MattAtlas

I don't think you were griefing, but I can see how Rooster got that idea. Generally with new accounts we're pretty wary (there are more griefers than you might think!) and we are usually fairly heavy handed with permabans if we think they're here to mess around. Looking at the logs and the fact that you were putting effort into your xenobio work (doing cores, using bolts), it's clear to me that you're not a griefer. That said, you certainly didn't make it easy for yourself. AFKing in the middle of Xenobio without ahelping when there are that many slimes is kind of dangerous, especially if you're new! To any staff that don't play xenobio or know its mechanics, it would look really suspicious. There's some uncertainty here on what exactly happened to the pens - either they were broken by slimes or you opened them - which would have been cleared up easily if you just gave us a heads up. The ban will be lifted and replaced with a note detailing how you went AFK for a little too long. Next time, if you're AFK for long periods of time in a situation that's delicate or might look odd, remember to shoot us a quick ahelp.

I should specify that it is possible for slimes to break through under some circumstances - mobs can sometimes clip through windoors by moving diagonally, and I'm pretty sure that angry slimes can break windows. I'll be handling this, so give me like a day to check over everything.

Unbanned. Tell me if it sticks.

This PR isn't being merged due to people mostly not being a fan of it. but I'd like to precise that 'this isn't needed because the old system worked fine' is the only kind of feedback that I hate hearing. Things working fine doesn't mean someone can't try to improve upon them if they find them to be lackluster. Whether the improvement they try making actually makes the experience better is a different question, but nobody should be discouraged from trying to improve something that works as is.

I have nothing else to really add. I get what you are saying.

If it came off that way then I'm sorry because I was more trying to convey my surprise at these complaints being made publicly visible rather than confidential.

It doesn't matter - permanent bans are also handed out when the offense is heavy enough, and in this case it was. That's the same reason why I didn't reach out to you to contact you, to me this would've ended up as a permaban either way. More on this below. People not ahelping doesn't justify what you did. I don't agree. This is a difference in interpretation that the headmins will have to resolve. You have 31 notes and 9 warnings: you were in fact extremely lucky to not be banned yet, but that's just what established community member privilege does to someone. What this makes me wonder is how many warnings and notes you think you should have before being ejected from a community. And while we're at it, you do actually have a history of playing fast-and-loose with sexual themes - the complaint on you and Dekser by Goolies comes to mind, or when I warned you for making red light districts part of your vampire gimmick. This is a reach that I personally don't believe, summed with everything else that was said. This doesn't matter when I used it to establish a pattern of behaviour. The mere fact that it happened is what matters here. When you do something that ends up becoming public one way or the other, and then it ends up coming under staff review because one of the parties involved did something bad wherein your actions are relevant for the staff member's judgement, you can't expect it to stay private, or at the very least you should expect staff to mention it in the relevant complaint that might pop up. This is why the people involved should have made a confidential complaint (an option they didn't pick, for some reason). I didn't call into question your character's actions nor did I call you out in particular. I didn't say the age gap itself was a problem nor did I mention the cheating as the problem - if you read the ban reason none of these things were mentioned as problems, because if they were you would have received punishment too, and LordPwner would've been banned months ago. They were only mentioned to point out a pretty blatant lie in the original post. You'll also find that this is why I was reluctant to comment on this complaint at all, and I only did it when I was told that LordPwner would've liked to present a defense.

I don't think there's anything I need to add here.

Hi. In regards to what you said to Avery, I didn't get any time to "prepare" anything while this complaint was open because I fundamentally don't have anything to prepare - the ban stands on its own with just the screenshots I have provided, and I didn't think there was any need to even reply to you or ATG. I blocked you because it would have been pointless to get into a back-and-forth of "You did this" "no I didn't it's a misunderstanding" "Yes you did" at what was 4 AM at the time. A staff complaint is a lot more productive for both of us. Onto what you actually did - you try to tell me that you just "roleplay Marcus as someone who tries to find people and make friends", but this is either a warped perception of what you are actually doing, or you are lying to me. You yourself know that your character is a womanizer - - as this screenshot points out pretty blatantly. No character that isn't a womanizer makes this kind of joke, and the context here doesn't change the reading of "We could've talked for hours about all the beautiful women". That aside, the history of your character is blatantly known to almost everyone that knows your character. It's more than an open secret that your character tried cheating on their spouse (which I should add is ten years younger than Marcus and is also his subordinate!), not once but more than once. This defence of Marcus' behaviour doesn't hold up, and reads more like something you'd say to defend yourself while assuming that staff aren't familiar with your character. All of this gives a very different tinge to what you actually did in that apartment channel. Your defence is essentially trying to tell me that we took things the wrong way, or that there was "context" that would make them innocuous. Before I give you the logs, I would like to know from you personally exactly what kind of context would make a sentence such as "I'm going to put you in your place, girl" or giving someone who is telling you to "put them back to where [they] once were as a servant" the last name of your character's birthplace that they have a claim to, an innocuous sentence. There's a limit to how much we can believe that something is being misspelled or that there's a language barrier or that there was some sort of writing error - that limit was breached the moment this roleplay kept going on and on and on in public for everyone to see. Once is an incident, twice is unlucky, three times is intentional. You were banned for exactly what your ban reason says - what you did in that channel, summed with your character's overall behaviour.

These doors are temporary - there's a 3x1 door sprite, we just haven't implemented it in time for the deadline

this is the correct sprite

Feedback on 3/4ths goes here.

This is already addressed at the very top of the rules page Note that these rules cannot cover the myriad of situations that will arise during gameplay. As such, the word of Moderators and Administrators ingame is final, and not up for debate past a certain point. and also by the "emotional state" part of the non-antag rules paragraph The rules aren't meant to cover every single use case because it'd be impossible without writing a total novel

I am not sure how this rule (more of a clarification because everything I wrote bar 1/2 exceptions is currently enforced) changes anything here, you are allowed to canonically kill people with enough escalation as it is. Nothing here is changing in regards to that & there's always been a chance that you'll be bwoinked and asked to explain why you did it

None of this is about TTK or about shooting people normally, it's about shooting them while they're downed and thus unconscious.

Hello. As you all know, executions in round can often be problematic, and are a significant source of adminhelps - both because people are confused by when we allow them, and also because they leave the executee with a bad taste in their mouth. So, I've drafted up some new rules (reviewed by the rest of the staff teams) on when they're allowed. I would like your feedback on them. Before we begin, what we define as an execution here is shooting someone while they're downed and helpless to kill them. An accidental execution may also count, e.g if you shoot someone to make sure they're downed, but you didn't mean to kill them and they die because of it - depending on context and staff decision, this might also be considered an execution. Onto the rule itself. Non-antagonists are allowed to execute someone only if they are an uncontainable or unrestrainable threat to life and limb or if they continue to be an active threat after being floored. You are also expected to give an antagonist a reasonable chance to type a response and/or surrender. An execution may also be justified depending on emotional context, such as a character's close friends being murdered by an antagonist: keep in mind that such an execution will come under more scrutiny than usual, so be careful with it. An example of a justified execution is a changeling that continues resurrecting and attempting to murder people. There is no hard-and-fast 'minimum' amount of resurrections needed for an execution - the rule of common sense prevails here. Don't rush into it and give the antagonist a chance. An example of an unjustified execution is a mercenary who is downed after killing a few people. If they do not stand up and resist, then they may not be executed. You must try to restrain them with whatever means you have available. Antagonists are allowed to execute someone only if this is driving forward their narrative, or if leaving them alive would pose a risk to the antagonist's short-term safety. Executions are also allowed if an antagonist's orders are expressly ignored, such as a hostage being executed if security rushes into the room ignoring the antagonist's warnings, or if someone calls for help after being told not to. An execution can also be justified depending on emotional context, such as a downed security officer taunting the antagonist. With sufficient escalation in the round, antagonists may execute threats that would prove to be a threat to their long-term safety if left alive. An example of a justified execution is an antagonist executing someone that they have been appropriately roleplaying with. It is fine to kill someone for the sake of a narrative. Another example of a justified execution is an antagonist being shot at by two security officers. If the antagonist downs one of the officers, and said officer gets back up and attempts to shoot the antagonist, then they are allowed to execute them. An example of an unjustified execution is an antagonist indiscriminately executing all officers after a firefight very early in the round, despite them surrendering or attempting to crawl away. An example of a justified execution is a mercenary team executing a lone officer late in the round, after a firefight has already concluded with deaths on both parts. These rules are a bit wordy, but they are meant to be catch-alls that leave little to the imagination. In short, I'd like to know what the community thinks.

Accepted.

On trial until 10AUG2023.

On trial until 10AUG2023.

Not sure there could be anything to say here. On trial until 14AUG2023*. How the fuck is it already August? * Trial extended by 4 days due to the whitelistee being on vacation.

It took me a while to take this decision (and I had to consult with everyone else in the whitelist team) but I don't quite think that the way you played head of staff roles was satisfactory, so this application is being denied. I think the feedback here more or less explains why, but I have a feeling you tend to see the criticism in a hostile way, so you don't actually ever end up incorporating it and fixing your play. You need to take a step back and analyze what exactly people have been saying.

Accepted.

Accepted.

Accepted.

It should be lifted now.