Bauser

You have to keep re-litigating things that happened a long time ago in order to cover up the fact that this ban was a whim based on people holding an impossible grudge against me and can't accept the fact that I've improved greatly. You have to keep re-litigating things that happened a long time ago to cover up the fact that you skipped over the rules and jumped straight to assuming my guilt in order to punish me. Who's really breaking the "Don't be a dick" rule here? You have to keep saying "the fact that I banned you is evidence that you should be banned" because when you actually put all the evidence on the table, it's not a laundry list of evil like you pretend it is. The evidence outwardly shows I have been unfairly targeted after I made those mistakes. If you want to talk about "toxicity" and "making people feel unwelcome," you should probably start with the people who went out of their way to abuse their authority and punish me on other platforms because they were unsatisfied with how severely the actual server staff punished me. I'm just a scapegoat: an easy, uncontroversial thing to blame so that you don't have to actually confront any challenging responsibilities - the responsibilities that are entrusted to you.

You can if you have any respect for the rules or the principles they're meant to embody. So far, you allowed a cabal of random people to make this complaint a nebulously defined exploration of their undying hatred of me, and then you decided the outcome of the complaint based on that grudge, before asking Alberyk a single question about it. In this way, you clearly fell into the same pitfall Alb did. The fact that you made your decision before asking Alberyk to explain his action (which you admitted made you very uncomfortable) proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that this process is nothing but a show - it's a performance being put on to convince people (and convince yourself) that there are checks and balances in place to protect them, when in reality (based on these "judgments" so far), the rules can be wielded like personal weapons to abuse people that certain individuals don't like, without regard for the community at large. You say my history is so bad that you really don't want me here, when my history is cursing at a couple people over a year ago (which I acknowledge was wrong and have not repeated), and accidentally posting constructive feedback in a thread where I wasn't allowed to. Over a two-year period. During which I have been in the server pretty much every single day, widely getting along with people and working to have fun and help others have fun. You said it's an "act of God" that I wasn't already permanently banned, so you decided that punishing me more was the correct outcome, no matter what actually happened. It proves that there has yet been no substance to these "investigations," because you and Alberyk and a handful of people who I don't even interact with, all decided that I need to be gotten rid of, no matter what. @Skull132 should see this whole thread and timeline of events- if not for me, then for the next poor sod who falls in the crosshairs. It's not right to do things this way. The evidence clearly shows: I had a bad attitude a while ago, I realized I needed to be more cautious, and I got better while some people I initially offended conspired to axe me. And eventually, someone holding a brutal grudge found an excuse to consummate his hatred with this ban, and Alberyk accepted it uncritically. And now, Garn, you accepted those things uncritically. Your portrait of me as a toxic person is founded just on the colorful pictures painted for you by this circle of people who admit they could never, ever be happy with the fact that I improved and contribute positively, because they view this as me "getting away with it." I struggle to find many more words. A brief summary should suffice: Geeves, who has conspired to punish me outside the rules in the past, posted a ban request on extremely tenuous grounds because he personally doesn't like me even though I don't interact with him. Alberyk put the ban in place less than an hour later, without speaking to me or the supposed victim. I made a complaint about it, then some other people I don't interact with showed up to talk about how much they've hated me for a long time too, and Garnascus appears to have decided his ruling on the complaint before he even asked the banning admin to come up with a justification for it. All of these things are undeniable facts with proofs exhibited in this topic.

@Garnascus: Based on your two most recent posts, you decided that I should not remain as a member of the community, and then you began investigating the legitimacy of the ban that this topic was created to address. Isn't that completely inappropriate? I would like to comment on some of your observations. Point 3: I was banned from the server by Alberyk at the start of 2019. I want to note that the cause of this ban was not an event which happened on the server. It's not mentioned in the note, but just like this time, Alberyk applied a server-ban for activity which was not on on the server. Point 4: In March, I tried to appeal my forum ban and was denied. This is not an offense. Point 5: In May of 2019, I was given the soft-ban role on the server so that I could appeal. This is not an offense. Point 6: Since that role also showed me other threads, and I wasn't told that I wasn't allowed to use all the access given to me, I mistakenly responded in an unrelated complaint thread because I was helping someone out with relevant feedback. This is not related to attitude or toxicity. Point 8: Geeves makes a ban request against me and Alberyk permanently bans me. Alberyk says he looked into it, but he did so without speaking to either of the people involved (myself, or the person I allegedly harassed). Instead, he only spoke with a person who requested my ban and (as I have proven) who conspired to punish me outside of the rules in August of this year. Note that the event in question did not happen on the server, and was not in response to anything happening on the server.

It's a mischaracterization because they paint the issue as broadly ongoing, instead of visibly better and getting better. They have outwardly stated that they look for ways to get me punished, and when they confront me, they keep pointing to things that happened in 2018. If I'm whitewashing events, it's because I haven't had the luxury of actually being able to look back and see them. As before, it happened in 2018 and I was already punished for it and toned down. Is it not unfair that they can continually re-punish me for it? Additionally, the forum ban I received while soft-banned was my misunderstanding about the criteria of "being involved" with the thread, completely unrelated to any malice. I thought I was doing a good thing, trying to help out someone who had been wrongly accused (as determined by the resolution of that topic). And obviously I know better, since then. Are these things more "toxic" than singling me out for over a year and hunting me down because they want to hate me forever? It is very relevant that the stated purpose of the ban request was a crusade against someone's idea of toxicity, when that person has shown to exercise significantly more ill will against me (going outside of the rules to punish me). You can see for yourself, the level of adversity I have faced and continue to face in terms of putting my best foot forward when people have each individually gone out of their way to make me suffer. They want you to believe that I can't be a constructive member of the community because the reality is they have fought to stop me from proving I can. How much this place means to me, and how much effort I put into it, cannot be overstated. Alberyk is not correct in saying the event reference in the ban request is "pretty much [me] going on them for something that happened in game." You can see in the larger messages I shared with Sharkatk (posted earlier in the thread: https://i.imgur.com/xy12VSI.png , https://i.imgur.com/xYxdNkg.png) that I was exceedingly kind and gentle when explaining how their rule-breaking behavior in-game (constantly choosing to pursue deadly threats and entering into danger) was negatively affecting me. The thing I "prodded" them about was how they compared me to an abuser for that comment ("are you incapable of not dying"), and said they were cutting contact with me even though I thought they were a very good friend (since we talked every day and shared a lot of interests and he got me something for Christmas). The fact that Alberyk's interpretation of events was entirely filtered through Geeves (since Sharkatk did not come forward) is relevant. I know I've done things wrong. But I've been visibly been doing better, while people who hate me have been doing worse and worse. Is "toxicity" really what you're fighting here? Because I promise, getting rid of me is not going to solve anything. If Schev and Geeves and Goret will all openly admit that they still hate me with the same passion and bloodlust as the first day I did something wrong, is that really my fault? If you look for reasons to hate and subjugate people, you will always find them.

They line up to admit it, enthusiastically. To admit that they were never satisfied with the idea of me improving after the trouble I got into, and that they will eternally treat me by the first impression. For an average user like me, this would be regrettable- but for moderators and "pillars" of this community, to see their undying hatred laid bare should strike you as deeply worrisome. It's plainly reflected in the efforts they each took to target me, as retaliation outside of the actual rules and discipline I received. But I have become very accustomed to enduring that hatred, so I don't take it personally anymore. I don't mind when Goret says "I haven't changed at all," because why would Goret know? I don't talk with them. I haven't talked to them since they said they would ignore my plea in the messed-up Discord ban situation (citing that same comment which was over a year old even by then), and I never had any Discord conversation with them before that, either. (For reference, I made that inappropriate comment to Goret in 2018 when they deleted my post in Burger's staff application thread where I cautioned people that he had written a manifesto about how much he disliked Aurora's community, and Goret issued a board warning to me, calling my post "off-topic." I felt crushed, because I was punished for saying something that seemed to be good and valuable for the community.)

Spirituality had no place in a debate channel to start with - since it's highly personal and abstract, its inclusion there was abusive of everyone else's trust, and I overreacted as if to compensate. In any case, I'm sorry for what I did in 2018, but that's just my point- I was punished for it and learned better, while some people who came to hate me for it spent the time since then looking for (and finding) opportunities to punish me further. There you have it. Schev didn't like that I was able to make amends, so he made sure I "caught some down the line." And now, the trouble he placed on me was accepted as undeniable evidence of my wrongdoing. He and Geeves gave me a death of 1,000 papercuts, finally enough made-up conflict to convince Alberyk that I wasn't even worth an honest effort before giving me the harshest punishment possible. And yes, Geeves shared Schev's effort to further punish me for the past: https://i.imgur.com/WrVtgJQ.png That is him saying he wouldn't correct Schev and admit he wasn't harassed, so that he could keep me banned. The fact that he posted my ban request now, when I haven't even spoken to him since August, makes it clear that he's dedicated to hurting me. (Side note: Obviously, at the time Schev banned me from the Relay, I asked the OTHER remaining moderator of that Discord for their input, but the other remaining moderator was Goret, so you can imagine how that went https://i.imgur.com/CAWFVTP.png As with the others, they want me to pay more for what I did wrong before) Frankly, I don't understand how Schev can bring this level of intensity to the table. The fact of the matter is, I don't interact with him, we don't share any spaces. When he banned me, it had been five months since we last actually talked. At the time of this discussion, it's been four more months since he banned me. He was the first to show up in my ban appeal to tell everyone I'm a monster, and he's here now to tell everyone I'm a monster. His grudge is unmistakable, as are the ways he and Geeves used their authority as Discord moderators to carry out that grudge, as is the fact that Alberyk adopted their view of me as a problem to be eliminated rather than a member of the community.

Some people might rightly argue that pursuing a janitor (AKA custodial technician AKA a maintenance role) so relentlessly just for having maintenance tools and gloves is the source of the LRP here. You (Leudoberct) were so afraid of a character having equipment that their role could reasonably be expected to have (even if it's not utterly typical), that you repeatedly antagonized them for no observed offense and then formed a mob to pursue them when security didn't satisfy your (figurative) bloodthirst. I certainly recall when I played janitor, I stayed highly concerned with little tidbits of electrical work Installing lights, fixing vending machines, things sometimes too inconsequential for actual engineers to divert attention for. From this perspective, the amount of grief you gave Thomas for having gloves was completely unjustifiable to start with. We see the consequences of this spelled out here: You forced the actual antagonist away from his intended plans and cornered him into acting defensively, upsetting any attempts he may have had for enacting his own plans to create narrative-driven gameplay, in favor of this paranoia-infused antag-hunt. And then when it turns out you were right, and you were forcing an appointed antagonist into a tight spot, you still complain that he reacted to the massive pressure you put on him...? How do you justify that hypocrisy, wherein it was right for you to go hunting, but it was wrong for him to defend? Even though he was the one assigned by the game to be the actor (the antagonist), the one who's supposed to set action into motion? And "hunting" truly must be the word to describe it. In various complaints, we have seen many times that people say "we never meant to hurt him," and yet they did not hesitate to create an environment where violence would be inevitable. Just last week, I think, we saw the ERT team who turned into pirates; they never meant to hurt anyone, but they did go onto the station with lots of guns and armor and start stealing stuff... What outcomes are to be expected, when this path is chosen? Similarly, what does one expect to happen when you form a gang of people to take someone's gear, under threat of force? Simply put, you create a situation where the only possible results are either boring (antagonist peacefully hands over insulated gloves, and his ability to drive gameplay is stunted) or extreme (he refuses, and fighting breaks out). Someone being disappointed was an inevitable consequence of your decision to obsess over the gloves and keep applying pressure, and this complaint seems to indicate a dissatisfaction that the person who got disappointed was you instead of him. Feel free to delete this post if you are an admin of the opinion that someone cannot respond in a complaint or request in which they were not directly involved. Conversely, I would argue that anyone has the ability to take information presented by those who were involved and use it to form connections that haven't been considered yet.

The problem was that I made a problem worse (or, something I thought was a problem), when I had the chance to make it better. Who I (or anyone) thinks "started it" is not relevant in any situation, because I shouldn't base the quality of my behavior on the quality of anyone else's. Second: I do understand that. I don't believe I've ever brought trouble into the server-space, and I don't plan to start. This is in line with the principle of "don't shit where you eat."

BYOND Key: Bauser Total Ban Length: Permanent Banning staff member's Key: alberyk Reason of Ban: "Multiple cases of breaking the Don't be a dick rule by insulting staff an other players when interacting with the community" Reason for Appeal: Same reason as before. I've got nothing but good intentions and sincere hope for getting back to my record of peaceably contributing to Aurora. In pursuit of this, I've come to terms with the fact that I did some things incorrectly - namely, resorting to rudeness when I felt betrayed by a framework ostensibly designed to protect me, instead of entrusting that framework with its own eventual self-correction (at whatever personal expense necessary). My appeal is layered: on one hand, there's the forum ban, and on the other, there's the server ban which was only placed on me because staff ran out of ways to punish me on the forum. Naturally, they're both of concern to me, but the server ban is more significant.

I have a history of hostility. This isn't it. I didn't even think I was a part of that conversation. I've only got seven messages in that huge log (none of which break any rules or are antagonizing), and he omitted the only two others, wherein 1) I explained my comment about being "flagrantly unhelpful" was only hypothetical and 2) the comment about rank and willingness to leave the community was about me (since I was banned from both forum and Discord and still wanted to stick around). My only comment which could even be misconstrued as combative ("I have a hunch you're going to complain either way") stems from the fact that Burger started the conversation by stating his expectation that the antagonists would ruin the round, which I felt was needlessly hostile towards the players in general. So, yeah. I'm not a part of this incident. I already took my bruises for bullying Burger. EDIT: If I was being hostile, you would know. Everybody would know. Ask Schev. Ask Goret. Ask Coalf. I'm working on that. But none of that is here.

And this is the PR

small brain is making a character you love and picking a song that suits them big brain is loving a song so much you make a character for it

A good case can be made for attempting a bad gimmick: If it didn't work before, maybe they can use their experience to try and make it work next time. Regarding the gimmick not being believable enough, remember that believability is a two-way street. If there is a case to be made that the gimmick was not realistic enough to be believable, then there is a case to be made that you're just not believing enough for it to seem real. Not everyone has the same threshold for their suspension of disbelief. You say that the mercenaries hosting a fighting game is unrealistic, even though they already had what they needed (the kidnapped HoS) and could very well have been doing it to send a message or terrorize. You say that the mercenaries shooting at & giving up one of their own was unrealistic, even though that mercenary just betrayed his whole team by killing an extremely valuable hostage. You say that one of the mercs having a change of heart and coming back for him was unrealistic, even though the mercenaries are all supposed to be actual characters with their own actual motivations, too. So for every case where you determined an IC behavior to be completely wrong and nonsensical, there's a theory that explains how it makes perfect sense... if you just look at it a way that isn't the way you look at things. Not every character behaves or should behave with your motivations or priorities. I'm not sure I could count on both hands the number of times I've heard you call a round "one of the worst rounds you've ever been in." tl;dr The purpose of disciplinary action should always be to facilitate fun and should never attempt to enforce fun. Your approach is an attempt to enforce fun... It's fundamentally ridiculous.

Give Malf cyborgs the ability to modify an autolathe into an autoborger

Why is this not already the case? Is there any downside to it? Or has it just not been an issue, historically?