Jump to content

[Resolved] Staff Complaint- Alberyk.


Recommended Posts

So I have no clue what I'm doing and have had bad experiences with this type of thing in the past. But here we go.

So  A round of Vampire has ended! [Game ID: bXK-dC4t].

BYOND Key: itanimulli

Staff BYOND Key: Alberyk

Game ID: bXK-dC4t

Reason for complaint: Okay so, how do I put this.. I was accused of intentionally abusing a bug....but I did not intentionally abuse a bug. I could understand a 1 day ban. But this is ridiculous. I was permanently banned for abusing a bug I did not know was in existence. I'm unsure of how to convince those 

Evidence/logs/etc: Additional remarks: I clicked hypnotize. I clicked the name of the person. I clicked hypnotize. I clicked the name of the person. I clicked hypnotise. I clicked the name of the person. This is usually how hypnotize works. This is what I did. Apparently, this is abusing a bug, because I inadvertently skipped over the hypnotize cooldown. This does not seem like grounds for a permanent ban. Also, I was given a sloppily worded ban reason that just raised additional questions. Yes, this is a staff complaint, I will have to make an unban request depending on the end result.

https://imgur.com/e8YSLSR

 

This is the ban reason. I would like to know what other warnings/notes I have gotten in regards to this, that pertain to me abusing bugs or being overall untrustworthy. I had some warnings by RTNP when they were a trial mod that were not erased 'because they had already expired' and the like. And a few other warnings I got were for being afk or having to leave irl. Any time someone has a warning, it's 'just a warning, deal with it'  or 'it doesn't mean much' but that appears to be the deciding factor here in me being banned. I thought bugs were supposed to be reported on GitHub, in the first place. I don't think anyone knew this was even a bug until just recently. I sure didn't.

Link to comment

Except, you used hypnotize before, you knew it would vanish and go into cooldown. As shown in the logs;

 

 wISFkWl.png

 

I do not really buy that you were not aware of this being a bug, because that was not the first time you were playing vampire, and far less it being the first time you were using those powers. I do believe this is a clear case of bug abuse. 

 

Now, looking at the rules:

Quote
  • Abuse of bugs, regardless of intent, is a punishable offence. All bugs should be reported on GitHub. If they are immediately gamebreaking, please contact server staff via adminhelp, in an attempt to find a temporary resolution.

The rule is clear here.

 

On the subject of your notes: 

You had more than 35 notes, that include warnings and bans, just since you started to play here, less than one year.

Some examples of them might include:

Quote

Warning by readthisnameplz in 2018-04-06 09:01:05:

Warning added by readthisnameplz, for: Walked into the bar, randomly took a hostage, bartender shot them with a nonlethal beanbag, proceeds to masacre everyone in said bar with the exception of the SSD's and a guy in a suit. Then proceeds to huntdown Diceman on the janitor bike and beheads him. None of this had proper escalation, while they were sabotaging the station, the members in the bar had no idea. This can be seen as ganking and is indeed murderbone. Please re-read the rules and Ahelp in the future when you plan to do major antag activities.. || Notes regarding the warning: Nothing to really add besides if they do this again I suggest a temporary bam.

 

Quote

Warning by readthisnameplz in 2018-04-08 07:42:37:

Attempted to lie to me about being killed by the CE, claimed they never damaged them, though they attacked them multiple times with a screw driver and other items, as well as a ton of disarms. . || Notes regarding the warning: Nothing more to really add to this. . 

 

Quote

Note by flimango 2018-04-15 07:46:01:

as a traitor, used their voice changer to name themselves "Nill Bye, The Science Guy". Asked not to break immersion. 

 

Quote

sircatnip 2018-05-02 18:40:48 sircatnip has banned itanimulli. - Reason: Hunting down cultists as a Research borg and silently setting them on fire with zero prior interaction under the guise of Captain's orders to kill. Conflict needs to be roleplayed to some degree; you don't have to monologue to somebody before killing them, but randomly setting them on fire without any attempt to interact is against the server rules. Read the "antagonists and conflict" section, along with the rest of the rules. - This will be removed in 4320 minutes. 

 

Quote

aboshehab 2018-05-11 21:09:25 aboshehab has banned itanimulli. - Reason: When recieved laws to plunder, took this as an excuse to kill someone with liquid fire. This is not plundering, you do not plunder people by just "killing" them. This was really out of nowhere and you are fully aware of the effects of your inject mixture. This is a 1 week ban. - This will be removed in 10080 minutes. 

 

Quote

yonnimer 2018-11-25 08:19:09 Spoken to about attacking command as a borg. Seems to have been them beliving they could, if other memembers of command said they could. 

 

Quote

pratepresidenten 2018-11-29 09:32:30 Warning added by pratepresidenten, for: Wiping at roundstart AI when you spawned as malf. Only left an "ahahaha" in ahelps before quitting. If you dont want to play malf, thats fine, but leave a better ahelp.. || Notes regarding the warning: They quit entirely after having readied up and all that. Kinda dumb.. 

 

Quote

thedococt 2018-12-07 06:01:43 Asked medical in LOOC repeatedly to clone them after suiciding for antagonistic reasons; told not to use LOOC in this manner or in general to try and harass for cloning. 

 

So, yes, this was not your first time breaking the server rules, you were spoken to, had notes put on your ckey, warnings and temporary bans. I do believe that a perma ban here is fair escalation.

Link to comment

I have made a bug report on GitHub about this issue and once more did not believe it to be a bug until told it was a bug. But I remain unable to convince you. Also, let me clarify a few things, then.
 

Warning by readthisnameplz in 2018-04-06 09:01:05:

Warning added by readthisnameplz, for: Walked into the bar, randomly took a hostage, bartender shot them with a nonlethal beanbag, proceeds to masacre everyone in said bar with the exception of the SSD's and a guy in a suit. Then proceeds to huntdown Diceman on the janitor bike and beheads him. None of this had proper escalation, while they were sabotaging the station, the members in the bar had no idea. This can be seen as ganking and is indeed murderbone. Please re-read the rules and Ahelp in the future when you plan to do major antag activities.. || Notes regarding the warning: Nothing to really add besides if they do this again I suggest a temporary bam. 

This was something I discussed with garn. This situation was not a gank.

Warning by readthisnameplz in 2018-04-08 07:42:37:

Attempted to lie to me about being killed by the CE, claimed they never damaged them, though they attacked them multiple times with a screw driver and other items, as well as a ton of disarms. . || Notes regarding the warning: Nothing more to really add to this. .   

This was a misunderstanding that I made a complaint about that was not taken off because 'it was just a warning' and 'didn't mount to much.'

 

Note by flimango 2018-04-15 07:46:01:

as a traitor, used their voice changer to name themselves "Nill Bye, The Science Guy". Asked not to break immersion. 


….this is ammunition?

sircatnip 2018-05-02 18:40:48 sircatnip has banned itanimulli. - Reason: Hunting down cultists as a Research borg and silently setting them on fire with zero prior interaction under the guise of Captain's orders to kill. Conflict needs to be roleplayed to some degree; you don't have to monologue to somebody before killing them, but randomly setting them on fire without any attempt to interact is against the server rules. Read the "antagonists and conflict" section, along with the rest of the rules. - This will be removed in 4320 minutes.  

Once more, not a gank according to headmin definitions.

aboshehab 2018-05-11 21:09:25 aboshehab has banned itanimulli. - Reason: When recieved laws to plunder, took this as an excuse to kill someone with liquid fire. This is not plundering, you do not plunder people by just "killing" them. This was really out of nowhere and you are fully aware of the effects of your inject mixture. This is a 1 week ban. - This will be removed in 10080 minutes. 

The only ban I agreed with, because it was essentially rule lawyering on my part.

yonnimer 2018-11-25 08:19:09 Spoken to about attacking command as a borg. Seems to have been them beliving they could, if other memembers of command said they could. 

Didn't know clarifying to someone how something icly works is grounds to use as ammunition in a ban.

pratepresidenten 2018-11-29 09:32:30 Warning added by pratepresidenten, for: Wiping at roundstart AI when you spawned as malf. Only left an "ahahaha" in ahelps before quitting. If you dont want to play malf, thats fine, but leave a better ahelp.. || Notes regarding the warning: They quit entirely after having readied up and all that. Kinda dumb.. 

It was late, I was tired, and getting something I thought I had turned off smacked with with realization that I should indeed sleep. So I ahelped, though wasn't exactly clear on the ahelp since I didn't see anyone in adminwho at all. Once more, nothing worth banning someone over.

thedococt 2018-12-07 06:01:43 Asked medical in LOOC repeatedly to clone them after suiciding for antagonistic reasons; told not to use LOOC in this manner or in general to try and harass for cloning. 


This one I do think is another valid note, because it was in poor taste and shouldn't have been done. Did not get a warning for it, though.

Link to comment

Those are just examples, when I do see the notes that exist on your account and they do show a rule breaking behavior that did not stop after warnings, temporary bans and talks, I do believe it that applying a perma is valid, that is also in the rules.

 

Quote
  • Permanent Ban: Permanent bans are issued in two general cases. First, to force communication with staff regarding an issue which was left unresolved, usually due to the player logging out mid-discussion. Second, as a final attempt to curb a player's behaviour, following warnings and temporary bans.

 

To be clear, people get perma banned if they kept breaking the rules after being talked to, warned and temporary banned, which is clearly the case here.

Edited by Alberyk
Link to comment

Alas, I never found myself to be a particularly troublesome player. Most of my issues have stemmed from misunderstandings rather than intentional misbehavior, and most of those things have not been repeated after the first realization that I had broken a rule. Burger accidentally gave himself infinite power, but according to what you're saying, his accident was inexcusable and he should also be banned in much the same manner as what has been applied here.

I could understand if I caused conflict oocly or expressed behaviors that were conducive to metagrudges or powergaming. I could understand if I'd been banned, save for the 'plunder' issue, for something that wasn't only recently clarified and that I happen to be in the right on ever since said clarification. I could understand if I was a 5-year player who had a history of getting things wrong, but instead I seem to be being banned because I'm...not as familiar with things than others. Once again I say that most of my issues have stemmed from miscommunication.

Link to comment

As for your statement about not being my first time, of course not. It was however my first time attempting to use it on multiple people. And it worked. Like I said in the bowink. It was a gamble. I figured they would start moving after the first person fell, and that would be that. 

Link to comment
13 hours ago, Itanimulli said:

Alas, I never found myself to be a particularly troublesome player. Most of my issues have stemmed from misunderstandings rather than intentional misbehavior, and most of those things have not been repeated after the first realization that I had broken a rule. Burger accidentally gave himself infinite power, but according to what you're saying, his accident was inexcusable and he should also be banned in much the same manner as what has been applied here.

I could understand if I caused conflict oocly or expressed behaviors that were conducive to metagrudges or powergaming. I could understand if I'd been banned, save for the 'plunder' issue, for something that wasn't only recently clarified and that I happen to be in the right on ever since said clarification. I could understand if I was a 5-year player who had a history of getting things wrong, but instead I seem to be being banned because I'm...not as familiar with things than others. Once again I say that most of my issues have stemmed from miscommunication.

I do not agree when the notes show otherwise, and there are plently of examples of similar behavior repeating there, such as the synth rule breaking and going afk/leaving round start. And no, I would not perma ban someone in the same situation without the same or worse precedents as yours, I hope you do understand that the fact you abused a bug was not the sole reason to issue a perma, but the fact you have a large collection of administrative actions.

Link to comment

The synth thing was once more miscommunication. Nothing in the laws said that a captain could not designate a HoP as no longer crew. I was told this oocly. I do wonder if you harbor anger for me, considering you were the HoP in question, and you spent around half an additional hour calling me a 'shitter borg' and saying how upset you were.

I simply do not understand the precedent here. I have no history of lying, and you can check 

As I can reference in other staff complaints, warnings are supposed to be documentation of an incident. They apparently are not removed simply because of the fact that if they are there is no documentation available about the incident. As so many people in so many resolved complaints have said, a warning is just that. A warning. About a specific incident. The only reoccurring behaviour is my tendency to leave the beginning of rounds on occasion, but so many people roundsart Cryo that I'm unsure that that is a noteworthy behavior besides the inconveniences it places on people who are latejoining.

Link to comment
45 minutes ago, Itanimulli said:

The synth thing was once more miscommunication. Nothing in the laws said that a captain could not designate a HoP as no longer crew. I was told this oocly. I do wonder if you harbor anger for me, considering you were the HoP in question, and you spent around half an additional hour calling me a 'shitter borg' and saying how upset you were.

There are far more other examples of bad synth play, and no, I do not have any grudge against anyone, even if I was upset and called you validhunter. In fact, I even ruled something really shady in your favor, the looc case where you told everyone to wait to ahelp something you could barely explain, and then returned saying one phrase in character, without using looc to explain that people could carry on with whatever roleplay was happening, before using the stun, which I found to be the bug abusing case later when someone ahelped and wanted to make a complaint.

 

45 minutes ago, Itanimulli said:

As I can reference in other staff complaints, warnings are supposed to be documentation of an incident. They apparently are not removed simply because of the fact that if they are there is no documentation available about the incident. As so many people in so many resolved complaints have said, a warning is just that. A warning. About a specific incident. The only reoccurring behaviour is my tendency to leave the beginning of rounds on occasion, but so many people roundsart Cryo that I'm unsure that that is a noteworthy behavior besides the inconveniences it places on people who are latejoining.

If a warning is still in a player's note, I will believe it is supossed to be there, and no, warnings are a step of punishment, alongside notes;

Quote
  • Verbal Warning/Warning: A warning is the lightest type of punishment we will dispense. Generally, this means you'll be informed of the rule you've broken, and we'll let you resume playing after you ensure us you won't break the rule again.

As I explained, you were not only warned and spoken to, you were temporary banned and job banned before, and as the rules says:

Quote
  • Permanent Ban: Permanent bans are issued in two general cases. First, to force communication with staff regarding an issue which was left unresolved, usually due to the player logging out mid-discussion. Second, as a final attempt to curb a player's behaviour, following warnings and temporary bans.

 

Edited by Alberyk
Link to comment

Yes, and once more. That job ban was because of afking. The only temp ban that would currently have been valid was because of rule lawyering.

 

I would like 2 things to happen. I would like additional opinion on me displaying this habitually rulebreaking behaviour; I would like my previous bans and warnings reviewed for wich ones could have appropriately weighed in on this decision.

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Itanimulli said:

Yes, and once more. That job ban was because of afking. The only temp ban that would currently have been valid was because of rule lawyering.

Still rule breaking, done so many times that we had to resort to temporary bans.

And you had two temporary bans before, not related to going afk at all:

Quote

sircatnip has banned itanimulli. - Reason: Hunting down cultists as a Research borg and silently setting them on fire with zero prior interaction under the guise of Captain's orders to kill. Conflict needs to be roleplayed to some degree; you don't have to monologue to somebody before killing them, but randomly setting them on fire without any attempt to interact is against the server rules. Read the "antagonists and conflict" section, along with the rest of the rules. - This will be removed in 4320 minutes.

Quote

aboshehab has banned itanimulli. - Reason: When recieved laws to plunder, took this as an excuse to kill someone with liquid fire. This is not plundering, you do not plunder people by just "killing" them. This was really out of nowhere and you are fully aware of the effects of your inject mixture. This is a 1 week ban. - This will be removed in 10080 minutes.

 

9 minutes ago, Itanimulli said:

I would like 2 things to happen. I would like additional opinion on me displaying this habitually rulebreaking behaviour; I would like my previous bans and warnings reviewed for wich ones could have appropriately weighed in on this decision.

One of the headmins is already looking into this, and I do believe that review around 30 notes/warnings/bans is a bit too much and not related at all to this complaint.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Alberyk said:

One of the headmins is already looking into this, and I do believe that review around 30 notes/warnings/bans is a bit too much and not related at all to this complaint.

This was your reason for permabanning me, as you said. It's one of the most relevant things ever sheerly because you said the number of them mattered so much.

Link to comment

sircatnip has banned itanimulli. - Reason: Hunting down cultists as a Research borg and silently setting them on fire with zero prior interaction under the guise of Captain's orders to kill. Conflict needs to be roleplayed to some degree; you don't have to monologue to somebody before killing them, but randomly setting them on fire without any attempt to interact is against the server rules. Read the "antagonists and conflict" section, along with the rest of the rules. - This will be removed in 4320 minutes. 

This is the ban I'd also like being looked into about it being a gank.

aboshehab has banned itanimulli. - Reason: When recieved laws to plunder, took this as an excuse to kill someone with liquid fire. This is not plundering, you do not plunder people by just "killing" them. This was really out of nowhere and you are fully aware of the effects of your inject mixture. This is a 1 week ban. - This will be removed in 10080 minutes.

 

This is the ban I said I'd agreed with several times now. 

Link to comment

@Itanimulli I have not reached a resolution yet but I would like to ask you a couple questions.

You reference a couple warnings/bans here as not being fair or justified. Why did you not contest these at the time they were given out? You've only posted one other staff complaint apart from this one, and it was resolved saying the warning was valid.

Alberyk brings up the point that you used hypnotise earlier in the round, and would have experienced the substantial cooldown during which the option disappears completely. Mechanically and thematically it doesn't make sense to be a rapid-fire stun. Why did you not adminhelp this as soon as it happened?

To clarify something, nowhere in the complaint you linked is it stated that warnings won't be removed if they are found to be invalid. All administrative actions can be rolled back if they are found to be unjustified, and this has been the case for as long as I can remember.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, ShameOnTurtles said:

@Itanimulli I have not reached a resolution yet but I would like to ask you a couple questions.

You reference a couple warnings/bans here as not being fair or justified. Why did you not contest these at the time they were given out? You've only posted one other staff complaint apart from this one, and it was resolved saying the warning was valid.

Alberyk brings up the point that you used hypnotise earlier in the round, and would have experienced the substantial cooldown during which the option disappears completely. Mechanically and thematically it doesn't make sense to be a rapid-fire stun. Why did you not adminhelp this as soon as it happened?

To clarify something, nowhere in the complaint you linked is it stated that warnings won't be removed if they are found to be invalid. All administrative actions can be rolled back if they are found to be unjustified, and this has been the case for as long as I can remember.

I am not one to tend to...speak out. As I have said in the comaint against RTNP and to you, I feel like I make things worse for myself when I do indeed talk. I also had no clear idea what a gank was until recently; the response differed from staff to staff. Garn finally set down a headmin version; unsure if that version is set in stone, but methinks Xander also got forgiven for an accusatory gank that Garn ruled to be false.

As for the hypnotize shanigans, I'd exclusively used Hypnotize in solo solo situations, in wich a solo target would be readily available, alone, and not in the vicinity of anyone else. I have learned methods of becoming a bit mire liberal with who I hypno and when I do it, but a cooldown has never been relevant because I never used it often enough consecutively. I've never been in a situation in wich hypnotise unavailable because I've never put my self, even accidentally, in that situation. I tend to switch to dominate the moment it's available. Irritably, I should have used dominate that time, as it would have given me a chance to force the HoS to take suspicion off of me, but I got careless and tried to thrall him. The situation played out almost perfectly, too. I clicked hypnotise, and lingered over the HoS's name, and clicked it. The option to hypnotise was still present. I did it again, this time to Minius. And then I did it to the HoP. Until it actually managed to hypnotise someone, it didn't dissapear. It vanished after the HoP fell, but by then the additional bars were already loadong over the other two's heads, and they dropped aswell. I didn't have a moment of "oh shit I just abused a bug," I had a moment more similar to "oh, that's odd and somewhat interesting, I shall bring it up at the end of the round to see if anyone else has done this before, and why it is not more common to see." Alb brought up a method of exploitation in the ahelp, and asked if I had used a different power completely. I calmly oblidged to tell him what I had done, going over the steps. Click hypno, click a name. It will still be there until hypno actually goes through. Not something I thought was a bug. Just a strange feature; I for one have not touched the vampire's entire kit. The most successful round I've had was dominating and then embracing as many people as I could. I don't even try to spawn bats or use the screech ability or veil step. I have never touched veil step, infact. It is like traitor; sure, I've been traitor tons of times, but don't tell me I should know the code/odd inner workings of every item in the uplink. I don't, and it's unreasonable to beleive I do.

Ultimately, when alb contacted me that round, I didn't expect to get made out to be a liar. As far as ss13 goes, tons of things exist and the only way to find them is via mechanical experimentation. I attempted something new and it worked, and I was pleasantly suprised that it did. If that bwoink hadn't have gone so far south, I would have readily apologized for using abilities as unnintended, moved on, never done it again, brought it up for a few rounds and likely have called it out later for other people to avoid. Maybe even tried to propose a fix. Instead, I was accused of lying, and then banned. I also freaked out because I had heard that after three temp bans you can't come back, no matter the circumstances of any of the bans. The round went from somewhat lax and comical, to full out panic, in the span of a few admin words.

Link to comment

Oh, also, I did want to point out that I thought most of the afk warnings were fair, but not relevant to "rulebreaking behaviour" that alb says he is trying to "permanently curb." I also felt myself out of line when doc bwoinked me over looc foolishness; even in that scenario, I stopped myself before attention had even been drawn to it because it felt wrong.

Link to comment
41 minutes ago, Itanimulli said:

The round went from somewhat lax and comical, to full out panic, in the span of a few admin words.

Not sure how this matters at all when I did wait until the end of the round, if I am not remembering wrong, to talk about this. It does feels you are trying to grasp on straws here.

Link to comment
7 hours ago, Alberyk said:

Not sure how this matters at all when I did wait until the end of the round, if I am not remembering wrong, to talk about this. It does feels you are trying to grasp on straws here.

Is this...the only thing you got from this post? This one secentence? It matters in context to how I responded to you, and how the bwoink affected my perception of the round as a whole. But...why did this single scentence stick out to you so much?

I'd like to think I've presented a decent defense thus far. If this one phrase unravels the whole thing somehow, please tell me why.

Edited by Itanimulli
Additional 2 scentences.
Link to comment

Alright, I've come to a resolution.

Please, in the future, contest staff actions that you feel are unjustified so they can be reviewed. In general, we don't know if something is wrong until you tell us. Not doing this leads to situations like this where notes/warnings/bans that you feel are invalid are used to decide on the ruling for an issue on server. Unfortunately it is not feasible to review each note at this point as some are several months old.

Moving on, I do not believe that Alberyk did anything wrong in this scenario.

This is for two main reasons:

  • Your history points to a trend of not understanding the rules/staff actions. While AFK notes/warnings/bans may not seem relevant in judging whether someone should be permabanned or not, if there is a long history of ignoring staff punishments for AFKing (without good reason, sometimes we all have to go suddenly as you mentioned in your jobban appeal) that will be taken into account.
  • All targeted abilities work in the same way as Hypnotize. Most, if not all, base abilities of antagonists have cooldowns. Alberyk was not unreasonable thinking you knowingly abused this bug.

I can completely understand not being observant to cooldowns or wanting to experiment with ablities, however I have a hard time believing you did not at least somewhat suspect that it was not intended. This is an example of language that makes me think this:

Quote

[2018-12-11 01:21:58.553] bXK-dC4t ADMIN: PM: Alberyk/(Khasan Mikhnovsky)->Itanimulli/(Za'Akaix'Kranz K'lax): Did you click the hypno power several times to open many windows and use it on more than one people at time
[2018-12-11 01:22:17.454] bXK-dC4t ADMIN: PM: Itanimulli/(Za'Akaix'Kranz K'lax)->Alberyk/(Khasan Mikhnovsky): used it one at a time
[2018-12-11 01:22:26.128] bXK-dC4t ADMIN: PM: Itanimulli/(Za'Akaix'Kranz K'lax)->Alberyk/(Khasan Mikhnovsky): click, target, click, target, click, target.
[2018-12-11 01:22:28.263] bXK-dC4t ADMIN: PM: Alberyk/(Khasan Mikhnovsky)->Itanimulli/(Za'Akaix'Kranz K'lax): So, you had to wait the cooldown to use it on everyone?
[2018-12-11 01:22:58.325] bXK-dC4t ADMIN: PM: Itanimulli/(Za'Akaix'Kranz K'lax)->Alberyk/(Khasan Mikhnovsky): No, it was during the act of hypnosis. It was a gambled. Didn't know it was possible until today.
[2018-12-11 01:23:13.026] bXK-dC4t ADMIN: PM: Alberyk/(Khasan Mikhnovsky)->Itanimulli/(Za'Akaix'Kranz K'lax): That is pretty much abusing a bug.
[2018-12-11 01:23:21.502] bXK-dC4t ADMIN: PM: Itanimulli/(Za'Akaix'Kranz K'lax)->Alberyk/(Khasan Mikhnovsky): I didn't know it was a bug.
[2018-12-11 01:23:21.887] bXK-dC4t ADMIN: PM: Alberyk/(Khasan Mikhnovsky)->Itanimulli/(Za'Akaix'Kranz K'lax): You are skipping the cooldown of the power, which is against the rules.
[2018-12-11 01:23:32.205] bXK-dC4t ADMIN: PM: Itanimulli/(Za'Akaix'Kranz K'lax)->Alberyk/(Khasan Mikhnovsky): I didn't know hypno had a cooldwon.

This wasn't the exact method used to hypnotise multiple people with one charge of the ability, but what you did is still an exploit of how cooldowns work. You mention not needing to wait for the cooldown then say you didn't realize Hypnotize had a cooldown.

No action will be taken as a result of this staff complaint. I encourage you to make an unban appeal to potentially get the punishment lifted.

This will be locked and archived in 24 hours unless any new information comes to light.

Link to comment

Sigh.

What I said was what I meant. I wouldn't need to wait for something if I didn't think it existed. If there did not appear to be a cooldown, there was no way that I would answer yes to this question. That doesn't make sense. What other answer would I have provided?

"Did you have to wait for a cooldown?"
What answer would be appropriate if you didn't know it had a cooldown? Would you answer 'yes' if you knew a cooldown existed? I must know how to answer admins in the correct manner, or else I'm going to end up in this same stupid cycle of getting accused of lying, and I for one don't want to deal with that again. Sure, I'll make an unban appeal, but to try and catch me with these statements rubs me the wrong way.

Link to comment

To clarify, those PM logs weren’t not intended to try to catch you out. The language indicated to me that you knew something was off about how you used the ability, not to imply you always have to agree with admins when they are questioning you.

With that said, it’s been 24 hours. Locking and archiving.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...