Garnascus

Week ban did seem harsh at first glance but i am unfortunately going to need to side with @Owen on this one. We have no choice but to escalate in punishments when a particular player continues to break rules. I am sorry to say but i do not see any reason to alter the ban or expunge it from your ckey.

Forgot to archive this.

Locking and archiving as judgement has been rendered. Frank can appeal again at the stated time.

Sorry for the late response I think the initial permanent ban is definitely valid given the sequence of events. I think frank even acknowledges its validity given the text of his ban appeal. Permanent bans are expected to be exactly that. Permanent. They are not placed lightly and its not always a guarantee that they can even be appealed. While i acknowledge the exact length of time for when to consider an unban appeal is a bit "Feelcrafty" it is up to the banning administrator. Considering i do not have any problems here with the ban itself i feel like siding with cybs on this one.

No, you did not "stop talking to them". You claimed you would no longer engage and then continued to make snide comments directed towards me. Of course I'm going to respond. In no universe do you get to keep making passive aggressive comments about our discussion and then have a problem when I respond. You can argue all you want about how you think im "baiting" you. Its common sense that if you keep discussing a topic then so will I.

Ironically in the screenshots you've clipped here I told fox to drop it twice yet he still continued the discussion with condescending and passive aggressive remarks. I do not believe I said anything against the rules of conduct for being staff. There's really nothing to say here.

The thing to keep in mind here is that the current document regarding how able bodied your character must be is the result of EXHAUSTIVE discussion, iteration and debate. Overall policy has shifted this way and that over the years. Regardless of where the pendulum swung there was always a portion of people dissatisfied with it. Most staff members have personal anecdotes of having to deal with a frustrating case of a particular character toeing the line or pushing a good faith boundary with a disability. Expanding or restricting disabilities is TECHNICALLY easier to do nowadays since we have fancy charts. I think the best things to consider when doing this is "Does this allow interesting characters to be made" and "is this consistent with a heavy RP setting" with hopefully a fine balance between the two.

Gonna piggyback off of what Carver has said. The topic of headmin elections has come up numerous times over the years including when I was still headmin. I believe headmin elections to be a popularity contest. Staff work together internally on nearly every issue related to the server and the topic of "Who do we make headmin" is always a lengthy discussion where all the mods and admins have a say. The idea being that the mods and admins are well equipped to asses the potential for the new headmin. The community sees a very small portion of this process. I'm not saying its good or bad it just is. However its very difficult for someone not on the staff team to make an informed choice on who the next headmin should be.

What is the basis for this complaint. There arent any hard policies on how long to keep a player permabanned for though the initial unban appeal seems genuine to me.

Strong disagree. Its an enormous buff to security and improves an area they are already very strong in.

Honestly, when i examine the entirety of events it does look all above board. I admit that the evidence presented does make Eddy look pretty bad here. It is true that this was his character's first round and it is also true he was the individual who handled, at least in part the character complaint on 50_noob's character. I am not making any judgements on the "wrongness" or "rightness" of any IC interactions as they relate to OOC rules but the premise of the original incident report seemed reasonable to me. It also does not seem to be the case that Eddy was observing the round before hand. It makes sense to me that a captain character upon joining would inquire as to the status of an active expedition and make suggestions or orders regarding it as is in their power to do so. The specific comment that Eddy made about making the character to "bait" 50_noob's character into an IR was allegedly said while in a voice chat. There is no proof that he made this comment so i have to analyze the events as is and determine if they are reasonable. While i am a bit uncomfortable with Eddy's comments here where he states. I do not believe it is acceptable to monitor someone IC with a higher ranking character due to the result of a character complaint. It feels a little weird to have any IC interactions be for the purpose of monitoring someones play as a result of a character complaint.

Readthisnameplz is currently on leave so i will live this ban in their place.

I will require some time to gather a timeline of events here. I will also need to confer with other administrators.

@eddymakaveli What do you say in regard's to 50_noob's allegation you joked privately with a staff member that you would utilize your character to bait sasha into an IR?

Do you have proof of this or was it submitted privately?

I think the main issue is it just seems to be showing up every round. I think things like this should be able to spawn outside of their game modes. It makes our setting more cohesive when we treat antagonists as being a part of the universe.

There have been very heated arguments over this in the past from inside and outside of staff but I personally completely understand why an "event only character" exists. The policy of characters that die during canon events being permanent is one I have strong opinions on. When I was still head admin I started and contributed to more than one discussion over it. I have always believed it was needlessly punishing to our players because no other aspect of the game asks you to risk your character. The majority opinion was generally that canon events have the capability to affect actual lore based on what characters live or die or how the horizon's crew responds to certain events or what "conditions" are fulfilled in pursuit of a "good" or "bad" ending. I believe that to be the steelmanned version of the argument. The strawmanned version is the powers that be on this server do not trust the player base to act appropriately when the stakes are as high as they are in a canon event. I don't think that's the case. I think the actual answer is there is a desire to protect the integrity of events by those that create them. Creating a canon event arc takes A LOT of work. I imagine it wouldn't feel great if from the perspective of an event coordinator their work was ruined by the crew acting a little silly.

Ban is ancient so not gonna ask any questions. Ban lifted.

Rats where fun. Bring back rats. Dissenting opinions are wrong.

Appeal lifted in Drwago's honor as they are no longer part of the staff team. You seem to also have a permanent job ban from synthetics which you can appeal at your leisure.

Ban lifted in Rushodan's honor as they are no longer on the staff team.

Good idea. I dont have anything else to say here. Title was funny though.

I believe you would make a fine CCIA member. My impression of you over the years has generally been of someone who emphasizes procedure, regulations and of course the rules as written. These are all great qualities to have as a member of CCIA. I also like you as a person and think you're a valued member of this community. Easy +1.

No ban reason is given and theres nothing in the archives so im just gonna unban you without asking too many questions. Enjoy!