DoctorDrugs
-
Posts
392 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Posts posted by DoctorDrugs
-
-
sorry for the late response to this, as it stands Joel is a very strange name for a vox and if you're looking to use such a name for a vox you'd have to have a pretty good reason as to why they'd have a name like that in the first place. The little bit you've included here doesn't tell me much about why they have the name or really anything of substance that I could infer why a vox would have the name Joel.
-
I will be handling this complaint, I wanted to give this a bit of time between the posting of it and the answering of the AC in order to have the involved parties get time to cool off from how heated it appeared from how things were phrased and addressed. Before I continue with this AC I will make two things clear from the start, No one is going to be demanding anything ever when it comes to admin complaints what we as head admins do in relation to punishments, denials or logs being posted is done at our discretion as is our responsibility to handle things appropriately and in the correct manner. Secondly while we've never directly laid out that admins shouldn't directly address the complaining party in their part of detailing what they perceived and done on their end, we have already taken a few steps to remind admins that the point of their responses is never to address or attempt to handle a complaint themselves but rather explain in their own words what they saw/did and why.
Now getting in the complaint here I'm gonna address this in sections with the intent to make it easy to read and address. First I'd like to talk about Executions, Now the general server culture is that security will from time to time indulge prisoner's requests for their executions. There's nothing wrong with that and lets some people have some additional fun at the end of their run if they so choose but that needs to be within reason. SoP and Space Law both have the same listed approved methods for execution; electric chair, lethal injection, firing squad, gas inhalation and asphyxiation, those are the standard acceptable methods of executions but aren't the only ways to do so. A guillotine could easily be considered an acceptable request for execution as long as it's done within reason, however having a guillotine built in a public area for an execution is a bit of a problem for a few reasons. One of them being the ease at which someone could attempt to mess with the execution in one way or another way easier than in a more secure location or that it looks incredibly weird to have a public execution like that in a hallway on top of the possible risk of someone eventually killing someone else with it or themselves intentionally.
The reason the Magistrate had an issue with the execution was for two reasons, the unsecured public execution using a guillotine that was created in a public area and the second part of failing to follow the entirely of Execution procedure as the vampire was not given the time to have their last words properly recorded/given. Their is a possibility of this matter having resolved itself ICly but attempting to arrest the magistrate due to your perception on the matter is not a proper way to have handled that, if there is concerns about how a magistrate is handling a situation be it breaking the rules, space law, etc it should be ahelp'd so that an admin can handle it as it's a role held in high regard to following things properly.
Finally I'd like to talk about the Admin PM messages between the two of you, the tone from these PMs in game and general responses her is pretty aggressive. I don't see how any of this can be considered conductive to having a conversation or discussion. It's frankly something that isn't tolerated from either party and causing more problems then it solves instead of handling it in a proper and more thought out way. As for the nature of this AC, The note is semi-valid for the circumstance considering how you attempted to arrest and shot the magistrate with a disabler but the handling via PMs was not handled well. Considering the magistrate's order was to have you set to arrest for workplace hazard and failure to follow Execution SoP with the lack of last words from the vampire turning into you shooting at the magistrate over such an order it could be seen a mutiny. I will slightly reiterate that if you have an issue going forward with a magistrate then it should be escalated to admins preferably via ahelp to get clarification. As for the note I will be editing it to reflect a summary of events that transpired during that round. -
considering this has been open for almost 3 weeks I assume you have no other questions or comments regarding the name or why an admin might see an issue with it. If you run into any other issue regarding the name and using it refer to this name review politely. Considering this as handled and filing as such.
-
as this has had no responses in return after almost 3 weeks, I'm going to assume that this is considered resolved and you don't have any other comments or questions that need some answering regarding the name and will be closing it as such.
-
Quite frankly this is going no where, you are refusing to believe your interpretations of events and how things went is correct when you're not thinking of the outside perspective of the events and how things transpired. An admin made a judgement call based on the rules and how events took place, there is a specific rule that you violated during this whole event as you refused to listen to the admin telling you this was an IC issue and I don't disagree with their judgement. I have told you I didn't like how they handled their explanation of why they made that judgement. If you disagree with an admin's judgement then you can make an Admin Complaint on the forums rather than attempt to get a different answer by making the same ahelp multiple times throughout the round. This AC is considered without merit and is closed as such, there will be no more dialogue here as you are refusing to understand what has been said to you by meow and myself.
-
As I had said, you were not the HoP you were an assistant HoP and the reasons the captain used to have you permabridged fall under space law, the issue of him doing it that way instead of handling in a better way or more appropriate way as I have said fall under an IC issue rather than an administrative issue or the captain breaking the rules. The captain pointed out in command chat that you made a second ID, Roger Kalastov: (Command) 'they made themselves a second id' to which the HoP pointed out they gave you the first ID right after that comment Reese Callisto: (Command) 'However, I gave him that ID'. Almost seconds later after that comment the HoP was discovered for being an antag. Once again it is incredibly hard for someone to take the words of someone who was attacking the station and it's crew at face value that you aren't also trying to do something nefarious, unfortunately you were caught up in the HoP's schemes and plans as collateral and that's just how it is sometimes with the nature of the game.
As for meow's ahelp muting let's take a deeper look into the various attempts to get a response,
ADMIN: Adminhelp: Pat4ever/(Kade Ward): I'm being arrested by captain's order despite committing no crimes - heard by 1 non-AFK admins.
The first Ahelp regarding the matter, meow responded to this and I elaborated about my issues regarding the lack of detailed communication from meow at first prompting a back and forth conversation for a little while regarding it
ADMIN: Adminhelp: Pat4ever/(Kade Ward): I don't know if you received my previous PMs but how is brigging someone for a crime they didn't commit, with zero IC interaction, a resolved issue - heard by 1 non-AFK admins.
the second ahelp regarding the matter where meow tells you it's not an administrative issue and is more an IC issue and is considered handled from an administrative view point.
ADMIN: Adminhelp: Pat4ever/(Kade Ward): I apologize for the repeated ticket but I was in the middle of typing, can the Captain just have people permabrigged for committing zero crime? - heard by 1 non-AFK admins.
the third Ahelp regarding the matter after the majority of the conversation with meow regarding what happened, to which meow warns you to not submit additional ahelps regarding the same situation as it was deemed an IC issue and to be handled as such.
ADMIN: Mentorhelp: Pat4ever/(Kade Ward): Is a Captain allowed to permabrig someone who has not committed a crime - heard by 5 non-AFK mentors.
Not even a minute later you mhelp a question mentors are not allowed to answer as it involves the rules and follow that up with an ahelp. Meow also informs you that mentors cannot answer those kinds of tickets.
ADMIN: Adminhelp: Pat4ever/(Kade Ward): Mkay well I opened a mentor ticket, so you can't blame me for this one - heard by 1 non-AFK admins.
ADMIN: Adminhelp: Pat4ever/(Kade Ward): I was griefed and put into permabrig for commiting no crimes on the Captain's orders despite the Captain knowing I commited no crimes - heard by 0 non-AFK admins.
At this point you are muted from ahelps and admin PMs and afterwards you use Pray a couple times to attempt to continue the conversation regarding the ahelp and before that attempt to provoke/call out the captain in looc claiming how they broke the rules.
This AC is without merit as I have previously stated, if you disagree with how an admin handles a situation then you get into contact with a head admin via admin complaints rather than attempting to contact the admins over the same issue until you get an answer you deem correct. Unless you have something you need clarification on I will be considering this AC as resolved. -
I put Quotation marks around stolen as you made the ID yourself with the elevated access the HoP had given you previously rather than stealing it directly off the HoP or Captain, do not confuse that with me saying that you did not commit grand theft as I would've directly said that. You made the second ID yourself with the same access as the HoP and still qualifies as Grand Theft. No one told you to make a second ID with that level of access nor did anyone order you to do so, and can easily be seen as an attempt to give another person one of the two IDs you possessed with HoP permissions by a third party such as the captain. While the captain could've easily have gone with the route of having you demoted and placed on parole or other means of handling you the station had lots of other issues going around that demanded security and the captain's attention which included the HoP going around kidnapping various crew members. The way Meow handled this in it's core was correct and fair, while again meow didn't do a good enough job explaining everything immediately sometimes there are situations that arise that cause an admin to need to handle other matters at the same time. In those situations that tends to end up with very short responses such as you received from meow not explaining the situation in detail.
That said while the captain acted in a dickish sort of way by jumping to permabrig he is within space law and within the rules to do so, we cannot hold someone at fault for not having all the facts and information that wouldn't be easily available and confirmable to them as long as they are not being malicious in their intent. The captain has no way of knowing for sure that you are not an antag like the HoP; while you know you're not an antag directly and meow as an admin would know from game logs, the captain would have no way to be sure you're not also an antag like the HoP. Security nor the captain can trust the HoP after they were discovered to be an antag as they could simply be lieing about you from their limited point of view. -
Firstly I would like to apologize for taking far too long to get to this properly, there's really no excuse for how long it's taken to get to this admin complaint.
Getting into the complaint here I will be breaking it down into points and addressing them as such as I can best make out, if I miss an issue you had we can address it in follow up messages here. Now having said that I will address the point of the ahelp muting, we use that as a method of preventing people from making the same ahelp or complaint multiple times in a round after it's been either resolved or been ruled to be not an issue. If you have an issue with an admin using such ability it's best to not push the issue with other methods that can contact an admin in round; faxing, praying, etc are not means to contact an admin about issues in game and are supposed to be used to deal with IC issues such as bad departmental heads that aren't breaking the rules or in the case of praying a little IC flair like a chaplain praying for someone's health or for a way to show their dedication (Prayers are not always answered by admins and depends heavily on how busy admins are with other duties/playing the game as well). If you feel like the actions taken by an admin such as being ahelp muted are handled incorrectly please either contact a headmin or file an admin complaint rather than attempting to continue to make your case via any means available to you or seeking the input of another admin as that may be considered as admin shopping. This also includes to not ask the mentors space law questions like you did so as they are prompted to push all space law and rules based questions to admins to be handled as mentors cannot and shouldn't make decisions based on the rules.
While the HoP might have made you his assistant and gave you the initial ID, he turned out to be an antag later in the round after you had made a second ID with HoP level access. While an admin would have access to this knowledge the captain would be in no position to know that you aren't also an antag as well trying to be sneaky and steal the additional access that comes with HoP level IDs and the access that comes with them. In the Captain's position and point of view he suspected you committing grand theft as possession of an ID with HoP/Captain level of access is considered Grand theft, the second ID you made had the same permissions as a HoP ID just renamed as "Assistant To Head Of Personnel". All of this is considered within the bounds of the rules so far and within the confines of space law as a crime.
Onto what I suspect is the major part of this Admin Complaint, the actions/interaction with meow. I do need to point out that in your post you only post part of the admin PM logs with meow as well and left out a few points they had mentioned to you. Specifically where Meow explained that the crew sometimes work off flawed or incorrect points of view and information, they do not have access to everything you know from your experience and they certainly wouldn't have access to logs. We cannot punish someone for messing up based on flawed info like not knowing you're not an antag as well or that you had ill intentions. During your conversations with Meow, while they weren't the best explained at first how it was less an administrative issue or rule break but rather an In Character issue eventually Meow did touch on everything I'd hope and expect an admin to convey to players in that kind of situation including attempting to contact an IAA/magistrate if available. It can also be difficult for admins to handle everything that happens during a round and be able to hold long conversations regarding ahelps and as such sometimes explanations end up being short or a bit lacking. Now as for the HoP standing up for you after they were permabrig'd and confirmed to be an EOC that's hard for the Captain to take the word of someone who's been kidnapping/harrassing/attacking innocent crew for someone he wanted brig'd for having "stolen" HoP level access.
This complaint is without merit, there was no misapplication of rules or abuse of powers done by Meow in his interactions with you. While I would've preferred for meow to explain things a bit better at first but in the end they did end up explaining a good amount and going over things in-depth by reviewing logs and asking those involved directly. I will be giving meow a little feedback from this regarding the interactions but the general way they handled this is what most other admins would most likely handle it as well. If you have any additional questions or comments feel free to add them here. -
Will be moving this to resolved now as it's been over a month since the last reply
-
Sorry this has taken so long to get to, now as for the name while someone could see that being a problem when looking at both names side by side and doing a little bit of jumping to conclusions in terms of perceiving it as you intentionally doing it to be racist, I don't believe you intended it to be taken that way. By itself your name is fine, if your intentions were to be edgy or racist with the name we would've taken note of that behavior by now and either had you change you name or forced you to have a different name instead of recommending you get it double checked due to what someone else recently did with the bad version of your name. I've seen you've used this name for multiple months in a row without issues regarding the name itself as well, unfortunately I cannot see exactly how long you've been using the name but that's more than sufficient to show that you've had no ill will with the name.
tl;dr you're fine to continue using the name, if you have any other questions feel free to ask them here otherwise I'll consider this as handled and resolve it as such -
sorry this has taken so long to get to, I'm sorry to say that you cannot use the name "Hugh Mann" as an IPC it's just too memey to be used as a non-clown IPC. If you were to play as a clown or a mime as an IPC with the name Hugh Mann it would be allowed in those cases. I don't think I need to explain how similar it sounds to "human", it would be extremely strange for a large scale corporation to hire someone with the name sounding like a species.
If you have any other comments or questions feel free to add them on here regarding the decision or naming rule.-
1
-
-
@Samman166 - Retired from Game Admin
-
Landerlow - Removed from staff
@ItsMarmite - Promoted to Community Manager
@MattTheFicus - Returned to the Game Admin team
@PeakPerformance - Retired from Game Admin-
2
-
-
sorry this has taken a bit to get to, you really don't need a name that has 43 characters in length to express your character's identity or backstory. A similar effect could be achieved with a much shorter in length name. One of the longest default as you state is 22 characters long, basically half the length of your requested name. We're going to say that you should stay around 22 characters long as a maximum. For reference the average Vox name is about 11 characters long across nearly 1400 names, meanwhile the average human name is about 13 characters long across nearly 145500 names. Realistically that name is a mouthful to say or remember, using something shorter would be a much better thing to do in a general sense.
If you have any other questions or comments, I will unlock this thread once more to let you ask/post. -
As this is a week old from my last message and no further dialogue was needed or added, I am considering this as resolved.
-
I have clarified the ruling, I will do so once again and in more depth then to make you understand. Self defense in space law is there to help people understand where the point of self defense ends in a general sense,
Quote"Acting to protect one's self, coworkers, or workplace."
you were an assistant that round and the events took place around the station. You weren't protecting yourself so we can discount that part, coworkers we can call it a stretch to claim it was a coworker since the people in question were the captain and the QM while you were a assistant, however that doesn't prevent people from defending those nearby while witnessing someone being attacked.
So we'll look at the Notes section of space law specifically the Self-Defense clause which is directly right of the above quote,QuotePersons intentionally getting involved in fights which occur in a department that isn't theirs is an act of vigilantism, not self-defence. Self-defence typically involves attempts to disarm or disengage, beating someone while they're down should be considered Assault unless the defender's life was in danger.
Now there is leeway with all rules as well as with things in game like SOP or Space Law, so we'll exercise some leeway and say the Captain was considered nearby. We'll focus specifically for Matt's decision based on what you said regarding Space Law and the Self-Defense clause, Self-Defense directly correlates to reasonable levels of force. That was a three on one situation, hitting the contractor with a cleaver wasn't needed and Matt felt it went beyond the reasonable expectation of self-defense. I agree in that situation that he made the correct call. Many other things could've be done differently that would've resulted in not a warning being placed, not using the cleaver and only disarming, calling security instead of following the contractor, or a combination of the both/other methods.
Now when we consider the entire round in context with what happened on the bridge his call is more than justified as ok and within his rights as an admin. Running from the bar to cargo when the contractor was called out only to miss the antag being there and proclaiming how you wanted to get your hands on the contractor paints your actions as vigilantism/validhunting here. Using the cleaver on the bridge only further cements that idea that this was less self-defense and looks heavily like it's a case of wanting to get your revenge on the contractor. This was considered worthy of warning you against using a cleaver against the contractor on the bridge, both space law and more importantly the rules say to me that you shouldn't have used that cleaver in the first place. At the end of the day this is a warning regarding it, it is not a ban and the only way this can lead to more issues in relation to the note is if you continued to run around the station attacking antags with weapons, or continued to attack antags long after people got away from a fight or could've escaped.
I am considering this as resolved and without merit, I will not be explaining exactly what examples we are going to put forward as they will be reinforcing what already exists in both space law and more importantly within the rules specifically under the valid hunting section. -
considering this as resolved as a week of no further replies
-
We're not changing the wording or intent of validhunting rules, it is clarification based on them and what is considered self-defense and what is considered validhunting/vigilantism. What you did was considered vigilantism when we consider everything that happened that round from running over to cargo upon hearing about the contractor being spotted at cargo, saying how you wanted to get your hands on them and then chasing after them when they broke into the bridge and smacked them with a cleaver. Matt's ruling is correct on this warning, unless you have anything we need to address directly related to this incident then I'm going to mark this as resolved and the ruling held as is.
-
You will need to use a reasonable sounding name, something a parent would give their child and a company with high standards for employment would hire. They wouldn't hire someone with the name "Aft-Starboard", "Aft" or anything relating to objects that exist on their station. Please refrain from using or attempting to use meme names.
-
This name request is denied, no sane parent would name their kid this and there is no way that a proper company would ever hire someone with such a ridiculous name. Gray species names are able to be quite diverse and interesting, you will have to use a more normal sounding name that a company would consider employing.
-
1
-
1
-
-
We're going to be adding some examples of what is considered self-defense and what is not considered self-defense within the rules at a future date, sooner the better in this case, specifically to help people understand the difference between self-defense and vigilantism. Especially where self-defense ends and where vigilantism begins. Now saying that I quoted directly from space law, and that quote is in the notes section of Space Law directly adjacent to what you're attempting to reference. Self defense ends the moment you have the upper hand and/or giving chase after an antag long after the antag has fled from the area they were in. Matt's ruling will be upheld that is not going to be changing.
-
I am going to quote directly from Space Law this one time, "Persons intentionally getting involved in fights which occur in a department that isn't theirs is an act of vigilantism, not self-defence." however this isn't also the end all be all as the Rules will always trump SoP or Space Law and are what admins are directly referenceing when handing out warnings/bans. The end result here is that you shouldn't have attacked him with a cleaver and I'd argue you shouldn't have been running to a department when he was spotted in cargo nor having followed him onto the bridge, Matt gave you a warning to not do so again and that's all it is at this time. Again the judgement stands as Matt made the correct and valid call of warning you.
-
you've been banned multiple times already this year, including job bans. The amount of notes you've also gained in a 9 month period don't show us that you're going to follow the rules if we unban you, you will need to get a vouch from a MRP server or higher with a similar or stricter set of rules in order to play on paradise again.
-
Hello there, Nerfection is not allowed to respond to admin complaints directly as they are typically reserved for only Head Admins to respond to bearing special circumstances. Regarding your request for clarification, while fulp doesn't give vouches there are still plenty of MRP or higher servers that do give vouches for behavior such as TG station's MRP server and Beestation. Other servers decide if they give vouches or not and you'd have to check with their staff as their policy on giving/accepting vouches based on behavior is completely up to them, as well as their policy on such a thing may change over time.
Admin Complaint against: Coolrune206
in Resolved
Posted
So I will answer these in the order you listed them,
1. Making a guillotine in the middle of the hallways to execute a prisoner is incredibly weird to take place in such a public and easily accessible area. As I have stated earlier it shouldn't have been done in such a place and instead either done within security itself or in the execution chamber. Now SoP might not state that prisoners should be allowed in the General section of the Execution part of Legal SoP it is listed under each and every specific subsection for suffocation, electric chair, etc. Common sense would lead most to believe that final words should be allowed to everyone and perhaps that should be listed within the General section of Execution as well to make sure it is not missed. After reading through the logs multiple times while trying to build a full timeline on events that took place you didn't ask them for final words even as the magistrate attempted to remind you multiple times to the point of sending one word messages in capitalized text, a third party attempted to do so but was most likely too far for the magistrate or the vampire to have heard the single request for last words as they didn't respond to it.
[2024-03-16T03:42:00] SAY: x/(Wacrestch Stargut) (116,140,2): 'record their lasst words'
[2024-03-16T03:42:11] SAY: x/(Wacrestch Stargut) (116,140,2): 'THEIR'
[2024-03-16T03:42:12] SAY: x/(Wacrestch Stargut) (116,140,2): 'LAST'
[2024-03-16T03:42:14] SAY: x/(Wacrestch Stargut) (116,140,2): 'WORDS'
[2024-03-16T03:42:25] SAY: x/(Wacrestch Stargut) (116,140,2): 'HOW ISS'
[2024-03-16T03:42:32] SAY: x/(Wacrestch Stargut) (118,140,2): 'THIS HARD TO FOLLOW'
2. You shouldn't be making a guillotine in a public hallway as security, it's incredibly weird and makes little sense to do so. As for the arrest warrant you responded to that by calling the magistrate out and threatening to arrest them if they didn't explain themselves, that's not demanding them to cease and desist.
[2024-03-16T03:48:56] SAY: TheBadPerson/(Ekss Laess) (99,179,2): (Security) 'magistrate eplain yourself IMMEDIATELY you are in violation of space law'
[2024-03-16T03:49:08] SAY: TheBadPerson/(Ekss Laess) (99,179,2): (Security) 'you have 30 seconds to reply before i arrest you'
Following that while having a few back and forth messages you decided to declare the magistrate on your own violation to have lost their authority. Following that you attempted to arrest the magistrate in the brig which ended up spilling into the hallway ending that situation with you having handcuffed the Magistrate before they called for help and you were baton'd and arrested by the HoS. No one has attempted to arrest you under the magistrate's words until the point of you taking it upon yourself to arrest the magistrate escalating the situation further.
[2024-03-16T03:49:38] SAY: TheBadPerson/(Ekss Laess) (99,179,2): (Security) 'i was obligated BY LAW to oblige'
[2024-03-16T03:49:44] SAY: x/(Wacrestch Stargut) (126,178,2): (Security) 'no you werre not.'
[2024-03-16T03:50:03] SAY: TheBadPerson/(Ekss Laess) (115,172,2): (Security) 'magi has lost authority for breaking space law'
[2024-03-16T03:50:22] SAY: TheBadPerson/(Ekss Laess) (125,179,2): 'i advise you review the law before im forced to handle you'
3. Common sense is key to doing the correct actions and suggestions, you don't need to ahelp a magistrate pushing someone over a bunch of times but if you believe they're breaking server rules or are acting in a very negative way to the progression of the round then you ahelp it and not deal with it how you see fit. As for the Wiki the rules are very clear on this matter, members of command and VIP roles such as the magistrate are held to a higher level of expectations in game for those roles. If they are causing mass issues, breaking rules, etc they should be ahelped so that an admin handles the situation appropriately.
4. Both parties can set the tone, it's not just one side that sets the tone. No one is paid for spending their time on paradise moderating the community and in game, it relies on people wanting to give that time.
As I have stated I am not happy with how coolrune approached this regarding his tone but you were also in the wrong with how you acted, overly aggressive in game and aggressive in admin pms. While I would've preferred coolrune to act professionally in regards to your comments and attitude they did not and ended up getting as aggressive with you and you did with them, as I have stated already I will be talking to coolrune regarding this as well as how he replied to this admin complain. As well as I will be editing the note that was placed to remove the part of calling it mutiny and instead detailing your actions in a concise and to the point.