[GUM DISEASE] Soyoboyo - Note without context

[Soyoboyo]

BYOND Account: Soyoboyo
Character name: Slavik Gulahkin
Ban type: Admin remark
Ban length: 6 months
Ban reason: Decided to repeatedly flash a moth to the point where they were blind because he "had extra flashes and decided to be funny". Didn't seem to comprehend why this wasn't okay, arguing that because eye damage is easy to fix that it's a non-issue. This is literally rule 1, and if you can't understand that - maybe you shouldn't be playing on /tg/. Final warning regarding shitty prank behaviour.
Time ban was placed: 2020-02-13 06:04:36
Server you were playing on when banned: Bagil
Round ID in which ban was placed: 10140 (I'm bad at looking through public logs so this might not be the one)
Your side of the story: Although not relevant to the incident, I was playing a mugger scientist who went around stealing money for the BEPIS. The entire reason I came into robotics was to grab more flashes at which time I came across a chef and a miner inside. There was little interaction between us, I think I didn't utter a word during this time. However, I had printed an excess amount of flashes and as a "funny" way to use them up I repeatedly long-distance flashed both the chef and the miner. The miner, coincidentally, was a mothperson and had themselves mechanically blinded by the flash. Reading this statement at face value, it's very easy to blame me. However, with a pause to contextualize and think about this situation, the moth wasn't in a position to ahelp me or even get me reprimanded.

First off, the miner was actively committing breaking and entering. This means that the "little to no IC justification" part of rule 1 is null. They had entered through the broken windoor towards a main hall and this was clearly a department they did not belong in. As a scientist, I do not have access to robotics. However, robotics falls under the category of the science department, under which I do fall in. It was reasonable for me to get this intruder out of science as they had much less right than me to be in there. Furthermore, as the instigator of a breaking and entering crime, the moth was liable to receive injury as retaliation. I do understand that there is a level of grey area here but I would like to point out that it is not entirely wrong for a cargo tech to drive someone out of cargo, even if they are in the mining office. Vigilantism falls under a per-department basis, not a per-job basis. An argument that can be leveled against mine is that because I did not have the intent of defending my department from intruders, that is not something I can claim was enough "IC evidence" to retaliate. However, I argue that the intent of the action does not change the reality of it. The reality of the situation is that I inadvertently defended the science department from this moth intruder by forcing them to get assistance at medbay. The equivalent of leveling this argument against me is punishing an engineer who sets up an electric grille behind the engineering lobby door which ends of giving an assistant grievous injury while breaking in. The assistant (miner) was entirely at fault, nobody but the assistant (miner) received any injury, and recourse to a normal state of being (no damage) could be easily achieved by going to the medbay.

Consider this rule 1 precedent: You may defend your workplace from trespassers who damage or steal property within that space with significantly greater force than elsewhere.

Furthermore note this excerpt from space law which informs my definition of vigilantism: Do note however that persons intentionally getting involved in fights which occur in a department that isn't theirs is an act of vigilantism, this is not permitted.
This specifically cites vigilantism as per-department, meaning I was not committing vigilantism and thus perfectly justified in protecting my department

Secondly, the damage I caused was not significant enough to "seriously negatively impact or end the round for someone." Eye damage is so easy to fix that a round trip for fixing mechanical blindness is under two minutes. Please see attached video of a reenactment of the incident for further clarification: This does not satisfy the rule 1 condition of "seriously negatively impact(ing) or end(ing) the round for someone." Furthermore, consider how much time this player was actually blind compared to their entire round. Two minutes out of a sixty minute round is one thirtieth of their time "ruined" by being blind. One thirtieth. Twenty nine thirtieths were spent having a good time. Explain how this is "seriously negatively impact(ing) or end(ing) the round for someone."

Finally, to disprove the last part of the rule 1 accusation. I did not "(go) out of (my) way to " blind the moth. It was anything but. This entire incident was clearly an afterthought on my part and although this is bad this fact completely disproves the final part of this rule 1 accusation. The moth was not related to me in any way and this entire exchange consisted over approximately 30 seconds of gameplay, only 6 of which were spent blinding the moth.

All in all, this note is unjust because my actions entirely did not meet the criteria for a rule 1 citing, which this note is hinged upon. While I did take the opportunity to cause the moth grief, this is in no way unjustifiable. The "don't be a dick" part of rule 1, on top of the fact that this is a layman's description of the rule, does not apply to valid actions taken against a player. This is evident because of previous ahelps which I submitted in which people were perfectly justifiable in taking action against me, but went the whole mile to dick over my shift. I have two specific cases in mind: One where Bindy Johal executed me as a chemist for shooting people with bone hurting juice (his actions were completely valid but it was a "dick" move to not arrest nor revive me) and a second where Sunshine Day permanently brigged me over an incident where I pushed someone over the chef's counter allowing them to escape (they based my actions wholly off of two mouse clicks and Sunshine was even planning to gulag me before I insulted her, again her actions being perfectly justified but a "dick" move). Thus, me taking the whole mile to flash this moth miner under a valid context is not grounds to uphold this rule 1 citation.

TL;DR: Moth breaks into a department which isn't theirs and suffers justified consequences for doing such. Person who punishes moth for breaking the law gets rule 1'd.
>My fun is entirely based upon breaking into departments which aren't mine and if you do anything to stop me, that would be a rule 1 violation

Why you think you should be unbanned: I think this note should not exist as the basis for the note is unjustified. However, the biggest problem I have with the note is that it just makes me look like I walked up to a moth in a primary hallway and flashed them until they were blind. This isn't the case, but any admin reading this would be none the wiser. I want this note either changed to include proper context or removed entirely.

[zxaber]

How sure are you that the moth broke into Robotics? Because the logs show the moth chatting with the Robo, inside the Robotics Lab, and was helping the moth build a Firefighter.

https://tgstation13.org/parsed-logs/bas ... /game.html

Code: Select all

[2020-02-13 05:35:52.305] SAY: 05:35:52.305] SAY: Hiynastrike/(James Lizardman) "hey moff" (Robotics Lab (112, 85, 2))
[2020-02-13 05:35:53.582] SAY: 05:35:53.582] SAY: Shellspeed1/(Moff-Ra) "hope you don't mind" (Robotics Lab (114, 85, 2))
[2020-02-13 05:35:57.182] SAY: 05:35:57.182] SAY: Shellspeed1/(Moff-Ra) "getting a fire fighter." (Robotics Lab (114, 85, 2)) 
[2020-02-13 05:36:02.404] SAY: 05:36:02.404] SAY: Hiynastrike/(James Lizardman) "who sent you a card?" (Robotics Lab (112, 85, 2)) 
[2020-02-13 05:36:08.612] SAY: 05:36:08.612] SAY: Shellspeed1/(Moff-Ra) "No idea." (Robotics Lab (116, 85, 2))
[2020-02-13 05:36:09.411] SAY: 05:36:09.411] SAY: Hiynastrike/(James Lizardman) "I got Hal Teagarden" (Robotics Lab (112, 85, 2)) 
[2020-02-13 05:36:14.641] SAY: 05:36:14.641] SAY: Shellspeed1/(Moff-Ra) "don't really care." (Robotics Lab (116, 85, 2)) 
[2020-02-13 05:36:28.802] SAY: 05:36:28.802] SAY: Shellspeed1/(Moff-Ra) "Would ya mind grabbing me some parts for this thing?" (Robotics Lab (116, 85, 2)) 
[2020-02-13 05:36:34.197] SAY: 05:36:34.197] SAY: Hiynastrike/(James Lizardman) "uhhh sure" (Robotics Lab (112, 85, 2)) 

Did you really run into someone else's work area, assume people in there had broken in, and start flashing a moth into blindness? Robotics is not your department, especially if a robo is on shift.

[gum disease]

Alrighty.

Round ID is wrong, it's 130143.

I will be posting our ticket conversation, given that you made absolutely no mention of trying to defend robotics (ignoring the fact that robotics is not your department, nor is it your place to turf people out if the roboticist is okay with that person being there) or whatever cock-and-bull story you've dreamt up there.

Spoiler:

[2020-02-13 05:55:57.946] ADMINPRIVATE: PM: GUM DISEASE/(Jasmine Parfum)->Soyoboyo/(Slavik Gulahkin): Can you explain to me why you repeatedly flashed Moff-Ra to the point of blindness?
[2020-02-13 05:56:15.643] ADMINPRIVATE: PM: Soyoboyo/(Slavik Gulahkin)->GUM DISEASE/(Jasmine Parfum): I dunno I had extra flashes and I decided to be funny. Eye damage is super easy to fix
[2020-02-13 05:57:31.023] ADMINPRIVATE: PM: GUM DISEASE/(Jasmine Parfum)->Soyoboyo/(Slavik Gulahkin): Yeah, you do realise this breaks rule 1: don't be a dick? Moths are doubly affected by flashes when it comes to eye damage.
[2020-02-13 05:57:54.933] ADMINPRIVATE: PM: Soyoboyo/(Slavik Gulahkin)->GUM DISEASE/(Jasmine Parfum): bro are you seriously going to rule 1 me on something this inconsecuential? This caused almost no damage
[2020-02-13 05:59:07.655] ADMINPRIVATE: PM: GUM DISEASE/(Jasmine Parfum)->Soyoboyo/(Slavik Gulahkin): Yes, because blinding someone for no reason is not allowed? You are still negatively impacting someone's round even if it's easy to fix. That's like being a non-antag and injecting someone with morphine and then querying why they're upset that they're unconscious since they could've just drank coffee. You've made someone unable to see.
[2020-02-13 05:59:47.427] ADMINPRIVATE: PM: Soyoboyo/(Slavik Gulahkin)->GUM DISEASE/(Jasmine Parfum): think about the ratio of effort and damages to the punishment. It took me almost no time. Tell me, how long did it take to get cured of blindness. 3 minutes?
[2020-02-13 05:59:59.249] ADMINPRIVATE: PM: Soyoboyo/(Slavik Gulahkin)->GUM DISEASE/(Jasmine Parfum): what kind of punishment are you suggesting, a 24 hour ban?
[2020-02-13 06:01:12.960] ADMINPRIVATE: PM: GUM DISEASE/(Jasmine Parfum)->Soyoboyo/(Slavik Gulahkin): I don't understand how you don't seem to understand why blinding someone isn't okay regardless of how trivial you personally think it is. Then again, after looking at your notes, you've repeatedly been smacked for stupid shit regarding your conduct. Things that you find funny or pranls =/= anyone else does. You're being issued a severe warning regarding this, please be mindful that if you keep up the shitty behaviour you'll be copping bans.
[2020-02-13 06:03:11.655] ADMINPRIVATE: PM: Soyoboyo/(Slavik Gulahkin)->GUM DISEASE/(Jasmine Parfum): Look I get fucked all the time. How come all the people who fuck me don't get punished through ahelp? I've been blinded for over 30 minutes one time because my eyes were surgically removed. I've had limbs removed and shit done to me that severly hampered my abilities and yet I haven't considered bitching about it. Maybe enforce your rules more evenly
[2020-02-13 06:04:01.307] ADMINPRIVATE: PM: Soyoboyo/(Slavik Gulahkin)->GUM DISEASE/(Jasmine Parfum): The effort to punishment ratio is out of wack here. You're punishing me for 6 seconds of gameplay too. "Severe punishment" because I pressed Z 6 times. How is that logical?
[2020-02-13 06:07:48.698] ADMINPRIVATE: PM: GUM DISEASE/(Jasmine Parfum)->Soyoboyo/(Slavik Gulahkin): Then you ahelp and we investigate so that we can look into why your eyes were removed or your limbs were taken away. I don't understand why you're failing to understand this. It's literally rule 1. "We're all here to have a good time, supposedly. Going out of your way to seriously negatively impact or end the round for someone with little IC justification is against the rules, this also includes harassing a player OOC (Out of character). Legitimate conflicts where people get upset do happen however, as detailed in the escalation section of the rules." Flashing moths fucks them over really hard and you did it repeatedly to the point where they were blind. That is seriously negatively impacting someone's round, and I'm not going to argue semantics with you. Either re-assess how you treat other players or go play somewhere else, simple.

I'm sorry but I do not believe the note is unjustified and I will not be lifting or amending it. When I spoke to you and gave you a chance to explain yourself, your first response more or less knocked the wind out of your sails. You did this because you were trying to be funny. Ignoring the fact that your gimmick where you were acting as a mugger scientist is yikes, (especially as you were not an antagonist and had no reason to be acting in this manner), you going in robotics to take more flashes (items that roboticists need and cost mats to print) to do your cringeworthy gimmick may be funny to you, but the same can't be said for other players. You had no reason to do this to the moth, and I feel as if your behaviour does fall under the rule 1 umbrella. The moth ahelped because they didn't understand why you'd done that to them. They'd come into robotics to make a mech (which from Zxaber's post, seems to have been okay with the roboticist), and due to your actions, ended up needing their eyes repaired by medbay to fix the damage you'd inflicted.

I looked at your notes and you'd been spoken to a few times by admins about reigning in your prank behaviour which is why I noted you. While this instance did not lead to someone dying, it's still poor conduct and that, when coupled with your flippant responses in our ticket conversation, made it difficult for me to give you the benefit of the doubt.

I feel as if the headmins will need to make a final decision here regarding this situation.

[shellspeed1]

So I was the moth that was flashed. Something that needs to be brought up is that I was flashed into being blind in about the span of half a second. There is no way to flash someone this fast that I know of without using a macro. Not sure if this is an issue that needs to be addressed but there it is.

[Kangtut]

So I was the moth that was flashed. Something that needs to be brought up is that I was flashed into being blind in about the span of half a second. There is no way to flash someone this fast that I know of without using a macro. Not sure if this is an issue that needs to be addressed but there it is.

You can use a flash in hand with the activate hotkey to spam flash pretty quickly. If moths are as sensitive as they should be then that should be able to blind you - hard stun + blinding light then multiple quick flashes in hand to aoe blind. Even then I am fairly sure that flashes either have no cooldown or a very low one with direct clicks.

[Vekter]

This has been here for almost a month. If the headmins were going to comment, I imagine they'd have done it by now.

Let me know if this needs to be re-opened.