i retracted this and that was not even the point.
1 Like
I think it’s safe to say nobody knew you were jlsnow, the name is considerably different.
Would you expect them to deny it when there are clear logs…?
We are expected to intervene for the sake of the server and most of us do semi-regularly in more minor ways to keep things moving, or to bring long rounds to a close.
That said, I’m not endorsing this specific circumstance unless the server was already choking. I feel the same about it as I did when a different admin sabotaged an established meta fusion setup because the logic didn’t make sense to them - unless it’s exploit or the server was reaching a breaking point, I don’t agree with blatant sabotage of a setup.
I do agree that atmos farms are detrimental to the server in many ways, but in a way that requires maintainer approval to fix rather than admin intervention.
3 Likes
This is a long-term thing.
But I would say for the short-term, admins have been generally allowed to destroy lag machines (for example someone making too many circuits even if their actions aren’t specifically harmful.)
Thank you for this pretty impartial review. I remember reading about this fusion instance as well.
That said, I think it’s a bit toxic to sabotage systems on personal preference. Intervention without rules is not enforceable, at least not impartially, as there is no documentation saying “hey don’t do this” or “we’ll just delete your machine if we disagree”.
I have been messaged before not to do sm setups as it’s an exploit and apologized / quit before. That’s perfectly reasonable. But stealth sabo at random is poor conduct.
I want to reiterate that if the server was currently losing its shit, I am on board with the sabotage of something that would be processing-intensive, including stealthily.
Wasn’t speaking against doing this, but I also was not aware that these types of farms had the level impact they do until now.
Open air fusion has similar impact and yet someone elected to remove canister fusion, leaving it as the only option
If this is such an issue, then why are the guides for it still up if the administration does not approve of it?
2 Likes
Because it was in the midst of rebalance and removing it would be unbecoming of because its still a feature of beestation.
The justification of nuking is for server performance which is well justified (But i really doubt its that bad). There are many other processes at play now with recent merges i suspect. So keeping the health up is fine.
Lavaland mining is nuked anyway. Go home everyone
I mean you literally see two admins disagreeing in the first post. This thing has been controversial back then which is probably why the guides weren’t outright deleted.
Defining what’s an exploit and what’s “too laggy” isn’t very simple and is only really definitive once headmins get around to dropping a ruling.
Or a fix is merged - lavaland gas mining has officially been removed because of the proven negative impact it has on server performance (and the fact it’s an additional nail keeping our economy in a coffin doesn’t help)
Gonna lock this until headmins reach an official decision.
After full review between Head Admins this report has been deemed Not Actionable. @Francinum acted in the best interests of server stability
The admin interfered with something known to cause performance issues on the server at a time when it was already facing performance issues, and we have since rolled out a fix to discourage players from performing these same actions again on a code level.