Admin Complaint

[Furasian]

Admin Key: Shadeykins

Your Discord Name: Furasian

Complaint: On a shift where I was working atmospheric tech we had a couple explosion incidents with all the problems that came with it from breaches to atmospheric complications. As a result I pulled together a fire fighting kit in preparation for the next fire or explosion and took the fireaxe to deal with doors since I no longer had a backpack. There were no complaints or 204 space law arrests since I was a atmos tech and atmos techs are cleared to carry a fireaxe.

That's just a bit of background prior to the situation at hand. After fixing a major explosion in one of the primary hallways we were on standby when the AI sent us a call over engineering comms which can be referenced in the help call. That's ALL the information we got. We didn't receive any extra information.

 

So.. We went. When on scene I proceeded to ask the AI what needed to be done.

I observed a pressure issue in the room I was in and assumed it was probably a breach in AI Sat. So the engineering team came together and pushed on. Where we encountered a Ripley. A VERY Combative Ripley. 

 

In the logs shown the Ripley began to be hostile.. As a result we had fireaxes and welders we began to defend ourselves. When his Ripley was disabled he continued to be combative and hostile towards us engineers.. So we continued to defend ourselves until the threat was no more. In the fight logs provided it shows the antagonist (Jack Thresher) IMMEDIATELY Re-engaging the engineers without even giving us the opportunity to disengage. In the final fight logs he showed no intentions of stopping his assault on us rendering us unable to retreat like usual. 

As a result of us standing our ground I am not sure if any of the other engineers got involved with the discussion but I ended up being accused of Valid hunting by the admin. I tried to explain that we weren't even aware of the antagonist being on scene and he didn't stop to give us a chance to run. The admin didn't accept that explanation saying we should not have killed the man who was trying to kill us and as a result I got a warning. I'm not sure of any of the other engineers in the fight got a warning, but I feel I was singled out in the whole situation.

 

 

 

I was told this wasn't up for debate, but I very much feel we were justified in protecting ourselves as the logs show.

 

Edited March 26, 2018 by Furasian

[Furasian]

1 month later and no acknowledgement or notice.. I'll just withdraw the complaint like it never happened.

[PurpleGenie]

No no, we'll address it, apologies for the time it's taking.

[Dumbdumn5]

Apologies for the lack of acknowledgement prior to Purple's recent post, as the case had been batted back and forth. We dropped the ball and didn't get to this in a timely manner. 

From the logs you absolutely aren't guilty of validhunting from an objective standpoint, though it seems Shadeykins inferred, through their experience, that there's very few occasions that an AI would call for help at its sat, and it seems as though the AI called for help over several different department radios through its nearby intercoms, one of which was engineering. The most that seemed out of place was continuing to bash the guy after he was down, doing a large amount of damage and ultimately killing him, as that's no longer self defense by the rules. I've spoken with Shadey about their assumptions and tried to work through the situation from the perspective of the logs and your own, where the AI simply called for help over all available radios, you only saw the engi department one, though security was also notified, and so you went to the sat to check for breaches or anything to repair.

In summation, the only thing somewhat wrong on your end was offing the guy, which was reasonable in this case due to the attempted drilling and head crunching of you and your fellow engis, but not completely necessary and not self-defense considering the phrase about hitting people while they were down. I'll be removing the note for validhunting as soon as possible. I'll leave this open for a day or two if you need to comment on anything.

[Furasian]

I just have 1 question: Did any of the other engineers face the same scrutiny as I  during that encounter or was I singled out for some odd reason? The other engineers were still hitting the guy even after he was dead? And why was I asked about the fireaxe when it’s common knowledge that life support techs tend to carry the fireaxe? After all the fireaxe is the only incentive for life support techs that miss out on the EVA suits

[Dumbdumn5]

I'm not aware of the status of the other engineers, though I'll pull up the logs now to check. As for the axe, Shadey thought it was a bit excessive if it was just for the doors considering engineering is brimming with crowbars that provide the same function. In this case I'd say it was fine since there were a ton of explosions beforehand and having the axe around is good for removing more than just doors if it comes to barricades, windows, or other obstructions. On blue or lower alerts where there's not a lot of chaos it's usually better to opt for the crowbar over the axe though.

[necaladun]

On 5/8/2018 at 6:42 AM, Furasian said:

I just have 1 question: Did any of the other engineers face the same scrutiny as I  during that encounter or was I singled out for some odd reason? The other engineers were still hitting the guy even after he was dead? And why was I asked about the fireaxe when it’s common knowledge that life support techs tend to carry the fireaxe? After all the fireaxe is the only incentive for life support techs that miss out on the EVA suits

It appears the questioning was specifically aimed at you, due to you being the one to kill the antagonist with a fireaxe - one of the highest damage weapons in the game. The weapons (metal, for construction) and a wrench, are both quite normal tools to have on hand.

The fireaxe is in no way the "only incentive" for life support techs that miss out on the EVA suits - a mentality which we highly try to discourage. One should select a role for the job it is expected to perform (In this case, maintaining the life support of the station), not the access to equipment the job provides. You mentioning this as "incentive" indicates that it was taken with the intent to use it as a weapon, rather than a crowbar, as mentioned before, which would serve equally well - and be more easily portable.

 

Self defense is what is required to protect yourself - hitting someone on the ground 4 times (especially while people scream "KILL HIM" and "DONT FUCK WITH ENGINEERING") seems intent to kill, not to defend. Continuing to hit them after they are already dead shows this too.The job of executions is to be handled by security when authorised. "Eliminating the threat" is not the job of life support technicians, and is considered in this degree to be validhunting - hence the warning.

 

This seems to be within the job of the admin, who applied no punishment except for a warning, which appears appropriate due to the only previous note being a positive one.

 

It's my recommendation to the headmins that this situation was handled properly and this complaint can be closed, as the situation was handled properly.

[Furasian]

@necaladun

 

I’m trying to locate a post that I was recently notified about but am unable to locate it. I’ll just reference the notification on this response:

 

I don’t recall I saying such comments and find it unfair if I am being accused for saying things I did not say. If you reference the logs you’ll find I was the first to stop attacking while the other engineers continued their defensive action. You’ll notice only one engineer out of the whole group made those comments and I don’t believe it is fair to mix the motives of all engineers together. If I did make such a comment I don’t recall it since it has been almost 2 months ((and a month prior to me even getting a response on the matter.)) 

Like I said before I made an attempt to withdraw but couldn’t for we were immediately engaged by the attacker. I can’t say the motives of the other engineers I can only say my motives. If I weren’t singled out in this instance perhaps there could have been insight to the motives of the other engineers.

[necaladun]

The post was hidden awaiting review from the headmins, as I'm just providing log details and reviews.

I wasn't aware you'd see that on the notification, so I"ve unhidden it so you can see it properly and respond to it. The "(especially while people scream "KILL HIM" and "DONT FUCK WITH ENGINEERING")" part was not meant to imply it was you saying so.

[Furasian]

1 minute ago, necaladun said:

The post was hidden awaiting review from the headmins, as I'm just providing log details and reviews.

I wasn't aware you'd see that on the notification, so I"ve unhidden it so you can see it properly and respond to it. The "(especially while people scream "KILL HIM" and "DONT FUCK WITH ENGINEERING")" part was not meant to imply it was you saying so.

Well it’s nice I did get the notification for it wouldn’t be fair to have some comment drifting around without me being able to explain myself.

 

I misspoke on the ‘incentive’ part that’s true... But I also had the axe as a piece of equipment in response to the excessive explosions and fires since I was running the fire fighting loadout during that shift. I got the vibe from the post that we got carried away and that might be true. Keep in mind however we weren’t going on that satellite with full knowledge of a antag being on the satellite. We were going to what we thought was a engineering and we were deliberately targeted by the antag. Should we have not been attacked I would have let it pass and got on comms. We were attacked, we stopped the ripley from killing me, the antagonist deliberately got out of the ripley and continued to assault us so he was subject to defensive action. When he was no longer endangering us did I stop. Perhaps the other engineer got carried away with the “Don’t fuck with engineering” comment and perhaps it was unprofessional. In most cases this would be a space law matter and we’d be charged with man slaughter, but being the wrong place wrong time with an antag involved we’re suddenly seen as valid hunters which isn’t cool because that wasn’t our intentions as engineers 

[necaladun]

3 minutes ago, Furasian said:

When he was no longer endangering us did I stop

He was no longer endangering you when he was knocked down, allowing you to withdraw, and thus not a threat.

You proceeded to hit him 4 more times, killing him - clearly making him no longer a threat.

You then hit him 7 more times.

 

 

[Furasian]

Just now, necaladun said:

He was no longer endangering you when he was knocked down, allowing you to withdraw, and thus not a threat.

You proceeded to hit him 4 more times, killing him - clearly making him no longer a threat.

You then hit him 7 more times.

 

 

Like I said before I was also one of the first to stop and I wasn’t the only one who continued to hit him. I doubt the engineer who said those comments and hit the guy a few more times got any repercussions. We might’ve gotten carried away, yes, but our intentions weren’t “He’s antag let’s kill him” at all. Isn’t one’s intentions that the difference between the values validhunting and non validhunting? 

 

I could see someone chasing down a syndicate agent after after someone else says he’s one being valid hunting. I still don’t understand how engineers getting attacked by the antag and the fight didn’t go in the antag’s favor’s results in the engineers getting in trouble

[necaladun]

I'm not sure what repercussions, beyond, being told not to valid hunt, apply here?

[Furasian]

16 minutes ago, necaladun said:

I'm not sure what repercussions, beyond, being told not to valid hunt, apply here?

Well I was looking into having the note removed for reputation sake and I felt my voice was unheard when the admin came with the verdict to issue a warning on something that wasn’t committed.

If I recall the note has already been removed and I personally thought the discussion was over 2 weeks ago, but I am more than happy to explain myself to anyone who comments on the matter like I have done so today.

 

 

[necaladun]

As you were warned not to validhunt, I see no reason to remove the note that states the warning occurred.

As your actions were not within the rules, I think this is appropriate. To clarify:

"Self-defense is allowed to the extent of saving your own life. Putting someone into Critical Condition is considered self-defense only if they attempted to severely hurt/kill you. Preemptively disabling someone, responding with disproportionate force, or hitting someone while they are already down, is not self-defense; "

Given the circumstances - especially them having a ripley and attacking with it - beating them to critical condition appears appropriate.

The issue is the 11 extra hits after they were down, which are not within what is acceptable for self defence.

Hence my recommendation that no further action needs to be taken.

[Furasian]

3 minutes ago, necaladun said:

As you were warned not to validhunt, I see no reason to remove the note that states the warning occurred.

As your actions were not within the rules, I think this is appropriate. To clarify:

"Self-defense is allowed to the extent of saving your own life. Putting someone into Critical Condition is considered self-defense only if they attempted to severely hurt/kill you. Preemptively disabling someone, responding with disproportionate force, or hitting someone while they are already down, is not self-defense; "

Given the circumstances - especially them having a ripley and attacking with it - beating them to critical condition appears appropriate.

The issue is the 11 extra hits after they were down, which are not within what is acceptable for self defence.

Hence my recommendation that no further action needs to be taken.

Being warned not to valid hunt implies that I was valid hunting at the time of the incident which in this case did not occur. Like stated over and over again we did make an attempt to disengage at the time of the incident. It’s when the antagonist re-engaged with us did we come under the assumption we won’t be safe until he is dealt with especially in cases where we don’t know if the man in question had a stimulant implant or not. We weren’t taking our chances any more the moment the antagonist decided to have a round 2 with us. 

 

He had his chance to run and complete his objectives but he elected to go after us again. On a usual fight this might be seen as manslaughter and should be handled in space law not admin intervention especially since our intentions were clear we were not deliberately valid hunting. What would I say if I did give him a chance again? What if he had a voice activated bomb? What if he did have a implant that could endanger us again? There would be no repercussions if we died during our disengagement and I’d be a dead engineer.

 

When I explained this to the investigating admin I was simply told that his say on the matter is final and I wouldn’t have room to have a discussion about it. 

 

And also keep in mind I WASNT THE ONLY ONE ATTACKING HIM. Regardless of what weapon is being used the same rule would apply to the other engineers. Why am I being singled out on this?

[necaladun]

Again, as stated repeatedly:

Attacking someone 11 times after they hit the ground is not self defence. When they hit the ground, you have the opportunity to back away. Hitting them 11 more times is considered excessive. It seems clear to me the intent was to kill them with that degree of force, so it wouldn't be seen as manslaughter.

The possibility they could have a bomb or implant does not justify this. Anyone could potentially have such things. This does not mean you can kill them.

It is not the job of an atmos tech to kill people because they potentially may have a voice activated bomb, or implant. Even security wouldn't be permitted to do so based on potential threat.

You could have simply backed off once they were down, or not gone there with a deadly weapon to begin with. The security of the AI is not the job of atmos techs. A breach will not harm the AI.

The combination of these is why this appears to be validhunting, and why it's my recommendation that the warning was a valid one.

The reason you're being singled out here is because this is your admin complaint about the situation.

Edit: Misread the intent there sorry - Shadey has clarified the reason you were singled out was because the other engineers possessed standard tools (wrench, metal) as opposed to an incredibly robust weapon, that requires extra effort to unlock, and bring out.

Edited June 8, 2018 by necaladun

[Furasian]

1 hour ago, necaladun said:

Again, as stated repeatedly:

Attacking someone 11 times after they hit the ground is not self defence. When they hit the ground, you have the opportunity to back away. Hitting them 11 more times is considered excessive. It seems clear to me the intent was to kill them with that degree of force, so it wouldn't be seen as manslaughter.

The possibility they could have a bomb or implant does not justify this. Anyone could potentially have such things. This does not mean you can kill them.

It is not the job of an atmos tech to kill people because they potentially may have a voice activated bomb, or implant. Even security wouldn't be permitted to do so based on potential threat.

You could have simply backed off once they were down, or not gone there with a deadly weapon to begin with. The security of the AI is not the job of atmos techs. A breach will not harm the AI.

The combination of these is why this appears to be validhunting, and why it's my recommendation that the warning was a valid one.

The reason you're being singled out here is because this is your admin complaint about the situation.

In reference to the 11 extra hits I am having trouble recalling how mant times I hit the individual, regardless we made our attempt to disengage at the time the ripley was destroyed. He foiled that attempt. What could have been done after that is merely speculation in my opinion. In real life comparison however if you got crushed by a Ripley, disabled the Ripley, and then the guy came out to try and kill you AGAIN while you're trying to remove yourself from the situation a SECOND time.... How in the heat of the moment am I going to stop and go "Hey lets try to turn our back on this dude a third time and see what happens." In our environment that is Paradise station very few people even get to survive a second chance of running away. 

 

Its not my job to kill people but it sure is my goal to stay alive on the second note. To put me at fault for trying to stay alive is rather unreasonable due to the facts of the matter. We were simply engineers who answered a call.. Doing our jobs and we came across a Ripley. In order for me to have been Valid hunting I would have had to known there was a antagonist on the satellite and made that executive decision to go after him. That wasn't the case. I didn't even know he was an antag. To my knowledge he was crazy dude in a Ripley trying to kill me and my buds. He didn't run past us, he went to immediately engage us. If that was a normal dude doing all  of this? This probably wouldn't even have gotten through the Ahelp ticket stage. 

 

 

On the singled out note I am pointing out I believe I was the only one who got a warning out of the 3 individuals involved. I was told I got the warning because of my choice of weaponry which is unfair. This complaint is to challenge that warning on the grounds that its unfair and unreasonable. Its not meant to challenge the admin specifically. 

[necaladun]

27 minutes ago, Furasian said:

In reference to the 11 extra hits I am having trouble recalling how mant times I hit the individual,

That is taken from the screenshot you provided. I have not checked logs to see if there were more, as that felt irrelevant.

27 minutes ago, Furasian said:

regardless we made our attempt to disengage at the time the ripley was destroyed. He foiled that attempt

You had another chance to disengage, which was when he fell down. You also had the chance to disengage when he was dead. You instead continued to hit him.

This is the issue. It is not considered self defence to kill someone who is on the ground and disabled (As per the rules - "hitting someone while they are already down, is not self-defense") - especially when they are outnumbered. He no longer had the ripley - the major threat - and was no longer preventing you from disengaging, due to being incapacitated, and then dead.

The rules for valid hunting state "You may, however, defend yourself or others from Antagonist attack if you happen to witness it;".

As the rules for self defense state that your actions did not constitute self defense, finishing him off is considered valid hunting - that is, he was "valid" to kill, which he was not.

Prior knowledge of an antagonist on the satellite, and making the decision to go after him, is thus not required. Had you said prior knowledge, and decided to go after him, I doubt only a warning would have been given, as that would constitute a clear attempt to valid hunt.

By heading to the satellite to save the AI from being carded, you were directly interfering with the goals of an antagonist (A security, not engineeringm matter). While not necessarily validhunting by itself, to then proceed to beat him to death, while he is on the ground and incapacitated, is excessive. The intent of the self defense rules and validhunting is to prevent such things. As Shadey said - "You ran into an area which you didn't have access to to begin with, and then duked it out with an antagonist and murdered him. You can't claim you felt threatened when you ran in there of your own volition to assist the AI."

At no point do I think you intentionally broke the rules, nor do your notes give me any indication that you would intentionally break the rules. I believe that you were not aware of the extent of the rules and their intent, and thus the recommendation that a warning that such actions are excessive and constitute valid hunting is appropriate. Anything further would not be appropriate, as bans are generally reserved for those who cannot or will not follow the rules, and I do not believe this is at all describes you or your actions.

While you may disagree that nothing wrong was done, as one of the writers of said rules, I can assure you that something was done wrong. This is not to say anything was morally wrong, or you're a bad person - merely that your actions weren't in line with the rules. Hopefully from this discussion, you can understand why your actions were considered over the line, and better understand the intent of the rules, so such situations won't repeat. I'd also like to thank you for playing it carefully since this incident, as the only note on your account since has been an antag token.

In regards to the other 3 - one has since been permabanned, and I will look more into the situation with the other 2 when I have time.

 

[Furasian]

11 minutes ago, necaladun said:

That is taken from the screenshot you provided. I have not checked logs to see if there were more, as that felt irrelevant.

You had another chance to disengage, which was when he fell down. You also had the chance to disengage when he was dead. You instead continued to hit him.

This is the issue. It is not considered self defence to kill someone who is on the ground and disabled (As per the rules - "hitting someone while they are already down, is not self-defense") - especially when they are outnumbered. He no longer had the ripley - the major threat - and was no longer preventing you from disengaging, due to being incapacitated, and then dead.

The rules for valid hunting state "You may, however, defend yourself or others from Antagonist attack if you happen to witness it;".

As the rules for self defense state that your actions did not constitute self defense, finishing him off is considered valid hunting - that is, he was "valid" to kill, which he was not.

Prior knowledge of an antagonist on the satellite, and making the decision to go after him, is thus not required. Had you said prior knowledge, and decided to go after him, I doubt only a warning would have been given, as that would constitute a clear attempt to valid hunt.

By heading to the satellite to save the AI from being carded, you were directly interfering with the goals of an antagonist (A security, not engineeringm matter). While not necessarily validhunting by itself, to then proceed to beat him to death, while he is on the ground and incapacitated, is excessive. The intent of the self defense rules and validhunting is to prevent such things. As Shadey said - "You ran into an area which you didn't have access to to begin with, and then duked it out with an antagonist and murdered him. You can't claim you felt threatened when you ran in there of your own volition to assist the AI."

At no point do I think you intentionally broke the rules, nor do your notes give me any indication that you would intentionally break the rules. I believe that you were not aware of the extent of the rules and their intent, and thus the recommendation that a warning that such actions are excessive and constitute valid hunting is appropriate. Anything further would not be appropriate, as bans are generally reserved for those who cannot or will not follow the rules, and I do not believe this is at all describes you or your actions.

While you may disagree that nothing wrong was done, as one of the writers of said rules, I can assure you that something was done wrong. This is not to say anything was morally wrong, or you're a bad person - merely that your actions weren't in line with the rules. Hopefully from this discussion, you can understand why your actions were considered over the line, and better understand the intent of the rules, so such situations won't repeat. I'd also like to thank you for playing it carefully since this incident, as the only note on your account since has been an antag token.

In regards to the other 3 - one has since been permabanned, and I will look more into the situation with the other 2 when I have time.

 

When the conversation started between me an him he assumed we had full knowledge that Security had been called to the incident. As you refer to the previous posts it was decided that engineers had NO knowledge it was a security event. I feel like I'm constantly being ignored on the fact I never knew the AI was in trouble. We got asked to go to a location, we went to it, things went south, and we killed some random dude trying to kill us. 

1. We never knew the AI was being carded. AI didn't tell us ANYTHING on the matter All we got from AI was AI asking us for help in comms. Its as if what I'm trying to explain over and over again is being ignored and people are assuming I went in there to interfere with the antagonist's objectives. There was no knowledge that an antag action was occurring! How do we know who the antags are and who aren't the antags? For all I know I killed a dude who tried to kill me and if it were a normal player that'd be completely okay and handled as a IC space law matter! 

If this is a written rule then this isn't only a admin complaint but a request to review that said rule. There has been plenty of cases ever since this incident where I've let an antag kill or stun me out of fear of being accused of valid hunting primarily because of these strict unreasonable guidelines. People get carried away all the time when it comes to self defense situations. There is no way someone with a reasonable amount of value for his life is going to suddenly stop in a near death situation especially if its a in-character situation. Almost every antag confrontation either the person gets away the first time.. Or he/she gets cornered and either dies or kills the antag. Either way its a loose loose situation. Its like the player base itself is being punished instead of the actual valid hunters being dealt with in situations like these.

[necaladun]

His status as antag or not does not change the fact that hitting someone who is incapacitated or dead is not considered self defense.

I am not saying let them stun or kill you. I am saying if you have done enough damage to put them into critical where they are no longer able to threaten you, you should stop hitting them. Not continue to do enough damage to kill them twice over. That is not self defence.

[Furasian]

9 minutes ago, necaladun said:

His status as antag or not does not change the fact that hitting someone who is incapacitated or dead is not considered self defense.

I am not saying let them stun or kill you. I am saying if you have done enough damage to put them into critical where they are no longer able to threaten you, you should stop hitting them. Not continue to do enough damage to kill them twice over. That is not self defence.

Yeah I get what you're saying on that point. It probably did get carried away but I just couldn't be too sure at the time how to determine whether or not the threat was officially eliminated especially since he got up and hit us a couple times if memory serves me right. I've been in way too many situations where I've told myself "He's crit.. Its over." And those were my famous last words. I'm not sure if the logs caught it too but I was actually one of the first to stop hitting him. There were others who kept taunting and hitting him and you even had one fella literally choking him which takes quite a few buttons and a murderous intent to actually do. 

The biggest issue I have on the matter is the fact I'm being grouped up with a VERY bad title. Validhunting has a VERY negative stigma. That note alone has had the power to discourage me from even trying to fight back and I don't honestly believe its a reasonable note to put on someone who was simply wrong place wrong time. It might not look bad to you but to the public and even a few admins that one word can destroy someone's credibility on paradise station. 

Maybe it's just safe to hide in a small box the whole shift and not do a thing. Shoot I' haven't even played a whole shift in the past week. Just feels like a bad stigma hangs over me.

[necaladun]

2 hours ago, Furasian said:

The biggest issue I have on the matter is the fact I'm being grouped up with a VERY bad title. Validhunting has a VERY negative stigma. That note alone has had the power to discourage me from even trying to fight back and I don't honestly believe its a reasonable note to put on someone who was simply wrong place wrong time. It might not look bad to you but to the public and even a few admins that one word can destroy someone's credibility on paradise station. 

Oh. Shit.

Well, I have to admit this changes a lot of my perspective on this entire interaction. I completely underestimated the power that word can have. My apologies - as admins we can sometimes lose perspective of such things, dealing with so many cases like this, that we can forget what it's like to feel like their reputation is on the line. 

Please let me assure you, a single note like this does not colour someone this way at all. (Please keep this in mind, trialmins!). Warnings like this are incredibly common, especially over situations where people get carried away. Funnily enough, Shadeykins has a similar one from before they were an admin! (Warned for self-antagging after hunting an antagonist in space, cuffing them and taking their belongings. Killed them by removing the suit. 2015-10-12). Plenty of staff have had much, much worse.

The intent of such notes is to identify patterns of such behavior, and the warnings to let the players know their actions are crossing a line. The way admins use such terms are *not* at all the same way they're thrown around in deadchat by salty people. Plenty of people - especially newer ones such as your self - will at some point cross the line, when getting carried away in what was clearly a tense situation.

What is most important to us is not the single incident itself, but how you react afterwards. In this case, you've been worried over your reputation - showing you care what the community thinks about you , you've gone to great lengths to explain yourself and reach and understanding, and have done so in a polite fashion. Most importantly, after the warning, you've attempted to change your behavior to avoid it happening again. We really can't ask for more.

 

[Furasian]

8 hours ago, necaladun said:

Oh. Shit.

Well, I have to admit this changes a lot of my perspective on this entire interaction. I completely underestimated the power that word can have. My apologies - as admins we can sometimes lose perspective of such things, dealing with so many cases like this, that we can forget what it's like to feel like their reputation is on the line. 

Please let me assure you, a single note like this does not colour someone this way at all. (Please keep this in mind, trialmins!). Warnings like this are incredibly common, especially over situations where people get carried away. Funnily enough, Shadeykins has a similar one from before they were an admin! (Warned for self-antagging after hunting an antagonist in space, cuffing them and taking their belongings. Killed them by removing the suit. 2015-10-12). Plenty of staff have had much, much worse.

The intent of such notes is to identify patterns of such behavior, and the warnings to let the players know their actions are crossing a line. The way admins use such terms are *not* at all the same way they're thrown around in deadchat by salty people. Plenty of people - especially newer ones such as your self - will at some point cross the line, when getting carried away in what was clearly a tense situation.

What is most important to us is not the single incident itself, but how you react afterwards. In this case, you've been worried over your reputation - showing you care what the community thinks about you , you've gone to great lengths to explain yourself and reach and understanding, and have done so in a polite fashion. Most importantly, after the warning, you've attempted to change your behavior to avoid it happening again. We really can't ask for more.

 

Perhaps it’s true what you’re saying and honestly I hope it’s true, but unfortunately for me through experience it’ll take more than a post for people to understand that concept. I mean Afterall we are human and it’s natural for humans to profile people based off their reputation. Like I’ve said before there was no intent  complain or say ill about the action despite the title (I thought it was just guidelines to label the title). In one case I was almost willingly to drop the whole incident all together since I was convinced the staff were just way too busy to handle my ranting.

 

I fear the day someone tries to use that note against me for something whether it be another valid hunt accusation or something else. Time will pass.. We’ll forget the incident, but that note that Furasian did valid hunt once will remain.. They probably won’t ask what made it valid hunt and will assume that it was something more serious rather than wrong place wrong time. That’s what I fear. We do it all the time in the law enforcement world. Afterall in life you have nothing but your name. That is why I escalated this incident to the complaint department.

[PurpleGenie]

I hope to have this resolved and filed very soon, if the poster is not content with this as it stands, please say so within the next five days, otherwise I'll move this to resolved. Though even after that point we can reopen it if need be.