+- Goonstation Forums (https://forum.ss13.co)
+-- Forum: Server Appeals (https://forum.ss13.co/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Admin Feedback (https://forum.ss13.co/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+---- Forum: Archived (https://forum.ss13.co/forumdisplay.php?fid=46)
+---- Thread: Hierophant, LLJK#4 1/7/15 (/showthread.php?tid=3952)
Hierophant, LLJK#4 1/7/15 - 1eyedjaq - 01-07-2015
Admin name: Hierophant
Server: LLJK4
Date/Time: 1/7/15 - at night in the continents people care about.
Synopsis: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4346 <- very long rant I posted on the unban appeal topic. Not reposting here. tl;dr, he thought I blew up the shuttle. I wasn't even at my computer at the time of the inquiry. He became so infuriated at my unresponsiveness that he banned me for a month because I "didn't respond and have a reputation for griefing," which has some pretty god-awful implications if you want to use "has a reputation for X" as a reason for doing anything to anybody ever.
Log: Refer to the screenshots in the link I posted
Re: Hierophant, LLJK#4 1/7/15 - Marquesas - 01-08-2015
On the contrary, using the reputation, the history of the players is standard practice. The same logic and principle is applied by everyone, at every time. I like to call it diminishing returns. First offense is usually a warning, whereas when your notes page is as long as my arm you're likely to be gone for a month if not permanently. You are judged by your current actions as well as the tendency you have displayed in the past. It's useful for identifying people who just won't learn.
So, no, has a reputation for X has no god-awful implications towards Heiraphont, but it has some towards you, because X is probably banworthy if we're here talking about it.
Re: Hierophant, LLJK#4 1/7/15 - Heiraphont - 01-08-2015
I replied in the appeal thread, but I will explain myself more clearly here.
The admin log showed you arming the bomb. This was due to lag, as you explained. But the only reason I suspected you at all, was because the admin log showed YOU arming it. I looked at your notes, saw you had a history of griefing, so I attempted to contact you. I could not, so I banned you. All I ever wanted was your side of the story, but I fully admit I took your history into account, as I always do, with anyone. I can appreciate that you might have gotten screwed over by the system this time, and am dropping the ban after hearing your side.
EDIT: It's worth noting that I wasn't angry you weren't responding. Adding that line is pretty common when a person is not responding the PMs after an incident. It didn't factor in to the ban at all, it was just a note to show that I did try to contact you, rather than ban you without giving you a chance to defend yourself.