/tg/Station 13

BYOND account: Sakamoto4ka

Ban/note type (Check what applies):
(x) - Server Ban
() - Note
() - Forum Ban
() - Discord Ban

Ban/note length: 3 day ban
Ban/note reason:Banned by host: You, or another user of this computer or connection (Sakamoto4ka) is banned from playing here. The ban reason is: Detonated a hellfoam grenade on themselves when attacked by someone with a fire axe. Killed themselves, their attacker, and a passing chaplain. Has already been spoken to about AOE weapons and collatoral damage and received a day ban for it. Here we are again so this time its a 3 day ban. Still not sure they understand and advised to NOT USE AOE WEAPONS if they cant grasp the issue here. This ban (BanID #73222) was applied by lain0 on 2024-10-11 01:37:02 during round ID 240104. The ban is for 3 days and expires on 2024-10-14 01:37:02 (server time).
Time ban was placed: 2024-10-11 01:37:02
Server you were playing on when banned: Terry
Round ID in which ban was placed: 240104

Why are you making this appeal?(Check what applies):
(x) - The ban/note is factually incorrect
() - The ban/note is not against the rules
(x) - The ban/note needs modification
() - The ban was unjustifiably harsh
() - I was permabanned and I want another chance

Why should this appeal be accepted?:
To begin with, the situation with the 1 day ban and this one are very different imo.
In the first case, 1 innocent sec died and I could control the situation and not detonate a grenade. In this case, chappie (innocent guy) was able not to fall for the grenade at all, but tried to do exactly the opposite (I'll explain in the screenshot). The reason I detonated the nade was because tot caught me in instastun and start fireaxe harm intent me which means that was different situations. Next, i was in paladin mod and that nade not supposed to be suicide, but for some reason my foam kills me too(proof about a foam protection in mod in 2 image) which was unexpected for me because I didn't want to take tot out of the round cause it was low pop( i mean tot dies -> i regen stamina -> i defib tot). Even if I predicted the worst outcome where I, tot and chappie dies, he still looks better than tot kills me and does what he wants because I was the only one whose role was to catch criminals(cap) and there were no doctors or secies on the server (there were 4 of us, I, the traitor cook, engineer and chaplain). And I don't think tot would have decided to resurrect me and not continue killing people and completing tasks(I didn't plan on dying at all).

1 screenshot i(blue guy(already instastunned) ), tot(red guy with fireaxe), chapie(guy with cross) in wawastation medbay entrance. I detonated a grenade after the first blow with an axe at me (I realized that tot was unlikely to spare me and, according to my calculations, he had to make another 4-5 blows before crit). The airolock, which is circled in black, was closed during the detonation(i kept it in my mind) and in fact nothing threatened the chaplain, but for some reason he decided to open this door and enter the foam, which is exactly why he died.




2 screenshot mod supposed to safe from foam.

Just to clarify something.

When you use area of effect self defense weapons, you are responsible for the collateral damage.

If you aren't prepared to take the consequences of other players getting caught in your WMDs in ways you didn't predict, like walking into a room where you just detonated your WMD - consider not using WMDs for self defense. You'll just end up banned under the 1 day per kill as a non antag to a non antag precedent. Or in this case have the ban escalated due to relevant/recent history.

Alternatively, save your WMD self defense tools for roles that are allowed to use them freely. Like when you're an antag.

To be clear, the issue isn't defending yourself. It's that others - through their own fault or yours, it doesn't matter - become collateral. The barrier to pass where non-antags can even create situations where collateral deaths may happen requires some form of round ending threat.

Yup, timber pretty much just summed up our ticket, including the round ending threat threshold for collatoral damage. As unintended as it may all be you're responsible for the collatoral damage which in this case was the (effective) round removal (husked, on a 4 pop station where you just killed 3 of them) of a 4h (iirc) chaplain player. Who I divine interventioned and they ran around the rest of the round naked with an ERROR sprite on them for some reason.

It's not like you intended it last time either

Set off a morphine foam grenade in brig which resulted in 3 security officers and one other player overdosing on medical. One of these was taken by a hereic during these events and sacrificed in a way that round removed them. Not sure why you're assaulting brig with AOE grenades, your explanation didn't make a whole lot of sense at the time but the AOE impact of your weapon on unrelated parties leading to their demise is not okay. Probably dont go grenading down brig with anything as a non antag.

Love the phrase "overdosing on medical", my brain is developing the ability to slot whole words in as typos lately, I assume I meant morphine, however aside from your AOE grenade here not even making sense as stated herein "the AOE impact of your weapon on unrelated parties leading to their demise is not okay", as in, this is why you got a day ban for morphining brig, had everyone slept it off well and fine i'd probably have just noted you (depending on history).

Same thing here then, from my point of view, you set off an AOE weapon and someone dies, as a more direct result this time. And then proceed to have a 30 minute discussion about how its okay while I'm telling you it's not. I should have been clearer in the ticket about round ending meaning "imminent unrecoverable loss" levels of round ending threat in the ticket but otherwise same set of points as timber. I dont have a good way of copy pasting the ticket in here nowadays otherwise i'd just submit that as my stand, for those who can, round 240104/3 ticket.

Was never much more to say from my point of view, I tried to get the point across to you for a long time and obviously wasn't getting anywhere, so told you that you could appeal if you believe this is unfair, and I shut the conversation down as the round came to an end. Here we are, nothing's changed, my conclusion remains the same and your reasons remain as unconvincing as they were in the ticket.

As such I will not be changing my decision, 1 unjustified kill = 1 day ban, escalated to 3 days for this being a repeat offence. If you do this again within the next several months I'll likely go 2 weeks on you (assuming only 1 kill) and then perma after, just so you're fully aware of where you stand on this with me.



Of course we both knew this would be a stand off between you and me, as the ticket was, this is just a stepping stone to getting the higher powers to review the case. As such would you like to exercise your option to escalate to the headmins?

about 1 case, I didn't really want to write an appeal because it was just a ban for a day and wiki kind of advises not to appeal such bans. And it's like what I was talking about in admin redchat in that round didn't affect ban reason at all("Not sure why you're assaulting brig with AOE grenades"). But now that you're threatening to ban me from using foam, I'll have to explain myself for that case as well. The reason I detonated the morphine grenade back then was because I was cuffed and secies start harmbaton me. I still don't feel guilty for doing it against those 3 series who participated in the bulling (because as I know they could have taken me out of the round then, hidden my corpse and they wouldn't have had anything for it and I also didn't consider it a lethal grenade), I just felt guilty for the fact that a certain 4 sec turned out to be a victim there, which I was not aware of at all. Also, back then, the argument was mainly about the fact that I had to control the dosage of foam so that there was no overdose. Also i don't like to be banned for rule which mainly use for clueless ttv users against nukies.

I don't like the fact that the first case and 2 seem to only combine the fact that I used foam both there and there (for example, if I used a trap with flying spears/shards on a mass driver, then this would not be considered a recurrence of the violation)

I also don't like the fact that you are demanding excessive control from me, which, in theory, I at least tried to observe in 2 case what make him different to 1 case. I mean, try to read the thoughts of a new chapie to make sure that he does not get into foam 100%. I mean, if, for example, during a detonation, someone using a hand-held teleporter at that time would have ended up in foam and died, but at the same time I was completely unaware that he was going to do it right now, I would also have been responsible for his death?

I also don't like about the 2 case that if I were choosing between blowing up a grenade and not blowing it up, I have to choose an option where I don't risk blowing up a grenade and die only because I wouldn't be banned for it(It seems to me an irresponsible act for a captain).

The only thing I found rn that seems to justify me in 2 case is this moment in screenshot. But I was not guided by him during the decision-making process, but I thought logically that most likely if I die, no one will stop the traitor.

It's worth noting that we have, in the past, considered "overwhelming force on the verge of defeating the station" to be specific, round-ending threats. If the antag in question could reliably destroy the station (and thus end the round) and is in the process of doing so, that clause would be applied.

The ruling uses Nuclear Operatives and Cult as an example as they are mechanically able to destroy the station. Traitors have methods to destroy the station via bombs or delaminating the supermatter, but are not typically considered round-ending threats.

As is a common catchphrase of mine in Terry tickets ; if you are having issues with securities behaviour I suggest you admin help rather than seek revenge. Particularly when most peoples idea of a response to 'person did me wrong' is to yell shitsec and grief the whole department (see your previous ban). You are not the overseer of security, I am. However your previous ban is not on appeal here, if you felt it was unfair then you should have appealed it, by not doing so you accepted the judgement, which means you'd be expected to learn from it and the point you were actually banned for being the collateral death you caused.

I'm not banning you from using foam, if I were the ban would read "Is prohibited from using foam". You can do what you like with foam, but you will face the consequences of your choices.

KILLING INNOCENTS is the problem here, you need to rebase your arguments around that, I don't care if you foam down an antag, I'm probably not /too/ bothered if you burn things in medbay lobby since there's nothing there, sure I'll raise an eyebrow at you because self defence AOE weapons are really just banbaiting yourself, but it's the consequences for the other players that matter. And all you care about, consistently, is your own experience. Again you need to adjust your perspective.

Excessive control? As per the ban in all caps the simple exercise of control here is to /NOT BUILD AND USE AOE WEAPONS/ as a non antag. If you wanna play die-of-fate with escalating bans then thats on you, you CAN NOT kill innocent players, if your weapon is not suitable for those conditions then don't use it, same as we enforce sec to use non lethals on non antags, and if you forgot to charge your baton, tough, go charge it. It's like you maxcap the station and kill 20 people and then complain that its unfair of me to ask you to control the maxcap. You THINK you can control what happens, you maybe even TRIED, but you just cant, there are too many variables and every time you do this is a crap shoot on wether you'll fuck it up and get banned. Literally choosing a weapon you can not control to that degree. And thats why I call this banbaiting yourself, do it enough and it's guaranteed to go wrong. Same with health sensor activated small explosives ; maybe it works twice, maybe the third time a spider eats you on the shuttle and you cop a week ban (actual case).

And re the teleporter, sure, why not be liable, you're the one that decided to turn a safe location into a hell hole. Hell, how about seeing the person who just teleported in as someone who might HELP YOU rather than just some potential liability that might get you banned because AOE. What exactly is your mindset going into this game, because as a non antag you're "another person having another day at work", by the book, meanwhile you're beginning to sound obsessed with the need to AOE down rooms. Have you thought about what you're doing? From a roleplay context, not from a gaming context ; you're a person who thinks a reasonable self defence mechanism is to scorched earth the room - does that sound like a sane, normal, behaviour? You're guilty of manslaughter at a minimum, all sorts of other sundries around incompetence, negligence leading to others death and so on, and I'd argue perhaps even murder because it's so obvious something could go wrong. Regardless you're probably going to jail or a psych ward. Why are you so fixated on trying to use AOE weapons. You were the captain/only command, you've got the contraband locker, two overpowered guns from cap+hos, armor, grenades, stun batons, cargo orders for guns, everything in the armory. Don't go nuts and jump the gun and turn into a walking armory before any threats are particularly revealed but esp as captain you're very much welcome to be armed with a reasonable selection. Why on earth do you need a hellfire grenade. (Edit: oh yeah and that OP sword with the huge block chance thats perfect for common garden melee fights)

And yup, some tot fireaxing you is not a round ending threat, no matter how much you'd like to spin out the fact that you're critical to the round and the tot is just going to kill everyone and win. Which given that its 4 pop if they just go murder everyone i'm probably gonna speak to them and ask them not to go murderboney on such low pops as it will just empty the server (and whats the point in 1 pop tot station <insert link to setting up a private server> )

I suggest you play it safe, just quit it with the AOE gimmick, its not that hard, everyone else manages it. But thats not the rules, you can do whatever you like with foam and AOE stuff but you will be liable for the consequences, heck, i'll note (or worse) players if they go blow up the refuelling simulation with zero casualties other than themselves, simply because it only serves to space rec and destroy facilities that others might care about (or suffocate from). It's the collatoral that matters. But since you're slowly coming to the realisation that this isn't as controllable as you'd like, including your speculative teleport example, you can see why this cheap room destroying weapon is only really used by antags, everyone else either sees the ban trap, gets banned and reforms, or gets permabanned. It's just kinda natural selection, this behaviour inevitably weeds its self out because its unsustainable, you WILL fuck it up no matter how much you try. Hence my genuine advice to you is to stop trying. But its the side effects that are the actual rule break so I'm /not/ enforcing "no aoe" "no foam" "no whatever else", just that i'll ban you even harder next time you fuck it up. What you do with this conundrum is your choice. I think it's pretty intuitive, however we're still arguing this after two bans and an appeal so big ole shrugs from me, nice as it is to educate you on the what and why I'm not required to reach that goal, I just like to try.


Anyway, still not budging on this one, and I'm pretty sure you're not going to get me to give ground here. I don't seem to be getting through to you, you're not taking into consideration a lot of key factors in your arguments, in fact you only seem to be trying to argue out a path that lets you go AOE things down more. And i'm not stopping you doing that, though I think it would be a poor choice for you to experiment further in this field, that is your choice and your future, no particular investment of mine.

I don't intend to keep debating this with you, I intend to reject this appeal and close this out, the only response at this point I'll react to is you asking for this to be escalated to the headmins in which case I will kick off the due process, otherwise if you do not request this within a few days, or confirm you don't wish to escalate, I will close this appeal as denied.

Since the ban has expired and OP has not contested the note after a week from the last reply, I am locking this on Iain's behalf.