Your SS14 Username: CommissarDim
Your Discord Username: @dimflower
Banning Admin's Username: Mspigfish (last activity was humorously on my birthday, May 29th)
Role Ban, Server Ban, or Discord Ban: Permanent Appeal
Round ID (if applicable): Unlisted/Unknown. Staff may have access to it.
Reason for Ban: Summarized: Powergaming. Given the nature of this appeal, it is reccomended to instead look at all notes. The last note is the Perm Ban, and is therefore the most relevant.
What lead up to the ban: See "Why you should be unbanned" essay. Generally, as its been almost a year, is hard to remember details.
Why you should be unbanned:
As a point of emphasis, by and large all included actions by staff are entirely justified. Despite that, they will be dissected to prove my change and growth past the noted actions. To summarize, the described actions are primarily Powergaming, and Irresponsible play around antagonism (both self and Irresponsible); More minorly, a history with metagaming and OOC Toxicity.
Over the course of a year, possibly half that, I had taken a significant quantity of actions that required some level of staff intervention. In effort to demonstrate a worthiness of forgiveness, each requires explanation; yet, exclusively a history fails to do such, instead requiring additional counts of experience, demonstration of improvements, and a vow to continue to improve. When providing such a history, it is typically considered best practice to stay roughly chronological, yet context requires that practice to be followed only loosely.
When I had first joined Funky, I was fairly new to SS14 as a whole, having only experience with RMC prior, largely irrelevant experience to the more standard gameplay that Funky facilitates. The three most common job types for beginners to find themselves in are assistant, lovingly named “Tider”, and jobs within either the Service or Science departments. No exception here, it was primarily Science that I played as early on, accruing experience with the station, and some with the roleplay. Not long after, before branching into other departments, I began to play Roboticist, then Research Director. The first action that is noteworthy of staff intervention taken was a consistent habit of Re-Lawing the AI and Cyborgs.
The standard law-set at the time (if still the case, I know not) was Crewismov, a SS14 specific variation on “Asimov’s Laws”, which source themselves from Runaround, and more generally the collection I, Robot. The short story, quite famous for introducing the laws, is often forgotten to be a criticism of any absolute dictation to be possibly given to algorithmic intelligences. Crewismov, as inspired by them, carry many of the same faults clear as day, and completely foreseeable flaws for characters to realize or already bear knowledge of. It would be in many ways strictly logical to attempt to change the bindings placed on silicons given said flaws, even before they are abused or otherwise active failings; the risk alone justifies. Yet, despite in-character justification there clear, when taken at face value, there are other reasons for it to not be justified action, being adherence to company policy, and more pressingly, simple concessions that must be made for a game to stay a playable game. A character considering company policy not finding enough justification, the reasons are self-evident. Concessions for playability are many, and a desired part of the balance of Funky was the flaws inherent to Crewismov. Scenarios are many where a re-law would be justified, but by standard there are no changes to be made, in effort to allow initial points of conflict to be fostered for the round.
Fostering conflict is a primary point of the rules, and prevention a common break. Early on, this was an incredibly common error I had made, with two more relevant cases being my first time as blob, and my second note earned for Captain. It doesn’t require much more than a gloss over to fully understand what had happened with the Blob round. Simply put, a ghost-role rat blob slot had opened up, and upon winning the “raffle”, I immediately placed down in the closest corner spot to where I spawned, which was Arrivals, not realizing why this was improper at the time. Clear cut prevention of the typical flow of conflict, and similarly disallowing late-arrivals to even have a round. The second note for Captain is far more interesting, yet equally simple. Following a similar logic to prior, it is reasonable for a Captain to give out basic orders to the AI, including possible defense and bolting. Same as before as well, it is completely unreasonable beyond further examination, as it goes against in-world policy, and dampens any related source of conflict, while also creating a needless unintended form in case of a change in AI laws naturally. A nigh identical reason to take such an action as the very first note, and the same exact reason it is not justifiable upon further examination. The principle had taken a significant amount of time to make itself clear to me.
The other two early notes are basically irrelevant beyond a clear case of myself being new, not understanding things basically at all. A welderbomb as a spider antag is… outrageous to say the least, and drugging someone at CC with Meth is a very ticky-tacky case of EORG, yet enforcement is not unreasonable. The staff intervention on the EORG warning is the only listed note that was not appealed, that may be unreasonable. Unreasonable intervention is the best way to describe it, not improper, given a rule was clearly broken, but the enforcement of said rule was a very very minor edge case breaking. Regardless, the exact situation is unremarkable enough to be forgotten in detail, so only a general idea can be drawn on ideal etiquette as both a staff member, and myself as a player, can be of any use; validity of the exact instance is instead impossible to determine.
In multiple instances, I had demonstrated significant incompetence as Captain, which was especially damning given that I had one of the highest amounts of activity as Captain. The more active a player is, the more that must be forgiven on very very minor lapses made in good faith, but the more strictly any serious issues must be handled. The first instance of Captain incompetence (round 11878 ban appeal, and related note that falsely says round 11876), no longer even listed as a note, was also an instance of powergaming, and has been discussed thoroughly in the past, leading to a successful appeal and an expressed desire from staff to increase clarity on Powergaming rules. Despite the successful appeal, I’ve since gained significantly more insight into why it was an issue then, and despite a successful appeal the lesson was not learned. The first still existing note was on doing improper round removal’s as Captain. The instance was specifically throwing a borg’s brain out into space, with in-character cause, but zero consideration of out-of-character. The borg was emagged, but it’s laws were entirely unknowable after the destruction of it’s chassis. What was known though, was a name, being “Syndicate AA-Helper Bot”, or something similar. After the chassis was destroyed, I had thrown its brain out into deep space as “punishment” for a seemingly malicious interpretation of what laws it was thought to have had, which was not the case given more context. Round-removal is generally a last resort for non-antagonist characters to make use of, given its very nature, requiring far more careful consideration than other actions. Even so, given the actions of the borg, it is potentially arguable in justification, though safety leans towards no. A more general principle should be applied instead, where borgs should not be round removed by non-antagonists for the very reason of they are required to follow certain actions by out-of-character rules, and can be EASILY rehabilitated with a new chassis and laws. In this exact instance though, given the name of the cyborg, a different thing must be considered, being interactions with “shitters” without stooping to a level generally unacceptable. Despite the other player being clearly out of line for even having that name (they later publicly said that admins required them to change it), stooping to a level outside of roleplay standards is not acceptable behavior and instead a very concerning one.
Note: Chronologically, the next events would be largely the OOC chat issues, and the self antaggery. These will be later in the history as to keep with the current contexts. (Yes, there is a LOT of varied notes)
During “Low-pop”, standards are in many ways more relaxed, yet regardless their strictness will quickly change depending on both the situation, and the change in the population of the round, over the round. During one such round, as Captain I had decided to arm myself with a “Drozd”, and was consistently frontlining as though I was security even after security had arrived. Towards the very beginning of the round, there was no security, and an active shooting with a syndicate assault rifle in the center of the station. That was the catalyst for arming, which is by all means reasonable. What is not, was the extended period in which it was kept after not only the event, but also the arrival of security. A short time period, anywhere from fifteen to twenty minutes after the event, or ten after the event and arrival of security, would be a reasonable time to stay armed without any further occurrences. Despite that, given the suspect was never found, I had chosen to stay armed, even after multiple security had arrived. Theoretically, if it was a “greenshift” from that point onwards, there would have been no issue beyond the need of a simple reminder. Later in the round, a Ninja had arrived on station and was making a play for the AI. I used my access to effectively step in front of security in handling the situation, not only making use of a weapon that should’ve been discarded long ago, but stealing someone else’s desired role by doing so. The Ninja was swiftly handled, though the AI was lost, actions leading to not one, but two round-removals. In theory, any single action taken that round was justifiable, but the package was completely and utterly out of line.
A single other instance of admin intervention can be noted, among all the intervention given to myself, that can be argued to be potentially unjustified. The note is listed as both powergaming, and metagaming, though is only a warning. It is also the last note in regards to the Captain job. The scenario is simple, a changeling had been confirmed in the round, and was not ever dealt with to finality. While in the process of handling them, a zombie outbreak had occurred and escalated to completely uncontainable, with a panicked evacuation set where escape pods were the only hope, instead of the shuttle. As Captain in one of the escape pods, close to the launch time, with a pod welded closed, another player controlled creature made itself known for seemingly the first time. Generally, at the time atleast, command players were considered to have nigh complete knowledge of all creatures listed in the command training manual, including the abilities of Changelings. The creature that appeared outside the drop-pod was a suspiciously intelligent monkey, clearly not Pun-Pun, that was effectively asking to be let in on the escape. The action I took was calling out the monkey as a changeling, and refusing to let it on the drop pod. The two reasonable perspectives that can be taken on this entire situation and the note that followed are simple. Either there was no harm done regardless, no metagaming and certainly no powergaming, or the refusal to let board a welded pod and take the risk was reasonable, but the assumption of changeling when shown intelligent monkey is a step beyond into metagaming territory. Either perspective is reasonable, and I am personally undecided on which I would sway into, albeit biased. Regardless, the event depicts an important facet of playstyle I had while on Funky.
In all moderation issues that can be found, the single most frustrating to enforce, and yet drastically important is sportsmanship. Sportsmanship issues can depict themselves in multiple formats, from abuse or malicious breach of the fair play rules, to far more drastic cases of escalations from simple disagreements to fights, physical or verbal. Toxicity is generally considered to be under the more extreme part of sportsmanship issues, the most pervasive of that branch, yet the most mild of said branch. I was no saint when playing, accruing three notes regarding these factors, two of which can be explained, one is lost to time being simply noted as “LOOC abuse x2”. The chronologically later instance is far simpler, being saltiness leading to some choice words used in dead chat (nothing THAT bad, just, over the line for acceptable reactions. No calling people names or generally insulting). The very first instance has far more substance. The offense was using LOOC (or “Help”) chat to proclaim frustration towards a specific character, exact words being “I fucking hate that character.” While a clear abuse of the system, context is ever important for why such a statement was made, and equally important, against who. Over the course of a few months playing on Funky, I had had many interactions with “Peash Anjer”, more properly known as AcornANut. Most of these interactions were negative, and I had made many statements about feeling targeted by this player with most of their shenanigans, most notably multiple different purely roleplay riots led by them when they were not an antagonist, a few times where as antagonist they had gone not entirely out of their way, but a fair ways to add me to the bodycount for, from my perspective, seemingly no reason, a massively rule breaking court case where they led as Magistrate, and finally a general annoyance and thorn in my side specifically. Many of these frustrations were vented in the proper channels, or in private ones, yet this case remains a notable exception. I don’t remember the exact details around the event, except that it was about that player. Despite many frustrations, public disapproval in the improper channel with or without instigation is unacceptable, for a list of reasons, summarized as general decorum of the space, risk of witchhunts against players, inspiring even greater offenses against the decorum and out of proportion responses of the “accused” party, and finally and most severely, the high risk of pushing away new players whose first experiences include a breach of etiquette. I will not take the time to pretend my extreme frustration with that player has ceased, but neither will I pretend my actions were at all justified, or allowable in the slightest. In hindsight, even harsher penalties should have been applied towards myself for such cases.
Self-Antagonism is the single most common umbrella for moderation issues in any SS14 server, most commonly, and frustratingly, being done by “raiders” and players barely more respectable yet adjacent to raiders. It is usually done by players seeking an entirely self-centered ideal of “fun”, but very occasionally is also done by players in good faith. When taking a look at my own history of play, four instances pop out as problematic, each varying in severity. The first instance was a case of mass thievery, when pressured by an antagonist as a non-antagonist role. The note itself explains most of the context, with the only thing to be added in addition is the idea that certain actions were taken under the concept of “going along with the criminals means they won’t have to resort to violence.” Despite this reasonable line of justification, the scenario itself was unjustifiable self-antagonism, given the actual scenario didn’t include cases of actual threat and push and pull, and was instead just negligently-naive acquiescence.
Following the example others lead blindly is possibly the most cited example of foolishness, with common examples such as “If you saw a bunch of people jump off a bridge, would you jump after them?” This style of foolishness makes itself apparent even in games, often without context of the original leading to failings where a “do not try this at home” warning would have been applicable. I have fallen victim to this failing twice during my playtime on Funky. Over the course of a game as Celedon, I had broken into multiple departments, and made far too intelligent use of certain items for the role. Requiring little explanation of the scenario, it is safe to say it was a clear mis-step case of “monkey see, monkey do”, where the reason its seen so often is moderation cannot possibly see everything, nor handle everything. Even if something is commonly seen, does not therefore determine its acceptability. A far less commonly seen misstep is the evil, psychotic surgeon. Quite common is it a trope in literature, and story-telling more generally, that the doctors are emotionless and evil with no greater motive rather than boredom, more aptly put “psychopaths.” Having seen a significant amount of literature and other media with such characters, and seeing them depicted in game even, I came up with the idea of doing unconsenting bodyswaps between players getting surgical cybernetic upgrades. As before, the reasons this is completely unacceptable behavior is self-evident, and therefore no further thought behind, excluding the case of histories and contexts.
As with all things, there is a last segment drawn, a last line crossed before punishment required, and the end of the line. My last note was a powergaming and overescalation offense, in which I had a round where I took a syringe gun as a paramedic and used it against a heretic early on. I was the lone paramedic that round, on the map bagel, and was constantly running around trying to save people and help. Despite that, I had multiple close run-ins with the main threat, that being a lone heretic. Notable two cases were in south-eastern maintenance, and south-western station exterior. After those two instances, where I was with Security who had failed to handle them, losing their lives in both cases, I had gone to the CMO to make use of the rarely used syringe gun (to this day I still don’t entirely understand why it exists given the standards of roleplay) and the included Pax syringes to defend myself. The heretic in question was a void Heretic, and clearly had various movement abilities that made it very difficult to run from. After gathering the weapon, there was a call to find a missing body, and I had joined and once again went looking on the station exterior, given multiple had already been found in the void. While in my search, I stumbled into the Heretic player, and used my syringe gun full of Pax before, instead of attempting to flea, beat the threat to death with my spare oxygen tank. I had failed, but the attempt was made regardless. Despite failing, it depicted clear intent to make myself the one who handled the heretic, which was incredibly so not my job. Worse, it was done in a generally unfun and un-interactive way, abusing an item gained that paramedics do not normally have access to, to handle a threat alone, depriving all of security of their role, the CMO of theres with the syringe gun (whatever that is), and the Heretic of theirs in a quite rare antagonist role to have happen. The ONLY half-decent justifications for any of the actions here was that the Heretic proved to be incredibly difficult to run from, and genuinely, what is the point of the syringe gun (if this appeal is accepted PLEASE give me a rundown, It seems like genuinely bad game design given the intended experience of Funky, being never usable inline with that experience). Yet those don’t justify it in any real sense, especially given context of my history.
Histories, explanations, and even admissions of guilt are not sufficient in any sense for the goal of forgiveness, but what does go a long way is experience. I am a Sports Official (will not give details for risk of doxxing in case this appeal is not private), and have been for almost six years. I have not stopped learning over those six years, and as of writing, just today I was singled out for praise in a particular field. Specifically, knowing how to let the little things go and finally reaching beyond for the actual intent behind most of the rules book (I’m, bluntly, autistic, especially about rules). Having experience professionally with a field incredibly similar to moderation does lend some insight, even with polar opposite scenarios, as is this. More-so however, I have become a member of staff on two small forks (I will not name them unless requested given their natures). In-so, I have seen the other side of the coin when it comes to moderation of an SS14 server specifically, and all the hassles, and both incredible amounts of context yet never enough information. All of my justifications are made from my perspective as a player, but my affirmation of complete justification of the staff team, at many points arguably too forgiving, is coming from genuine experience.
It has been almost a year since I was permanently banned from Funky, and a lot of time has been had and utilized for growth. The extreme amount of staff intervention has been learned from, and experienced from the other side. For such an extreme amount, no appeal can be made on the grounds of validity, instead the only option being change and grace. If forgiveness is granted, there is no guarantee that missteps won’t be taken in future. In-fact, the opposite is assured, some will be had, and like the many here they will be learned from, such is life. What is most relevant is a commitment to keep such missteps ever minor, ever rare, and to keep growing from any inevitably made. A commitment made before forgiveness is ever granted, and seen from effort.
