[Resolved]Staff Complaint against 1138

[SomeoneOutTher3]

BYOND Key: SomeoneOutThere

Staff BYOND Key: OneOneThreeEight

Game ID: Don't know, but the time was 2017-03-25 02:23:22

Reason for complaint: Issuing a warning despite me not breaking any server rules at the time. Not only that,but a SEVERE warning.

Evidence/logs/etc:

Additional remarks:

What happened was that I joined the round, became a mouse, ghosted, and then started a CT vote. It did not pass, but 1138 still bwoinked me about it, and "Circumventing game mechanics". When I asked which rules specifically forebode it, he/she cited "Don't be a dick".

How doing that is even remotely dickish and fun-removing compared to any other method of starting a CT vote is beyond me. What starting a CT vote did was give the option to reboot the server to those currently playing or those that have played. One vote is not going to change the outcome of that. The option to reboot the server still lies with the majority of the playerbase. If it would have went through, that would mean that the majority of people wanted it. What would have been dickish is if a CT actually commenced without a 2/3rds majority agreeing on it.

The next rule that was cited was "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."

IMO, the use of game mechanics which were coded without errors (Code-wise) does not constitute a bug, but rather using game mechanics "legally" for some purpose. Since various people/sources will offer different interpretations of it, I have to use a concrete source, Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_exploits

Taking advantage of the systems that make up the gameplay. A game mechanics exploit is not a bug—it is working as designed, but at the same time is not working as intended. An example is the "wavedash" in Super Smash Bros. Melee, where the momentum gained from using a directional aerial dodge could be retained on landing; with proper timing this allows characters to use a stationary attack while sliding across the ground.

The CT vote thing was not made possible by an error in the code: The mechanic is still working as designed (Which makes it a non-bug). As for the "Intended purpose", the rules do not address that.

[sonicgotnuked]

I mean, I would expect someone to get in trouble for bypassing the game mechanics by joining as a mouse and ghosting. Here are some exact words from skull on that same issue.

The first is circumvention of mechanics which will get you in trouble for.

[Scheveningen]

So because there's no explicit precedence for this case, you believe you did not break the rules in willfully taking advantage of a loophole during deadhour extended with the intent of bragging about having found the loophole to get a round restarted in the next 15 minutes?

This is exploiting mechanics for personal benefit and it's dickish. I followed the expectations set by Skull in that thread. Abusing unintended features (also known as bugs) can and will get you bwoinked.

[SomeoneOutTher3]

So because there's no explicit precedence for this case, you believe you did not break the rules.

If you want to look at it that way. I also said why, IMO, my actions did not violate the rules.

This is exploiting mechanics for personal benefit and it's dickish.

Seems like your interpretation of what is dickish and what isn't is different from mine, this is going to get faaaar.....

I was not using the CT function for any benefit to myself.

I followed the expectations set by Skull in that thread. Abusing unintended features (also known as bugs) can and will get you bwoinked.

I explained, using the only concrete source I had at the time, why unintended features are not bugs.

[Scheveningen]

Unintended features are not bugs? Do you really believe that?

So, what, you think purposefully hopping onto the server within a short time period just to join as a mouse, call a vote for transfer and then ghost immediately after isn't a sign that you were looking to start trouble and exploit loopholes? Even if you had all well and good intentions (such as looking for bugs), it does not excuse the way you went about it.

There's 100 ways to do something but a lot of them are wrong.

But I really can't be given the impression that you had good intentions as two logs in deadchat were all I needed to realize you were doing what you did to try and carry out what you wanted, and that was to get folks to vote for transfer.

We have a rule that bars you from being able to do the unofficial bugtesting stuff for whatever intent. It doesn't matter if you're looking for bugs, for one, you are not a dev, you are a player, it would be nice for anyone to make github contributions but it's not within your rights or bestowed staff perms to do bugtesting on the server. Two, the github is open and you can open your own test server by downloading the recent master .zip and check out what's bugged without bothering the active server population focusing on trying to play a game, not help you unofficially debug.

And the "unintentional feature" argument doesn't stick because there's a difference between stuff like when you were able to shoot projectiles around corners which was an ss13 physics stigma that's existed for awhile, and in this case where you tried to exploit a new OOC feature that was supposed to help prolong rounds a bit by cutting out an unnecessary middle man in influencing the vote. It's a false equivalency.

You should never do that on the server. Bug/issue reports go on the github. You do not go onto the live server to test it out while everyone else is still playing the game.

[Garnascus]

Attempting an argument based on "this isnt TECHNICALLY" against the rules" is never going to get you far. While we rely on the server rules as a first resort there are sometimes situations not covered by them that go against the spirit. This is not one of those situations. I have confirmation from skull and the developer team that since this mechanic is in its early stages they did not go crazy with code changes. there are currently three issues they are working on solving with it, this is one of them and we simply expect people not to abuse it.

 

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.

 

You abused it and then you bragged about abusing it.... Come on man...

[TrickingTrapster]

To add to this, I remember reading that the intent was for anyone to still be able to start a vote, regardless of being in the lobby or not. So if he started the vote, nothing would have been wrong. If he had been able to vote in it, then yes, it would have been a bug/circumvention of rules. Not entirely 100% sure on this though, but starting a vote isn't as bad as being able to vote in it in the situation described.

[SierraKomodo]

Precedence:

https://github.com/Aurorastation/Aurora.3/issues/1957

 

SierraKomodo: Spawning as a drone/mouse after observing directly from the lobby allows you to bypass the voting restriction

 

Skull: As this is a test implementation, we are counting on our players to not be autistic enough to warrant patching this. A few other exploits and shortcomings exist alongside this one.

[Scheveningen]

Couldn't have put it more perfectly myself.

[SomeoneOutTher3]

Unintended features are not bugs? Do you really believe that?

 

Whether or not I actually believe that does not matter.

 

Attempting an argument based on "this isnt TECHNICALLY" against the rules" is never going to get you far. While we rely on the server rules as a first resort there are sometimes situations not covered by them that go against the spirit.

Staff usually insist on being objective when deciding whether or not someone broke a server rule (Like that one time with a former mod and drones that killed mice.....) and objectivity seems to be a selling point for some of the mod applications, with one of the interview questions being asked specifically to judge that.

So if the staff try to be objective when looking for violations, whether or not it goes against the "Spirit of the server", why can't players be objective when arguing that, at first glance, a rule was broken, but objectively, it wasn't? Seems like a figurative hole in staff's objectivity. Seems a bit hypocritical,with all due respect.

 

Not a bug

So staff have said that the mouse thing is not a bug, and the rules say:

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.

Which would mean that the rule implicitly says that non-bugs do not apply.

[Skull132]

Not a bug

So staff have said that the mouse thing is not a bug, and the rules say:

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.

Which would mean that the rule implicitly says that non-bugs do not apply.

 

Ayy, I was quoted.

It's not a bug, it's an oversight permitted to exist on the count of a test implementation (that won't be run longer than a month, probably) not being worth the time to make it 100% idiot proof. That does not mean you can circumvent it liberally, however. We have administrators to cover those holes. As Delta was, in this instance.

Quoting that specific rule is non-applicable, as all rules are permitted to have exceptions applied to them on a case-by-case basis. This is one such case: it is a known and accepted oversight which is planned for fixing should the vote thing pass (as the logic needed would be a bit more convoluted than is worth it on a test/beta implementation), and all players are trusted to not be butts about this oversight. Specifically joining as a mouse and insta-ghosting just to vote sounds like being you were being a bit of a butt about it.

The only real question in this matter is whether or not you should have received a severe warning the first time around, as this oversight was not fully disclosed to players (well, until I can find the thread you're quoting me on, but I do believe it was deleted by Itzal for some reason). However, that is more a mistake on the part of higher administration and not Delta. And the warning may still be warranted, if your behaviour about it warranted it. Since I've not read the complaint fully, I cannot comment on it, and it's something you, Delta, and Garn should bash out.

[Scheveningen]

I believe it was warranted, if SOT had no prior behavior regarding hostile behavior patterns aimed at anyone he could attempt to bait into an argument, an OOC tendency to rage in dsay beyond lines that were barely acceptable, and a consistent attitude where he's often convinced he can get off from rule violations off of written technicalities and thus goes out of his way to cross lines wherever possible, then the encounter would've ended with a "don't do that" and a note, at most a mild-mannered warning.

Conditions were not ideal, however, so the severe warning was applied instead.

[SomeoneOutTher3]

An OOC tendency to rage in dsay beyond lines that were barely acceptable,

Tell us more about that.

[Scheveningen]

how about petty bullshit display #1

 

Furthermore, by the looks of it you got week banned for ignoring two warnings about shit-stirring in OOC.

aimlessanalyst has banned someoneoutthere. - Reason: Once again starting shit in OOC, and continuing after staff told everyone to cease. Given note history, you have been week-banned. Next time it will not be a week, shape up. - This will be removed in 10080 minutes.

Any further questions, mate? My advice: Stop using OOC as your personal blog. Dislodge your head from your bum while you're at it and maybe you won't be so confused as to why staff doesn't get along with you.

[SomeoneOutTher3]

An OOC tendency to rage in dsay beyond lines that were barely acceptable,

Tell us more about that.

how about petty bullshit display #1

Tell us about the DSay part.

 

Furthermore, by the looks of it you got week banned for ignoring two warnings about shit-stirring in OOC.

And how is that relevant when arguing about whether or not the warning, for an unrelated reason and which has been placed before the event, was warranted?

Now,for anyone reading. What happened was that someone( I think it was Complete Garbage) said "Kill yourself" over OOC (wew) to me. The staff said to "Stop with the kill yourself shit". I thought it meant just stop with TELLING people to do it,not discussing the topic in general. I replied with "I am not so sensitive as to require protection" (Or something along those lines), then the rest happened.

Is that shit-stirring to you?

Any further questions, mate? My advice: Stop using OOC as your personal blog. Dislodge your head from your bum while you're at it and maybe you won't be so confused as to why staff doesn't get along with you.

How rude.

Edited March 27, 2017 by Guest

[Scheveningen]

I'm a trial mod, for one. I cannot summon logs on a whim, only when I make the effort to take them. Such notable examples when I warned you over talking shit about nanako when they weren't even on the server.

So are you denying these charges? My point is that your modus operandi as of recent is to be as much of a dick on the server as you can while avoiding catching a perma with your face. Based on your recent conduct, is this not your intention when you log onto the server? If so, how do you excuse the behavior in defying 3 serious warnings all related to the same issue of cutting the OOC drama BS out of OOC, in the past month?

Because it's entirely relevant when I'm calling into question your attitude, behavior on the server and your long-winded history of notes to rival another person who also had a stick up his butt and holds the record amount of most notes on the server. Like, yo, why do you get to talk about someone being "rude" to you when you have 27 notes relating to you acting like moreso of an ass?

You honestly think the severe warning among all of the warnings you've received recently wasn't justified? Because a big red warning that never expires definitely gets the message across that you need to fix your attitude and your behavior when you get unbanned in 5 days.

But I've made my point, really, if you don't understand that I really cannot help you.

[SomeoneOutTher3]

I'm a trial mod, for one. I cannot summon logs on a whim, only when I make the effort to take them. Such notable examples when I warned you over talking shit about nanako when they weren't even on the server.

Context matters.

What happened was that I asked why a certain nerf was put in place (Though,yes, I used all caps to make what I said more noticeable), and he/she responded with "I'm sorry, you filthy heretic, did something interrupt your validhunting?". He/she must have logged shortly after. Yes, there was sarcasm in that reply,but how do you expect someone not so say anything when met with a reply that reeks of baseless personal grudges?

 

If so, how do you excuse the behavior in defying 3 serious warnings all related to the same issue of cutting the OOC drama BS out of OOC, in the past month?

27 notes related to you acting moreso like an ass

Where did you get that number from? The only warnings I have active are the one about "circumventing mechanics"(Not really OOC drama), "For continuing a discussion after being told to stop",and one for mishandling a hostage situation (Which I acknowledged a long time after it was placed). As for the note number, I am pretty sure most of those were relating to gameplay issues, not OOC attitude.

[Scheveningen]

Remember when Alberyk warned you over the shitstorm you tried to start over OOC?

Remember when I muted you from OOC for a large portion of the round to which you logged out for because you were starting another shitstorm, on the 26th of February? You conveniently forget that, as you told me in PMs you were gonna make a complaint about it, which you never did over?

Remember two days ago when you had to be told in OOC to stop the shitstirring more than once, prior to eventually being banned?

That's 3.

[SomeoneOutTher3]

Remember when Alberyk warned you over the shitstorm you tried to start over OOC?

Yes, that's where the "For continuing a discussion even after being told to stop" warning came from after I posted a link to an....unusual music video, saying "Let's all shut up and enjoy the music" after the discussion was shut down.

Remember when I muted you from OOC for a large portion of the round to which you logged out for because you were starting another shitstorm, on the 26th of February? You conveniently forget that, as you told me in PMs you were gonna make a complaint about it, which you never did over?

That's the Nanako one. But I was not continuing a discussion after being told to stop. Post the PMs where I said to you that I was going to make a complaint please

Remember two days ago when you had to be told in OOC to stop the shitstirring more than once, prior to eventually being banned?

More than once 2 days ago?That's the day (Or was it the day after?) the warning for "Circumvention of game mechanics", I don't recall being told to stop "Shitstirring" more than once. I would like to see the logs of THAT. Sounds like you are starting to put your own spin on the story.

That's 3

Ah,my bad. The wording of the post suggested that you were talking about WARNINGS (The ones that can be read with the my-warnings verb), not notes.

[Skull132]

Notes will eventually manifest into a warning if one of them is not enough to manifest in immediate action but there's a string of related ones. If you get told off by a member of staff verbally, it probably landed in your notes as well. Get told off enough times like that, you get warned and banned. Said notes may also be taken into account whenever a more severe issue of related nature appears.

This shouldn't be a surprise nor a point of contention.

[TrickingTrapster]

Right then, before this starts getting out of hand. I have to go to my grandparents for about 3 hours when I post this. When I get back, I'm going to do a bit of digging and solve this complaint before it goes down a more awry road.

[TrickingTrapster]

Alright so. Considering what the other admins have been posting in here, what I have heard about the round and after reviewing SoT's notes, I have come to the conclusion that a warning was needed and fully warranted.

As skull said, our head developer and as such mostly responsible for the voting system, yes, it's not a bug, but that is not a reason to abuse it and trying to rules-lawyer through it. And as our head admin was saying, just because it's technically not against the rules, does not mean it's a reason to exploit it. The combination of these posts, coupled with SoT's note history, does make me believe Delta handled right to add a warning. And to clarify, whether you receive a normal warning or a severe warning does not matter. What matters is that you stepped out of bounds and received a warning for it.

That's my verdict, so I'm locking and archiving this.