If the ban doesn't fit, you must acquit.
- iamgoofball
- Github User
- Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 5:50 pm
- Byond Username: Iamgoofball
- Github Username: Iamgoofball
If the ban doesn't fit, you must acquit.
viewtopic.php?f=34&t=36046
This user was banned incorrectly for hellfoam grenades because of a bug identified in the ban appeal with how grenade logging works. They were completely innocent.
Instead of their ban being removed and an apology, their ban was "only" reduced to a day and a permanent note left on the account because the admin just pivoted the ban to some other bullshit reason that wouldn't stand up to scrutiny.
This is some bullshit. The ban was founded on literally incorrect evidence. Throw it all out and give this person a clean record. The admin's failure to do due diligence should not be rewarded. This should be the policy going forward for situations like this, as rare as it is.
This user was banned incorrectly for hellfoam grenades because of a bug identified in the ban appeal with how grenade logging works. They were completely innocent.
Instead of their ban being removed and an apology, their ban was "only" reduced to a day and a permanent note left on the account because the admin just pivoted the ban to some other bullshit reason that wouldn't stand up to scrutiny.
This is some bullshit. The ban was founded on literally incorrect evidence. Throw it all out and give this person a clean record. The admin's failure to do due diligence should not be rewarded. This should be the policy going forward for situations like this, as rare as it is.
- Vekter
- In-Game Admin
- Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 10:25 pm
- Byond Username: Vekter
- Location: Fucking around with the engine.
Re: If the ban doesn't fit, you must acquit.
I'm not sure policy discussion is the right place for this.
I'll say that we do regularly note people who make insane EORG stuff if it ends up getting used before the end of the round, even if they're not the one who actually ends up doing it. I'm not sure this is as much "pivoting for a bullshit reason" as it is "reducing the severity of the ban/note because the circumstances changed". A criminal doesn't automatically get out of a theft charge if it turns out they actually stole something different than what the cops thought they stole, they just get a lesser charge.
I'll say that we do regularly note people who make insane EORG stuff if it ends up getting used before the end of the round, even if they're not the one who actually ends up doing it. I'm not sure this is as much "pivoting for a bullshit reason" as it is "reducing the severity of the ban/note because the circumstances changed". A criminal doesn't automatically get out of a theft charge if it turns out they actually stole something different than what the cops thought they stole, they just get a lesser charge.
AliasTakuto wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 1:11 pm As for the ear replacing stuff, you can ask Anne but I don't think this is what I was banned for. If I was all I can say is "Sorry for being hilarious"...
Omega_DarkPotato wrote:This sucks, dude.
Spoiler:
-
- Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2021 11:08 pm
- Byond Username: MooCow12
Re: If the ban doesn't fit, you must acquit.
That analogy doesnt really work in this instance since goof doesnt believe having an eorg grenade on the shuttle is wrong, in other words not a criminal to begin with.
List of my favorite TG Staff.
Spoiler:
- DrAmazing343
- Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2023 11:06 pm
- Byond Username: DrAmazing343
- Location: right here :3
- Contact:
Re: If the ban doesn't fit, you must acquit.
The grenade on the shuttle for EORG prep is kinda lame, but not illegal, yes.
It IS illegal if it goes off before EORG.
In this occasion, the war crime device went off before EORG. This merits a punishment regardless of the circumstance, even if the possession on its lonesome wasn’t noteworthy.
It IS illegal if it goes off before EORG.
In this occasion, the war crime device went off before EORG. This merits a punishment regardless of the circumstance, even if the possession on its lonesome wasn’t noteworthy.
- PapaMichael
- Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2022 4:08 pm
- Byond Username: PapaMichael
Re: If the ban doesn't fit, you must acquit.
100% yeah, the admin made a substantial (yet reasonable) mistake, and made a player dig through logs and type out an appeal (and led to the guy who detonated the nades being perma'd for alting, something that was not noticed before the appeal)
the least you can do is throw a dog a bone in this situation
(unclear there's general policy to be made here though)
the least you can do is throw a dog a bone in this situation
(unclear there's general policy to be made here though)
Like my admining? Feedback here!
- Vekter
- In-Game Admin
- Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 10:25 pm
- Byond Username: Vekter
- Location: Fucking around with the engine.
Re: If the ban doesn't fit, you must acquit.
I don't necessarily believe this is the case here because the admin's mistake was 100% honest. The only person really at blame as far as that goes is whoever coded the logging to begin with.PapaMichael wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2024 9:54 pm 100% yeah, the admin made a substantial (yet reasonable) mistake, and made a player dig through logs and type out an appeal (and led to the guy who detonated the nades being perma'd for alting, something that was not noticed before the appeal)
the least you can do is throw a dog a bone in this situation
(unclear there's general policy to be made here though)
They didn't "make" the player go dig through logs, the player did that because they knew they were innocent. That's why we have an appeals system.
We don't give players special treatment if an appeal is successful.
AliasTakuto wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 1:11 pm As for the ear replacing stuff, you can ask Anne but I don't think this is what I was banned for. If I was all I can say is "Sorry for being hilarious"...
Omega_DarkPotato wrote:This sucks, dude.
Spoiler:
- iwishforducks
- Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2020 4:48 pm
- Byond Username: Iwishforducks
Re: If the ban doesn't fit, you must acquit.
i think this particular case is just an admin mistake. appealer didn't actually get any chance to talk to the admin after they decided on the 1 day. it's also kind of dumb because they had the hellfoam grenades in their bag and they got robbed of them... by a 1 day old evading griefer. i think the issue is deeper than "they should have just dropped the case after getting logs wrong" because the logs were also just straight up wrong themselves...
edit: dendy is right the appealer accepted the 1 day lol i completely overlooked that
edit: dendy is right the appealer accepted the 1 day lol i completely overlooked that
Last edited by iwishforducks on Sat Apr 13, 2024 11:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
im gay (and also play the moth “bugger”)
- dendydoom
- In-Game Head Admin
- Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2020 10:40 am
- Byond Username: Dendydoom
Re: If the ban doesn't fit, you must acquit.
hello,
the OP here is a little confusing but the basis of discussion should be around this idea of "If the ban doesn't fit, you must acquit." perhaps it would help if goof were to elaborate on a specific policy addition or change so that the discussion can focus on policy. if the thread becomes a secondary peanut to a resolved appeal then it is unlikely to be very productive.
the player accepted the resolution offered by the admin and it was an amicable conclusion, our involvement was never requested. in this regard it is a closed matter.
the OP here is a little confusing but the basis of discussion should be around this idea of "If the ban doesn't fit, you must acquit." perhaps it would help if goof were to elaborate on a specific policy addition or change so that the discussion can focus on policy. if the thread becomes a secondary peanut to a resolved appeal then it is unlikely to be very productive.
the player accepted the resolution offered by the admin and it was an amicable conclusion, our involvement was never requested. in this regard it is a closed matter.
MrStonedOne wrote:I always read dendy's walls of text
NSFW:
- iamgoofball
- Github User
- Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 5:50 pm
- Byond Username: Iamgoofball
- Github Username: Iamgoofball
Re: If the ban doesn't fit, you must acquit.
to clarify from the OP:iamgoofball wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2024 8:41 pm This is some bullshit. The ban was founded on literally incorrect evidence. Throw it all out and give this person a clean record. The admin's failure to do due diligence should not be rewarded. This should be the policy going forward for situations like this, as rare as it is.
- Timberpoes
- In-Game Game Master
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:54 pm
- Byond Username: Timberpoes
Re: If the ban doesn't fit, you must acquit.
Whether your involvement was requested or not is an irrelevance as to whether the matter is closed. The only thing that matters is whether the headmins support it or not. Refusal to get involved as a headmin is 100% complete and unequivocal support for the outcome without asterisk.
However, choosing non-intervention and non-interaction with appeals that have any element of controversy may sometimes cause policy posts to pop up.
Sometimes the winning move is to have interacted with the appeal regardless of request, putting headmin team thoughts down on elements of controversy to explain, expand and clarify why a certain outcome was acceptable.
/tg/station Codebase Maintainer
/tg/station Game Master/Discord Jannie: Feed me back in my thread.
/tg/station Admin Trainer: Service guarantees citizenship. Would you like to know more?
Feb 2022-Sep 2022 Host Vote Headmin
Mar 2023-Sep 2023 Admin Vote Headmin
/tg/station Game Master/Discord Jannie: Feed me back in my thread.
/tg/station Admin Trainer: Service guarantees citizenship. Would you like to know more?
Feb 2022-Sep 2022 Host Vote Headmin
Mar 2023-Sep 2023 Admin Vote Headmin
-
- Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2021 11:08 pm
- Byond Username: MooCow12
Re: If the ban doesn't fit, you must acquit.
Since we are on the topic , cant any mass killing weapon like a mech with tesla cannons or just simply high damage weapon (mech related or not) get you in trouble for bringing it on the shuttle and someone manages to steal it and then everyone on the shuttle gets skill issue'd to death?
Any powerful weapon can be a liability on the shuttle especially if the crew at the time are prone to inaction
On the flip side
There are realistic scenarios where hellfoam could be viable on the evac shuttle since almost all of them have compartmentalized rooms allowing the purification of all parties in a single room, just like station's atmospherics allows the ai to flood plasma into distro with the justification that it could be useful to purify individual rooms.
Any powerful weapon can be a liability on the shuttle especially if the crew at the time are prone to inaction
On the flip side
There are realistic scenarios where hellfoam could be viable on the evac shuttle since almost all of them have compartmentalized rooms allowing the purification of all parties in a single room, just like station's atmospherics allows the ai to flood plasma into distro with the justification that it could be useful to purify individual rooms.
List of my favorite TG Staff.
Spoiler:
- Istoprocent1
- Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2017 3:14 pm
- Byond Username: istoprocent
Re: If the ban doesn't fit, you must acquit.
Completely agree with goof.
The full liability should rest on the shoulders of the one that activates the destructive device rather than on the one who made it - something something free will. If the activator is not identified, then nobody gets held accountable and it becomes a code issue to be fixed. If I recall correctly there was also a headmin ruling about randomly signalling in hopes of blowing something up. Without turning it into a peanut - the man was asked to provide evidence, he did, it turned out he was right, there is no reason to punish him for something out of his control.
The full liability should rest on the shoulders of the one that activates the destructive device rather than on the one who made it - something something free will. If the activator is not identified, then nobody gets held accountable and it becomes a code issue to be fixed. If I recall correctly there was also a headmin ruling about randomly signalling in hopes of blowing something up. Without turning it into a peanut - the man was asked to provide evidence, he did, it turned out he was right, there is no reason to punish him for something out of his control.
- dendydoom
- In-Game Head Admin
- Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2020 10:40 am
- Byond Username: Dendydoom
Re: If the ban doesn't fit, you must acquit.
for sure. i know that my implicit approval is tacked onto anything that i allow to happen under my purview.Timberpoes wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2024 12:36 amWhether your involvement was requested or not is an irrelevance as to whether the matter is closed. The only thing that matters is whether the headmins support it or not. Refusal to get involved as a headmin is 100% complete and unequivocal support for the outcome without asterisk.
However, choosing non-intervention and non-interaction with appeals that have any element of controversy may sometimes cause policy posts to pop up.
Sometimes the winning move is to have interacted with the appeal regardless of request, putting headmin team thoughts down on elements of controversy to explain, expand and clarify why a certain outcome was acceptable.
i know that for every headmin it's different. in discussions such as this, from the privileged position of greater authority i most often prefer to lead from the back. i'm always lurking around to correct falsehoods or gently nudge the discussion back on topic in a way that i think would be most beneficial for the discussion to be productive in allowing for the possibility of the outcome the participants want, but i generally don't like to be the loudest voice in the room because i want to hear others compelled to speak their own thoughts and display their own critical thinking. this method has been effective not only in generating more diverse and thoughtful conversations, but has oftentimes given me enough to think about that i had not first considered that it has swayed my opinion on things that i initially felt quite adamant about. this is why i'm often quiet or at least brief about what i say in the opening parts of these discussions.
with that out of the way, if it's my thoughts that are being asked for, i shall gladly share them in the context of the appeal that sparked this thread.
firstly, i think it would be entirely untenable to enforce the initial ban length/reason under any condition after it was found to be predicated on faulty logs that were proven to be untrue. therefore, the options left to the admin would be to either re-assess the situation in light of this new context, or drop it entirely. even if the player refused the subsequent assessment, it should absolutely not mean that the admin goes "okay fine" and maintains the original ban length. i would have stepped in if this were the case, and if the decision of the appealing player was made based on believing otherwise, then i extend the offer here and now to re-open this. they can PM me on the forums or message me or any other headmin on discord.
my approval is only made consciously insofar as i have great respect for a fair and judicial process of appeal, where it is not ruled on how loud the conversation around it is, but rather that it's being applied fairly and equally so that people both loud and quiet are offered the same recourse. in this sense, i found nothing in the admin's methods that broke conduct or the appeal process. if the admin who has ownership of the ban is conducting themselves appropriately and the player accepts the resolution as fair on their own, then this to me is an acceptable outcome.
if i were to actively pass judgement on the situation itself, i would need to investigate it to the same level i would if i were the admin in question, understanding the full context through logs and discussions. i find it very difficult to generalize things without regard for the details. this is why headmin review is important to me. every appeal is offered this equally. i have little desire to interject without full knowledge based on my own investigation of the situation. i'm not going to spend my time fully investigating the situation present in an appeal unless it's asked of me through headmin review. in this case, as i mentioned before, my involvement before review is to ensure that the process is fairly applied and does not break conduct.
secondly, i'm extremely wary of generalized, sweeping policy which enforces a single outcome regardless of the nuance of the situation. in that same vein, i'm also against this mindset being used against players in the way of writing and enforcing rules/policy which make no attempt to consider the context and nuance. again, i am not the type of person who can easily overlook the small details to generalize a situation to make it easier to deal with, it's just not how my brain is wired.
MrStonedOne wrote:I always read dendy's walls of text
NSFW:
-
- In-Game Admin
- Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 6:39 pm
- Byond Username: Higgin
Re: If the ban doesn't fit, you must acquit.
iamgoofball wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2024 8:41 pm -snip-
This is some bullshit. The ban was founded on literally incorrect evidence. Throw it all out and give this person a clean record. The admin's failure to do due diligence should not be rewarded. This should be the policy going forward for situations like this, as rare as it is.
► Show Spoiler
in rare situations where this happens, a blanket policy of acquittal is probably more likely to preserve those bad behaviors than administrative carelessness, which Feedback and Complaints are there to bear on directly (and which the successful appeal in this case also probably serves as a lesson to the responsible admin, a public comment on their conduct, and a way to now hopefully improve the logging to reduce the risk of mis-ID in the future.)
just because you didn't kill the person doesn't mean you didn't make and act carelessly with the tools used to do so. it's not double jeopardy, and a procedural error doesn't mean we want to see more of that happening in future rounds just as much as we don't want to see incorrect bans or notes let fly.
the appeals process here addressed both, and a blanket acquittal policy would foil at least one. not a good idea here.
feedback appreciated here <3
- TheRex9001
- In-Game Admin
- Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2022 7:41 am
- Byond Username: Rex9001
Re: If the ban doesn't fit, you must acquit.
I don't really agree with this being policy, the case-by-case mentality should ideally be upheld. In reference to complaints about being banned for bringing stuff to eorg and someone else setting it off its usually ruled under "Do not facilitate player deaths for poor IC reasoning. Distributing bombs or other similarly destructive items can leave you responsible for how they are used if not cleared with an admin first. Each unjustified kill is normally met with a 24-hour ban.", a common example is bringing a TTV to the shuttle and then getting shoved and someone sets it off.
- Not-Dorsidarf
- Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 4:14 pm
- Byond Username: Dorsidwarf
- Location: We're all going on an, admin holiday
Re: If the ban doesn't fit, you must acquit.
Isnt it generally already the case that the more effort you go to try and stop your eorg devices being used, the less trouble you get in when shithead 13 manages to activate them anyway?
Like if you're holding a ttv in your hands and joey grey shoves you and activates it, that's different to if you had it in a locked welded cupboard marked "do not open, explosive"
Like if you're holding a ttv in your hands and joey grey shoves you and activates it, that's different to if you had it in a locked welded cupboard marked "do not open, explosive"
kieth4 wrote: infrequently shitting yourself is fine imo
There is a lot of very bizarre nonsense being talked on this forum. I shall now remain silent and logoff until my points are vindicated.
Player who complainted over being killed for looting cap office wrote: ↑Sun Jul 30, 2023 1:33 am Hey there, I'm Virescent, the super evil person who made the stupid appeal and didn't think it through enough. Just came here to say: screech, retards. Screech and writhe like the worms you are. Your pathetic little cries will keep echoing around for a while before quietting down. There is one great outcome from this: I rised up the blood pressure of some of you shitheads and lowered your lifespan. I'm honestly tempted to do this more often just to see you screech and writhe more, but that wouldn't be cool of me. So come on haters, show me some more of your high blood pressure please.
- kieth4
- In-Game Head Admin
- Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2020 6:17 pm
- Byond Username: Kieth4
Re: If the ban doesn't fit, you must acquit.
" i'm extremely wary of generalized, sweeping policy which enforces a single outcome regardless of the nuance of the situation. in that same vein, i'm also against this mindset being used against players in the way of writing and enforcing rules/policy which make no attempt to consider the context and nuance. again, i am not the type of person who can easily overlook the small details to generalize a situation to make it easier to deal with, it's just not how my brain is wired."
Ultimately the player themselves put forward that there was a mistake and the outcome that they wanted- this was reach by lowering the ban to match their expectations. it is what it is
Ultimately the player themselves put forward that there was a mistake and the outcome that they wanted- this was reach by lowering the ban to match their expectations. it is what it is
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users