Jump to content

lonesoldier55

Game Admin
  • Posts

    262
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    12

Everything posted by lonesoldier55

  1. Oh, I should also add, you don't seem to be the nicest player to other players as evidenced by this little gem I found in the OOC relay while digging through the ahelp logs.
  2. Hi, banning admin here and the administrator who watched part of this situation unfold and investigated it at your request. I cannot ultimately rule on this ban, but I will provide my own context. Let us get one thing clear immediately: This is your conversation with Chief_Engineer in regards to the "number of votes required to impeach the captain". Nowhere in this entire exchange did he say, as you told me, that it has to be every single head of staff voting yes (and where a head of staff abstaining or failing to vote is counted as no, as you tried to tell me). Regardless of this exchange, I was the administrator handling the incident at the time. While I don't wish to step on another administrator's toes in regards to what they may have or may not have said for a ruling, that does not mean you can just disregard my own ruling on the situation in favor of another ruling another admin may have told you before. This is irrelevant because either you lied about what the other admin told you or did not remember it correctly. Let me retell this sequence of events that happened from my observational point of view which was interrupted a few times by handling administrator functions: I have to handle an ahelp of a blatant self-antag and happen to be watching security while doing so. The HoS in this situation handles it well with his security team. At some point there is a callout of potential nuclear operatives. While handling something else, I stumble upon you having a standoff in front of the HoP's office with the HoS and approximately 15-20 people around you (in fact I happen to have a screenshot of this): You were openly threatening to demote the HoS for not answering the radio. This is, in my opinion, an extremely petty reason to try and initiate a demotion of your head of staff over, especially without trying to figure out what they were dealing with from their own end. This results in the above-pictured crowd and several people taking different sides. Most notably, the other heads of staff do not agree with your assessment. You say you "decided not to demote him", but I think this is more because the public and your other heads were against you in this mob and you realized that pushing forward would likely get you killed. I think this is the primary factor that caused you to "not demote" the HoS, not the fact that you thought better of it. You decide to summon all heads of staff to the bridge to hold a vote to impeach you to satisfy the HoS who was getting ready to (rightfully) defend himself from an unjust attempted demotion. You are clinging on to your belief that every single head on the station needs to have a definitive "yes" vote to vote you out. As I have already stated and stated in the relay, as long as the reasoning is sound, I think a majority head of staff vote suffices, not a unanimous vote. In this case, the HoS, CMO, and HoP decide to vote you out. The CE and RD both abstain from voting and the QM could likely not be contacted. This means there were three votes to remove you, and three votes of "don't care" or abstain. Most notably, nobody is voting to keep you in place. The HoS here (rightfully) decides that this has concluded majority of the heads no longer trust your leadership. The HoS requests that you surrender your items to facilitate a demotion. This results in a rapid escalation after you refuse to do so because you are still clinging on to the belief you need 100% vote. You refuse to surrender, the HoS attempts to cuff you, you move back, the HoS attempts to disabler you, you whip out your laser and start blasting, everyone else crits you in a justified escalation of force that you perpetuated at every step. This begins our ahelp transaction: You immediately start this exchange by admin-checking. You have been playing long enough to know this is an irrelevant question to ask. You immediately start with the "all heads need to say yes" line. This has already been mentioned, I will skip over it for now. Your reason for demotion was extremely thin, if any at all. I don't think one instance of failure to answer the radio (which the other player stated you were using the general frequency which made it even harder to track) is a just reason to demote a head of staff. Your entire premise for this situation is already in shambles. I ask about escalation. To your credit, you did back off and try to handle things diplomatically, but then you immediately went back in the other direction as soon as diplomacy did not go in your favor. At this point I go and talk to the HoS. The HoS tells me the same chain of events I just described; you try to demote him over nothing, they vote you out, you resist attempts to be detained and escalate conflict into lethals, to which they responded in kind. The only possible fault I have in the HoS is not giving the admin relay a heads up of a possible mutiny or captain demotion about to happen, but that is minor in the grand scale of things. We'll skip over the explanation of why the deathsquad comment was completely ignored. I explain the information I obtained from talking with the other party to you. You are still hung up on needing full votes. This leads into the second page of the relay: I explain my stance on the matter. Regardless of what another admin may have said, since I am handling the transaction, my stance should be the one you judge your actions against. If majority of the heads of staff do not want you to be leading them, they can majority vote you out. That is my simple take. My other explanation was that you were the primary instigator and catalyst for this event unfolding the way it did. You express you pretty much just want the HoS to stop being able to play the game because people took his side and not yours. This leads into the elements of this ban, where you decide to throw a tantrum: I sincerely and truthfully dislike being told that you are going to go find someone else who will give you the outcome you want and that I "didn't want to do anything" after I spend ten minutes sorting out your little IC conflict and making sure I have the facts straight. I also do not like being told that you are going to go out of your way to blatantly break the rules and go metagrudge the other player in this interaction while at the same time hypocritically complaining that the HoS is not following the rules (even though you were in the wrong). After this point I banned you for two days. Two days! I only gave you two days. In retrospect I should have probably been harsher, though I did decide after the fact that maybe a month break from command roles would change your thinking. And let me just address a few bullet points of your appeal that have my noggin' joggin': Yes, threatening to break the rules will be dealt with in the same manner. I don't care what your excuse is. The possible scenarios here are you are threatening to break the rules and going to carry through with it, or threatening to break the rules to try and scare the other party into an action you want, neither of which I care for. This is taken out of context. The ruling here is heads of staff can "vote you out" with majority. I did not say the heads of staff can murder you. You facilitated your own murder by trying to blast someone non-forcibly trying to detain and demote you with your laser. No, it isn't just "might be wrong". I assure you, it is wrong. I talked to both parties involved in this dispute from an observer's standpoint and tried to look at both of your situations. I did not take any action because I did not believe the HoS acted unjustly from a captain threatening to demote him over virtually nothing. People are fallible, your heads of staff are allowed to make minor mistakes, they are human beings and players too, they are not going to be perfect. You do not have the right to demote whoever you want because they didn't do something minor. Not only were you dead wrong on this claim anyways, you do not have a "right to adminshop" anything. The administrators here are a collective team and we rule on things as a team. If two admins have a conflicting point of view on a situation, we will discuss it internally and decide how to uniformly address it if it is a problem. You do not get the "right" to run to another admin hoping they tell you yes when the admin you are dealing with tells you no. I hope this clears everything up for whomever addresses this appeal.
  3. Your appeal is nigh-illegible and near-zero effort. You have betrayed our trust after a week ban by skipping right past trying to play the game proper and proceeding directly to murdering a crew member over them hitting you with a pie, then trying to hide the body, plus spamming the ahelp relay with nonsense. We strongly believe that if you are unbanned that your behavior will not improve and you will continue to be at least as problematic as you have been. You have already racked up seven notes of various severity including abandoning your head role to build shuttles, sabotaging power/jailbreaking as non-antag, and in general seem to only follow the rules when it is convenient for you or forget they exist entirely. Because of the contents of both of these appeals, your notes, and your behavior in-game, I am going to take the rare move of exercising rule 0 and upgrading your week ban to an appeal-only ban. General admin consensus is that you will continue to be a problem for other players as repeated warnings, admin contacts, and your general playtime don't seem to be getting through. Also, as Stealth has already pointed out, there appears to be some sort of significant language barrier in communicating with you. Until you write a competent, well thought-out appeal, you will remain banned from Wizard's Den servers. Do not post additional appeals for two weeks from now.
  4. Please just post a reply in your thread next time with any additional information. I’ve closed your old appeal and we are using this one.
  5. even if you weren't blatantly trying to evade your ban this appeal would never be accepted anyways. if you don't agree with the rules (or read them in the first place) go play somewhere else. don't bother appealing.
  6. Hey daspy222, Your actions in-game look a lot like you joined with the express purpose of blowing up fuel tanks, which is majority of the reason why this resulted in an appeal ban after your disconnection. I would strongly suggest you avoid intentionally detonating fuel tanks or other similar activity if you are learning the game as it looks exactly like you're trying to be disruptive and it is difficult for us to separate new player mistakes from intentional malice if we cannot speak with you about it. That being said this was your first connection to the server, so the team's consensus is to accept your appeal and lift this ban. Please carefully read over the rules and try to avoid blowing random fuel tanks up or disrupting other players for little/no reason as a non-antagonist.
  7. Hey kab00m_, Let me start by saying we appreciate your (delayed) honesty. Chemistry grief is by far one of the most common and annoying things we have to deal with, especially on the shuttle before/during transit, as well as during the normal course of the round as people like to "make things for the end round" which usually results in them being used pre-maturely if they can find an excuse or get bored enough. Let me outline things you shouldn't do: Don't make bombs/fire/death mixes for the "end round" or before you have any valid reason or purpose to do so as non-antagonist Don't attack/bomb/space/disrupt the shuttle before the end-round summary appears at central command. It is not your objective to be the last man standing in the end of the round deathmatch everyone is so fond of apparently, and attacking people before the end-round screen can disrupt traitor objectives unfairly. Don't blatantly lie to administrators and force us to go back and piece together what happened so we can tell you why you're lying. You have been banned for about 40 days for your emergency shuttle stunt and then lying to us in an appeal. That being said, your honesty here has come about with the consensus to accept this appeal and unban you. As a precautionary measure I will be applying a two-week Chemistry/Scientist/Warden/Heads of Staff role ban which will expire on its own. I will process this shortly.
  8. As you have already been helpfully informed: "This ban cannot be appealed" means we will not accept an appeal from you. If you are doing this just to waste our time you can have a forum ban to go with it. This is also disregarding a ban evasion attempt within the past 6 months anyways which would get you denied anyways. If you actually wanted to play the game it looks like you had seven times to do that before your eighth ban. You are not welcome on official Wizard's Den Servers. Go away. Do not post additional appeals.
  9. Hey OfficialDankMeme, We've talked this one over, majority opinion believes this was a slight over-escalation of an IC issue. We would strongly prefer that you do not immediately try to seek executions for non-violent (albeit evasive) syndicate agents, especially on MRP (even if the detainee was being as uncooperative and annoying as possible). The opinion of the administration team is to re-whitelist you, but we'll keep the temporary security roleban in place for the remaining 5-6 days. I will handle the whitelist shortly and you should again be able to connect to Salamander. Have fun.
  10. To clarify the punishment here, you have been given a week ban from Security roles and have been given a week un-whitelist from the MRP server, salamander. You would not be prevented from connecting to other Wizard's Den servers.
  11. Hey TheEternalJew, You have a hefty number of notes on your account which indicate you are frequently a problem player and should know better. You have notes for, in short: Antagonizing or killing security for no reason Breaking lights/welderbombing Cargonia Assisting the clown in self-antagging the HoP and security Walling off departments as the clown Forcefeeding people mislabeled spacedrugs pills This does not even cover the offense of this appeal which was blatant and continued grief as the Research Director, and then bragging about it in OOC at the end of the round and wondering why you didn't get banned. Admin consensus is to unanimously deny this appeal. Appeal again in a month (12/26/22), though it is strongly suggested that you get a voucher of good behavior from another SS13/SS14 server to help your case.
  12. Hey Toastinator, Looking at your account's notes alone indicates to me that you are a frequent problem player, especially in the context of over-escalation and responding with violence instead of words, often with a knife you happen to have on you. You have FOURTEEN (14!) notes on your account. These are the summarized various infractions you have generally been WARNED for and you have far outstayed your welcome in being warned for things: 09/09 - Being a massive dick to a new player over multiple rounds (was banned for this) 10/17 - Using LOOC to bypass IC restrictions while unconscious (warned) 10/22 - Over-escalation, stabbing medical staff to death when they took a cardboard box from you, then griefing medical by disposaling all of the meds and suiciding immediately after being arrested. (discovered after the round was over, no action taken) 10/23 - Blatant self-antagonism by building electrified grilles in the main halls and saying "I deserve it" when admins started abusing you. 10/27 - Crit a passenger and tried to flush the body. (Warned) 11/03 - Admin checking (warned). 11/04 - Potential over-escalation which was ruled as being probably okay. (Warned) 11/04 - Over-escalation, hitting someone who you thought was trying to space the station repeatedly despite them trying to run away and the HoP telling you to stop. Apparently you did not want to stop hitting them until you "scared them enough". 11/05 - Suspected metacommunication. 11/12 - Admitted metacommunication (somehow you got away with a warning on this!) 11/13 - Note indicating you often send ahelps to the effect of "admin you saw that" which is extremely aggravating to deal with. 11/13 - Involved in a mutiny involving an early shuttle call where you started attacking the Captain who was arresting someone. (discovered after the round was over, no action taken) 11/22 - Stabbing a cargo tech twice for trying to break a NanoMed. (no action taken) 11/23 - The offense of this appeal, stabbing the mime into crit without saying anything when they were being an annoyance. You are well and far beyond out of goodwill. All of these notes are on top of two prior bans, one already mentioned and one for forcefeeding people poison. You look at this textbook of history and tell us that you should only be having a few days ban. This appeal is unanimously denied. Appeal again in a month (12/26/22).
  13. First, the full ban reason is above, just for clarity. Second, to address this, you most certainly have two prior bans on file not even a week before for the same behavior it would seem: And third, to address this: Whether or not your behavior was permitted on an SS13 server has no relevance. It is not permitted here. Seeing as you're not here to bring value to anybody, we do indeed think a permanent ban is more suitable. And lastly, suffice to say, several admins who have been around longer than me instantly recalled your name when this appeal was written. We suggest that if you want to "check out the game" that you do not do it on official Wizard's Den servers. This appeal is denied, re-appeal in a month (12/26/2022).
  14. Hey YodaLaheyhoo, This is a tricky ban for us to handle. Primarily we take issue with the blatant over-escalation into shooting a security officer to death who was well within his right to try and get the dangerous armory equipment back from you. You are not "fully willing and cooperative" if you resist security's actions and then ultimately shoot them to death for trying to get the gear back. This is part of the reason why people don't like giving guns out to the crew for any reason. You then both inserted yourself into the command area of the shuttle and stole a head of staff's fire axe and tried to book it. This was after it was probably fairly well known that you shot a security officer to death over a disagreement. We think the escalation here by the head of staff is not too far out of line for what was going on at the time. This ban is more centered around the self-antagonism then it is the ahelp relay. In either case, our consensus is to accept this appeal and lift your ban. You'll be under scrutiny as far as escalation is concerned.
  15. Hey Berkay, Consensus is to deny this appeal, again. I think you have a significant language barrier that prevents you from communicating effectively with other players and administrators and this appeal fails to address any elements of your ban or reassure us it won't happen again. I also checked the logs and found you did indeed cut some wires in the morgue for reasons I can't decipher from a quick look at the logs alone. Appeal again in a month.
  16. Hey PandaTop4ik, Please understand that if you just disconnect instead of answering an ahelp its results in an automatic appeal-ban. If you leave us with no ability to talk to you in-game, we will make you come to the forums and explain it. Please do not decide to grief other players when you have to disconnect; it will be handled accordingly and we will have very low tolerance for disconnecting from an admin-help if it happens again. Admin consensus is to accept this appeal. This ban will be lifted.
  17. Hey PinPaladox, The ERP rule has recently been rewritten to be more clear and all-encompassing. This game is 16+ and as such with minors around we cannot allow such behavior. I think you understand this and we will be lifting this game ban. I trust we won't have a similar issue. This appeal is accepted.
  18. Hey NosKRL, You appear to have held up your end of the bargain and we have not had any major issues with you since the original ban and appeal. This appeal is accepted and I will lift the rolebans shortly. Have fun.
  19. Hey KiKiKiana, We're a little hesitant due to gaps in playtime, however you appear to have been issue free for the time you have spent. Consensus is to accept this appeal and remove your rolebans. Apologies for the delay in handling.
  20. This is virtually less effort than your last appeal which is a hard bar to hit. I have no belief that your behavior will change as you provide no indication as such in your appeal that you won't do it again given the chance. I also strongly suspect there is a significant language barrier that's part of the problem in communicating the rules to you. This appeal is denied. Re-appeal in two weeks (12/10/22).
  21. You are going to need a much better appeal if you think this is okay.
  22. Here's the problems I have with this: 1) You weren't ever banned besides an appeal-only chemist roleban for your acts. You didn't get a "week ban" anywhere, unless you are referring to be told to wait a week before a re-appeal. 2) All of your connections span from August 3rd of this year to August 5th of this year, so it appears after you got banned from chemist and appeal denied you quit the game entirely and haven't been playing since. Our decision to remove rolebans from a user generally relies upon their playtime and behavior after the infraction to determine if they can be trusted in the role they are banned from. You have neither to go off of and I strongly suspect that your complete absence from the game since reveals you have little interest in the game besides how the chemist can kill people as a job. Denied. Appeal again in two weeks, and only with a decent track record of play time in the server and no further issues.
  23. Consensus of Wizard's Den Administration is to deny this appeal. You appear to have no social decorum nor ability to follow a conversation and appear to often say something both without thinking and seemingly without reading the replies. Here is a small sample of posts I thought were relevant to this decision. Appeal again in a month.
×
×
  • Create New...