Your Byond ID:
digitalis
Character Name:
Jimbo Beede when banned. Played MP with Judea Bynes and Ellen Rahal before that. Other non MP characters are Priya Jatin, Neina Smith, Henry Arago, Ilan Rahal, Ellis Model, and Emile Cadiz.
Type Of Ban (Job-ban, Timed Ban, Permaban):
Job-ban from MP and CMP.
Admin who banned you (if known):
Adralimas after Solarmare investigated the ban as a tmod.
Total Ban Duration:
Perma
Remaining Duration:
Perma
What other servers do you play on?
/vg/station
Are you now or have you been banned on any of them?
Permabanned from /vg/station since April 2017.
Reason for ban (If you have a Permaban, it should be the EXACT MESSAGE YOU GET WHEN YOU LOGIN with the Error code that looks like this: X##XXX##. If you do not provide this EXACTLY you can't be unbanned):
Breach of RP guidelines while playing MP.
Link to previous appeals for the same ban (if applicable):
viewtopic.php?f=87&t=14998 (denied exactly 30d ago).
Your appeal, including evidence (screenshots, etc):
I acted in very poor form as an MP, willingly breaking marine law and the RP guidelines for MPs. This was also during a round where there were only two other MPs in the department, which tied up a lot of their efforts just to chase me down.
Prior to that I took issues in my own hands as an MP by trying to stop an execution that the WO hadn't disallowed the CO from participating in, which was also a rather severe breach of MP conduct (viewtopic.php?f=71&t=14926).
As I've had a wealth of experience with playing MP up to these infractions and been active on the server in the month after, I'd like to be reinstated to these roles with a focus on ahelping any potentially questionable RP or marine law decisions beforehand, and staying out of those grey areas otherwise. There isn't going to be any worry about me breaking the rules again in these positions.
Digitalis job-ban (MP, CMP).
- Challenger
- Registered user
- Posts: 379
- Joined: 05 May 2017, 19:31
- Byond: digitalis
- Emeraldblood
- Registered user
- Posts: 1671
- Joined: 19 Aug 2016, 21:04
- Location: USA, Florida
- Byond: Emerald Blood
Re: Digitalis job-ban (MP, CMP).
Notes:
► Show Spoiler
Ban Appeal Users: If I've lifted your perma ban and you're still unable to log onto the server, send me a forum PM regarding it and I'll work to get it fixed in ~24 hours.
Emerald Blood: CM's mommy and the only head staff who does anything. Even though I hate you all sometimes, I still love you.
Emerald Blood: CM's mommy and the only head staff who does anything. Even though I hate you all sometimes, I still love you.
- Tidomann
- Registered user
- Posts: 449
- Joined: 13 Jun 2017, 02:59
- Location: Canada
- Byond: Tidomann
Re: Digitalis job-ban (MP, CMP).
Hey- as one of the mods who's been speaking with you in some of the recent notes I'm just gonna chime in here.
I'll start off by saying I could support lifting this ban, especially if it's decided to just start with CMP.
Most issues I have dealt with in regards to digitalis as MP had been questionable grey areas. The main issue with your approach to MP is that you get clarification on marine law in certain circumstances and then try to apply that specific ruling to many different cases.
For example- the note regarding the argument about authorized chemicals requiring a written form signed by both CMO and Acting Commander was resolved fine. Both digitalis and the other player came to an accord in the round, and later it was discovered it was an ARES announcement that applied specifically to that round only.
And this all seems fine, its good clarification to have.
The other specific instance where digitalis found a grey area within the execution rules- should acting commander/commander/CMP be able to participate? It had to be later clarified that there is no issue as long as it is agreed upon by mps/chief CMP.
The way it was resolved in the round wasn't the best, and it was unfortunate but it was a grey area.
The problem is when we clarify these rulings or a one off case occurs you tend to apply these clarifications to all your furture rounds, without a regards to the specific situation. This often ends up to the detriment of other players.
I for one understand that pushing marine law until it "breaks" helps iron out details. At the same time, common sense needs to reign. Some of these grey areas can be handled by the CMP or MPs with the context of the current round, IC through faxes, or as you said with ahelps.
I'm fine with you sticking to marine law. If you truly want admin interpretation do ahelp, but I would like you to move away from the "it happened in one round, therefore it must apply to every round" mentality. I think we have good resources through faxes, ahelps, and the marine law clarification thread to really deal with some of the questionable grey areas. http://cm-ss13.com/viewtop ... 64&t=14536 without disrupting a round too much.
If you make an effort to err on the side of caution I think it would be ok if you were to MP again. Up to the heads on CMP at this time.
I'll start off by saying I could support lifting this ban, especially if it's decided to just start with CMP.
Most issues I have dealt with in regards to digitalis as MP had been questionable grey areas. The main issue with your approach to MP is that you get clarification on marine law in certain circumstances and then try to apply that specific ruling to many different cases.
For example- the note regarding the argument about authorized chemicals requiring a written form signed by both CMO and Acting Commander was resolved fine. Both digitalis and the other player came to an accord in the round, and later it was discovered it was an ARES announcement that applied specifically to that round only.
And this all seems fine, its good clarification to have.
The other specific instance where digitalis found a grey area within the execution rules- should acting commander/commander/CMP be able to participate? It had to be later clarified that there is no issue as long as it is agreed upon by mps/chief CMP.
The way it was resolved in the round wasn't the best, and it was unfortunate but it was a grey area.
The problem is when we clarify these rulings or a one off case occurs you tend to apply these clarifications to all your furture rounds, without a regards to the specific situation. This often ends up to the detriment of other players.
I for one understand that pushing marine law until it "breaks" helps iron out details. At the same time, common sense needs to reign. Some of these grey areas can be handled by the CMP or MPs with the context of the current round, IC through faxes, or as you said with ahelps.
I'm fine with you sticking to marine law. If you truly want admin interpretation do ahelp, but I would like you to move away from the "it happened in one round, therefore it must apply to every round" mentality. I think we have good resources through faxes, ahelps, and the marine law clarification thread to really deal with some of the questionable grey areas. http://cm-ss13.com/viewtop ... 64&t=14536 without disrupting a round too much.
If you make an effort to err on the side of caution I think it would be ok if you were to MP again. Up to the heads on CMP at this time.
- apophis775
- Host
- Posts: 6985
- Joined: 22 Aug 2014, 18:05
- Location: Ice Colony
- Byond: Apophis775
- Contact:
Re: Digitalis job-ban (MP, CMP).
Approved. Don't interfere with legal executions without ahelping.
Especially if someone is a convicted rapist.
Especially if someone is a convicted rapist.
flamecow wrote: "unga dunga me want the attachment" - average marine