[FloranOtten] Canoha - Security and round removal

[Nitrome]

BYOND account: Canoha
Character name: Eduardo Kiefer
Ban type: Server+Role
Ban length: 1 day server ban, 1 week sec ban.
Ban reason: As a detective, was shot at by an assistant with a stolen experimental laser weapon. Disarmed and retrieved the weapon. Proceded to kill and cremate them. This isn't the first time you've been warned about round removing as security for poor reasons. The next ban will be much higher.
Time ban was placed: 2020-04-06,14:40:27
Server you were playing on when banned: Terry
Round ID in which ban was placed: 134055
Your side of the story: The note is factually correct. I attempted to disarm an assistant because they had a gun and they immediately shot me with it (lethal).

Logs:https://tgstation13.org/parsed-logs/ter ... nd-134055/

Admin PMs

Admin PM from-FloranOtten: Why did you kill and cremate Collin Ali?
PM to-Admins: Stole HoS gun, proceeded to shot me when i rightfully attempted to take it from them.
Admin PM from-FloranOtten: Theft is not a valid reason to kill and cremate.
PM to-Admins: This is grand theft and they shot me with lethal what do you need more than that?
Admin PM from-FloranOtten: I warned you three months ago for the exact same thing. Stop needlessly round removing people.
PM to-Admins: But they were valid, if you want to take this to the forum we might as well.#I'm not going to beat around the bush when some random tider decides to self antag and shot security when they were doing their job, had they not shot me i wouldn't have executed them on the spot.#I'm pretty sure you KNOW they CANNOT harm an officer for doing their job and i'm the one getting in trouble?
Admin PM from-FloranOtten: You cannot kill a security officer for doing their job, no. But you can't cremate someone for shooting at you, either.
Admin PM from-FloranOtten: You never got hit. I'm going to be talking to him about banbaiting, because this is very close to that, but when you went beyond killing towards cremating, you crossed a line.
//Forgot to get this PM, this is where I tell floran I did get hit//
Admin PM from-FloranOtten: The logs are buggy again, pardon. I can't tell if it damaged you, but you did get hit. However, you proceded to take the gun and then kill them with it. You had disarmed them, and then deliberately killed them. That's borderline, but given it was a high value item, I can look past that. However, cremating for someone shooting you once and stealing is not allowed.
PM to-Admins: I'm sorry, but they were valid right? #Which rules prevents me from disposing of them in whatever way i wish?#I was about to put them in a morgue tray and, as far as i can tell this is still round removal (perma is too), i would have been punished the same way had i killed them and put them in said tray. Why am i even getting bwoinked for this?
Admin PM from-FloranOtten: Someone in a tray can be found, and revived. Someone in perma can escape. Someone who is cremated is gone, period. There is no way to bring them back. It's clear from your responses that you don't feel sorry, and are not going to change your behaviour. I'm going to be banning you for a day, and secbanning you for a week.
PM to-Admins: You still evaded my questions, that's rather rude.

Why you think you should be unbanned:
[#1]I had good reasons.
Relevant rules

Main Rules
4.Lone antagonists can do whatever they want.
Short of metagaming/comms, bug/exploit abuse, erotic/creepy stuff, OOC in IC or IC in OOC, and spawn-camping arrivals. Team antagonists can do whatever they want as per lone antagonists, as long as it doesn’t harm their team. Non-antagonists can do whatever they want to antagonists as per lone antagonists, but non-antagonists are not allowed to pre-emptively search for, hinder or otherwise seek conflict with antagonists without reasonable prior cause. Non-antags acting like an antag can be treated as an antag.
Security Policy & Precedents
3.The 'act like an antag, get treated like one' part of Rule 4 of the main rules also apply to security. Stunning an officer repeatedly, using lethal or restricted weapons on them, disrupting the arrests or sentences of dangerous criminals, or damaging the brig, are examples of behaviour that may make you valid for security under Rule 4. Make sure players deserve it when you treat them as an antag, when in doubt, err on the side of caution as poor behaviour on the part of security will not be tolerated.
2.Rule 4 of the main rules also apply to security. Security are not exceptions to the rule where non-antagonists can do anything they want, as per rule 4, to antagonists.

I played by the book, the assistant decided to use a lethal and restricted weapon on me, they acted like an antoganist and I treated them as such. Killing them was fair game.
What wasn't fair game was shooting me for doing my job. This was self-antag.

Escalation
snip
Exceptions: Security is expected not to retaliate with random abuse or violence unless the person in question is otherwise eligible for execution. You can't kill or maim security for trying to arrest you for legitimate reasons.

Note that this wasn't a regular round, an admin event was ongoing during which the station was haunted and some silly stuff had been happening throughout the round: armsky single handedly robusting all officers and the warden, all the station lights breaking, fake cult activity (didn't confirm this one but this seemed pretty fake) and toward the end summon ghosts.
The brig had been looted prior to this incident and was wide open, I wanted to put them in the sec morgue tray at first but didn't because summon ghosts would most likely allow them to meta with just about anyone and get their body retrieved from the now unsecure brig.

[#2]The banning admin wasn't being honest/Clear enough

After asking both parties what happened you immediately assumed the worst of me when you I gave you my side of the story. Antagonizing me.

PM to-Admins: Stole HoS gun, proceeded to shot me when i rightfully attempted to take it from them.
Admin PM from-FloranOtten: Theft is not a valid reason to kill and cremate
snip
Admin PM from-FloranOtten: I warned you three months ago for the exact same thing. Stop needlessly round removing people.
snip
Admin PM from-FloranOtten: You never got hit. I'm going to be talking to him about banbaiting, because this is very close to that, but when you went beyond killing towards cremating, you crossed a line.

This is less than ideal considering my first reply was crystal clear, no I didn't kill them only for theft but because they shot me and I did in fact get hit. And no this isn't the exact same thing as my only security related note from 3 months ago written by you, this note was about me attempting to shuttlegib a suspected changeling in the confusion after an EMP went off nearby, it wasn't needless from my point of view and bringing it up as if it was the exact same thing was pretty dishonest of you.

What really bothered you was me cremating them but nothing in the rules requires me to make sure someone is retrievable, as far as i'm concerned I could have spaced them or even stuffed them in a random locker and it would have been all the same: non-antagonists can do anything they want, as per rule 4, to antagonists. People get removed from rounds all the time for the exact same reason and implying going a step further and destroying their body makes it ban worthy is in my opinion ridiculous.

Not only that but you knew full well that what they did was wrong and went ahead with the ban, you said it was clearly ban baity.
Yes I deliberately killed and cremated them for attempting on my life and grand theft. And no, i'm not going to "feel sorry" because I don't think what I did was wrong considering the situation.
This is why I would like this ban lifted and its related note removed.

[Fishimun]

Non-antags acting like an antag can be treated as an antag.

[EagleWiz]

Per rule 4 if the assistant in question were deemed to be "acting like an antag" this would not be grounds for a ban, as anyone acting like an antag is valid for permanent round removal
thus If this ban/note is upheld it will be precedent that stealing the HoS's gun and firing a few shots on lethal at security personnel isn't necessarily "acting like an antag"

[FloranOtten]

I'll lower this ban, effectively removing it. My ahelp conduct is not relevant to this appeal. If you have a problem with it, an admin complaint is the right avenue.

The reason for this ban is the cremation. Security players are expected to have a better understanding of punishments over valid against not valid. He was valid, yes, but not to cremate. I think the important distinction here is can't versus won't. If you put him in the sec morgue, he probably won't be retrieved. But that does not mean you should go out of your way to ensure he can't be revived. Cremation is a step above killing. In this incident you took the gun from someone, got shot once, and then killed him. You then took the time to head straight for the crematorium to ensure he could not reenter the round. Even if the captain had decided he should be revived. That's over the line. You've gotten a note for this previous, from an incident where you gibbed someone for breaking into the wardens office.

There is some precedent to this situation, though it is muddied by the situation being different and Nervere going out of his way months later to overrule the headmin vote and delete the note without editing the appeal.
https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic ... 9&start=50

[XivilaiAnaxes]

There is some precedent to this situation, though it is muddied by the situation being different and Nervere going out of his way months later to overrule the headmin vote and delete the note without editing the appeal.
https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic ... 9&start=50

I should point out that even in the precedent you use as reasoning for the ban, the point Nervere used was "someone had AA for 20 minutes and then upon being spotted was stunned -> cremated". Not "you cremated them".

Not "Stole an antag objective -> shoot security immediately upon attempt at relinquishing the item -> dunked -> cremation"

Nervere's ruling was specifically "they're not acting like an antag because they did nothing antagonistic while having AA for 20 minutes and as a result rule 4 does not apply". This case rule 4 clearly applies since the guy is being shot at WITH an antag objective. Stealing AA benefits practically anyone whereas stealing the HoS gun of all things really doesn't.

[Nitrome]

No, I want the ban to be completely removed including the note and I made it clear that I wasn't going for some kind of compromise.

This ban is surreal and your reply feels like you didn't take time to read my appeal or purposefully ignored the major points that were made.

He was valid, yes, but not to cremate. I think the important distinction here is can't versus won't. If you put him in the sec morgue, he probably won't be retrieved. But that does not mean you should go out of your way to ensure he can't be revived. Cremation is a step above killing

That's nonsense, as per rule 4 : non-antagonists can do anything they want, as per rule 4, to antagonists.
You said they were valid and therefore admit that they acted like an antagonist so this rule applies, I could have borged/dusted/spaced them. You don't get to bend this rule here because it's as simple and clear as it gets : "anything they want". There is no precendent regarding the crematorium or some kind of "scale of validness", that's something you came up with.

Or maybe i'm completely wrong and it's even worse : you actually don't think they acted like an antagonist but were still valid. I honestly don't know how you can come up with this, the only rule that comes remotely close to this is escalation and i've already explained both in the PMs and in my appeal why it didn't apply.

In this incident you took the gun from someone, got shot once, and then killed him. You then took the time to head straight for the crematorium to ensure he could not reenter the round. Even if the captain had decided he should be revived. That's over the line.

There are multiple things I don't like about this.
#1 You're making it look like I """only""" got shot once and it is no big deal. That's stupid, they only got to shot me once because I quickly disarmed them, this isn't your friendly tider stealing your disabler and shooting you once or twice with it. This is a criminal shooting an officer with a lethal weapon, the detective is given a .38 exactly for those situations, stop acting surprised when they make use of it.
#2 You bring up chain of command as if it is relevant and would have changed the outcome here, and then proceed to draw lines. I'm sorry I crossed a line but could you please point out which one ? Because you didn't state a single rule when I asked you by PM and in this reply, so I'm going to go ahead and assume it's imaginary.
I can't read your mind or this player's, the moment they pulled the trigger they made it clear they didn't want me in this round, so I made sure such a player wouldn't get to remove me or anyone else from said round.

Lastly I would like to comment on this:

My ahelp conduct is not relevant to this appeal. If you have a problem with it, an admin complaint is the right avenue.
snip
You've gotten a note for this previous, from an incident where you gibbed someone for breaking into the wardens office.

I don't know what's wrong with bringing up your conduct in this appeal, It is totally relevant because you decided to bring up your only note regarding my behaviour and are doing it once again in this reply without even quoting the note so here it is:

2019-12-07 17:18:10 | Events | FloranOtten | Expires 2020-06-01 00:00:00

Warned - As a security officer, attempted to shuttlegib a body because they trespassed in the wardens office, and an EMP went off in the hallway to the south. Please be more careful when permanently round removing people.

They weren't gibbed, in fact you made sure they weren't by teleporting them somewhere else and they were brought to the medbay later on. We had reports of changelings and I found the RD in warden's office with the locker open, I immediately arrested them but then an EMP went off nearby, I thought it came from the RD and tried to shuttlegib them. This note expires in 2 months and was actually issued 4 months ago (not 3).
This is an IC issue and I would have appealed had I known you would use it like this: The only thing those notes have in common is the gibbing part and even then in one case it's a suspected changeling and the other it's an assistant acting 1000% like an antagonist. In one case I used the only way I had to get rid of a suspected changeling (shuttlegibbing) and the other I cremated an antagonist.
If you have a problem with antagonists getting removed from rounds on LRP servers I believe policy discussion is the right avenue.
And even if this note wasn't wrong it shouldn't matter if the ban itself is wrong so whatever.

I would like headmins to take a look into this.

[Kingtrin]

Previous rulings and bans on cremation by headmins:

Having all access is a pretty serious offense, but it doesn't warrant instant cremation
...the act of possessing all access is not in itself acting like an antagonsit(sic)

dayban
https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic ... 50#p466995

the situation was primarily IC, a cremation was made based on some reasonable assumptions but they could've probably been cleared up

temporary note
https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic ... on#p509624

Not being obligated to revive the instigator != being given the right to remove someone permanently from the round

dayban
https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic ... on#p458916

[Nitrome]

I've read those rulings before posting my appeal and didn't include them because I didn't think they were actually that relevant regarding this situation, here is why.

First ban: exactly what XivilaiAnaxes said, this isn't really about cremation but actually about antag/not antag and whether or not rule 4 should apply, but I believe you're aware of this because you still included the part about antagonistic behaviour.

Second ban (actually a note): Hulk ruled it as an IC issue, the player acted with limited information and the problem here isn't so much the cremation but what lead to it. This is once again a case of antag/not antag and a much more complex one than mine at that, with a lot more room for misinterpretation from both parties and I don't even want to get into it.

Third ban: Like terranaut pointed out this is escalation, not rule 4 and is therefore irrelevant.

In my case I was shot by an assistant with a high-risk item, this is the textbook definition of an antagonist. I don't know where the confusion can from come since the admin pretty much admitted it was antagonist behaviour so we're effectively left where we started: What's up with rule 4?

[CDranzer]

There's a critical underlying issue here: This is not about Cremation, this is about Round Removal.

Cremation is simply one method of Round Removal. Other methods include gibbing, destroying the brain, or even disposing of a corpse in such a manner that their recovery is not practically possible. Round Removal has heavy implications in standard escalation, however this event was not a case of standard escalation - This was a case of Law Enforcement.

Unlike most of the crew, security is permitted to enforce punishments for criminal actions. These punishments include confiscation, imprisonment, and, in rare cases, execution. If a member of security makes the conscious decision to prevent the revival of a corpse, that is a de-facto execution, and an execution is a de-facto round removal.

The fact that the security member in question cremated the corpse is completely irrelevant, because once an execution decision has taken place, the security member has committed the act of Round Removal, regardless of what ultimately happens to the body - The key issue is intent. The question then becomes, was the execution valid? And in this case, as numerous others have pointed out, it was - Grand theft and assaulting a security member with a deadly weapon is sufficient grounds for execution in all but a fraction of cases. Once the execution has taken place, what the security member does with the remains is completely irrelevant, because the Round Removal has already taken place.

If the execution was valid, the cremation was valid, because the execution is where the Round Removal takes place. If the execution was not valid, then that's an explicit argument that needs to be made.

[Coconutwarrior97]

Ill post some logs here to help break this down,

Spoiler:

2020-04-06 14:17:59.715] SAY: ThatOneThere/(Jack Breeg) "cunts with guns outside" (Research Division (180, 119, 2))
[2020-04-06 14:18:03.897] SAY: Canoha/(Eduardo Kiefer) "who" (Research Division (180, 121, 2))
[2020-04-06 14:18:06.069] SAY: ThatOneThere/(Jack Breeg) "dunno" (Research Division (181, 121, 2))
[2020-04-06 14:18:14.000] ATTACK: Canoha/(Eduardo Kiefer) has shoved Nildo1/(Collin Ali) with onto the reinforced table (table) (NEWHP: 100) (Starboard Primary Hallway (184, 128, 2))
[2020-04-06 14:18:16.724] ATTACK: Nildo1/(Collin Ali) has shot Canoha/(Eduardo Kiefer) with the laser (NEWHP: 100) (Research and Development (184, 126, 2))
2020-04-06 14:18:16.998] ATTACK: Canoha/(Eduardo Kiefer) has kicks Nildo1/(Collin Ali) with onto their side (paralyzing) (NEWHP: 100) (Starboard Primary Hallway (184, 127, 2))
[2020-04-06 14:18:16.998] ATTACK: Canoha/(Eduardo Kiefer) has shoved Nildo1/(Collin Ali) with knocking them down (NEWHP: 100) (Starboard Primary Hallway (184, 127, 2))
---snipped some logs of edurado killing collin---
[2020-04-06 14:19:25.947] ATTACK: Canoha/(Eduardo Kiefer) has stripped the black shoes off *no key*/(Collin Ali) (NEWHP: -100) (Brig (105, 172, 2))
[2020-04-06 14:19:26.233] ATTACK: Canoha/(Eduardo Kiefer) has stripped the eyepatch HUD off *no key*/(Collin Ali) (NEWHP: -100) (Brig (105, 172, 2))
[2020-04-06 14:20:51.403] SAY: Canoha/(Eduardo Kiefer) "y'know what" (Brig (106, 174, 2))
[2020-04-06 14:21:00.732] ATTACK: Canoha/(Eduardo Kiefer) has thrown the �_X-01 MultiPhase Energy Gun (Brig (105, 174, 2)
[2020-04-06 14:21:47.446] SAY: Canoha/(Eduardo Kiefer) "AI open" (Chapel (180, 140, 2)))
[2020-04-06 14:22:29.417] ATTACK: Canoha/(Eduardo Kiefer) has cremated Nildo1[DC]/(Collin Ali) (NEWHP: -100) (Chapel Office (175, 144, 2))

A detective attempted to detain someone with a lethal weapon non-lethally (via shoves), said weapon doubles as a traitor objective, and was shot for it. They then drag them to the brig where they begin to strip them, change their mind, and decide to cremate them.
This is antagonistic behavior specifically because they fired a traitor objective at a detective who was using non-lethal means to detain them.
Its at this point the assistant has forfeited their right to not get their shit kicked in along the lines of Rule 4: "Non-antags acting like an antag can be treated as an antag. " and "Non-antagonists can do whatever they want to antagonists as per lone antagonists".
Cremation also falls under this umbrella and is not rule breaking in this specific situation. While it certainly may be more polite to just put their corpse into the sec mourge, it is by no means required.

This ban is being overturned.

Headmin Votes:
Coconutwarrior97: Overturn.
Phuzzylodgik: Overturn.
TWATICUS: Overturn.