Ban Appeal - pinkblossom6 - banned by WhyisCaeciliusTaken

CKEY: pinkblossom6

Admin’s CKEY: WhyIsCaeciliusTaken

Is this for both servers or just one? If so, which one: Both

Ban Type: Temporary.

Ban Length: 48 Hours.

Ban Date (MM/DD/YYYY): 12-15-2019

Round ID: 10265

Ban Reason: “Killed someone for “being a suspected rev” for takign the fireaxe from the bridge. Has done the EXACT same thing before. Authed by AsciiSquid.”

Appeal Reason: soooo I was a head on a revolutionary round the chief engineer, and I was giving out access to the heads as the acting captain as the AI stated at round start, and all that stuff, and i head to bridge and I see the chaplain, who had already hacked through the doors of the left side of bridge, trying to get the fireaxe. the chaplain was trying to get a lethal / high risk item. this led to the death of the chaplain after i disembowled them, then went back to the hop line to give the budget cards and access to the rd and cmo as they ordered mindshields from cargo.

the chaplain was at a high risk area ( bridge ) during a revolution, they put themselves at the risk of being arrested or killed, especially during such a sensitive area in a revolution. it was even mroe suspicious that they were trying to get the fireaxe from the bridge, as a CHAPLAIN. i also dont remember ever being warned for this before, so the part where its stated “has done the EXACT same thing before” is really vague, or else id have it in my notes.

Additional Information: tl;dr, was a head, during a revolution, chaplain broke into bridge trying to steal a high risk item, the fireaxe, was killed, ahelped me, then was told by caecilus they werent a rev over ahelps. they also didnt have a mindshield. question mark?

Only reason I authed this ban is cause you already had a note about doing something similar before.

2019-10-05 15:43:30 (7635) [note]
Litterally murdered someone for just being on the bridge for being a “possible” rev. It wasn’t revs.

If you can proove there is no relation to that note and this ban I’ll vote towards lifting it.

This. The only reason it even is a ban is because of that similar note. If they’re unrelated I will lift the ban.

whats the previous note for exact? i dont remember it but it was something about killed a borg going to ai satellite after everyone screeching on common that the ai was malf, then i ended up killing said borg which i thought was going to go to the ai satellite to reinforce it against the crew members that were about to siege it before i think it doomsdayed. (but it turned out the borg wasnt connected to the ai but no one nor the roboticists mentioned that and most borgs i encountered were connected to the malf ai)

Tfw no information on lrp or mrp

uhh was medium role play

In that case, the Chaplain’s retarded and shouldn’t have even been on the bridge.

hey thats not nice to call them retarded but ya it was a pretty bad idea for them to be on bridge during a revolution while they werent mindshielded

It’s pretty bad for them to be on the bridge, having hacked open the doors themself on MRP.

As that’s basically greytiding.

No IC reason to do it.

Could have asked for it if anything, but no.

@Caecilius @AsciiSquid

The ban is retarded, go ban the other loser for greytiding on MRP.

forums actually look really cool ive never really been on here wowers


Greytiding doesn’t make you valid though.

It sure as hell is breaking a rule of MRP.

Pink over escalated at most.

this took place on MRP (Sage)

so, the chief engineer killed some rando ass unmindshielded chaplain because they were burglarizing the bridge to supposedly acquire the rather dangerous weapon that is the fire axe

on a confirmed revs round

and this is apparently ban worthy

i should add that i think this was rather early in the round, the first people they mindshielded was cargo (i would know because i was the QM), and at the time this story takes place, they hadn’t mindshielded anyone at all yet

if i recall correctly, one of the current council precedents of rule 1 is that if you attempt to break into the captain’s office, head of personnel’s office, or the bridge near roundstart for no valid reason, you put yourself at risk for being validly killed by the heads or sec

the valid reasons that are referred to being quite limited, in this case, generally something along the lines of “the nuke ops have just declared war and we need fucking all access NOW

another precedent of rule 1 is that you may defend your workplace from trespassers or burglars with significantly greater force than would be normal elsewhere

and also this person is one of the catgirls that i metafriend with so unban

counter argument absolutely destroyed with facts and logic

also please notice me angelly

Back on topic please. This isn’t about wilchen.

While it technically was a rev round, there were no mindshield deconversions as far as I know, as the head rev lost his flash less than ten minutes in… I’ll double check and if so I’ll lift this.

yea in any case, the revs got fuckin stomped on that round

also there totally freaking were deconversions going on, how do you think we knew it was a revs round, and how did they get stomped on

As I have stated already, I authorized this ban on the basis that there was a record of the exact same excuse being used before to justify overescalation.

As windows has pointed out, the ban isn’t justified regardless, so I am now in agreement on lifting this.

So are we in agreement on lifting the ban? @AsciiSquid @Caecilius ?

Yes for me at least.

Yes. I’ll lift it when I get home today unless someone else already does it.

Unbanned. Accepted and can now be closed.