[Mralphonzo] Note

Jarek · Post by **Jarek** » Wed Sep 13, 2017 6:28 pm #336423

Byond account and character name: Jarektheraptor
[Note]ing admin: Mralphonzo
[Note] reason and length: Warning - As the detective, unloaded their revolver into the janitor, critting them, because he slipped on his wet floors. The janitor had wet signs up, and you can't just kick the shit out of someone for doing their job properly, even if they are near medbay.
Time [note] was placed (including time zone): 2017-09-13 01:00:09
Server you were playing when banned (Sybil or Bagil):sybil
Your side of the story: To start off, I didn't revolver the janitor into critical at all, I dived back into the rounds damage logs and got the damages:

[00:10:25]ATTACK: Loves-The-Lizards(jarektheraptor) fired at floor with .38 bullet Starboard Primary Hallway (144,130,2)
[00:10:25]ATTACK: Loves-The-Lizards(jarektheraptor) shot Lenny NoMan(hogman) with .38 bullet (NEWHP: 80) (143,130,2)
[00:10:25]ATTACK: Lola Cobblestone(excessiveuseofcobby) stripped Cosmo Coon(oddlotpurchases) with of the handcuffs (NEWHP: 100) (111,166,2)
[00:10:26]ATTACK: Loves-The-Lizards(jarektheraptor) fired at wall with .38 bullet Starboard Primary Hallway (143,131,2)
[00:10:26]ATTACK: Remeku Paterna(jasohavents) fed John Pinkerton(chickenboy100) with styptic_powder(20 units); (NEWHP: 67.6667) (139,118,2)
[00:10:26]ATTACK: Loves-The-Lizards(jarektheraptor) fired at Lenny NoMan(hogman) with .38 bullet Starboard Primary Hallway (NEWHP: 80) (143,130,2)
[00:10:26]ATTACK: Loves-The-Lizards(jarektheraptor) shot Lenny NoMan(hogman) with .38 bullet (NEWHP: 65) (143,130,2)
[00:10:26]ATTACK: Old Ironsides(nitro2985) grabbed Hugo Janis(rubizor) with passive grab (NEWHP: 100) (134,108,2)
[00:10:27]ATTACK: Nicolas Jerome(coolkiller) grabbed John Pinkerton(chickenboy100) with passive grab (NEWHP: 65.6667) (139,118,2)
[00:10:30]ATTACK: Loves-The-Lizards(jarektheraptor) fired at Lenny NoMan(hogman) with .38 bullet Starboard Primary Hallway (NEWHP: 65) (143,130,2)
[00:10:30]ATTACK: Loves-The-Lizards(jarektheraptor) shot Lenny NoMan(hogman) with .38 bullet (NEWHP: 50) (143,130,2)
[00:10:31]ATTACK: Loves-The-Lizards(jarektheraptor) slipped NON-EXISTENT SUBJECT with on floor

The janitor is Lenny NoMan aka hogman in this text. I hope i'm reading it right when I say 50hp is not the critical state, It's half of your health before you go into critical but as far as the game is concerned it's nowhere near actually being there, So unless something happened to him or lenny lied about being shot to death after I attacked him I don't think it's entirely accurate I critted him. The first bullet that pings off the wall is also aimed at someone I was chasing after since they'd been set to wanted in medbay and were running away from me. They ended up stealing my baton. If I'm reading that wrong then I do apologise and you can just ignore this.

Secondly, I did not unload my revolver completely into the janitor. The way it's worded to me makes it sound like I just straight up shot 7(?) shots into the guy and then left him there, but I didn't. I only fire four shots. I'm aware of the less than lethal capabilites of the revolver has regardless and while I dont know how much damage it does exactly, I know that four shots on a healthy person is hardly going to kill them.

Third, I also did not kick the shit out of them, I simply shot them with four shots and left to chase after the librarian that had stolen my baton and was still wanted, I feel like saying I did implies that after shooting them I decided to also start whaling on them with a melee weapon for a bit, but I didn't.

It might also be worth mentioning I was chasing after someone who was wanted and said to be dangerous, but the janitor didn't decide to help out the security member going after this person in any way. They had also been cleaning in convenient areas that left a long line in front of populated hallways for people to slip in but that was probably just blood trails.

MrAlphonzo · Post by **MrAlphonzo** » Wed Sep 13, 2017 6:33 pm #336424

Apologies, it was getting rather late and I had a long day, so it looks like my writing had been a bit more crude than usual. The janitor may have lied about being put into critical condition, but that still does not justify shooting someone four times for doing their job.

I will double check the logs, and adjust the note to be less crude and more accurate.

Post by **Cobby** » Wed Sep 13, 2017 6:43 pm #336426

Link the logs please or I'll have to set the note back.

Jarek · Post by **Jarek** » Wed Sep 13, 2017 6:44 pm #336427

https://tgstation13.org/parsed-logs/syb ... attack.txt

Post by **Cobby** » Wed Sep 13, 2017 6:46 pm #336428

Thanks

Post by **Armhulen** » Wed Sep 13, 2017 7:59 pm #336448

Requested to have this unlocked, a note for this really isn't needed.

Post by **Armhulen** » Wed Sep 13, 2017 8:01 pm #336449

Also let's not lock and then immediately move them, just in case there is a problem with the appeal.

Post by **Cobby** » Wed Sep 13, 2017 9:36 pm #336497

Sorry I didn't think we would be having a discussion on the validity of taking down someone to half health as sec because they are doing their job.

Post by **Armhulen** » Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:24 pm #336517

Spray bottles exist, soap exists, advanced mop exists, janicart upgrade exists. He has complete freedom to make the hallways a hazard. Shooting someone to half health is shitty but isn't anything worth admin interaction. Dumpster the detective, talk to the hos or captain or just go on like normal. The game shouldn't be this restrictive to what players can and can't do, and even if this last statement is kinda strawman-ish conflict isn't really breaking the rules.

MrAlphonzo · Post by **MrAlphonzo** » Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:41 pm #336527

So what you're saying is, players should be free to punish the janitor because they didn't see the wet floor signs?

IE, punish other people for YOUR fuck ups?

That is what we should be encouraging?

Lazengann · Post by **Lazengann** » Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:46 pm #336530

Janitor could've just explosive lanced him later as revenge
Conflict keeps things fresh

Post by **Armhulen** » Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:55 pm #336537

Lazengann wrote:Janitor could've just explosive lanced him later as revenge
Conflict keeps things fresh

I was going to write up a long response about what conflict is but this sums up my thoughts better.

Conflict is a part of the game. Nothing here required admin intervention

Post by **Cobby** » Wed Sep 13, 2017 11:27 pm #336547

Good thing all he got was a note to ensure this isn't a habitual issue over overescalating over minor incidences then!

Post by **Armhulen** » Wed Sep 13, 2017 11:49 pm #336553

Why do we support admin helping in every situation where shit happens just in case you can end it with them getting noted or banned

50 health and a stun, what a notable situation that admins should consider in future situations wow!

onleavedontatme · Thu Sep 14, 2017 12:37 am

I agree with Armhulen

MrAlphonzo · Post by **MrAlphonzo** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 12:52 am #336582

Literally walking up to somebody, minding their own damn business, doing their job properly, can get their shit kicked in BY A MEMBER OF SECURITY, just for doing their job.

And this should go not just unpunished which it already was, but unnoted.

I'm finding the thin line of professionalism being a bit rather difficult to maintain at the moment so I'm just gonna check up on this thread in the morning.

cedarbridge · Thu Sep 14, 2017 12:56 am

I agree that this isn't noteworthy, but its pretty damn close. I have a hard time buying the "I was in a hurry to catch a super important and dangerous foe!" story when he apparently could spare the time and ammo to shoot a janitor for his own inability to see a wet floor sign. That makes him a shitty detective and he'd certainly get what was coming to him later, but this isn't something I'm really going to be looking for in the notes when something else comes up later unless he just really has a fetish for shooting janitors.

Post by **Armhulen** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 12:57 am #336584

MrAlphonzo wrote:Literally walking up to somebody, minding their own damn business, doing their job properly, can get their shit kicked in BY A MEMBER OF SECURITY, just for doing their job.

And this should go not just unpunished which it already was, but unnoted.

I'm finding the thin line of professionalism being a bit rather difficult to maintain at the moment so I'm just gonna check up on this thread in the morning.

i don't think you get it, it does go punished

just not with admins butting their head in

BeeSting12 · Post by **BeeSting12** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 12:58 am #336585

MrAlphonzo wrote:Literally walking up to somebody, minding their own damn business, doing their job properly, can get their shit kicked in BY A MEMBER OF SECURITY, just for doing their job.

And this should go not just unpunished which it already was, but unnoted.

I'm finding the thin line of professionalism being a bit rather difficult to maintain at the moment so I'm just gonna check up on this thread in the morning.

Would you agree that a medical doctor cloning and healing people is doing their job? Well, let's say security shoots a doctor for healing someone. The doctor was just doing their job, right?! Well, yes, he was, but him doing his job creates conflict with security because that was a traitor and security wanted the traitor dead. This is called IC conflict. IC conflict is what makes the game fun. Turning minor IC conflict like this into an OOC issue is not fun. It tells the ban baiter, although I don't think the janitor was trying to bait him in this case, that he can get consolation for dying in a game where dying is a large part of it.

Now let's apply this to this situation: Janitor's mopping halls- doing his job. Detective slips so he shoots the janitor for stopping him from catching the guy. The janitor can go ahead and buck up and deal with it or he can ahelp and get the guy noted for stunning him for all of ten seconds and forcing him to get like two bruise packs. If we let people think the latter option is okay then the game will not be fun. I'm not saying what Jarek did wasn't shitty- it was a little shitty. But people being a little shitty to each other is a part of the game.

MrAlphonzo · Post by **MrAlphonzo** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 1:03 am #336589

BeeSting12 wrote:
MrAlphonzo wrote:Literally walking up to somebody, minding their own damn business, doing their job properly, can get their shit kicked in BY A MEMBER OF SECURITY, just for doing their job.

And this should go not just unpunished which it already was, but unnoted.

I'm finding the thin line of professionalism being a bit rather difficult to maintain at the moment so I'm just gonna check up on this thread in the morning.
Would you agree that a medical doctor cloning and healing people is doing their job? Well, let's say security shoots a doctor for healing someone. The doctor was just doing their job, right?! Well, yes, he was, but him doing his job creates conflict with security because that was a traitor and security wanted the traitor dead. This is called IC conflict. IC conflict is what makes the game fun. Turning minor IC conflict like this into an OOC issue is not fun. It tells the ban baiter, although I don't think the janitor was trying to bait him in this case, that he can get consolation for dying in a game where dying is a large part of it.

Now let's apply this to this situation: Janitor's mopping halls- doing his job. Detective slips so he shoots the janitor for stopping him from catching the guy. The janitor can go ahead and buck up and deal with it or he can ahelp and get the guy noted for stunning him for all of ten seconds and forcing him to get like two bruise packs. If we let people think the latter option is okay then the game will not be fun. I'm not saying what Jarek did wasn't shitty- it was a little shitty. But people being a little shitty to each other is a part of the game.

There is an incredibly strong difference between bringing a traitor back from the dead, and minding your own god damn business and mopping the halls.

You also gave a perfect example of my "Punishing other people for your own fuck-ups" example. Their dumbasses didn't secure the body properly, or even so much as label it.

Here's an idea.

How about, oh I dunno, asking the janitor politely to switch to his cleaning equipment that wouldn't slip people instead of JUMPING STRAIGHT TO KNOCKING THE SHIT OUT OF SOMEONE?

That almost sounds like OVERESCALATION.

BeeSting12 · Post by **BeeSting12** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 1:11 am #336594

I never said it wasn't shitty. In this case, it's fairly obvious that the janitor is in the right both ICly and OOCly.

The question is, should we note people for such small things? The situation can get dealt with ICly instead of OOCly. The fact that the janitor adminhelped knowing he'd get sympathy from the admins over 50 points of health and a ten second stun is already bad enough.

This would set the precedent that anyone who hits anyone even a little for doing their job would be in the wrong and can get noted. An assistant so much as slapping an officer around for brigging him for theft would all of a sudden be getting noted and banned.

IC conflicts are what drives the game, turning them all OOC is unhealthy for the game.

Post by **Armhulen** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 1:11 am #336595

MrAlphonzo wrote:
BeeSting12 wrote:
MrAlphonzo wrote:Literally walking up to somebody, minding their own damn business, doing their job properly, can get their shit kicked in BY A MEMBER OF SECURITY, just for doing their job.

And this should go not just unpunished which it already was, but unnoted.

I'm finding the thin line of professionalism being a bit rather difficult to maintain at the moment so I'm just gonna check up on this thread in the morning.
Would you agree that a medical doctor cloning and healing people is doing their job? Well, let's say security shoots a doctor for healing someone. The doctor was just doing their job, right?! Well, yes, he was, but him doing his job creates conflict with security because that was a traitor and security wanted the traitor dead. This is called IC conflict. IC conflict is what makes the game fun. Turning minor IC conflict like this into an OOC issue is not fun. It tells the ban baiter, although I don't think the janitor was trying to bait him in this case, that he can get consolation for dying in a game where dying is a large part of it.

Now let's apply this to this situation: Janitor's mopping halls- doing his job. Detective slips so he shoots the janitor for stopping him from catching the guy. The janitor can go ahead and buck up and deal with it or he can ahelp and get the guy noted for stunning him for all of ten seconds and forcing him to get like two bruise packs. If we let people think the latter option is okay then the game will not be fun. I'm not saying what Jarek did wasn't shitty- it was a little shitty. But people being a little shitty to each other is a part of the game.

There is an incredibly strong difference between bringing a traitor back from the dead, and minding your own god damn business and mopping the halls.

You also gave a perfect example of my "Punishing other people for your own fuck-ups" example. Their dumbasses didn't secure the body properly, or even so much as label it.

Here's an idea.

How about, oh I dunno, asking the janitor politely to switch to his cleaning equipment that wouldn't slip people instead of JUMPING STRAIGHT TO KNOCKING THE SHIT OUT OF SOMEONE?

That almost sounds like OVERESCALATION.

If you're setting out to mind your own business take literally any other option in the janitor's closet that lets you clean without creating a slip minefield

onleavedontatme · Thu Sep 14, 2017 1:17 am

BeeSting12 wrote:I never said it wasn't shitty. In this case, it's fairly obvious that the janitor is in the right both ICly and OOCly.

The question is, should we note people for such small things? The situation can get dealt with ICly instead of OOCly. The fact that the janitor adminhelped knowing he'd get sympathy from the admins over 50 points of health and a ten second stun is already bad enough.

This would set the precedent that anyone who hits anyone even a little for doing their job would be in the wrong and can get noted. An assistant so much as slapping an officer around for brigging him for theft would all of a sudden be getting noted and banned.

IC conflicts are what drives the game, turning them all OOC is unhealthy for the game.

You're pretty smart do you wanna be an admin

BeeSting12 · Post by **BeeSting12** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 1:19 am #336607

Kor wrote:
BeeSting12 wrote:I never said it wasn't shitty. In this case, it's fairly obvious that the janitor is in the right both ICly and OOCly.

The question is, should we note people for such small things? The situation can get dealt with ICly instead of OOCly. The fact that the janitor adminhelped knowing he'd get sympathy from the admins over 50 points of health and a ten second stun is already bad enough.

This would set the precedent that anyone who hits anyone even a little for doing their job would be in the wrong and can get noted. An assistant so much as slapping an officer around for brigging him for theft would all of a sudden be getting noted and banned.

IC conflicts are what drives the game, turning them all OOC is unhealthy for the game.
You're pretty smart do you wanna be an admin

sure, contact me on discord if you want me to sometime.

MrAlphonzo · Post by **MrAlphonzo** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 1:22 am #336612

For people who love to talk about resolving conflicts IC, you're missing one very big detail.

It wasn't resolved IC.
That isn't because the janitor ahelped as soon as he got his ass shot, that's not what happened at all.
In fact, he ahelped almost half an hour after those events took place, after he had been killed by a different non-antag.

Talking about "A detective like that would've been swarmed by spears" or "Just blow 'em up."

But what do we do when someone is a piece of shit, and the conflict isn't resolved IC?

They just keep on being a piece of shit without even knowing they're doing anything wrong.

BeeSting12 · Post by **BeeSting12** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 1:28 am #336617

I really didn't feel like getting that involved in this thread but I guess I'll bite.

What steps did the janitor take to resolve this ICly? If he didn't take any, that's on him. Some people are willing to let bygones be bygones- personally I would just shout something mean about the detective on comms and continue on with my life.

If a conflict that can be resolved ICly isn't resolved ICly in favor of the guy who was "in the right" that doesn't mean that all of a sudden, it's an OOC conflict. It means that you need to apply rule 10 and move on because it's just a game.

cedarbridge · Post by **cedarbridge** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 1:35 am #336624

A robust janitor would have just spaced the revolver after the first incident.

Post by **Armhulen** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 1:39 am #336626

MrAlphonzo wrote:For people who love to talk about resolving conflicts IC, you're missing one very big detail.

It wasn't resolved IC.
That isn't because the janitor ahelped as soon as he got his ass shot, that's not what happened at all.
In fact, he ahelped almost half an hour after those events took place, after he had been killed by a different non-antag.

Talking about "A detective like that would've been swarmed by spears" or "Just blow 'em up."

But what do we do when someone is a piece of shit, and the conflict isn't resolved IC?

They just keep on being a piece of shit without even knowing they're doing anything wrong.

Oh I get it, it's only an admin issue if the janitor decides to do nothing about it! cool!

MrAlphonzo · Post by **MrAlphonzo** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 1:42 am #336632

Armhulen wrote:
MrAlphonzo wrote:For people who love to talk about resolving conflicts IC, you're missing one very big detail.

It wasn't resolved IC.
That isn't because the janitor ahelped as soon as he got his ass shot, that's not what happened at all.
In fact, he ahelped almost half an hour after those events took place, after he had been killed by a different non-antag.

Talking about "A detective like that would've been swarmed by spears" or "Just blow 'em up."

But what do we do when someone is a piece of shit, and the conflict isn't resolved IC?

They just keep on being a piece of shit without even knowing they're doing anything wrong.
Oh I get it, it's only an admin issue if the janitor decides to do nothing about it! cool!

That is not even remotely close to the point I was trying to get across.

This conflict and conflicts as stupid, overblown, exaggerated, and overescalated shouldn't be left to be decided IC in the first place.

Post by **Armhulen** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 1:46 am #336636

MrAlphonzo wrote:
Armhulen wrote:
MrAlphonzo wrote:For people who love to talk about resolving conflicts IC, you're missing one very big detail.

It wasn't resolved IC.
That isn't because the janitor ahelped as soon as he got his ass shot, that's not what happened at all.
In fact, he ahelped almost half an hour after those events took place, after he had been killed by a different non-antag.

Talking about "A detective like that would've been swarmed by spears" or "Just blow 'em up."

But what do we do when someone is a piece of shit, and the conflict isn't resolved IC?

They just keep on being a piece of shit without even knowing they're doing anything wrong.
Oh I get it, it's only an admin issue if the janitor decides to do nothing about it! cool!
That is not even remotely close to the point I was trying to get across.

This conflict and conflicts as stupid, overblown, exaggerated, and overescalated shouldn't be left to be decided IC in the first place.

if the janitor doesn't want to start a conflict he is free to let it go

it's just 2 bruise packs away from continuing on your way

imblyings · Post by **imblyings** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 2:03 am #336649

He has a point about jarek being a faggot for no reason, there's good minor IC conflict and bad minor IC conflict

Janitors have little IC recourse to bad minor IC conflict unless he's robust or the HoS/Cap are excellent people

We don't want to train players to be babies who cannot accept things that don't go their way or can't move on

waht do

cedarbridge · Post by **cedarbridge** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 2:13 am #336659

imblyings wrote:He has a point about jarek being a faggot for no reason, there's good minor IC conflict and bad minor IC conflict

Janitors have little IC recourse to bad minor IC conflict unless he's robust or the HoS/Cap are excellent people

We don't want to train players to be babies who cannot accept things that don't go their way or can't move on

waht do

Amend the note text to the effect that Jarek acted like a faggot for no reason and some minor facts about what happened. That's as much as needs to be here. There's no ban, no specific discouragement, no major shift in policy etc. Detective acted like an asshole, the ahelp should have resolved with the admin calling Jarek a doucheecanoe.

Lazengann · Post by **Lazengann** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 2:17 am #336664

Notes are hardly different than bans, they both leave the mark on your record.

You could just ask Jarek not to be so violent while telling the Janitor what he could do/could've done to make it an interesting IC situation. I assume we are all adults here with communication skills.

Post by **Cobby** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 2:20 am #336668

Armhulen wrote:Spray bottles exist, soap exists, advanced mop exists, janicart upgrade exists. He has complete freedom to make the hallways a hazard. Shooting someone to half health is shitty but isn't anything worth admin interaction. Dumpster the detective, talk to the hos or captain or just go on like normal. The game shouldn't be this restrictive to what players can and can't do, and even if this last statement is kinda strawman-ish conflict isn't really breaking the rules.

Perhaps this is my gripe with the situation in that in your eyes it's the janitors fault for choosing the poorer of options [assuming he had the ability to choose from all these things and scarcity/incompetent staff were not factors] and yet you fail to see the plethora of options a security personel has to deal with such a HORRENDOUS CRIME of using water+sign but instead chose to just brute him to half health.

What did that solve? What conflict was to be had in relation to the janitor AS [ACTING] SECURITY where such is warranted?

Can I harmbaton people who engage in crimes now or who simply do their job in a way that remotely impedes my ability as sec? Can I send the Janitor into red everytime theres a shiny overlay on the floor now even with signs and I can word that into an inconvenience? Come on, even as a nonsec that is absurd.

I am all for IC conflict, but beating someone for doing their job in a way that offhandedly inconveniences you [even though there was obvious signage] is stupid and telling people that's ok to do in this situation and situations in which they find it comparable is wrong.

Lazengann wrote:Notes are hardly different than bans, they both leave the mark on your record.

You could just ask Jarek not to be so violent while telling the Janitor what he could do/could've done to make it an interesting IC situation. I assume we are all adults here with communication skills.

The Janitor literally did his job and got sent to half health, any sort of opposition using that metric would likely have him sitting out for the rest of the round given Dets have the Sec Camaraderie.

Post by **Cobby** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 2:26 am #336670

Reminder: The note was edited to be less aggressive and more factual, hence why I initially resolved it.

Warning - As the detective, fired four shots from their revolver into the janitor, possibly putting them into crit, because he slipped on his wet floors. The janitor had wet signs up, and you can't just shoot someone four times for doing their job properly, even if they are near medbay.

onleavedontatme · Thu Sep 14, 2017 2:27 am

>what do

Nothing? A player got annoyed by another player in a videogame so he hit them a few times and then they parted ways and continued their games

Where does the slippery slope of OOC issue stop?

Post by **Cobby** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 2:33 am #336674

Kor wrote:>what do

Nothing? A player got annoyed by another player in a videogame so he hit them a few times and then they parted ways and continued their games

Where does the slippery slope of OOC issue stop?

You can change it starting here if you'd like.

Rule 1 of the main rules apply to security. The only exception is that security is generally considered to be armed with non-lethal methods to control a situation. Therefore, where reasonably possible, security is expected to use non-lethal methods first in a conflict before escalating to lethal methods.

imblyings · Post by **imblyings** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 2:33 am #336675

it stops when you make kroo- vox bloodthirsty aliens with a massive jaw orks would be proud of and no bird would have

This isn't a slippery slope I want to go on, I will leave my posting at that

any admin receiving these ahelps can offer to just keep an eye out if it happens again to someone constantly for no reason.

MrAlphonzo · Post by **MrAlphonzo** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 2:43 am #336679

Armhulen wrote:
MrAlphonzo wrote:
Armhulen wrote:
MrAlphonzo wrote:For people who love to talk about resolving conflicts IC, you're missing one very big detail.

It wasn't resolved IC.
That isn't because the janitor ahelped as soon as he got his ass shot, that's not what happened at all.
In fact, he ahelped almost half an hour after those events took place, after he had been killed by a different non-antag.

Talking about "A detective like that would've been swarmed by spears" or "Just blow 'em up."

But what do we do when someone is a piece of shit, and the conflict isn't resolved IC?

They just keep on being a piece of shit without even knowing they're doing anything wrong.
Oh I get it, it's only an admin issue if the janitor decides to do nothing about it! cool!
That is not even remotely close to the point I was trying to get across.

This conflict and conflicts as stupid, overblown, exaggerated, and overescalated shouldn't be left to be decided IC in the first place.
if the janitor doesn't want to start a conflict he is free to let it go

it's just 2 bruise packs away from continuing on your way

You're really underplaying his wounds here.

Thats 50 damage, ontop of excessive blood loss that would occur while he was stunned, while he was moving to medbay, and while he was being treated.

After testing it in the Thunderdome the janitor may very well have been truthful about being put in crit from all the blood he had lost, as the tested carbon was bleeding out profusely.

Lazengann · Post by **Lazengann** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 2:49 am #336686

Luckily he can clean up the blood with his mop

Post by **Cobby** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 3:03 am #336698

Lazengann wrote:Luckily he can clean up the blood with his mop

Then while a doctor goes to heal him he slips and since that inconvenienced him doing his job he puts the janitor to crit.

Post by **Armhulen** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 3:07 am #336700

ExcessiveCobblestone wrote:
Kor wrote:>what do

Nothing? A player got annoyed by another player in a videogame so he hit them a few times and then they parted ways and continued their games

Where does the slippery slope of OOC issue stop?
You can change it starting here if you'd like.

Rule 1 of the main rules apply to security. The only exception is that security is generally considered to be armed with non-lethal methods to control a situation. Therefore, where reasonably possible, security is expected to use non-lethal methods first in a conflict before escalating to lethal methods.

this isn't a lethal situation though, the detective disengaged and the janitor did nothing to get back at the detective, the conflict was resolved but an hour and a half later or something the detective got a black mark on their record

onleavedontatme · Thu Sep 14, 2017 3:14 am

I think he meant "Rule 1 dont be a dick you can't do anything mean ever" but the entire rest of the rules is qualifying when it is actually okay to be a dick to one another, including minor IC conflict.

Post by **Cobby** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 3:27 am #336708

So again I ask is harmbatonning and general shitlery as sec ok now if you can word a situation as if you been inconvenienced? can I send people to red anytime they remotely I nconvenience me doing my job, even if they're just doing their job as well? Will these too be IC issues and if not then what mitigating factors besides the fleeting notion of Admins wanting people to handle everything, including stupid situations as these, should admins and players be aware of relative to this situation?

Post by **Arianya** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 8:14 am #336762

Speaking as an avid sec player, I'd point out that IC conflict with sec tends to end very poorly for the non-sec party. Since retaliating with lethal force would get the janitor most likely killed as "act like an antag be treated like one". Somehow getting the detectives revolver and spacing it would most likely lead to the detective killing him outright in retaliation with the numerous other means of stunning/killing the janitor that the detective has available to him.

Which is fine for most incidents, where people start shit with sec, because they know what they're getting into, but when sec escalates from "minor inconvenience in the course of doing job" to "just shy of lethal harm" as the first step then it becomes a very quick spiral down to shitcurity, especially since sec members are immune to antag-rolls. This means they are generally above suspicion ICly even if they kill a crewmember in the middle of the hallway.

Post by **Cobby** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 12:41 pm #336829

ExcessiveCobblestone wrote:So again I ask is harmbatonning and general shitlery as sec ok now if you can word a situation as if you been inconvenienced? can I send people to red anytime they remotely I nconvenience me doing my job, even if they're just doing their job as well? Will these too be IC issues and if not then what mitigating factors besides the fleeting notion of Admins wanting people to handle everything, including stupid situations as these, should admins and players be aware of relative to this situation?

I'd like to emphasize I'm not trying to be a smartass but I need to know what mindset headmins are in so I can properly train people in a manner that fits with how they want admins to function.

If you're going to use the seat of power to remove the note then fine since that's your ability as headmins to do so, but I need to know why instead of people just handling the thread then admins under my wing getting passively aggressively called out because they made a """"bad"""" decision when there was no malicious or jobsworth intention behind it, not to mention actually being able to articulate why that's not ok in their eyes.

We can't just keep throwing memes such as "OOC slippery slope" around and expect admins to piece out your line in the sand of where situations become an admin problem or, more importantly, take anything you say past that seriously.

Lazengann · Post by **Lazengann** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 1:54 pm #336849

To me, the nuance is that shooting a few revolver shots takes less than one second and doesn't require you to walk over to them. The player was annoyed, and thought the revolver was a low damage weapon, admitting that he didn't know exactly how much it hurts. It wasn't a conscious "haha I can shoot him now," it was a second of annoyance.

To quote a roman guy, "Theophrastus is right, and philosophically sound, to say that the sin committed out of pleasure deserves a harsher rebuke than the one committed out of pain. The angry man is more like a victim of wrongdoing, provoked by pain to anger. The other man rushes into wrongdoing on his own, moved to action by desire."

The tricky thing is, I wouldn't want to discourage conflict, but I would want something to make sure the player isn't doing this sort of thing constantly. I believe notes are a small step down from bans and are enough to discourage behaviour so I have no clue how to solve this except with secret notes which we've moved away from.

feem · Post by **feem** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 2:49 pm #336867

My thoughts on this:

1) Absent of any existing behavior patterns, in the case of an overreaction that didn't lead to a player death, with no mitigating circumstances, in which recompense could easily be achieved by the wronged player (i.e. aggressor gets dunked), I think that:
a) A note may be unnecessary, as you can just tell the player not to be so hasty next time
b) The issue can be resolved ICly by retaliating with force

2) While the detective's revolver is 'less than lethal,' it is not 'nonlethal.' This is an important distinction.

3) In situations where security is the aggressor, as has been mentioned, action taken by the victim to retaliate against the security asset will almost inevitably end in pain for the victim. This is one of the reasons that there are precedents regarding use of force by security. As above, the detective's revolver is 'less than lethal' but not 'nonlethal.'

4) Wetting floors when there was both a reasonable explanation for why they were wetted (cleaning was being performed) and actions were taken to remediate the impact of that wetting (signs were placed) is not 'acting like an antag.'

5) 'Act like an antag, get treated like one' therefore does not apply.

6) The player in question, while not having a substantial history of this particular behavior, has been noted for other overreactions and behavior issues in the past.

7) Given the above, in my opinion, while a note may not have been strictly necessary (as a talking-to may have sufficed), and while ideally this could have been resolved ICly, there existed the following:
a) An onus on the security player not to react with more-than-nonlethal force to non-aggressive acts
b) An overreaction born out of annoyance by the security player with immediate aggressive escalation to more-than-nonlethal force
c) An IC and OOC disincentive for the victim to respond 'appropriately' by retaliating against the aggressor, in that if he did respond he would almost certainly have been killed
d) A pre-existing set of conditions in the case of the security player (note history) which indicate that the player has had overreactions to other situations in the past
e) No current documented warning to the security player that overreaction as a security player when other options are available is viewed more harshly than, say, a greytider who only has a toolbox

Therefore .:

A) I DO support the warning of the security player for overreaction as a security officer to a non-aggressive act
B) I DO support this note as a record of behavior for which the player was warned
C) I DO NOT support universal noting or 'black marks on the record' for any security player who 'overreacts' to a situation, as each situation is different
D) I DO NOT support explicit and arbitrary numerical limits on what's considered an adminhelp-worthy event, such as 'he only did 50 points of damage, IC issue,' as each situation is different
E) I DO NOT support immediate escalation by a given victim player to adminhelps in the circumstance of being whacked less-than-lethally for doing something stupid
F) I DO support the victim player in this instance submitting an adminhelp, as their circumstance was being whacked less-than-lethally for doing their job as described on the tin
G) I DO support the victim player and administrator in feeling that this issue was worthy of OOC attention, as IC retaliation would almost inevitably have led to the victim player being killed outright for 'acting like an antag'

Slippery slope arguments are stupid as hell in this case. This is an excellent example of _what an admin is supposed to do in this kind of situation_, which is investigate the issue at hand, apply their interpretation of the rules and understanding of the events which took place, enumerate the likelihood that the player is going to engage in the behavior again, determine whether or not the behavior actually was resolvable ICly, guide the players in question to understand how to resolve it more effectively in the future, and make remarks upon what was done so that the next administrator who views an issue involving the player in question can understand the context in which the next issue occurred and the behavior patterns present.

This isn't a hard and fast 'ANY SECURITY OFFICER WHO USES THEIR WEAPON IS BANNED' situation, this isn't a hard and fast 'ANYONE WHO IS 'JUST DOING THEIR JOB' IS EXEMPT FROM IC RETALIATION,' this is one fucking situation with some pretty fucking obvious facts that I don't feel should be nearly as much of an argument as it is.

It's a note for a player who did a stupid thing because they were annoyed.

The note's been clarified, the player knows to be more careful next time, the admin knows to be more specific in the next note, nobody's banned, what's left to be said?

Post by **Cobby** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 3:55 pm #336893

Lazengann wrote:To me, the nuance is that shooting a few revolver shots takes less than one second and doesn't require you to walk over to them. The player was annoyed, and thought the revolver was a low damage weapon, admitting that he didn't know exactly how much it hurts. It wasn't a conscious "haha I can shoot him now," it was a second of annoyance.

To quote a roman guy, "Theophrastus is right, and philosophically sound, to say that the sin committed out of pleasure deserves a harsher rebuke than the one committed out of pain. The angry man is more like a victim of wrongdoing, provoked by pain to anger. The other man rushes into wrongdoing on his own, moved to action by desire."

The tricky thing is, I wouldn't want to discourage conflict, but I would want something to make sure the player isn't doing this sort of thing constantly. I believe notes are a small step down from bans and are enough to discourage behaviour so I have no clue how to solve this except with secret notes which we've moved away from.

Then people would just get mad they have a hidden black mark.

This is exactly why you're not allowed to appeal notes in which you did the thing mentioned in the note (although you can ask to have it more accurately depict the situation, WHICH AGAIN WAS ALREADY DONE).

I don't understand the big scare about notes. If you are a poor player and I observe this, you're going to have a lot of notes not even from me. I don't even know of a single instance in which a player has been "wrongly banned" because they have a bunch of notes but are a relatively good player. It just doesn't work that way. If you don't want a lot of notes, then don't act poorly on a consistent basis. We should not blame the teacher because the student lost a gold star, the student should stop and think about why they lost the gold star and discontinue doing it again.

The argument on this thread has solidified people's opinions on Jarek's behavior more than a """bad""" note showing one incident where he just got bootyblasted and overreacted to someone doing their job could ever do, so really this thread is one big counterproductive mess ever since it was reopened.

Post by **Armhulen** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 4:04 pm #336895

feem wrote:My thoughts on this:

1) Absent of any existing behavior patterns, in the case of an overreaction that didn't lead to a player death, with no mitigating circumstances, in which recompense could easily be achieved by the wronged player (i.e. aggressor gets dunked), I think that:
a) A note may be unnecessary, as you can just tell the player not to be so hasty next time
b) The issue can be resolved ICly by retaliating with force

2) While the detective's revolver is 'less than lethal,' it is not 'nonlethal.' This is an important distinction.

3) In situations where security is the aggressor, as has been mentioned, action taken by the victim to retaliate against the security asset will almost inevitably end in pain for the victim. This is one of the reasons that there are precedents regarding use of force by security. As above, the detective's revolver is 'less than lethal' but not 'nonlethal.'

4) Wetting floors when there was both a reasonable explanation for why they were wetted (cleaning was being performed) and actions were taken to remediate the impact of that wetting (signs were placed) is not 'acting like an antag.'

5) 'Act like an antag, get treated like one' therefore does not apply.

6) The player in question, while not having a substantial history of this particular behavior, has been noted for other overreactions and behavior issues in the past.

7) Given the above, in my opinion, while a note may not have been strictly necessary (as a talking-to may have sufficed), and while ideally this could have been resolved ICly, there existed the following:
a) An onus on the security player not to react with more-than-nonlethal force to non-aggressive acts
b) An overreaction born out of annoyance by the security player with immediate aggressive escalation to more-than-nonlethal force
c) An IC and OOC disincentive for the victim to respond 'appropriately' by retaliating against the aggressor, in that if he did respond he would almost certainly have been killed
d) A pre-existing set of conditions in the case of the security player (note history) which indicate that the player has had overreactions to other situations in the past
e) No current documented warning to the security player that overreaction as a security player when other options are available is viewed more harshly than, say, a greytider who only has a toolbox

Therefore .:

A) I DO support the warning of the security player for overreaction as a security officer to a non-aggressive act
B) I DO support this note as a record of behavior for which the player was warned
C) I DO NOT support universal noting or 'black marks on the record' for any security player who 'overreacts' to a situation, as each situation is different
D) I DO NOT support explicit and arbitrary numerical limits on what's considered an adminhelp-worthy event, such as 'he only did 50 points of damage, IC issue,' as each situation is different
E) I DO NOT support immediate escalation by a given victim player to adminhelps in the circumstance of being whacked less-than-lethally for doing something stupid
F) I DO support the victim player in this instance submitting an adminhelp, as their circumstance was being whacked less-than-lethally for doing their job as described on the tin
G) I DO support the victim player and administrator in feeling that this issue was worthy of OOC attention, as IC retaliation would almost inevitably have led to the victim player being killed outright for 'acting like an antag'

Slippery slope arguments are stupid as hell in this case. This is an excellent example of _what an admin is supposed to do in this kind of situation_, which is investigate the issue at hand, apply their interpretation of the rules and understanding of the events which took place, enumerate the likelihood that the player is going to engage in the behavior again, determine whether or not the behavior actually was resolvable ICly, guide the players in question to understand how to resolve it more effectively in the future, and make remarks upon what was done so that the next administrator who views an issue involving the player in question can understand the context in which the next issue occurred and the behavior patterns present.

This isn't a hard and fast 'ANY SECURITY OFFICER WHO USES THEIR WEAPON IS BANNED' situation, this isn't a hard and fast 'ANYONE WHO IS 'JUST DOING THEIR JOB' IS EXEMPT FROM IC RETALIATION,' this is one fucking situation with some pretty fucking obvious facts that I don't feel should be nearly as much of an argument as it is.

It's a note for a player who did a stupid thing because they were annoyed.

The note's been clarified, the player knows to be more careful next time, the admin knows to be more specific in the next note, nobody's banned, what's left to be said?

This makes sense to me, lets not lose our heads and composure over a note.