Jump to content

Repo - UristBW: Admin banned for slipping sec with bananas as a clown.


UristBW
Go to solution Solved by Chief_Engineer,

Recommended Posts

What it says on the tin really, a complete overreaction to something that is regular clown behaviour.

I was warned to find something more creative to do and while looking for stuff to do it slipped a sec officer one time, just once.

Honestly just a shameful overreaction especially the length of time, ahelp was instigated by me after I was shot to death in cuffs by a security officer in sec.

What an admin finds as 'not funny' should not be justification for bans from the servers, especially as this behaviour should be expected from clowns.

Admin help was also far from clear that this was even a warning close to escalation to a ban.

Reposted now the appeal is done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Project Manager

I've tried to create a list of separate issues from your complaint, please read through the list to verify that:

  • each listed item is an issue you have with the incident, and
  • there is nothing you take issue with as part of this complaint that is not listed.

Here is what I believe to be a complete list of the issues, from your perspective, that you are presenting in this complaint:

  1. It is inappropriate for an admin to warn you for the actions you took as a clown prior to you ahelping that you had been killed while cuffed.
  2. It was not made clear to you that continuing your behavior in that round would result in a ban.
  3. Even if the admin had made it sufficiently clear that continuing your behavior would result in a ban, it is inappropriate for an admin to have banned you in this situation for as long as you were banned.

Again, please make sure both that I'm not missing any issues and that only things you feel are issues have been listed.

image.pngimage.png.a54e0c38b83579a437f56d4e5b55048b.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't take issue with the warning taking place before the ahelp thats here nor there.

I do take issue with the wording/tone of the warning and subsequent messages in ahelp as well as the wording of my (initial) ban.

2 and 3 are pretty much spot on.

I think it was a severe overreaction to the situation that occured yesterday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Project Manager

Thanks for clarifying, I'll start looking into:

  1. The wording/tone used in ahelp and the initial ban message was inappropriate.
  2. It was not made clear to you that continuing your behavior in that round would result in a ban.
  3. Even if the admin had made it sufficiently clear that continuing your behavior would result in a ban, it is inappropriate for an admin to have banned you in this situation for as long as you were banned.

image.pngimage.png.a54e0c38b83579a437f56d4e5b55048b.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Project Manager

Sorry for the delay, can you confirm that the following facts I've collected from relevant events are accurate and that there are no important facts missing from relevant events:

  1. Complainant joins the round as a passenger
  2. About 5 minutes later, complainant gets a new clown ID from the HoP
  3. About 30 minutes into the round, complainant is killed by security and the ahelp begins
  4. Prior to revival, the ahelp message from Repo starting with "And having two people" is sent
  5. About 37 minutes into the round, complainant is revived in medbay
  6. Upon leaving medbay, complainant tries to pull a secoff who is pulling a mime
  7. Complainant beings dragging around a welded Syndicate surplus crate with a person voluntarily inside of it near security and medbay
  8. A secoff offers to help the complainant find their bag, to which the complainant responds saying no and that instead the secoff should bring their bag to them where they're at, just south of security at the medbay
  9. About 1 minute later, approximately 4 minutes after being revived and while still pulling the surplus crate, complainant runs from and escapes security trying to perform a search
  10. About 2 minutes later, complainant asks someone growing weed in maintenance if they can grow some bananas
  11. About 5 minutes later, complainant tries to pull a secoff away from botany while the secoff is talking to someone inside of botany
  12. Immediately after, the complainant asks botany for bananas. A botanist responds by throwing bananas to the complainant, which the complainant then immediately eats to convert into peels before roaming the halls next to security for a few minutes, then slipping the first secoff they encounter

Ahelp

Leviathan 31694

📥 **UristBW:** fridge fiddler just lethaled me while restrained as a clown in sec
📤 **Repo:** was it a sec off?
📥 **UristBW:** killed me i should say
📥 **UristBW:** yes
📤 **Repo:** was there some IC reason
📥 **UristBW:** I'll show you lethals
📥 **UristBW:** then shot me
📥 **UristBW:** or harming or something like that
📤 **Repo:** alright thanks ill check it out
📥 **UristBW:** very weak IC if it was at all
📥 **UristBW:** just looked like someone wanting to get their jollies by murderboning
📤 **Repo:** Were you stealing a bunch of sec stuff too?
📥 **UristBW:** i slipped sec
📥 **UristBW:** and took i think one baton
📥 **UristBW:** i dont think that justifies being murdered
📤 **Repo:** Well both of you clowns were griefing sec for a good portion of this round, ive had a word to the other one but chill on the sec griefing.
📥 **UristBW:** killing over some slipping is a way overreaction
📤 **Repo:** And having two people coming in and messing with you all round is anoying as fuck and just trolling as far as i see it. I've had a word to them about overescalation but this is a 2 way street they never would have shot you if you were not being so unfunny for the whole round. Just moving forward find some more creative gameplay with clown that doesnt involve stealing secs shit or slipping thim continuously. 
📥 **UristBW:** if they were actually decent it wouldnt be an issue
📥 **UristBW:** they shouldnt open carry
📥 **UristBW:** its asking for it
📤 **Repo:** alright man your clearly not getting what im putting down here so ill give you some time to think about it.

image.pngimage.png.a54e0c38b83579a437f56d4e5b55048b.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
  • Project Manager
  • Solution

Completing processing now due to the lack of a response. This complaint is being accepted based on the determination by the appeals process that the time was excessive.

Findings

  1. The wording used in the ahelp and in the ban message was reasonable.
    1. It is unclear what part of the ahelp the complainant believed to be inappropriate. No part of the ahelp or ban message appear to be inappropriate, and it's unclear why the complainant believed either to be inappropriate.
  2. The ahelp made it sufficiently clear that continuing the behavior would result in a game ban.
    1. The ahelp unambiguously instructs the complainant to "chill on the sec griefing" and to "find some more creative gameplay with clown that doesnt involve stealing secs shit or slipping thim continuously".
    2. Admins should generally not use ahelp to instruct a player to do something which is optional, so it is unreasonable to expect admins to either include a warning with each instruction that disregarding it will result in a ban or to have to tell someone the same thing multiple times before it can be considered a warning.
    3. Players regularly interpret instructions from admins in ahelp as something that will result in a ban if disregarded.
    4. There appears to be no strong reason in this case for the instruction to have been interpreted as optional by the complainant.
    5. A ban is the reasonable next escalation from a warning.
  3. It was reasonable for the complainant to have been banned, but not for the duration which they were banned for.
    1. The ban appeal process determined that a ban was justified in this case.
    2. On reviewing the replay, a belief by Repo that the complainant had disregarded Repo's instructions appears to be reasonable. Throughout the 10 minutes after the complainant is revived, it is reasonable to conclude that their focus remains on interacting with security negatively and acquiring bananas to continue to slip security specifically.
    3. The ban appeal process determined that the ban length was excessive in this case.
    4. Repo was contacted during the appeal process about the length of the ban and has acknowledged that the length was excessive.

Resulting Actions

There were no actions as a direct result of the complaint. The contact about the ban length occurred during the appeals process, prior to the beginning of the evaluation of this complaint.

image.pngimage.png.a54e0c38b83579a437f56d4e5b55048b.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...