[Admin Complaint: Saxis]

Warned for their activities as warden. They arrested SimPleCitES in medbay and took them back to the brig despite them dying from IB. Rebel then miserably to perform surgery themselves resulting in SimPleCitES dying eight times despite there being a brig phys and an operational medbay. They addmitted they killed SimPleCitES's pai (BoppyBear) because they were annoying. Additionally, they ran around with a shotgun acting as a security officer insteada of handling their responsibilities in the brig. As a mentor and player with as many hours as them they should know better.

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is the note.  Is it accurate?

[Admin Complaint: Spacemanspark]

You can have your ban appeal, in one month, with a vouch from another server, as per the original appeal. I see no issue in that. I see nothing wrong with that requirement for your appeal. It's quite a normal requirement for many, many, appeals. 

 

Please don't post another appeal until then.

 

Complaint without merit and resolved.

[Change i'd like to see.]

One of the things to remember is that this isn't a game we're trying to sell or get lots of player for.

We're not interested in appealing to the masses, or doing things because they're popular or not. In the end, we're trying to make the kind of server that the staff want to play on. That's always what we've wanted, and it so happens that the way the staff want things to be has been popular enough that thousands of people have enjoyed it.

The general idea of a "player" vote - however you define player - is either going to result in a useless internet poll where "hitler did nothing wrong" or "boatymcboatface" win, or will be some elite clique of players that the staff decide get the "right" to vote on how the server goes.

I have no interest in making a system where the server staff are forced to make changes they don't agree with, or where PRs are decided by popular vote, or just popularity in general.

I am interested in discussing why changes happen, what the implications are for them, and all these other aspects with players. I've done so a lot over the past few years, and the admin staff continues too. These discussions are invaluable for feedback, ideas, and working out what effects changes have, and sometimes even can just be fun by themselves. This is something I intend to continue, ofc.

Transparency is for the most part, a matter of time and effort. Most PRs people really don't care why we approved them, it's obvious for the most part. We try to give the main reasons behind closed ones, but people are always free to ask for more details or information on what would be accepted.

Do remember we only have so much time available, and are not necessarily going to choose that repeating old arguments or repeating ourselves, and especially aren't going to engage with people making things personal. The latter there is a big part of why we don't really want to make it public who voted how. Experience has shown us that people can take who approves which PRs much too personally.

[Change i'd like to see.]

Quite frankly, this won't be happening for numerous reasons.

One of the biggest issues is what defines a "player" and how voting would actually work.

There's people who have played 20 minutes and then been banned. There's people who have played 1000s of hours. There's people who have played 3 hours.

There's people without forum or github accounts. There are people with multiple accounts. There are people willing to make 16+ accounts to fuck with things and attack servers.

There's people who live with siblings/roommates/etc who all play, and thus have multiple accounts linked to the same IP....unless they're lying.

The actual logistics of getting a fair vote are near impossible, unless we limit it to some kind of "in group", such as verified players with over X amount of hours who aren't banned, etc. In that case, to call it a democracy is pretty laughable.

Then there's the actual issues with voting on nearly every single PR, and the amount of time and hassle that causes.

Then there's the biggest reason of all - that we don't want it. We don't want PR's to go through because they're popular with some segment of the community. We don't want to do things in a way that attract the largest amount of players. We have more than enough players.

The staff want to make the server the kind of SS13 server they want to play on. Over the past 6 years, thats turned out to be very popular with a large amount of people, but that does not give people the right to a voice over how it should go. I'm quite happy that a lot of people do want to play on the kind of server that the staff here have shaped, but I don't think the fact they've played here and enjoyed it should give people the right to tell the staff how to run the server.

That's not to say community input is not valuable or taken into account. There are great points and ideas people have raised with changes that haven't been considered or taken into account by the staff. But a simple "i like this" or "i don't like this" isn't really a factor into whether a PR is accepted or not - it's what we believe the change will be to the server and the way it plays. If that means a few dozen players leave because they don't like it, then that's unfortunate, but we're not trying to make a server that everyone will like or want to play on.

[Clarification/Feedback]

By week I mean two weeks and a few extra days.

Discussions with the specifics of when people can break others out of perma has resulted in...many mixed opinions, to say the least.

As things are, I (and many other admins) are uncomfortable with this being just generally allowed, for the fear of full-scale riots etc, whenever anyone in permabrigged.

I'd like to leave things as it is - only with admin permission - but I'd like to explicitly encourage admins to give said permission if they think it will add to the round. Just remember that as a player in the round, you can't see all the factors, and sometimes admins just want a nice quiet(ish) round.

So the end result here will be no official changes to rules/policy, but I'll be making a ping for all admins to encourage them to be a bit more ok with breakouts that are ahelped first.

Let me know if you think this is a good solution, and/or any other points you have to bring up or ways I can address this.

["Powergaming" Harrasment]

Hi there,

First of all, I see absolutely no harassment here. You say that you are being "constantly berated", however it appears that you were warned once by Breenland, and then again 4 days latter by BlessedTuna. To say this is a single admin constantly berating you is absolutely not true - and also shows a huge problem to me with your attitude here. If an admin tells you not to do something, and you continue to do it, then they will constantly message you. This isn't harassment that you can play the victim over. This is you not following the rules. Admins won't just go away if you ignore them.

The fact you had to be warned twice not to do something is a serious problem. You're expected to follow admin instructions.

Powergaming is described in the rules, and setting up a full R&D setup as a non-science member, or distributing mechs to cargo, fall under that for me. It clearly does for multiple other admins too.

Breenland is -not- the only admin with a problem with this, as your notes indicate two different admins have contacted you about it. With me as well, that makes 3.

I highly advise you to take the instructions of the multiple admins who have contacted you over this, because a 3rd warning is not going to happen.

This complaint is without merit, inaccurate, and deceptive.

[Admin Complaint: Shockpoint]

Hi there, thanks for posting this.

Firstly, we won't remove the note of the warning - whether correctly or not, Shock did indeed warn you of it, so the note there is accurate that you were warned.

However, I'm more than happy to add an addendum to it about the situation itself to clarify it for the future.

In this case, it appears the main issue was causing the death of said cultist. Defending yourself, helping co-workers defend themselves, etc, against antags, is quite fine - but there's a degree to which it's acceptable, and often causing someones death is an indication things have gone too far. I don't believe your intention here was to go hunting for people to kill, but was part of you being in a situation that escalated.

Because I can't easily read logs right now and logs don't often give good context, I'll ask yourself and @Shockpoint to describe it and thus let me know how appropriate the force here was before I make any addendum to the note.

[Name complaint Dio Brando]

Hi there, thanks for posting this appeal.

I'm not one particularly into animes etc myself, I think the last manga I watched was Neon Genesis, but this is such a well known character that even I know it, and have seen numerous memes involving him in the past weeks.

In this case, I'm going to have to say it's just too "memey" a name and way too well known a character on the internet to really fit the environment here. Brando and Dio themselves are fine, although in isolation I think of the Actor/band for them. Dio Rodrigo or John Brando are fine, and I'm sure with more than the 3 seconds thought I put into them, you can come up with much better names.

[Misapplication of rules]

Hi there,

It appears, from the logs, you were attempting to throw an IED onto the shuttle. This looks very much like shuttle grief, even if you did intend to throw it out a hole in the shuttle, rather than at the shuttle itself.

I don't see a "downright misuse of admin powers" here at all, I see a (possibly) mistaken ban based on an assumption that, 99% of the time is accurate. This would have been better cleared up in an appeal or PM, as the ban was only 2 hours long.

[Permaban for 3 events without connection?]

 

For point 1, you were warned, rather than jobbanned. I don't see the issue here. No one is saying you attacked the community or server - you were merely given a warning and a note was added. The maximum that you think that should be "worth" being a job ban is irrelevant. 

For point 2, there is a huge difference between being able to  'fucking' 'ass blast' 'comdom' and talking about Cock and Ball Torture. Talking about fetishes, let alone quite specific and violent ones, has always been frowned upon at the least - or worthy of a ban, if they admin in question isn't incredibly merciful 

However, you weren't banned exclusively for this - despite what you said on reddit. Something to keep in mind next time you see someone complain about being banned - they're likely leaving a hell of a lot of detail out, like you did.

For point 3 - Directly insulting an admin who is trying to get people to move off a topic in OOC is a pretty bad idea. That'll generally cop you a permaban, yes. When an admin tells people to do or not to do something, arguing with them then saying "get cucked" is a really bad idea. That will result in a ban.

For you conclusion:

Yes, the three things, combined, ended up with you permabanned. I see nothing wrong with that.

You were given a place for discussion - on the server, for a start. Telling an admin to "get cucked" however, shuts that avenue of discussion down. That's your fault. The other place you were given for discussion is the forums...which you are doing right now. 

Thus there's nothing at all valid about this complaint - just another case of someone breaking the rules, getting banned, then acting like the victim rather than realising their behavior wasn't ok. 

Complaint resolved.

[Clarification/Feedback]

Since the removal of collaborators, this is absolutely something that needs more clarification, and thus completely valid.

"No breaking out of perma" is a weird line in the sand to draw, so I'd like the rules to reflect a bit more of a grey area here. The admin permission part may need to be encouraged to be given a bit more.

I'll try to get this resolved over this week.

@BryanR - Make a post on the admin forums for me about changing this rule over for me pls I'm time limited until monday 

[Permaban for 3 events without connection?]

Hi there,

I'm not really sure of the exact nature of this complaint. You describe a series of events, each one of which seems a problem, and somehow think they're unconnected, when the connection to me here is quite clear - they were all done by the same person in a short time.

Telling an admin to "get cucked" is generally never a good idea - especially when they're trying to get people in OOC to stop with a certain line of conversation. 

Hence you received a ban.

I'm failing to see anything wrong with this. I don't know why admins being able to spawn things and wreak havoc at the end round has anything to do with this.

Again, i'm not really sure of the nature of this complaint - are you saying your actions should have been acceptable and you should not have been banned? I don't understand why you're saying admins should be treated as "balls of purity" either.

Thus I can't really say much to this without some actual clarification on what the complaint is, as this is coming across as a more generic rant and complaint at your ban, without any specifics.

[Name Appeal (Doc Dee Struction)]

Hi there, thanks for lodging this.

I've asked around to get a few peoples opinions on this, and everyone was of the opinion it's just a bit too silly a name, more suited for a (badass) super villain, than a crew member.

No issue with it for a clown name however.

[Admin complaint: Harkness22]

 

9 hours ago, Splgrk said:

admin permabanned me with no warning for "spamming ahelp".

 

9 hours ago, Splgrk said:

At this point, I was banned for spamming ahelp.

The reason for your ban was given as:
 

Quote

"Harassing sec and being toxic, again. Spammed ahelps with complaints about security. We're not going down this similar spiral. Take some time to cool off and appeal in a week."

You were not permabanned for spamming ahelps. You were permabanned for harrassing sec and being toxic.The spamming ahelps part is only giving some information and context to the ban.

I do not know if you are intentionally misrepresenting this ban in an attempt to make Harkness22 to look bad here, or did not read the ban reason properly. Either way, this complaint is invalid, as it is untrue.

 

Complaint without merit and resolved.

[How did you all find SS13?]

6 hours ago, KasparoVv said:

been years and I still miss the hell out of my main squeeze but SS13 has done alright for me since.

So we're just your side bitch?

 

i thought we had something special! 

[How did you all find SS13?]

On the CataDDA forums. Had just played System Shock 2 for the Nth time, and wanted to play something else on a space station.

[Remove Telescience]

We've tried all kinds of changes and nerfs for telescience over the years. Although it's better than when it was round-start setup and just using the normal station co-ords....it's never gotten to a place where I'm ok with it.

 

I'd love some form of star-trek-style beam-me-up-scotty system. But I've never been happy with how it is in any incarnation we've made.

 

I'd support removal.

[SEC Instructor Jobs, A Remedy to Newsec]

A new office seems overkill - they should be out in the field.

A cool beret to make them look cooler for sure.

 

One issue I have (and this has come up with various ideas for things like "senior doctor" etc) - is eliteness. What could we do to make sure people using this role don't have an elitist attitude about it, and aren't going to wave their authority around?

[Reach the highest number without an admin posting]

3 calls for gamma for a blob getting ignored.

[SEC Instructor Jobs, A Remedy to Newsec]

35 minutes ago, Taac said:

honestly i don't see this as super useful. the vet players should teach the new players. having a specific job for it is a bit silly, and what will the instructor do if all the sec players know what they are doing?

 

This is kinda my worry. A newbie sec player worth their salt will listen to experienced officers anyway. A crappy one won't even listen to chat and just focus on harmbatoning.

[Alien medical]

Good in theory.

In practice it means changing them from "simple mobs" to "carbon mobs" which is actually a hell of a lot of work for coding and all kinds of issues. It'd mean we'd need to make a unique type of race (like humans, vox, slimes, etc) for each thing.

Xenos actually already have that - but the xenobio ones are specifically simple mobs, to stop a huge amount of really powerful things that can be done with them by xenobio (organ harvesting, etc). 

[B Y O S]

Vox box!

[B Y O S]

Med bay and casualties:

[B Y O S]

Bridge!

[B Y O S]

R'n'D