Donaldo_TH

I've re-read some of your arguments and re-evaluated some things with a clearer head, now that I've slept and actually, you do have a point and I agree with it. I have no questions and thank you for you time and swift response.

The point you're making is that I did something that only you didn't like. Players didn't have an issue with that, it was resolved very quickly and ultimately, did not harm the round or the roleplaying process in any way, but you personally did not like that, so you decided to punish me. I've yet to receive any elaboration regarding the "non-interactive" gimmicks I recently did. I can compare the argument about having no weapons for a while for security with this: imagine punishing an antag for breaking someone's leg. Well, yes, there was a surgeon on shift who fixed the bone after, like, 5 minutes of waiting for him to prepare, but uhh it was still very frustrating for the victim, they've had to walk slowly for these 5 minutes and wait until the operation is complete! Yes, there are splints(in our case, bridge weapons) that can be used to mitigate the broken leg until it can be properly fixed.

BYOND Key: Donaldo_TH Staff BYOND Key: Loorey Game ID: cu4-deZB Reason for complaint: I disagree with the reasoning behind my antag ban Evidence/logs/etc: The chat log from my perspective: ss13-chatlog-20240805-230138.html Additional remarks: The argumentation provided to me by the moderator who banned me was very vague and unclear. The two main arguments is him stating my gimmicks always spiral into something that is very non-interactive without providing any examples or other arguments. The second argument is me having past warning which are 6 months old and have since expired. Only one of the warnings is related to my performance as an antag. The two other arguments provided are that spacing the armory is very unfair to the security, but this argument is not viable because even while I was talking to the guy, security already started ordering NEW weapons which are better than the lost ones. The third agrument is that "messing with the security armory before security can act is frowned upon". The security had around 10-15 minutes to react to it while I was still inside, doing my thing. It is also slightly ironic that after the round ended, one of the players who I interacted with during the round, the investigator, told me they enjoyed it and consider me a good antag. I don't really want to bring other people in, but just something I want to mention. I tried to keep this as short as I could, sorry if it's a bit too long, just wanted to adress anything that could be said against me.

Hi. I'm looking for a players to run a small campaign in Project Zomboid. Obviously, it's text only and I expect quiet a high level of roleplay. There won't be any zombies, it'll be set in a modern setting and it will be happening on a custom map I've made specifically for the campaign. It probably won't be longer than 3-4 sessions, but this may vary, depending on how you will be playing it. The plot is as follows: If this sounds interesting, leave a message here or reach me out on Discord: bydlo9216 I'm looking for 4 players of which I currently have 1. I will be the gamemaster leading you through the game. To wrap it up, here are some spoiler-free screenshots of the map:

Hello. As I've stated multiple times, ahelp included, the purpose of my gimmick was never about killing people. The quote you have provided about announcements from CC is not even related to the case. It does not restrict traitors from outlandish orders, but rather provides instructions for Command players on how to act if they think the order is outlandish. The purpose of my gimmick was to create arguments between the crew members who thought the orders were legitimate and people who thought otherwise. Additionaly, it was intended to seed panic among people and give them more themes to discuss because the return of an AI that is basically this universes equivalent of SkyNet is, indeed, pretty scary. Further announcements were intended to amplify that, but the gimmick was halted by your request very early on and ultimately, I was told to "choose a different gimmick" an hour and a half into the round as an antag.

BYOND Key: Donaldo_TH Staff BYOND key: abigbear / a_big_bear (?) Game ID: cr5-dqCe Reason for complaint: I completely disagree with this persons judgement Evidence/logs/etc: Our half an hour long argument: Additional remarks: I didn't really want to make this post, since I don't want to take other peoples time for no good reason and considering this person is a CCIA leader, I do not expect to get anything out of this complain. Why am I still making it then? I've slept it off, thought a bit about it and decided that I'm still pretty upset about this situation, so here I am. And also, sorry if this post will be long, I don't want to do that and I hope I won't. I'll also provide some context so that people would not necessarily have to go trough our half an hour long debate to figure out what I'm compaining about and what's my point: I've made an unbelievable announcement as SCC thanks to a traitor tool I am provided with. It WAS intended to be as unbeliavable as possible and was intended to cause anxiety among the crew It went something like this: Moments later, I was messaged by a CCIA leader. The debate took me half an hour and here I'll take a look at their arguments and will provide a counter-argument for them The ticket was ultimately closed and I was prohibited from continuing my gimmick. I wasn't given time to response and it almost felt like the person I was talking to just didn't manage to come up with what to say to me, but whatever, I'm sure it's not the case. Either way, I am sure that this post is already quiet long as it is. All necessary information can be found in the logs and I've provided you with a round ID, so you can easily access them. Don't expect this to get anywhere, but I wanted to show my discontent.