CatMagic's Ban Appeal

CatMagic · July 8

Space Station 14 Username: CatMagic753

Banning Admin's SS14 Username: CodyPencil

Are you banned from the Server or a Job/Department: Department

The reason you were banned: "Unreasonable incompetency as HoP, randomly gave a passenger AA as they have requested it under RP situation, However this does not count for RP purposes, it violates the Command Rule sector 26. I am not gonna argue with this. full point on the Ahelp"

Everything that lead to your ban, give a detailed explanation. Relevant info only and don't leave anything important out:

I am playing as hop, this is my first time playing in a while since vanilla SS14 has become a mostly repetitive snorefest for me lately. I'm playing the same gimmick I did last round, since people seemed to find it funny last round. I am roleplaying as a Nanotrasen robot who's a bit slow and inconsistently stubborn and persuadable. The power goes out and I decide to do something interesting. I "factory reset" in the middle of my office and stand there saying "Awaiting input". Someone walks past and says "Give me aa", and so I say "okay". But, unfortunately, the power is out, so I can't give them aa. Weirdly, instead of pushing for me to give them aa when the power came back on, they simply said "Aw..." and left. This is one of the reasons I gave them aa when the power came back on, since they didn't seem like the kind of person who would immediately steal the armory and detonate the nuke. The round went along fairly normally, the clown captain chased Shadow-Wizard (the person with aa) around for a while until there were reports of changelings and, a little bit after that I'm pretty sure Shadow-Wizard died to a ling and I did too. CodyPencil then ahelped me and we argued for a bit. They made the point that what I did was not IC, I responded "It was IC". They claimed that me randomly giving AA wasn't an IC thing. They made multiple repetitive points like this throughout, so rather than repeating the same retort to each, I'll just make one to respond to all of them. I gave that person AA for fun, it ended up not affecting the round negatively and not even affecting the round in any major way. It seems you want me to play my role the same way everyone else would, this is not in the spirit of space station 13 or 14. I added a minor amount of chaos and gave this random player a round that would most definitely have been much less interesting had I not decided to give them AA. I did not cross a line, I made fun at the detriment of no one and I don't see what the problem with that is. I would not have given AA to another random person, THAT would cross a line and cause more chaos in the round than would be fun. CodyPencil then asked me why I was acting like a child. CodyPencil spent the rest of the ahelp bringing up insubstantial arguments with very little actual reasoning in them. Ex: "it has armory/security/command access // normally passenger shouldn't have [sic]". To this, I respond "Yeah, and?". They respond with "Command rule 14 sector 23 // actually no sector 26". This rule is " (Prohibited) A member of command gives a random crewmember access to a high security area, like the armory or another member of command's office, for no reason, unnecessarily, or for a poor reason." This argument is insubstantial as well and I find it sad that our well trained admins, who are learned in what things make SS14 rounds fun or not fun have to resort to spouting arbitrary rules. I've already made my points (as I did during the ahelp) and they address this rule in pretty much every way.

Why you should be unbanned: Every time I asked them something like "How did this affect the round negatively?" or, simply, "Why?" they would shut down and change their argument. Cody kept doing this until they couldn't argue with me anymore and just gave me the note anyway. "I'm done with you bro". Maybe I have fuzzy memory, but I could've sworn Goob station and SS14 in general used to be about fun, now it seems they're more about rules. These rules were once made so people would have fun, so why are they being cited to argue against fun?