/tg/Station 13

Posted: **Fri Jan 12, 2024 9:49 pm**

Ban Details
BYOND account: Accountnamecontainsreserved
Character name: Nowell Petrov
Ban type: Evil ban
Ban length: 1 day
Ban reason:

Time ban was placed: Today
Server you were playing on when banned: Terry
Round ID in which ban was placed: included in image

Reasons for Appealing - Delete irrelevant sections
Is the reason/note factually accurate and fair?: no
Do you disagree with the admin's interpretation of rules or policy?: Yes
If no, please provide more details: lethally shooting bridge trespassers is allowed
Do you feel the ban length or decision to note was unjustifiably harsh?: Yes
If no, please provide more details: I believe "this wasn't even a rule break and you shouldn't have been noted?(banned)" i dont think any punishment should have been dealt since i was acting within the rules

Posted: **Fri Jan 12, 2024 9:57 pm**

The original ticket, for reference:

► Show Spoiler

From Ticket #4 during round 222074 on Terry:

---- Log Begins ----
2024-01-12 21:09:57: Ticket Opened by thunder12345: Hey, can you tell me what happened with Jordan Schmidt, please?
2024-01-12 21:10:11: Reply from accountnamecontainsreserved: he was tresspassing bridge and i shot him
2024-01-12 21:12:34: Reply from thunder12345: And what was he doing in the bridge exactly to justify shooting him into crit and shoving him behind the flaps?
2024-01-12 21:12:48: Reply from accountnamecontainsreserved: nothing other than tresspassing
2024-01-12 21:13:37: <a>LiarGG</a>/(Jonathan B. Gibs) launched a pod towards Account name contains reserved/(Nowell Petrov),
2024-01-12 21:17:25: Reply from thunder12345: So he was just on the bridge, no further provocation beyond that?
2024-01-12 21:17:36: Reply from accountnamecontainsreserved: yes thats policy
2024-01-12 21:17:50: Reply from accountnamecontainsreserved: lethals allowed on bridge i dont make the rules
2024-01-12 21:18:27: Reply from thunder12345: No it's not, "Breaking into the captain's office, head of personnel's office, bridge or armory for no legitimate reason put themselves at risk of being killed by the captain, heads of staff, or security" 
 
Note the use of the phrase "for no legitimate reason". Did you or did you not attempt to find out if he had a legitimate reason to be there?
2024-01-12 21:18:48: Reply from accountnamecontainsreserved: what legitimate reason did he have?
2024-01-12 21:18:59: Reply from thunder12345: Being there to talk to the bridge assistant
2024-01-12 21:19:11: Reply from accountnamecontainsreserved: why is that a valid reason?
2024-01-12 21:19:38: Reply from accountnamecontainsreserved: the bridge assistant is not a head of staff he is not there to set "social gatherings" on the bridge
2024-01-12 21:19:50: Reply from thunder12345: He's on the bridge to talk to someone whose workplace is the bridge, it's certainly enough of a reason to not instantly laser him into crit and dump his body in maint
2024-01-12 21:19:53: Reply from accountnamecontainsreserved: this is like saying you can enter the armory to have a talk with the warden and get away with it
2024-01-12 21:20:07: Reply from accountnamecontainsreserved: thats not a valid reason
2024-01-12 21:21:58: Reply from thunder12345: The armoury obviously has a higher standard by virtue of the fact it's full of guns, the bridge is not full of easily stolen guns. 
 
It is an entirely reasonable place for someone to go to talk to the person whose workplace is the bridge, much as someone who wanted to talk to the warden would go to the warden's office. 
 
It's your bridge and you can absolutely kick him out, but jumping to immediate critting and hiding of his body, not a reasonable response.
2024-01-12 21:23:11: Reply from accountnamecontainsreserved: i never "hid him", i specifically even asked for someone to remove them from there which they did immediately
2024-01-12 21:24:02: Reply from accountnamecontainsreserved: let me tone down the logic, if you want to come into the captains office in order to speak with pretty much anyone thats currently inside by your logic you are inherently allowed to be there
2024-01-12 21:25:19: Reply from accountnamecontainsreserved: its not reasonable to tresspass into high risk areas just to talk to someone
2024-01-12 21:27:45: Reply from accountnamecontainsreserved: its a stupid workaround and a subversion of what a "legitimate reason" is
2024-01-12 21:28:23: Reply from thunder12345: The captain's office is again an area with significantly more valuables to steal, and I still wouldn't condone instant murder if a single person were to come in while you were there, and start talking to you, without any sign they were intending to cause a problem. 
 
Ultimately we seem to be as an impasse here, so you're welcome to discuss this further on the forums if you have anything more to say.
2024-01-12 21:29:12: Reply from accountnamecontainsreserved: this is just a matter of literacy
2024-01-12 21:29:19: Reply from accountnamecontainsreserved: as you wish see you on the forums man
2024-01-12 21:30:04: Client disconnected
2024-01-12 21:30:04: <a>Thunder12345</a>/(Jazmin Malcovich) has created a temporary 1 day server ban for Account name contains reserved.
2024-01-12 21:30:05: Resolved by Thunder12345
---- No Further Messages ----

This ticket can be viewed:

By the affected player: http://statbus.space/tickets/222074/4
By admins: http://statbus.space/tgdb/tickets/222074/4

This ticket was generated by Statbus v.1.18.0

This appeal brings up no new argument that wasn't already discussed in the ticket. I cannot respond to this because there is nothing to respond to. Unless you have anything else to say in your defence, I'll be denying this appeal.

Posted: **Fri Jan 12, 2024 9:58 pm**

requesting headmin review

Posted: **Fri Jan 12, 2024 10:02 pm**

joemama9plus10 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 12, 2024 9:58 pm requesting headmin review

homie the banning admin didn't even respond yet hold your horses

Posted: **Fri Jan 12, 2024 10:04 pm**

he just denied it forgive me for my enthusiasm

Posted: **Fri Jan 12, 2024 10:04 pm**

Cheshify wrote: ↑Fri Jan 12, 2024 10:02 pm
joemama9plus10 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 12, 2024 9:58 pm requesting headmin review
homie the banning admin didn't even respond yet hold your horses

Horses are already free in the field

Posted: **Fri Jan 12, 2024 10:10 pm**

Oh right ok

Posted: **Fri Jan 12, 2024 10:33 pm**

3.Breaking into the captain's office, head of personnel's office, bridge or armory for no legitimate reason put themselves at risk of being killed by the captain, heads of staff, or security.

attack logs

Code: Select all

09:06:46	ATTACK	Account name contains reserved/(Nowell Petrov) (mob_3359) shot Jedisixx/(Jordan Schmidt) with the hellfire laser (NEWHP: 100)	(104, 136, 2)	Bridge
09:06:46	ATTACK	Jedisixx/(Jordan Schmidt) (mob_3356) suffered: Second Degree Burns to head | Damage: 30 (rolled 35/116.942) | BWB: 40	(104, 135, 2)	Bridge
09:06:47	ATTACK	Account name contains reserved/(Nowell Petrov) (mob_3359) shot Jedisixx/(Jordan Schmidt) with the hellfire laser (NEWHP: 70)	(104, 136, 2)	Bridge
09:06:47	ATTACK	Jedisixx/(Jordan Schmidt) (mob_3356) suffered: Catastrophic Burns to head | Damage: 33 (rolled 131/133.635) | BWB: 40	(104, 135, 2)	Bridge
09:06:49	ATTACK	Account name contains reserved/(Nowell Petrov) (mob_3359) shot Jedisixx/(Jordan Schmidt) with the hellfire laser (NEWHP: 37.2)	(104, 136, 2)	Bridge
09:06:50	ATTACK	Account name contains reserved/(Nowell Petrov) (mob_3359) shot Jedisixx/(Jordan Schmidt) with the hellfire laser (NEWHP: 14.9)	(101, 135, 2)	Bridge
09:07:04	ATTACK	Account name contains reserved/(Nowell Petrov) (mob_3359) grabbed Jedisixx/(Jordan Schmidt) passive grab (NEWHP: -22.7)	(101, 133, 2)	Bridge
09:07:05	ATTACK	Account name contains reserved/(Nowell Petrov) (mob_3359) grabbed Jedisixx/(Jordan Schmidt) aggressive grab (NEWHP: -22.5)	(101, 136, 2)	Bridge
09:07:06	ATTACK	Account name contains reserved/(Nowell Petrov) (mob_3359) thrown Jedisixx/(Jordan Schmidt) grab from tile in Bridge (102,136,2) towards tile at Central Maintenance (96,136,2) (NEWHP: -22.5)	(102, 136, 2)	Bridge
09:07:24	ATTACK	Account name contains reserved/(Nowell Petrov) (mob_3359) grabbed Jedisixx/(Jordan Schmidt) passive grab (NEWHP: -21.4)	(101, 135, 2)	Bridge
09:07:25	ATTACK	Account name contains reserved/(Nowell Petrov) (mob_3359) grabbed Jedisixx/(Jordan Schmidt) aggressive grab (NEWHP: -21.2)	(101, 136, 2)	Bridge
09:07:25	ATTACK	Account name contains reserved/(Nowell Petrov) (mob_3359) thrown Jedisixx/(Jordan Schmidt) grab from tile in Bridge (102,136,2) towards tile at Central Maintenance (95,136,2) (NEWHP: -21.2)	(102, 136, 2)	Bridge
09:07:27	ATTACK	Account name contains reserved/(Nowell Petrov) (mob_3359) shoved Jedisixx/(Jordan Schmidt) (NEWHP: -21.2)	(100, 135, 2)	Bridge
09:07:31	ATTACK	Account name contains reserved/(Nowell Petrov) (mob_3359) shoved Jedisixx/(Jordan Schmidt) with knocking them down (NEWHP: -21.2)	(100, 135, 2)	Bridge
09:07:32	ATTACK	Account name contains reserved/(Nowell Petrov) (mob_3359) kicks Jedisixx/(Jordan Schmidt) with onto their side (paralyzing) (NEWHP: -21.2)	(101, 135, 2)	Bridge
09:07:32	ATTACK	Account name contains reserved/(Nowell Petrov) (mob_3359) shoved Jedisixx/(Jordan Schmidt) (NEWHP: -21.2)	(101, 135, 2)	Bridge
09:07:33	ATTACK	Radioprague/(Gorbino The Elder) (mob_3360) fired at Jedisixx/(Jordan Schmidt) with the laser from Bridge (NEWHP: -21.2)	(105, 136, 2)	Bridge
09:07:33	ATTACK	Radioprague/(Gorbino The Elder) (mob_3360) shot Jedisixx/(Jordan Schmidt) with the laser (NEWHP: -21.2)	(105, 136, 2)	Bridge
09:07:33	ATTACK	Jedisixx/(Jordan Schmidt) (mob_3356) suffered: Second Degree Burns to left arm | Damage: 25 (rolled 74/90.5975) | WB: -20 | BWB: 40	(99, 136, 2)	Bridge
09:07:41	ATTACK	Account name contains reserved/(Nowell Petrov) (mob_3359) shoved Jedisixx/(Jordan Schmidt) (NEWHP: -35.6)	(100, 135, 2)	Bridge
09:07:43	ATTACK	Account name contains reserved/(Nowell Petrov) (mob_3359) shoved Jedisixx/(Jordan Schmidt) into Unknown (NEWHP: -35.9)	(99, 136, 2)	Bridge
09:07:45	ATTACK	Account name contains reserved/(Nowell Petrov) (mob_3359) grabbed Jedisixx/(Jordan Schmidt) passive grab (NEWHP: -36.8)	(99, 136, 2)	Bridge
09:07:46	ATTACK	Account name contains reserved/(Nowell Petrov) (mob_3359) grabbed Jedisixx/(Jordan Schmidt) aggressive grab (NEWHP: -36.8)	(99, 136, 2)	Bridge

jordans say logs from the incident

Code: Select all

09:05:24	SAY	Jedisixx/(Jordan Schmidt) (mob_3356) "ai door"	(117, 127, 2)	Command Hallway
09:05:27	SAY	Jedisixx/(Jordan Schmidt) (mob_3356) "too late"	(117, 127, 2)	Command Hallway
09:05:31	SAY	Jedisixx/(Jordan Schmidt) (mob_3356) "I SAID ITS TOO LATE MAN!!"	(117, 127, 2)	Command Hallway
09:05:38	SAY	Jedisixx/(Jordan Schmidt) (mob_3356) "TOO LATE TO DO THAT MAN!!"	(117, 127, 2)	Command Hallway
09:05:42	SAY	Jedisixx/(Jordan Schmidt) (mob_3356) "I ALREADY AM"	(117, 127, 2)	Command Hallway
09:05:50	SAY	Jedisixx/(Jordan Schmidt) (mob_3356) "gorninmo"	(116, 127, 2)	Command Hallway
09:05:51	SAY	Jedisixx/(Jordan Schmidt) (mob_3356) "gorb"	(114, 127, 2)	Command Hallway
09:05:54	SAY	Jedisixx/(Jordan Schmidt) (mob_3356) "who are you with"	(111, 127, 2)	Command Hallway
09:06:00	SAY	Jedisixx/(Jordan Schmidt) (mob_3356) "gorbino"	(101, 127, 2)	Command Hallway
09:06:01	SAY	Jedisixx/(Jordan Schmidt) (mob_3356) "HEY"	(101, 127, 2)	Command Hallway
09:06:03	SAY	Jedisixx/(Jordan Schmidt) (mob_3356) "AI DOOR"	(101, 127, 2)	Command Hallway
09:06:09	SAY	Jedisixx/(Jordan Schmidt) (mob_3356) "GORBINO"	(101, 132, 2)	Bridge
09:06:10	EMOTE	Jedisixx/(Jordan Schmidt) (mob_3356) points at the floor	(100, 132, 2)	Bridge
09:06:11	EMOTE	Jedisixx/(Jordan Schmidt) (mob_3356) points at the floor	(100, 132, 2)	Bridge
09:06:11	EMOTE	Jedisixx/(Jordan Schmidt) (mob_3356) points at Unknown	(100, 132, 2)	Bridge
09:06:11	EMOTE	Jedisixx/(Jordan Schmidt) (mob_3356) points at Unknown	(100, 132, 2)	Bridge
09:06:13	SAY	Jedisixx/(Jordan Schmidt) (mob_3356) "WHO ARE YOU WITH"	(100, 132, 2)	Bridge
09:06:15	EMOTE	Jedisixx/(Jordan Schmidt) (mob_3356) points at the carpet	(104, 135, 2)	Bridge
09:06:21	SAY	Jedisixx/(Jordan Schmidt) (mob_3356) "im with lorenzo"	(104, 135, 2)	Bridge
09:06:28	EMOTE	Jedisixx/(Jordan Schmidt) (mob_3356) nods.	(104, 135, 2)	Bridge
09:06:33	SAY	Jedisixx/(Jordan Schmidt) (mob_3356) "you know what im talking about gorb"	(104, 135, 2)	Bridge
09:06:48	SAY	Jedisixx/(Jordan Schmidt) (mob_3356) "OW"	(102, 134, 2)	Bridge
09:06:49	SAY	Jedisixx/(Jordan Schmidt) (mob_3356) "OW"	(101, 132, 2)	Bridge
09:06:50	SAY	Jedisixx/(Jordan Schmidt) (mob_3356) "HEY"	(100, 131, 2)	Bridge
09:06:53	WHISPER	Jedisixx/(Jordan Schmidt) (mob_3356) "CAP BAD"	(100, 130, 2)	Bridge
09:06:55	WHISPER	Jedisixx/(Jordan Schmidt) (mob_3356) "CAP BAD"	(100, 129, 2)	Bridge
09:06:57	WHISPER	Jedisixx/(Jordan Schmidt) (mob_3356) "IM NOT"	(100, 129, 2)	Bridge
09:06:59	WHISPER	Jedisixx/(Jordan Schmidt) (mob_3356) "IM NOT HIM"	(100, 130, 2)	Bridge
09:07:01	WHISPER	Jedisixx/(Jordan Schmidt) (mob_3356) "HES DEAD"	(100, 131, 2)	Bridge
09:07:02	WHISPER	Jedisixx/(Jordan Schmidt) (mob_3356) "HELP"	(100, 132, 2)	Bridge
09:07:04	WHISPER	Jedisixx/(Jordan Schmidt) (mob_3356) "IM NOT HIM"	(100, 132, 2)	Bridge
09:07:10	WHISPER	Jedisixx/(Jordan Schmidt) (mob_3356) "IM NOT FUCKING HIM YOU DUMBASS MORON"	(97, 136, 2)	Central Maintenance
09:07:15	WHISPER	Jedisixx/(Jordan Schmidt) (mob_3356) "IM A DIFFERENT GUY IDIOT"	(99, 136, 2)	Bridge
09:07:16	WHISPER	Jedisixx/(Jordan Schmidt) (mob_3356) "CPR"	(100, 136, 2)	Bridge
09:07:19	WHISPER	Jedisixx/(Jordan Schmidt) (mob_3356) "DYING"	(100, 135, 2)	Bridge
09:07:23	WHISPER	Jedisixx/(Jordan Schmidt) (mob_3356) "IM A DIFFERENT FUCKING GUY"	(100, 135, 2)	Bridge
09:07:24	WHISPER	Jedisixx/(Jordan Schmidt) (mob_3356) "IM THE JANITOR"	(101, 135, 2)	Bridge
09:07:27	WHISPER	Jedisixx/(Jordan Schmidt) (mob_3356) "dude"	(98, 136, 2)	Central Maintenance
09:07:28	WHISPER	Jedisixx/(Jordan Schmidt) (mob_3356) "what the fuck"	(98, 136, 2)	Central Maintenance
09:07:31	WHISPER	Jedisixx/(Jordan Schmidt) (mob_3356) "dude"	(100, 136, 2)	Bridge
09:07:44	EMOTE	Jedisixx/(Jordan Schmidt) (mob_3356) gasps!	(98, 136, 2)	Central Maintenance
09:07:46	EMOTE	Jedisixx/(Jordan Schmidt) (mob_3356) gasps!	(98, 136, 2)	Central Maintenance
09:07:48	EMOTE	Jedisixx/(Jordan Schmidt) (mob_3356) gasps!	(97, 140, 2)	Central Maintenance
09:07:55	EMOTE	Jedisixx/(Jordan Schmidt) (mob_3356) gasps!

caps say logs from the incident

Code: Select all

09:07:09	SAY	Account name contains reserved/(Nowell Petrov) (mob_3359) "okay"	(104, 136, 2)	Bridge
09:07:18	SAY	Account name contains reserved/(Nowell Petrov) (mob_3359) "det"	(101, 135, 2)	Bridge
09:07:22	SAY	Account name contains reserved/(Nowell Petrov) (mob_3359) "please get the bodies to med"	(101, 135, 2)	Bridge
09:07:39	SAY	Account name contains reserved/(Nowell Petrov) (mob_3359) "i dont want you here regardless do you understand"	(100, 135, 2)	Bridge

Posted: **Fri Jan 12, 2024 10:40 pm**

so i believe the things that allow a captain to immediately open fire lethally necessitate a break-in, as it's worded, or illegitimate (potentially dangerous/tidey) reasons for being there. i didn't see any manner of attempt on your end to suss out the legitimacy of his presence in the bridge, nor does it look like he broke in. this rules intention is not to create a binary 1 to 0 valid kill checklist with no regard to context. can you clue me in a little bit more on your IC reasons to have felt the use of force was necessary?

Posted: **Fri Jan 12, 2024 10:50 pm**

i somewhat disagree since it specifically says they need a "legitimate reason", the way you worded it "illegitimate (potentially dangerous/tidey) reasons" sorta doesnt feel the same since youre implying there should be a clear cut illegitimate reason rather than a lack of a legitimate one

Posted: **Fri Jan 12, 2024 10:54 pm**

the way i see the rule is it simply stating that by breaking into one of those high risk areas you are putting yourself in danger of lethal force with the "legitimate reason" bit being the exception

Posted: **Fri Jan 12, 2024 11:12 pm**

i'm asking what you, as the captain of the ship operating with the IC knowledge of that shift, used to justify the use of force applied - not a binary interpretation of an OOC policy in place to empower employees of sensitive areas against fnr tiding. was there a threat on the station that lead you to believe that you needed to be trigger happy against this crewmember? did you make attempts at communicating or understanding the situation before shooting? the rules are not there to be interpreted and lawyered in ways that excuse a bad faith interpretation that allows for the maximum amount of valid kills/player grief.

Posted: **Fri Jan 12, 2024 11:24 pm**

rapidly growing cult and the windoor they broke (or entered through after someone else broke in. not sure), i did not make an attempt at communicating before shooting as i was relying on that rule and the assumption that they broke in.
i understand you arent exactly happy with the way that rule is written but i dont understand why you blame me for simply following it

Posted: **Fri Jan 12, 2024 11:34 pm**

joemama9plus10 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 12, 2024 11:24 pm rapidly growing cult and the windoor they broke (or entered through after someone else broke in. not sure), i did not make an attempt at communicating before shooting as i was relying on that rule and the assumption that they broke in.
i understand you arent exactly happy with the way that rule is written but i dont understand why you blame me for simply following it

it's because you were not 'following' the rule, you were using it as the sole reason and excuse to do something dickish to another player. the core of the rule is to not be a dick, and using a precedent nestled inside of that rule in order to justify dickish behavior without any IC reasoning isn't the purpose of those precedents.

Posted: **Fri Jan 12, 2024 11:39 pm**

but this is the purpose of the rule, it gives you the authority to approach a situation with lethal force inside of that high risk area and you can specifically see that i didnt really intend to use the rule to purposefully grief the player who got shot because i only shot him to softcrit and then asked the det to bring him to med

Posted: **Fri Jan 12, 2024 11:47 pm**

joemama9plus10 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 12, 2024 11:39 pm but this is the purpose of the rule, it gives you the authority to approach a situation with lethal force inside of that high risk area and you can specifically see that i didnt really intend to use the rule to purposefully grief the player who got shot because i only shot him to softcrit and then asked the det to bring him to med

you are arguing the intended purpose of the rule to the person who wrote it. the purpose is not to create a kill/don't kill binary where you are allowed to forego context and gain a valid kill. it is to prevent players from being dicks to you, by tiding into your department, and giving you metaprotections should you decide to place said assholes firmly into the dumpster. that is why this precedent is under rule 1, and not rule 4.

Posted: **Fri Jan 12, 2024 11:49 pm**

didnt he break in though? can you actually look into that before making assumptions

Posted: **Fri Jan 12, 2024 11:51 pm**

also i just dont agree with the constant calls of "valid kill" "do something dickish", i just crit him and threw him out

Posted: **Fri Jan 12, 2024 11:56 pm**

joemama9plus10 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 12, 2024 11:49 pm didnt he break in though? can you actually look into that before making assumptions

based on those logs above, it looks like he asked the AI to let him in, and then hung out with the bridge assistant. apologies for the use of the word 'kill', but for the intent of debating if presence in the bridge alone is worth a kill itself based on the rule, it's easier than saying 'hellfire lasered four times and shoved into a plastic flap'.

Posted: **Fri Jan 12, 2024 11:58 pm**

no but he says something about "nevermind" afterwards i think he might have just broke in instead since he got impatient

Posted: **Sat Jan 13, 2024 12:00 am**

also how come the bridge assistant he was hanging out with tries to shoot him too after i crit him was he ever questioned

Posted: **Sat Jan 13, 2024 12:21 am**

TheBibleMelts wrote: ↑Fri Jan 12, 2024 11:56 pm
joemama9plus10 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 12, 2024 11:49 pm didnt he break in though? can you actually look into that before making assumptions
based on those logs above, it looks like he asked the AI to let him in, and then hung out with the bridge assistant. apologies for the use of the word 'kill', but for the intent of debating if presence in the bridge alone is worth a kill itself based on the rule, it's easier than saying 'hellfire lasered four times and shoved into a plastic flap'.

im just more confused than anything else, the rule specifically says kill yes but i didnt really go that far i was just throwing him out, can you look at things from my perspective? i think youre sort of giving me certain attributes which dont apply to this situation by anything other than my "ic" reputation. the way you said the rule was supposed to be interpreted was simply empowering crew to lethally engage people breaking into their respective departments and thats pretty much what i did i dont see the issue with it

Posted: **Sat Jan 13, 2024 12:24 am**

joemama9plus10 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 12, 2024 11:58 pm no but he says something about "nevermind" afterwards i think he might have just broke in instead since he got impatient

this is where using your words to assess the situation (IC reasoning) before opening up with lasers would have afforded you more leeway in your actions.

if you think your IC reasoning was solid enough here to have not needed that, you'll have my full support to overturn this, but based on what you've been telling me here, these questions you're posing now are ones that would have been great to have in the situation itself, but weren't applied in time to be relevant in the situation itself and are being only asked/used retroactively.

Posted: **Sat Jan 13, 2024 12:33 am**

TheBibleMelts wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 12:24 am
joemama9plus10 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 12, 2024 11:58 pm no but he says something about "nevermind" afterwards i think he might have just broke in instead since he got impatient
this is where using your words to assess the situation (IC reasoning) before opening up with lasers would have afforded you more leeway in your actions.

if you think your IC reasoning was solid enough here to have not needed that, you'll have my full support to overturn this, but based on what you've been telling me here, these questions you're posing now are ones that would have been great to have in the situation itself, but weren't applied in time to be relevant in the situation itself and are being only asked/used retroactively.

my IC reasoning was pretty much that this person broke into a high risk area and the disabled bridge assistant was holed up in the little glass box with the communications console with his gun out which didnt exactly look like hanging out to me. cult was loose and rampant and i was alone. i just believed the rules provided a backbone and were the actual determining factor behind whether something is allowed or not which is why i focused on explaining why my actions abided by the rules, while i personally dont exactly think terry can rely on IC motives alone to set a line between whats allowed and what isnt what i did pretty much complies with a reasonable IC motive

Posted: **Sat Jan 13, 2024 1:00 am**

joemama9plus10 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 12:33 am
TheBibleMelts wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 12:24 am
joemama9plus10 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 12, 2024 11:58 pm no but he says something about "nevermind" afterwards i think he might have just broke in instead since he got impatient
this is where using your words to assess the situation (IC reasoning) before opening up with lasers would have afforded you more leeway in your actions.

if you think your IC reasoning was solid enough here to have not needed that, you'll have my full support to overturn this, but based on what you've been telling me here, these questions you're posing now are ones that would have been great to have in the situation itself, but weren't applied in time to be relevant in the situation itself and are being only asked/used retroactively.
my IC reasoning was pretty much that this person broke into a high risk area and the disabled bridge assistant was holed up in the little glass box with the communications console with his gun out which didnt exactly look like hanging out to me. cult was loose and rampant and i was alone. i just believed the rules provided a backbone and were the actual determining factor behind whether something is allowed or not which is why i focused on explaining why my actions abided by the rules, while i personally dont exactly think terry can rely on IC motives alone to set a line between whats allowed and what isnt what i did pretty much complies with a reasonable IC motive

the cult presence, combined with your BA having a drawn weapon is definitely a more legitimate reason to have done this. i think the key with this is just making sure that you're providing more than an entirely OOC-based justification for your actions if questioned about them. i'll look into what i can do to relieve the cause of the confusion with this rule, and otherwise personally wouldn't be against lifting this on my end with your added clarification in this thread, but still would like to give thunder time to go over this, since their initial denial was based on the lack of the above clarification.

Posted: **Sat Jan 13, 2024 1:01 am**

TheBibleMelts wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 1:00 am
joemama9plus10 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 12:33 am
TheBibleMelts wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 12:24 am
joemama9plus10 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 12, 2024 11:58 pm no but he says something about "nevermind" afterwards i think he might have just broke in instead since he got impatient
this is where using your words to assess the situation (IC reasoning) before opening up with lasers would have afforded you more leeway in your actions.

if you think your IC reasoning was solid enough here to have not needed that, you'll have my full support to overturn this, but based on what you've been telling me here, these questions you're posing now are ones that would have been great to have in the situation itself, but weren't applied in time to be relevant in the situation itself and are being only asked/used retroactively.
my IC reasoning was pretty much that this person broke into a high risk area and the disabled bridge assistant was holed up in the little glass box with the communications console with his gun out which didnt exactly look like hanging out to me. cult was loose and rampant and i was alone. i just believed the rules provided a backbone and were the actual determining factor behind whether something is allowed or not which is why i focused on explaining why my actions abided by the rules, while i personally dont exactly think terry can rely on IC motives alone to set a line between whats allowed and what isnt what i did pretty much complies with a reasonable IC motive
the cult presence, combined with your BA having a drawn weapon is definitely a more legitimate reason to have done this. i think the key with this is just making sure that you're providing more than an entirely OOC-based justification for your actions if questioned about them. i'll look into what i can do to relieve the cause of the confusion with this rule, and otherwise personally wouldn't be against lifting this on my end with your added clarification in this thread, but still would like to give thunder time to go over this, since their initial denial was based on the lack of the above clarification.

can you further clarify though? im grateful but im also curious about where the line lies for any future occurrences of this nature

Posted: **Sat Jan 13, 2024 1:12 am**

joemama9plus10 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 12, 2024 11:58 pm can you further clarify though? im grateful but im also curious about where the line lies for any future occurrences of this nature

when being questioned about something of this nature by an admin, they're asking what your in-round reasoning to do what you did was. 'valid' is an ooc concept as a whole, and when your actions cause harm to another player without any provided basis to it being a natural, good-faith response to something that you experienced as a character in the round, you may run afoul of being seen as having a playstyle that just looks to spoil the time of others for your own gratification.

Posted: **Sat Jan 13, 2024 1:26 am**

but the reason we had to take this to the forums was a disagreement about the "Note the use of the phrase "for no legitimate reason". Did you or did you not attempt to find out if he had a legitimate reason to be there?" bit which is ooc. sure i see him asking more in that direction ish in the beginning but he never made it clear that thats the determining factor which sort of drove us here.
also im more just asking about what that rule actually means and when are you actually allowed to lethal someone on the bridge

Posted: **Sat Jan 13, 2024 1:44 am**

joemama9plus10 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 1:26 am but the reason we had to take this to the forums was a disagreement about the "Note the use of the phrase "for no legitimate reason". Did you or did you not attempt to find out if he had a legitimate reason to be there?" bit which is ooc. sure i see him asking more in that direction ish in the beginning but he never made it clear that thats the determining factor which sort of drove us here.
also im more just asking about what that rule actually means and when are you actually allowed to lethal someone on the bridge

the rule is there to give you something to use if you end up going ham to defend the bridge from break-ins against the chaos of the tide, i.e if you feel someone is breaking into the bridge for dubious reasons, or is there in a way that poses a threat to you. it shouldn't be used as a "checkmate, you stepped on this floortile and now i don't have to follow any IC reasoning to put you down", which i'd assume your use of it was with only the context of your explanation in the ticket.

Posted: **Sat Jan 13, 2024 1:54 am**

TheBibleMelts wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 1:44 am
joemama9plus10 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 1:26 am but the reason we had to take this to the forums was a disagreement about the "Note the use of the phrase "for no legitimate reason". Did you or did you not attempt to find out if he had a legitimate reason to be there?" bit which is ooc. sure i see him asking more in that direction ish in the beginning but he never made it clear that thats the determining factor which sort of drove us here.
also im more just asking about what that rule actually means and when are you actually allowed to lethal someone on the bridge
the rule is there to give you something to use if you end up going ham to defend the bridge from break-ins against the chaos of the tide, i.e if you feel someone is breaking into the bridge for dubious reasons, or is there in a way that poses a threat to you. it shouldn't be used as a "checkmate, you stepped on this floortile and now i don't have to follow any IC reasoning to put you down", which i'd assume your use of it was with only the context of your explanation in the ticket.

i believed his perspective to be different and began by clearing myself of the ooc outlook of this situation at which point we got into a disagreement about the meaning of the rule which resulted in him closing the ticket. i simply didnt know ic information was what he was fishing for and it wasnt really made clear.
other than that thank you for clarifying.

Posted: **Tue Jan 30, 2024 5:10 am**

got my votes to lift this one on the basis posted above, at this point it was basically just lowered to an expiring note, sorry for the wait.

/tg/Station 13

[forgot] Accountnamecontainsreserved

[forgot] Accountnamecontainsreserved

Re: [forgot] Accountnamecontainsreserved

Re: [forgot] Accountnamecontainsreserved

Re: [forgot] Accountnamecontainsreserved

Re: [forgot] Accountnamecontainsreserved

Re: [forgot] Accountnamecontainsreserved

Re: [forgot] Accountnamecontainsreserved

Re: [forgot] Accountnamecontainsreserved

Re: [forgot] Accountnamecontainsreserved

Re: [forgot] Accountnamecontainsreserved

Re: [forgot] Accountnamecontainsreserved

Re: [forgot] Accountnamecontainsreserved

Re: [forgot] Accountnamecontainsreserved

Re: [forgot] Accountnamecontainsreserved

Re: [forgot] Accountnamecontainsreserved

Re: [forgot] Accountnamecontainsreserved

Re: [forgot] Accountnamecontainsreserved

Re: [forgot] Accountnamecontainsreserved

Re: [forgot] Accountnamecontainsreserved

Re: [forgot] Accountnamecontainsreserved

Re: [forgot] Accountnamecontainsreserved

Re: [forgot] Accountnamecontainsreserved

Re: [forgot] Accountnamecontainsreserved

Re: [forgot] Accountnamecontainsreserved

Re: [forgot] Accountnamecontainsreserved

Re: [forgot] Accountnamecontainsreserved

Re: [forgot] Accountnamecontainsreserved

Re: [forgot] Accountnamecontainsreserved

Re: [forgot] Accountnamecontainsreserved

Re: [forgot] Accountnamecontainsreserved

Re: [forgot] Accountnamecontainsreserved