/tg/Station 13

Byond account and character name: Dagum - Midas Khan

Banning admin: Dorsidwarf

Ban type (What are you banned from?): Server

Ban reason and length: Killed Klippdar (known to have previously repeatedly metagrudged him) and hid the body after they came back to their own workplace from cloning (having previously been baited them into becoming valid under escalation policy which is completely fine) Dayban

Time ban was placed (including time zone): 3:00PM Central

Server you were playing when banned (Sybil or Bagil): Bagil

Your side of the story: First of all, there's only one player I'm aware of that I've bothered to metagrudge at all and they always used a random name. Back then, they had a static appearance but they were not even using that appearance now. How am I supposed to be metagrudging a random name, random appearance player? I'm the one using a static name and the first thing they did in the round was leave botany, wait to see where I went, and then followed me there to mess with me.

Round starts, other botanist follows me to the autolathe and then quickly cuts in front of me to steal the multitool I just printed. I push them, they begin stabbing me in the eyes with a screwdriver and then ends up getting killed by me and a small mob that forms. When they come back to botany, I kill them and stuff their body in a locker in the back room.


I dunno what ever happened to the change in escalation rules but I pretty distinctly remember there being a bright, blatant MOTD about it on the servers saying, to summarize, that if people instigate the harm against you, you are fully justified to take them out of the round completely - no need to even bother giving them another chance. If this was changed back, my bad, but I don't recall ever seeing any similar notification to the one putting it into effect.

If I'm wrong about escalation, I'll eat the punishment on that but the metagrudging nonsense is pure bullshit. The fact that this player - random name, random appearance - followed me - static name, static appearance - at round-start and immediately began instigating shit so that they could ahelp and accuse me of metagrudging sounds like a lot more plausible case of metagrudging than Midas Khan, the static-name botanist main that has a reputation for ruthlessly beating down people for being shitheads, beating down a random shithead that was starting shit.

Why you think you should be unbanned: I don't care about the dayban, but the metagrudging bit is ridiculous. The person barely even said a single sentence to me (to print another multitool), am I suspected of cross-referencing that with my dossier on whoever this fool is and matching their speech patterns based on like five words? Or do I just recognize this 2d spessman's posture and gait? Honestly, how do I metagrudge someone with a totally different name, totally different appearance and who barely said anything at all to me?

Also I'm confused by the language on the reason. "having previously been baited them into becoming valid under escalation policy which is completely fine," does this mean they baited me or I baited them? Is it saying the escalation was kosher?

You can't kill them just for going into botany. Since he stole the multitool, we'll call him the instigator. Killing him for it was fine, but hiding the body would probably be going too far. You cloned him, which meant the conflict is over for you unless he escalates further. When he simply just walked back into botany though, that was no reason to kill him. If he came up to you and started attacking you, then you have the green light to permanently take him out of the round.

As for the metagrudge, there's no way you could've known it was him and that should be removed. I agree with all your points there.

Sources:
Escalation policy:
If a player wrongs you(theft, attacks, etc), you may retaliate. If you choose to retaliate with violence, you in turn have opened yourself up to violence. If you choose this route, do not expect admins to help you out if you die, even if you were not the original instigator. If you are concerned about being "kill baited" then consider calling security, using non lethal means to subdue your opponent, fleeing, or otherwise working things out (talking them down, getting your stolen items replaced, etc)
...
If you are the instigator in a conflict and end up killing or severely impairing the round of the person you are fighting, you should make a reasonable effort to return them to life at least once or make amends, only seeking round removal if they continue to pursue you. This protection doesn't apply to an instigator being killed.

I'm in a round currently so cant post a full response but to clarify the language - you killing them the first time was valid escalation (its fine to bait people into punching/hitting you by spam pushing/shoving then kill them), you killing them the second time was not

If you are the instigator in a conflict and end up killing or severely impairing the round of the person you are fighting, you should make a reasonable effort to return them to life at least once or make amends, only seeking round removal if they continue to pursue you. This protection doesn't apply to an instigator being killed.

I think this last bit is what I was thinking of. Since they were the instigator and the protection doesn't apply, I had no obligation to show them mercy. It was other folks that took them to medbay (the mob killed them right outside) and I tried taking his ID as a non-roundending resolution. When that didn't work, I decided to finish the job. Isn't that part of the escalation? If you start shit, whether or not you win, the other person has the chance to come take retribution and this time neither of you has to show the other any mercy.

No. After he was cloned, the conflict was done with unless he chose to start it back up. You already got your retribution by killing him one time.

The escalation policy doesn't say that. It says the protection does not apply to the instigator. The instigator doesn't get to come in and kill someone, let them be cloned, then come back and kill them again as retribution for... an incident they instigated in the first place. The only difference here is that the instigator lost the original fight and got killed. The policy doesn't say anything about the instigator's victim being limited in their retribution at any point in the escalation. This is the risk the player takes by instigating violence.

I would like to note that I had to fight Midas to drag the body to medbay the first time, he was trying to drag it off to maintenance and then in medbay he kept dragging the freshly defibbed corpse from the doctors. I had to crit Midas to give the docs a chance to revive the other botanist. Also he was stealing the botanist's ID so I kept it safe.

Having fallen asleep with a headache I'm going to concur with Beesting and remove the metagaming part from the ban reason as its apparent now that you probbably couldnt have known it was that same guy and metagrudings a serious thing to have unfairly on the record.

So if I wasn't metagrudging and my actions weren't in violation of the escalation policy as it's written, why was I banned? It appears that nothing I did violates what is written in the escalation policy. Why didn't you follow up when I said that I didn't even know who this player was and just continue to ban me? Was it the random-name player themselves that claimed it was metagrudging, while antagonizing a static name that they know has zero tolerance for shitlery?

Just because he instigated, you killed him once, and got him cloned doesn't mean you get to "store" a "kill-token" on him for the remainder of the shift.

The conflict was effectively de-escalated until you re-escalated, flipping the role of instigator onto you (ergo instigator rules now apply). Going back to botany as a botanist alone isn't provoking you to reattack them.

It keeps getting said that I cloned him when I didn't. Another admin/witness even testified that they had to beat me into crit to stop me from trying to interfere with the instigator's revival. Frankly, I was on the verge of losing the fight before the mob jumped in anyway(and was put into crit attempting to finish him off), so the fact that I got actually won the fight or took retribution is arguable.

In any case, the escalation policy doesn't describe what you say here. Can you point to where in the escalation policy any of this is stated? It kind of seems to fly in the face of the very specific exemption of protection for instigators. Isn't that the built in risk of acting like an antag and assaulting people when you aren't actually valid(otherwise known as IC issues)?

Regardless of who cloned him, he died and it should have been over unless he started to try again.

The policy does not specify when a conflict ends/begins nor does it state there’s an indefinite duration, so that naturally goes to rule 1.

The policy does state you may RETALIATE, not get free reign to perma-remove a player for the entirety of the round. You weren’t retaliating when he returned from Botany, you were instigating a fight over previous incidences (okay) then expecting victim protections (wrong).

So all the instigator has to do is die, not even by the victim's hand, and escalation is reset? How does that make sense? I was nearly in crit before other people entirely, not me, killed him.

Zarniwoop wrote:So all the instigator has to do is die, not even by the victim's hand, and escalation is reset? How does that make sense? I was nearly in crit before other people entirely, not me, killed him.

It's because he deescalated by not re-attacking you when he was revived

Show me in the escalation policy it says that the instigator gets that protection. It doesn’t. It specifically removes that protection from instigators.

First I was banned for meta grudge, then the admins realized that doesn’t apply and removed it. Then it was for breaking escalation rules and now, since the rules can’t actually be used to justify banning me, it’s just plain rule 1. The banning admin didn’t even investigate enough to know that it was a random name, random appearance player I was allegedly metagrudging. This has been a mess from the start and should be removed.

Also I dunno who you are, somerandomguy, but I don’t think you’re supposed to be commenting on appeals that don’t relate to you.

Zarniwoop wrote:Show me in the escalation policy it says that the instigator gets that protection. It doesn’t. It specifically removes that protection from instigators.

First I was banned for meta grudge, then the admins realized that doesn’t apply and removed it. Then it was for breaking escalation rules and now, since the rules can’t actually be used to justify banning me, it’s just plain rule 1. The banning admin didn’t even investigate enough to know that it was a random name, random appearance player I was allegedly metagrudging. This has been a mess from the start and should be removed.

Also I dunno who you are, somerandomguy, but I don’t think you’re supposed to be commenting on appeals that don’t relate to you.

t. person who hasn't read peanut policy
I'm bringing up relevant precedent/rules, anyone can do that

Speaking of which, the rules actually can and are being used to justify banning you, specifically that instigators must try to return the other party to the round. "But he started i-" no. He died and was revived. He came back and didn't attack you. This ends the original conflict. You're free to start shit, but if you do, you are the instigator for this conflict, and must try to clone him.

Also "since the rules can’t actually be used to justify banning me, it’s just plain rule 1" reeks of rules-lawyering, it's literally why we have rule 0/1 (also rule 0/1 is a rule so ????)

The reason you got banned was because you killed him for entering his own work space. If he had attacked you again you would have been fine. He came back into the work space you both shared, in which he had 100% right to be, and you killed him on the spot after he got cloned.

If you kill someone who started a fight with you you don't get to kill them again after they're cloned if they haven't done anything further to you.

somerandomguy wrote: t. person who hasn't read peanut policy
I'm bringing up relevant precedent/rules, anyone can do that

I don't see anything about a peanut policy in the rules page. The wiki being a mess isn't my fault. You aren't actually bringing up precedent/rules, you're just stating things and saying they're the rules.

He died and was revived. He came back and didn't attack you. This ends the original conflict.

Yeah, you keep saying this but the escalation policy doesn't support it. This would be the right moment to actually bring up relevant precedent/rules, didn't you say anyone can do that? Anyone except you, I guess.

Also "since the rules can’t actually be used to justify banning me, it’s just plain rule 1" reeks of rules-lawyering

t.person who hasn't read the thread

I'm not the one that brought it up, some admin brought that up as a final refuge once metagrudging and improper escalation went out the window. Rules-lawyering indeed.

Warbosslincoln wrote:If you kill someone who started a fight with you

I didn't, the mob did after he nearly killed me. Read the thread.

Are either of you even admins or what is your relevance to this thread?

Zarniwoop wrote:

somerandomguy wrote: t. person who hasn't read peanut policy
I'm bringing up relevant precedent/rules, anyone can do that

I don't see anything about a peanut policy in the rules page. The wiki being a mess isn't my fault. You aren't actually bringing up precedent/rules, you're just stating things and saying they're the rules.

https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=44, especially this post in it: https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic ... =44#p56991

Zarniwoop wrote:

He died and was revived. He came back and didn't attack you. This ends the original conflict.

Yeah, you keep saying this but the escalation policy doesn't support it. This would be the right moment to actually bring up relevant precedent/rules, didn't you say anyone can do that? Anyone except you, I guess.

Cobby wrote:Regardless of who cloned him, he died and it should have been over unless he started to try again.

The policy does not specify when a conflict ends/begins nor does it state there’s an indefinite duration, so that naturally goes to rule 1.

The policy does state you may RETALIATE, not get free reign to perma-remove a player for the entirety of the round. You weren’t retaliating when he returned from Botany, you were instigating a fight over previous incidences (okay) then expecting victim protections (wrong).

Zarniwoop wrote:

Also "since the rules can’t actually be used to justify banning me, it’s just plain rule 1" reeks of rules-lawyering

t.person who hasn't read the thread

I'm not the one that brought it up, some admin brought that up as a final refuge once metagrudging and improper escalation went out the window. Rules-lawyering indeed.

quoted from you, word for word

Zarniwoop (three posts earlier) wrote:Show me in the escalation policy it says that the instigator gets that protection. It doesn’t. It specifically removes that protection from instigators.

First I was banned for meta grudge, then the admins realized that doesn’t apply and removed it. Then it was for breaking escalation rules and now, since the rules can’t actually be used to justify banning me, it’s just plain rule 1. The banning admin didn’t even investigate enough to know that it was a random name, random appearance player I was allegedly metagrudging. This has been a mess from the start and should be removed.

Also I dunno who you are, somerandomguy, but I don’t think you’re supposed to be commenting on appeals that don’t relate to you.

Zarniwoop wrote:Are either of you even admins or what is your relevance to this thread?

See the thread I linked, also I'm not going to respond to anything else so I don't get beaned for peanut posting

I am an admin and you're in the wrong here for the reasons we have all described to you. If you don't understand that, we'll probably be back here next week anyways. The note was editted to exclude the metagrudge part and it's also expired. I'm locking this.