[Vekter] maskenary - crush2

[maskenary]

BYOND account: maskenary
Character name: Reider Meza
Ban type: Server + Role
Ban length: 2 hours server, 1 week assistant
Ban reason: Firelock crushed another assistant to beat him to the gloves in tech storage. You have other notes for an almost identical issue and need to find another way to solve your problems that isn't "escalate straight to lethal means".
Time ban was placed: 2023-04-15
Server you were playing on when banned: Sybil
Round ID in which ban was placed: 203823
Your side of the story:
It was a valid IC conflict.
We were going to fight over tech storage's gloves. We were both vying to get the same item that there was only 1 of in that room, so naturally that would spark a conflict between two people. Assistants fight all the time in tech storage with shit like shoves, grabs, tabling, flashes, etc.

Henry also took public tool storage's toolbelt that I desired before I was able to, which added to my reasoning of this action.

Additionally, Henry demolished a station wall instead of just asking AI or something else, so that is another reason why he was crushed in retaliation. This is not just an excuse, in other rounds I act on people doing similar things. For example, I usually mess with people who destroy the jetpack rack window in EVA.

Also, I don't think it's "straight to lethal means". I just wanted to stun him quickly, the miniscule damage (15) was just a side effect. Similar to rubbershot stamcrit having a bit of damage stacked as an extra. I wasn't beating him up or anything into crit.

Why you think you should be unbanned:
- Valid IC conflict
- Henry was breaking the station
- I just wanted to briefly stun them, not lethally attack

[Vekter]

Nope, denied.

You have an incredibly similar note from rageguy (that also ended in an appeal and was also upheld, so I'm pretty confident in this one):

[2023-02-18 02:46:04 | note by rageguy505]
Stunned and wordlessly firelock crushed someone for no reason as a non-antag and gave them a stack sutures after. Have atleast a IC reason before assaulting people.

This is far from the first time you've self-antagged and probably one of the worst justifications for it in general. I'll acknowledge that firelock crushing only does 15 brute when done once, but that's still such a drastic over-escalation that it would easily merit the other party killing you over it.

In any other situation with any other player, this would have been a slap on the wrist or an IC issue for the person involved to take care of. Given your long and storied history of being a problem as both sec and assistant, I feel an escalation to a short ban under rule 7 is more than fair. The assistant ban was recommended to me by multiple other admins as a method to try and get you to find a more constructive method of play, as it's obvious most rounds involve you either trying to find and kill as many antags as possible or starting conflict for the sake of getting into fights.

You had so many other solutions available to you: Shove/table him (does no lethal damage), talk the problem out, go to Engineering and ask for gloves (of which there are often extras), see if Cargo could order one for you (idk about other QMs but I wouldn't balk at it), have Security step in, etc. Instead, you did what you always do and escalated straight to assault.

Those same admins that suggested an assistant ban recommended it be longer than it is. Take this as what it's intended to be: A sign that you should take some time to reflect on how you treat the game in general and find more interesting, creative ways to play it that don't boil down to "unga me hurt person to get thing I want".

Also, I don't now, nor will I ever care about what "other players do". You are officially an extenuating circumstance. If other players do the same things you do with the frequency in which you do them, they will be treated similarly.

[maskenary]

that's still such a drastic over-escalation

There were multiple IC conflict-sparking actions that Henry did which justifies one crush, it is not an overescalation.

[Vekter]

that's still such a drastic over-escalation

There were multiple IC conflict-sparking actions that Henry did which justifies one crush, it is not an overescalation.

The actions you specified to me read as justifications you came up with on the spot as opposed to actual reasons you did what you did. You specifically stated originally that you did it because he was going after the gloves you wanted, then you noted the other justifications after the risk of you being punished came up. If you had intended to do it because he broke a window or took something else you wanted, you would have told me that up front.

I'm not lifting it. Headmins have been notified but it's not going away unless they remove it.

[maskenary]

Headmin review

[Vekter]

Okay, give me a second to go get my manager.

[kieth4]

Headmin review

If you want a good faith headmin review I ask you to good faith respond to vekter's fat post.

[maskenary]

I thought he wasn't gonna change his stance, so I request.
I will respond,

The actions you specified to me read as justifications you came up with on the spot as opposed to actual reasons you did what you did.

False, these actions combined influenced my thinking of what to do to him. If they were a peaceful botanist that just got there for example, I would not do the same.

You specifically stated originally that you did it because he was going after the gloves you wanted, then you noted the other justifications after the risk of you being punished came up.

That does not null my justification.

I'm not lifting it.

Then I will leave it to someone else.

[Vekter]

Actually, no, I'm sorry, I know you were using those reasons as post-justification, you admitted it to me in the adminhelp.

False, these actions combined influenced my thinking of what to do to him. If they were a peaceful botanist that just got there for example, I would not do the same.

I would be justified in extending your ban for you lying in an appeal.

[Archie700]

The entire "fight", in logs

Code: Select all

05:02:52	ATTACK	Maskenary/(Reider Meza) shoved Tarhalindur/(Henry Kherring) (NEWHP: 100)	(119, 105, 2)	Engineering Hallway
05:02:53	ATTACK	Maskenary/(Reider Meza) shoved Tarhalindur/(Henry Kherring) with knocking them down (NEWHP: 100)	(118, 105, 2)	Engineering Hallway
05:02:53	ATTACK	Maskenary/(Reider Meza) kicks Tarhalindur/(Henry Kherring) with onto their side (paralyzing) (NEWHP: 100)	(118, 105, 2)	Engineering Hallway
05:02:53	ATTACK	Maskenary/(Reider Meza) shoved Tarhalindur/(Henry Kherring) with knocking them down (NEWHP: 100)	(118, 105, 2)	Engineering Hallway
05:02:54	ATTACK	Maskenary/(Reider Meza) grabbed Tarhalindur/(Henry Kherring) passive grab (NEWHP: 100)	(118, 105, 2)	Engineering Hallway
05:02:55	ATTACK	Maskenary/(Reider Meza) grabbed Tarhalindur/(Henry Kherring) aggressive grab (NEWHP: 100)	(121, 105, 2)	Engineering Hallway
05:02:56	ATTACK	Maskenary/(Reider Meza) thrown Tarhalindur/(Henry Kherring) grab from tile in Engineering Hallway (123,105,2) towards tile at Gravity Generator Room (122,107,2) (NEWHP: 100)	(123, 105, 2)	Engineering Hallway
05:02:56	ATTACK	Maskenary/(Reider Meza) has thrown Henry Kherring	(123, 105, 2)	Engineering Hallway
05:02:58	ATTACK	[firelock] crushed Tarhalindur/(Henry Kherring) (NEWHP: 77.5)	(122, 106, 2)	Engineering Hallway

[maskenary]

The entire "fight", in logs

Nerd

you admitted it to me in the adminhelp.

Not an admission, you just stated your opinion. In my response I am saying that, regardless of the opinion you have, it makes them valid to my actions.
I had sufficient IC reasoning to do what I did.

[Vekter]

I had sufficient IC reasoning to do what I did.

I disagree. Appeal denied.

[maskenary]

I disagree. Appeal denied.

I know, that's why I requested review

[Timberpoes]

Like a bolt from the blue, it's time for Poes' Review!

1/10. 2/10 with better IC reasoning.

[Misdoubtful]

I'm going to start off by saying that every single time someone lazily says 'headmin review' I sharpen my axe a little bit more. If you can't put in the effort to try and convince the banning admin why a ban was wrong - what would you have possibly accomplished to make US see things that way? I'll tell you exactly what, absolutely nothing.

Jumping to harm in order to optimize your own gameplay without the slightest amount of effort to use any other means comes across as a failure to understand the core concepts of this being a social game space where sometimes you don't get what you want. As Vekter said you had countless other means of obtaining what you wanted -- you made the decision to jump directly to something harmful and violent.

Just in general making a lifestyle out of beginning conflicts with violence instead of conflicts leading to violence sucks. If everyone else CONSISTENTLY played this way the state of the game would be truly terrible.

Conflict leads to violence, not the other way around.

This is something with an ongoing history, not a one off thing. Stop consistently playing this way, this is a social game, not a checklist to be completed by any means possible.

To add insult to injury you then looked for any excuses you could find after the fact to cover your own ass.

Appeal denied.

Escalation Policy

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.

...

Suggested YouTube viewing for you: https://youtu.be/m5Ye_dAge-4

Keith4: 'I don't take issue with the stun itself, but the consistency of these things occurring'