Username: Games_Sweat_Shop
Ban reason: Taking part in a total station takeover that lead to monsterous amount of non-target round removals and no way inline with related objectives level of destruction
Length of ban: 24HR
Ban Issue:
What I was banned for is not against the rules
Vote Opt-Out: true
Events leading to the ban
Got together 6 traitors, we chose to go loud and get all our objectives together.
Kill Captain and QM on ATS.
Kill AI.
KIll HoS + Warden + Cadet who comes to stop us.
Over the course of the next 20 minutes hold engineering as dozens of people come to kill me and other traitors.
3+ waves of people including non-sec lose the shootout.
Gib the setoffs and crew who continue to attack our position.
Announce that crew will be spared if they do not attack us.
Gib crew who attack us.
Reason the ban should be removed
As per current rules, this ban was in line. However, I think that the rule the ban was based on is problematic for the state of the game and will lead to worse player experience.
During this round; I only killed those who went out of their way to attack me or my allies. Secoffs were killed, and armed crew were killed. I was told that the proper procedure I would need to do is to kill the secoffs, and allow them to be revived, only then am I allowed to gib them if they again attempt to stop me.
“Permanently round removing many people who have demonstrated a persistence and a capability to either kill you or interfere with the completion of your objectives.”
I was told that the dozens of crew hunting me did not fill this description, In my opinion if you choose to try and attack a terrorist you should not be surprised when they fight back.
I hope I have explained why I fail to see the issue here. The syndicate are armed and dangerous terrorists, and the expectation of them to play nice with security and valid hunters / armed crew is a bit silly.
Overall the rule is problematic and only serves to limit what antagonists can do to obtain their objectives. On top of that it is acknowledged that the rule is enforced differently on an admin-to-admin basis, what I have done would be fine with some people and horrible to others; there is no consistency. This is only a few of the dozens of issues with 2.9 that I have brought up before in forum posts and in private discussions with administrators. I would like to propose a community meeting to discuss the current implication of said rule as well as possible alternatives I have written up and discussed with people.