lonesoldier55

The clarification process itself should just be distilled down to roundtable discussion and the results of clarifications need to be added in a concise manner somewhere in the rules page. Forums are not a good place to keep them for accessibility nor visibility. If your hope is to keep staff consistent and keep players informed, then I don’t know why they are being kept on the expectation that nobody reads them. When the general discussion of the rule comes to a close a shot-caller should be making a choice on if/how to append it to the rules page, either as a footnote, on another precedents page/tab, or in some other way. Writing a lot about something is easy, evaluating it and cutting it down so it is clear, concise, and complete takes significantly longer. Rules and their add-ons need to be the latter. Clarifications are currently the former. From experience each backlog has differing reasons as to why your staff don’t want to engage with it. Minimizing the difficulties or workload involved in something while balancing its need to be thorough is something that should be sought after. If rule clarifications were merely a roundtable discussion instead of having to propose an answer with a vote, discuss it, get deadlocked on technicailities and scope, then propose a new answer, vote on it, post it, and never see it again, I think it would be more approachable. This would likely be something doable on discord in a forum or thread format that involves players so as long as they are only started by staff. This provides the needed area for players to draw concerns about the scope of whatever is being talked about as well as admins to discuss it and provide feedback. If admins want to discuss it privately (from experience) there are plenty of channels for that. I’ve already left a massive disertation on why I think appeals are backlogged and thats out of scope anyways.

rule clarifications are only nessecary insofar as rules occasionally need to be refined or a common situation needs to be addressed. As they are, they don’t function. They are neither accessible nor approachable. They are backlogged due to being deemed unimportant and time consuming for little gain. Admins are going to have different interpretations of situations which is not avoidable, and forcing admins to try and interpret situations in a particular way (by getting “consensus votes”) is both time consuming and not very productive, doubly so if admins arent expected to know about it anyways. If admins are going to be expected to take them into account when dealing with those situations, then it would seem to me they are expected to know about them. Backlogs can be mitigated and the amount of commitment to something needed to do it can be reduced to make it more approachable to your volunteers so backlogs are less likely. Having backlogs isn’t something that should just be accepted if there’s something that can be done about it. The false “alternative” of “radical adkin anarchy no rules!!” is just disingenous. Admins are still held to standards and answer to a head administrator, and still enforce rules to the best of their ability. Admins may have discretion but maybe what I mean is the culture needs to shift to dealing with players being a bad influence. There has been a nasty habit of “not having enough” to deal with someone exhibiting boundary-pushing behavior until finally someone has to decide to do something which usually retroactive includes everything up until that point. To the player they arent aware anything is wrong until they get punish for causing consistent issues despite never being talked to. The talk of “admins need rule clarifications or else they can do whatever they want” directly next to the paragraph of “admins have plenty of discretion to do what’s needed” look very strangely when placed right next to one another. Are admins trusted to interpert situations in a fair and impartial matter most of the time or do they need clarifications to illustrate exact boundaries? Which is it? Is it somewhere in the middle? Regardless of the answer clarifications themselves do not work as they are.

I can’t tell what’s worse: having the inventory the way it was with everyone resisting any change or people claiming any change is literally the worst thing ever that makes the entire game impossible having infini-UI windows is just as bad. The only change this needs is so only top level inventory containers can be open (bags, belts, containers in your hand) you arent holding anything over anyone’s head by loudly proclaiming you are cancelling patreon donation due to your disagreement with a system change on a game in development. you are bold to assume there is a “UI design team” to “take people off of”

abolish rule clarifications as they are. if neither admins or players are expected to know about or read them what purpose do they serve besides someone digging them up to say "erm akshually". current rule clarifications need to be collapsed in as footnotes into the rules when they are significant, not shuffled into a forum where they're easily forgotten and impossible to navigate. rule clarifications sit idle because no admins want to formulate response to them because they have to go through a voting process and the issues they bring up are typically edge-case-grey-area of little consequence. if something is a significant "clarification" it probably needs to be mentioned somewhere in the actual rules, otherwise it is of sufficiently little importance that apparently nobody needs to read it unless you're hunting for an excuse that your ban wasn't valid the rules pages themselves need organization more than anything, not really a comprehensive re-writing. the current problem is readability, not scope except for cases involving metagaming new game modes (which even then should have mechanical shields in place where possible). I don't blame current players on LRP for hearing flashes in maint and getting the idea that revolutionaries are running around, there's literally no other way to tell until half the heads die to what looks like a mob of tiders rules and expectations for things like security/command/silicons can use their own tabs in the rules page. Admins in general should be able to apply discretion to large majority of rules in the determination of how much the behavior is disrupting the game for other players (ex: players who don't do anything productive but run around and pick fights/steal from people/be annoying/be the center of attention should have more leeway to be dealt with administratively, even on LRP, or even more leeway to be dealt with IC). That's not to say admins need to intervene in every theft case, but players who are obviously escalating at every turn or merely trying to be a persistent annoyance for no reason should be deal with administratively. similarly this should apply to people willfully antagonizing security for no reason and screaming shitsec when they get arrested, they aren't adding anything to the game.

just so nobody gets the wrong idea from the "extra info sprinkled on top", you do not need a warrant to search a person on green on LRP. So as long as the officer doing the searching can provide "reasonable, articulable suspicion that a crime occurred, is being committed, or may occur in the near future due to the circumstances", an officer can stop you for a search. given the OP's own admission on the matter that you were: A chemist Away from your usual job station In a secluded area (maintenance) with no real cause or purpose Holding two bags Wearing gloves non-standard of your job Being extremely evasive or otherwise not providing any explanation that would satisfy your reason for being in maintenance and avoiding being searched it could be arguable that there was enough information at this point to conduct a brief search of your person. I think immediately suiciding because you didn't like the fact you "got caught" is lame; you probably could have argued your way out of that situation or at least got parole out of it instead of just instantly removing yourself. and to clarify further, this is my personal, non-admin opinion on the matter. until someone either marks the answer as correct or another admin says otherwise, that's all it is, is an opinion.

Please appeal when you are able to provide a voucher of good behavior from an SS13/SS14 server. It should be representative of at least a few weeks playtime (more is better) and should come from either the owner or a representative of the administrative team of that server. Unfortunately it is up to Goon's administration if they want to provide a voucher or not.

Datacenter bans aren't applied to specific accounts, they're applied to IPs used by things like virtual private networks (VPNs). If you are using a VPN, disabling it should allow you to connect to Wizard's Den servers. If you are not using a VPN or something similar, but still cannot connect, please do any of the following: Join our Discord server and ask for help in the #help channel, saying that you're affected by a datacenter ban Create a topic in the Admin Message section

You are the one to provide the voucher from goon. We are not asking them on your behalf.

I think this explanation makes pretty good sense. There are some minor issues i'd like to point out here: Assumption of storage implant since baton was not found on clown - This isn't something you should assume the existence of simply because you don't find an item in that person's possession. There's a number of better explanations for where the baton went, i.e they simply flushed it down the disposal. Assumption that the clown could possibly buy a viper from an uplink to engage you with - This also isn't something you should assume since you really only had circumstantial evidence that he might have had an EMP implant and isn't something that's realistic to assume when deciding to use lethals anyways As for everything else, due to numerous escape attempts and general breakdown of security, lethals probably would not have been entirely unheard of here, but less lethal may have still been the better option. Lethals might have been justified given the circumstances if you had been able to properly arrest and treat the clown, but I am just going to assume that your need to leave due to Fire/EMS dispatch was real. Unfortunately our policy is to appeal ban users who cannot be reached at the time of a significant ahelp issue so they can explain their side and I think the timing was just unfortunate. That being said "ban evasion" wasn't the correct term to use here. This ban will be lifted. Please just be careful about making assumptions based on circumstantial evidence.

I'm going to tell you that if you have criticism to give on someone else's map or code that you do it in a constructive manner that identifies what problems you have with it and how you could potentially fix those problems. I do not appreciate you shitting on someone else's map demanding it gets removed because "for all of ss14 history its been the worst map ever". Since this thread isn't anything constructive I'm locking it.

Since this is your third time being unable to read simple instructions your ability to post appeals is being suspended.

Since this is your second time being told to use the template a third non-template appeal will probably result in the removal of your ability to post appeals.

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

We will not be accepting this voucher due to lack of information supporting the claim, in addition to several concerns brought fourth by other users in this thread. Any further vouchers are likely to be heavily scrutinized. Denied.

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

While I appreciate the effort, this is not what we would consider a "voucher". This is a direct message to a user (whom we have had significant issues with administratively) saying "eh sure" to your request for a "voucher". This does not assure us of anything such as your playtime on apocalypse, your notes/bans on that server, or how the rest of the administrative team views you on that server. We would request your voucher come from the server owner or head administrator of that server with a little more information as to what your involvement on that server has been.

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

The best indication of future behavior is past behavior, which is why we heavily consider it when deciding when and how to apply bans. I think in this case given your significant experience with security already that you would be expected to know that physically beating someone for very vaguely suspected vandalism is beyond inappropriate, to say nothing of other alleged issues throughout the following rounds. For this reasoning you can wait this ban out.

I think you got off easy with a temporary security ban seeing has there has been prior significant issues with your security play that makes use significantly question if you are able to play the role at all without getting yourself in trouble. According to the administrator’s notes, the person allegedly disassembling chairs in arrivals was trying to explain their side of the story until you nearly beat them into near critical and then left. Regardless of his disassembly of chairs or not this would not be an appropriate response in vast majority of scenarios.

Powergaming is loosely defined for a reason so there is some discretion with enforcing it. A lot of it (as you outlined) is a security/IC issue that should be addressed that way where possible. Arming up for things has been an issue as long as SS13 had begun creating crew vs enemy game modes as you inevitably will attract players that want to win engagements as often as possible and hence they beeline for equipment to that end. Salvage (and by extension shaft miners from SS13) have a conflicting design standpoint where their job is combat-oriented and thus they get combat gear. This naturally attracts players who want to win combat (be it salvage combat or they like to come back from an expedition and blow away whatever threat manifested), in addition to naturally creating a power gap. There are a number of attempted fixes to this problem which SS13 has struggled with for years, the identified problem being that "Salvage/Shaft Miners are too effective at combat because their job involves combat": Make the job not about combat primarily - this tends to remove one of the few combat-oriented jobs, that content needs to be replaced with something else engaging for salvagers to do, essentially you need to redesign the department Lean into making it about combat - this causes the current issues where salvagers are always armed to the teeth, in addition to traitor salvagers essentially having no need of syndicate firearms or weaponry most of the time Give salvage combat equipment, but make it only barely good for combat - This essentially just gimps salvage against anything they fight while also making them seek more conventional weapons either via salvage loot or the station, the former of which leads into the problem of salvagers being armed to the teeth and the latter which is good but normalizes salvagers being armed to the teeth to do their job Give salvage combat equipment, but only make it work when they're away from the station - This is what the PKA originally was designed for in SS13 where it only did significant damage if it was used in a vacuum, but this is fairly "gamey" and bubblewrappy to do and generally feels inconsistent and bad to players when their weapon used for killing space dragons turns into a pool noodle as soon as they walk back on station. Re-attach salvage as a department to Security if it is going to be combat-oriented, with the duty and restrictions playing Security entails - This is a fix that's been batted around a bit and could work, but you'd then essentially have the "fun security job" where you blast space fish with awesome guns and the "lame security job" where you get called shitsec and relentlessly antagonized by the crew It isn't an easy issue to address. Personally I think salvage would benefit from not being combat oriented at all and instead move its job to its namesake - make them take apart and harvest resources from wrecks like with the magnet, but model it sort of like Hardspace Shipbreaker where they have to carefully tether and guide pieces of hull into a salvage machine which would scrap the tiles/walls/containers for raw material.

I think since you also admitted to evading a CMO role ban in order to go out of your way and kill everyone else just trying to play the game on a low-population server that you should appeal again in two weeks. Denied.

Just a refresher on why this ban was put in place: This appeal and your prior appeals are virtually copies of one another which puts you up to about five denied appeals. I am going to ask that you obtain even a modest voucher of good behavior from any other SS13/SS14 server since you are up to five denied appeals. The Official servers are not the only servers to play on, so I would suggest trying out some of the other community servers and coming back when you have been issue-free at one of them for a bit.

Due to your prior appeal ban (ERP/sexual content), your ban requires a voucher of good behavior to appeal in addition to the stated wait time of 6 months as explained in your prior appeal. Feel free to appeal when you are able to provide a voucher meeting the outlined requirements.

While there isn't much to go on in the context of your play history since the offence, your appeal seems competently written and in the somewhat short time we have to go off of, there's virtually no issues. On a small leap of faith, accepted. Please be familiar with escalation rules and expectations as security.