[Okand37] - Repukan - 「Under Execution, Under Jailbreak」

[D&B]

Banning admin: Okand37
Ban type (What are you banned from?): Job Ban - Security Roles (Both Basil and Sybil)

Ban reason and length: As a HoS, requested the execution of a permanent resident prisoner because they threatened them. The prisoner was put in perma for walking through open security doors and taking an armour vest out of an open locker. While the arrest is understandable, they requested execution of the player, thus it falls on them. You already have a long list of shitty sec behaviour. You can appeal this on the forums.

Time ban was placed (including time zone): Don't remember

Your side of the story: I will explain what happened on the round in which this ban was placed. Round start I gear up as HoS, and a scientist lizard rushes the brig. He gets inside and takes some armor before locking himself in a locker to avoid capture. Since he was breaking into the equipment area, took some equipment, and resisted arrest, I decided to stick him in Perma. As we are moving there, he starts yelling threats and stuff. Things like "oh you'll see i'll break out and kill sec" or "i'll blow this fucking brig," or something to that effect, it's been quite long so I don't exactly remember. Captain arrives, and I request permission to execute the prisoner since he has now shown that either he's A) a prepared traitor with the intent to escape and hurt sec or B) A greytider with access to toxins that might escape and carry out in his threat. Captain authorizes the execution, I shoot the lizard and they whisper suicide as soon as they fall into crit.

As I move the body to robotics for a borging, I get bwoinked and I explain the situation. I get summarily banned later on.

Why you think you should be unbanned: Under the circumstances that went through, with the scientist rushing the brig close to almost roundstart, and yelling the threats to sec and the brig in general, he gave me little reason to think he was not an antagonist. There's no reason for a normal crewmember to rush and break into the security equipment room at almost roundstart, resist arrest, and then proclaim their intent to kill sec and the HoS. If he was not an antagonist, then why act like one and then whisper ghost and ahelp? Seems like ban baiting in my opinion.

[Okand37]

I did agree with you that, while perma'ing them for the entire round for taking some armour at roundstart is a bit excessive, I still felt it could be applied in the situation. However, I stressed on the issue of escalation, that being; words have never been an excuse to escalate up. You can't kill someone just because they said they'd kill you, or you said you'd kill them under criteria (unless its valid, ie: you can't say if people come to arrivals you'll kill them, then kill them if they do and say 'haha warned ya so!!') unless they show the intent to. You're perfectly equipped with proper tools to deal with a situation like this, such as the underused muzzle. When you're in a position like this, you're held to a more higher standard and are expected to act more professionally.

If you did include the ban reasoning, you'd note that it also adds on to a general consensus of your previous security actions as well.
With that in mind, since you've already gone through a cycle of being unbanned then later finding yourself banned, personally I'll be denying the appeal as I believe there isn't much of a lesson learned if you just continue to cycle through being unbanned then banned.

With that, unless another admin wishes to weigh in on this, I presume its concluded.

[D&B]

Delet this, new reply to acknowledge various replies

[TechnoAlchemist]

Threats and words have always been valid justifications for escalating security sentences.

People have been perma'd for threatening to bomb the station, and people have been perma'd for promising to murder their arresting officer after being brigged. Honestly, if you don't want sec to treat you like a murderer, don't promise to murder people.

The arrivals example is a bad comparison.

[Okand37]

Threats and words have always been valid justifications for escalating security sentences.

People have been perma'd for threatening to bomb the station, and people have been perma'd for promising to murder their arresting officer after being brigged. Honestly, if you don't want sec to treat you like a murderer, don't promise to murder people.

The arrivals example is a bad comparison.

For raising time sentences, generally yes, for leading up to execution, generally no.
Just because they have been doesn't always mean they should. People have been perma'd for things, but that isn't being executed outright.
Arrivals example is an exaggerated comparison.

I'd also like to note that if you're actually going to appeal, give the full, proper ban reason next time.

[Cobby]

"For raising time sentences, generally yes, for leading up to execution, generally no."

But he's already in perma, so the next step afterwards is execution?

Telling someone that they have to keep people in the round who are just being trash or face the wrath of admins seems silly.

I'm not really seeing at where there was an overescalation.

[Okand37]

What happened to greytiders being valid? Rushing security to try and steal equipment at the start of the round is an incredibly shitty thing to do and caving their skull in is pretty well justified.

Everything being focused on achieving valids isn't necessarily a healthy way to look about playing the game. Yes, running into security when the door was open and taking some standard gear is bad, they got put in permanent residence for that, while some may rate it as excessive it could still be warranted.

As much as you may view that its easier to toss aside players for being shitty, there's a balance between punishing behavior and going overboard yourself.

[Okand37]

"For raising time sentences, generally yes, for leading up to execution, generally no."

But he's already in perma, so the next step afterwards is execution?

Telling someone that they have to keep people in the round who are just being trash or face the wrath of admins seems silly.

I'm not really seeing at where there was an overescalation.

'Time sentences' is a key thing to read here. Words can and are often a good way to get your brig sentence moved up to longer, or to a gulag or permanent sentence-thats fine, they still have an option of being able to complete their sentence, be let out, or escape. When they're dead, they themselves have no ability to come back into the game as themselves.
Never once was it stated they had to 'face the wrath of the admins' if they refused to keep people into the round. Yes, waltzing into the open brig is bad, but going from permanent to execution in this situation was unnecessary. As stated above, there's a difference between punishing behaviour and going overboard.
If you'd note as I listed aforementioned, or if the poster had decided to include the actual full extent of the ban reasoning, you'd know that the ban wasn't placed for this singular event but for a multitude of similar or more aggressively variants of situations.

[Pascal125]

I mean, He basically followed space law. I could kind of literally quote things straight from the book. He exercised his right as HoS, as a Warden could. went through the process of getting the only person with the rights to, the Captain, to authorize execution, because someone was making bomb and murder threats. Permabrig isn't that hard to escape, so it is fairly probable that he could have become Stunprod Mcgee the Security Killer or some chucklefuck with 6+ tank transfer valves if he really wanted. While being dead is shit, being permabrigged isn't that much different. It's more like limbo.

Still, the ban appears to have been applied based on his previous security actions, as opposed to just this instance. I personally think Repukan did fine as security. But that is irrelevant.

Edit: All it really says in the "very first part" is:
Space Law is a collection of rules and regulations enacted by Nanotrasen which has oversight through CentCom and is enforced by the Sec Officers on the station. Space Law applies to all ranks and positions on station, from the lowliest Assistant to the highest Captain, all are equal under the eyes of the Law and ultimately answer to her.

The rules and regulations herein are not absolutes, instead they exist to serve mainly as guidelines for the law and order of the dynamic situations that exist for stations on the frontiers of space, as such some leeway is permitted.

[TechnoAlchemist]

If they promised to break out and kill sec, executing is a pretty good idea.


Banning someone for following the rules, because in the past they have had issues is bad, obviously.

And this isn't even toeing the line.

[Okand37]

I mean, He basically followed space law. Exercised his right as HoS, as a Warden could. went through the process of getting the only person with the rights to, the Captain, to authorize execution, because someone was making bomb and murder threats. While being dead is shit, being permabrigged isn't that much different. It's more like limbo.

Still, the ban appears to have been applied based on his previous security actions, as opposed to just this instance. I personally think Repukan did fine as security. But that is irrelevant.

Space law clearly states, in the very first part, it is a suggestion. Following it to the letter can be considered excessive by some standards. Exercising your right doesn't give you an excuse to execute someone because they said some baseless words. The captain was also talked to about how they felt about the situation, and reflecting on it they agreed that they went overboard in agreeing to it. Being dead is different from permanent residence, as you can still escape from permanent residence or be let out, you can't do that when you're dead.
The ban was applied for a mixture of this case and a number of previous security actions, correct.

[Okand37]

If they promised to break out and kill sec, executing is a pretty good idea.


Banning someone for following the rules, because in the past they have had issues is bad, obviously.

And this isn't even toeing the line.

Baseless threats aren't a good system to base lethal executions off of. Yes, you can keep it into consideration when deciding on their punishment and factoring into whether they'll be let out or not, but executing them for baseless and empty threats its unnecessary.
Its obviously stated that the ban is placed for a mixture of the aforementioned situation as well as previous ones. You're right, its not toeing it, its going over it.

[Bolien]

They threatened to bomb the brig, something that a scientist can EASILY do.
Should he have just waited until the brig was nothing but a crater and THEN kill the lizard?

Like I'm not a fan of D&B but this is silly. I get his past behavior warrants the ban but I'm worried about the precedent this sets.
As a HoS, I've executed tiders for the exact same reason (usually give them a chance to put it back and leave before I dish out justice, but still) and I've been executed for the exact same reason.
SS13 is a game of paranoia where you often have to assume the worst of your fellow crew members. If someone has shitty intentions, its not a far stretch to assume their words will turn into actions.

Besides, the Captain was the one who green lit the execution so why wasn't he punished for this, if this is now bannable?

[Okand37]

They threatened to bomb the brig, something that a scientist can EASILY do.
Should he have just waited until the brig was nothing but a crater and THEN kill the lizard?

Like I'm not a fan of D&B but this is silly. I get his past behavior warrants the ban but I'm worried about the precedent this sets.
As a HoS, I've executed tiders for the exact same reason (usually give them a chance to put it back and leave before I dish out justice, but still) and I've been executed for the exact same reason.
SS13 is a game of paranoia where you often have to assume the worst of your fellow crew members. If someone has shitty intentions, its not a far stretch to assume their words will turn into actions.

Besides, the Captain was the one who green lit the execution so why wasn't he punished for this, if this is now bannable?

They may have threatened to, but what gave any basis to this? Did they actively try to fight them when they were being arrested or show any lethal intent before being captured? Nothing of their earlier intent gave a basis to lethality, merely theft.
Just because something has happened, doesn't mean it should. Scenarios can differ, regardless of similarities. While its silly to go into the brig when its open and take out gear, its silly to execute someone because they gave baseless threats.
It is a game of paranoia, and with many other such scenarios a firm basis is expected before engaging another crew member in lethal action. If they have shitty intentions or have shown them, its not far fetched to assume their words will turn into actions-but waltzing into an open brig and taking gear doesn't give you a reasonable suspicion they'll turn around and bomb you if you let them go.
The captain was, as previously mentioned, talked to and we reached a mutual agreement that the execution was unnecessary. Having the captain authorize executions is different then the captain ordering one. As with any other situation, it depends on context.

[Bolien]

At the end of the day "Non-antags acting like an antag can be treated as an antag."
Do you consider running into the brig (even if its open), stealing security items, and trying to resist arrest antag behavior Okand? If not, please explain?

[Okand37]

At the end of the day "Non-antags acting like an antag can be treated as an antag."
Do you consider running into the brig (even if its open), stealing security items, and trying to resist arrest antag behavior Okand? If not, please explain?

While running into the brig, even while its open and taking security items is a no, you have to consider how the situation went down as well. They resisted arrest, but how did they resist? Did they try to stun and beat the HoS, did they try to arrest the HoS, or did they run away? They attempted to run away and hide in a locker. You could argue more could have happened and progressed from there, but it didn't.
Yes, I believe all the things leading up to their perma, while some may consider excessive, could've been seen as fairly valid and I am not disputing that. However, going up from permanent residence to execution with the aforementioned non-lethal actions was a bit unnecessary.

I don't condone either sides behaviour, but there's still a problem with how the execution was escalated up to.

As much as I enjoy peanut posting, It'd be nice if people actually related would respond opposed to gallery browsers.

[John_Oxford]

Citing the fact that it's a rule clearly stating if you are going to act like a antag, you are going to be treated like a antag.

In all cases, breaking into the brig, stealing security equipment, then resisting arrest generally signifies you are a antagonist (you have no reason to do this otherwise)
In all cases, saying you are going to blow up the brig (and killing non-antag non-valid security personnel in the process) generally signifies you are a antagonist. (otherwise he would be the one receiving the ban)

Thinking and acting this way as a admin IN ALL SITUATIONS is going to result in someone getting banned due to you over moderating the situation, which isn't necessary at all.

I spoke to alphabeta about this to (who was deadmined for it), just because someone has a different play style than you doesn't mean you need to ban them for it, you're a administrator, not god.

As previously mentioned, this also sets a terrible precedent to future actions taken by security against absolutely shit people, you cited you would remain neutral in all cases regarding your position as a head administrator. This isn't neutral, this is banning someone for having a conflicting play style that you alone disagree with, the only reason you agreed with the lizard being perma'd is because you knew that you couldn't get away with the amount of people it would piss off. The lizard acted like a antag, and was summarily treated as one (with the captains approval, i might add).

If its resolved in game, by the in game chain of command, and carried out by the in game security personnel (including the hos) there is absolutely no reason to ban someone because you don't agree with their play style, more so after you agreed to be neutral on this very situation (which did infact sway votes towards you from heavy security players, like steelpoint/flaz/me)

Be sure to take into consideration that out of the three other people that posted besides me, none of them have agreed with your ruling, that alone should be a determining factor in changing it. (One of which is a admin, btw)

Additonally, whispering as soon as you get into crit, then admin helping even though your body is being dragged to robotics has long been considering ban baiting, i will cite other appeal threads if you can't take my word for it.
Also, in terms of precedents, Perma, a 1000 point Gulag, Force Borging, and a Execution are all on the same level of punishment. It's the HOS/Captains desscression to apply it.

I rest my case, this is also covered under the one thing anon did right, don't delete it please.

[Okand37]

Citing the fact that it's a rule clearly stating if you are going to act like a antag, you are going to be treated like a antag.

In all cases, breaking into the brig, stealing security equipment, then resisting arrest generally signifies you are a antagonist (you have no reason to do this otherwise)
In all cases, saying you are going to blow up the brig (and killing non-antag non-valid security personnel in the process) generally signifies you are a antagonist. (otherwise he would be the one receiving the ban)

Thinking and acting this way as a admin IN ALL SITUATIONS is going to result in someone getting banned due to you over moderating the situation, which isn't necessary at all.

I spoke to alphabeta about this to (who was deadmined for it), just because someone has a different play style than you doesn't mean you need to ban them for it, you're a administrator, not god.

As previously mentioned, this also sets a terrible precedent to future actions taken by security against absolutely shit people, you cited you would remain neutral in all cases regarding your position as a head administrator. This isn't neutral, this is banning someone for having a conflicting play style that you alone disagree with, the only reason you agreed with the lizard being perma'd is because you knew that you couldn't get away with the amount of people it would piss off. The lizard acted like a antag, and was summarily treated as one (with the captains approval, i might add).

If its resolved in game, by the in game chain of command, and carried out by the in game security personnel (including the hos) there is absolutely no reason to ban someone because you don't agree with their play style, more so after you agreed to be neutral on this very situation (which did infact sway votes towards you from heavy security players, like steelpoint/flaz/me)

Be sure to take into consideration that out of the three other people that posted besides me, none of them have agreed with your ruling, that alone should be a determining factor in changing it. (One of which is a admin, btw)

Additonally, whispering as soon as you get into crit, then admin helping even though your body is being dragged to robotics has long been considering ban baiting, i will cite other appeal threads if you can't take my word for it.
Also, in terms of precedents, Perma, a 1000 point Gulag, Force Borging, and a Execution are all on the same level of punishment. It's the HOS/Captains desscression to apply it.

I rest my case, this is also covered under the one thing anon did right, don't delete it please.

If you act like an antagonist, you are expected to be treated like one-waltzing into a secure area, taking an armor vest and sitting in a locker is stupid but not strictly antagonist action.

Generally is not does, it is not a strict reference that states you are an antagonist if you do this, but it can give the opposing party a reason to consider it, not to confirm it by its lonesome.
Saying you are going to do something doesn't signify you are an antagonist, but gives the opposing party again something to factor to believe, however it doesn't confirm your presence as an antagonist. It's not difficult to allow a last intermediate step in demoting them, if they then tried to show intentions to do this they're fair game.

It isn't overmoderation, when someone continuously borders on breaking a rule then an IC situation becomes an OOC situation. (IE: overescalation)

It doesn't matter if they have a different playstyle that agrees or disagrees in accordance to my own. See; bordering rules. Culling a player problem of over-escalation or getting rid of a problem in full instead of trying to solve it isn't playing god, its ensuring everyone can have fun on the server.

I am remaining neutral. I don't have any dislike nor like for either of the players referenced or accompanied in the scenario, and I disagree with both of their actions-however, as stated, continuously bordering a rule ends up counting as if you had broken said rule. I agree'd with the lizard playing being perma'd because they deserved it, but I don't agree that they deserved execution, as they didn't show clear *action* of being lethal or antagonistic.

See above: when a rule is constantly bordered on, it may go from an IC problem to OOC. It isn't a matter of being bias or leaned towards one side.

I've taken into consideration the posting regarding the situation, while I generally encourage feedback and opinions just because a majority says something doesn't mean the majority is always right. If you'd like my word, I spoke to krusvik, korphaeron and lzimann regarding the situation before I decided on whether I would deny it or not, none of them gave any opposition to denying it and I took that into consideration as well.

I don't recall having seen them being dragged to robotics when they adminhelped, they were still in the permanent wing at the time to my knowledge of the situation. It's not a matter of taking your word for it, but things do change. It isn't like its been a new precedent established against them, they've had a bountiful amount of warnings and references before.

I'd like to end it on the summary note that was, again, forgotten to actually be brought up by the poster; this isn't the only reason the ban itself was placed, it was just the situation at the time.

I don't mind people posting things if they actually have something to bring to the discussion, but I'd suggest shortening it in the future to allow people to easily read through it.

[Krusvik]

2016-08-12 05:46:12 As security they murdered a HoP because the HoP made themselves acting captain and went into the captains office, apparently they were "on edge" from random doors in maint being emagged. Earlier in the round they also nearly killed a chaplain for holding a russian revolver and only realised it was a russian revolver halfway through murdering them. What are cuffs for and how do you use them?

2016-09-23 22:30:39 Beat a fellow botanist into crit for interrupting his work despite several prior warnings about poor escalation

2016-10-21 22:59:45 Bombed escape because a lawyer was arresting him, killing 5 other people.

While you are inside of your right to appeal this ban, this is just a handful of notes pulled from your staggering pool of 52 since your first connection on 2016-04-02. I will encourage Okand37 to alter the ban from a permanent placed on 2016-10-16 to a month ban, ending 2016-11-16. However you are a bloodthirsty player, and that is not a play style, it's called being a dick. This ban would not have been placed if you were without such an extensive history of trigger-happy behavior and zero desire to show any improvement despite multiple warnings and a crescendo of escalation-related bans.

Your globally consistent conduct is concerning, and if you continue to show no improvement you may be better off finding another server.

[John_Oxford]

BEFORE MOVING FOWARD, I DROP MY SUPPORT FOR DEFENDING HIS PAST ACTIONS, I ONLY AM CONSIDERING THIS SPECIFIC EVENT AND THE BAN APPLIED FOR IT

If you act like an antagonist, you are expected to be treated like one-waltzing into a secure area, taking an armor vest and sitting in a locker is stupid but not strictly antagonist action.

You have no reason, to at round start, break into security, steal a armor vest, then locking yourself in a locker. Resisting arrest, tresspassing, and theft are crimes. Crew Members don't commit crimes for no reason, antagonists do. Unless of course you see something called greytiding, which is a cancer that deserves the highest punishment. That alone has been discussed countless times before

Generally is not does, it is not a strict reference that states you are an antagonist if you do this, but it can give the opposing party a reason to consider it, not to confirm it by its lonesome.

Keep in mind how many times i said generally. Someone doing something more than once or doing minor things that add up to something big is punishable (as you've stated previously before, infact that's the logic behind this entire ban to begin with)

Saying you are going to do something doesn't signify you are an antagonist, but gives the opposing party again something to factor to believe, however it doesn't confirm your presence as an antagonist.

Saying you are going to do something antagonistic after you've done something antagonistic generally means you are going to do said antagonistic action, benefit of the doubt no longer applies.

It's not difficult to allow a last intermediate step in demoting them, if they then tried to show intentions to do this they're fair game.

This is where your play style conflicts with someone else's play style. Demoting someone when they are already in perma is redundant, they aren't going to be doing anything anyways. Even if they we're the option is completely at the discretion of the HoS and the Captain. Not you, like i said in my last post, you aren't god, you're a administrator.

It isn't overmoderation, when someone continuously borders on breaking a rule then an IC situation becomes an OOC situation. (IE: overescalation)

There's a vast difference between justifying all of these "broken rules" and having the appeal declined because of wew admin cult. And genuinely breaking them without good cause. No rules (as stated by afformentioned admin) have been toed here. Like i said twice before, this is a example of conflicting play styles. This wasen't a OOC situation, the lizard was a salty little shit and ahelped, even after he was being taken to robotics (as said in the ban appeal) and you, out of spite of his play style being different, banned him from security roles. Me saying his play style is different in this specific example carries over to your excuse of "he did it before tho thas why im banning him"

It doesn't matter if they have a different playstyle that agrees or disagrees in accordance to my own. See; bordering rules. Culling a player problem of over-escalation or getting rid of a problem in full instead of trying to solve it isn't playing god, its ensuring everyone can have fun on the server.

It does matter, culling people because you don't like their play style is bad adminning, disregarding it completely is even worse. No rules are being bordered, this is how people who are competent at playing security play security, you we're long aware of this before you became a admin, you were aware of this when you said you were going to be neutral in your election threads, yet you are being one sided.

Culling a player problem of over-escalation or getting rid of a problem in full instead of trying to solve it isn't playing god, its ensuring everyone can have fun on the server.

This wasen't over escalation, it doesn't require escalation, he is being treated as a antagonist, and antagonists are valid. Escalation isn't required. Getting rid of a problem in full, when it isn't a problem, is a problem in of itself, that's why you have this ban appeal. He wouldn't have appealed it if he knew he was going to get shit on by the entire admin team (which didn't happen, everyone who posted in this thread has agreed with him)

It is playing god, your definition of fun ruins fun for others. A lizard kicking down the door to the brig, stealing security equipment, then resisting arrest isn't fun.
On the same hand, sitting in perma with nothing to do the entire round isn't fun either. However, ghost roles, OR BEING A CYBORG. Is fun, had you not banned him he would have taken one of these roles.
You aren't here to decide who does and doesn't get to have fun, that's playing god. You here to enforce the rules, none of which have been broken or toed.

I am remaining neutral. I don't have any dislike nor like for either of the players referenced or accompanied in the scenario, and I disagree with both of their actions-however, as stated, continuously bordering a rule ends up counting as if you had broken said rule. I agree'd with the lizard playing being perma'd because they deserved it, but I don't agree that they deserved execution, as they didn't show clear *action* of being lethal or antagonistic.

You aren't remaining neutral, you even responding me isn't neutral, you arguing or even applying this ban isn't neutral. Stop.

No rules have been bordered, as i said, they're doing something you don't like, as such, you have used your powers as a admin to remove them from the game. Under the excuse that they have done things you didn't like in the past.

The lizard being perma'd could have easily been replaced with being executed, both of them follow THE SAME EXACT PUNISHMENT LEVELS IN SPACE LAW One just give's you access to ghost roles and late round antagonists, the other one let's you sit in a 2x3 box for 45 minutes. You tell me which one is better.

-clear action-
So beating the CE to death with a toolbox, taking his magboots, using the ID to take the station blueprints, isn't clear action? He didn't use any antagonist equipment after all, he might have just been mad at the CE and wanted to go build a autism fort.

Or you could assume, since he just committed three crimes, that he is a antagonist, or are you not willing to look that far and your just going to take something based off of what the salty CE told you in his rage induced admin help after the event?

See above: when a rule is constantly bordered on, it may go from an IC problem to OOC. It isn't a matter of being bias or leaned towards one side.

It wasen't constantly bordered on, most of the appeal's were resolved in his favor but not removed due to admin cult. You intervening in something that has nothing to do with rule breaking is playing god, or trying to change something you don't like just because your in a position of power to do so.

It is a matter of being biased, you are being biased and you refuse to admit it to preserve your own image as a admin, which is utterly pointless since there's literally one person in this entire community that could demote you, but knowing him, he's busy with real life shit and isn't going to take the time out of his day to micromanage a autism 2d space atmos simulator.

I've taken into consideration the posting regarding the situation, while I generally encourage feedback and opinions just because a majority says something doesn't mean the majority is always right. If you'd like my word, I spoke to krusvik, korphaeron and lzimann regarding the situation before I decided on whether I would deny it or not, none of them gave any opposition to denying it and I took that into consideration as well.

The majority is what got you into your position in the first place.
The majority is what determines if you stay in office or not
The majority is the primary group that get's affected from the decissions you make.
The majority has more power than you do.
You listen to the majority, or the majority silences you.
Its geopolitical structures 101.

Krusvik, Kor, and Liz are all admins, have you considered speaking to people who play security avidly? Maybe someone who is active in the community? Maybe someone who doesn't automatically agree with you because you are friends with them? Trying to convert a group of muslims to be muslim is counter productive. Convert a christian though, and you've done something productive.

I don't recall having seen them being dragged to robotics when they adminhelped, they were still in the permanent wing at the time to my knowledge of the situation. It's not a matter of taking your word for it, but things do change. It isn't like its been a new precedent established against them, they've had a bountiful amount of warnings and references before.

Have you considered that you didn't instantly ban him right after that admin help was sent? Or once again did you not look that far. Perhaps you should consider either looking at the ban appeal (which literally states he was being taken to robotics)

Fixing something that isn't broken is counter productive, and a waste of time and resources, not only that, but in makes you look bad and damages this image that apparently you care so much about.

Establishing a entire new precdent after there's already one that consists of a few thousand ban appeals is illogical, and makes you look like your trying to force your opinion as a rule (which in doing so, you would be)

Warning someone for something that wasen't wrong and then using it against them when once again they don't do anything wrong is illogical. Several statements revolving around this reasoning are illogical and anyone with half a mind would agree with me on this.

I'd like to end it on the summary note that was, again, forgotten to actually be brought up by the poster; this isn't the only reason the ban itself was placed, it was just the situation at the time.

I don't mind people posting things if they actually have something to bring to the discussion, but I'd suggest shortening it in the future to allow people to easily read through it.

See what i mentioned before, invalid warnings shouldnt be a reason to ban someone for a invalid reason.

I have plenty to bring to the discussion, an argument alone should be satisfying to someone who has never heard anything but agreement's and "good idea" from their peers.
also my walls of text don't exist for your reading pleasure, they exist to prove you wrong because i got the gumption to argue one afternoon ;)

[Okand37]

-snip-

I've already said all I have to say.

I value your and everyone elses opinions, and I like to take them into consideration, but my judgement isn't based on the vocal opinion at all times, its important to consider other people while keeping morals in mind.
If they'd like to elect someone else next headmin semester, they're more than welcome, after all, that's what we have semesters for. But during my own, I'll gladly be trying to encourage the server to be a more enjoyable place for everyone.
You're welcome to accuse me and the admin team of bias, but it isn't really helping anyone in this situation, and I'm awfully sorry you feel that way.

I still feel the same way towards the ban, I believe repukan has had too many warnings and now there are consequences for them. If they'd like to step up and defend themself, that is fine, and I'll be happy to await them.

[John_Oxford]

-snip-

I've already said all I have to say.

I value your and everyone elses opinions, and I like to take them into consideration, but my judgement isn't based on the vocal opinion at all times, its important to consider other people while keeping morals in mind.
If they'd like to elect someone else next headmin semester, they're more than welcome, after all, that's what we have semesters for. But during my own, I'll gladly be trying to encourage the server to be a more enjoyable place for everyone.
You're welcome to accuse me and the admin team of bias, but it isn't really helping anyone in this situation, and I'm awfully sorry you feel that way.

I still feel the same way towards the ban, I believe repukan has had too many warnings and now there are consequences for them. If they'd like to step up and defend themself, that is fine, and I'll be happy to await them.

that sure sounds like tl;dr to me

dont step into the ring with the big boys if you cant handle the walls of text that come with it.

i rest my probally deleted case

oxford out.

[D&B]

I'd like to first start by apologizing for both not inputting the full ban reason, which seriously I was just too lazy to do at the start, and for letting this rot for a while. I had started this thread on election day and I had my mind in the elections. But I digress, let's get this grim show on the road.

I did agree with you that, while perma'ing them for the entire round for taking some armor at round start is a bit excessive, I still felt it could be applied in the situation. However, I stressed on the issue of escalation, that being; words have never been an excuse to escalate up. You can't kill someone just because they said they'd kill you, or you said you'd kill them under criteria (unless its valid, ie: you can't say if people come to arrivals you'll kill them, then kill them if they do and say 'haha warned ya so!!') unless they show the intent to. You're perfectly equipped with proper tools to deal with a situation like this, such as the underused muzzle. When you're in a position like this, you're held to a more higher standard and are expected to act more professionally.

With that in mind, since you've already gone through a cycle of being unbanned then later finding yourself banned, personally I'll be denying the appeal as I believe there isn't much of a lesson learned if you just continue to cycle through being unbanned then banned.

The point of killing the lizard scientist in this case was not to shut them up. To believe so is silly and naive, or some serious misunderstanding of the situation at hand. The reason why the lizard was executed was because they showed a clear intent in murdering security crew because we would not allow their antagonistic behavior. A normal crew-member has no reason to rush the brig, steal stuff, resist arrest, and threaten the security force. Although I could have let him rotting in perma, what good does that do? It is not fair for the person either to rot in a cell for a round that might last 40 to 1 hour and half. I cannot risk an escape either due to the clear intent to kill security present, and if they DO escape, and manage to kill security, it would be waved off as escalation, no?

I have played in this server roughly 5 months now, almost daily. In my interactions with sec, both inside and outside, it has always been able to reduce or increase someone's sentence because of how they behave with the arresting officer. Someone trying to break the window to the brig holding cell might get a bigger sentence, and someone that calmly explains what happened is usually let go. To say that "threats are not something to act" on is simply stupid. If someone is agitated, and they say they will kill my department, do I need to wait until my officers are in crit before i take action? Playing dumb is not my style, sadly.

You have mentioned shitty sec behavior, so I will gladly mention all the notes I've gotten regarding that department. If there are any missing, then they are not available in admin remarks.

2016-07-06 14:13:45 | /tg/Station Bagil [ENGLISH] [100% FREE LAG] | saegrimr
Worst fucking wardencurity i've seen in an extended round with only abductors.

This was during a round in which I and a security officer had to rush in and stop a captain from killing the AI for no reason. Absolutely none, and we were forced to lethally deal with crew that wanted to save the captain just per status before we could finally demote him. He ghosted immediately after.

2016-07-23 14:51:44 | /tg/Station Bagil [ENGLISH] [100% FREE LAG] | anonmare
Killed someone with .357 ammo as a non-antag detective and morgue'd their corpse.

This was after I learned this was something you could do with the det's revolver. Why it isn't allowed but still coded in, I do not know. Haven't done it again since.

2016-09-06 03:06:27 | /tg/Station Bagil [ENGLISH] [100% FREE LAG] | owegno
Needs to stop murdering people for stupid shit in authority roles. Killed a clown because they were in the security office stealing donk pockets and they were afraid there was a cult (Due to assistants running off to build on mining of all things).

This was after the AI reported cultist behavior and sec was ordered to obtain lethals for a raid in mining. If you have ever needed to deal with a cult base in mining, you'll understand why the need for lethals. As for the clown, he had somehow gained all access, and as I moved into the security lobby to brief my sec force on how to approach mining, i saw them walking out of my office with the door closing behind them. To this day, Mimic claims an assistant pushed him against the door which caused it to open

Spoiler:

I tried to replicate it and it would not work

You kept mentioning context in both forum post and ban, so I'd think the correct thing to do, then, is stay within context. Missing is the mark for this appeal: https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=7350.

Funny thing is, everything I did in this one example was learning from that one case. I knew it probably would not sit well with admins if I just secured the corpse, so I took it to robotics. You failed to look into this. In fact, I think you failed to look into anything. You keep mentioning context but it seems you just found out the lizard was taken to robotics.

Personally, when I play any head role, I play it with two objectives in mind. One, complete my responsibilities, Two, keep the shift enjoyable for the people under my rule. I cannot let someone acting like shit and threatening violence get to the action just to give them another chance. I'd feel worse ruining the round for others under my lead than one person who does something shitty, whispers to go dead, and immediately ahelps.

I'd understand if I had done something like shoot someone in the hallway for looking at me funny, or perma'ing an assistant for wearing insulated gloves. But when better players than me also openly admit that this is normal security proceeding, then it feels more like you're just looking for reasons to tackle bans on me. Honestly for a headmin you should be more focused on actual policy rather than pushing a playstyle, but at this point it is just pissing in the sea since it seems Krusvik agrees with this too.

I would like to reach out you on this a bit, as I did not really get a chance myself to talk through regarding it.

Firstly and most foremost, I would like to apologise. There was a miscommunication error regarding how the situation was to be treated in terms of severity and obviously of course weighing in the antagonist factor.

Secondly, I'd like to reach out to you on the latter half of it mentioned. While I understand not all of the complaints against you are valid, I would like to try and hope that we can get some improvement towards your name as a more likeable player. I think most of the issues were regarding security and validhunting-which with security still undetermined and out of the way, I'd like to hope we can try to simmer down on the validhuting aspect of it on basil.

Let me know if you have any thoughts on the latter half of it that we can work out. Cheers.

I understand some of this, but i need some clarification.

Do you need help in making me being less of a validhunter and stuff like that, or do you wanna reduce validhunting in general?

Also yeah, no hard feelings.

Mostly I've been trying to reduce validhunting in general, but of course that starts with each player. I think with a player such as yourself who is fairly invested in the community, it's a good place to start and ensure both you and everyone around you still has fun in the community too!

Just change my ban to a permanent server ban. I honestly feel no desire on playing with people breathing down my neck. Even if I earned my notes, the fact that you guys so vehemently try to push against playstyles makes it feel like i'm playing on a hug-box rather than a normal server.

[Wyzack]

> I earned these notes
> I don't want to have to deal with the consequences for earning them

Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out

[imblyings]

Based on posts by DB and Okand, it seems like a player stole something from security, baited sec into killing them, then successfully got a person banned for it.

DB's history not withstanding, the real problem here is a player who thinks the server administration will protect him when he banbaits security.

[Krusvik]

I've expressed you are within your right to appeal the security ban. I've encouraged Okand37 to lift the ban on the 16th. I possess no animosity or bias towards you, I am merely glancing over your history. I think what you continue to define as a playstyle is misguided. You're operating on a slippery slope that's more along the lines of AI-proofing atmo round start in case of a malf AI at its worst.

We have to protect the interest of all players, and if we OK the idea of executing someone because they simply said they would do something, then we need to take away the tools security has to properly control and investigate a situation, as they are clearly being misused. The only reason I support Okand37's initial decision is because you don't seem to grasp what you're fully capable of and instead seek immediate results, and these are often detrimental to yourself or just wholly unnecessary.

I have faith you can improve without changing your style, and without any admins enforcing an agenda on you. Every player has a unique playstyle and I have no intention on muddling those waters, I simply ask you respect the rules we all agree upon when we connect to the server.

I cannot risk an escape either due to the clear intent to kill security present, and if they DO escape, and manage to kill security, it would be waved off as escalation, no?

If I understand the context of this statement correctly, do you mean to suggest that if the prisoner you arrested and put into permanent escaped and killed an officer, we would wave it off? I would most certainly ban the mentioned prisoner, as you cannot escalate a situation you started.

Based on posts by DB and Okand, it seems like a player stole something from security, baited sec into killing them, then successfully got a person banned for it.

DB's history not withstanding, the real problem here is a player who thinks the server administration will protect him when he banbaits security.

I'll look into this myself to the best of my ability.

[onleavedontatme]

Wanting to discourage players from silently killing each other for no reason at any excuse is an understandable goal, but you have to be careful not to get tunnel vision and protect griffons in the process.

[Okand37]

After having given considerable thought into it.
I'd firstly like to re-illiterate on the point that the main reason in its entirety that this was placed was because of your behavior and how you've continued it. With kor's post in mind, I think I realise I am perhaps being a little too tunnel visioned in the process. I still stress on the point of not killing everyone just because you have a smudge of a reason to do so, however.
No, I don't really think they should've been executed still, but notwithstanding I may not have considered the alternative's motives as well.

I still don't agree that executing because, as previously mentioned, you have a smidget of reasoning to do so is healthy in the community, and I am trying to cull that here. With that in mind, and the situation itself, I'd still like to point out that mainly it is because of your repeated actions. I don't have anything your playstyle, I have an issue with trying to find reasons to kill people so you can kill them. Especially in this case, they only took an armour vest, and as funny as it would be if you could straightjacket people with an armour vest, you cannot.

Generally if someone tries to come back and escalate it up, say in this case if they came back after you let them out of perma or they escaped and tried you kill you; no, that'd be an OOC problem on them, not just a 'well suck it up IC' problem.

I don't think you need a permanent server ban, otherwise I wouldn't have sent that message. I sent it because I -want- to see you improve so we can all have fun, since you've invested time into this community. I really don't want to have to remove someone from the server who invests time into it and its community, but we would like to see some change for the better.

We'll look into the situation regarding the player, but I can only stress in the future to not be so lethal in your escalations. Sometimes it may feel like you have only you to watch your back against rule breaking, but we're always here to help, but we'd like to try to keep it enjoyable for -everyone- when we can.


Returning to the case, I didn't fail to look into it, I just wasn't watching you nor them at the time. When you're asked questions, you're expected to give full answers to help discern the situation. Its still policy, and looking for any smidget of a reason to kill someone is still being a dick. I'm not trying to tackle bans on you, personally I hold nothing against any player, but actions do have consequences.

Now that korphaeron and krusvik have decided to weigh in opinions, I'd like to take them into consideration for current and future reference. I'll edit the ban to have one week left, so that it will end on the 16th as suggested, but I can only stress on trying to improve.
We'll look into the player who instigated the situation to see if there was some notable intention of banbaiting.