[MrhAlphonzo] Jarek, Server ban

[Jarek]

Post Content:
Byond account and character name: Loves-The-Lizards, Jarektheraptor
Banning admin: MrAlphonzo
Ban type (What are you banned from?): Server
Ban reason and length: 31 days, "Sorry for swinging this at you out of nowhere, but I couldn't get a ruling and decided to go with what I thought. You've never struck me as the type to knowingly go on a mass murder, so I believe when you say you had the impression possessed mobs could do whatever they want. At the same time, You've been on a string of increasingly shitty and consistent behaviour. What you did was mass grief and there was no IC prompt that hinted at antag status. As a final note, offenses similar to what you've done over the course of this summer wil likely lead to a permanent ban.
Time ban was placed (including time zone): Round ID 114487, 2019-07-29
Server you were playing when banned (Sybil or Bagil): None, I was asleep and not online.
Your side of the story: Ghost possession wizard event-triggered and I possessed a mob (monkeyman, I believe?) and then within the course of a minute fucked around, and then got mindswapped into a contractor support guy with a syndicate toolbox. Managed to snag myself a pulse rifle from a dude who'd dropped his when the mindswap event happened and, seeing how literally every other time anyone has EVER possessed a mob as a ghost and decided to attack the crew, they've been fine, I saw absolutely no problem with using the pulse rifle to shoot some people myself. The only real difference was the mob I was in control of wasn't a simple mob like the one a ghost possession might usually be in control of due to mass mindswap. I decided to shoot up the shuttle as the round was ending, and I had a sort of pseudo antag status as a ghost possess anyway, right? I wasn't banned for 2 days after this happened and I'm only waking up on the third day to find out that I have been.
Why you think you should be unbanned: G-G-Ghost possession! Is a wizard event that has a chance to trigger. When you possess something you forget everything about your previous lives. Why would I, A spirit inhabiting the body of someone else, care about the crew in any way shape or form? Seeing how summon events is a wizard ability in itself (regardless of how cancer it is), and most of the abilities that come out of it have equal chance to hinder or help the wizard who uses it (Invinciiblity is a good example, because as much as much as it can help the wizard because he is invincible, so is literally everyone else) wouldn't it not make more sense for me to be able to pick a side at the very least? At the VERY least looser escalation? There have been ghost possessions where people take control of dangerous mobs for the exclusive purpose of going to the station and gunning down crewmembers. Would they be banned for doing the same thing seeing how, if I am not an antag, why would they be any different? I feel like I was only banned at all because I was "lucky" enough to not only be able to get myself into a human body and not a simple mob body, but I was able to get a pulse rifle as well. If neither of those things had happened and I was just a naked guy/monkey running around punching shit, nobody would have batted an eye.

I also don't know what the string of shitty behaviour is supposed to be. I appealed the last major thing that I've done and it went fine. I'm confused as to why this would now mean I'd need to escalate to being permanently banned but that's not a part of this appeal.

[Arathian]

https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic ... 33&t=20957

Very similar situation to this one:

This one is a bit messy, but we decided that staff of changed saboteur borgs are indeed allowed to act as an antag/in a hostile manner (assuming it was an involuntary change).

This is to keep the Staff of Change rules as straightforward and consistent as possible in that you are allowed to act as the thing you've been turned into.

Saboteur borgs are indeed "known to be hostile" by the crew. Even if they are currently disguised. Similar to how a traitor is known to be hostile dispite just looking like a normal person.

However, we do agree that this particular edge case is a bit strange within the reasonings for the staff of change rules, and it wouldn't be unreasonable to remove them from the possible options just to keep things clean. That is, however, a code change.

This was the headmin ruling on that case, which removed the ban.

MrStonedOne's previous precedent ruling was also quoted:

The way its was explained to me when I was a trialmin was that involuntary transform only antag you if its a mob that is known for aggroing humans or otherwise being hostile to humans.

The thinking behind this was just that such mobs are generally going to get attacked on first sight before its known they are under the control of a player simply because thats the trained meta, so giving such mobs a fair chance at life was reasonable, and it allows the player to decide to just RP as that mob. It was more that players seeking or asking to be changed was exempted from the above policy under common sense.

I think it's fair to say that a syndie agent falls squarely on the "hostile mob" space.

In short, previous precedents show that Jarek was within his right to make spessmen go sideways.

Honestly, this is such a niche case that, even if the admin felt that Jarek was going overboard, a full month of ban is excessive. If someone plasmafloods "for the memes", he clearly knows what he is doing is wrong. It is generally expected that admins kinda look at the situation before applying a ban. Was Jarek clearly aware that this was (in the admin's opinion) self-antagging? Can anyone really argue this? A ban applied 3 days later about an extremely fuzzy situation should never be that long.

[John_Gobbel]

Staff of change is not the same as mindswap. A monkeyman is not inherently hostile and wouldn't be after a mindswap into a syndicate contractor. If Jarek possessed a syndicate contractor to start, I could see where the staff of change ruling would come into play but it doesn't make sense here.

Think of it like this: If you are a normal crewmember and you are involuntarily mindswapped into a known traitor, that would not make you a traitor. You still have the same mind as the crewmember.

Since a monkeyman is a neutral mob and wouldn't be considered hostile until provoked, the idea that it would go around murdering everyone just because it doesn't care sounds more like self-antagging and unprovoked grief than justifiable reasoning.

[Jarek]

Staff of change is not the same as mindswap. A monkeyman is not inherently hostile and wouldn't be after a mindswap into a syndicate contractor. If Jarek possessed a syndicate contractor to start, I could see where the staff of change ruling would come into play but it doesn't make sense here.

Think of it like this: If you are a normal crewmember and you are involuntarily mindswapped into a known traitor, that would not make you a traitor. You still have the same mind as the crewmember.

Since a monkeyman is a neutral mob and wouldn't be considered hostile until provoked, the idea that it would go around murdering everyone just because it doesn't care sounds more like self-antagging and unprovoked grief than justifiable reasoning.

While this would make sense in a normal round I was able to possess such a mob through a wizard event, during a wizard round. In my book that basically means I'm a wizard-spawned creature, and as I'm aware those aren't neccessarily the friendliest things in the world. Ghost possession would be a shit event for the wizard if all it did was make non-antags that wanted to hunt him down and kill him - and while some summon ghosts do that, others I and many people have witnessed choose to possess mobs to grief the crewmembers in various ways, from simply stunlocking them as a sentient beepsky, to mowing them down or killing them as the various mobs from lavaland, space, and even the station itself if xenobio has been active. My thinking is that due to the fact that A) Due to the fact an event the *wizard* caused, not the crew, provided me with a second chance at life and B) the fact that wizard-spawned creatures are not crew alligned, and if anything would be indebted to the wizard rather than some random humans who seem to be killing the one that gave them the second chance at life - Including some ghosts who managed to possess another form, why wouldn't they?

My point being, I'm not a member of the crew and if anything would be friendlier or assist the wizard because he gave me life over anything else. Regardless of the mob you decide to possess. Sure, it was because of an event, but one that the wizard chose to use. Not all people who aren't members of the crew are neccessarily hostile, the lavaland pet doctors weren't when they were around, but I don't think a spirit from the dead possessing a body is the same as some random doctors on lavaland who, were probably NT alligned anyway. The mindswap is hardly relevant. It's just my side of the story. Would I still have shot up the shuttle with a pulse rifle if I hadn't been mindswapped? Yes, Yes I would,[PROVIDED OF COURSE THE ROLE IS AN ANTAGONIST] because passing up the chance to make good use of a pulse rifle with what, if how literally anyone else plays possession mobs is any indicator, is an antag or at least semi-antag role that causes some chaos and then dies. The only difference is I wasn't a simple-mob you could kill in two hits, but that isn't my fault. At the end of the day, I'm a ghost who has literally stolen a corporeal form and come to life. Spirits in any medium aren't always super friendly and willing to help the living stay living.

[BeeSting12]

Not sure where the string of shitty behavior came from when your last two notes are positive and of the four negative notes since 5/30 (your first note in a year), three of them are fairly minor. A month ban is definitely extremely harsh for kills based on a lack of knowledge about antag status. I never really thought about it, but I can see how one would think ghost possession is an antag role, I would've probably thought the same.

[Eaglendia]

I'm pretty sure I've also been told that ghost possession is free antag, but I wouldn't be able to say as much with utter certainty.

[Not-Dorsidarf]

If ghost posession was free antag you could just posess into the HoS and start tase-n-lasing the other sec officers, guaranteeing death. Just replace posession with a button that blows peoples brains up in that case

[Jarek]

If ghost posession was free antag you could just posess into the HoS and start tase-n-lasing the other sec officers, guaranteeing death. Just replace posession with a button that blows peoples brains up in that case

Ghost possession is more like a sentience potion that the ghosts themselves get to choose what the sentience potion is used on. You don't get to possess random people who already have someone controlling them but almost anything in the game barring megafauna can be possessed otherwise. You used to be able to possess tendrils, before they got upgraded to megafauna status or something. the HoS may be a brainlet but he still has sentience already so you can't take him over.

[wesoda25]

I've been told that you have the antag status of whatever you are taking control of. Syndicate Salvage Fighter? You're an antag. Monkey? You are not.

[MrAlphonzo]

The precedent we have for allowing mobs to self-antag is on the basis that either A. The mob in question has been consistently lynched by the crew if it is found to have gained sentience or B. The mob in question is a mob created with the specific purpose of being an antagonist IE the syndicate borgs.

Sentient monkeys have, historically, been lynched by the crew, so there is some room for self-antag like behavior in order to defend yourself.
However, that need entirely vanished once you entered a human body.
But if you do believe that you still fall under Precedent A, we do not give those player possessed mobs that fall under that category permission to do literally anything they want. Say a monkey detonating the supermatter engine, would still be banned.

What you did was opportunistic major grief, wherein you used your pulse rifle to waste an entire emergency shuttle's crew capacity.

Your impression of a role is not relevant. We have always punished people for abusing roles to grief when there was no sort of prompt to inform you that you are an antagonist. There is so much precedent for this, and you have been here just as long as I have and know that "I saw other people doing it" is not an excuse.

There was no prompt notification similar to becoming a survivalist, amateur magician, traitor, changeling, ash walker, or any other role that makes it very clear to you whether or not you are an antagonist. Nor were you using a mob that falls under Precedent B. You assumed that you were a full-blown antagonist, and acted as such.

As for the contention of the ban length, I saw this to be a particularly egregious offense, and this combined with your recent ban for bug exploitation along with another note for abuse of your antag role in proximity to the arrivals shuttle.

[Jarek]

The precedent we have for allowing mobs to self-antag is on the basis that either A. The mob in question has been consistently lynched by the crew if it is found to have gained sentience or B. The mob in question is a mob created with the specific purpose of being an antagonist IE the syndicate borgs.

Sentient monkeys have, historically, been lynched by the crew, so there is some room for self-antag like behavior in order to defend yourself.
However, that need entirely vanished once you entered a human body.
But if you do believe that you still fall under Precedent A, we do not give those player possessed mobs that fall under that category permission to do literally anything they want. Say a monkey detonating the supermatter engine, would still be banned.

What you did was opportunistic major grief, wherein you used your pulse rifle to waste an entire emergency shuttle's crew capacity.

Your impression of a role is not relevant. We have always punished people for abusing roles to grief when there was no sort of prompt to inform you that you are an antagonist. There is so much precedent for this, and you have been here just as long as I have and know that "I saw other people doing it" is not an excuse.

There was no prompt notification similar to becoming a survivalist, amateur magician, traitor, changeling, ash walker, or any other role that makes it very clear to you whether or not you are an antagonist. Nor were you using a mob that falls under Precedent B. You assumed that you were a full-blown antagonist, and acted as such.

As for the contention of the ban length, I saw this to be a particularly egregious offense, and this combined with your recent ban for bug exploitation along with another note for abuse of your antag role in proximity to the arrivals shuttle.

As far as a lot of people are aware and a few of who has been posting so far have been aware including an admin themselves, ghost possession has been assumed to be at least a small form of antagonist role. It's an old-ish event buried behind wizard events so it's easy to see why it might have flown under the radar for any changes or messages. You could argue that I should have checked with an admin to confirm, but I really don't want to get into the habit of having to ask the admins if literally everything I'm doing is okay, and then waiting god knows how long for an actual reply. I assumed based on an educated guess - how other people have acted with the role on plenty of occasions in the past, sometimes in front of admins - And went from there. I don't need the admins or the game to hand-hold me through every situation. If this is something that isn't actually the case, it hasn't been written down anywhere and it doesn't tell you when you make your choice on what you want to become, so why is it fair that I get banned for this at all, or at least this length of time, when this is clearly just a mis-understanding and not me actually being a genuine shitbag griefer?

Random animal intelligence is almost the exact same thing, And you aren't told your "antag status" there either. People use that role to grief the best they can when the random possess gives them something that has the ability to (Mainly a beepsky), and I don't see why a beepsky would be an antag following that logic. The ban for bug abuse was appealed semi-successfully as well, while I did sit out almost two weeks I didn't eat the antag ban for any amount of time, either, And I feel it's a bit of a stretch to read the note NecromancerAnne gave me on the arrivals shuttle kill, and read into it as saying "I'm abusing my antag role", let alone using that assumption against me.

Those precedents fit with the staff of change, and possibly with sentience potions as well, but that assumes the mob that you become or possess is the only thing taken into account. It's not, though. It is quite literally you possessing someone or somethings body and using it for yourself. I don't think whatever the things allegiance would have been will matter. They're not in control any more, you are, a random ghost from the dead who could range from being incredibly benevolent to actively malevolent. I see absolutely no reason why a random spirit from the dead should always be super nice and friendly to everyone just because the body they took control of was a super nice and friendly creature 5 minutes ago. Again, it'd make sense if that were the case if you sentienced it, or were changed into it, because you could argue you are physically and mentally that creature now, but I'm not, because I am a ghost who simply took over. I'm just using it as a vessel, for my doing, regardless of whose side it was or is on.

EDIT: You also mentioned that you had to ask around and couldn't get an accurate ruling on this when you originally contacted me about this. This is an indicator, in my book, that your definition may not be the only way that someone could look at it. If someone was able to make a definite ruling on the ghost possession event and what it means to possess something, then this whole mess would be cleared up really easily, I think.

[Eaglendia]

If ghost posession was free antag you could just posess into the HoS and start tase-n-lasing the other sec officers, guaranteeing death. Just replace posession with a button that blows peoples brains up in that case

This isn't staff of chaos possession that's being discussed (as the policy for that should be pretty clear). It's the ghost possession event that allows you to possess mindless mobs. This hyperbole isn't a good rhetorical strategy as it seeks only to misinform (and makes you look like the classic situation of 'jump to extreme case after losing argument' seen almost too frequently in administrative disputes).

[MrAlphonzo]

It is not that I could not find a consensus, the head administrators were pre-occupied at the time of my inquiry.

I did get a general consensus from my fellow administrators, multiple of which agreed that what you did fit the description of major grief.

As I stated previously, even if ghost possession fell under either of the previously described precedents, your behavior went far beyond the scope of what a "small form antagonist" is permitted to do.

In short, I am denying this appeal.

[Jarek]

It is not that I could not find a consensus, the head administrators were pre-occupied at the time of my inquiry.

I did get a general consensus from my fellow administrators, multiple of which agreed that what you did fit the description of major grief.

As I stated previously, even if ghost possession fell under either of the previously described precedents, your behavior went far beyond the scope of what a "small form antagonist" is permitted to do.

In short, I am denying this appeal.

I'm not surprised. I still do not deserve to be threatened with a perma-ban if I "act up" again when I have not done anything to warrant it but I digress.

Edit: that is to say I've lost interest in arguing this case. You're not going to change your opinion on this and while I disagree with you entirely - the fact I'm an antagonist at all means I should be able to do anything I want, Small form or otherwise - an antagonist is an antagonist, why complicate the ruling singling out antag roles you can and cannot do this and that with, you clearly see otherwise and trying to convince you is a fool's errand. Sucks that I have to eat a ban over that disagreement, but that's just how it is.

Also, yes, it would be major grief, I completely agree. Unless I was an antagonist. I exercised my right as an antagonist, that you yourself have now admitted that I was, hence, it was not grief. There's no ruling to state otherwise, and again, the context of the role implies an antagonist status regardless.

[Akrilla]

I feel I really need to say something here:

Ghost possessed into mob - if a person, when this happened, as a carp lets say went and murdered 3 people, that'd be fine, it's a simple mob. They're an antag essentially. This is the standard view I've seen myself, and the general consensus I'd assume would be given if asked a reasonable amount of people. If you polled 50 random people on the server and asked them, that if they were given the ghost role of a simple mob, would they be able to murder people, I'd bet a lot of money the majority would say that that they could.

Mind swap time - that carp brain goes to contractor - oh hm, I was a carp antag, now I'm contractor, with reasonable thought I can say that it's okay to do contractor stuff. I'm literally a antag, a contractor even, I also was a "antag" before, lets go. That's a fairly reasonable way of interpreting what has happened.

The issue here is that I don't think the full story is understood, it's really important to understand the ghost possession part, and the thought that then went into what happened during the mindswap. Agree or disagree with the way ghost possession works - in code/flavour text it is not clear - a ban of this length (especially when the notes previously mentioned are fairly minor) is absolutely crazy to me personally. Especially since I'd probably do the exact same thing, and there is no obvious "this is what you should of done" because there are arguments on both sides.

If anything this should point out the issues in the lack of clear "this is what you should be allowed to do" with ghost possession, and also what happens with mind-swaps. This is a code issue leading to someone thinking they could do something, whether they actually could or not, and then getting a hefty ban for a reasonable way of interpreting it.

You mention as well that they were a "small form antagonist", and even barring all this, they still shouldn't be allowed to do this. So, they should stopped after killing a few - that's enough for my antag status! - then been friendly? This is completely non-obvious.

The precedent we have for allowing mobs to self-antag is on the basis that either A. The mob in question has been consistently lynched by the crew if it is found to have gained sentience or B. The mob in question is a mob created with the specific purpose of being an antagonist IE the syndicate borgs.

It is worth a mention that the mob that they went into, the toolbox wielding support unit, is quite literally a mob created for the sole purpose of being an antag.

[MrAlphonzo]

I'd appreciate not using my quote of Jarek's phrase "small form antagonist" as an opportunity to berate me for someone else's wording.
Since he described simple mob possession with that terminology, I figured it would make our conversation easier if I referred to it as such.
And Jarek, just because I quoted you, doesn't mean I admitted anything.

I don't appreciate messages that imply I, inadvertently or deliberately, failed to accurately describe an incident to my peers.
And then the same person who wrote that message frothing at the mouth to open a complaint against me, for the millionth time.

[Jarek]

I'd appreciate not using my quote of Jarek's phrase "small form antagonist" as an opportunity to berate me for someone else's wording.
Since he described simple mob possession with that terminology, I figured it would make our conversation easier if I referred to it as such.
And Jarek, just because I quoted you, doesn't mean I admitted anything.

I don't appreciate messages that imply I, inadvertently or deliberately, failed to accurately describe an incident to my peers.
And then the same person who wrote that message frothing at the mouth to open a complaint against me, for the millionth time.

I had a whole reply written out but it got deleted, so,to summarise what I wrote before, I can't speak for other people nor did I ask anyone to speak for me or back me up.

I also made a point saying this entire situation feels a little less cut and dry than a simple yes or no situation - Even if the role was a non-antagonist role through and through I did not go to the shuttle and shoot some people with the assumption I was a non-antagonist. I was not going into that situation knowing I was a non-antagonist and deciding to act regardless. It wasn't a malicious move by any means, but I get the vibe you're looking at me like a super-shitter or something, and assuming that it was indeed a move I made in bad faith because I am a shitter who breaks the rules very often. I can't really prove to you that I'm not and I doubt you're just going to take my word for it, which is unfortunate.

That being said I have no idea why I'm saying any of this, because I don't believe you're going to change your mind.

[Arathian]

I'd appreciate not using my quote of Jarek's phrase "small form antagonist" as an opportunity to berate me for someone else's wording.

I am not berating you over it. It's a legitimate question. If you agree Jarek is a "small form antagonist", then that means there is such a thing. I would like to know what is a small form antagonist, since I never heard of the concept before.

If you feel the term is inaccurate, say so and explain what you meant.

[TheMythicGhost]

I'd appreciate not using my quote of Jarek's phrase "small form antagonist" as an opportunity to berate me for someone else's wording.

I am not berating you over it. It's a legitimate question. If you agree Jarek is a "small form antagonist", then that means there is such a thing. I would like to know what is a small form antagonist, since I never heard of the concept before.

If you feel the term is inaccurate, say so and explain what you meant.

A bit of a peanut, but I'd like to defuse this situation by describing what would be a "small form antagonist" just to get this matter off this appeal once and for all. There seems to be some sort of demand to list one example of a "small form antagonist", and exactly by this term there is a few that already fit the bill. Obsessed is a small-medium form antagonist because whereas it can murder a specific target, it cannot murderbone.

The most accurate example of a small form antagonist however is the Fugitive, which is an antagonist role, but is disallowed from murdering/murderboning any of the crew aside from potentially the fugitive hunters that seek it and must follow the escalation rules regarding both crew, security, and command. A small form antagonist would then be a role that can murder specific people under very specific situations (as it's very contextual), but not in the way normal antagonists can.

That said, I don't see the point in watering down the appeal further with this branch of debate as it's not vital to the decision already made.

[Arianya]

I've had to delete a swathe of posts because people are getting into argumentation and other extremely peanut posty things.

As a general reminder, ban appeals is not for you to +1 either the banning admin or the banned person's arguments, or to present your own arguments. It's for the banned person to present their argument, the banning admin to consider it and either approve or deny, and for the headmins (if they so choose) to intervene.

This thread is a big old mess (which makes it a headache for any headmin who does want to excercise oversight) because people aren't following rule 2 or the peanut policy:

2. If you are not directly involved with the appeal (You are the guy who was banned, you saw what happened, you were his victim, etc.) then do not post in the appeal. Repetitive ignoring of this rule will lead to your FNR posting privileges being revoked until further notice

I've left some posts that I think would be too damaging to the discussion to remove even though they may be peanut posts. Do not take this as a guide to future posting.

[MrAlphonzo]

I don't know why this phrase is such a major point of contention, but I'll clear up what I was referring to anyways since it somehow wasn't clear.
When I quoted Jarek when he said "Small form antagonist", it was my interpretation that he was referring to niche situations where we give specific people in specific situations lee-way to do some things antags can do but not all things antags can do, IE precedent A.

A quote is not an admission, nor an agreement. Stop putting words in my mouth.
I didn't coin the term, it was a quote. Stop acting like I came up with it.

I've already denied the appeal, and I am tired of arguing semantics.

[Akrilla]

When I brought up the phrase, I just quoted you, I didn't notice Jarek was the first to use it. Though, you did use it to say that "small form antags aren't permitted to do this". So it does become a point of contention where it's reasonable to ask, okay, but what is this defined as, how do we know what these types of antags can do, and where does the line end?

Are you open to discuss what I brought up in my post? I feel I've made fairly strong points there that haven't been addressed. The issue with players not knowing what to do with ghost possession remains a point, and even with the mind swap, both aren't clear. I'm also the person that made the mob that Jarek went into, if that helps validate the point I made about that too.

The reason I push this, despite this thread not being related to me (outside of the contractor support unit mob), is that I think this just brings up the issues surrounding proper policy/general opinion on ghost possession and mindswaps. It's the general opinion, and from what I've seen since playing the game that carps etc that get possessed go and kill people, I've (personally admittedly) never seen issues coming up regarding that. If that carp then goes on to kill everyone, and that's the issue, then at what body count did it become too much?

[MortoSasye]

Locking this appeal to avoid further peanut posting since the banning admin already denied it.