validhunting as security while almost never talking."

I get that this is a reverse burden of proof I'm applying here, where I'm asking you to disprove the note's factuality instead of asking Coffee to prove it's true. This situation is exceptional to Rule 7. Rule 7 notes are usually not placed without a significant number of admins believing your approach to following the letter of the rules is a problem.

However, to establish the accuracy of their claim it would require Coffee to go through every single shift in the past month or two and compile a complete dossier on your conduct as a player.

It would be easier for you to disprove this claim by taking a set of consecutive Sec shifts you've played and showing from the logs that you're consistently not doing what the note suggests you do.

One or two exceptional shifts is not enough, you have to show you consistently don't validhunt as security while almost never talking.
/tg/station Codebase Maintainer
/tg/station Admin/Discord Jannie: Feed me back in my thread.
/tg/station Admin Trainer: Service guarantees citizenship. Would you like to know more?
Feb 2022 Host Vote Headmin
User avatar
Pandarsenic
In-Game Admin
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 11:56 pm
Byond Username: Pandarsenic
Location: AI Upload

Re: [CoffeeDragon16] - Killing antags? Not on my watch

Post by Pandarsenic » #642709

Timberpoes wrote: One or two exceptional shifts is not enough, you have to show you consistently don't validhunt as security while almost never talking.
https://scrubby.melonmesa.com/ckey/Zybwivcz can be used to list the rounds you've been in and access the logs; from there, it should be trivial to demonstrate that you've engaged in substantive roleplay with people about things that aren't validhunting or immediately adjacent to it.
Zybwivcz
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2018 5:30 am
Byond Username: Zybwivcz

Re: [CoffeeDragon16] - Killing antags? Not on my watch

Post by Zybwivcz » #642720

Timberpoes wrote: Tue May 31, 2022 12:11 am However, to establish the accuracy of their claim it would require Coffee to go through every single shift in the past month or two and compile a complete dossier on your conduct as a player.
Not every single shift. Just one. That's all. A single shift.

I'm saying if Coffee wants to give me a note along the lines "Don't do X all the time" just give it after a single solitary instance of X. Instead of giving me a note, a severe warning even, of "Don't do X all the time" after seeing me doing not-X.


The last note over an actual incident was from nearly four months before that, given the disturbingly large number of shifts I was SEC between then and now the fact that neither Coffee nor any other admin saw cause to place a note says this supposedly "consistent" conduct clearly wasn't happening. Where there's no smoke there's no fire.

One or two exceptional shifts is not enough, you have to show you consistently don't validhunt as security while almost never talking.
Give me some idea of where you draw the line between what you consider "validhunting" behavior and what is considered doing SEC's job. Does hunting for antags count? Does me walking around the station count as 'hunting for antags' or evidence I'm doing my job as a SEC officer and not just validhunting? Is arresting and brigging criminals who aren't antags validhunting? Or is arresting non-antags for crimes considered interacting "meaningfully"? If you're going to demand I prove a negative, and do it by painstakingly reconstructing events from logs of multiple old rounds, give me a better sense of what precisely you want me looking for.

Here's the log for the heretic incident. Does this count as an instance of "almost never talking" or is it sufficient interaction? Is arresting someone because you see them with a heretic focus validhunting or evidence that I'm not always validhunting. Does this count or are you expecting something completely different? If you're telling me to prove a negative, and to painstakingly dig through a bunch of logs from multiple old rounds to do it, give me a better idea of what I'm supposed to be looking for.
01:00:45 SAY Zybwivcz/(Josh Meyers) "AI open" (106, 169, 2) Brig
01:00:54 SAY Zybwivcz/(Josh Meyers) "missed a spot" (113, 165, 2) Brig
01:00:58 SAY The Kruk/(Emma Hjalt) "dETECTIVE TO BRIG NIOW" (107, 162, 2) Brig Control
01:01:04 SAY Zybwivcz/(Josh Meyers) "nice necklace" (118, 165, 2) Brig
01:01:13 SAY The Kruk/(Emma Hjalt) "what necklace?" (115, 165, 2) Brig
01:01:17 SAY Celulamp/(Junaiper Values) "thank you" (119, 166, 2) Brig
01:01:21 SAY The Kruk/(Emma Hjalt) "Cool" (116, 165, 2) Brig
01:01:24 SAY Supernova160o/(Kennedy Woollard) "woah" (116, 167, 2) Brig
01:01:29 SAY Supernova160o/(Kennedy Woollard) "this" (117, 166, 2) Brig
01:01:30 SAY Supernova160o/(Kennedy Woollard) "thing" (117, 166, 2) Brig
01:01:32 SAY Supernova160o/(Kennedy Woollard) "has AN EYE ON IT!!" (117, 166, 2) Brig
01:01:40 EMOTE Supernova160o/(Kennedy Woollard) dances around happily. (118, 166, 2) Brig
01:01:47 SAY Supernova160o/(Kennedy Woollard) "OOPS" (118, 166, 2) Brig
01:01:50 SAY Supernova160o/(Kennedy Woollard) "I DESTROYED EVIDENCE!!" (118, 166, 2) Brig
01:01:57 SAY Supernova160o/(Kennedy Woollard) "you saw nothing, strange eye necklace" (118, 166, 2) Brig
01:02:05 SAY Zybwivcz/(Josh Meyers) "What happened to permabrig?" (91, 183, 2)
Zybwivcz
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2018 5:30 am
Byond Username: Zybwivcz

Re: [CoffeeDragon16] - Killing antags? Not on my watch

Post by Zybwivcz » #642722

I finally figured this out:

From Ticket #8 during round 183737 on Sybil
Ticket opened at 2022-05-25 01:07:29 by coffeedragon16
Log:
01:07:29: Ticket Opened by-coffeedragon16: hey there, why'd you kill junaiper values? she was cuffed, unarmed and in perma it's ridiculously unfun to do that
01:07:41: Reply from-zybwivcz: They were a heretic.
01:13:34: Reply from-coffeedragon16: Right, but they were unarmed, cuffed, and in perma, and you beheaded their corpse, it's just incredibly dickish to do that when they're already a non-threat, you have a shitty history of being rude to people as sec
01:13:58: Reply from-zybwivcz: They weren't in perma, I arrested them in brig and brought them to perma. Perma was destroyed and depowered and thus obviously unable to contain an antag.
01:19:00: Reply from-coffeedragon16: alright, i talked with some other admins about it, this changes things i'm unhappy about it but i don't think its rule breaking, i really want to see you put more effort in security to make the round fun for other people. i hear constant complaints that you're unfun and shitty to people as security, and for the love of god just build a grille or something next time or get an engineer there it's miserable and i'm telling you you will probably get a perma if you continue the low effort valid hunting as security
01:19:48: Reply from-zybwivcz: In what sense is it valid hunting to arrest someone found in the brig wearing a heretic focus with heretic blades in their backpack
01:20:23: Reply from-coffeedragon16: the issue was that you just murdered them when they were in cuffs, in security surrounded by officers
01:21:32: Reply from-zybwivcz: Again, perma was broken and inoperable. The warden's been out of the brig most of the time so there was nobody there to keep an eye on them reliably either. ##All of which is beside the point because they were a confirmed antagonist.
01:22:11: Reply from-coffeedragon16: you literally could have just gone to the sec lathe and grabbed some iron and built a wall or two or you could have gotten them borged
01:23:42: Reply from-zybwivcz: Point out to me which normal walls specifically I could have built that would have prevented a heretic, who can have transportation spells, from just escaping and killing people.
01:29:28: Reply from-coffeedragon16: actually that's fair i forgot something about how biddle heretics work- though, if you didn't see them use the spell i'm going to say that's not a good reason, you don't kill a traitor 100% of the time because of the chance they might have an uplink implant i'm just telling you its extremely garish given your long history of playing sec, barely talking, and beaming for valids and using every opportunity and you need to put in some slight amount of effort towards it, such as trying to get perma fixed or getting them borged, when you almost entirely play security i have talked to the other admins about this and we all agree you repeatedly toe the line for validhunting and you are just a few bad steps away from catching a big ban. ss13 is not a singleplayer game and you need to act like it
01:30:53: Reply from-zybwivcz: So you're saying that having caught an antag inside the brig, not only should I have not killed them I should have put them in perma, and if perma was broken I should have fixed it, and also just assume they can't just escape using their teleport spell or the way normal prisoners manage to escape.
01:31:15: Client disconnected
---- No futher messages ----
This ticket was generated by Statbus v.0.14.0
User avatar
CoffeeDragon16
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 3:31 pm
Byond Username: CoffeeDragon16

Re: [CoffeeDragon16] - Killing antags? Not on my watch

Post by CoffeeDragon16 » #643005

It's been over a week since the appeal was made. You made it under the pretense that the note was made because of your behavior in that particular shift, which we've explained to you, is not the case. I'm not going to go over the particular semantics of what good play is, as that avoids the point. I will quote the note appeal rules again:
For those reasons, notes can be appealed if they match one of the following two cases:

1. The note is factually or materially incorrect.

2. The note's contents or existence is unjustifiably harsh to the player's standing in the eyes of admins reading the notes.
a. Notes that contain admin opinions that unfairly paint the player in a bad light are one example.
i. Emphasis on the phrase "unfairly". If you're repeatedly a shitter and an admin calls you a shitter in a note just take the hint and improve on not being a shitter
You were asked to show that the note was factually wrong by providing evidence that you habitually talk with your crewmembers beyond the end-goal of validhunting. You provided a short excerpt of logs from one round, to which almost everything said was from other players. I will ask you to try harder to provide evidence. For example, show a few conversations with someone IC that isn't about antagonists or crime, or small talk, something that lasts longer than a minute. If you cannot provide something like that, than I have no reason to believe your appeal falls under either requirement needed for a note appeal, nor will I have seen any information that has made me reconsider the note.

You have been given many cues, be it from admins or other players, to tone down your Security play. I want you to know that you will have less problems going forward if you make a genuine effort to talk with your crewmembers more often and attempt to make the round fun for others by any means but strictly validhunting. Your playstyle is not enjoyable for other players.
Image ImageImageImageImageImageImage
Zybwivcz
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2018 5:30 am
Byond Username: Zybwivcz

Re: [CoffeeDragon16] - Killing antags? Not on my watch

Post by Zybwivcz » #643028

CoffeeDragon16 wrote: Thu Jun 02, 2022 8:50 pm You were asked to show that the note was factually wrong by providing evidence that you habitually talk with your crewmembers beyond the end-goal of validhunting.
You placed a note for "constant validhunting" but you've failed to explain what you consider "validhunting" or provide a single specific example of it occurring.

If you're demanding "Stop doing X all the time" you should define X and be able to point at even a single example of it being done.
For example, show a few conversations with someone IC that isn't about antagonists or crime, or small talk, something that lasts longer than a minute. If you cannot provide something like that, than I have no reason to believe your appeal falls under either requirement needed for a note appeal, nor will I have seen any information that has made me reconsider the note.
So you want evidence of multiple instances of extended RP but RP that isn't about doing the job of a SEC officer. Isn't this just demanding MRP on LRP? With the added restriction that IC conversations about playing the role of SEC don't count?

More importantly it has nothing to do with the content of the note which is about validhunting. Not a failure to spend five minutes in the bar RPing as non-SEC.
You have been given many cues, be it from admins or other players, to tone down your Security play. I want you to know that you will have less problems going forward if you make a genuine effort to talk with your crewmembers more often and attempt to make the round fun for others by any means but strictly validhunting. Your playstyle is not enjoyable for other players.
The last "cue" from an admin was, like I pointed out earlier, a note from four months ago. Again, if I was engaging in "consistent" validhunting then it's not very plausible not a single admin would have witnessed an incident or received an ahelp they thought noteworthy or banworthy in all those shifts, is it?

The only previous discussions about SEC validhunting I can find describe it as doing things like ignoring crime from non-antags to order to exclusively chase antag gear or handing out lasers to assistants to help validhunt.

Brigging non-antag but clearly criminal assistants for having half the captain's quarters in their backpack is evidence against any accusation of "constant validhunting". It's the opposite of validhunting. I'm sure it generates lots of bitching from the permatider metagang who won't play on MRP because they wouldn't be allowed to be shitters every single round, but it's a poor reason for a note and the opposite of the note that was placed.
User avatar
Scriptis
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2021 12:05 am
Byond Username: Scriptis

Re: [CoffeeDragon16] - Killing antags? Not on my watch

Post by Scriptis » #643131

Zybwivcz wrote: Thu Jun 02, 2022 11:50 pm The last "cue" from an admin was, like I pointed out earlier, a note from four months ago.
This is objectively untrue. Barely even a month ago, at the start of May, you were chewed out in an admin complaint for seeking admin intervention in an RP situation instead of RPing in said situation. Said admin intervention was sought out because you got dunked on for validhunting when you tried to wordlessly arrest me. I was there!
Zybwivcz wrote: Thu Jun 02, 2022 11:50 pm Again, if I was engaging in "consistent" validhunting then it's not very plausible not a single admin would have witnessed an incident or received an ahelp they thought noteworthy or banworthy in all those shifts, is it?
It is important to draw attention to Zyb's habitual use of random names, making it extremely difficult for players to report consistently bad-faith behavior across multiple rounds. A number of players (myself included) often don't ahelp somebody unless they're consistently being a problem across multiple rounds, out of good faith.

Similarly, it is unreasonable to assume that a (volunteer) in-game admin would waste hours orbiting Zyb.

This only reinforces the need for Zyb to prove a negative over this note.
User avatar
CoffeeDragon16
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 3:31 pm
Byond Username: CoffeeDragon16

Re: [CoffeeDragon16] - Killing antags? Not on my watch

Post by CoffeeDragon16 » #643188

Upon discussing it with the team, we agree to remove the final sentence in the note: "Was talked to and told if they continued this behavior it would likely result in a large ban, hold them to it."
The intent of the note is to provide a strong impression and reminder for how you choose to play going forward, and convey the long-term history of your playstyle. The last sentence of the note doesn't do much to further this point, and is only rude to you in practice.
Image ImageImageImageImageImageImage
Zybwivcz
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2018 5:30 am
Byond Username: Zybwivcz

Re: [CoffeeDragon16] - Killing antags? Not on my watch

Post by Zybwivcz » #643356

CoffeeDragon16 wrote: Sat Jun 04, 2022 8:54 pm Upon discussing it with the team, we agree to remove the final sentence in the note: "Was talked to and told if they continued this behavior it would likely result in a large ban, hold them to it."
The intent of the note is to provide a strong impression and reminder for how you choose to play going forward, and convey the long-term history of your playstyle. The last sentence of the note doesn't do much to further this point, and is only rude to you in practice.
While I appreciate the gesture the fundamental question of what "this behavior' means remains unanswered.

More importantly, If the whole point of the note is a "reminder" what role does it serve that the previous note doesn't? Why add a new "reminder", listed as a severe warning, when it's admitted there was no particular incident triggering it? There was already one warning, adding a second warning clearly implies the "behavior" mentioned has re-occurred, which is why I don't think it's all out of line to ask for a single instance of it to accompany the note. It's like calling strike two before the second pitch on the basis that the batter already had one strike. It makes no sense.

It feels like you contacted me in good faith about an incident you thought was rule-breaking, revised your opinion on learning the relevant context, but left with an initial sense felt you had to do something so stuck the note on even though there was no actual cause.

Scriptis wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 9:22 pm This is objectively untrue
Consequences of that 'incident': Zero admin action against me, bizarre forum malding by you. I rest my case.
User avatar
Timberpoes
In-Game Head Admin
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:54 pm
Byond Username: Timberpoes

Re: [CoffeeDragon16] - Killing antags? Not on my watch

Post by Timberpoes » #643380

A significant portion of Sybil admins have each witnessed dozens of different shifts where your gameplay loop is minimum-to-no-word sec play spent looking for anyone to baton for any reason big or small. You have evidenced absolutely nothing to the contrary.

This approach is very close to pursuit of a competitive win condition that ruins roleplay fun for others contrary to Rule 12.

The reason it's very close but not quite an outright rule break is because a core part of sec's job is to secure the station against threats. Some element of playing sec will always involve that.

But your individual approach to that seems to be finding the bare minimum amount of interaction possible (or that the admin team will tolerate) to coast your way through.

Through observing your gameplay and dealing with numerous tickets involving you - many of which will have ended with IC issue being hit - the Sybil-savvy portions of the admin team has decided that this is has been repeated so much that Rule 7 now gets involved.

It is objectively true that this part of the admin team sees you as a line toer. It does you no good for us lift this note, because the admin team will continue to treat your line toeing behaviour as a problem regardless.

Rule 7 enables documenting incidents where you toe the line in your play as sec. It lets the admin team make it clear to you where your playstyle is problematic where previously they may have stayed quiet or considered something just close enough within the rules to be an IC issue. That will help you adjust your playstyle to something we'd prefer seeing more.

If you can't adjust and adapt your playstyle accordingly, you already know how it's going to end up.

We will be editing the note to emphasise that it was placed under Rule 7, so that it is clearer for what purpose the admin team has placed this note:
Has a consistent pattern of toeing Rule 12 by constant validhunting as security while almost never talking. Has a huge amount of notes for abuse of security, and is on thin ice line toeing behaviour may now be considered a Rule 7 issue.
This note will be upheld with the above change.
/tg/station Codebase Maintainer
/tg/station Admin/Discord Jannie: Feed me back in my thread.
/tg/station Admin Trainer: Service guarantees citizenship. Would you like to know more?
Feb 2022 Host Vote Headmin
Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users