[Feemjmeem] Swindly - Bad escalation

Appeals which have been closed.

Moderators: In-Game Head Admins, In-Game Admin, In-Game Game Master

Swindly
 
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2016 5:21 pm
Byond Username: Swindly

[Feemjmeem] Swindly - Bad escalation

Postby Swindly » Fri Oct 27, 2017 7:38 pm #351373

Byond account and character name: Swindly, Skewium LXIX
Noting admin: Feemjmeem
Note type (What are you noted from?): Sybil
Note reason and length: "Murdered someone because they broke a window in chemistry. Asked to not jump straight to murder." Permanent
Time note was placed (including time zone): 2017-05-24 01:13:48 server time
Server you were playing when noted (Sybil or Bagil): Sybil
Your side of the story:

I was playing as a chemist during a rev round.
[00:54:56]GAME: Digdugxx (ckey) has been selected as a head rev

Some uneventful minutes pass and then the headrev flashes Bruce.
[01:01:01]ATTACK: Unknown(digdugxx) flashed Bruce Jenkins(thatreallygoodsodaflavor) with The flash (NEWHP: 95) (108,158,1)

Revs take over Medbay as per the normal rev strat.
[01:01:20]SAY: Skewium LXIX/Swindly : So medical is compromised. Neato.

I keep chemistry closed as per my counter-rev strat.
[01:01:38]SAY: Skewium LXIX/Swindly : Medical except chemistry is viva.

Bruce tells the botanist to grow corn for nitroglycerin.
[01:07:06]SAY: Bruce Jenkins/That REALLY Good Soda Flavor : grow some corn
-snip unrelated chat-
[01:07:09]SAY: Bruce Jenkins/That REALLY Good Soda Flavor : we need nitroglycerin

Bruce asks someone for a beaker. I don't know whether he was talking to the botanist, the other chemist, or me. If the request was directed to me, I didn't see it.
[01:08:18]SAY: Bruce Jenkins/That REALLY Good Soda Flavor : small beaker

Bruce smashes a chemistry window with a bat, climbs in, and slips, dropping the bat.
[01:09:10]ATTACK: Bruce Jenkins(thatreallygoodsodaflavor) climbed onto reinforced table with (99,103,1)
-snip unrelated combat-
[01:09:13]ATTACK: Bruce Jenkins(thatreallygoodsodaflavor) slipped NON-EXISTENT SUBJECT with on floor

I apply bat to Bruce's head.
[01:09:21]ATTACK: Skewium LXIX(swindly) attacked Bruce Jenkins(thatreallygoodsodaflavor) with baseball bat(INTENT: HARM) (DAMTYPE: BRUTE) (NEWHP: 73) (101,103,1)
[01:09:22]ATTACK: Skewium LXIX(swindly) attacked Bruce Jenkins(thatreallygoodsodaflavor) with baseball bat(INTENT: HARM) (DAMTYPE: BRUTE) (NEWHP: 63) (101,102,1)
[01:09:23]ATTACK: Skewium LXIX(swindly) attacked Bruce Jenkins(thatreallygoodsodaflavor) with baseball bat(INTENT: HARM) (DAMTYPE: BRUTE) (NEWHP: 53) (101,101,1)
-snip unrelated combat-
[01:09:24]ATTACK: Skewium LXIX(swindly) attacked Bruce Jenkins(thatreallygoodsodaflavor) with baseball bat(INTENT: HARM) (DAMTYPE: BRUTE) (NEWHP: 43) (101,100,1)
[01:09:25]ATTACK: Skewium LXIX(swindly) attacked Bruce Jenkins(thatreallygoodsodaflavor) with baseball bat(INTENT: HARM) (DAMTYPE: BRUTE) (NEWHP: 33) (101,99,1)
[01:09:26]ATTACK: Skewium LXIX(swindly) attacked Bruce Jenkins(thatreallygoodsodaflavor) with baseball bat(INTENT: HARM) (DAMTYPE: BRUTE) (NEWHP: 23) (101,99,1)
-snip unrelated combat-
[01:09:27]ATTACK: Skewium LXIX(swindly) attacked Bruce Jenkins(thatreallygoodsodaflavor) with baseball bat(INTENT: HARM) (DAMTYPE: BRUTE) (NEWHP: 13) (101,99,1)
-snip unrelated combat-
[01:09:28]ATTACK: Skewium LXIX(swindly) attacked Bruce Jenkins(thatreallygoodsodaflavor) with baseball bat(INTENT: HARM) (DAMTYPE: BRUTE) (NEWHP: 3) (101,99,1)
-snip unrelated combat-
[01:09:29]ATTACK: Skewium LXIX(swindly) attacked Bruce Jenkins(thatreallygoodsodaflavor) with baseball bat(INTENT: HARM) (DAMTYPE: BRUTE) (NEWHP: -7) (101,99,1)
-snip unrelated combat-
[01:09:29]ATTACK: Skewium LXIX(swindly) attacked Bruce Jenkins(thatreallygoodsodaflavor) with baseball bat(INTENT: HARM) (DAMTYPE: BRUTE) (NEWHP: -17) (101,99,1)
-snip unrelated combat-
[01:09:30]ATTACK: Skewium LXIX(swindly) attacked Bruce Jenkins(thatreallygoodsodaflavor) with baseball bat(INTENT: HARM) (DAMTYPE: BRUTE) (NEWHP: -27) (101,99,1)
[01:09:31]ATTACK: Skewium LXIX(swindly) attacked Bruce Jenkins(thatreallygoodsodaflavor) with baseball bat(INTENT: HARM) (DAMTYPE: BRUTE) (NEWHP: -37) (101,99,1)
[01:09:32]ATTACK: Skewium LXIX(swindly) attacked Bruce Jenkins(thatreallygoodsodaflavor) with baseball bat(INTENT: HARM) (DAMTYPE: BRUTE) (NEWHP: -47) (101,99,1)
-snip unrelated combat-
[01:09:34]ATTACK: Skewium LXIX(swindly) attacked Bruce Jenkins(thatreallygoodsodaflavor) with baseball bat(INTENT: HARM) (DAMTYPE: BRUTE) (NEWHP: -57) (101,99,1)
-snip unrelated combat-
[01:09:35]ATTACK: Skewium LXIX(swindly) attacked Bruce Jenkins(thatreallygoodsodaflavor) with baseball bat(INTENT: HARM) (DAMTYPE: BRUTE) (NEWHP: -67) (101,99,1)
-snip unrelated combat-
[01:09:35]ATTACK: Skewium LXIX(swindly) attacked Bruce Jenkins(thatreallygoodsodaflavor) with baseball bat(INTENT: HARM) (DAMTYPE: BRUTE) (NEWHP: -77) (101,99,1)
-snip unrelated combat-
[01:09:36]ATTACK: Skewium LXIX(swindly) attacked Bruce Jenkins(thatreallygoodsodaflavor) with baseball bat(INTENT: HARM) (DAMTYPE: BRUTE) (NEWHP: -87) (101,99,1)
-snip unrelated combat-
[01:09:38]ATTACK: Skewium LXIX(swindly) attacked Bruce Jenkins(thatreallygoodsodaflavor) with baseball bat(INTENT: HARM) (DAMTYPE: BRUTE) (NEWHP: -97.6667) (101,99,1)
-snip unrelated combat-
[01:09:38]ATTACK: Skewium LXIX(swindly) attacked Bruce Jenkins(thatreallygoodsodaflavor) with baseball bat(INTENT: HARM) (DAMTYPE: BRUTE) (NEWHP: -107.667) (101,99,1)


The logs were taken from here and here.

Why you think you should be unnoted:
A guy acted like an antagonist and I treated him like one. Murdering Bruce was a reaction to a legitimate threat to my life and not in retaliation for vandalism as the note seems to insinuate.



feem
 
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2014 10:13 pm
Byond Username: Feemjmeem
Github Username: feemjmeem

Re: [Feemjmeem] Swindly - Bad escalation

Postby feem » Fri Oct 27, 2017 7:49 pm #351375

In and of itself, breaking into chemistry and immediately slipping isn't justification for killing them. You easily could've beaten him up and chucked his ass out, but you didn't. I don't think that this note unfairly paints the situation because it accurately describes what occurred.

You did not know at the time that they were a rev.

I will not remove this note.

User avatar
naltronix
 
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2017 9:33 pm
Location: inside of a singularity, send help
Byond Username: Naltronix

Re: [Feemjmeem] Swindly - Bad escalation

Postby naltronix » Fri Oct 27, 2017 8:18 pm #351377

sorry if this is peanut posting but-
he had no idea he was a rev, but he could assume that he was a rev considering medbay was viva and that he broke in during the medbay viva

admin edit: approving this since it's sort of anon3 amendment. he's pointing out rule 4 ("act like an antag get treated like one") even if he doesn't explicitly state it. whether this is relevant is still up to the banning admin

User avatar
cedarbridge
 
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 12:24 am
Byond Username: Cedarbridge

Re: [Feemjmeem] Swindly - Bad escalation

Postby cedarbridge » Fri Oct 27, 2017 8:45 pm #351380

feem wrote:You did not know at the time that they were a rev.

Is this a certainty?

If yes, then the logs with benefit of hindsight aren't much help. Validity is really only workable through actual knowledge. If he did not know that the guy was a rev and just murdered him on the spot then that's probably over the line.

If no, then we have a case of expected defense. Where there's the implication here that he had knowledge that there were revolutionaries taking over medbay and that medbay was remaining in rev control. Furthermore where he has reason to expect that a rev is breaking into chemistry to do him harm or have him flashed, or to steal dangerous (beakers) items that could cause harm to himself or other crew, there's a reasonable position for immediate killing upon trespass.

Naturally this all boils down to what he actually knew at the time of the killing and not merely what information could be gleaned from the event logs after the fact. So, did he know the guy was a rev when he killed him?

onleavedontatme
 
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 10:26 pm
Byond Username: KorPhaeron

Re: [Feemjmeem] Swindly - Bad escalation

Postby onleavedontatme » Fri Oct 27, 2017 9:15 pm #351385

>be an antagonist
>smash into someones room with a baseball bat
>adminhelp when they use that bat on me

???

cedarbridge wrote:So, did he know the guy was a rev when he killed him?


This might be nitpicking but I think "know" is the wrong word considering how much effort we put into the game coding/admin wise to heavily restrict or eliminate antagonist tests with the goal of players not being able to "know" things for sure.

Reasonable suspicion seems like a better standard to hold civilian players (who don't have the luxury of tasers and cuffs and implants) to.

User avatar
cedarbridge
 
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 12:24 am
Byond Username: Cedarbridge

Re: [Feemjmeem] Swindly - Bad escalation

Postby cedarbridge » Fri Oct 27, 2017 9:20 pm #351387

Kor wrote:
cedarbridge wrote:So, did he know the guy was a rev when he killed him?


This might be nitpicking but I think "know" is the wrong word considering how much effort we put into the game coding/admin wise to heavily restrict or eliminate antagonist tests with the goal of players not being able to "know" things for sure.

Reasonable suspicion seems like a better standard to hold civilian players (who don't have the luxury of tasers and cuffs and implants) to.

That's basically what I meant. Its a sort of subjective knowledge. I don't ~know~ a dude is a traitor for holding an esword and chasing the clown, but I can come to that conclusion through reasonable inferences that approximate knowledge. That would be enough here I think.

feem
 
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2014 10:13 pm
Byond Username: Feemjmeem
Github Username: feemjmeem

Re: [Feemjmeem] Swindly - Bad escalation

Postby feem » Fri Oct 27, 2017 9:57 pm #351392

We aren't discussing a ban, this is a note. If I'm remembering correctly, there was no interaction prior to the victim breaking in with a bat, slipping, and being beaten to death.

I wouldn't have left a note at the time if there'd been a reasonable IC reason to assume they were a rev other than "some people are revs so this person I've never seen before is too"

Swindly
 
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2016 5:21 pm
Byond Username: Swindly

Re: [Feemjmeem] Swindly - Bad escalation

Postby Swindly » Fri Oct 27, 2017 11:26 pm #351413

I saw Bruce punching somebody around the bar area shortly after revs were confirmed. Although I couldn't confirm which person was the antagonist because I missed the start of the fight and didn't have a security HUD to check if Bruce had been implanted, assuming that the person breaking and entering into my workplace with a bat (as opposed to a toolbox or other item that has uses besides killing people) would want to use the bat on me isn't a particularly unusual leap in logic.

feem
 
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2014 10:13 pm
Byond Username: Feemjmeem
Github Username: feemjmeem

Re: [Feemjmeem] Swindly - Bad escalation

Postby feem » Sat Oct 28, 2017 12:39 am #351454

The biggest problem here, and the one that made me leave the note in the first place, is that after he slipped you didn't grab his shit and throw him out, you didn't beat him up and throw him out, you didn't sedate him and take him to security, you didn't take any of the sensible paths that you could have as a chemist dealing with someone who broke into your workplace, you beat him up (fine), you kept beating him into crit (pretty fine given you were worried about him), you then kept beating him until he died (uhhh... maybe a little too far there).

This is a note, not a ban, which means I recognize that you had a reason to deal with the guy, but you probably shouldn't have gone all the way to killing him during your first interaction with him when you got to watch him slowly beat through the glass, slowly climb onto the table, slowly wait out the short stun of being on the table, and then slip, and then after you start wailing on him, go into crit. And this is exactly what the note says: that I asked you not to go straight to murder next time.

You had a ton of opportunities to de-escalate as a non-antagonist without clear evidence that he was an antagonist in a first engagement with someone breaking into your shit. But you weren't banned, because this wasn't the worst thing you could have done _unless you continue to do it,_ which is the point of the note.

Does that make more sense?

Swindly
 
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2016 5:21 pm
Byond Username: Swindly

Re: [Feemjmeem] Swindly - Bad escalation

Postby Swindly » Sat Oct 28, 2017 1:26 am #351464

I actually cuffed Bruce with the intention of keeping him still until I could call security over to implant him, but immediately after Bruce came in, other people tried to break the other windows. While I couldn't be completely sure they were also antagonists at the time, the fact that they waited until the guy I correctly deduced was an antagonist was in trouble to try to get into the lab didn't seem to indicate that they were on my side. I figured that if I was going to be killed there, I might as well kill the rev I caught. The other people gave up once I killed Bruce and threw him into the trash. I didn't kill Bruce because of vandalism; I killed him for acting like the people whose goal involves converting or killing (more likely since plasmaman helmets are flash-proof) me.

feem
 
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2014 10:13 pm
Byond Username: Feemjmeem
Github Username: feemjmeem

Re: [Feemjmeem] Swindly - Bad escalation

Postby feem » Sat Oct 28, 2017 1:50 am #351467

Hm, I'd forgotten that you cuffed him before you beat him to death.

User avatar
Dax Dupont
In-Game Admin
 
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2014 9:07 pm
Location: Belgium
Byond Username: DaxYeen
Github Username: DaxDupont

Re: [Feemjmeem] Swindly - Bad escalation

Postby Dax Dupont » Sat Oct 28, 2017 1:51 am #351469

Rule 4 and rule 1 Precedents.

You may defend your workplace from trespassers who damage or steal property within that space with significantly greater force than elsewhere. If someone is severely disruptive and returns after ejected, this opens them up to "fun" of the creative workplace death variety.

Now this mentions "returns after ejected", I believe in this case ejection is not even needed since there's an obvious threat to your life during a round with high intensity violence.

It was ruled before that chemists can use lethal force on botanists stealing their chem dispensers, how is smashing windows with a bat and obvious intent on harm/theft/greytiding different especially during a game mode that is notorious for pretty much being the most violent of gamemodes?

feem
 
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2014 10:13 pm
Byond Username: Feemjmeem
Github Username: feemjmeem

Re: [Feemjmeem] Swindly - Bad escalation

Postby feem » Sat Oct 28, 2017 2:01 am #351471

I'm sorry, I'm just not seeing why a note from several months ago about asking a player to use a little less finality the next time they remove someone who hadn't done anything to them from the workplace -- especially when they're already subdued and cuffed -- is causing this much debate.

Do you want me to change it to illustrate all events which took place?

Swindly
 
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2016 5:21 pm
Byond Username: Swindly

Re: [Feemjmeem] Swindly - Bad escalation

Postby Swindly » Sat Oct 28, 2017 2:41 am #351475

When an admin unfamiliar with the situation reads "Murdered someone because they broke a window in chemistry.", that admin will likely think that the reason that I killed someone was that that person made my workplace ugly. Indicating that I acted with self-defense in mind against someone who was acting so much like a revolutionary that I was able to determine that he was a revolutionary despite not seeing him get flashed would add the necessary clarity to properly use the note in future disciplinary situations.

feem
 
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2014 10:13 pm
Byond Username: Feemjmeem
Github Username: feemjmeem

Re: [Feemjmeem] Swindly - Bad escalation

Postby feem » Sat Oct 28, 2017 2:45 am #351476

That seems fair. I'll tweak it next time I'm in and update this thread.

onleavedontatme
 
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 10:26 pm
Byond Username: KorPhaeron

Re: [Feemjmeem] Swindly - Bad escalation

Postby onleavedontatme » Sat Oct 28, 2017 6:35 am #351500

But if you edit the note to "In a known rev round, restrained and eventually killed an armed man who was part of a mob breaking into his workplace" it just becomes a record of completely normal behavior.

use a little less finality the next time they remove someone who hadn't done anything to them from the workplace


They broke in with a really strong melee weapon backed up by a mob in a round type were armed mobs go around killing people, I wouldn't want a player to hesitate and die in this kind of situation because they're afraid of OOC repercussions. That people don't want that behavior discouraged is why there is debate, not because of any massive punishment suffered by the OP.

feem
 
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2014 10:13 pm
Byond Username: Feemjmeem
Github Username: feemjmeem

Re: [Feemjmeem] Swindly - Bad escalation

Postby feem » Sat Oct 28, 2017 3:04 pm #351556

I'll just remove it, despite my noted objections to the current administration's views on the subject.


Return to Resolved Appeals

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users