Chief_Engineer

Application accepted, please check your discord for instructions on how to proceed. Good luck during your trial period and welcome to the admin team!

Application accepted, please check your discord for instructions on how to proceed. Good luck during your trial period and welcome to the admin team!

Thank you for applying. We've decided to not accept this application, but you're free to apply again in the future.

Thank you for applying. We've decided to not accept this application, but you're free to apply again in the future.

Thank you for applying. We've decided to not accept this application, but you're free to apply again in the future.

Thank you for applying. We've decided to not accept this application, but you're free to apply again in the future.

This complaint has been rejected. Findings During Leviathan 43871, immediately prior to being gibbed, the complainant sent around 80 radio messages over approximately 115 seconds at a rate slightly faster than one message every one and a half seconds. All the messages were identical: "Do you need medical assistance?" The messages would have been disruptive to ghosts, including admin ghosts, both of which can see all radio messages and would have had their chat flooded. Over the past several months, Wizard's Den servers have experienced an increased rate of raiders, some of whom spam chat. Taking into account finding 1, finding 3, and the pressure that may have existed to react quickly, it is plausible that the admin believed the complainant was a raider. The complainant was not a raider, and it is plausible that they did not realize that their disruption affected people other than the nukies. Retequizzle was not playing in the round and did not violate admin policy 2.1 "Do not ever process a case you are/were a part of". No note was left by the admin in relation to the incident. During or soon after the ahelp, Retequizzle notified me that there would likely be a complaint, and provided information about the situation. The information provided included claiming that they had recently dealt with raiders. The round ended approximately 10 minutes after the complainant was gibbed. The conduct of the complainant in the ahelp was appropriate. Two uninvolved admins believe that the response of Retequizzle was appropriate, including both the gibbing of the complainant and his handling of the ahelp. Resulting Actions Two uninvolved admins were consulted for opinions. This resulted in finding 11. Retequizzle was contacted about the complaint and said that he may have been too blunt in the interaction, and will keep that in mind in the future.

I hid the posts of yours that you requested be hidden. I checked your history on our servers and I don't see any indicators that your account was compromised around the time of the log that was provided above

Do you currently have possession of the device that was being used to play on your account? Which posts on this appeal were written by you, and which were written by someone else using your account? I am assuming you're saying this one was written by you, and that every one before it, including the one made a minute before, was made by your nephew? You tried to log into the server or the forums? Is your home desktop the device that you haven't had possession of for the last two weeks or is that a different device?

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.

These are two separate instances, please make a complaint for each if you'd like to contest them. This complaint is procedurally rejected. Neither complaint contained within was fully investigated, and each may be brought in their own complaint for investigation. Some notes for if you do decide to make new complaints for each: Notes are often used as a record of admin contacts. When used as a record, they are unlikely to be removed unless they are inaccurate or otherwise inappropriate as a record of the contact. The name note implies that the name you were warned for was just "pepe", not "Pepe Cacio"

Sorry you didn't have much of a chance to respond to this. Feel free to make a message in the Admin Message section of the forums for more details about your dewhitelisting

Thank you for the complaint, it has been accepted. Findings The complainant was dewhitelisted from MRP. The complainant was kicked from MRP to enact finding 2. The complainant was not provided any feedback outside of a note left on their account to indicate that finding 2 had occurred, the reason for finding 2, or the reason for finding 3. Unless it is a message note, admins cannot expect players to read notes left on their accounts, even if the notes are public. Due to findings 3 and 4, the complainant was effectively provided no feedback for the admin actions in findings 1 and 2. The admin actions in findings 1 and 2 are actions that are likely to unreasonably escalate a situation if performed together and without feedback to the subject of those actions. At least one other admin was consulted by luckyshotpictures about the dewhitelisting and supported the decision to dewhitelist the complainant. Based on finding 7, the information provided by the subject of the complaint, and the information provided by the admin referenced in finding 7, the dewhitelisting was reasonably justifiable from the perspective of luckyshotpictures. Banning policy explicitly allows deviation from banning guidelines if that deviation can be justified by the admin deviating. This is partially because not every case can be covered by banning guidelines without making use of them excessively cumbersome. Due to finding 9 no part of banning policy or guidelines reference whitelisting or dewhitelisting, but dewhitelisting may still be performed. Resulting Actions luckyshotpictures was contacted about the complaint. This resulted in findings 7 and contributed to finding 8. The admin referenced in finding 7 was contacted about the incident. This contributed to finding 8. luckyshotpictures was informed to notify players why they're being dewhitelisted instead of just kicking them.

Do you prefer the reason for dewhitelisting be shared here, where it'll be made public when the complaint is published, or privately?

This complaint has been rejected. Findings The incident occurred too long ago to be the subject of a complaint of inappropriate staff conduct, and the complainant does not appear to be asserting any staff misconduct. The scope of the complaint appears to be solely in regards to the usability of the IC name "Milk". Current admin team consensus is that "Milk" is not an appropriate full name for a human character on our LRP servers. The appropriateness of other names the complainant has seen players use is not within scope of this complaint. Other players regularly use inappropriate names and need to be contacted about them, sometimes even for extended periods before being noticed. Our naming rules are more flexible for non-human species, which could be an explanation for having seen similar names, but they are not so flexible that "Milk" alone is likely to be allowed even as a non-human. Resulting Actions A question about the appropriateness of the IC name "Milk" was presented to the admin team, along with the complaint, resulting in finding 2.

Sorry for the delay, I've been trying to find someone else to handle this since it's in the staff complaints section and I shouldn't handle a complaint about me, but I haven't been able to so far. The warning uses a template message that says "in ban appeals or on rule clarification questions". In this case, the warning was for a post you made on this ban appeal You posted "Appeal only ban just for misgendering is crazy" which is generally considered peanut posting as it doesn't include any new information other than your opinion on if the ban was appropriate. Typically, personal opinions on ban appeals are considered peanut posting. Here is the relevant text from the top of the ban appeals section, which explains peanut posting in ban appeals a bit better than the warning text does: In your post, you said that this isn't really a complaint. If you just wanted information and are fine with this being moved to the admin message section and being archived, let me know. Otherwise, I'll leave this complaint open and keep trying to find someone to process it

I've begun looking into this. The round was Leviathan 43871 and a replay is available at https://moon.spacestation14.com/replays/leviathan/2024/01/14/leviathan-2024_01_14-16_36-round_43871.zip. The related ahelp is: An ahelp from Leviathan 43875's pre-round lobby appears to be related:

Looking over your history, members of the admin team shared concerns that you play the game with a PVP mentality that is incompatible with our rules. Over the last 1-2 months of your time on WizDen servers, you've accumulated bans for 4 different events including this ban, 3 of which were related to escalation issues, including RDM. The fact that these issues continued despite multiple bans makes several admins feel that the issues are unlikely to improve. For these reasons, the admin team has decided to upgrade this ban to a voucher ban. You may appeal your ban, but only at least 6 months from now, 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.

Sorry for the significant delay, the complaint is procedurally rejected. Findings At the time of creation, the complaint was about an incident which occurred approximately a month earlier. At the time of creation, the incident was too old to justify any significant action, unless the incident turned out to be unusually significant. Gtheglorious was a trialmin at the time of the complaint. Gtheglorious is not currently on the admin team. This is relevant to the complaint because they are a subject of the complaint. This was not a direct result of the complaint. LordEclipse claimed they were not overseeing Gtheglorious' response, but rather were responding to answer which rule disallows validhunting. This is plausible. Due to finding 1 and 2, along with database migrations which occurred since the posting of this complaint, admin chat logs for the round were not checked. Rule 11 is often used by admins to disallow valid hunting. Disallowing valid hunting through rule 11 is not currently counter to admin consensus. Due to finding 4, no action can result against one subject of the complaint. No note was left in relation to the incident. Due to findings 7 and 8, no determination will be made on if the situation that occurred was valid hunting, and no determination will be made on if a rule was violated. Resulting Actions The admin team was made aware of the complaint as part of the trial review process. Gtheglorious was contacted about the complaint. LordEclipse was contacted about the complaint, resulting in finding 5. Due to finding 9, this incident may not be used to justify punitive admin decisions, including new notes. LordEclipse requested a message from him be included in the closing of this complaint:

The complaint is accepted, but no investigation was completed to determine if the subject was at fault. Findings Gtheglorious was a trialmin at the time of the complaint. By the conclusion of the complaint, and unrelated to it, Gtheglorious was no longer on the admin team. Due to finding 2, the investigation was not completed and so the subject of the complaint cannot be considered at fault in the incident. No note was left in relation to the incident. The name "Firn" is an appropriate name for a Diona on Wizard's Den LRP servers under current rules. Resulting Actions The admin team was made aware of the complaint as part of the trial review process. Gtheglorious was contacted about the complaint. Finding 3 is relevant.

Sorry for the delay, I forgot to post the closing. This is all from around new years eve/day: Thank you for the complaint, it has been accepted Findings Sphiral is a trial admin No note was left in connection with the ahelp The text of the ahelp does not imply the complainant intended to do anything The fact that an ahelp message was sent can reasonably lead someone to conclude that they did something wrong Resulting Actions Due to finding 1, game admins were notified of the complaint as part of the trial review process The complaint was presented to Sphiral, who sufficiently explained the situation and, unprompted, offered an apology which is attached below.

I've begun looking into this complaint. The ahelp occurred during Leviathan 43547

If you continue to shitpost you will be permanently banned from the forums

Hi, I've begun looking into this complaint. The round was Leviathan 42272. A replay is not available due to server migration. The ahelp is provided below:

Pretty much this. Our current requirements are for it to be from "a well-known or decently active SS13/SS14 server" and that it should be "indicative of at least a few months of play". We set the minimum, but since we aren't the ones giving the vouchers out, it's entirely up to each server what requirements they want to put on top of that. Another server might decide to only give vouchers to players it believes are very high quality or they may decide to not give out any vouchers at all. For those reasons, we can't give you any specific servers. We can't guarantee any specific server will give someone a voucher or tell you their requirements, we can only tell you our requirements. It's also important to note that the voucher is, at its base, a minimum requirement for a voucher ban appeal to be considered. Game admins are allowed to deny the appeal if they feel its best, even if a voucher is provided. Even though we've accepted almost every, if not every, voucher ban appeal that's presented a voucher so far, this is important to keep in mind because game admins may put a different amount of weight on vouchers from different servers. I'm not currently aware of any servers that do this, but if a server just handed out vouchers freely, it would not be as meaningful as one from a server that was more diligent.