Byond account and character name OR Discord name: 1jovemtr00 - Nicklas Winter
Admin:Timberpoes
ROUND ID HERE IF APPLICABLE: ID 210264. Provided this to add context to this complaint form.
Objective:
My appeal case to be reviewed properly on what's expected of admins:
1.No Attacks/harassment towards players
2. No threats of banning specific players in public channels.
3. All posts by admins in FNR should be meaningful and contribute to the discussion.
Detailed summary: I had an 1 hour ban given by another admin named TheBibleMelts. I decided to appeal because even though it wasn't much of a deal, I don't think it was quite fair that this was imposed to me on that specific round where multiple characters were given disabilities and bad quirks. My character couldn't speak, was mute since the very first second it joined the round. Not too long after that it got deaf for a while and then killed by an heretic and turned into a ghoul that was capable of understanding and speaking an eldritch language only. That remained untill the end of the round. Others also had quirks and conditions imposed to them, not only me.
During that round, there was an incident with another character, fellow officer Claire, where we were chasing the heretic around arrival maints. We lost it and then I decided to return and arm myself better. I got a shotgun and 6 rounds of incendiary ammo. As it's not an uncommon thing around Manuel, the lag was there and I had a base ping of 500ms. All my actions were delayed. I made to arrivals again , went through maints and saw fellow officer Claire wandering around it with the heretic and I tried to follow. We returned back to the hallway and fearing that my fellow officer was in danger or possibly being turned into a ghoul, I decided to open fire with my shotgun. Unfortunatelly, I ended up firing Claire on the process and yes, I never denied, multiple times because of the lag. I also set myself on fire, shot the floor but also shot the heretic. It was wearing some armor that bounced some of my shots. After that, I managed to drag the heretic away and started to use melee attacks to hit it, alongside with other crew. The heretic killed me and others during that round, turned me into a ghoul and was publicly announced as a menace. These were my reasons IC to perform the actions I did under the circumstances listed above.
I got bwoinked by the admin TheBibleMelts. To put it short, he said it was a bad shooting and stated that I handled the situation poorly. Exact words sent were:
Admin PM from-TheBibleMelts: This is your first offense so I'm going to go light, but I don't really believe you managed to shoot an officer into crit with a weapon that requires re-pumping so much as it would have needed. You had a chance to assess the situation and jumped the gun - your quirk is your responsibility to work around in order to not negatively impact others to this degree. **taken directly from the logs that I saved from the round, which will be attached.
I replied to him stating the lag issues and that I had no intention, no IC reason nor desire to take down my fellow officer: it was an accident. I also said the conditions that were imposed to me hampered my communications. He basically said it was just an excuse both the quirk and the lag. This justification turned out to be quite a pattern from both admins that handled the matter, TheBibleMelts and Timberpoes. The rest of the ticket conversation can be seen through the logs, so putting it short at the end of ticket, he changed his mind and gave me an 1 hour ban. I decided to appeal the ban even though it wasn't much of a deal but mostly because he said it would be listed on future notes about me. I don' think the reasoning I gave him were excuses and the quirks weren 't my choice, they were imposed to me.
I did, and he basically ignored all my arguments and stayed with his opinion without providing any further justification, nor facts and not even poiting exactly which rule I broke. He also said I could ask for someone else to review this case, which I did.
The full ban appeal is here: viewtopic.php?t=34439&view=unread#unread
I gotta state that although we disagreed, the admin TheBibleMelts was never hostile or argumented on any way that seemed defamatory or agressive.
The admin that took over, Timberpoes, went a bit on the opposite direction.He maintained the same "tactic" used by the previous admin, which was to ignore or immediatly disregard my arguments and label them as excuses. He used that term multiple times alongside with an ultimatum and agressive language. From his very first post, his mind was already made up, and I quote:
Keep in mind in answering that question, the more you rely on assumptions that aren't supported by some sort of actual evidence or fact then the less freedom you have to carve out an exception when your actions result in a rule break.
This falls under conduct break #3: 3. All posts by admins in FNR should be meaningful and contribute to the discussion. This doesn't contribute to the discussion since he shows signs that his mind is already made up and intends to disregard my arguments, which was exactly what happened and what his previous fellow admin was doing.
Instead of doing what he thinks and states he tried to do, which was according to him: I tried my best to guide you down a path that would extract what myself and TheBibleMelts needed to change the note or even overturn it entirely. I had only agressiveness, public blaming, logs and IC justifications ignored and judgements based on opinions and subjectiveness.
Some highlights of his "guidance":
1- You and you alone are you responsibe for the actions you take,and as much as you're insistent on blaming everything else from your lag to being ghouled to being deaf
This falls under conduct break # 1 and #3: 1. No Attacks/harassment towards players , 3. All posts by admins in FNR should be meaningful and contribute to the discussion. I wasn't blaming anything, I was pointing the reasons that made me act the way I did IC and there was no "everything else". Was a single incident that I got bwoinked for by TheBibleMelts. This statement is agressive because of the tone implying that Im "blaming" everything when they were actually justifications and suggests multiple incidents and contributes nothing to the discuss becase it fails to point exactly how my action was wrong and which rule I broke .
2-Fact:Lagging is not an excuse for excessive friendly fire. It has never been an excuse for excessive friendly fire.
Fact: For over 20 seconds the attack logs show you repeatedly hitting Clair with friendly fire.
Fact: The only time this would be acceptable is if it falls neatly into the package of the "sometimes SS13 shifts get chaotic and things happen by accedent when we play to a reasonable standard" exception.
This falls under conduct break #3: 3. All posts by admins in FNR should be meaningful and contribute to the discussion. Head admin is experienced enough to realize that unusual activity either had to be a very strong IC reason or some other factor which could be easily ruled out if the round logs and not only the attack ones were seen to put everything on perspective. Failed to give an example of that "reasonable standard exception". Rounds on Manuel are mostly chaotic and that one was clearly not an exception, again, if the logs were seen. Attack logs by themselves do not add context nor explain IC actions. So if there is an opening for such thing to be acceptable, it should had been properly reviewed and explained.
3-You took shortcuts and seemed to be relying on the crutch of your deafness/language issues/lag. This ended up with a situation where rules were broken.
This falls under conduct break #3: 3. All posts by admins in FNR should be meaningful and contribute to the discussion. Assumptions without anything concrete to prove that statement was accurate. "Seemeed" is used, therefore, shows uncertainty. Conclusion based on that uncertainty led to a conclusion being: "Rules were broken". Doesn't provide how my rely on the crutch of my deafness, language issues and lag broke the rules that weren't mentioned, therefore, it's a vague statement that won't contribute to the discussion.
4- IC disabilities make the game harder. They make the game harder because the admin team don't allow players to rely on them as a crutch for shitty play. You don't get blasted by an explosion, become deaf and go "Yes! Now I don't have to talk to players and can just start shooting whenever I want because I can't hear them anyway!"
This falls under conduct break # 1 and #3: 1. No Attacks/harassment towards players , 3. All posts by admins in FNR should be meaningful and contribute to the discussion. After a brief line that kinda contradicts their previous statements of how disabilities should not be regarded as a strong argument, the two underlined statements that followed are an agressive tone implying that I had no IC reason to act the way I did and suggests a player behaviour that I never showed before not only on this round but on any other previous one that I have played so far, which was to take advantadge of certain in game circumstances. I saw this as an attack to my reputation that had no basis and contributed nothing to the discussion since it was an opinion without any specifics given.
5-Our roleplay environment doesn't work that way and you have just the same obligation to make reasonable and sound judgement calls when you're IC deaf, dumb and blind as you do when you're IC
This falls under conduct break #3: 3. All posts by admins in FNR should be meaningful and contribute to the discussion. Another statement that doesn't contribute to the discussion. Fails to point out on how exactly I could had done things different under the circumstances I had and shunned again my reasoning both OOC and IC. This is where the guidance Head Admin said he intended to do would be the most helpful: On telling me what I could had done in terms of interactions and roleplay to avoid the supposed rules that were never mentioned being broken.
6-You're just leaning on the "things were harder so I took the easy route and skipped my responsibilities as a player, negatively impacting the game for someone else" gambit.
This falls under conduct break # 1 and #3: 1. No Attacks/harassment towards players , 3. All posts by admins in FNR should be meaningful and contribute to the discussion. Just a plain attack directed at my reputation based on assumptions and opinion. Suggests that I took advantadge (again) and that I skipped responsibilities as a player when that wasn't the case. Adds nothing to the discussion because it's an agressive statement without any basis since round logs points otherwise: I had a lot of IC reasons to neutralize the target. It was my responsibility as a security officer at a time where lethals were authorized and I had to protect the crew. Again,a quick read at the round logs would point to that conclusion.
7-Having IC disabilities does not excuse this. You weren't attacked, you weren't acting in self defense, you were the aggressor. When you initiate conflict that results in other players dying, you must have a good IC reason for doing so.
This falls under conduct break #3: 3. All posts by admins in FNR should be meaningful and contribute to the discussion. This statement contributed nothing to the discussion. Again, IC reasons were at the logs and listed on replies at the ban appeal discussion many times. Shunned again my reasoning as an excuse. I was not ONLY ATTACKED by an HERETIC, I was killed and ghouled.Others were too. Again, facts being ignored, reasons being shunned and logs unread/also ignored. Pattern of behaviour that never contributed to this discussion in a constructive way.
8-I would have probably given you a day ban for this.
I am unsure if this falls on 2. No threats of banning specific players in public channels. But goes for me as #3 3. All posts by admins in FNR should be meaningful and contribute to the discussion. According to admin conduct: Any declaration and intention to ban someone for something related to a player's actions in-game or outside of space station 13 should not be done in public channels that can be seen by any party. For the purpose of this expectation, a public channel is any channel that can be seen by anyone on a server who is not an admin.
Indirectly suggests that I would be banned if it was him the admin during the round? It's a declaration to ban someone (me) and related to a player's action in-game at forums where anyone on a server who is not an admin can see. I honestly don't know if it applies to this rule, but, it certainly for me, applies on this #3 simply because it adds nothing to the discussion on a constructive way whatsoever. Head Admin is implying that some admins are more strict than others? Not for me to know and I have no interest on this information. Also, by that time ban was lifted already. Objective was to remove the notes so once again, needless assertion that could had been taken as intimidation. ( which I didn't)
9- You failed to work with me and wasted your time discussing and arguing irrelevant points that even if true don't change this note or ban. You did not listen and stubbornly stuck to your guns despite my patience dealing with an appeal that has wasted more of my time than your entire ban duration.
This falls under conduct break # 1: 1. No Attacks/harassment towards players.
Mentions that I "failed to work with him" (?????), states my points were irrelevant and "EVEN IF THEY WERE TRUE" wouldn't change the note or ban. Calls me a stubborn and states that I " wasted more of his time than my entire ban duration".
I don't have to "work " with the head admin. I present REASONS with FACTS AND LOGS to JUSTIFY my IC actions. I have no desire and never will shape events on a certain way nor make excuses just to please or satisfy certain conditions that weren't even presented to me and EVEN IF THEY WERE, I would completely DISREGARD them. Regards this as a waste of time.
Confesses the predisposition to reject my reasoning: "EVEN IF THEY WERE TRUE, WOULDN'T CHANGE THE NOTE OR BAN". Very agressive tone, contributes with absolutely nothing to the discussion. What does he mean with that? That even if my reasoning was right and legit, it would be disregarded? Contradicts previous statement given by head admin:
Fact: The only time this would be acceptable is if it falls neatly into the package of the "sometimes SS13 shifts get chaotic and things happen by accedent when we play to a reasonable standard" exception.
10-Think before you act next time. You and you alone are responsible not only for your own actions but also your own ignorance and the outcomes of said ignorance when combined with your actions.
This falls under conduct break # 1 and #3: 1. No Attacks/harassment towards players , 3. All posts by admins in FNR should be meaningful and contribute to the discussion. Another needless agressive tone that contributes nothing to the discussion based on opinion that I acted without thinking. Logs shows otherwise, I actually intended to neutralize target after me and officer Claire lost sight of the heretic around arrivals maints with good IC reasons. I went back and took the shotgun shells. I thought about this act. A better argument with a good example could be given instead of just calling me out as an ignorant person.
I got an ultimatum from this admin:
So I'll give you one last chance to stop blaming your lag, stop blaming the admins and stop blaming everyone else around you and start coming up with the kind of stuff we can use to resolve this appeal in your favour:
This falls under conduct break # 1 and #3: 1. No Attacks/harassment towards players , 3. All posts by admins in FNR should be meaningful and contribute to the discussion. Needless agressive tone that contributes nothing to the discussion on any constructive way. The reply I gave to head admin at the ban appeal post should suffice to state my reasoning on flagging this as break of conduct:
Imposing an ultimatum because you have a certain status to someone is very rude. I have been assertive but respectful. Telling me it's a last post beause this dreaded for way too long is fine but trying to intimidate me or anyone is a bad take.If that wasn't intended it's fine but reading the way you putted it I interpreted this way. Apologies in advance if it wasn't the case. It's just a video-game after all.
Conclusion:
During my appeal I was assertive however never once disrespectful or agressive and was replying all the time to nothing but agressive tone and fingers pointed at me excessively alongside with the extreme disregard tactic used by both admins. I was willing to change my mind:
Its getting quite frustrating to see that I have to repeat myself over and over again and just get ignored. There hasn't been a single refutation to any of the conditions that I stated nor any argument based on logs or facts to counter argument what I say. All I get is again, judgements and fingers pointed. Im not an intolerant guy, if I see facts and good arguments that do prove and shows that I did this in a negligent way, I will accept the note and apologize. But so far there is none. And of course to the Claire player, even though the character was rushed to medical immediatly, I do feel sorry and it's pretty much clear that you were not the target and wasn't my intent to take her down. The logs provided by the player( and kinda backfired your argument) again, PROVES that.
A guidance would be from my pont of view something of the sort: "Hey, you were negligent IC according to us. Because of that, you broke rule A. You pointed your reasons. We don't agree because [reasoning]. Next time you face this kind of situation, do this instead :
That never happened. My logs were ignored, my IC reasons were ignored, my reasoning for doing what I did was disregarded, I was told I was blaming admins, everyone else (???), called a stubborn, wasted his time and brought irrevelant points to the discussion and had to turn things myself in "my favour" despite my reasoning AND IC JUSTIFICATIONS WITH LOGS TO BACK THEM UP. I can take the last part, but the hostility towards me as a player that had struggles during that round made me post this complaint.
Thanks in advance for the attention and time that will be put into this.