Peppermint

Well personally nothing, as I don't feel there's a problem in the way things are handled most of the time. There is a lot of scrutiny and effort involved in staff complaints, people often just want to hash things out over discord which is a poor idea for many reasons. If you want your notes, you need to DM Alb or Garn as we keep pointing out to people. The crux seems to be that people don't like their notes being private - but they're not. You can just dm a head admin and they'll be given out to you. We used to all share them but after someone leaked something they shouldn't to people, and someone else accidentally shared notes that were supposed to be hidden, it got tightened up. One of those two was removed from staff over it (amongst other things), and the other apologised and got things fixed. More examples of change taking place when something goes wrong.

Does this now show that large parts of the community have no idea what was going on and why the decisions that were reached, were reached? We don't publicise things and generally keep a lid on what other people have done, as lord only knows how miserable it would be to deal with folks knowing each other's notes and whatnot and how that opens things up to abuse. This whole thread is giving me that vibe that people have reached conclusions on some very small material and are now doubling down despite not really having much of an idea how things work behind the scenes, or how much discussion goes into these kinds of choices.

Do not edit posts any further. I can still see the history but it is going to make it more of a headache for Read and I (who is joining me on this) to review it. I see no reason this complaint can't go ahead. We should have a resolution to both soon.

Hi. I'll also be on this one given they're linked. Give me some time to check through.

Hey, @ReadThisNamePlz and I will be taking this. Give us some time to comb over the logs as there is a lot to go off of here. Remember to only post things that are actionable with proof. From what I'm seeing here there are three main concerns: - Feeling like Cybs was unfair regarding the strike. - Feeling that you two have been singled out and had unfair treatment (with the implication there's some favouritism going on.) - Issues with how Keela acts toward others, and how their content is sometimes inappropriate too. Remember that by posting complaints and whatnot everyone's actions are under review, and you can't really pick which problems you want looked at, so from my perspective this is where I'd be checking up.

You have an absolute ton of warnings, notes, and now two permeant sec bans for this kind of thing. Appeal denied.

I would like to specify I told you to make a complaint after you ahelped something that had happened in a different round, and your opening message was something about making said complaint. Pretty much everything here would have bee solved should you have ahelped it in the round as you saw it. I would also like to say that the tone here from a lot of people is incredibly patronising. The person has not defended themselves yet, so players discussing amongst themselves how they personally feel about another character and whether or not they are acceptable is not helpful. Please just stick to the facts in regards to what rules have been broken. Thank you.

Yeah sure, don't do it again. Appeal accepted.

Reminder to only post if you have something actionable. Logs, screenshots, round IDs, ect. The point is to see if someone broke any rules, not how individual's feel about them per say.

There is a five month gap between your job ban and my perma, so I am willing to extend the benefit of the doubt here. However you will still be banned from security until you appeal that one given it's a separate issue, so I'll reapply that to your new ckey. Bear in mind you probably won't get to appeal a second one. Accepted.

Sure. A few nights prior you decided to fist fight an armed IPC with a revolver and with a butchering cleaver after they headbutted you. and walked away I seem to remember you running from someone who aim intented you as well the second they dropped it, but that may have been the same dominian round. I don't think it's IC embellishment when these things happen on other rounds too. Given I don't really play often and it's enough to stick in my mind these happen, I am cautious about it. But I'm not on the whitelising team and at the end of the day my opinion doesn't mean anything more than anyone else's. And yes these are all true. My issue here specifically is the SCC deals with a lot of weapons plans and whatnot, and having someone they know has sold such to another government (one that is often labelled as false) just stretches my personal believability a bit - it's not really a big issue and more of a lore one that I can't really wrap my head around. I generally advise anyone applying on their trial to play a new character, it's not really anything personal.

A ninja around a few days ago with the dominian tribunal folks

I'm wary given your interaction with antags, and how often it is you'll insert yourself into situations your character has no business being in. Protagonist type, to be blunt. My main concern is the former tho. On that dominian tribune round a few nights ago, hearing your character talk about how he'd have fought off two RIG wielding commandos with his KA but couldn't charge it in time was very much a hm moment. I also take issue with some character traits, such as being a weapons' smuggler (weapons plans, to be exact) but then being moved to a command position within the SCC anyway? Just seems a tad much when it comes to being believable. I think you should probably wait a little or play other characters (at the very, very least for a trial) overall, though this isn't a -1 exactly.

Played 1 round and it was really rough. No direction, no real idea of what's going on, lots of conflicting orders. Maybe a singular rough round, but I dunno.

So would you prefer this to be closed? I'm willing to unban you if I get an answer regarding how you know your ban reason, but are telling me you didn't know you were banned on the other ckey.

I'm just not understanding how you're claiming you didn't know you were banned, but do know the ban reason is all. That's the bit I want some clarification on.

No. I am never giving you a chance. You've been given too many.

Then you did know you were banned when you joined again and played security? I didn't mention anything about the reason on the old account - that was you, in your opening post.

So you know you were banned on a previous account, and then rejoined on a new one as security? I'm not understanding how you're telling me you didn't know you were banned, but you do know the cause of what it was for?

Do you use a VPN or anything like that? You also said you left in the middle of the round, so I assume you were previously banned for going SSD/AFK a bunch?

Locking and archiving then.

What was your previous ckey?

That's not what I'm saying at all. Finding the janitor odd is entirely fine. Calling him out as a boarder instantly without talking to him, interacting with him, or just saying like: "Hey, what's with the second janitor?" or whatever is not fine. The leap between seeing the janitor and immediately knowing he's a boarder after he walked past is the trouble, as how are you knowing that? Overall the warning was entirely fine imo, and I don't see any reason to overturn it. If there's nothing new I'll close and archive in a day or so.

Hi, I've had a look through. Took a few days after an epic battle to get my laptop to read .jar files properly for the log program we use. But now all set. From my point of view and from what I've seen here: - Boarders show up. - Crew realises there are borders. at [04:03:45.526] (IRU-Geier)|(IRU-Geier (Investigator (Idris))) -> (Untitled Conversation): We have been boarders. Unknown amount of hostiles with unknown intentions. At least one is "An IPC armed with a Shotgun" - Some borer stuff happens in the background. This is where things split a little. - Some of the mercs hold up a scientist at around 4:04 round time. Around 4:18 this breaks out and into a fight. The mercs fighting here get shot up and die. Another - Bullet - wanders off to do his own thing and hide within the crew. Looks to be that sec knows there are some missing here. [04:25:41.317] SAY: /(Salvo Raccuso) : (Ceti Basic) Remainin' boarder, ye no need to die today, surrender yerself to security 'n no harm will be done to ye, 's 'e first 'n only offer, ye have two minutes to reply - At 04:30 the one hiding as a janitor gets called out. I can't see much about the mercs being looked for however, up until this point - nobody seems to know Bullet, the guy you called out, existed at all as he'd been doing his own thing entirely separately. I do however believe that your character, Jurgi, had reason to be alert to things out of the ordinary such as someone else dressed up as a janitor. The problem here as Rooster stated is that rather than just calling out it was weird, or talking to him yourself, you immediately leapt to him being part of the group of mercss despite there being no real indication he was with the group at all. For all you know, he could be anyone as a bunch of borer stuff was going down regardless. I can't find anything in the logs saying that security was aware that the boarders were hiding amongst the crew but that's not really important here. The trouble is not that you found this guy weird, or wanted to inform security. It's just an issue that you went from 'okay, another janitor isn't awake' to 'Sec he's a boarder!' within a single leap. Calling him out was entirely fine. It's just the way it was done that I also take issue with. Does that make sense @Infernalistgamer?

Okie. Locking and archiving upon writer's request.