Tablespoon

No, but we were dealing with multiple other issues at the time. And I believe they only shot at Chaz once after they filled Hypatia with lasers. Still, that is technically against the rules. I will talk with them as soon as I get a chance, but we're usually leniant when it comes to EoR grief if it's just one attack log or two. But we will have to wait for Garn to post to get a full picture. Also: we had dealt with Hypatia for their behavior, but I think this highlights how the 'End of Round Grief' rule might need to be revamped. But that's a discussion for a different topic.

Do you have an example of what they posted? And to clarify, this isn't directed towards a single player in particular, but just tajarans in general?

This length of this ban is about to run out, binning.

For the third time, I did ban the main guy you had an issue with for 3 days. The attitude you're displaying here is not helping your case at all. I've been communicating with other staff, and none believe that you have proven that you should be unbanned. Sit out the next 2 1/2 days. Please realize that the main issue here was your conduct. Being angry/upset does not entitle you act inappropriately.

I'm not saying your emotions aren't valid, I'm saying your emotions don't justify your actions/attitude towards myself and others. If you can't understand that, then we have a real issue here. Also, the matter at stake here isn't the other person's behavior, it's YOURS, so saying "they should've banned" is not an appropriate defense from you. I gave one of them a 3 day ban, the other a stern talking to.

Your feelings are not a valid justification for your demeanor. Just because you are upset or angry does not give you a free pass to act extremely rude. The primary rules broken were 'Don't be a dick' and 'No IC in OOC'. The IC in OOC refers to you telling the sec guard to do something to one of the people you had beef with. I believe I've explained how you broke these two rules to a satisfactory extent.

'I was ready to get their asses banned from the server'. You don't have the power to directly ban someone. I think this snippet highlights why I banned you: You seem to have this attitude that you have this power, or that things done your way are 100% right, and because they are right, must be done. That's just not true, of anybody on the server, really. When I told you to stop harassing people icly and reassured you that I was looking into the events you mentioned to me, you ignored me, went off on your own to pursue your own 'justice' and ended up making things a lot more complicated for me. As I said before, I banned Braden for 3 days, so the complaint against him is not necessary. Unless any other staff disagree, I'm in favor of keeping this ban in place for the rest of it's term. Also:

Let me start off that you were not banned for asking for ckeys, you were banned for your overall behavior towards me and others over the course of the round. It started with a fight between you and Braden Vader. While he did send you to crit, you did initiate the fight. I looked over the logs and several times and collaborated the events with IncognitoJesus, who was the bartender at the time. While IJ is a trialmod, he was a fullmod at one point but resigned on good terms with the team, and so I trust him judgement. I decided that the first incident was IC. You simply lost the fight. THe misunderstading itself was a reason for the fight, and you initiated it...and I don't recall apologizing/fleeing/making attempts to stop fighting. This isn't against the rules, but if you wanted to end the fight, you could've. Anyways, afterwards Braden started dragging you away from treatment and you messaged me about dealing with them. I told you I was talking to them, when you posted this in looc: I messaged you about this, telling you to stop baggering them in looc. You had already ahelped it and I was dealing with the situation. You then asked for both of their ckeys. Granted that they were following each other around, I didn't see the other one (not Braden) do anything to you, and so I decided to not give you the ckey. I'm general careful with giving out ckeys unless I see that there is a clear reason for a complaint, since some people like to keep their IC name and OOC ckeys separate. After saying I would only give you the one, you said: This tone is not appreciated, and seriously urked me. You demanding something of me like I give orders to you was very insulting. I was dealing with the situation but was the only active administrator on, and so was handling 1 or 2 other ahelps. Afterwarss, the two did start attackin an officer. This led me to 3-day ban Braden and give the other a serious talking to. You then started saying things like: You asked for their ckeys again, but I had already 3-day banned Braden and was actively talking to the other about the situation. I told you this, and you went to an officer who was talking to the other,un-banned one and said this: The officer said he wouldn't listen to you, and the guy you were complaining about ahlped about what you were doing. So I told you: The final straw came shortly afterwards, when the other guy responded to your bagering in looc and revealed their ckey, and so you said: Summarized: You were banned for outrageous conduct throughout the handling of the situations. Whjile it was true that they were being chucklefuckey to some extent, your actions not only made dealing with them much more complicated, but it was also insulting to me. You have a documented history of seriously complaining and bypassing people when things don't go your way. I gave you numerous warnings to stop and you ignored all of them. I probably would've rejuvinated you, had you not made the situation increasingly complex. As a result of your actions, I had to deal with you, in addition to the two 'chucklefucks'.

I banned Lathernend a 3 day ban for chucklefuking and talked to Regonden about their behavior. Regonden quickly changed course (although this was the attacks). Also, while they seemed to fight/defend for each other, I didn't see any signs of overt meta-ing behavior. Being meta-buddies isn't really against the rules, but metagaming is.

Apologized and explained things. Situation resolved. Binning.

It's only a day ban. You have a history of these sorts of outbreaks, and so I feel this is justified. And as the ban states, the purpose of this ban is so you can take the time off. It is also to reinforce the point that a hostile/angry attitude towards staff (and anyone else) is unwelcome.

Youre all terrible

I like fallout 4. My biggest complaint is that ur forced into having a kid. I kinda wish there were more like really good loot areas. Like wasteland versions of high-loot dungeons. There's too few military outposts for me to loot. Also I think it may have seriously fucked with my comp.

I did talk to them about the borderline ERP...which really only warranted a talking to. However, I don't believe my actions touch upon the implications of command staff potentially ignoring station emergencies just interaction with each other (which is what this post seems to be doing). In other words: Talked to them about the borderline ERP, not the ignoring in-game roles part.

I'm honestly not opposed to this.

If I remember correctly,I synth banned you because you called the shuttle as a drone. The AI destroyed the drone fabricators because drones were couter-acting it's malf-tactics (like restoring power to the depowered bridge). After you had died once, you respawned and went to the bridge and successfully called the shuttle...as a drone. I'm not saying the AI's tactics were good, but this is a separate matter. One player's bad behavior does not give you a free pass to start breaking the rules yourself. And you don't seem to realize the mistake you made, so I'm in favor of keeping the synth ban.

There's sort of an invisible line between ic harassment and just being a dick. I think spamming someone ICly with words like 'faggot' is crossing that line. IC harassment should be done with the consent and understanding of the involved players, and if there's going to be an escalation (such as fights or REALLY hateful words), there should be clear understanding that the harassment is only ic. Granted that Houssam is a corrupt cat who likes to steal money....but there's a lot of more tasteful ways to go about this. TL;DR: Careful that when you harass people icly, you don't end of harassing them oocly...TALK to them first and get some understanding going. I believe in this case Mirk did violate the 'don't be a dick' rule.

Bad post deleted cause bad

Please keep this thread on topic. I came online to have a good time and honestly I'm feeling so attacked right now.

There we go. It took four pages to anyone to explain that, and even Doomberg failed to. I am absolutely flabbergasted by all of this. Anyway, why not simply say this instead of having a long angry talk and give us both a warning? It's not like we had any malicious intentions. And actually, while we're here, there's a few things I want to sort out. I know why it's there. I wrote it. (And it's technically two rules, metagaming and IC knowledge.) If you don't know why a rule exists yet you're enforcing it, well... that's pretty bad? If you don't know the purpose of a rule, how can you be sure you're enforcing it for its intended purpose and not for an arbitrary reason? My problem is not with the severity of the punishment, but with the presence of a punishment at all. By that logic people (staff included) will have to stop whispering silly things such as "Ayy Lmao" in escape. Again, me getting my leg broken was a completely OOC action (and something you guys seem to have stated you were okay with.) If you guys have problems with me making funny OOC comments while engaging in an OOC action (that nobody should even be around to see) then you may be a little too strict with your moderation. I would like to strongly argue that me trying to get my leg broken for RP has little to do with generic chucklefucking. Yes, I play silly balds and do funny stuff, but if that's what annoys you I'd much prefer you call me out on that than on unrelated rules - much like you did to Cassie. Let me clarify some of the things I said before. Again, apologies I'm writing this in my shitty phone: I personally enforce the metacommunication rule because it a) can give players an unfair advantage (not applicable in this case) and b) because it hides server interaction from administration staff that could be crucial from an admiring perspective. When I said you'd have to ask admins, I meant for the 'official reason' or the 'original reason'. I'd imagine its something along those lines (that's the gist I've gotten in the past when talking with other admins) but I'm not sure of the 100% original reason for enforcing this. With regards to the 'ay lmao' whispers in escape...I've never been aware of those, but would poke people to stop if I saw it. I'd also expect staff not to do that same thing. I personally don't do that sort of thing. I just want to end this with: use looc if you feel like you have to metacommunicate. It prevents things like this from occuring.

You guys may not have had malicious intentions but I consider you both veterans or 'experienced' players or whatever...so I expect you both to know the rules. But, like you said, you clearly weren't griefing the server or anything overly serious...so I opted for talking tos and a warning in place of serious punishments. Assuming halo has been keeping tabs on this though, I'm guessing you both now realize the importance of not metacommunicating (or at least understand why we have the rule), so the warning isn't really necessary anymore. Plus I think this thread has caused such a disproportionate stink that it's better to just close it, remove the only punishment given and be done with it.

**apologies for fucked up formatting and such...writing this on my crap phone Guys, this is all over a warning and a talking to...I really don't understand why this is causing such a giant fuss. This wasn't done to spite ffrances or halo. With regards to the comments made in the tunnels: just because no one else is around does not mean a person can say anything in ic. You'll have to ask higher admins why the metacomm rules exists cause it's been there for awhile. And I don't know why I'm being accused of 'zealously enforcing the rules' when all I've done is given out a warning and two 'talking tos'. As I've said before, the ahelped issue was between myself and ffrances...then out of the blue halo is involved through metacommunication. Had they maybe used looc (admins see ALL OOC communication), I could've seen that easily and been like 'whoa! Sorry, I meant you can't hurt yourself'. This a part of the reason why we try to keep communication in game (whether ic or ooc). So admins and mods can stay in the loop. That being said, I'm willing to remove the warning from halo's record. But I stand by my decision regarding the metacommunication.

So to clarify, Halorocks got an official warning, while ffrances just got an informal talking to over ahelps and a note added. I understand there was a miscommunication, that's not the issue. The issue is that halorocks immediately grabbed ffrances and started beating her. Even if I did give ffrances permission to hurt her character...that doesn't mean anyone can just go up to her and start hitting her to 'apply the damage'. The ahelped issue was between myself and ffrances...but then ffrances decided to involve a third party. Also, this occured: http://i.gyazo.com/00d86cfc73e1d04abad5641ed14f1394.png * *Bonk is ffrances. *Osborne is halo. And to further clarify the above image...halo dragged ffrances to the maintenance tunnels...without any asking icly or oocly from what I could see...and then the logs above occurred. And yes, these issues are relatively minor...which is why Halorocks got a standard warning and ffances was just talked to. They're both experienced players and should know the rules. No bans were issued, no substantial punishments dished out.

Regarding the holodeck, my opinion is mostly in line with jackboots. Xander gav ethem plenty of opportunity to leave, while one crew member was very defiant, yelling at the AI to let it go. The set up was perfectly executed, and as a result people died. They did not simply walk into the holodeck and get burned. Also, Xander did not anticipate that the fire would break the holodeck doors/breach the station/vent Central Primary, and ahelped as such. Still, I saw it as reasonable escalation of force and events. I also think that in general, this was not really a case of blitzing, but of an rp situation rply getting out of control. I didn't notice Xander going out of his way to kill people. The blowing up of cryo at round start is a bit iffy, but alone I don't think that's enough to warrant administrative action. As a semi-side note on the drones: There was one drone that called the shuttle (a HUGE no no) and generally was breaking rules/ruining the round for others. They kept re-spawning as well (from what I understand), and so Xander is justified in blowing up the drone makers. I understand that not every drone was at fault, but I didn't see an issue with Xander blowing the drone spawners up, as I believe the remaining drones were trying to 'fix' the station, which went directly against the AI's plans. As Baka said, drones can't/won't listen to the AI or anybody else really, so the only options was to blow them up. I am also in agreement that drones are essentially 'mice with tools'.

Locking the thread since Dea has decided to leave server staff, RE: http://aurorastation.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=2707