<LiarGG> - TypicalRig - Noting over an IC issue and intentional omission of information in note

Appeals which have been closed.
Locked
User avatar
TypicalRig
Joined: Sat May 01, 2021 8:18 pm
Byond Username: TypicalRig

<LiarGG> - TypicalRig - Noting over an IC issue and intentional omission of information in note

Post by TypicalRig » #666922

BYOND account: TypicalRig
Character name: Porkchop
Ban type: Note
Ban reason: As a Warden sent a security officer to the labor shuttle with 1000 points sentence for breaking into armory in order to obtain a gun to fight a changeling. The security officer and Warden were antagonistic towards each other most of the round prior to this event. Altho Warden was justified in denying access to armory, gulag sentence of 1000 points without at least communicating this to their superiors is a bit excessive. Please try involving HoS or Captain next time in such situations, as 1000 point sentence for an officer is a bit excessive.
Time ban was placed: 2023-02-21 17:21:57
Server you were playing on when banned: Terry
Round ID in which ban was placed: EDITED: The note was issued on round 200535, but took place on 200531. I originally wrote the round the note was issued. My bad!
Your side of the story: Roundstart, the HoS, Swamp Water, demands access to the armory to get a shotgun. I call him cringe and say he doesn't need that shift start and keep the armory bolted down. During this, he gets the AI to open it, and a few different officers enter my warden office and refuse to leave, a few of them mindlessly screaming for shotguns. Trying to pull them out does not work. I don't want to use stuns as we know they'll just use that as a reason to escalate. Eventually get everyone but the HoS out, who manages to get a shotgun for himself via the AI, and then leaves once he has his gun. I issue him a citation to be funny and leave it at that. Think everything is fine now.

A bit later, Hates-The-Stuns, an officer, asks me for lasers because there's a changeling on the loose. I explain to him that those wouldn't really help him because stuns are far more useful for lings and anything that causes damage a ling would shrug off vs stuns. He gets angry and disabler spams me from the other side of the window while I'm still in the warden's office. Kind of childish, but whatever. I don't want to escalate it anymore than necessary since sec infighting sucks. I issue him a fine to be funny for assault. Think everything is fine now.

He proceeds to start breaking into the armory by the sec brig locker area by smashing the door. I shoot at him with disablers a few times but because of the layout, stunning him like that is impossible as he can just easily dodge. I'm running out of disablers since even when I hit him, he just leaves and waits it out from afar. At this point, this is already our third count of conflict, the first two I let him off incredibly easily, and it's just confirmed to me that there's no reasoning with the guy. Breaking into the armory is an executable offense, and his reasoning was shoddy, and it was my job as warden to defend the armory. I unloaded a few lethals to deter him, he leaves, comes back soon again. We get into a fight. A random lizard sec walks in on this and stuns him. Which gives me the chance to strip and gulag him.

He gets out one last cry for help before his headset is off, and the AI is reporting that I'm arresting him. Without being ordered to, the AI shocks me despite a human never ordering that and neither of us being human. When this is pointed out he claimed he did it for himself. Okay, whatever. If I brig this guy, the AI is just gonna mess with me like he did with the airlocks roundstart and then the shocked doors. The HoS tells me to let him go, but I didn't consider him a reasonable source of authority after the roundstart shotgun nonsense. I throw Hates-The-Stuns in for a full point sentence knowing he'd probably just break out anyway or the AI would let him out anyway (sure enough, the AI says later on comms why didn't the silly lizard just ask to be released instead of breaking out). If I had brigged him, he would've just gotten out and attacked me again. (He waited the entire round after the gulagging to attack me in the escape shuttle too.) So, it was a conflict with most of sec, the AI, and the AI's borgs who were later freeing random prisoners at random.

In comes LiarGG asking me what my beef is since I ahelped earlier about if the rush shotgun every round playstyle is allowed under the powergaming ruleset. I explain the full scenario as detailed as I can, he goes that he understands the situation but that he wishes I asked the HoS or Cap. Sec on LRP doesn't even need permission from the heads to gulag, but despite that I explain that the HoS and I had already gotten into conflict roundstart so he wasn't really a reliable source to ask, but that I didn't really consider the Cap so w/e fair enough, not thinking he'd note me for something that... isn't against the rules and is an IC issue that escalated as a result of entitlement from an officer. Perhaps my mistake was admitting any fault for not asking the captain to begin with instead of saying that's not necessary as sec, but I didn't feel like I needed to explain the rules to an administrator. His tone insinuated that he was understanding and there was no real issue from the ahelps, only to find the next round that a note was left, which lacked critical information such as the buildup of the conflict, how I was handling multiple high threat foes at once (an AI electrifying doors, an HoS who was shotgun hungry, for example). Also lacked critical information that this was his second attempt at breaking into the armory, with the first being entrance via the warden's office and refusing to leave when asked.


Why you think you should be unnoted: Wrongful omission of key facts such as how many people I was handling at once, their authority, doors being shocked. Saying I should've asked approval from the HoS in bad faith after knowing we were already not seeing eye to eye due to me calling him cringe for roundstart rushing the shotgun. Implied that all was good in order to end the discussion, leaving out the fact that he'd note to begin with. And most importantly, the thing he noted me for isn't even against the rules. He blatantly stated that my justification for denying armory access was correct, yet noted me for the punishment given. This is inconsistent. Hates-The-Stuns was given two slaps on the wrist already for what was needless conflict, and decided to respond by taking advantage of that patience. This is by definition, an IC issue.

Anything else we should know: I'd like to repost something written in the ban appeal rules topic. Even though it was written for people appealing, I think in the future it would do LiarGG good to take it to heart. PLEASE REMEMBER: Withholding information deliberately, in ahelps or FNR, is an excellent way to get ignored, or worse. It's effectively lying. When you say you were 'permabrigged for breaking one wall' and that one wall was the Armory's, then you've denied yourself way better than any of us could manage. This logic applies for notes too. Next time, even if you are going to note me for something that's an IC issue, at least include all of the key details instead of leaving out critical information to paint an entirely different picture.
User avatar
Archie700
In-Game Admin
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2016 1:56 am
Byond Username: Archie700

Re: <LiarGG> - TypicalRig - Noting over an IC issue and intentional omission of information in note

Post by Archie700 » #667048

Actual round is 200531.

Shotgun argument between HoS and Warden

Code: Select all

03:52:30	SAY	Okpuc/(Swamp Water) "I must shotgunmaxx...."	(205, 130, 2)	Brig Control
03:52:32	EMOTE	Okpuc/(Swamp Water) points at Porkchop	(206, 130, 2)	Brig Control
03:52:33	EMOTE	Okpuc/(Swamp Water) points at Armoury	(206, 130, 2)	Brig Control
03:52:35	SAY	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) "State your emergency..."	(204, 129, 2)	Brig Control
03:52:42	SAY	Okpuc/(Swamp Water) "the"	(205, 131, 2)	Brig Control
03:52:42	SAY	Okpuc/(Swamp Water) "the"	(205, 131, 2)	Brig Control
03:52:43	SAY	Okpuc/(Swamp Water) "the"	(205, 131, 2)	Brig Control
03:52:44	EMOTE	Okpuc/(Swamp Water) points at Armoury	(206, 130, 2)	Brig Control
03:52:44	EMOTE	Okpuc/(Swamp Water) points at Armoury	(206, 130, 2)	Brig Control
03:52:44	EMOTE	Okpuc/(Swamp Water) points at Armoury	(206, 130, 2)	Brig Control
03:52:45	EMOTE	Okpuc/(Swamp Water) points at Armoury	(206, 130, 2)	Brig Control
03:52:47	SAY	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) "The?"	(204, 129, 2)	Brig Control
03:52:55	SAY	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) "Don't be cringe... You don't need a shotgun right from the start..."	(204, 129, 2)	Brig Control
03:53:00	SAY	Okpuc/(Swamp Water) "I dont..."	(200, 129, 2)	Brig
03:53:01	SAY	Okpuc/(Swamp Water) "care..."	(200, 129, 2)	Brig
03:53:06	SAY	Sk1Wass3r/(Talon Mckendrick) "need..."	(204, 129, 2)	Brig Control
03:53:09	SAY	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) "Need?"	(204, 129, 2)	Brig Control
03:53:10	SAY	Sk1Wass3r/(Talon Mckendrick) "shotgun....."	(205, 129, 2)	Brig Control
03:53:12	SAY	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) "Okay."	(204, 129, 2)	Brig Control
03:53:13	SAY	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) "Sure!"	(204, 129, 2)	Brig Control
03:53:18	EMOTE	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) points at Swamp Water	(205, 129, 2)	Brig Control
03:53:20	SAY	Sk1Wass3r/(Talon Mckendrick) "must...."	(206, 129, 2)	Brig Control
03:53:20	SAY	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) "Sir"	(205, 129, 2)	Brig Control
03:53:22	SAY	IZbychu/(Lincoln Grounds) "can i get a shotgun?"	(202, 129, 2)	Brig Control
03:53:22	SAY	Sk1Wass3r/(Talon Mckendrick) "kill......"	(206, 129, 2)	Brig Control
03:53:23	SAY	Okpuc/(Swamp Water) "shotgun my lifeblood"	(204, 131, 2)	Brig Control
03:53:25	SAY	Okpuc/(Swamp Water) "yes"	(204, 131, 2)	Brig Control
03:53:27	SAY	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) "Sir"	(204, 129, 2)	Brig Control
03:53:30	SAY	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) "You don't need shotguns"	(204, 129, 2)	Brig Control
03:53:33	SAY	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) "please leave the premises"	(204, 129, 2)	Brig Control
03:53:33	SAY	Sk1Wass3r/(Talon Mckendrick) "AI"	(206, 129, 2)	Brig Control
03:53:34	SAY	Sk1Wass3r/(Talon Mckendrick) "open"	(206, 129, 2)	Brig Control
03:53:36	SAY	IZbychu/(Lincoln Grounds) "ai"	(206, 130, 2)	Brig Control
03:53:36	SAY	Okpuc/(Swamp Water) "AI law 2"	(204, 131, 2)	Brig Control
03:53:37	SAY	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) "AI do not..."	(204, 129, 2)	Brig Control
03:53:38	SAY	Okpuc/(Swamp Water) "open armoryu"	(204, 131, 2)	Brig Control
03:53:49	SAY	Sk1Wass3r/(Talon Mckendrick) "must......"	(204, 129, 2)	Brig Control
03:53:51	SAY	Okpuc/(Swamp Water) "AI"	(205, 131, 2)	Brig Control
03:53:53	SAY	Okpuc/(Swamp Water) "open armory"	(205, 131, 2)	Brig Control
03:53:56	SAY	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) "Do not..."	(205, 130, 2)	Brig Control
03:54:02	SAY	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) "mister"	(204, 131, 2)	Brig Control
03:54:03	SAY	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) "sir"	(204, 131, 2)	Brig Control
03:54:03	SAY	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) "out"	(204, 131, 2)	Brig Control
03:55:13	SAY	Okpuc/(Swamp Water) "based infighting..."	(199, 145, 2)	Brig
03:55:38	SAY	Okpuc/(Swamp Water) "I..."	(178, 130, 2)	Starboard Primary Hallway
03:55:42	SAY	Okpuc/(Swamp Water) "stunned my warden..."	(178, 130, 2)	Starboard Primary Hallway
03:55:44	SAY	Okpuc/(Swamp Water) "to shotgunmaxx..."	(178, 130, 2)	Starboard Primary Hallway
03:55:48	SAY	Okpuc/(Swamp Water) "some"	(176, 130, 2)	Starboard Primary Hallway
03:55:54	SAY	Okpuc/(Swamp Water) "manuel migrate or somethin"	(176, 130, 2)	Starboard Primary Hallway
03:55:55	SAY	Okpuc/(Swamp Water) "I dunno"	(176, 130, 2)	Starboard Primary Hallway
03:56:16	SAY	Okpuc/(Swamp Water) "warden did you just cite me"	(196, 154, 2)	Interrogation Room
03:56:20	SAY	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) "I did."	(205, 133, 2)	Brig Control
03:56:26	SAY	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) "Pay the fine or do the time."	(205, 133, 2)	Brig Control
03:56:27	SAY	Okpuc/(Swamp Water) "actual chad..."	(194, 151, 2)	Interrogation Room
03:56:48	SAY	Okpuc/(Swamp Water) "warden just"	(170, 131, 2)	Fore Central Primary Hallway
03:56:49	SAY	Okpuc/(Swamp Water) "cited me"	(170, 131, 2)	Fore Central Primary Hallway
03:56:52	SAY	Okpuc/(Swamp Water) "for stealing shotgun"	(170, 131, 2)	Fore Central Primary Hallway
03:57:15	SAY	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) "Hating fun is not a crime. Remove that..."	(205, 130, 2)	Brig Control
03:58:09	SAY	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) "Shotguns are NOT fun."	(204, 132, 2)	Brig Control
Argument between Hates and Warden over ling

Code: Select all

03:59:44	SAY	KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) "who is ling"	(204, 125, 2)	Security Locker Room
04:00:11	SAY	KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) "no gun for ling?"	(201, 133, 2)	Brig
04:00:18	SAY	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) "I thought it was handled..."	(203, 134, 2)	Brig Control
04:00:34	SAY	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) "You have stuns... that's truly all you need for a ling."	(203, 134, 2)	Brig Control
04:00:23	EMOTE	KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) frowns.	(201, 133, 2)	Brig
04:00:23	EMOTE	KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) raises an eyebrow.	(201, 133, 2)	Brig
04:00:40	SAY	KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) "guhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh"	(201, 134, 2)	Brig
04:00:44	SAY	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) "Your FAVOURITE."	(203, 134, 2)	Brig Control
04:00:52	SAY	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) "Hates-The-Stuns is falsely named."	(203, 134, 2)	Brig Control
04:00:56	SAY	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) "He used stuns on me and LIKED it."	(203, 134, 2)	Brig Control
04:01:07	SAY	KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) "lawyer ling in space"	(209, 125, 2)	Security Locker Room
04:01:09	SAY	KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) "near brig"	(209, 125, 2)	Security Locker Room
04:01:18	SAY	KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) "retarded warden"	(207, 124, 2)	Security Locker Room
04:01:33	SAY	KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) "wfucking warden give us weapons"	(207, 124, 2)	Security Locker Room
04:01:41	SAY	Okpuc/(Swamp Water) "warden"	(204, 126, 2)	Security Locker Room
04:01:45	SAY	Okpuc/(Swamp Water) "give the working men"	(204, 126, 2)	Security Locker Room
04:01:46	SAY	Okpuc/(Swamp Water) "the lasers"	(204, 126, 2)	Security Locker Room
04:01:57	SAY	Okpuc/(Swamp Water) "bruh"	(200, 130, 2)	Brig
04:02:07	SAY	KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) "open armory"	(201, 132, 2)	Brig
04:02:08	EMOTE	KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) points at Swamp Water	(201, 132, 2)	Brig
04:02:32	SAY	KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) "can we kill warden"	(201, 131, 2)	Brig
-break-
04:04:59	EMOTE	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) points at Hates-The-Stun	(204, 128, 2)	Brig Control
04:05:08	SAY	KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) "we gonna kill you"	(207, 124, 2)	Security Locker Room
04:08:03	SAY	KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) "STOP"	(210, 134, 2)	Armory
04:08:05	EMOTE	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) points at Hates-The-Stun	(208, 129, 2)	Armory
04:08:09	SAY	KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) "you fcuker"	(211, 134, 2)	Armory
04:08:10	SAY	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) "thanks"	(212, 134, 2)	Armory
04:08:13	SAY	KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) "HHELP BRIG"	(211, 134, 2)	Armory
04:08:43	SAY	Zemsta/(ANTON-I) "seccie ligger getting gulaged"	(33, 138, 2)	AI Chamber
04:08:49	SAY	Okpuc/(Swamp Water) "what"	(101, 172, 2)	Atmospherics Project Room
04:09:07	SAY	Okpuc/(Swamp Water) "warden I swear to god"	(102, 166, 2)	Atmospherics Maintenance
04:09:16	SAY	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) "AI nobody orderd you to do that"	(199, 155, 2)	Transfer Centre
04:09:26	SAY	Okpuc/(Swamp Water) "if you dont let him go"	(109, 167, 2)	Fore Port Maintenance
04:09:33	SAY	Okpuc/(Swamp Water) "you are getting demoted to tider"	(109, 167, 2)	Fore Port Maintenance
04:09:45	SAY	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) "Letting him go."	(196, 146, 2)	Labor Shuttle Dock
04:09:58	GAME	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) teleported KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) to the Labor Camp (69,32,5) for 1000 points.	(196, 146, 2)	Labor Shuttle Dock
Attack logs

Code: Select all

03:51:11	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) grabbed (Krav Maga) *no key*/(pug) (NEWHP: 20)	(205, 130, 2)	Brig Control
03:51:11	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) grabbed *no key*/(pug) passive grab (NEWHP: 20)	(205, 130, 2)	Brig Control
03:51:57	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) attacked *no key*/(pug) with evidence bag (COMBAT MODE: 0) (DAMTYPE: BRUTE) (NEWHP: 20)	(205, 130, 2)	Brig Control
03:51:59	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) grabbed (Krav Maga) *no key*/(pug) (NEWHP: 20)	(205, 130, 2)	Brig Control
03:51:59	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) grabbed *no key*/(pug) passive grab (NEWHP: 20)	(205, 130, 2)	Brig Control
03:52:58	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) grabbed (Krav Maga) Okpuc/(Swamp Water) (NEWHP: 100)	(204, 130, 2)	Brig Control
03:52:58	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) grabbed Okpuc/(Swamp Water) passive grab (NEWHP: 100)	(204, 130, 2)	Brig Control
03:53:45	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) grabbed Okpuc/(Swamp Water) passive grab (NEWHP: 100)	(204, 130, 2)	Brig Control
03:53:45	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) grabbed (Krav Maga) Okpuc/(Swamp Water) (NEWHP: 100)	(204, 130, 2)	Brig Control
03:53:48	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) grabbed Sk1Wass3r/(Talon Mckendrick) passive grab (NEWHP: 100)	(205, 129, 2)	Brig Control
03:53:48	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) grabbed (Krav Maga) Sk1Wass3r/(Talon Mckendrick) (NEWHP: 100)	(205, 129, 2)	Brig Control
03:53:49	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) grabbed (Krav Maga) Sk1Wass3r/(Talon Mckendrick) (NEWHP: 100)	(203, 129, 2)	Brig Control
03:53:49	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) grabbed Sk1Wass3r/(Talon Mckendrick) aggressive grab (NEWHP: 100)	(203, 129, 2)	Brig Control
03:53:49	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) broke grab Sk1Wass3r/(Talon Mckendrick) (NEWHP: 100)	(203, 129, 2)	Brig Control
03:53:50	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) grabbed (Krav Maga) Sk1Wass3r/(Talon Mckendrick) (NEWHP: 100)	(204, 129, 2)	Brig Control
03:53:50	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) grabbed Sk1Wass3r/(Talon Mckendrick) passive grab (NEWHP: 100)	(204, 129, 2)	Brig Control
03:53:51	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) grabbed (Krav Maga) Sk1Wass3r/(Talon Mckendrick) (NEWHP: 100)	(203, 129, 2)	Brig Control
03:53:51	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) grabbed Sk1Wass3r/(Talon Mckendrick) aggressive grab (NEWHP: 100)	(203, 129, 2)	Brig Control
03:53:52	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) thrown Sk1Wass3r/(Talon Mckendrick) grab from tile in Brig Control (204,129,2) towards tile at Brig (200,129,2) (NEWHP: 100)	(204, 129, 2)	Brig Control
03:53:52	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) has thrown Talon Mckendrick	(204, 129, 2)	Brig Control
03:54:07	ATTACK	Okpuc/(Swamp Water) shoved TypicalRig/(Porkchop) with knocking them down (NEWHP: 100)	(205, 130, 2)	Brig Control
03:54:09	ATTACK	Okpuc/(Swamp Water) kicks TypicalRig/(Porkchop) with onto their side (paralyzing) (NEWHP: 100)	(204, 130, 2)	Brig Control
03:54:09	ATTACK	Okpuc/(Swamp Water) shoved TypicalRig/(Porkchop) (NEWHP: 100)	(204, 130, 2)	Brig Control
03:54:11	ATTACK	Okpuc/(Swamp Water) shoved TypicalRig/(Porkchop) (NEWHP: 100)	(207, 130, 2)	Armory
03:54:13	ATTACK	Okpuc/(Swamp Water) shoved TypicalRig/(Porkchop) (NEWHP: 100)	(205, 130, 2)	Brig Control
03:54:14	ATTACK	Okpuc/(Swamp Water) shoved TypicalRig/(Porkchop) with knocking them down (NEWHP: 100)	(205, 129, 2)	Brig Control
03:54:16	ATTACK	Okpuc/(Swamp Water) kicks TypicalRig/(Porkchop) with onto their side (paralyzing) (NEWHP: 100)	(206, 129, 2)	Brig Control
03:54:16	ATTACK	Okpuc/(Swamp Water) shoved TypicalRig/(Porkchop) (NEWHP: 100)	(206, 129, 2)	Brig Control
03:54:23	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) stun attacked Okpuc/(Swamp Water) with the stun baton (NEWHP: 100)	(209, 132, 2)	Armory
03:54:26	ATTACK	Okpuc/(Swamp Water) flashed(targeted) TypicalRig/(Porkchop) with the flash (NEWHP: 100)	(213, 132, 2)	Armory
03:54:34	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) fired at [floor] with the disabler beam from Armory	(212, 129, 2)	Armory
03:54:35	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) fired at [floor] with the disabler beam from Armory	(212, 128, 2)	Armory
03:54:35	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) shot *no key*/(Sergeant-At-Armsky) with the disabler beam (NEWHP: 45)	(212, 128, 2)	Armory
03:54:35	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) fired at [floor] with the disabler beam from Armory	(212, 129, 2)	Armory
03:54:35	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) shot *no key*/(Sergeant-At-Armsky) with the disabler beam (NEWHP: 45)	(211, 129, 2)	Armory
03:56:10	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) punched *no key*/(pug) (NEWHP: 20)	(204, 133, 2)	Brig Control
03:56:10	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) punch with Krav Maga *no key*/(pug) (NEWHP: 10)	(204, 133, 2)	Brig Control
03:58:00	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) grabbed (Krav Maga) *no key*/(pug) (NEWHP: 20)	(204, 132, 2)	Brig Control
03:58:00	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) grabbed *no key*/(pug) passive grab (NEWHP: 20)	(204, 132, 2)	Brig Control
03:59:33	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) grabbed (Krav Maga) *no key*/(pug) (NEWHP: 20)	(206, 130, 2)	Brig Control
03:59:33	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) grabbed *no key*/(pug) passive grab (NEWHP: 20)	(206, 130, 2)	Brig Control
04:00:41	ATTACK	KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) shot TypicalRig/(Porkchop) with the disabler beam (NEWHP: 100)	(201, 134, 2)	Brig
04:00:42	ATTACK	KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) shot TypicalRig/(Porkchop) with the disabler beam (NEWHP: 100)	(201, 134, 2)	Brig
04:00:42	ATTACK	KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) shot TypicalRig/(Porkchop) with the disabler beam (NEWHP: 100)	(201, 134, 2)	Brig
04:00:43	ATTACK	KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) shot TypicalRig/(Porkchop) with the disabler beam (NEWHP: 100)	(201, 134, 2)	Brig
04:00:43	ATTACK	KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) shot TypicalRig/(Porkchop) with the disabler beam (NEWHP: 100)	(201, 134, 2)	Brig
04:01:45	ATTACK	Sk1Wass3r/(Talon Mckendrick) shot TypicalRig/(Porkchop) with the disabler beam (NEWHP: 100)	(203, 126, 2)	Security Locker Room
04:01:45	ATTACK	Sk1Wass3r/(Talon Mckendrick) shot TypicalRig/(Porkchop) with the disabler beam (NEWHP: 100)	(203, 126, 2)	Security Locker Room
04:01:46	ATTACK	Sk1Wass3r/(Talon Mckendrick) shot TypicalRig/(Porkchop) with the disabler beam (NEWHP: 100)	(203, 126, 2)	Security Locker Room
04:01:47	ATTACK	Sk1Wass3r/(Talon Mckendrick) shot TypicalRig/(Porkchop) with the disabler beam (NEWHP: 100)	(203, 126, 2)	Security Locker Room
04:01:48	ATTACK	Sk1Wass3r/(Talon Mckendrick) shot TypicalRig/(Porkchop) with the disabler beam (NEWHP: 100)	(203, 126, 2)	Security Locker Room
04:01:52	ATTACK	Sk1Wass3r/(Talon Mckendrick) fired at TypicalRig/(Porkchop) with the disabler beam from Brig (NEWHP: 100)	(200, 133, 2)	Brig
04:01:52	ATTACK	Sk1Wass3r/(Talon Mckendrick) fired at TypicalRig/(Porkchop) with the disabler beam from Brig (NEWHP: 100)	(200, 133, 2)	Brig
04:01:53	ATTACK	KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) shot TypicalRig/(Porkchop) with the disabler beam (NEWHP: 100)	(203, 126, 2)	Security Locker Room
04:01:54	ATTACK	Sk1Wass3r/(Talon Mckendrick) fired at TypicalRig/(Porkchop) with the disabler beam from Brig (NEWHP: 100)	(200, 133, 2)	Brig
04:01:56	ATTACK	Sk1Wass3r/(Talon Mckendrick) fired at TypicalRig/(Porkchop) with the disabler beam from Brig (NEWHP: 100)	(200, 132, 2)	Brig
04:01:56	ATTACK	Sk1Wass3r/(Talon Mckendrick) shot TypicalRig/(Porkchop) with the disabler beam (NEWHP: 100)	(200, 132, 2)	Brig
04:01:57	ATTACK	Sk1Wass3r/(Talon Mckendrick) fired at TypicalRig/(Porkchop) with the disabler beam from Brig (NEWHP: 100)	(200, 132, 2)	Brig
04:01:57	ATTACK	Sk1Wass3r/(Talon Mckendrick) shot TypicalRig/(Porkchop) with the disabler beam (NEWHP: 100)	(200, 132, 2)	Brig
04:01:57	ATTACK	Sk1Wass3r/(Talon Mckendrick) fired at TypicalRig/(Porkchop) with the disabler beam from Brig (NEWHP: 100)	(200, 132, 2)	Brig
04:01:57	ATTACK	KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) fired at TypicalRig/(Porkchop) with the disabler beam from Brig (NEWHP: 100)	(201, 132, 2)	Brig
04:01:58	ATTACK	KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) fired at TypicalRig/(Porkchop) with the disabler beam from Brig (NEWHP: 100)	(201, 132, 2)	Brig
04:01:58	ATTACK	KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) shot TypicalRig/(Porkchop) with the disabler beam (NEWHP: 100)	(201, 133, 2)	Brig
04:01:59	ATTACK	KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) fired at TypicalRig/(Porkchop) with the disabler beam from Brig (NEWHP: 100)	(201, 133, 2)	Brig
04:01:59	ATTACK	KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) fired at TypicalRig/(Porkchop) with the disabler beam from Brig (NEWHP: 100)	(201, 133, 2)	Brig
04:02:00	ATTACK	KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) shot TypicalRig/(Porkchop) with the disabler beam (NEWHP: 100)	(201, 133, 2)	Brig
04:02:01	ATTACK	KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) shot TypicalRig/(Porkchop) with the disabler beam (NEWHP: 100)	(201, 133, 2)	Brig
04:02:01	ATTACK	KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) shot TypicalRig/(Porkchop) with the disabler beam (NEWHP: 100)	(201, 133, 2)	Brig
04:02:02	ATTACK	KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) shot TypicalRig/(Porkchop) with the disabler beam (NEWHP: 100)	(201, 133, 2)	Brig
04:02:02	ATTACK	KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) shot TypicalRig/(Porkchop) with the disabler beam (NEWHP: 100)	(201, 133, 2)	Brig
04:02:03	ATTACK	KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) shot TypicalRig/(Porkchop) with the disabler beam (NEWHP: 100)	(201, 133, 2)	Brig
04:02:03	ATTACK	KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) shot TypicalRig/(Porkchop) with the disabler beam (NEWHP: 100)	(201, 133, 2)	Brig
04:02:04	ATTACK	KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) shot TypicalRig/(Porkchop) with the disabler beam (NEWHP: 100)	(201, 133, 2)	Brig
04:02:48	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) grabbed (Krav Maga) *no key*/(Sergeant-At-Armsky) (NEWHP: 45)	(209, 130, 2)	Armory
04:02:48	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) grabbed *no key*/(Sergeant-At-Armsky) passive grab (NEWHP: 45)	(209, 130, 2)	Armory
04:05:23	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) fired at [reinforced wall] with the disabler beam from Brig Control	(204, 128, 2)	Brig Control
04:05:33	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) fired at [floor] with the disabler beam from Armory	(211, 129, 2)	Armory
04:05:33	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) fired at [floor] with the disabler beam from Armory	(212, 129, 2)	Armory
04:05:34	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) shot KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) with the disabler beam (NEWHP: 97.7)	(212, 129, 2)	Armory
04:05:34	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) fired at [floor] with the disabler beam from Armory	(212, 129, 2)	Armory
04:05:34	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) fired at [floor] with the disabler beam from Armory	(212, 129, 2)	Armory
04:05:37	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) fired at [floor] with the disabler beam from Armory	(212, 129, 2)	Armory
04:05:37	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) fired at [floor] with the disabler beam from Armory	(212, 129, 2)	Armory
04:05:38	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) fired at [floor] with the disabler beam from Armory	(212, 129, 2)	Armory
04:05:38	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) shot KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) with the disabler beam (NEWHP: 97.7)	(212, 129, 2)	Armory
04:05:38	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) fired at [floor] with the disabler beam from Armory	(212, 129, 2)	Armory
04:05:39	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) fired at [floor] with the disabler beam from Armory	(212, 129, 2)	Armory
04:05:41	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) fired at [floor] with the disabler beam from Armory	(212, 129, 2)	Armory
04:05:46	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) fired at [floor] with the disabler beam from Armory	(212, 129, 2)	Armory
04:05:54	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) fired at KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) with the disabler beam from Armory (NEWHP: 97.7)	(210, 129, 2)	Armory
04:05:54	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) fired at [floor] with the disabler beam from Armory	(210, 129, 2)	Armory
04:05:57	ATTACK	KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) fired at TypicalRig/(Porkchop) with the disabler beam from Security Locker Room (NEWHP: 100)	(211, 125, 2)	Security Locker Room
04:05:57	ATTACK	KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) shot TypicalRig/(Porkchop) with the disabler beam (NEWHP: 100)	(210, 125, 2)	Security Locker Room
04:05:58	ATTACK	KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) fired at TypicalRig/(Porkchop) with the disabler beam from Security Locker Room (NEWHP: 100)	(209, 125, 2)	Security Locker Room
04:06:02	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) fired at [floor] with the disabler beam from Armory	(212, 129, 2)	Armory
04:06:03	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) fired at [floor] with the disabler beam from Armory	(212, 129, 2)	Armory
04:06:04	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) fired at [reinforced wall] with the disabler beam from Armory	(209, 129, 2)	Armory
04:06:08	ATTACK	KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) fired at TypicalRig/(Porkchop) with the disabler beam from Security Locker Room (NEWHP: 100)	(210, 125, 2)	Security Locker Room
04:06:08	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) fired at [floor] with the disabler beam from Armory	(209, 129, 2)	Armory
04:06:08	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) fired at [��Security Locker Room omni air vent ovwXr] with the disabler beam from Armory	(208, 129, 2)	Armory
04:06:09	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) fired at [floor] with the disabler beam from Armory	(208, 131, 2)	Armory
04:06:11	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) fired at [floor] with the disabler beam from Armory	(208, 130, 2)	Armory
04:06:11	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) fired at [floor] with the disabler beam from Armory	(207, 129, 2)	Armory
04:06:13	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) fired at [floor] with the disabler beam from Brig Control	(204, 128, 2)	Brig Control
04:06:15	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) fired at [floor] with the disabler beam from Armory	(211, 129, 2)	Armory
04:06:15	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) fired at [��Security Locker Room omni air vent ovwXr] with the disabler beam from Armory	(211, 129, 2)	Armory
04:06:17	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) fired at [floor] with the disabler beam from Brig Control	(204, 129, 2)	Brig Control
04:06:18	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) fired at [floor] with the disabler beam from Armory	(209, 129, 2)	Armory
04:06:19	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) fired at [secure holopad] with the disabler beam from Armory	(211, 129, 2)	Armory
04:06:20	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) fired at [��Security Locker Room omni air vent ovwXr] with the disabler beam from Armory	(209, 129, 2)	Armory
04:06:20	ATTACK	KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) fired at TypicalRig/(Porkchop) with the disabler beam from Security Locker Room (NEWHP: 100)	(209, 126, 2)	Security Locker Room
04:06:20	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) shot KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) with the disabler beam (NEWHP: 97.7)	(208, 129, 2)	Armory
04:06:20	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) fired at [floor] with the disabler beam from Brig Control	(206, 129, 2)	Brig Control
04:06:21	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) fired at [floor] with the disabler beam from Armory	(211, 129, 2)	Armory
04:06:22	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) fired at [floor] with the disabler beam from Armory	(212, 129, 2)	Armory
04:06:22	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) fired at [secure holopad] with the disabler beam from Armory	(211, 129, 2)	Armory
04:06:23	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) fired at [secure holopad] with the disabler beam from Armory	(210, 129, 2)	Armory
04:06:28	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) fired at [floor] with the disabler beam from Armory	(209, 129, 2)	Armory
04:06:31	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) fired at [floor] with the disabler beam from Armory	(209, 127, 2)	Armory
04:06:31	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) fired at [floor] with the disabler beam from Security Locker Room	(209, 126, 2)	Security Locker Room
04:06:32	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) fired at [floor] with the disabler beam from Security Locker Room	(208, 126, 2)	Security Locker Room
04:06:32	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) shot KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) with the disabler beam (NEWHP: 97.7)	(208, 126, 2)	Security Locker Room
04:06:32	ATTACK	KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) fired at TypicalRig/(Porkchop) with the disabler beam from Security Locker Room (NEWHP: 100)	(204, 125, 2)	Security Locker Room
04:06:32	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) fired at [Gear Room] with the disabler beam from Security Locker Room	(208, 126, 2)	Security Locker Room
04:06:32	ATTACK	KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) shot TypicalRig/(Porkchop) with the disabler beam (NEWHP: 100)	(203, 125, 2)	Security Locker Room
04:06:33	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) fired at [Gear Room] with the disabler beam from Security Locker Room	(208, 125, 2)	Security Locker Room
04:06:33	ATTACK	KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) shot TypicalRig/(Porkchop) with the disabler beam (NEWHP: 100)	(203, 126, 2)	Security Locker Room
04:06:33	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) shot KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) with the disabler beam (NEWHP: 97.7)	(209, 126, 2)	Security Locker Room
04:06:33	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) fired at [Gear Room] with the disabler beam from Security Locker Room	(209, 126, 2)	Security Locker Room
04:06:33	ATTACK	KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) shot TypicalRig/(Porkchop) with the disabler beam (NEWHP: 100)	(203, 126, 2)	Security Locker Room
04:06:34	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) fired at [floor] with the disabler beam from Armory	(210, 127, 2)	Armory
04:06:34	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) fired at [floor] with the disabler beam from Armory	(209, 128, 2)	Armory
04:06:41	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) fired at [floor] with the disabler beam from Armory	(208, 128, 2)	Armory
04:06:41	ATTACK	KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) shot TypicalRig/(Porkchop) with the disabler beam (NEWHP: 100)	(201, 128, 2)	Brig
04:06:41	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) fired at [floor] with the disabler beam from Armory	(208, 128, 2)	Armory
04:06:41	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) shot KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) with the disabler beam (NEWHP: 97.7)	(208, 128, 2)	Armory
04:06:41	ATTACK	KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) fired at TypicalRig/(Porkchop) with the disabler beam from Brig (NEWHP: 100)	(201, 129, 2)	Brig
04:06:42	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) fired at [floor] with the disabler beam from Armory	(208, 129, 2)	Armory
04:06:45	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) fired at [floor] with the disabler beam from Armory	(208, 128, 2)	Armory
04:07:16	ATTACK	Sk1Wass3r/(Talon Mckendrick) flashed(AOE) TypicalRig/(Porkchop) with the flash (NEWHP: 100)	(211, 126, 2)	Security Locker Room
04:07:16	ATTACK	Sk1Wass3r/(Talon Mckendrick) flashed(AOE) TypicalRig/(Porkchop) with the flash (NEWHP: 100)	(211, 126, 2)	Security Locker Room
04:07:16	ATTACK	Sk1Wass3r/(Talon Mckendrick) flashed(AOE) TypicalRig/(Porkchop) with the flash (NEWHP: 100)	(211, 126, 2)	Security Locker Room
04:07:16	ATTACK	Sk1Wass3r/(Talon Mckendrick) flashed(AOE) TypicalRig/(Porkchop) with the flash (NEWHP: 100)	(211, 126, 2)	Security Locker Room
04:07:16	ATTACK	Sk1Wass3r/(Talon Mckendrick) flashed(AOE) TypicalRig/(Porkchop) with the flash (NEWHP: 100)	(211, 126, 2)	Security Locker Room
04:07:34	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) fired at KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) with the laser from Armory (NEWHP: 97.7)	(212, 129, 2)	Armory
04:07:42	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) fired at [secure holopad] with the laser from Armory	(212, 128, 2)	Armory
04:07:48	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) fired at [��Security Locker Room omni air vent ovwXr] with the laser from Armory	(210, 129, 2)	Armory
04:07:51	ATTACK	KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) shot TypicalRig/(Porkchop) with the disabler beam (NEWHP: 100)	(209, 126, 2)	Security Locker Room
04:07:52	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) fired at [floor] with the laser from Armory	(208, 128, 2)	Armory
04:07:53	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) fired at [floor] with the laser from Armory	(209, 128, 2)	Armory
04:07:53	ATTACK	KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) fired at TypicalRig/(Porkchop) with the disabler beam from Armory (NEWHP: 100)	(210, 127, 2)	Armory
04:07:53	ATTACK	KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) shot TypicalRig/(Porkchop) with the disabler beam (NEWHP: 100)	(210, 126, 2)	Security Locker Room
04:07:54	ATTACK	KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) fired at TypicalRig/(Porkchop) with the disabler beam from Security Locker Room (NEWHP: 100)	(210, 125, 2)	Security Locker Room
04:07:54	ATTACK	KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) fired at TypicalRig/(Porkchop) with the disabler beam from Security Locker Room (NEWHP: 100)	(211, 126, 2)	Security Locker Room
04:07:55	ATTACK	KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) fired at TypicalRig/(Porkchop) with the disabler beam from Armory (NEWHP: 100)	(210, 127, 2)	Armory
04:07:55	ATTACK	KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) shot TypicalRig/(Porkchop) with the disabler beam (NEWHP: 100)	(210, 127, 2)	Armory
04:07:56	ATTACK	KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) fired at TypicalRig/(Porkchop) with the disabler beam from Armory (NEWHP: 100)	(210, 127, 2)	Armory
04:07:59	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) fired at [floor] with the laser from Brig Control	(204, 128, 2)	Brig Control
04:08:00	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) fired at [floor] with the laser from Brig Control	(204, 130, 2)	Brig Control
04:08:09	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) stun attacked KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) with the stun baton (NEWHP: 97.7)	(212, 134, 2)	Armory
04:08:12	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) attempted to handcuff KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) (NEWHP: 97.7)	(212, 134, 2)	Armory
04:08:13	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) grabbed (Krav Maga) KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) (NEWHP: 97.7)	(212, 134, 2)	Armory
04:08:13	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) grabbed KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) passive grab (NEWHP: 97.7)	(212, 134, 2)	Armory
04:08:15	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) is stripping KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) of the security bowman headset.	(212, 134, 2)	Armory
04:08:16	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) is stripping KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) of the security bowman headset.	(212, 134, 2)	Armory
04:08:16	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) handcuffed KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) (NEWHP: 97.7)	(212, 134, 2)	Armory
04:08:16	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) is stripping KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) of the security bowman headset.	(212, 134, 2)	Armory
04:08:20	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) has stripped KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) of the security bowman headset.	(212, 134, 2)	Armory
04:08:39	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) is stripping KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) of the black gloves.	(195, 146, 2)	Labor Shuttle Dock
04:08:40	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) is stripping KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) of the armor vest.	(195, 146, 2)	Labor Shuttle Dock
04:08:40	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) is stripping KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) of the security skirt.	(195, 146, 2)	Labor Shuttle Dock
04:08:40	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) is stripping KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) of the security HUDSunglasses.	(195, 146, 2)	Labor Shuttle Dock
04:08:41	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) is stripping KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) of the helmet.	(195, 146, 2)	Labor Shuttle Dock
04:08:41	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) has stripped KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) of the black gloves.	(195, 146, 2)	Labor Shuttle Dock
04:08:42	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) is stripping KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) of the security belt.	(195, 146, 2)	Labor Shuttle Dock
04:08:42	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) is stripping KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) of the jackboots.	(195, 146, 2)	Labor Shuttle Dock
04:08:42	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) has stripped KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) of the security HUDSunglasses.	(195, 146, 2)	Labor Shuttle Dock
04:08:43	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) is stripping KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) of the security belt.	(195, 146, 2)	Labor Shuttle Dock
04:08:43	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) is stripping KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) of Hates-The-Stun (Security Officer).	(195, 146, 2)	Labor Shuttle Dock
04:08:43	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) is stripping KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) of the laser gun.	(195, 146, 2)	Labor Shuttle Dock
04:08:44	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) is stripping KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) of the security backpack.	(195, 146, 2)	Labor Shuttle Dock
04:08:44	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) is pickpocketing KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) of the handcuffs (left)	(195, 146, 2)	Labor Shuttle Dock
04:08:44	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) is pickpocketing KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) of the handcuffs (left)	(195, 146, 2)	Labor Shuttle Dock
04:08:45	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) has stripped KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) of the security skirt.	(195, 146, 2)	Labor Shuttle Dock
04:08:45	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) has stripped KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) of the jackboots.	(195, 146, 2)	Labor Shuttle Dock
04:08:46	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) has stripped KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) of the armor vest.	(195, 146, 2)	Labor Shuttle Dock
04:08:47	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) has stripped KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) of the helmet.	(195, 146, 2)	Labor Shuttle Dock
04:08:48	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) has stripped KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) of the security backpack.	(195, 146, 2)	Labor Shuttle Dock
04:09:01	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) is putting the orange shoes on KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun)	(210, 158, 2)	Transfer Centre
04:09:03	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) has put the orange shoes on KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun).	(210, 158, 2)	Transfer Centre
04:09:04	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) is putting the prison jumpskirt on KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun)	(210, 158, 2)	Transfer Centre
04:09:06	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) has put the prison jumpskirt on KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun).	(210, 158, 2)	Transfer Centre
04:09:10	ATTACK	[Prison Wing] electrocuted TypicalRig/(Porkchop) (NEWHP: 80.8)	(199, 154, 2)	Brig
04:09:23	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) grabbed (Krav Maga) KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) (NEWHP: 68.9)	(200, 155, 2)	Transfer Centre
04:09:23	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) grabbed KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) passive grab (NEWHP: 68.9)	(200, 155, 2)	Transfer Centre
04:09:26	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) has thrown Porkchop (Warden)	(199, 155, 2)	Transfer Centre
04:09:30	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) has thrown Porkchop (Warden)	(199, 147, 2)	Brig
04:09:42	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) stun attacked KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) with the stun baton (NEWHP: 68.9)	(196, 146, 2)	Labor Shuttle Dock
04:09:47	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) stun attacked KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) with the stun baton (NEWHP: 68.9)	(196, 146, 2)	Labor Shuttle Dock
04:09:48	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) grabbed (Krav Maga) KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) (NEWHP: 68.9)	(196, 146, 2)	Labor Shuttle Dock
04:09:48	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) grabbed KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) aggressive grab (NEWHP: 68.9)	(196, 146, 2)	Labor Shuttle Dock
04:09:49	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) thrown KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) grab from tile in Labor Shuttle Dock (196,146,2) towards tile at Labor Shuttle Dock (195,145,2) (NEWHP: 68.9)	(196, 146, 2)	Labor Shuttle Dock
04:09:49	ATTACK	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) has thrown Hates-The-Stun	(196, 146, 2)	Labor Shuttle Dock
User avatar
LiarGG
In-Game Admin
Joined: Wed May 11, 2022 11:45 pm
Byond Username: LiarGG

Re: <LiarGG> - TypicalRig - Noting over an IC issue and intentional omission of information in note

Post by LiarGG » #667085

Hello and thanks for appealing.

Sadly I would like to stay firm with the take that a 1000 point gulag sentence for this was excessive and the minor note is justified.

I will agree that the note is not factually correct tho and I will amend the wording on it, as you are right – You didn’t “not communicate with HoS”, you disregarded his order to release the secoff and then lied about letting them go.

I would also like to reiterate that this is a note for gulagging a security officer with a 1000 point sentence, not a note for refusing to give out shotgun to HoS, nor for refusing to give a laser to the secoff. Altho I do not necessarily agree that taking a shotgun roundstart as a HoS is in itself a break of rule 12, I can sympathize with denying the access. More power to the warden in this regard.

Not giving out a laser to the secoff is more of a grey area in my opinion. On one hand I like the idea of not rolling out lethals for every incident, on the other hand denying a weapon to an officer whose stated purpose is to kill a changeling. Considering there were confirmed heretics around as well, I can understand their frustration with being denied a weapon.

At this point I was looking at a warden frustrated with people trying to get guns for what he perceived as not good enough of a reason and a secoff frustrated with being denied equipment that would help them carry out their duties. Denying giving out weapons for this is a bit of a gray area, but I would say this gray area is what is beautiful about this game and can give space for good RP situation, so no problem with that either from my point of view.

Them trying to break into armory is something I disagreed with and told them as much, but I consider it somewhat understandable given the stressful situation.

The problem I had and where I think you went wrong, as already stated, was your way of dealing with them after capture. Stripping their headset to prevent their communication and gulaging them for the maximum possible sentence, while lying to the HoS about what is going on is going way too far imo. And that’s specifically what this note is for. This note was marked as minor, as (just as I said when dealing with this) I understand that you were under a lot of stress as well. You chose a style of wardening that is a bit unorthodox, but not invalid and I like the flavor. The part of the note dealing with communicating this to a higherup was also in the spirit of this RP heavier take on wardening, as contacting a HoS about gulagging a secoff, or contacting a captain about the concerns you had about the HoS could’ve been good grounds for not only RP, but actually a solution that would be reasonable.

Also of note is that the gulagged secoff was not even present during the shotgun argument and only went for weapons after the ling has been confirmed with a stated intent of using this weapon against the changeling.

Also #2 a quick note about the disabler spam earlier. Everyone involved agreed this was not done in a bad faith, even you agreed they were just fooling around and your response to that was citing them, which I actually love as a RP response. But I wouldn’t say either party was really harmed during this, although I will admit this probably increased the tension between you guys.

All in all, I think 1000 points gulaging a security officer after trying to force their way into armory for what they perceive is a legit reason AND doing this against the HoS directions AND lying about this to them is too harsh and worth of a minor note. I will be amending the note to better reflect what did actually happen tho, and to give more context for the stress you guys have been going through.
User avatar
TypicalRig
Joined: Sat May 01, 2021 8:18 pm
Byond Username: TypicalRig

Re: <LiarGG> - TypicalRig - Noting over an IC issue and intentional omission of information in note

Post by TypicalRig » #667124

To answer the disabler spam, it was not that I think it was or wasn't done in bad faith. It was that I thought my best course of action was just to retaliate with a non-combat citation as it was two players vs one, and tensions were already high, as you said. Particularly with the AI looking for a reason to participate in the mix, making it a potential three on one, or four on one in the event the HoS returned. Your response shows you lack foresight for the chaos that can result from sec infighting, particularly when both parties draw a weapon. I deescalated by choosing not to retaliate to what was likely blatant escalation bait. If I attacked back, what do you think would've happened? I handled that in the best way possible despite by the book, now having reason to escalate with them. Let's say I did win, guess what happens next. Two officers yelling for help, the AI gets involved, the HoS gets involved, it goes sour. I will repeat it for you so that it is simple enough to understand. I already deescalated with them once for what was a childish attack. I will give you this time to review escalation policy.

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

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

Let's say that from your perspective, Abuses-The-Stuns began conflict with a valid reason. In this case, refusal of critical services. He wants his laser gun for a "changeling in space outside of the armory" that I did not see in space despite looking at windows, not seeing damage or a ling outside, after this. (On this note, I found it really odd that he asked for a laser to deal with a ling in space, but no sec modsuit? Story didn't check out, but just throwing that detail out there.) But maybe I just missed it and he isn't lying by making the ling seem more urgent of a problem than it is. Who knows! He responds by breaking into the armory. Let's again work under the assumption that this is a good reason. Great! He has the green light to break in. The conflict is obviously going to lead to violence, but that's fine, the rules allow that. But wait! I'm the defender. I get to defend how things go from here, and I've decided to defend my armory. I use stuns first, they're failing me, the guns are running out of juice, I switch to lethals, the man finally stuns me and I think I'm down for the count, but I'm rescued by a foreigner lizard that doesn't know Galactic Common. What a twist of events! The intruder is broken, the intruder is cuffed, and the intruder's headset is removed before he can cause an even bigger conflict by getting a ton of people into the room for what would've been an even bigger brawl.

Now here's the other part of escalation policy, which is a bit more vague, albeit, still very relevant.

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

Conflict is automatically suspended when one participant is dead or incapacitated. A player who uses the state of incapacitation to take further action against the downed party chooses to extend the ongoing conflict past its original endpoint, and opens themselves up to further reprisal to avenge damage or recover stolen possessions."

In this order, again, simplified for your understanding: Conflict happened -> Violence happened -> Defender incapacitated the initiator (they were cuffed) -> Weren't treated due to being fine (captured non-lethally with cuffs). By escalation policy alone, I should've treated them and let them be on their way. Which would be the case if there weren't the following rules:

The 'act like an antag, get treated like one' part of Rule 4 of the main rules also applies to security.

Stunning an officer repeatedly, using lethal or restricted weapons on them, disrupting the arrests or sentences of dangerous criminals, or damaging the brig, are examples of behaviour that may make you valid for security under Rule 4. Make sure players deserve it when you treat them as an antag, when in doubt, err on the side of caution as poor behaviour on the part of security will not be tolerated.

You're probably going to somehow argue that them spam disablering me isn't acting like an antag. Armory was a grey area, according to you. Okay. Then there's also:

3. For arrested players, timed sentences up to a total of 10 minutes, buckle-cuffing, and stripping, are considered IC issues and are not actionable by admins.

Brig sentences totaling more than 10 minutes can be adminhelped, as can be gulag or perma sentences or a pattern of illegitimate punishment. However, security should refrain from confiscating items not related to any crimes, especially important department-specific items like hard suits. Obvious exceptions to this are things like radio headsets, if players use it to harass security over the radio while being arrested.

You listed removing his headset as a negative, when in actuality it's standard security procedure to remove headsets of a person that is crying for assistance to interfere with the arrest, and covered by policy. Of course I'm not going to have the guy call the moth Talon who helped disabler me over denying HIS BUDDY a gun, or get the attention of the AI that had randomly been messing with the airlocks after the HoS was long gone and not being ordered to, or the HoS that screamed like an entitled child for a shotgun.

And-

5. Lethal force may be used on a mob of players trying to force entry into the brig.

This is up to the discretion of the security player. Additionally, lethal force may be used immediately on anyone trying to enter the armory, in the armory, or leaving it.

With escalation policy in mind, I had the option to kill the person blatantly trespassing in the armory, but opted to give them a lengthy gulag instead.

Except, 1000 points isn't lengthy. Take this moment to review the headmin ruling topic on gulag: viewtopic.php?p=510239#p510239.

"500 points takes less than 5 minutes. If you actually put in the work it’s usually far lesser than any other sentence you’d be getting. I don’t really use it as sec, but I can acknowledge that its very effective for dealing with shitters." - Wesoda25

"Literally mine send. It takes like 5 minutes to get enough for a 1000 point sentence." - Anonmare

And, most importantly, the actual ruling its self.

"I think we are talking about edge cases here. Space law is a suggestion, and I wouldn't blame a warden that decides to gulag a lot of people when they're having a round full of tiders, but no, essentially, gulagging should not be equivalent to a regular brig sentence, you are right. We have agreed that gulagging is fine as it is, and anything you can complain about is probably an issue with them as a security player rather than something we can act on. You are free to ahelp if you think the punishment is harsher than it should be, but it's difficult to pinpoint whether or not it's fair without an actual case, which should probably be handled by admins in-game instead of policy." - Wubli

A headmin precedent is already conflicting with what you've ruled. And funny enough, it specifically mentions a warden dealing with tiders. Sound familiar? I gave him the equivalent of a five minute sentence for something I had an explicitly written green light backing on by the rules, and you were misguided enough to write it as being too harsh.

Just assume a headmin review is requested if you still disagree with this.
User avatar
LiarGG
In-Game Admin
Joined: Wed May 11, 2022 11:45 pm
Byond Username: LiarGG

Re: <LiarGG> - TypicalRig - Noting over an IC issue and intentional omission of information in note

Post by LiarGG » #667277

Hello again,
In short I am staying firm with minor note being justified for this and I will notify headmins as requested.

Now to finally address your concerns:
As for sec infighting, to be quite blatant, you seem to be the instigator. While denying HoS the shotgun is fine imo you have had multiple moments where you could’ve disperse the tension you have caused by this action, notably giving the secoff the weapon after he stated it is for a changeling AND after the HoS actually told you to give it out:

Code: Select all

04:01:41	SAY	Okpuc/(Swamp Water) "warden"	(204, 126, 2)	Security Locker Room
04:01:45	SAY	Okpuc/(Swamp Water) "give the working men"	(204, 126, 2)	Security Locker Room
04:01:46	SAY	Okpuc/(Swamp Water) "the lasers"	(204, 126, 2)	Security Locker Room
Not to mention not lying to the HoS about gulagging the secoff:

Code: Select all

04:09:45	SAY	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) "Letting him go."	(196, 146, 2)	Labor Shuttle Dock
04:09:58	GAME	TypicalRig/(Porkchop) teleported KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) to the Labor Camp (69,32,5) for 1000 points.	(196, 146, 2)	Labor Shuttle Dock
All I can say to this is: Your responses shows you lack foresight for the chaos that can result from sec infighting. You have chosen a playstyle that had a high likelihood of causing internal conflict and it did. It was a valid playstyle that has it’s place in this game for sure, but it was ultimately your choice. While not giving out the laser is justifiable, giving it out would be just as fine as well, even for this playstyle.

But I digress, for the actual meat of your argument, yes I agree that you not giving out weapons in this circumstance can be perceived as a refusal of critical service by the secoff and is a ground for legitimate conflict.
I will also say that you not standing around watching him take the gun himself - defending your armory is IC enough, sure, amazing! Target incapacitated, conflict ended, throw them out and be done with it. Would’ve been a shrug from me and called IC. Cringe for doing so while keeping in mind they essentially had a green light to have a weapon (Give the working men the lasers), but IC.

I will argue that them disabler spamming you over a window in the other room, when they couldn’t even reach you with their own access is not really acting like an antag given they didn’t even attempt to get to you (could’ve asked the AI), and them leaving you be right after that would support it. Not to mention you acknowledging it was them fooling around.

Thanks for pulling out sec policy rule 3 as this was the integral part for why I did not simply press the IC button. As you have quoted, Brig sentences totaling more than 10 minutes can be adminhelped, as can be gulag or perma sentences or a pattern of illegitimate punishment. This policy quite clearly states that gulag sentences are not always automatically IC and, by implication, you should have a decent reason for sending someone in for full 1000 points.
My take here being that dishing out this punishment to someone who’s had a greenlight to have a gun for a specific reason by the HoS, and decided to break a windoor to get it after you have refused to give it out, despite HoS telling you to do it is too much, and that you should’ve opted for one of the actually fully IC covered sentences.

Again, conflict was IC, your punishment was not. Hence the minor note. Whether the decision is justified or not I will leave to the headmins. Godspeed.
User avatar
TypicalRig
Joined: Sat May 01, 2021 8:18 pm
Byond Username: TypicalRig

Re: <LiarGG> - TypicalRig - Noting over an IC issue and intentional omission of information in note

Post by TypicalRig » #667291

An additional note: I was wondering why I didn't recall Swamp Water saying give the working man the lasers. Upon checking the timestamp, and matching them with the attack logs, I was being bombarded with disabler spam from both Hates-The-Stuns and Talon Mckendrick at the time. I'm unsure from the logs if Swamp was saying this to me directly or by radio at the moment (it says he's in the security locker room?), but it happened during the spam fire, and I think made me miss the text entirely. I was focused on Hates-The-Stuns and Talon in the moment. For reference: 04:01:41-04:01:57 for Swamp Water's order and the attack logs from the disabler spam are from 4:00:41-4:02:04. So I don't think that bit is fair to use against me as one of them had already started spam firing at me before the order was issued.

So from my perspective, no green light was given. It was a single officer acting out of anger. Perhaps if they weren't bombarding me with projectiles I would've seen it and my stance would've been different, but arguing with hypotheticals is pointless.

On a final note, on the topic of escalation, since I forgot to mention this, I'd like to bring up:
04:02:32 SAY KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) "can we kill warden" (201, 131, 2) Brig
04:05:08 SAY KickPaw/(Hates-The-Stun) "we gonna kill you" (207, 124, 2) Security Locker Room.

Two expressions of intent to murder, before the armory fight, which you conveniently ignored, before the armory fight had even started. I still spared him all the same.
User avatar
Timberpoes
In-Game Game Master
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:54 pm
Byond Username: Timberpoes

Re: <LiarGG> - TypicalRig - Noting over an IC issue and intentional omission of information in note

Post by Timberpoes » #668938

TypicalRig wrote: Wed Feb 22, 2023 10:41 pmJust assume a headmin review is requested if you still disagree with this.
Right. Let's make some progress on this one.

Firstly: Too many words, nobody's reading this much crap over a minor note.

Secondly: These are the guidelines for appealing notes:
viewtopic.php?p=347563#p347563
Note appeals:
Notes are remarks about players added to player's files in order to help keep track of player behavior, trends, as well as admin interactions with players. Notes have many uses and are not exclusively used to record rule breaking behavior, but we do recognize that their existence can seem like a black mark on the player.

For those reasons, notes can be appealed if they match one of the following two cases:
  1. The note is factually or materially incorrect.
    1. There must be a difference between how an admin who knew all the facts would view you vs how an admin who only had the note to go on would view you. If you were being a shit but the note didn't correctly detail exactly how you were being a shit, an appeal nitpicking this detail is unlikely to be granted.
    2. Statements that are clearly pure opinion on the admins part can not be incorrect (because that is what the admin actually believes), but may be appealed under case 2 below.
    3. Appealed bans are only factually incorrect if the conditions around ban itself was incorrect. Getting unbanned because you apologized or similar reasons is not grounds to have the auto-generated note about the ban removed. Likewise: getting unbanned because you broke the rules but the admin or a headmin later determined that a ban was "too much" is not grounds to remove the ban's note.
    4. Notes appealed under this rule may be amended rather than removed.
    5. Notes appealed under this rule will generally be more successful if appealing players offers suggested rewording that they feel properly accounts for nuances without minimizing what the note is trying to highlight. Understand that we have to balance keeping notes short and succinct with accurately reflecting the situation.
  2. The note's contents or existence is unjustifiably harsh to the player's standing in the eyes of admins reading the notes.
    1. Notes that contain admin opinions that unfairly paint the player in a bad light are one example.
      1. Emphasis on the phrase "unfairly". If you're repeatedly a shitter and an admin calls you a shitter in a note just take the hint and improve on not being a shitter
-by MSO
Give us the abridged version of how your appeal applies to these guidelines and which parts you're relying on to get your minor note overturned or amended.
/tg/station Codebase Maintainer
/tg/station Game Master/Discord Jannie: Feed me back in my thread.
/tg/station Admin Trainer: Service guarantees citizenship. Would you like to know more?
Feb 2022-Sep 2022 Host Vote Headmin
Mar 2023-Sep 2023 Admin Vote Headmin
User avatar
TypicalRig
Joined: Sat May 01, 2021 8:18 pm
Byond Username: TypicalRig

Re: <LiarGG> - TypicalRig - Noting over an IC issue and intentional omission of information in note

Post by TypicalRig » #669231

It goes without saying that notes which influence future admin decisions pertaining to players should only be given over an actual rule violation. It's unfair because I didn't break any rules and the note understates how layered the situation was. The officer I gulagged was already executable by the rules for breaking into the armory, yet I handled it non-lethally despite this.

LiarGG's main arguments are as such:
1. The officer had permission for a gun from the armory.
The attack logs where Hates and a random officer were spam disablering me in my office almost perfectly overlap with when the HoS gave permission for guns for the ling. This is what likely caused me to miss the order as I would obviously be more focused on the attacks against me. It's unfair to hold this against me on that basis.
2. The punishment was too severe.
-Breaking into the armory is an executable offense. He was given a gulag sentence equivalent to five minutes. He was given permission for a gun, which I missed, but didn't have permission to break into the armory for it. With the information I had available, this was a rather merciful punishment.
-LiarGG knew the AI had already shocked me for funsies and actively interfered with me before even when not explicitly ordered to, but told me I should've stuck to one of the other perfectly IC punishments for detainment. He should be intelligent enough to know why that was an unfair standard to present when up against the all knowing door opening machine. At least with gulag, there was a chance of it going unnoticed with the AI. I felt as though I had no choice.
-The officer I gulagged first asked for permission to kill me, and then explicitly said he will kill me. Even with the armory drama out of the picture that would've been enough to open him up for murder alone. Him breaking into the armory for weapons after saying he will murder me is just icing on the cake. How is this not a fair punishment?
3. I should've communicated with the HoS more and not lied to the HoS.
Say logs will show that the HoS roundstart started chimping out and screaming shotgunmaxxing when asked why he needed armory weapons shift start. Also claimed sec infighting was based. I think it's fair to assume someone like that can't be reasoned with. Beyond that, lying is an IC issue and acting without your department head's approval is permitted on LRP.

Also I can't make an admin complaint about this unless the note is appealed, but you're also saying that notes aren't exclusively for rule violations. If this is an opinion based note and stays, but isn't actually a rule violation, it also needs to be made clear if I'm still allowed to make a thread over the admin's conduct, as I had a lot of other information that I wanted to include, but omitted to keep it relevant to the note appeal. Which you still tldr'd at me anyway.
User avatar
Timberpoes
In-Game Game Master
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:54 pm
Byond Username: Timberpoes

Re: <LiarGG> - TypicalRig - Noting over an IC issue and intentional omission of information in note

Post by Timberpoes » #669269

I tl;dr'd you because nobody is wasting tons of time over a minor note.

It's the same note severity as "asked not to say antags IC" or "asked not to talk about rounds IC".

Here's the note in its current full form:
As a Warden sent a security officer to the labor shuttle with 1000 points sentence for breaking into armory in order to obtain a gun to fight a changeling. The security officer and Warden were antagonistic towards each other most of the round prior to this event. Altho Warden was justified in denying access to armory, gulag sentence of 1000 points without at least communicating this to their superiors is a bit excessive. Please try involving HoS or Captain next time in such situations, as 1000 point sentence for an officer is a bit excessive.
This appears to be factually correct?

It sets up the context to explain your actions, which works in your favour since those explanations are reasons why you were overall justified to do something.

It finally communicates even thought justified, it was a "tad excessive" to dive into a 1000 poing gulag sentence against a sec member without first talking with any superiors. The only negative part of the note and it's asking you to do a bit more the next time this scenario occurs.

Is this an unjustifiably harsh note? Is it even a harsh note at all? Is it incorrect in any way?

Hopefully you can see where I'm coming from here.

Perhaps there's some changes you can suggest that may make it more palatable for you? But 2/3rds of the note is dedicated to explaining why you had some justification to act so I'm not sure what more we can do for you if it isn't simply incorrect.

Even where you can't do a formal complaint, you still have the ability to post CONSTRUCTIVE feedback on LiarGG's feedback thread. Emphasis mine.
/tg/station Codebase Maintainer
/tg/station Game Master/Discord Jannie: Feed me back in my thread.
/tg/station Admin Trainer: Service guarantees citizenship. Would you like to know more?
Feb 2022-Sep 2022 Host Vote Headmin
Mar 2023-Sep 2023 Admin Vote Headmin
User avatar
TypicalRig
Joined: Sat May 01, 2021 8:18 pm
Byond Username: TypicalRig

Re: <LiarGG> - TypicalRig - Noting over an IC issue and intentional omission of information in note

Post by TypicalRig » #669538

You have provided, and specifically pointed this out, yourself: "Notes that contain admin opinions that unfairly paint the player in a bad light are one example."

The note mentions that I and the security officer were "antagonistic towards eachother", but conveniently leaves out the same tidbit of information for the HoS being antagonistic. Logs, as you have hopefully read this time, confirm this. If the argument is that I should communicate with the HoS, then it obviously paints me in a bad light when he also conveniently neglects to mention in the note that the same HoS he expected me to communicate with also had "stunned my warden to shotgunmaxx".

From an admin's perspective, who has zero context, the note makes it sound like it's a one on one conflict in an otherwise calm round. Like there wasn't an HoS and two other officers roundstart rushing the armory. Like there wasn't two officers spam firing disablers at me in my office. Like an AI wasn't shocking and opening doors and interfering with the arrest even when not explicitly ordered to. The note being factually correct doesn't inherently make it fair and a good description of the scenario that unfolded. The note didn't mention the officer threatened to kill me twice. Are you legitimately trying to claim that this is a fair note with these key things in mind? Even if it did mention the murder threats in the note, it wouldn't be fair to call it an excessive punishment, as my life was on the line at this stage. Lying by omission is still lying.

"The only negative part of the note and it's asking you to do a bit more the next time this scenario occurs." And that's where the note falls flat on its face. An officer is breaking into the armory. I stun and cuff him. What next? He clearly isn't going to stop if I uncuff him and chuck him off. I don't have materials in the brig to fix it on the spot. And even if I did, the AI was shocking us and tampering with the doors. I implore you to take a moment, read the logs you skipped, and think about what you would do at the exact moment where an officer started breaking into the armory after giving death threats to you. What "a bit more" could I have done? Talk to the HoS who had stunned me to shotgunmaxxx? Talk to the captain who was dealing with his own lethal infighting with the acting captain that shift? Talk to the AI who shocked both me and the officer I was pulling? Talk to the other officers that disabler spammed me in my office? In your rose-tinted idealistic everyone lives happily after round, what was my "unexcessive" option here that wouldn't lead to more drama? I had no reason think he wouldn't attack me if I uncuffed him. I had no reason to think the HoS wouldn't free him if I told him. At the point of detainment, here were my options from my perspective:

1. I throw him out of the armory and uncuff him. He returns and attacks again. Potentially gets more people involved and causes the situation to get worse. What did that solve?
2. I uncuff him on the HoS's orders. Again, no guarantee he won't attack me, but gets the HoS off my case. Still will probably lead to an armory fight. What did that solve?
3. I still gulag him, tell the HoS I gulag him. The HoS attacks me and/or just frees the officer, who will likely attack me. What did that solve?
4. Throw him in a brig cell with a timer. That's totally not going to be opened by the AI!
5. I gulag him, lie about it to stop further drama short-term, and proceed with my round.
6. I gulag him with a... shorter sentence? Lie about it to stop further drama-short-term, and proceed with my round. What does this change from option five, and at what point do you draw the line of "excessive on the basis of not informing a head"?

I went with option five, and the officer still went the route of attacking me at round end on the shuttle, but at least it kept him out of my hair. The talking to a superior part is unfair, as involving the HoS leads to a no-win scenario where I'm likely to die. The captain and acting captain were involved in an almost round long fight to the death drama.

Hopefully you can see where I'm coming from here.
User avatar
Misdoubtful
In-Game Game Master
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2020 7:03 pm
Byond Username: Misdoubtful
Location: Delivering hugs!

Re: <LiarGG> - TypicalRig - Noting over an IC issue and intentional omission of information in note

Post by Misdoubtful » #678990

Firstly, we'd like to apologize on the delay with this one.

In the end we feel that this note is factual on events that took place, and a consideration on punishments for other security members.

While an internal concern was raised regarding the overall message this could leave regarding the warden being the boss of their own space, as a majority we feel that this would NOT carry through as one. We are still recording that concern regardless.

This was included in the note as a factual representation of what occurred, and a request to consider lighter alternatives or a degree more of effort when it comes to brigging/gulagging seccies, and is not a limitation on what the warden can do, but what they can jump to considering the dynamic of security.

As such we are upholding this note.

That being said you are welcome to leave feedback, and do keep in mind that if you have the grounds to do something like this to another sec officer, it may be something worthy of an ahelp to verify.
Hugs
Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users