[Admin Complaint- Nerfection]

Hi there,

 

Following the research director into an experimental portal is indeed dangerous. In future, you should avoid going into portals if you don't know where they lead.

Being on the bridge is trespassing - no conversation is required before detaining you. Due to the nature of the interface of SS13, people can either attack or type, not both at the same time. They're not obliged to type out a warning before doing so when you're trespassing. 

It doesn't seem anyone forced you to enter any of the portals. This was your decision to do so, and when you enter a portal you assume the risk inherent with this. That is not RDM at all. 

 

As Nerfection said - you walked through an unknown portal, resulting in you trespassing. The RD is very correct to kick you out of the bridge then. You choosing to walk through another portal was a risk you took, and this time it didn't work out. Death is part of SS13, and hopefully this will teach you the dangers of walking through experimental portals to unknown locations. 

 

Complaint is without merit and resolved.

[Name review]

The name goes completely against the lore for voxes, and the general feel we want for an alien race. The name review is denied - please pick a name for a Vox that fits within the lore and is suitably alien.

[Admin Complaint - ZeDahktur]

Hi there,

 

ERT requests are at the discretion of game admins, that factor in both the IC reasons for the call and OOC ideas of what will make the round more enjoyable for everyone.

 

Whether the crew wins or the blob wins is of no concern to the admins. I'm convinced the admins here did what they believed was best for the round and server. How many people sign up to an ERT and when it is deployed is outside of their control, sadly.

This can be considered resolved.

[Admin Complaint/Clarification - Gatchapod]

Rule 0 is our general catch all for things outside the rules, and covering things not in the letter but the spirit of the rules.

 

What you did exploited the spirit of the rules and used a game mechanic that was clearly unintended. This goes against the general ethos of the server - where we expect people to co-operate and not exploit bugs - and thus is grounds for a permaban. This could have been easily avoided by not exploiting a bug.

 

No wrongdoing by admins was applied here, thus the complaint is invalid. You may appeal this ban of course, and if you're able to show that you're willing to follow the spirit of the rules in addition to the letter, it may be lifted.

Complaint can be considered resolved.

[Admin Complaint against: Coolrune206]

1 hour ago, TheBadPerson said:

Not sure why it’s so hard to say “wow TheBadPerson, you made a lot of good points, and this was a clearly controversial admin call, so as a sign of good faith we will remove/highly lessen the note”. The fact you fight so hard against that says volumes. Say what you will about me, I give EVERYONE credit where it’s due, even people who drive me nuts. Consider the complaint resolved, I’ve heard enough. 

Do you really expect anyone to say anything like this? You got a note over it. I would have sec banned you at the very least, and likely permabanned you over how you've carried on about this.

The headmins here are using very polite and diplomatic language here, frankly too much.

Your entire complaint is idiotic. You got charged with workplace hazard and committed mutiny over it. Pull your head in and stop wasting peoples time with your Karen-like behaviour. You're in the wrong here. Suck it up.

Consider your complaint resolved. I've heard enough.

[Catto posting thread]

[Admin Complaint - Abydos2]

Hi there, I will be addressing this on behalf of the heads due to how busy they are and Sirryan having to step down leaving them short handed. We've also had to read over a bunch of logs to get an idea of the situation, including your PM logs with Abydos.

The general description you've given of how you play the character indeed seems problematic to me. Giving maximum sentences and "following the SOP to an obnoxiously accurate degree" goes completely against the spirit of play we want. As far as sentencing goes, the ability to vary sentences was given so that security could be more or less lenient with people given the context of their crimes. As far as SoP goes, I'd like to point out the most vital part of all SoP on the wiki:

Quote

blindly following the letter of SOP while ignoring the context of the shift is a ridiculously bad idea. 

Being able to understand and adjust for context is vital to the security role. No one should be following it to an obnoxiously accurate degree. Intentionally playing an obnoxious character generally falls under rule 0. We do not want a server with people being intentionally obnoxious. Searching 'everyone' also somewhat falls under this - you should be using your ability to search people for the safety and security of the station, not simply because it is allowed. This comes across as an abuse of your power - something that absolutely lowers admin confidence in you playing the role properly. It is not within your 'right' to search people. Security officers have extra duties, not extra rights. 

On 10/25/2023 at 4:42 PM, Sambubu said:

As I understand it, this isn't a big deal; the guy has to be taken to med bay anyway, so to me he would be taken to med bay, revived, treated, searched, and put in perma brig.

P-Hound, the one I had been having a bantering with, goes on comms, and to me, and says 'Momo commited manslaughter', at which point I point to them and say 'still have a higher perp count', because, I had arrested one EoC, and they had not yet arrested anyone.

I've snipped the unnecessary details about the arrest here to focus on the real issue here.

A prisoner in your care dying due to your actions absolutely is a big deal. Committing manslaughter is a big deal, especially as a security member. Just because they can be revived doesn't make it any more legal. It appears in this case they didn't actually die, due to Abydos giving them a moderate admin heal. Regardless, a critical error was made here. The fact you arrested an EoC is irrelevant here, and the attitude that it doesn't matter as long as you arrest EoC's is very worrying. We don't want our security staff purely focusing on 'redtexting' antags.

On 10/25/2023 at 4:42 PM, Sambubu said:

Shortly after, I get messaged by the admin, who says 'nearly killed a perma prisoner that didn't deserve it and when called out on it, simply went "I don't care, it gets me a higher body count.', which is not what I said, how I said it, and I believe is a blatant misinterpretation of what had happened.

This is a misinterpretation of 'body count' it appears, based on the 'still have a higher perp count' - this is more about paraphrasing than misinterpreting as I see it. 

On 10/25/2023 at 4:42 PM, Sambubu said:

And, in regards to hound, they said I was immediately hostile to him.

The 'favourite security officer' comment does indeed come across as sarcastic and hostile to me. Overall the exchange seems unpleasant.

On 10/25/2023 at 4:42 PM, Sambubu said:

. In fact, I do note that if I was doing something wrong, centcom would notify me, and this is because before this I had not yet been notified about my actions as security from an admin (the only other time I had been contacted by an admin was when I commited suicide as a security officer).

This is absolutely not true - we are not able to see or intervene in all actions. We absolutely rely on the community to self-police and teach each other to be better security officers. If you are not willing to listen to other officers - especially more experienced ones, and double especially when they legally demote you - then this is a very bad sign.

On 10/25/2023 at 4:42 PM, Sambubu said:

Specially because, even if I were violating SOP, nothing I did was majorly disruptive; as P-hound stated, 'SoP violations are not Central's Job.', in other words, all this is an IC issue

Minor SoP violations are an issue for most roles. When it starts to negatively affect other players, then that's often when admins start to step in as it has become an OOC issue. We do give some leeway for mistakes, but if you are acting in a way that is getting you demoted then you are not playing your role responsibly. Security is held to a higher standard in these cases, due to the power they have over others and the round.

 

Given your responses here and general behavior, I have to agree with Abydos that I have little confidence in your ability to play the role on your current path. Playing other roles for a bit seems a good idea here - antags especially may be a good idea of how to see things from the 'other side'. Security is held to a higher standard than other roles, so it is by far the most common for us to jobban people from, next to command. 

Should things change, I hope within a few months to see an appeal that shows us you've changed your attitude towards security play, and will be willing to play in a less intentionally-obnoxious way, and without the focus on 'winning' by catching as many EoC's as possible, and instead play in a way that makes the entire game more fun for everyone - antags included.

Complaint is ruled to be without merit and resolved.

 

 

 

[Complaint Against Samman166]

Hi there, apologies for the delay here - heads have all been very busy, one has had to step down, and this case requires some log-digging, so I've stepped in to give a hand in this case with Headmin approval. @Abydos has also stepped in to help with the Log-Diving side, as our resident log-bot.

 

On 10/25/2023 at 12:29 PM, falconignite said:

He says I had been warned multiple times for valid hunt rules, but I had only received an admin PM once before (I think it was him, but it was a month ago so not sure) about valid hunt under a very different context in which I believe was also incorrect.

You are correct here. The ban note will be updated to reflect this mistake on Samman's part. Overall this doesn't change the situation much - one warning should be more than enough, and isn't guaranteed. This does reflect the ease of appeal however

On 10/25/2023 at 12:29 PM, falconignite said:

In the previous incident, which I think it was also Samman

The previous case was with Retrograde115. Note is as follows: "As an engiborg on NT default, assisted security in beating a cling to death in medbay, and then proceeded to chase another cling into space. Warned for validhunting." 

If there's an issue with that we can look into that separately, but for this case, the only relevance is that you've been warned before...not that it is relevant, as you are not claiming to never have heard of the validhunting rule before. Yes, some players try to pull that card at times despite them having been warned previously.
 

On 10/25/2023 at 12:29 PM, falconignite said:

Here are the events leading up to my current ban:

This appears generally accurate leading up to the logs.

On 10/25/2023 at 12:29 PM, falconignite said:

I knew that the vampire would kill the officer with the gun if I didn't grab it first so moved quickly and managed to grab it before the vampire and shot at the vampire, missing almost all the shots and throwing the gun onto the floor as the sec officer managed to get out his baton and stun him.

This is the part where we step into valid hunting territory. Once security enters, you should not be engaging - this is mainly due to the balance problems of the entire crew lynching antags when assisting security. Your priority should be on rescuing the crew if you wish to help, who had been left well behind at this point. 

 

On 10/25/2023 at 12:29 PM, falconignite said:

I then went to medbay to check on the victim and later was PM'd by Samman claiming that chasing the vampire's kidnap victim was valid-hunt

This is inaccurate. Samman never said the chasing their victim was valid-hunting. Logs of the PM conversation are as follows:

Quote

 

2023-10-07T03:46:59] ADMIN: Adminhelp: [REDACTED]: Lila Uoki, valid hunting rufus the vampire when he is not in imediate danger or was attacked - heard by 2 non-AFK admins.

[2023-10-07T03:51:11] ADMIN: PM: Samman166/(Zouri Essouser)->Falconignite/(Lila Uoki): hey there, you have previously been warned for valid hunting so please explain why you chased a vampire into maintenance once again?

[2023-10-07T03:51:45] ADMIN: PM: Falconignite/(Lila Uoki)->Samman166/(Zouri Essouser): It was the other cargo tech who chased, I followed and saw the vampire attacking so i pushed him away

[2023-10-07T03:53:06] ADMIN: PM: Falconignite/(Lila Uoki)->Samman166/(Zouri Essouser): We're all cargo techs and we were all by cargo so it makes sense to help a kidnapping victim by cargo

[2023-10-07T03:53:38] ADMIN: PM: Samman166/(Zouri Essouser)->Falconignite/(Lila Uoki): there is combat logs of you and them exchanging disarms leading all out of maints and then you continueing to disarm them as security is trying to deal with them

[2023-10-07T03:54:03] ADMIN: PM: Samman166/(Zouri Essouser)->Falconignite/(Lila Uoki): and both being cargo techs does not exempt you from validhunting rules

[2023-10-07T03:54:42] ADMIN: PM: Falconignite/(Lila Uoki)->Samman166/(Zouri Essouser): well I stopped pushing after sec take over, its his own fault for chasing us

 

As Samman said - you continuing to fight and disarm the vampire is the issue here, not that chasing the kidnap victim is validhunting. Engaging the vampire while security is engaging them is the issue here. While it may be seen as reasonable for some people to assist security due to their characters personality, in the end this generally means that everyone attempts to be a hero, and involve themselves in sec affairs whenever possible. This also creates a lot of chaos for security to deal with - especially if one came across the scene to find a downed sec officer, and a cargo-tech shooting the sec officer with a laser!

Quote

[2023-10-07T03:46:23] ATTACK: Falconignite/(Lila Uoki)(175,131,2) against (Arsr Ehiz)(174,131,2): Shot with a /obj/item/projectile/beam/laser 28.57% blocked

In this case, your involvement very much could have made things worse. Had your priority stayed with rescuing the dead body of your coworker, I don't see there being an issue here. When your priority shifted into trying to take out the vampire, that's when the issue begins. Remember that if you're able to withdraw safely, you generally should - Paradise is not a 'stand your ground' state.

As per @Nerfection's reply to your appeal - 

If you're willing to accept you went too far in this incident and crossed the line into valid hunting, the ban can be lifted - post an appeal so it can be handled via the proper channels.

Overall this complaint has some merit in the mistake about multiple warnings, and clarification has been delivered about the valid-hunting issue. 

[Note Clarification]

Apologies for the delay here, Heads have been very busy and Sirryan has had to step down due to time constraints leaving them shortstaffed, so I'm stepping in here to help a bit.

It appears the clarification and discussion here was productive - I'll be closing this as it appears resolved, please DM me if I'm incorrect in this assessment and I'll reopen it and seek further clarification.

[Admin complaint: Meow19]

Hi there, apologies for the delay in handling this - the heads have been very busy (and one has had to step down because of this) so I'll be handling this on their behalf, after getting their approval to deal with it.

In a case like this it appears there's been a miscommunication - due to the nature of the current threat and situation, Meow has clarified they meant that they were telling you to leave maints as a specific case for the current situation, not as a general case that being in maintenance isn't allowed.

This is because they believed would you continue, then a valid-hunting style situation would occur very shortly, or you would end up converted. Specifically looking for cult bases and cult artifacts is generally going to end up in conflict like this. 

You're not in any trouble for this or under threat of a ban, nor does the note indicate anything negative towards your attitude or behaviour. It was more simple notekeeping that is done with pretty much any interaction with players, and so it is noted you were made aware of the valid hunting rules in case a similar situation occurs in the future and you claimed ignorance - sadly a lot of players try to pretend they've never heard or a rule or been warned, despite clear evidence it has happened before. Notes are not a form of punishment - they're honestly more tedious bookkeeping for the admins than anything. No matter what you did, there would be a note about this situation.

As for the threat of the ban, I think you might be misremembering the conversation a bit - understandable, it can often be intimidating to be bwoinked by an admin. I'll post it here for transparency's sake:
 

Quote

Meow19: gotta tell you, being in maints looking for hidden cult bases aint a non sec job

Auce: im looking for cult artifacts

Meow19: can you get out of maints so i can leave a note and we'll end it at that?

Auce: can i ask why what i did was against the rules

Meow19: in cases like these its usually valid hunting rule breach or the "getting intentionally converted" part of sellf antagging 

Auce: yeah its neither of those, my gimmick was i was collecting cult artifacts

Meow19: yeah im glad! the note will stay, to indicate you are aware not to do this in future.

Auce: very fun thanks

All in all, this is a non-issue from the admin perspective and just a minor thing often done to make sure a situation doesn't occur where you could be in danger of being seen as valid hunting or getting intentionally converted.

Please let me know if you need further clarifications or have any questions, myself or another staff member will be happy to answer when time permits.

[Complaint against Rurik]

Hi there, apologies for the delay. I'm posting this as an ex-head of staff and after consulting with the current heads of staff.

 

On 10/1/2023 at 1:51 AM, blueaves said:

believe the first part of me "defending my last warning" should not be grounds for a denial when all I am doing is providing context to Rurik seeing that he was not the one to issue that previous warning. I simply wanted to state that I felt that previous warning was unfair in my opinion seeing that he mentioned it and had nothing to do with Rurik's reason for initially banning me. Had I posted an admin complaint on that other admin who gave me the warning, I feel that my explanation of the events wouldn't be used against me like how Rurik is doing now.

By itself, this wouldn't be very fair grounds for a denial, but this is why it was mentioned as one of many reasons for denial. Whether or not an appeal is accepted is a combination of all factors - from your behaviour on the server in general to the content of your appeal. 

On 10/1/2023 at 1:51 AM, blueaves said:

Rurik: "-to your attitude when PM'd-"

In my appeal I had said "When Rurik messaged me, my bad reaction was due to how I've seen tiders doing far worse things the past few days in the same spot. Not an excuse for my actions, but I don't see them getting messaged from admins over it so its hard to know wither or not its acceptable after a few times of seeing it."

I had acknowledged that I was being rude in the PM and offered an explanation on why I was so frustrated in that moment and it was wrong of me to handle it the way I did.

blueaves: "If that level of tiding is unacceptable though, I will understand and if an Admin tells me to stop from now on as a tider I will understand and follow their instruction."

This is another factor taken into consideration. From your notes, it appears this isn't the first time you've shown a poor attitude when an admin has spoken to you. This again, by itself, isn't good grounds to reject an appeal, but adds into the general 'vibe' of you as a player.

On 10/1/2023 at 1:51 AM, blueaves said:

Lastly, "-to the wording of not causing "as much" trouble as a tider; I'm not convinced."

Rurik says he's not convinced here - this is based on a combination of factors. Your previous history with multiple incidents and a poor attitude when being warned, on top of the content of your appeal and your discussion with him. No one factor alone is responsible for this, but instead the sum total of all of these has lead Rurik to not be convinced you'd be a positive addition to the server. This in the end is the deciding factor in any appeals, and why bans are handed out - because it is the belief of the admin that you are a negative influence on the server. 

Your appeal has not convinced Rurik otherwise, and I am personally inclined to agree. There is absolutely however the possibility that we are both wrong here, and you could be a positive addition to the server.

On 10/1/2023 at 1:51 AM, blueaves said:

What did you want from me in this situation? I acknowledged that I went too far and will tone it down from now on??

In this case, Rurik has offered a compromise - to get a vouch from another server. In this case, all that would be required is showing that you've been able to play there without causing issues in the time that has passed since you got banned from Paradise. This seems quite reasonable to me, and is generally standard policy for cases like this.

 

[State of assistants on paradise]

My general idea for ages I've never gotten around to implementing is to have the current 'assistant' job renamed to Civilian, with numerous alt-titles such as tourist, off-duty, etc.

Assistant itself should be a seperate job with limited slots, part of service, with an SoP that requires them to actually assist departments if they're able to. This could then have alt titles such as Engineering Assistant, Medbay Intern, etc. 

Thus we can split the people who want 0 responsibility and RP into their own job, and leave assistant for people who want to help out departments in minor ways, and be a great job for newbies.

[Complaint Against Samman166 - Improper Application of Rules, and Feedback on Server as a Whole]

On 10/3/2023 at 12:23 AM, TheBadPerson said:

To Necs post, I have little to say. It’s a bad faith attempt to make me look bad. If I had a log full of every single thing the person I was debating with has said that I could control F keywords in, I bet it wouldn’t look so good on you either. As for the quotes you posted, yea I’m a seether.

Hi there - I didn't actually scan through any logs or ctrl-f, I just picked the two examples in your notes. This and the ban were to show the admins do in fact care about this type of thing, and do take action about it, as well as highlight that you're complaining about a culture that you yourself have been part of and encouraged. Despite your insistence that no effort is made to empathise, admins have on many, many occasions warned or even banned players for how they treat security.

As you've been the victim of shitcurity, I hoped this would cause some self-reflection and spur insight into why people act towards security the way they do. Some self-awareness can go a long way here. 

 

On 10/3/2023 at 12:23 AM, TheBadPerson said:

Lastly: You say ahelp repeatedly, but why is the go to ALWAYS to twist the admins arms and call for a referee every time something out of the ordinary happens? Do you truly want me and others to throw ahelps every time something questionable happens? Why can we not just handle these things IC? Once again, this is why everyone just cryos. It’s not worth dealing with. Where’s the fun in forcing an admin to handle weird situations, it’s better to just cryo. 

You both want admins to deal with things, but also want things to be dealt with IC. When they are handled IC (Such as how ERT dealt with you), you want them to be handled with perfect knowledge of the entire round and communication. 

Admins aren't following you around the whole round - you are not the main character. Without you ahelping, admins don't know there's a situation that may need our involvement, such as with self-antagging. If you're in a situation where you are getting angry OOCly, you need to step back. 

If you want to see a change in the server culture, then you need to work with the admins. You also need to be the change you want to see in the server. This means that you need to reel in the 'seething', and lead by example. Getting angry at players and resorting to violence gives security a bad wrap and helps feed the vicious cycle of sec-vs-crew. 

I'd love to know what caused you to change from being very anti-sec to being very pro-sec - this could give us some great insight into how to help shift server culture.

[Complaint Against Samman166 - Improper Application of Rules, and Feedback on Server as a Whole]

Hi there, I won't be ruling on this at all but I'd like to offer some commentry on the whole situation you've began to notice over the past few months.

You may have only noticed it in the past few months, but this has been somewhat of a constant over the past 10 years on Paradise, and the problem existed on our precursors and many, many other servers. This is not unique to Paradise, this community, or any recent events. Shitcurity was an old meme when I started playing ~11 years ago.

There are a multitude of reasons for this. It'd take an extended essay on the psychology of players to discuss all of that. I'll try to keep it brief.

1: Fucking with security is fun.

Antagging can be incredibly thrilling and exciting, due to the competitve PVP nature of this. Engaging in crimes, fighting people, and playing cat-and-mouse with security is very fun to a lot of people, and they will jump at the chance to do it. If you've ever gotten an adrenaline rush in the midst of combat, you'll know this to be true. This thrill is what some people play for, and we created the self-antagging rules to cut down on the amount of this that is allowed. If you think it's bad now, imagine how it was when you could raid the entire armoury as a non-antag, as long as you didn't kill anyone in the process. 

This can be justified to some extent ICly, but it's usually just an excuse to have fun. You wouldn't believe some of the excuses we've heard for self-antagging. I actually have a lot of respect for players who respond 'because it was fun' when we asked them why they just did whatever god awful self antagging they just did.

2: All Security Are Bastards mentality.

Security are 'the man'. They've the jackbooted thugs that enforce the will of a morally bankrupt megacorporation. This breeds and us-vs-them menality when it comes to crew and security. They're the ones who stop you from doing your shennigans, and are seen as the 'fun police'. This is bad enough as it is, but then add in the fact that any player with a few months under their belt has likely seen some pretty shitty behaviour from security, and you see why 'shitcurity' is called so easily. 

This us-and-them mentality leads security to see the crew as enemies, and the crew to see security as enemies. Rarely are interactions with security beneficial - if they're arriving to save you from an attacker, they're usually too late to save you. And God forbid they don't know who started the fight, so arrest both people to figure it out!

This is a problem that IRL cops have too, and has likely gotten worse over the past few decades - especially with recent events and movements in the USA. IRL, this problem has not been solved. People's bias against IRL Police is reflected here in play. 

Here's a great example of a player showing that mentality:

Quote

TheBadPerson (Ekss Laess) (follow) salts, "i am just murderboning from now on im so done"
TheBadPerson (Ekss Laess) (follow) copes, "just goin 357 and killin sec"
TheBadPerson (Ekss Laess) (follow) copes, "sec deserves it"

3: Power Corrupts.

Security officers have more power over the crew than any other job on the station. They can even arrest the Captain. Some security players have abused this power. Plenty more have been incompetent or inexperienced and misused this power to other player's detriment. Back when "Insulting an officer" was a brigworthy crime, this was absolutely at it's worst. 

This also means Security also attracts some of the worst players, those who enjoy holding this power over others and abusing it. This is also another huge problem with IRL police, that has not been solved. IAA is meant to perform this role both IRL and in SS13, and in both cases is usually utterly incompetent or complicit in these abuses.

Due to the power here for security to utterly ruin rounds for people, either through malice or incompetence, security staff have to be under a much, much tighter leash than other players - hence the 'held to higher standards' part of the rules. This is not done because admins hate security. There are many security mains and less regular players in the admin staff, and being known as a good security player goes a long way in someone getting their admin application accepted.

4: The Thin Red Line.

Part of the 'us vs them' mentality, security have a tendancy to stick together and back each other up....unless the security officer is utterly incompetent and embarrassing the rest of the team. And it is a 'team' - no other department tend to stick together as much as others, although Cargo can often be quite tight (As you found out).

This means that the actions of one security member get's reflected across the entire team. You might have done nothing wrong when arresting a grey tider, but he remembers the other security member who harmbatoned the clown for slipping them. 

While this sucks, the camadre between security members is great and realistic RP, and should be encouraged. Personally, I wish this meant that sec took more time to train and improve each other. "Officer Cadet" roles have been floated around with this idea, which could be revived.

5: Hypervigilance.

As a security officer, you need to be constantly on alert. For the entire 2 hour round, you must be ready to drop everything at a moments notice and storm across the station to respond to crimes - and if you're 30seconds late, you'll never hear the end of it. On top of being a loot pinata for Antags, this makes security play exhausting. This leads to tired and grumpy players, which leads to worse security performance, and the cycle begins again.

6: Mistakes Happen.

Even the best and most attentive, intelligent security player who has memorized every line of space law can make mistakes. 90% of the time this is due to poor communication. Plenty of situations require a judgement call where you have to choose whose word to believe. Often, this defaults to the loudest. More often, it defaults to the most numerous. If 4 people saw you harmbaton the clown to death in a corridor after slipping you, then they're going to scream bloody murder and demand 'justice' for the clown. The poor officer trying to tell them that he was a changeling may often just get drowned out.

Players often feel they're entitled to treat security like shit for mistakes like this. In this case - you believed the HoS to have a made a mistake in demoting you, so you attacked him. With a baton. On Code Gamma. 

So what do these all add up to?

Frankly a pretty shitty and annoying culture and situation. In my time, I've done what I've can to try to address this. The high security turnover rate is an example of this, and we've taken many measures to try to stop this culture, and improve the experiences of players - both security and non-security. Some of these were a great success. (Seriously, 'insulting an officer' as a charge? Which fucking IDIOT put that into space law? (Do NOT go look at the history on the wiki to blame him :P)). A lot of discussion has happened over a decade between admin staff about how to do this.

If you think the admin staff have not noticed it, are biased against security, or don't care about security as players then you need to pull your head in. The staff members care about the server. They care about the players. They would not spend the huge amount of time and effort they do on it if they didn't. If you think staff members never have security's back, then you're just completely wrong. Let me give you an example of a ban from when an admin was concerned about how a player was dealing with security:

Quote

Permanently banned - Continuing to get angry in game to the point that it ruins the fun of other players. After being arrested continuously cursed at officers, told them to go eff themselves, said they wasted their time because he's just gunna cryo anyways, etc. It's clear that this isn't roleplay and is trying to ruin their fun due to your anger. Getting arrested is part of what happens as an antag, going to cryo after being processed is fine, trying to ruin the officer's experience isn't. Ban is being placed because this pattern of behaviour has continuied after multiple warnings. I'd recommend taking a bit of time off before appealing, it's easy to get overly invested in the game sometimes.

Now as for this situation that ended up with you being banned, I see a lot of these factors coming into play. A huge common factor here is a lack of empathy and seeing things from other people's perspectives. I haven't checked the logs or anything, and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt of believing everything you say - except for the assumption of other people's motivation.

Ordering the cargo techs off the shuttle is a quite reasonable order. Refusing said order on code red is absolutely grounds for arrest, and legally speaking you were utterly within your rights to arrest them for it. 

Once you do that however, you have chosen to escalate to violence. In their perspective, you have come into their workplace, ordered them around, and threatened violence when they refused to follow your orders. I haven't checked the logs to see how this went down, but I'd be willing to bet money that with so many people there and so much going on, it would be difficult to have a calm and rational conversation about this - especially when there's the ticking time limit of the guns that sec need.

Considering your past tendancies to get very, very angry (to the point of telling people to kill themselves) - I'm questioning how your orders may have come across. It is entirerly possible to be completely in the right, and still come off as a complete asshole. This is usually when people come off as the most assholish of all - they come across as self-righteous!

You may have been in your rights to escalate things like that, but was it a good idea? If you think they're intentionally trying to make trouble for you - what did you think would happen when you attempted to arrest them? Not what they should do. What they will do.

As for the optics of this - how do you think this looked to other cargo members and general crew, when they don't have the full picture of things? Always remember the optics. I'm willing to guess a lot of players thought you were being 'shitcurity' in this case.

You then went back for a second time and ran into the same situation. I'm not sure what you were expecting. This doesn't make what they did right by any stretch, but there's something about that old saying of the definition of insanity.

If you honestly believed they were self antagging (Which they might have been. One of them might also have been an antag, which makes trying to take a 4-v-1 fight on also quite silly.) - then you should have ahelped. If people are breaking the OOC rules, then you need to use OOC measures to put a stop to that. Your job is to deal with IC law. 

Understandably, you got angry and frustrated with this whole situation. 

You feel that all these actions meant you were then justified with attacking a superior officer during code gamma. I'm willing to bet that the cargo techs also felt their actions were justified, due to your behaviour. 

I see no reason to think that the HoS did this maliciously - they were likely told multiple different stories, and did what they thought was right. It might have been a mistake, but it also might have been the best move given the information he had at the time. 

We have here multiple situations where you have resorted to your baton rather than diplomacy. You have assumed the worst of people - and it seems you've also extended that assumption to the staff here. I can assure you that you're not winning any friends here by assuming the staff are unaware of the issues with security, or saying they don't make any effort to empathise. When you combine this with your previous notes and bans for doing the exact things you have complained about, you come off as incredibly lacking in self-awareness or understanding of the server.

 

If you really want to see a change to the culture of security on this server, then I suggest you lead by example. Be the change you want to see in the server. Take some time to think over your actions, both now and in the past, and work on your impulse control and anger. Demanding the Admins fix a problem that has plagued SS13 servers for over a decade will achieve nothing. The admins can only do so much to crack down on behaviour, and we rely on the community to work with us to improve it. 


As I said in the original, this isn't a ruling - I haven't played in a year or so, so it'd be pretty unfair for me to make a ruling! If you'd like to discuss the culture and issues with me, feel free to message me on discord (lets not clog up the AC itself with a discussion that could go on for months.). I'm pretty busy these days but when I have the time and energy, would be happy to chat about it. That goes for you too, people lurking and reading this who likely have their own opinions.

[Mute CE ruling]

Hi there - I won't be ruling on this but I would just like to comment on my previous rulings.

 

A huge part of being in Command is communication. Being mute severely impacts your ability to do this, which negatively affects all the people under your command. We wouldn't let someone be a blue shield without hands since they couldn't do the job, and the same seems to apply to command. Inability to communicate with your team and other command on radio goes completly against what we have in mind for how command should be played.

[Clarification/Request for Review]

After reviewing over with other admins about what your shennigans have been, I'm of the opinion they should be encouraged. 

SS13 is all about crazy memorable stories, not just antags getting greentext for the 1000th time through whatever meta strategy is the flavour of the week.

My overall clarification is that I applaud you for not being yet another gamer and actually doing things in an interesting and funny way. Please keep it up.
 

On 11/23/2022 at 2:04 PM, Rurik said:

Is my assumption of what Peak is warning me for (intentionally choosing weak weapons and populated areas to kill, leading to often failure) correct? Or am I misunderstanding and my problematic conduct lies elsewhere?

Intentionally weak areas and populated areas are fine. I encourage it.
 

On 11/23/2022 at 2:04 PM, Rurik said:

Is it fair for an admin to deem your play style to this degree? Since I am neither powergaming to succeed at objectives, nor holding back to the detriment of allies/teammates, it feels like an overeach of power. Should it not be up to the player how cautiously or callously to approach a situation? Should it not be up to the player to decide between using a double-energy-sword that riles all of security, or your fists?

If you want to be cautious or callous, that's fine as a solo antag. Giving yourself the challenge of using fists is great - although try not to be too LRP about it by screaming Macho Man memes or something. Give an IC reason behind it like "I was so angry I just wanted to beat him to death" or "my character believes weapons are a sign of weakness" and you're golden. Bonus points if you manage to express it to your target as you're robusting them.
 

On 11/23/2022 at 2:04 PM, Rurik said:

I am also operating under the assumption with Peak's comment that "I am not warning you for anything in particular this round" meaning that my actions of targeting an officer with the intent to down/kill for the ID and weapons is *Not* the issue, but rather my playstyle as a whole. If this is wrong, please let me know.

The general opinion of the staff from what I've discussed is that your overall play style is pretty funny, with a few occasional incidents being a bit LRP but nothing particularly bad or that I see the need for any intervention of.
 

On 11/23/2022 at 2:04 PM, Rurik said:

Lastly, this playstyle of mine has been the same for the last 3-4 years. Aside from some yawns over going naked with stimulants too often last year, I have never received negative comments or flak from anyone for it, admin or otherwise. Has there been rule change or code of conduct discussion? Of course I'm aware years of doing X cannot be a defense of X, but this adds to the "out of the blue" warning that, if I'm being honest, left me completely shocked. It begs me to ask—Why now?

There's been no changes here, although there has been a disheartening trend towards a focus on antag-vs-sec gameplay.

I have had the note about this amended with "After a discussion where he asked for clarification, Neca has ruled this a non-issue and this note is to be ignored. His gimmick styles are entertaining and within the spirit of the game.".

I'll leave this open for now in case there's any more clarification you need. Feel free to just DM me any feedback if you prefer. If you don't have anything to say, just post to say you're happy with it so I can close this.

[Clarification/Request for Review]

Thanks both of you for being super reasonable about all this.

I think I speak for all of the admin team when I say that not chasing greentext is something we really wish more people would do, and you should be commended for it.

The issue I think @PeakPerformancehas here is the LRP-ish nature of some of it, such as self-gibbing with a minibomb when told no about the hypo - that comes off as a bit too silly.

If you want to go after your target in public with a toolbox though, I don't see an issue with that. It's dumb and risky, but there's no obligation to be optimal. Getting in fights with sec is cool, and I encourage it.

[unreasonable way to deal with rulebreaking [abydos2]]

I think the others have said it pretty well, but I'll also add that an admin also dealing with situations ICly does not make your actions OOCly ok. Sometimes both are needed to be done, and a direct order from CC is often done as an IC way to tell people it's not on. Not obeying direct orders from CC - especially when it comes to arming yourself up and shooting at them - is mutiny. Mutiny and murder are both not ok for non-antags to do. Reading the rules should make this very clear.

There wouldn't have been a problem if you'd done this and followed them.

Complaint without merit and resolved.

[Was asked to stop using all caps for a borg]

Hi there.

Indeed this is annoying and an issue. This kind of gimmick is really more irritating than it is funny, especially if done repeatedly. Additionally, the whole 'soy bot' thing reeks of 4chan.

So yes, I confirm that you should knock off the all capitals speech. It's annoying. Don't be annoying.

 

[Admin Complaint-Abydos]

Hi there,

We've taken some time to review over this - your actions and various fingerprints are incredibly similar to a player banned very shortly before you joined. This is incredibly suspicious to us, and on the balance of probability it makes me think you are indeed the same person. Ban evasion is all too commonly attempted on our server, sadly.

I'll ask @AffectedArc07 to do some more digging for confirmation, but as things currently stand I do believe this is a case of ban evasion. If Affected says otherwise however, I will lift the ban as he's smarter than me.

For now I'm marking this as resolved, although if @AffectedArc07 tells me otherwise I'll repost on this complaint and lift the ban.

[Update Drug Possession Laws? - 103 Drug Possession - Gap in the law being exploited.]

You're not debating in good faith. You're being obtuse and taking a stupid stance that flies in the face of common sense.

And no, no one banned you from the discord.

[Update Drug Possession Laws? - 103 Drug Possession - Gap in the law being exploited.]

This is so damn stupid.

Being under the influence of drugs is evidence that you either were in possession of them, or were assaulted. You're also possessing the drugs in your system.

This is a you problem, and you're being unnecessarily argumentative and failing to use common sense. 

IRL, laws are pages and pages of definitions. We replace that with common sense. And the most basic amount of common sense tells you if someone is getting high on drugs they're in possession. 

[The State of Space Law]

IRL, if you took a tazer off a cop and shot them with it - you could expect to get shot with real bullets. Do this in a airport, even more so. Do it in a research base with nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons on it that's a known target of terrorists, and well...you see where I'm going.

This is also simply solved by not attacking the person armed with a lethal weapon. If you attack a dude wielding a shotgun, you should expect to get shotgunned. Or lasered. Or whatever.

This is also all acting under the assumption that people getting killed is a bad thing that we should try to avoid. The risk of death when you mess with sec heightens tensions and adds to the adrenaline of the game. People getting murdered in violent conflicts with sec is a good thing. 

[The State of Space Law]

Security are the 'defense' force for a corporation that employs deathsquads, on a station that has nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.

The general idea of the use of force is to go one level above what the suspect is using. Hence if they're using stuns, you use lethals. Security shouldn't be honour bound to use the same level of force against people to be nice and give them a fair chance. They're jackbooted thugs of an evil megacorp.

I don't see why we should try to decrease the lethality of sec encounters for people who attack them. If you don't want to get gunned down by sec, don't use weapons against them and run away instead. 

[Name review]

For future reference this is not how you go about getting a name accepted. That's an insultingly low amount, especially in this economy!