/tg/Station 13

Posted: **Mon Feb 27, 2017 3:30 pm**

Byond account and character name: Armhulenn - Strawberry
Admin: Cedarbridge
Time and Server incident occurred: [06:53:13] in public logs, basil

Detailed Summary:

I don't care about everything else that happened. I did rad him, so it's okay for him to dunk me, even if it's not lethal.
The point I do care about is right here:

Spoiler:

We were both warned for a lack of verbal communication. The rest of the situation, for context of course, can be viewed here:

Spoiler:

And a warning for a lack of verbal communication seems odd. Was there a lack of communication? Yes. That's not what is the problem at all, it wasn't anything even close to adminhelping because of that. The problem comes when he uses extra lives to kill me, and ghosts out of a spawner to deny me or anyone else a chance to be a life bringer. It wasn't mentioned at all.
>>>admin conduct
>Bans are either to teach a lesson, punish malicious behavior, or remove shitty players from the community. Banning for mistakes doesn't really serve any of these purposes (an honest mistake can be explained and in the future avoided without having the players experience ruined with a ban). Of course a jobban might be warranted if a mistake is repeated multiple times.

either or, but it wasn't a mistake at all. Now, this isn't a ban request, so i'm not naming names, but this is a long time player. They knew they were abusing respawns and ignoring past lives forgotten rule, just to kill me. Bringing it back around, warning both me and him for a lack of communication seems completely out of place. I'll give full logs if needed, probably when I have more time
I forgot to omit his name on a couple lines, sorry about that.

Posted: **Mon Feb 27, 2017 4:24 pm**

What makes this an admin complaint? Or should this be more of a policy discussion as to whether that amount of being a shitter is against the rules. Cause it is kinda questionable whether being that much of a shitter would be actionable over a ghost role.

Either way that's a turbo shitter right there.

[edit]: I see you saying you're mad about the admin for warning you over lack of communication... That does seem like a weird thing for an admin to put into this. Maybe Cedarbridge was busy looking at other stuff and didn't really pay full attention to what was going on with a ghost role.

Posted: **Mon Feb 27, 2017 4:26 pm**

Because the ruling was that we both were using bad communication, when the problem is completely different, abusing ghost roles.

And to your edit, not paying attention is not an excuse.

Posted: **Mon Feb 27, 2017 5:15 pm**

[07:01:44]ADMINPRIVATE: PM: Cedarbridge/(Dalton Wolffe)-><name removed for consistency>/(Tomato): Just try to communicate and play nice? Please
[07:02:04]ADMINPRIVATE: PM: Cedarbridge/(Dalton Wolffe)-><name removed for consistency>/(Tomato): No reason to fight over ghost role plants.

This is how my conversation with the other party in question ended. This was after a conversation that amounted to them explaining to me that they had pulled up the plants because they disagreed with the quality and ones you had placed and had turned them back to seed. I didn't have any reason to doubt that the plants were harvested and made into seeds that could be replanted so I didn't look further on that matter and considered at least better than trashing the place since plants generally don't require much trouble to replant, if that's all the issue was. So it really just sounded at the time like podpeople ghosts having a squabble about which things of which quality should be planted. This is illustrated a bit by the say logs between you and this other player. Though looking back at them I can definitely sense a big difference in the way each player approached the situation.

I resolved the issue at that point by just asking guys on mostly disposable ghost roles to just play nice and get along without starting a brawl in the pod person spawn area. In retrospect and with some discussing in adminbus I probably should have been a little more strict with the guy instigating this all in the first place and probably should have set a lavaland ghost roles ban for essentially trashing your workplace and generally being a jerk. As mentioned above though, I do think that there's a lot of leniency that should go into ghost roles and ghost role conflicts over mostly petty stuff, but this was a time I should probably have been more strict where it looks like they were going out of their way to take this an extra step of shittery unprovoked.

Posted: **Mon Feb 27, 2017 6:40 pm**

I was just thinking about how we're being told that the parties involved were told off for not communicating but we weren't getting the actual logs for the actual complaint, just the logs of what happened IC.

My unasked for 2cents is that I probably would have noted the guy for being a jerk in a ghost role and down the road lead that into a ghost role ban if he did it habitually. Everyone can get salty over stupid crap and the disposable nature of a ghost role makes you more prone to violence that would get you banned for a station job.

Posted: **Mon Feb 27, 2017 6:42 pm**

cmspano wrote:I was just thinking about how we're being told that the parties involved were told off for not communicating but we weren't getting the actual logs for the actual complaint, just the logs of what happened IC.

I'll get full logs when I can but you can find them yourself easily because they're public

Edit: I am satisfied with how this complaint went, seems like it's cleared up for me but second opinions/full logs might be nice

Posted: **Mon Feb 27, 2017 6:45 pm**

right, but he didn't do a "We were both warned for a lack of verbal communication.". He suggested you two not act like autists and work it out. There wasn't really a warning or anything. It makes it sound like he told you both off as a disciplinary action. It happens you were in the right but it's still just a ghost role. I do think it deserved a note but for a 1 time event an admin complaint was a bit much.

Posted: **Mon Feb 27, 2017 8:02 pm**

Seems like we reached a conclusion with this complaint already.

Posted: **Tue Feb 28, 2017 1:10 am**

This entire thread has shown that some rules need to go in to how we use public logs.

I'd like to not see ckeys censored as it made it extremely hard to follow along on who was what line, especially with the access lines as i mixed up yours for theirs

I'd like to see a bit better indication of when and where lines were cut.

and I'd like to see an actual direct link to the public log so its easier to validate the log.

I'll be codifying this into rules

/tg/Station 13

[Cedarbridge]Armhulen - pod people shootout

[Cedarbridge]Armhulen - pod people shootout

Re: [Cedarbridge]Armhulen - pod people shootout

Re: [Cedarbridge]Armhulen - pod people shootout

Re: [Cedarbridge]Armhulen - pod people shootout

Re: [Cedarbridge]Armhulen - pod people shootout

Re: [Cedarbridge]Armhulen - pod people shootout

Re: [Cedarbridge]Armhulen - pod people shootout

Re: [Cedarbridge]Armhulen - pod people shootout

Re: [Cedarbridge]Armhulen - pod people shootout