[Jaredfogle] SinfulBliss - Improper Escalation Note

[sinfulbliss]

BYOND account: SinfulBliss
Character name: Axle Brady
Ban type: Note
Note reason:
Time ban was placed: 2022-01-31 0:33:55
Server you were playing on when banned: Sybil
Round ID in which ban was placed: 177579
Your side of the story: I recorded this round so I'll just post the entire conflict, beginning to end. It will likely be much faster to show a 7 minute clip than dig through logs to give a play-by-play. I'll be referring to the events in this clip going forward in the appeal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGb0VIfJfVY
Why you think the note should be removed: First of all, regardless of how this appeal goes, the note is inaccurate. It claims I crit "them" (i.e., the engineers) in return. I only crit a single engineer in return - the one who began harming me and beat me into crit. I specifically avoided harming the CE because he brought me to medbay after the other engineer crit me. It also states I looted "their" items. Again, I only looted the toolbelt and insuls of the engineer that crit me, and only because mine were removed after I was crit. Finally, this note leaves out a very crucial part of the conflict - it ended with me being thrown into the SM and round-removed.

If a conflict leads to violence and either participant is killed, the living participant is expected to make an effort to revive the other, unless they have reason to believe the other was an antagonist.

I was not killed after the first fight, I was hit to crit. I was only killed after I came back with the stunbaton. According to the new escalation rules, he should have brought me to medbay after killing me, but instead he chucked me into the SM. I would at least like the note updated to be accurate with what happened, and include the full conflict since right now it reads as if I simply crit all the engis, looted them, and walked away scot-free.

I would also like to appeal the note itself. This was not improper escalation. Let's map it out: I was the instigator, since I flashed the engineer, Harvey, to begin the conflict. My reason for doing this was that he had completely walled off all of engineering, and I wanted him to unlock a locker. In response he threatens to open a plasma canister in the middle of engineering. I drag it away. I'm then engaged by a janitor, who along with Harvey, beats me into crit and I am looted. You will see in the clip that I did not harm Harvey a single time until he had punched me into nearly softcrit. At this point I hit him a total of one (1) time with a toolbox, then collapsed into crit.

If you are wronged, you are expected to handle the conflict non-lethally whenever possible, escalating in severity as the conflict continues. As the defending party the rate of escalation increases with you, up to and including violence, while the instigator is always able to respond in kind.

I flashed him a few times, and in response I was beaten into crit. Leaving aside whether that already isn't proper escalation, I am allowed to respond in kind, as the instigator. So I crit him in return. However, instead of bringing me to medbay after killing me, he decided to dust me. If anything, that was improper escalation, not my justified retaliation.

I didn't include this in the clip to avoid it being extremely long, but I actually did ask Harvey nicely to open engineering before entering. In response he reinforced the doors and built an entire shield wall generator, shiftstart, in front of engi's main entrance to prevent anyone from entering. If you break into a department to take supplies because they have effectively sealed themselves entirely off, and you are crit as a result, how is it right that you are not allowed to retaliate?

Even after he began pummeling me to death I did not engage him lethally whatsoever aside from a single toolbox hit. I only engaged him after I was beaten to crit, at which point I felt I at least had the right to crit him in return and grab my things that were stolen. For this I was killed and thrown into the SM, and then bwoinked and noted.

[CMDR_Gungnir]

If a conflict leads to violence and either participant is killed, the living participant is expected to make an effort to revive the other, unless they have reason to believe the other was an antagonist. Once revived the conflict is over; any new conflict with either individual must escalate once again. If you get into a conflict again with that individual, they may be removed permanently from the round.

The Engineer's actions, while arguably excessive, fall within escalation policy.

[Mothblocks]

Appeal denied, though some adjustments will be made.

The instigation started with you hacking into engineering as an assistant, which your video starts after. You then attempt to loot the engineer (though I figure you didn't actually expect this to work), and try to take back the locker. When the engineer asks you to leave, before they even do anything, you start repeatedly flashing them. To reiterate: you breaking into engineering was the start of the conflict, you now harassing the engineer is just furthering this conflict that you have started, which has gone from bad motivations to worse.

From this video, you then take this opportunity to continue to start fucking with engineers trying to just get you to leave, including the CE.

You start to be attacked, then try to attack the engineer back. You are beat into crit, and revived. This should have been the end of the escalation. Instead, you come back, and start repeatedly attacking the engineers again. You stun baton the chief engineer, and crit the station engineer, then loot their stuff--their PDA and their gloves most importantly.

This is textbook bad escalation. Lifting this note would set a precedent that I mention in the note itself--Engineering players should not be required to train their combat skills on every assistant that comes in to steal their stuff just to not be ransacked every round. This is so engrained into LRP culture at this point that it had to be mentioned, but assistants absolutely do not have the right to break into people's workplaces and attack the employees of those workplaces who are just trying to get them to leave. It is obnoxious to play against, especially when those assistants are people who are the ones who are very good at combat.

You getting SM'd afterwards is not relevant. The circumstances beforehand absolutely allow killing you.

Once revived the conflict is over; any new conflict with either individual must escalate once again. If you get into a conflict again with that individual, they may be removed permanently from the round.

Furthermore, I don't subscribe to the thinking that engaging in escalation can lose you your right to ahelp, as this makes dealing with actual antagonists significantly worse. (Do I ahelp because they feel like a self-antag, and die if they're an actual antagonist? Do I choose not to ahelp because if they're an antagonist and not just a self-antagger, then my round is over with no consequence?)

Part of your appeal (including the ahelp) rests on the exact wording of escalation policy refering to "killing". This feels like rules-lawyering to me, and the precedent it sets makes no sense. Does that mean the chief engineer should have killed you so that the escalation would be "reset" in the rules? Nevertheless, this oversight has been brought up to head admins, who have told me they will update the policy text to refer to "incapacitation" and "treatment" instead, which was the original intent behind the text itself.

In that vein, I will also update the wording to cover this concern:

It claims I crit "them" (i.e., the engineers) in return. I only crit a single engineer in return - the one who began harming me and beat me into crit.

I will grant you this--I default to singular they and it makes this note more confusing. I've changed it to the following, to be more specific:

Improper escalation--broke into engineering to steal gloves, and when critted by the chief engineer and a station engineer who wanted them to leave, came back and stun batonned the CE, and crit the engineer, looting the engineer's items. Engineering players should not be required to train their combat skills on every assistant that comes in to steal their stuff just to not be ransacked every round.

[sinfulbliss]

The instigation started with you hacking into engineering as an assistant, which your video starts after. You then attempt to loot the engineer (though I figure you didn't actually expect this to work), and try to take back the locker. When the engineer asks you to leave, before they even do anything, you start repeatedly flashing them. To reiterate: you breaking into engineering was the start of the conflict, you now harassing the engineer is just furthering this conflict that you have started, which has gone from bad motivations to worse.

My "bad motivations" were to get insulated gloves. I did not have ulterior motives here. Regardless, let's say the instigation started when I hacked into engineering. It isn't really relevant - I hacked into engineering, and flashed him a few times. That was the extent of my instigation.

From this video, you then take this opportunity to continue to start fucking with engineers trying to just get you to leave, including the CE.

I flashed the CE because he was chasing me down with a telebaton - how in the world is that me looking for an excuse to "fuck with" him? You can clearly see in the clip he chased me with a telebaton before I flashed him.

You start to be attacked, then try to attack the engineer back. You are beat into crit, and revived. This should have been the end of the escalation.

I was neither killed nor revived.

If a conflict leads to violence and either participant is killed, the living participant is expected to make an effort to revive the other, unless they have reason to believe the other was an antagonist. Once revived the conflict is over; any new conflict with either individual must escalate once again.

The policy clearly states that once killed the conflict is over. I was not killed during the first altercation, nor was I revived. The engineer that crit me, was therefore valid to be crit in retaliation, since the conflict does not end once one party is put into critical condition.

This is textbook bad escalation. Lifting this note would set a precedent that I mention in the note itself--Engineering players should not be required to train their combat skills on every assistant that comes in to steal their stuff just to not be ransacked every round. This is so engrained into LRP culture at this point that it had to be mentioned, but assistants absolutely do not have the right to break into people's workplaces and attack the employees of those workplaces who are just trying to get them to leave.

Upholding this note sets the precedent that if you enter someone's department, you are valid and cannot defend yourself if they attack you. I want to emphasize once again, I did not break into engie to beat up and harass the engineers. I broke in, flashes him 3 times, and then was beaten into crit. I then came back to crit him, got killed and dusted, and bwoinked for improper escalation.

You getting SM'd afterwards is not relevant. The circumstances beforehand absolutely allow killing you.

Killing me, but not round-removing me. You are only allowed to round-remove after you have killed and revived someone, and they come back. I was not killed and revived. This is a moot point because I don't even care if I was escalated against poorly - the fact I was then noted after this is just baffling to me.

Part of your appeal (including the ahelp) rests on the exact wording of escalation policy refering to "killing". This feels like rules-lawyering to me, and the precedent it sets makes no sense. Does that mean the chief engineer should have killed you so that the escalation would be "reset" in the rules?

By the same token, if someone validly instigates against you, and you are incapacitated/brought to crit, that automatically now means you are not able to seek retribution for being wronged. So if you harm someone, you best make sure you harm them until they're horizontal, so they can't retaliate when they're back up.
---

I will grant you this--I default to singular they and it makes this note more confusing. I've changed it to the following, to be more specific:

Improper escalation--broke into engineering to steal gloves, and when critted by the chief engineer and a station engineer who wanted them to leave, came back and stun batonned the CE, and crit the engineer, looting the engineer's items. Engineering players should not be required to train their combat skills on every assistant that comes in to steal their stuff just to not be ransacked every round.

If I were the admin reading this note, I would think what happened was: a tider came into engi, fucked all the engineers up, looted them, and left. That is simply not what happened, and it's not what I did. I was definitely on the losing end of this battle, I did not gain anything from this conflict except being dusted, nor did I want it to escalate to harm to begin with.

Nevertheless, this oversight has been brought up to head admins, who have told me they will update the policy text to refer to "incapacitation" and "treatment" instead, which was the original intent behind the text itself.

I'm glad it's being fixed, but if the escalation rules had said "incapacitation," I would not have come back to crit the engineer, since the conflict would have been over. It feels unfair this note will remain because of an oversight in policy. I shouldn't have been expected to imply "incapacitation and treatment" from "killed and revived."

[Timberpoes]

It has been noted that we've pretty much agreed in the admin backchannels we'll hotfix the wording of the policy. This has also been touched upon in the policynut thread too.

I would argue there is a valid interpretation that loss of life is required because of each of these three aspects of the policy:

1. The use of the word "killed" instead of incapacitated or crit
2. The use of the term "living" when referring to the victor
3. The use of the term "revive"

Using the term revive COULD mean revival from incap instead of death, but in the context of the entire paragraph I believe it would be a valid interpretation to consider revival in the context of a player being [killed] and the [living] player having to [revive] them. Once the [killed] player is [revived], the escalation is over.

My brain worms thought that it would allow for escalation to continue with back-and-forth fighting up until the point one party got sick of it and applied the coup de grâce or one of the parties just naturally died (for example, to not being healed out of crit), at which point it would trigger the duty to revive and cleanly wipe the slate clean on that block of escalation.

That is how I interpreted the wording of the policy on first inspection and how I connected the dots to reconcile genuine killing being the end of escalation. I believe it was a reasonable interpretation of the wording of the policy, as opposed to rules lawyering or a stretch of the imagination.

As a result, I think some benefit of the doubt could be given as to whether the player was rules lawyering, restricted specifically to that part of the new escalation policy.

[Mothblocks]

I was neither killed nor revived.

You were beat into crit, which counts equally as for the end of the escalation, when you have sufficiently lost the fight and cannot otherwise continue the escalation on your own terms. And come on, you know what "revive" means here, you were brought back from crit.

Upholding this note sets the precedent that if you enter someone's department, you are valid and cannot defend yourself if they attack you.

If you break in to someone's department, and harass them with flashes because they don't give you tools for their department, then critting them in response is absolutely improper escalation.

I want to emphasize once again, I did not break into engie to beat up and harass the engineers. I broke in, flashes him 3 times, and then was beaten into crit.

You broke into engineering, and repeatedly flashed them because they would not hand you insulated gloves on a silver platter. To say you didn't go in to beat up the engineers is true only in the most literal interpretation. There is no reason for the engineer to listen to you, as you are an assistant in their place of work.

By the same token, if someone validly instigates against you, and you are incapacitated/brought to crit, that automatically now means you are not able to seek retribution for being wronged.

Not "not able", but if someone validly instigates against you, lets you live, and you come back to escalate back, then that's exactly what escalation policy is meant to allow to flow.

To quote:

As a non-antagonist you may begin conflict with another player with valid reason (refusal of critical services, belligerent attitude, etc) OR if it does not excessively interfere with their ability to do their job. Whomever you engage is entitled to respond to your actions. If the conflict leads to violence and you had a poor reason for causing conflict in the first place, you may face administrative action.

The wording specifically I want to draw attention to is "had a poor reason". If you do not have a poor reason (suggested by your post stating the caveat of "validly instigates against you"), then you will not face administrative action.

I shouldn't have been expected to imply "incapacitation and treatment" from "killed and revived."

I said this before on the thread where this escalation policy was proposed, but I would've without a doubt ruled this exact same way beforehand as well, under "don't be a dick":

Going out of your way to seriously negatively impact or end the round for someone with little IC justification is against the rules

You had little IC justification to start this fight, stole items that did not belong to you on an instigation improperly started by you, and only didn't do worse because you were dusted.

I will not be responding to this thread again.

[sinfulbliss]

You were beat into crit, which counts equally as for the end of the escalation, when you have sufficiently lost the fight and cannot otherwise continue the escalation on your own terms.

How was I actually supposed to know this? You've gone ahead and contacted the headmins mid-appeal to change escalation policy, and are now using this new changed policy to explain how it was improper escalation. I'm not "rules-lawyering," I read the escalation policies extremely closely and I'm active in the policy threads because I like to know what sort of behavior is and isn't accepted. If this were the policy at the time I would not have been able to return to crit the engineer.

If you break in to someone's department, and harass them with flashes because they don't give you tools for their department, then critting them in response is absolutely improper escalation.

I didn't crit them because they refused me tools. I crit them because they crit me first.

I'd like to request a headmin review. I don't find it fair I am being noted for following the escalation policies as they were when I was playing this round.

[Mothblocks]

Head admins have been notified.

[sinfulbliss]

EDIT: After rewatching the clip, I neglected to mention the part where Harvey threatened to plasmaflood to get me to leave engi.

Spoiler:

This wasn't part of the combat itself but I believe it should absolutely weigh in to the conflict and the corresponding escalation permitted. It's no different, and perhaps worse, than threatening to welderbomb - there exists a legitimate possibility they will do it, even though it is often a bluff, and my understanding is that this sort of thing opens you up to further escalation.

[Donpedrito]

https://tgstation13.org/wiki/Headmin_Rulings

Weapons of Mass Destruction to counter antagonists
An example of this is suicide bombing a wizard or BoH bombing the cult base. If use of the weapon does not win the round for your side immediately after, then it is grief and will be treated as such by admins.

Since starting a plasmafire causes large amounts of damage to the station, especially if firelocks fail to contain it, and is likely to harm or kill innocent bystanders, it's reasonable to consider it a weapon of mass destruction on the level of a somewhat-large bomb, in which case doing so would not be justified, regardless of the antagonist status of the other person in the conflict. I'm unsure if this also applies to just threatening to use a WMD, although as only an antagonist is allowed to actually use it, it may be reasonable to treat someone who threatens to use it as acting like an antagonist.

[Sylphet]

Opening a tank of plasma in a closed space is in no way the same thing as plasmaflooding and is certainly not a WMD - it doesn't necessarily mean starting a fire, unless it's released at a pressure to pop light bulbs, which isn't necessary to force someone from an area. An engineer is entirely within their rights to force someone out of their department who is trespassing. Not to mention, they /didn't/ leak plasma, and so it's completely irrelevant for escalation.

[sinfulbliss]

Opening a tank of plasma in a closed space is in no way the same thing as plasmaflooding and is certainly not a WMD - it doesn't necessarily mean starting a fire, unless it's released at a pressure to pop light bulbs, which isn't necessary to force someone from an area. An engineer is entirely within their rights to force someone out of their department who is trespassing. Not to mention, they /didn't/ leak plasma, and so it's completely irrelevant for escalation.

I think what is obviously intended by dragging a plasma canister around and saying "I'll do it" is the threat of setting the room on fire. It should still affect escalation because they expressed the intent to do it. If someone chases you with a fuel tank and a welder, despite not exploding it, they have opened themselves up for escalation because they expressed the intent to welderbomb you.

[technokek]

Opening a tank of plasma in a closed space is in no way the same thing as plasmaflooding and is certainly not a WMD - it doesn't necessarily mean starting a fire, unless it's released at a pressure to pop light bulbs, which isn't necessary to force someone from an area. An engineer is entirely within their rights to force someone out of their department who is trespassing. Not to mention, they /didn't/ leak plasma, and so it's completely irrelevant for escalation.

I think what is obviously intended by dragging a plasma canister around and saying "I'll do it" is the threat of setting the room on fire. It should still affect escalation because they expressed the intent to do it. If someone chases you with a fuel tank and a welder, despite not exploding it, they have opened themselves up for escalation because they expressed the intent to welderbomb you.

They didn't directly say they will use the tank to plasma flood and they didn't chase you around with it. They just grabbed the tank from the secure storage and ran off with it. Making a vague threat after you kept chasing them.

► Show Spoiler

holy shit i was tired when i made the initial comment

[sinfulbliss]

They didn't directly say they will use the tank to plasma flood and they didn't chase you around with it. They just grabbed the tank from the secure storage and ran off with it. Making a vague threat after you kept chasing them.

► Show Spoiler

holy shit i was tired when i made the initial comment

He threatened to flood while I was standing still - I was not chasing him.

In fear of getting lost in the weeds, I'd like to mention again that my main reason for contesting this note is the fact that the banning admin contacted the headmins mid-appeal to amend the escalation rules. This retroactively justifies the note. I would not have acted in this manner if the escalation policy at the time said the conflict ends after one party is crit. I also did not believe this was obviously implied as the "intent" of the policy - for reasons Timberpoes has stated.

[NamelessFairy]

We believe that the edited note accurately portrays the situation and thus we'll be upholding it

Headmin Votes:
NamelessFairy: Uphold
Dragomagol: Uphold
RaveRadbury: Uphold