Jump to content

Gamerlord

Members
  • Content Count

    23
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Gamerlord

  • Rank
    Botanist

Linked Accounts

  • Byond CKey
    gamerlord357

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. This is precisely what they told you. You are singling out a single player for ooc reasons that you cannot rightfully justify. This is metagruding. You want a player murdered. You don't want them converted, you don't want them sharded, you never specified anything else, you just outright asked they be murdered. This is the textbook version of meta-grudging another player because you wanted them removed from a round for your very blatant and clear dislike. My verdict stands, I'll only reply and review my decision if new information is brought to light. I'm also going to directly state this. The core principle of our rule boils down to not being a dick. The rule is simple, clear and direct. A person that is unable to understand generally does not speak English then, so it's understandable by everyone here in this thread. Your attitude as I outlined before needs improvement, towards the community as a whole, both the players and the staff. 1. It is NOT a clear and concise verdict. I have made this very clear Sharp, the entire current situation arising from the fact the concept of 'you can fight her, you just can't target her' not being as clear as you seem to think. 2. FOR. THE. LAST. TIME. It is not OOC. I can justify it very well and have done so multiple times now. My problem is not with the player. Let me say that again so you can get it through your skull. My problem is not with the player. That would be OOC. My characters have problems with the player's character. THAT IS IC. You know, since OOC means out-of-character and IC mean in-character. Now stay with me Sharp, this might be tricky but I need you to understand, but if my characters have problems with another character, when deciding to kill someone or choosing a course of action as an antag, they might choose someone they dislike or have a grudge against. Maybe instead of converting that bitch they hate to the light of their glorious god, they wish to deny his grace to her forever. Do you understand now? Or do I need to find some way to dumb it down further? At this point if you can't get it I'll have to assume you're just fucking with me. My attitude is completely and utterly fine. Besides petty worthless gestures like renaming cleanerbots I am acting in an a way that is IC. 3. Can some admin OTHER than Sharp or ShameOnTurtles please chime in? They seem intent on sticking to their guns, which are mostly either logically inconsistent or outright wrong and we'll never get anywhere if this keeps up. If someone does decide to show up, please bring some point of view/argument other than 'this thing that is utterly murky and arbitrary isn't murky and arbitrary' and 'you're doing this because you are being a salty cunt, not because your characters have a severe and understandable dislike of another character'. I mean, it's getting old and kinda sad. EDIT: Oh! I almost forgot. If someone decides to play a character who is rude, abrasive and an all-round pain to be around, they need to own it when said character makes enemies.
  2. Not once have I said if you took antagonist actions towards Katheryn Linerbord during that round, would you be banned. I said that you would be punished if you targeted them, which I feel I have explained what that means and how I would determine it. I feel it's also worth it to note that I am not the one handling this complaint, that would be down to another admin. Which one, I am not sure. I could not handle this appeal objectively, and am merely posting my side of the situation. Take another look at the logs up in the op. OOC: Gamerlord_357: let's talk hypothetically for a moment here OOC: Gamerlord_357: if an admin says he'll ban you, for doing one thing, but not another, when the only difference is inside your own mind and he cannot know, is that fair? OOC: ShameOnTurtles: do not bring this into OOC, dude OOC: Geeves: Lmfao. OOC: Gamerlord_357: i am seriously having trouble parsing this. OOC: Gamerlord_357: it does not make logical sense. I was clearly asking for help on how to deal with a Sword Of Damocles over my head whenever I make a decision as an antag. I didn't continue the argument at all. I asked a hypothetical question that I needed the answer to in order to play the round. You were refusing to work with me on that note and again, you have not sufficiently explained 'targeting'. I need a set of ironclad guidelines here, not 'if I don't like how your acting in regards to this person you're banned'. To be an antagonist requires the freedom to decide your choice of victims and the avenues of attack. I can't effectively or fairly play ANY antag role if I have to put kid gloves on and treat a player as sacrosanct. It is unfair to every player on the server. Both my allies who are being handicapped and the non-antag players who are both being unfairly targeted when I can't take an easier route through Linerbord and because they don't get a fair and fun game. Now, instead of arguing ridiculous and pathetic semantics work with me on this. I only named cleaning robots. That was the extent of my efforts to cleanse the salt in my heart, the first round after the last problem. It's called catharsis tbear13, sometimes it's needed. For the record, that is the complete and utter extent of my OOC actions. Everything else is completely and utterly IC and at this point I'm getting kinda disgusted at the fact that a roleplay server doesn't allow people to react to other character's IC attitudes. I mean, are you kidding me?
  3. What gimmick? We hadn't even decided upon a gimmick at that point! Actually I didn't. I asked a hypothetical in OOC, which could have easily stayed a hypothetical if you hadn't started telling me to stop. It was a legitimate question too, and not one that you've answered yet. There's no such thing as 'general cultist duties'. Also, if I need to kill a security officer and choose someone other than Katheryn Linerbord because I'll be banned if I choose her, isn't that more deserving of the title of 'targeting due to OOC reasons' than 'I needed a sacrifice and decided to kill the one who get's on my nerves all the fucking time'? Frankly ShameOnTurtles? You aren't thinking this through very well. Maybe get someone who isn't invested in the decision like you are to look it over, because at present you seem intent on trapping me into positions where I cannot be an antag without getting banned.
  4. Before you start Sharp, THERE IS NO INFORMATION THAT WOULD HELP A PLAYER IN HERE. Also, I have no way of knowing when the round will end or of telling if it has. BYOND Key: Gamerlord_357 Staff BYOND Key: ShameOnTurtles Game ID: Reason for complaint: Below. Evidence/logs/etc: Below. Additional remarks: God I hate the system you guys have set up. Many things are forgotten between shifts and shifts, like the name of that one guy who murdered everyone and danced in their entrails. Some things are known across all stations, and all shifts. 'Katheryn Linerbord is a bitch' is one of them. Therefore when a bloodthirsty cultist needs to find a sacrifice, who does she go for? That cute looking Tajara who might make a good recruit to the cult of Narsie? Or that utter thundercunt Katheryn? Now, say that the admin decides that this is metagrudging and OOC, (even though it is an IC decision due to the IC behaviour of another character), and threatens that if you target her you will be banned. You of course ask if that means if she is harmed at all you'll be banned and the admin says no, only if she is targeted. There is a problem here my friends, and if you are clever you might spot it. How exactly, does an admin know what you were thinking? All names apart from Katheryn's have been filed off to prevent round-complaint interference.
  5. You don't seem apologetic. You don't seem to understand this mistake. You came here and neglected to read the rules on this subforum. You missed this. You also missed this. Make a staff complaint. Wait, last time I had to argue for an unban I came here, has that changed?
  6. BYOND Key: Gamerlord_357 Total Ban Length: 4320 Minutes Banning staff member's Key: ShameOnTurtles Reason of Ban:You have been banned by shameonturtles. Reason: Metagrudge, repeatedly ignoring admin instructions, insulting admins, and taking issues into OOC after being told the ruling was final.. This is a temporary ban, it will be removed in 4320 minutes. To try to resolve this matter head to https://forums.aurorastation.org/viewforum.php?f=38 Reason for Appeal: You should know by now I do this longform. Many things are forgotten between shifts and shifts, like the name of that one guy who murdered everyone and danced in their entrails. Some things are known across all stations, and all shifts. 'Katheryn Linerbord is a bitch' is one of them. Therefore when a bloodthirsty cultist needs to find a sacrifice, who does she go for? That cute looking Tajara who might make a good recruit to the cult of Narsie? Or that utter thundercunt Katheryn? Now, say that the admin decides that this is metagrudging and OOC, (even though it is an IC decision due to the IC behaviour of another character), and threatens that if you target her you will be banned. You of course ask if that means if she is harmed at all you'll be banned and the admin says no, only if she is targeted. There is a problem here my friends, and if you are clever you might spot it. How exactly, does an admin know what you were thinking? All names apart from Katheryn's have been filed off to prevent round-complaint interference.
  7. What you've described throughout this complaint is not ShitSec. It's just poor communication on the part of the Warden to tell you what your charges are and Linerbord to explain why you broke into Robotics. If Linerbord wants to be a bitch to you, they can, although I'm not sure how asking you to stop looting someone and to allow them out is 'being a bitch'. YOU believe it's right for YOU to take the 'BlueSpace' tech, that doesn't mean it is. That is evidence or private property depending on what the Security team and Command deem it to be. It is not for you to take simply because of an 'expertise' on the subject. And no, you don't get to go on comms and talk shit. "She started it!" Doesn't help you, because it makes a point of highlighting how childish this whole complaint is. This is the situation dumbed down. Man has strange shit. You want to police strange shit. Officer does not want you to police strange shit, because it is not your job to take shit from other people who are being detained or arrested. You don't comply. You get arrested by another Officer, and the Warden brigs you without telling you your charges. Whatever. I cannot waste any more of my time explaining the same basic concepts over and over.
  8. Yet all three are bullshit. I did not resist arrest, hooliganism I've already gone over and 'trespassing' was removing a pair of windows and a grate so that Katheryn could get into Robotics and subdue Tim. My point is saying that the actions of the three members of Security were incorrect both IC and OOC, that the Staff decided to handle an OOC problem (people being OOC by being shitcurity) as an IC problem which just so happens to put all the onus on me to make long ridiculous reports and frees them of having to actually do anything and that at no point did I do anything meriting an infraction and that what I was actually locked up for was publicly insulting a Security Officer. Also that when it comes to things of a scientific nature (bluespace, unknown/rare tech, etc) that officers of security should defer to the expertise of those who actually have training in that area, aka Research. That would be great and all, but she was a rude abrasive bitch first! In fact, she's a rude abrasive bitch in every round! If your coworker is a raging bitch and someone you have absolutely no desire to interact with then you obviously are not going to show them respect. I initially walked into my lab and abandoned her because she was being rude and demanding.
  9. Except that's not what happened. I wasn't saying 'I did nothing wrong' I was saying 'this officer is acting like a rude bitch and I'm not going to help her because of that'. Also, I did not shout. So saying in a workplace that this person from another department is being a rude bitch and I'm not going to help them while they're like that... isn't really that 'big'. Especially when I ceased the moment someone higher on the chain of command spoke up. Also do remember that Security are not police. Therefore they are NOT entitled to the same respect and deference a police officer would be IRL.
  10. 104 only comes into play if Tim asks me not to touch him. 107 is also inapplicable since 'the security officer is being a rude ignorant jackass' is true, significant and - on a personal level - important. 110? Bitch please. I never said a single word that wasn't true. Do remember that I said I checked every single entry. None of them apply. And as to the bluespace thing, someone capable of teleporting due to medical reasons is STILL something that the scientists should be informed about.
  11. Whatever, I just... This has taken anywhere from three to four hours of my time. I am drained as fuck right now. I'm afraid when it comes to rules and regulations the letter is what actually matters. Spirit don't mean shit in the legal or corporate world.
  12. IIRC he wasn't arrested. He was just a crazy roboticist who was being brought in to Medical for forced treatment. The Security Officer dragged him off to medical, allowing him to keep whatever bluespace device he used to escape instead of remanding said device to someone who was qualified to handle it. You don't give EVA equipment to someone not trained, you don't give firearms to someone not trained and you don't listen to said people's demands about the use and ownership of same. Why then would you allow a security officer to make decisions about a piece of tech that she has never used, been trained to use or been authorised to use? That is patently ridiculous. You need to take another look at the regulations clearly. Find and quote me where it is. If you can find it. The cut part is only done because there isn't enough room. Trying to fit everything required chopping off the initial part that was least informative. Your character does in fact act like a cunt. Just interacting with her is a chore. Whenever I have the chance I avoid her at all costs because she IS an utter bitch. And yes, I do think I'll get away with calling someone a bitch or cunt on the Common channel when it's an accurate description of your behaviour, since that's not slander, hooliganism or any other offense. Katheryn Linerbord is the most unpleasant character I've had the misfortune to encounter on Aurora, and you cannot expect people to cooperate with you if you act like a thug. This is for a staff complaint, not a character complaint. Make one on the staff that issued the verdict. Oh hell no. I am not making ANOTHER report. I am just not doing that. You do not have the right to take that much of my time away to do something completely and utterly redundant.
  13. BYOND Key: Gamerlord_357 Staff BYOND Key: Calion12, SirCatNip Game ID: bT1-bQpX Reason for complaint: Yes, they were completely useless. Apparently Security Players being OOC by not following the Corporate Regulations and being shitcurity is apparently an IC problem and their hands are tied - notwithstanding the times I've been told off by admins for IC reasons. Evidence/logs/etc: Both the lower spoilers Additional remarks:
  14. This is absolutely false. I have review the logs now and yes I have made several announcements. Several IN-GAME announcements about the local biesel thunderdome event being cancelled and the NSS Aurora offering up to hosting it, nothing about this is "meme", this is quite feasible. Furthermore I can point tell you that at the time EVERYONE treated it as a normal Extended round with a little spice. And while yes I did get into an argument with Munks, I have never called it a "Meme-round", I said it might be a "Half-assed event" as it was done with little preparations, however it turned out great thanks to the players basically taking the wheel and having a fun spin with it. To clarify on the permaban, we permaban EVERYONE who suicides during a round and logs out before we can contact them, this GUARANTEES that they have READ why they were banned and not doing it again. I can simply see that you were confused and that there was no malicious intent in what happened, it was simply me perhaps not being clear enough to players. I apologize for that and I am willing to appeal your ban fully and in turn I promise I shall specify the nature of these rounds further. Alright then, sorry.
  15. And while you appear to be very fond of the phrase, "Meme-round", nowhere was it stated that it was a "meme-round" as you managed to blow your head off before I even made a single announcement. Furthermore the ban itself was given by the Trial Moderator @firstact , however due to how server permissions function Trial Moderators are unable to give permabans and thus it was given out in his name by me. You had made several announcements and if I remember correctly YOU had said it was a meme-round in ooc conversation with someone who didn't want it to happen. No one was really bothering much with IC that round, no one was treating it seriously, I was under the quite reasonable impression that such ooc behaviour was fine. Certainly doesn't bloody well deserve a permaban.
×
×
  • Create New...