[TheMidnightRose/Nervere] Istoprocent - Neglect/Malice

Moderators: In-Game Head Admins, In-Game Admin, TGMC Game Server Operators, Game Server Operators

User avatar
Istoprocent1
 
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2017 3:14 pm
Byond Username: istoprocent

[TheMidnightRose/Nervere] Istoprocent - Neglect/Malice

Postby Istoprocent1 » Sat Jan 05, 2019 4:53 am #467067

Byond account and character name: Istoprocent / Krokodil
Admin: TheMidnightRose & Nervere (via adminbus)
Time and Server(Bagil or Sybil) incident occurred: 2018-12-28 02:06:17 , Bagil , BanID#36565
ROUND ID HERE: 99339
Logs: https://sb.atlantaned.space/rounds/99339
Ban Appeal: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=20969 (denied by Nervere, who had a dog in the race by being the one recommending actions against me)
Detailed summary: The story is the same as in the Ban Appeal.

By using security cameras I witnessed Janice (an engineer, non-antag) and some others breaking into the teleporter room, followed by teleporting to the bridge, followed by Janice stealing the Captain's Spare, giving herself All Access and redistributing it among the others. Janice was eventually caught and cremated. Janice then proceeded to ahelp the situation starting with emotionally loaded language followed by indirect language to portray herself as the victim, even though she was in the wrong. In the end I got Rule 0 banned for cremating Janice, even though I was in the right to do so by the rules. Ban appeal got denied ~8 days later by Nervere, who had been one of the headmins on adminbus to recommend actions based on TheMidnightRose's story. Nervere was not neutral in his ruling as he had a dog in the race, but knowing that players cannot make admin complaints against headmins unless something happened in-game, he didn't have to worry about anything.

TLDR; Reasoning:
Spoiler:
Why was I in the right:

Code: Select all
Rule 1 Precedent 5: Players who attempt to break into the captain's office, head of personnel's office, or the bridge at or near roundstart for no legitimate reason put themselves at risk for being legitimately killed by the captain, heads of staff, or security.


An exception to the main rules that points out that players breaking into certain high risk areas are at risk of being killed regardless of their intent without the killer being subjected to cloning them as per Escalation Policy.

Code: Select all
Rule 4: Short of metagaming/comms, bug/exploit abuse, erotic/creepy stuff, OOC in IC or IC in OOC, and spawn-camping arrivals. Team antagonists can do whatever they want as per lone antagonists, as long as it doesn’t harm their team. Non-antagonists can do whatever they want to antagonists as per lone antagonists, but non-antagonists are not allowed to pre-emptively search for, hinder or otherwise seek conflict with antagonists without reasonable prior cause. Non-antags acting like an antag can be treated as an antag.


This describes in detail what Lone Antagonists can and cannot do, what non-antagonists can do to antagonists and when can non-antagonists be treated like an antagonist. Lone antagonists are allowed to cremate.

Code: Select all
Security Policy & Precedents 3: The 'act like an antag, get treated like one' part of Rule 4 of the main rules also apply to security. Stunning an officer repeatedly, using lethal or restricted weapons on them, disrupting the arrests or sentences of dangerous criminals, or damaging the brig, are examples of behaviour that may make you valid for security under Rule 4. Make sure players deserve it when you treat them as an antag, when in doubt, err on the side of caution as poor behaviour on the part of security will not be tolerated.


This describes some examples of when somebody can be treated as an antagonist by the security. It is reasonably justified to assume that committing Capital Crimes such as (Attempted Murder, Murder, Sexual Assault, Grand Sabotage, Grand Theft, Mutiny or outright being an Enemy of the Corporation) would make one an antagonist. In most cases committing these crimes as a non-antag would be bannable as per Rule 1, Rule 8 for Sexual Assault.

Code: Select all
Headmin Rulings for Security: Arresting nonantagonists on station vs team antagonist game modes is allowed.


This makes clear that players are not pardoned for their crimes, regardless of the gamemode.

Code: Select all
Space Law on Capital Crimes - These crimes can result in Execution, Permanent Prison Time, Permanent Labor Camp Time, or Cyborgization.


While Space Law is not a part of any official policies or rulings, it makes clear what the consequences for Capital Crimes are. All of which are permanent round removal, thus making the Space Law part of "Administrators will only intervene when you are sentenced to grossly unfair times." invalid.

Why was Janice in the wrong:

Code: Select all
Rule 1 Precedent 4: Unprovoked grief (occasionally known as greytiding), repeated cases of minor unprovoked grief, and unprovoked grief targeted towards specific players or groups (i.e. metagrudging) fall under rule 1. Admins may follow up on grief with allowing the affected parties to ignore normal escalation policy or measures such as warnings or bans.


Breaking into the captain's office, stealing the spare and redistributing it among the crew is undoubtedly more than just "minor grief". These actions were round defining as many of the crew got All Access from that incident and without a doubt antagonistic.

Code: Select all
Rule 6: Incidences of admin abuse, negligence or disputed rulings can be taken to the forums. If an admin says something was 'looked into, handled, resolved' etc, regarding an issue, it is unlikely an admin will provide any further information. Admins are under no obligation to reveal IC information. Deliberately lying or misrepresenting facts in adminhelps will be dealt with harshly.


Janice used emotionally loaded language followed by indirect language to appear as a victim and skirt around the fact that she was actually the one who actively participated in stealing the spare and redistributing the access.

Code: Select all
Rule 7: If you regularly come close to breaking the rules without actually breaking them, it will be treated as the rules being broken. Repeated instances of the same rules being broken may be met with harsher consequences. Baiting people into situations where you can report them to admins will be dealt with harshly.


By ahelping it in that manner as described in the previous point Janice also was ban baiting as she caused the situation.


TLDR; Anuv/Janice's ahelps copied from the Ban Appeal Thread:

Spoiler:
oranges wrote:
Code: Select all
[2018-12-28 01:40:16.889] ADMINPRIVATE: Ticket #10: Anuv/(Janice Lean): Can the detective really cremate me for having all access - heard by 3 non-AFK admins who have +BAN.
[2018-12-28 01:44:04.135] ADMINPRIVATE: PM: TheMidnightRose/(Emerald Gleaner)->Anuv/(Janice Lean): I will look into it
[2018-12-28 01:44:36.000] ADMINPRIVATE: PM: Anuv/(Janice Lean)->TheMidnightRose/(Emerald Gleaner): Thank you. Tried talking, he didn't say a single thing. Shotgunned me, I knocked him down once to try and flee, then didn't resist. He didn't even cuff me, I could have ran. Then cremated me.
[2018-12-28 01:46:15.061] ADMINPRIVATE: PM: TheMidnightRose/(Emerald Gleaner)->Anuv/(Janice Lean): How did you end up getting AA
[2018-12-28 01:46:39.555] ADMINPRIVATE: PM: Anuv/(Janice Lean)->TheMidnightRose/(Emerald Gleaner): The spare was taken from the cap's locker early on in the shift
[2018-12-28 01:56:15.991] ADMINPRIVATE: PM: TheMidnightRose/(Emerald Gleaner)->Anuv/(Janice Lean): Did you use the card for more access to yourself? or did you attempt to return the ID before the Det hunted you down
[2018-12-28 01:56:43.909] ADMINPRIVATE: PM: Anuv/(Janice Lean)->TheMidnightRose/(Emerald Gleaner): I used it to give myself AA but I didn't go to the armory or used it to get more loot or anything
[2018-12-28 02:07:00.461] ADMINPRIVATE: PM: TheMidnightRose/(Emerald Gleaner)->Anuv/(Janice Lean): This has been resolved


TLDR; My ahelps copied from the Ban Appeal Thread:

Spoiler:
coiax wrote:
Code: Select all
[2018-12-28 01:45:47.436] ADMINPRIVATE: PM: TheMidnightRose/(Emerald Gleaner)->Istoprocent/(Krokodil): Hello, what happened between you and Janice Lean.
[2018-12-28 01:46:38.684] ADMINPRIVATE: PM: Istoprocent/(Krokodil)->TheMidnightRose/(Emerald Gleaner): Janice broke into the brig and captains at round start, stole captain's spare, dropped it at Thomas Lasers feet at some point, caught Janice she had given herself all access anyway, Grand Theft, Cremated.
[2018-12-28 01:47:28.394] ADMINPRIVATE: PM: Istoprocent/(Krokodil)->TheMidnightRose/(Emerald Gleaner): Rule 4 - act like an antag, get treated like an antag.#Since Janice ahelped it, she might be ban baiting.
[2018-12-28 01:50:12.383] ADMINPRIVATE: PM: TheMidnightRose/(Emerald Gleaner)->Istoprocent/(Krokodil): Did you get approval to execute them? Did you discuss it with your fellow Sec?
[2018-12-28 01:51:05.194] ADMINPRIVATE: PM: Istoprocent/(Krokodil)->TheMidnightRose/(Emerald Gleaner): We are not playing on Yog. Nobody needs any approval. Rule 4 says that anybody can do anything to the antags. She had committed a capital crime, so she was eligible for an execution.
[2018-12-28 01:52:26.168] ADMINPRIVATE: PM: Istoprocent/(Krokodil)->TheMidnightRose/(Emerald Gleaner): I want to point out that excessive tiding (such as committing capital crimes without being an antag) and ahelping situation, where you have done something (ban baiting). Are against the rules and Janice should be punished for it.
[2018-12-28 01:54:33.210] ADMINPRIVATE: PM: TheMidnightRose/(Emerald Gleaner)->Istoprocent/(Krokodil): I am going to let this drop, mainly due to neither of you being in the right, them for the crime and you for the straight execution. Only a head of staff can do executions or Security when approved by a Head of Staff, preferably the HoS.
[2018-12-28 01:54:54.119] ADMINPRIVATE: PM: Istoprocent/(Krokodil)->TheMidnightRose/(Emerald Gleaner): Dont let this drop. Janice needs to be punished for ban baiting.
[2018-12-28 01:55:31.492] ADMINPRIVATE: PM: Istoprocent/(Krokodil)->TheMidnightRose/(Emerald Gleaner): Anybody can valid anyone who is valid, thats why we have Rule 4. And sec is no exception.
[2018-12-28 01:56:47.492] ADMIN: TheMidnightRose/(Emerald Gleaner) checked the individual player panel for Istoprocent/(Krokodil).
[2018-12-28 01:57:29.780] ADMINPRIVATE: PM: Istoprocent/(Krokodil)->TheMidnightRose/(Emerald Gleaner): False reports and excessive tiding is what we should be trying to abolish from the server.
[2018-12-28 02:00:18.791] ADMIN: TheMidnightRose/(Emerald Gleaner) checked the individual player panel for Istoprocent/(Krokodil).
[2018-12-28 02:05:08.705] ADMINPRIVATE: PM: TheMidnightRose/(Emerald Gleaner)->Istoprocent/(Krokodil): Looking into it further and discussing it on the Adminbus, you will be getting a day ban from the server and a week ban from Sec. This is due to you going straight to 11 and cremating, which is permenant round removal for stealing the spare.
[2018-12-28 02:05:28.052] ADMINPRIVATE: PM: Istoprocent/(Krokodil)->TheMidnightRose/(Emerald Gleaner): I will take it to the forums.
[2018-12-28 02:06:17.052] ADMINPRIVATE: TheMidnightRose/(Emerald Gleaner) has created a temporary 1440 minutes server ban for Istoprocent.
[2018-12-28 02:06:40.034] ADMINPRIVATE: TheMidnightRose/(Emerald Gleaner) has created a temporary 7 days role ban from 4 roles for Istoprocent. Roles: Head of Security, Warden, Detective, Security Officer


The question is how was this presented to the adminbus as there were admins saying that it was different from what the appeal was about, meaning there was neglect or malice on TheMidnightRose's part:

TribeOfBeavers wrote:Id like to note that the context given to us was different from the context given on the appeal.
As far as I remember it was proposed as "detective cremates someone for having all access". So youre taking our words a little out of context, since we werent given the entire situation.


To point out non-neutral or outright malicious activity regarding to this situation:

lmwevil wrote:alright, not personally invested in this appeal but it's 100% true that if you break into the captain's office you are for all intents and purposes valid, dunno if that extends to cremation but i see greyshits dead all the time for it

to quote one of the headmins in discord 'that is complete shit he should be sec banned and day banned' in the end this appeal actually falls unto them given that this was their recommended course of action

additionally: ""Administrators will only intervene when you are sentenced to grossly unfair times. If you get 3 minutes instead of 2, talk to the lawyer as it's considered an IC issue. If you cite Space Law in an adminhelp or anywhere outside IC communications, you will be laughed at."" space law has never and will never be a reference other than some OOC roleplaying suggestions so i'd be hesitant to use it in any conclusive way

lmwevil wrote:Nervere and TribeofBeavers were the headmins who were around and gave their opinions on the specifics, always a weird line to know how much is too much to say from adminbus so i'll let them speak for themselves


By looking at the game logs, we can clearly see what really happened (I would love to do the steno, however, counting the individual lines would take too much time, thus I highly recommend checking out the logs):
Code: Select all
-snip- (Prior lines from Game.txt removed)
[2018-12-28 01:18:56.692] GAME: Anuv/(Janice Lean) has teleported from (Teleporter Room (166, 121, 2)) to (Bridge (152, 141, 2)) - snipped form game.txt
-snip- (Rest of the lines from Game.txt removed)
-snip- (Prior lines from the Attack.txt removed)
[2018-12-28 01:19:57.827] ATTACK: Anuv/(Janice Lean) has attacked [�captain's locker] with [fire axe (Wielded)] (Captain's Quarters (164, 127, 2))
-snip- (Rest of the lines from Attack.txt removed, not that this attack happened a total of 12 times in short succession, which paints the accurate picture of how the Captain's Spare was really acquired)
-snip- (Prior lines from the Attack.txt removed)
[2018-12-28 01:21:56.033] ATTACK: Anuv/(Janice Lean) has thrown the captain's spare ID (Arrival Shuttle Hallway (148, 186, 2))
-snip- (Prior lines from the Attack.txt removed)
[2018-12-28 01:21:56.067] ATTACK: Anuv/(Janice Lean) has threw and hit Laz0r/(Thomas Laser) with [captain's spare ID] (NEWHP: 100) (Arrival Shuttle Hallway (148, 186, 2)) - snipped from attack.txt
-snip- (Prior lines from the Attack.txt removed, this confirms my ahelp story as the logs were not available during the round and everything I witnessed was on point)


All and all there was clear neglect or malice on TheMidnightRose's part as well as possibly Nervere's part, which is why this complaint should not be resolved by Nervere.



User avatar
Cobby
 
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2014 7:19 pm
Byond Username: ExcessiveUseOfCobby
Github Username: ExcessiveUseOfCobblestone

Re: [TheMidnightRose/Nervere] Istoprocent - Neglect/Malice

Postby Cobby » Sat Jan 05, 2019 6:05 am #467076

The rule literally says you can kill them if THEY do it roundstart, I don't see how this is not twisting the rules to favor a party who did not deserve to play the round PER THE RULES. It does NOT say YOU can only kill them roundstart, and it certainly shouldn't when the damage going into such places and abusing the items inside can ruin the entire round, antag or not.

The reason why the rule exists is because people who get all access/weapons/etc. roundstart can fuck over the rest of the round by being shitlers (in case it wasn't obvious they're already breaking into places to fuck about). Just because someone manage to evade security for quite a while doesn't excuse the action.

I get we don't want security to cremate #literally everyone but drawing that conclusion from this event is stretching it. The rules EXPLICITLY say you can deny someone the ability to play the round if they do this action, ensuring the (meta)friends [who he knows exist because he was watching cams] don't get the body when they're obviously in a situation where they too can get killed is the smartest decision. Fighting back when they inevitably take the body instead of doing it preemptively allows the individuals (AHEM NONANTAGS) to escalate against the officer as well which I'm sure if they broke into captain's roundstart FNR they'd very likely do.

I simply don't understand why tiders can play the "oml this isn't roleplay!!!!" card that the admins buy while they, with no provocation, beeline to per the rules grief and yet people don't see that as an issue. I get you guys wanna help everyone but please take a step back and ask how far away from this idolized "roleplay" each person was, and consider the only person you're punishing just so happens to be the only one that had the rules to back up his IC actions.

I'm also concerned that despite this amendment to the rule in practice, it has not been properly edited to reflect what it is wanting to enforce. It should be clear the individual is only valid "in the act", otherwise they have to be processed like any other criminal. As of now it would be quite easy for another player to make this mistake and get banned unless they actively view the forums.
Voted best trap in /tg/ 2014-current

User avatar
lmwevil
In-Game Admin
 
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2015 3:09 pm
Byond Username: Lmwevil

Re: [TheMidnightRose/Nervere] Istoprocent - Neglect/Malice

Postby lmwevil » Sat Jan 05, 2019 7:07 am #467080

Correction: The miscommunication of the situation was NOT by TheMidnightRose upon looking back at logs, for any admin curious go to adminbus and search 'detective cremation" for relevant data. I severely doubt it was a ruling out of malice but I'll just mark down that point as irrelevant. (someone else can disclose who said it in adminbus but it was a third party admin asking for Rose or for their own curiousity in a poor way iirc)

User avatar
Istoprocent1
 
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2017 3:14 pm
Byond Username: istoprocent

Re: [TheMidnightRose/Nervere] Istoprocent - Neglect/Malice

Postby Istoprocent1 » Sat Jan 05, 2019 7:14 am #467082

lmwevil wrote:Correction: The miscommunication of the situation was NOT by TheMidnightRose upon looking back at logs, for any admin curious go to adminbus and search 'detective cremation" for relevant data. I severely doubt it was a ruling out of malice but I'll just mark down that point as irrelevant. (someone else can disclose who said it in adminbus but it was a third party admin asking for Rose or for their own curiousity in a poor way iirc)


Can discord chat be edited and will it leave a mark or was the 8 day delay on purpose to just "waiting it out and silently editing things out"? TribeOfBeavers clearly says that the context of given widely differed from the context of my appeal, which means there had to be something amiss.

User avatar
lmwevil
In-Game Admin
 
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2015 3:09 pm
Byond Username: Lmwevil

Re: [TheMidnightRose/Nervere] Istoprocent - Neglect/Malice

Postby lmwevil » Sat Jan 05, 2019 7:22 am #467084

there's absolutely no way for adminbus to be edited, we have a bot that logs any edits of a message and any deleted messages don't worry

edit: the long appeal is because of the time period it was going on during and also likely that the headmins are in different timezones ALONG with that, though I dunno how they delegated the task

User avatar
Istoprocent1
 
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2017 3:14 pm
Byond Username: istoprocent

Re: [TheMidnightRose/Nervere] Istoprocent - Neglect/Malice

Postby Istoprocent1 » Sat Jan 05, 2019 11:49 am #467108

Adding to the case:

Nervere wrote:Space law can't be used as justification to create/defend bans, and neither can it be used to defend your actions. It's a roleplaying suggestion, but it has no relevance to our rules. Speaking of Space Law, the page for it says this, and everyone who cited it in this thread should keep it in mind: If you cite Space Law in an adminhelp or anywhere outside IC communications, you will be laughed at. That being said, this ban was less about space law and more about how you played security. What I mean by this isn't that you have a poor history with security and this was just another run-in with it - in fact you have no prior administrative history as security, even if your playstyle is rather questionable.


Space Law was used indirectly to figure out what counts as "acting like an antag" and to make sure things were fair before evoking Rule 4 on a player. If I had ever made the mistake of removing somebody from the game unjustly, then I would have been long banned, but since that's not the case as my history is clean, then what is this ban about?

Nervere wrote:The issue is more that you decided to cremate someone for having all access, about 20 minutes after they grabbed it, because it's a capital offense under Space Law. We expect players in security roles to have a better understanding of punishments for people than valid vs. not valid. Having all access is a pretty serious offense, but it doesn't warrant instant cremation. It's telling how you didn't take time to attempt to process the prisoner, or even just kill them without cremating them. It was a jump from stunning to permanent round removal. You use rule 4 to justify what you did, but the act of possessing all access is not in itself acting like an antagonsit. This is not good faith security play, and it's not the sort of behavior that we want to encourage, either.


I spent ~20 minutes to track down and capture 2 out of 3 original "Bridge Squad", because they were on the run. It was never about "just having All Access". There was nothing to process as I was in the Chapel with a cuffed mime and Janice happened to be there as well. My pair of handcuffs were on the Mime:

-snip- (Prior lines from Attack.txt removed)
[2018-12-28 01:36:24.666] ATTACK: Istoprocent/(Krokodil) has handcuffed JestonXi/(Mr Beret) (NEWHP: 39.1) (Central Primary Hallway (150, 148, 2))
-snip- (Rest of the lines from Attack.txt removed)

-snip- (Prior lines from Attack.txt removed, my last interaction with the Mime, who was stripped down after I found the cult dagger)
[2018-12-28 01:37:17.220] ATTACK: Istoprocent/(Krokodil) has stripped the radio headset off JestonXi/(Mr Beret) (NEWHP: 37.1) (Brig (201, 130, 2))
-snip- (Rest of the lines from Attack.txt removed)

-snip- (Prior lines from Attack.txt removed, my processing of Janice)
[2018-12-28 01:38:11.358] ATTACK: Istoprocent/(Krokodil) has stripped PDA-Janice Lean (Gamer) off Anuv/(Janice Lean) (NEWHP: 62) (Chapel (139, 56, 2))
-snip- (Rest of the lines from Attack.txt removed)
-snip- (Prior lines from Attack.txt removed, my processing of Janice)
[2018-12-28 01:38:13.566] ATTACK: Istoprocent/(Krokodil) has stripped the satchel off Anuv/(Janice Lean) (NEWHP: 62) (Chapel (139, 56, 2))
-snip- (Rest of the lines from Attack.txt removed)
-snip- (Prior lines from Attack.txt removed)
[2018-12-28 01:38:15.802] ATTACK: Istoprocent/(Krokodil) has stunned Anuv/(Janice Lean) (NEWHP: 62) (Chapel (139, 56, 2))
-snip- (Rest of the lines from Attack.txt removed, 3 more stuns follow in short succession as I had no cuffs and was already busy handling the Mime)
-snip- (Prior lines from Attack.txt removed)
[2018-12-28 01:39:01.183] ATTACK: Anuv/(Janice Lean) has leg sweeped Istoprocent/(Krokodil) (NEWHP: 95) (Chapel Office (129, 55, 2))
-snip- (Rest of the lines from Attack.txt removed, was short on a stun and got instantly legsweeped by Janice)
-snip- (Prior lines from Attack.txt removed, managed to use Rubbershots to get Janice, followed by 5 stuns with Baton)
[2018-12-28 01:39:59.916] ATTACK: Istoprocent/(Krokodil) has cremated Anuv/(Janice Lean) (NEWHP: 57.4) (Chapel Office (130, 52, 2))
-snip- (Rest of the lines from Attack.txt removed)

As the Janice situation was being handled, a wild heavy RP situation appears.

-snip- (Prior lines from Attack.txt removed)
[2018-12-28 01:39:33.933] ATTACK: Ghom/(Scuff Gerald) has attacked JestonXi/(Mr Beret) with fire axe (Wielded)[DC] (INTENT: HARM) (DAMTYPE: BRUTE) (NEWHP: 13.1) (Chapel (138, 55, 2))
-snip- (Lines between those two events removed)
[2018-12-28 01:39:52.106] ATTACK: Ghom/(Scuff Gerald) has attacked JestonXi/(Mr Beret) with fire axe (Wielded)[DC] (INTENT: HARM) (DAMTYPE: BRUTE) (NEWHP: -210.1) (Chapel (139, 57, 2))
-snip- (Rest of the lines from Attack.txt removed, this was the brief RP encounter for the bucklecuffed Mime).
-snip- (Prior lines from Attack.txt removed)
[2018-12-28 01:40:38.151] ATTACK: Istoprocent/(Krokodil) has cremated JestonXi/(Mr Beret) (NEWHP: -210.1) (Chapel Office (130, 52, 2))
-snip- (Rest of the lines from Attack.txt removed)

Nervere wrote:This is relevant as Janice was part of a group of people who busted the captain's locker open in bridge near the start of the round.
The reason why we have this protection in place for heads of staff and security is because there's always that round where some shitter hacks open some door in bridge or captain's quarters and all hell breaks loose. In situations like these, security needs the extra leeway to defend themselves and heads of staff from people breaking in. However, this same privilege granted to security does not carry over 15-20 minutes after the crime has happened, especially if the person has not acted antagonistic since then. Sure, the criminal is still open to full punishment - the factor of time does not change this. However, taking it upon yourself to stun + cremate them as soon as you find them is excessive behavior that stems from approaching the game from a validhunting mindset. Such an approach to the situation wasn't the right response and, dare I say, violated the spirit of the precedent.


This point is moot, because they never came to brig willingly and had to be hunted down, which took around 20 minutes. Saying that, if they break into the captain's office and stole high risk items is somehow justifiable if they weren't caught on the spot is being in bad faith.

Nervere wrote:As for Anuv's involvement in this, there is no fault to be had in his part. He ahelped your actions in a situation that he thought was excessive and unreasonable. His ahelp was phrased as a question and his actions seem to be in good faith. I would likely have considered Anuv's ahelp banbaiting if he were acting antagonistic for the greater part of the round, but that's not the case. Regardless, your unrelenting zeal to see Anuv punished for ahelping makes this seem like this thread was partially motivated by the desire to have him banned. This isn't what this forum is for, ban requests are closed and it's going to stay that way.

Your appeal is denied.


It was a ban appeal, not a ban requrest. I was expecting Janice to be held to the same standard as other players, since I was being arbitrarily banned for a situation that another player started and had no right to ahelp. The question Janice should have asked, if any would have had to be in the lines of "Can a player be cremated, if they break into the captain's office at or near the start of the round without any IC justification, steal the spare and distribute it among the crew?" and the answer should have been in the lines of "Yes." *ticket closed*, but that was not the case. I should have not been neither noted or banned to begin with, because I acted in good faith and everything was according to the rules, hence Rule 0 Ban.

I had no previous run-ins with Janice, all I wanted was people to be held to the same standard as others.

Edit: Expecting a player to know all the ins and outs of the rules and policies, while allowing admins to ban people without a rhyme or reason is pretty unjust, if not malicious. Aside from that I am now noted and banning me in the future will be easier as there is a "record" of me getting banned, even though the ban clearly being unjust.

Edit 2:
-snip- (Prior lines from Attack.txt removed)
[2018-12-28 01:33:06.712] ATTACK: Anuv/(Janice Lean) has grabbed (Krav Maga) Bigfatbananacyclops/(Mike Murdock) (NEWHP: 95) (Arrival Shuttle Hallway (149, 189, 2))
-snip- (Rest of the lines from Attack. txt removed, Janice used a Leg Sweep on me, which is not a part of the normal moveset and I am pretty certain that she did not have Krav Maga gloves, where did that come from?)
-snip- (Prior lines from Attack.txt removed)
[2018-12-28 01:39:01.183] ATTACK: Anuv/(Janice Lean) has leg sweeped Istoprocent/(Krokodil) (NEWHP: 95) (Chapel Office (129, 55, 2))
-snip- (Rest of the lines from Attack.txt removed, was short on a stun and got instantly legsweeped by Janice)

User avatar
Arianya
In-Game Game Master
 
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2016 10:27 am
Byond Username: Arianya

Re: [TheMidnightRose/Nervere] Istoprocent - Neglect/Malice

Postby Arianya » Sat Jan 05, 2019 5:40 pm #467163

As I was the only headmin not tangentially involved with this, it's fallen to me to rule on this.

90% of the text you've written is functionally meaningless. This is not Ban Appeals 2.0, and I have very little interest in rehashing what others have already said regarding what happened during that round.

As to the actual admin complaints buried in between:

TheMidnightRose - Neglect/Malice


The fact that the situation was discussed with other admins in adminbus is functionally irrelevant, and is not Neglect (nor do I think it was done with Malice). Admins, especially trialadmins, will often discuss these things in adminbus, with the obvious caveats that people in adminbus do not have the same level of context and sometimes may not even be aware of the specific users involved. Ultimately the admin on the server who is handling the ticket/applying bans is responsible for whats done, short of being asked directly to do something on behalf of another admin.

As it happens, Midnight didn't even bring it up in adminbus, but rather a different admin mentioned it in oblique terms. A few opinions were bandied about but it wasn't discussed in any great detail (though it received more discussion after the ban appeal was made). This is also why imwevil is incorrect about where the responsibility for responding to the ban appeal lied. If you are the admin on the server it is expected that you will take any advice or recommendation given with a pinch of salt (or sugar) due to the information (state of station, player(s) history, exact sequence of events, etc) that adminbus does not have. You are ultimately always going to be responsible for answering on the ban appeal.

That said, I'm not upholding the complaint against TheMidnightRose. They acted in a correct manner and there's nothing to make me concerned that they were neglectful or malicious in their actions.

Nervere - "had a dog in the race"/Bias (?)

This seems to be based on the belief that Nervere had some reason to want you gone or that he felt he needed to be "right" and so railroaded the appeal. In truth your name/ckey wasn't even mentioned in the brief discussion that happened in adminbus before the ban. Nervere gave their opinion but didn't really push any further then that. As mentioned above, admins (headmins and otherwise) will often give opinions on a situation but this doesn't make a ban any more "theirs" then the admin on the server's.

Additionally, the resolution to your ban appeal was discussed among all 3 headmins before Nervere posted. There is no particular significance to which headmin posts in relation to something we have discussed among all 3 of us, though obviously different people will word things differently.

Given the above, I will not be upholding this complaint against Nervere, as there is nothing that to me indicates that Nervere was biased in their resolution of the ban appeal.

This is resolved. The only person I would expect to post after this is MrStonedOne if he so desires (don't get excited, it's unlikely).
Frequently playing as Aria Bollet on Bagil & Scary Terry

Source of avatar is here: https://i.imgur.com/hEkADo6.jpg


Return to Closed Complaints

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users