All Activity

Sorry for the delay. This complaint has been rejected. Findings The admin investigated and contacted every player reported by the complainant during round 46967. Two of the three players reported by the complainant during Lizard 46967 had an admin action taken against them during the round in relation to the report by the complainant. The replay for round 46967 does not load so logs have to be relied on entirely for confirming what happened during the round, which means some context or information may have been missed. While logs do indicate that a weapon and later handcuffs were picked up by the lawyer, it is not clear that any rules were violated by the lawyer when doing this. Chat logs don't support the idea that the lawyer was attempting to interfere in the arrest or detention of a player because they seemed to be continuing to have a conversation with the player after the player was uncuffed. Due to finding 4, the admin cannot be presumed to have responded inappropriately by not treating the situation as a rule violation by the lawyer. Rules, like self antag rules, attempt to draw a line on a spectrum of behavior. It is incredibly difficult to precisely define this line, so admins have some discretion on a case by case basis. While interfering with security is said to be against the rules, not every minor interference is considered a rule violation. Admins should look to the severity of the interference, the frequency, and the reason for it when determining if it is a rule violation. While many rule violations can be responded to IC to some degree, players are free to ahelp anything that they reasonably believe is a rule violation, and are generally not intended to be the sole or primary response to a rule violation. Sphiral may not have communicated ideally in the ahelp. They said that they feel they could have handled the ahelp better. Not enough information could be found to evaluate the appropriateness of the note that was left in relation to the incident. Based on the information that could be gathered, it is presumed to be sufficiently likely to be appropriate that removal or modification of the note is not necessary. This should attempt to be revisited if the the note becomes relevant for a more impactful admin decision, such as an admin application, ban, dewhitelisting, or other admin action with an outcome that is affected by the note. Players should be discouraged from making inappropriate ahelps, but they should not be discouraged from making appropriate ahelps. Admins should err on the side of tolerating inappropriate ahelps to avoid discouraging appropriate ahelps. Ahelps where a player reasonably believed that a rule violation occurred are appropriate ahelps. The complaint could not be fully investigated due to the amount of time that passed between the incident and the handling of the complaint. This is not the fault of or contributed to by the complainant, who made the complaint in a timely manner. This is not the fault of or contributed to by the subject of the complaint, who was not contacted about the complaint soon enough for it to be reasonable for them to remember everything needed to fully investigate the complaint. Resulting Actions Sphiral was contacted about the complaint, resulting in finding 8.

Role(s): all of cargo Length of ban: indefinite Events leading to the ban: i don't really remember i think its because i skimed through the rules and thought that cargonia was allowed. Reason the ban should be removed: i am terribly sorry for any Trouble i cause i have read the (properly) rules and I won't cause any trouble anymore to anyone.

helmets giving resistance to non-lethals, all damage armor is located on the coat slot shoes giving slip/nail resistance, perhaps with sunglasses too. perfect is removing full anti-vulnerability (mag-boots force full speed walk ?), resistance can be played with trade det for para ? fake power cables, a 1 tc item used to help with electrical sabotage by tricking the electric system into thinking there is still a cable there give chaplain a suit of knights armor

The moderation team has decided to deny this appeal. You may appeal again in 2 weeks.

You were banned for general toxicity. Unfortunately we will have to deny this appeal. Considering that you were not aware of your ban reason you may make a new appeal immediately.

Ban reason: Used the r word in round 50012 again Length of ban: 4320 minutes Events leading to the ban: Somewhere in the round I let slip the r word. I do not remember when or how or on what topic or event. I was tiered and a bit emotionally charged. Reason the ban should be removed: It should not, be removed. I have been trying to condition myself not to use any slurs described in the rules section. This is a bit hard as culturally where I am from swearing is second nature. I am trying my best, but I think the negative reinforcement is needed as a stimulant for it to properly settle in my subconscious. I am deeply sorry if I have offended anyone, it was not in my intent. Thank you for your time.

Thanks for the clarification.

The Captain spare ID is a steal objective and as such falls under powergaming to hide. "Do not hide known antagonist objectives or otherwise secure them with a higher amount of security then would normally be required. Do not go around collecting all of the antagonist objectives as you first order of business and hide them in the vault just to make sure nobody can get them. Unless you have a specific and direct reason to believe a certain item is being targeted, you have no reason to go put it in the highest security area possible." It is also powergaming under the fact of handing out unwarranted access or giving the spare for emergencies as that would be considred preparing equipment for no purpose other than "just incase".

So, something I often see is Cap giving HOS the spare. It made sense to me, so I started doing the same. But today I got bowinked for that, so I wanted to have it clarified whether it's ok or not.

Please read this post and use the template in it for your appeal:

Ban reason: [Sexual insult on IC] Length of ban: [Permament if appeal is not accepted.] Events leading to the ban: [I was playing as a tider on that round. I was just messing around and having fun then to be expected security putted me in jail. After getting in jail ı attempted to escape then officer killed me with his knife with claiming '' I am out of stuns, so ı had to kill him !'' then hos said it is a very wrong act and a childish behaivor. After ı got revived in brig ı was just too fucking angry against that officer (by the way, he was messing with me in IC while ı am dead) ı just basically got TOO MUCH angry and writed like ''I will rape you motherfucker'' ı know it is definetly not good to say such a thing like that but ı have like 1000 hours on wizden servers and ı witnessed things like that alot. I am a human being and ı can get angry. ] Reason the ban should be removed: [This ban is not inappropriate, ı earned that but ı think it is not fair to getting banned perma while that guy encourages me to say such things like this he was literally messing with me on IC, he started that first and ı just got too angry about it. I know its not mature to say something about SA(sexual assault) but ı am really sorry about it and ı really like to play in wizden servers. I expect you guys to understand me. I am a human being too and ı can get really angry just like you.]

Due to your attempt to evade your ban, you are banned indefinitely. You may appeal your ban, but only at least 6 months after your last ban evasion attempt, and only with a voucher of good behavior from another SS13/SS14 server. A voucher of good behavior should be obtained from a well-known or decently active SS13/SS14 server. If it is a mainstream server, we recommend using that server's admin-help to ask for a voucher from one of the administrators explaining that you are trying to appeal a ban on SS14's Wizard's Den and want to show you have been a problem-free player during your playtime on the server. A voucher should be indicative of at least a few months of play. If the voucher is not from a mainstream server, let us know and we will figure out a way to verify it.

The above mentioned unban has been rescinded due to Ban evasion attempts.

AKA powergaming speedrun any%

Appeal accepted.

Ban reason: Breaking rule 1 (even though i broke rule 12) Length of ban: 4500 minutes Events leading to the ban: called a borg a pussy and told the admin that warned me that i broke rule 12 not rule 1 Reason the ban should be removed: calling someone a pussy is only really warn worthy in my opinion. a 4500 minute ban is harsh

Sorry for the delay. This complaint has been rejected. The server you were playing on is a low roleplay server. While we take sexual misconduct seriously, we also aim to keep sexual language, including IC accusations of sexual assault, off of our servers since minors can and do play on them. Space Station 14 is not designed to have sexual aspects to it so certain systems, like the clothing system, do not work in a way that allows them to mirror reality well. In Space Station 14, it is not uncommon to see a security officer take off someone's uniform to put them into a prison uniform, or for a crew member to take off their own uniform to put another on, all in public spaces or in public view. Despite these things being inappropriate in the real world, in Space Station 14, they are typically not considered to be inappropriate or sexual. Findings Wizard's Den Lizard is a low RP server. Wizard's Den servers do not allow sexual content, including in chat. While combining it with other actions can easily rise to the level of IC sexual assault, and therefore a rule violation, removing someone's uniform is on its own is not a rule violation. If it were, gameplay would become cumbersome particularly for security. Due to finding 2, simply removing someone's uniform cannot be labeled as sexual assault IC. The admin did not act unprofessionally. The admin did not tell the complainant to pretend that the situation was not a big deal, the admin only instructed the complainant to not label the situation as sexual assault. Resulting Actions No action was taken due to the complaint being rejected.

The relevant round appears to be Lizard 50370. A transcript of the ahelp is provided below. I have not compared the transcript of the ahelp with the one provided by the complainant, but the complainant's appears to be accurate and complete.

The main incident seems to occur in Lizard 46967 where the following ahelp occurs: Ahelps from Lizard 46971 seem to be related:

Sorry this has been sitting for so long, complaints have been backlogged

Ban reason: Sexual content, I need it for gooning Length of ban: 4320 minutes until Friday 19 2024, 2:55 AM UTC Events leading to the ban: My character Hoss Wardley walks down the hallway meets Nilk the mime, stares at the mime and mime responds back with tapping his bat and pointing the bat towards my character. In response my character gasps and finds a Janitor and I asked him if I could borrow the mop for gooning. Reason the ban should be removed: I did not know gooning meant its definition in google and I believed I invented that word. In character at the time of the incident: I was prepping myself for an altercation if it happened between me and the mime and believed a mop would make an equal but proportional match to fight against a bat, Therefore I requested the mop for whackin/*gooning*/beat him up in that fill in the gap grammar context. In hindsight I thought I was being clever by making up the word "gooning" by combining goon and making it into a verb (TERRIBLE mistake! Sorry), that's really it for how my thought process now went. I'm interested in genuine medium to high roleplay giving my character some livelihood and interesting speech has been my go-to. However I'm still learning to roleplay better and this was my first time experimenting with my own made-up slang. It really just felt natural to say it as my character, and I didn't think the word was that god awful, I don't keep up on Tiktok and I would've never known gooning's definition by diction without being told upfront about it. I understand that this is a Zero Tolerence rule and being a week ban speaks merit for itself and I'm grateful for the careful judgement passed, since I was not online when I had been banned. Due to serious IRL stuff and needing this "assisted" break from the game (Dont get me wrong, I love this game but I definitely am addicted to the point I've neglected IRL matters ;v;) I ask that the ban should be maintained as without this appeal; no further context would've been known to the admin at the time and since I was not online when banned they acted in good-faith to represent the community at-large without my side of the situation. I felt very obligated to appeal this because of true grief and please do not think of this as a waste of time. I really needed someone to talk/hear my side and by reading this you have helped me, indifferent to which outcomes passes.)

Engineer%: how fast can you get full utility belt,eng Googles and insuls has a passanger?. Current record: 3:25 (goob station) AA%: how fast can you get All access has a low rank job?

Hello, sorry to get back to you this late. After review of your appeal, and our logs of ahelps between you and admins we have found the following: - There have been at least 8 ahelps between you and admins regarding the acceptable use of maxcaps. - Out of of those, the most permissive ones were the following: - On 2023-12-09 you asked if you could make a minor maxcap against nukies. You were told that maxcaps should only be used as a last ditch effort for when the nuke has already been armed at which point the destruction a maxcap would do would still be less than the nuke successfully detonating. - On 2024-02-18 you were initially told that you could not make a maxcap even if it's nukies due to it being mass sabotage. Later in the ahelp you were told that you could make it if you believe it will be effective against nukies but you would be held responsible for mass sabotage/griefing of crew. - From the other ahelps we receive where you were informed of the admin's view on making and using a maxcap you were told the following: - On 2024-2-25 you asked if you could make maxcap for end of round. You were told that you should not prepare stuff specifically for EORG. You were additionally told you could make them for use in mining but not just for testing. - On 2024-3-30 you asked whether you could blow up the nukie shuttle with a maxcap. You were told you could not, and had your maxcap deleted by the admin specifically citing your history(at that point several warnings and 2 bans). It should be noted that while we understand you disagree with the admin's judgement in this instance, if you believe the admin's actions were unjustified and outside policy then that should be its own admin complaint. - On 2024-03-31 you asked for clarification on if the actions taken and the interpretations of the admin in the previous ahelp were appropriate. You were told that maxcaps were generally blacklisted without permission. - On 2024-04-01(It should be noted this is just a few hours after the previous ahelp. I am however using my local timezone for dates) you were ahelped for creating a maxcap during nukies. You were told that you should not make a maxcap without admin permission. This ahelp resulted in the ban you are currently appealing. Transcripts of these ahelps will be attached on a follow up message to this thread. - In 1 other ahelp you received no response. - In 1 other ahelp which did result in a ban for your use of maxcaps no statement was made on how rules are applied for maxcaps. - We find that while there might have been some ambiguity on how you were informed on how we enforce rules on maxcaps, they still state that usage of a maxcap may still be mass sabotage and self antagonism. All other ahelps after these state that you should not create and utilize maxcaps against station threats without admin permission. - Considering the above, the several warnings and bans you had beforehand for your use of maxcaps, and the fact that you were told you would need admin permission hours before the actions that led to your ban we find that you were sufficiently informed that creating and utilizing maxcaps against station threats without permission. Following a discussion and vote by the admin team, consensus is to deny this appeal and apply a requirement for a voucher for future appeals. This is mainly because of the extensive history you have, and often having an aggressive attitude in ahelps. You may appeal this ban but only 6 months after the date it was applied on(2024-03-31) and only with a voucher of good behavior. A voucher of good behavior should be obtained from a well-known or decently active SS13/SS14 server. If it is a mainstream server, we recommend using that server's admin-help to ask for a voucher from one of the administrators explaining that you are trying to appeal a ban on SS14's Wizard's Den and want to show you have been a problem-free player during your playtime on the server. A voucher should be indicative of at least a few months of play.