Ban appeal speedrun any% (peanut)

[Fren256]

Bottom post of the previous page:

The round barely ended and you're already making an appeal chill

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=34605

[sinfulbliss]

Escaping from perma almost always allows escalation to execution. We can home in more closely on Maia's choice to ignore the HoS, however...

If the primary issue in the ban is becoming the disobedience of my orders to Roentgen then this ban’s lost its merit, and I’ve likley fucked up massively.

While there were some tactical considerations, such as not pissing off the AI and keeping focus on revs, I was mostly concerned with whether or not re-ed would have been lawful (in terms or rules and policy, not space law) or not.

However it seems that the rules are okay with what Roentgen did in regards to killing escaping prisoners during a revolution. And going through the logs the prisoners were planning to breakout and abuse law 1, plus a borg pulled a prisoner away from Roentgen without any cause or orders, it seems? This might have caused Roentgen to use more direct action. Either way in terms of policy their actions seem to be OK. So my concerns with policy and rules was entierly mistaken.

Even tactically my order was incorrect looking back at it, cause the traitor that was perma’d had some means, but especially motive, to raise hell for Sec and would have had they not been caught. The other two, maybe not as much motive, but they could still have been threats.

While the AI would have been pissed the prisoners were going to use Asimov against sec anyways, and maybe Roentgen cottoned onto that while I didn’t, since I was at cargo securing it. Therefore for safety’s sake getting them out of the picture, then possibly reviving them after the revolution, would be more tactically sound.

Tldr: I’m pretty sure this one’s on me, I fucked up and gave a bad instruction that shouldn’t have been followed to begin with. Wonder if I should toss this in the ban thread proper?

you’re allowed to put it in the threat proper since you were involved, go for it

[nickup9]

Yeah, I’ll write something out on the appeal when I’m back at my laptop.

[sinfulbliss]

when exactly are you supposed to contact the hos to get permission to execute escaping perma prisoners during a revolution

do admins not understand what executive decisions are

this is why i said it reminded me of my secbans on fulp. on fulp even if you have 3 cuffed cultists with a dead chaplain, a bombed cargo, and see the HoS being mauled outside of brig, you cant lethal them or kill them without captain permission. that’s right, even if the captain has been sacced

their reply would be some permutation of “then die ig”

rules above IC practicality. it’s a mentality I think TG is fortunately far from

[Itseasytosee2me]

Escaping from perma almost always allows escalation to execution. We can home in more closely on Maia's choice to ignore the HoS, however...

If the primary issue in the ban is becoming the disobedience of my orders to Roentgen then this ban’s lost its merit, and I’ve likley fucked up massively.

While there were some tactical considerations, such as not pissing off the AI and keeping focus on revs, I was mostly concerned with whether or not re-ed would have been lawful (in terms or rules and policy, not space law) or not.

However it seems that the rules are okay with what Roentgen did in regards to killing escaping prisoners during a revolution. And going through the logs the prisoners were planning to breakout and abuse law 1, plus a borg pulled a prisoner away from Roentgen without any cause or orders, it seems? This might have caused Roentgen to use more direct action. Either way in terms of policy their actions seem to be OK. So my concerns with policy and rules was entierly mistaken.

Even tactically my order was incorrect looking back at it, cause the traitor that was perma’d had some means, but especially motive, to raise hell for Sec and would have had they not been caught. The other two, maybe not as much motive, but they could still have been threats.

While the AI would have been pissed the prisoners were going to use Asimov against sec anyways, and maybe Roentgen cottoned onto that while I didn’t, since I was at cargo securing it. Therefore for safety’s sake getting them out of the picture, then possibly reviving them after the revolution, would be more tactically sound.

Tldr: I’m pretty sure this one’s on me, I fucked up and gave a bad instruction that shouldn’t have been followed to begin with. Wonder if I should toss this in the ban thread proper?

I don't think you can place any weight of this ban on yourself. You may indeed have fucked up and given a suboptimal order in a stressful situation, but would that not be expected sometimes from a head of security in character? Following this logic, would it not make sense for a warden who is in a similar stressful situation to disobey said orders and do something rash? And to me at least, that's justification enough for the actions that happened. "Emergent storytelling" and all that.

[dendydoom]

Escaping from perma almost always allows escalation to execution. We can home in more closely on Maia's choice to ignore the HoS, however...

If the primary issue in the ban is becoming the disobedience of my orders to Roentgen then this ban’s lost its merit, and I’ve likley fucked up massively.

While there were some tactical considerations, such as not pissing off the AI and keeping focus on revs, I was mostly concerned with whether or not re-ed would have been lawful (in terms or rules and policy, not space law) or not.

However it seems that the rules are okay with what Roentgen did in regards to killing escaping prisoners during a revolution. And going through the logs the prisoners were planning to breakout and abuse law 1, plus a borg pulled a prisoner away from Roentgen without any cause or orders, it seems? This might have caused Roentgen to use more direct action. Either way in terms of policy their actions seem to be OK. So my concerns with policy and rules was entierly mistaken.

Even tactically my order was incorrect looking back at it, cause the traitor that was perma’d had some means, but especially motive, to raise hell for Sec and would have had they not been caught. The other two, maybe not as much motive, but they could still have been threats.

While the AI would have been pissed the prisoners were going to use Asimov against sec anyways, and maybe Roentgen cottoned onto that while I didn’t, since I was at cargo securing it. Therefore for safety’s sake getting them out of the picture, then possibly reviving them after the revolution, would be more tactically sound.

Tldr: I’m pretty sure this one’s on me, I fucked up and gave a bad instruction that shouldn’t have been followed to begin with. Wonder if I should toss this in the ban thread proper?

firstly, thank you for posting this - it's insightful, honest and massively helpful. as others have pointed out, you could absolutely put this into the appeal thread as it's pertinent and helpful information.

secondly, please don't put the pressure of these kinds of outcomes on yourself. this game is designed to create messy situations, and we all should strive to understand that. a large portion of the process of deciding a ruling depends on the reasoning and mindset of the person at the time. in many cases, it's more important than what the actual outcome was. no one can predict the future, and everyone, especially sec/command, are regularly making heavy decisions based on imperfect and incomplete information.

[Justice12354]

Oh noooo... An Admin Candidate did something I disagree with! /tg/ is lost and the administrative team just can't understand simple concepts!! Wait... Are you telling me some admins are showing disapproval of the ban? BULLSHIT!!!

[nickup9]

I did give a suboptimal order, which in and of itself may be excusable as mistakes happen, but someone closer to the incident took what I now understand to be a more proper course of action which lead to that person getting banned, which is inexcusable from me.

Also I sent in the ahelp for accountability’s sake due to the knowledge I had on hand (which again, was incorrect or misinformed) but didn’t expect a ban, at most a chat or note. So no, this one is entirely on me.

E: meant to be a reply to Itseasytosee2me - phone formatting mistake

[dendydoom]

i'm not going to pass sincere judgement on a ban until i've read the logs for myself and seen all the information first-hand.

however, if it were me in that situation, and all second-hand accounts i've heard are true, then there is a pretty good chance that i'd do the same thing and cap the dangerous prisoners who broke out of perma and made it inhospitable during a red alert scenario.

[Super Aggro Crag]

Oh noooo... An Admin Candidate did something I disagree with! /tg/ is lost and the administrative team just can't understand simple concepts!! Wait... Are you telling me some admins are showing disapproval of the ban? BULLSHIT!!!

this kind of sardonicism isn't helpful to the discourse, please chill out

[EmpressMaia]

Yeah, I’ll write something out on the appeal when I’m back at my laptop.

appreciated

[Justice12354]

Oh noooo... An Admin Candidate did something I disagree with! /tg/ is lost and the administrative team just can't understand simple concepts!! Wait... Are you telling me some admins are showing disapproval of the ban? BULLSHIT!!!

this kind of sardonicism isn't helpful to the discourse, please chill out

It points out some pretty important points without pointing at no one in specific and I'm confident that it managed to pass the message. Just because it doesn't push your view, it doesn't mean it's not helpful. Also, I'm chill

[Super Aggro Crag]

Oh noooo... An Admin Candidate did something I disagree with! /tg/ is lost and the administrative team just can't understand simple concepts!! Wait... Are you telling me some admins are showing disapproval of the ban? BULLSHIT!!!

this kind of sardonicism isn't helpful to the discourse, please chill out

It points out some pretty important points without pointing at no one in specific and I'm confident that it managed to pass the message. Just because it doesn't push your view, it doesn't mean it's not helpful. Also, I'm chill

world's least chill administrator

[Justice12354]

world's least chill administrator

I'm extremely heated. Anyone please bring me a cooler!

[Timberpoes]

Tldr: I’m pretty sure this one’s on me, I fucked up and gave a bad instruction that shouldn’t have been followed to begin with. Wonder if I should toss this in the ban thread proper?

Absolutely! As the other forumites have mentioned, since you were an involved party (the HoS whose orders were bypassed) you can provide more insight and context into the shift and what Maia got banned for.

[EmpressMaia]

world's least chill administrator

I'm extremely heated. Anyone please bring me a cooler!

heres a cold sprite

[Justice12354]

world's least chill administrator

I'm extremely heated. Anyone please bring me a cooler!

Spoiler:

heres a cold sprite

That's a huuuuge can. Cheers!

[Cheshify]

Fulptier ban, reminds me of the secbans I’d get on Fulp.

It’s not playing-to-win to choose the ONLY sensible option in the situation. People in perma are almost always also valid for execution, that’s why spacelaw usually says “perma/capital punishment” as options.

If there’s a revolution you don’t have time to fuck around with perma prisoners escaping, and besides, escaping perma itself makes you valid for execution I’m pretty sure??

Valid isn't really a thing on MRP, and executions should usually be authorized by HOS/Cap outside of very extreme circumstances

I was a bit unclear, I didn’t mean valid as in SS13 lingo, I meant valid as in security is authorized to validly execute escaped perma prisoners (I’m fairly sure), particularly in cases where it’s impractical or impossible to arrest all of them.

If you ask me, a rev round in which three perma prisoners escape, one of whom is a tot and the other two of whom are bad enough to get perma, is a situation where lethal force is 100% authorized.

Ah, I appreciate the elaborated-on terminology. Honestly, there have been rounds as a secoff where prisoners randomly escape perma and I just want to beat them to death, so I genuinely and truly get it.

[Cheshify]

All in all, with the context Isratosh provided I can see how I might do the same in their position. Optics are a huge thing, reasonable ban that a respectful appeal is meant to clear up.

[Vekter]

Maia appeals every ban she gets because she hopes she'll get lucky and the headmins will overturn it, not because there's any actual ground to stand on regarding whether or not she deserved to be banned.

I guess we'll see the facts on this one when Isratosh gets a chance to post logs, but I'm not hopeful.

fuck you too

That's fair, that was kinda rude of me. My apologies.

E: I owe you a double apology given that you were acting on someone else's orders. Clearly not your fault beyond doing what you were told.

[sinfulbliss]

All in all, with the context Isratosh provided I can see how I might do the same in their position. Optics are a huge thing, reasonable ban that a respectful appeal is meant to clear up.

I don't know, I’m not a fan of the ban first, ask questions later mentality. Context should be fully obtained and all angles taken into consideration before doling out a weeklong ban.

[BrolyButterfingers]

Maia appeals every ban she gets because she hopes she'll get lucky and the headmins will overturn it, not because there's any actual ground to stand on regarding whether or not she deserved to be banned.

I guess we'll see the facts on this one when Isratosh gets a chance to post logs, but I'm not hopeful.

E: This was rude and I shouldn't have said it, I apologize to Maia on the next page.

I'll be real with you, if I got this ban viewtopic.php?f=34&t=33374&p=665249 I'd be actively appealing every single ban/note I got afterwards in an attempt to keep my record down because that ban was completely atrocious and very much a "notes are a punishment" moment.

I'm not surprised Maia immediately appealed this one considering her past ban.

E: Especially considering this ban was UPHELD lmao.

[TypicalRig]

too lazy to read through this peanut if it was mentioned yet, but prisoner policy explicitly says that you shouldn't be taking the role just to stage breakouts. This is already pretty heavily enforced on LRP since it leads to some pretty escalation baity scenarios otherwise so I thought it'd be considered even worse on MRP where the prisoners try to breakout without a valid reason? Why did the prisoners want to bust out anyway minus the one syndicate agent prisoner?

[sinfulbliss]

E: Especially considering this ban was UPHELD lmao.

Holy shit I forgot it was upheld. what an L ruling. this is why you can’t just elect status quo you gotta have at LEAST 2/3 headmins as “shake it up” headmins to make the hard calls and piss off some of the team in the process

[Timberpoes]

E: Especially considering this ban was UPHELD lmao.

Holy shit I forgot it was upheld. what an L ruling. this is why you can’t just elect status quo you gotta have at LEAST 2/3 headmins as “shake it up” headmins to make the hard calls and piss off some of the team in the process

That upheld pissed off a few of the admin team as well. It was even mentioned in Rave's headmin candidate thread last election.

I think it's safe to say that this term wouldn't have upheld it because I was a VERY strong critic of it, and Kieth's based. It would have come down to a 2:1 overturn based on Misdoubtful's vote in favour of it during that appeal. I wouldn't have even left it as a note. It was a total non-incident. A pure SS13 moment.

How Maia's history was applied to the incident was way out of line with the spirit of SS13 rule enforcement I encourage the admin team to follow as best practice.

I encourage admins to interpret the rules loosely, because there are a great many ways and interpretations of our rules that strictly speaking defeat roleplay moments and awesome interactions. The purpose of tgstation is to host a sandbox where all those great SS13 moments can happen. An antag pissing off a player all shift to the point they build a 1x1 gay plasma chamber baby jail is peak SS13. The antag breaking out of their GBJ due to unforeseen circumstances is peak SS13. The antag intentionally going out of their way to break the trap in a way that causes the worst outcome is peak SS13.

Not only was that compatible with the letter of the rules, but also the spirit of the rules, and the spirit of what the MRP ruleset seeks to accomplish.

4 headmins voting to uphold that ban was a shame, but not a precedent. Because I hope they were a one-off and no future headmin team takes the same approach in the same situation.

This incident isn't quite the same, but I still encourage admins to consider all the context of the shift as a whole. The roleplay sandbox is flexible, and rule enforcement has to be flexible with it.

[Vekter]

E: Especially considering this ban was UPHELD lmao.

Holy shit I forgot it was upheld. what an L ruling. this is why you can’t just elect status quo you gotta have at LEAST 2/3 headmins as “shake it up” headmins to make the hard calls and piss off some of the team in the process

God, that thread has been discussed to death by now, but I really feel conflicted on it. I still think Maia holds at least a little responsibility as the situation would have never happened if she never built it, but I also acknowledge that building it isn't explicitly against the rules and she can't really be held responsible for the actions of others.

Seems like a note not ban kind of situation in hindsight I guess.

[Lacran]

Admins need to get a more coherent metric for reform.

Maia rontegen back when she first started playing was a dumbass, they were clueless and super volatile and got into trouble A LOT, but they did improve. I remember dealing with them when I played HoS and I can definitely affirm a gradual and very noticible improvement. I took some breaks from ss13 and coming back Maia is genuinely one of the most consistent and reliable security players on MRP. They can still get a bit too fired up but the improvement they have made is genuinely impressive. If admins are giong to constantly punish Maia for their history they need to also acknowledge that the quality and conduct of this player is very different to the one a year ago.

[Boris]

I dunno about you but if I was in Maia's shoes I would probably have done the exact same thing. If security cannot contain you for your punishment for whatever reason, be it an utter lack of suitable holding areas, or you having a way to cleanly and efficently get out of their grasp, them killing you becomes very reasonable very fast.

also does anyone know where the fuck people thinking the HoS has any right to say who does and who does not get executed came from??? i'm like 94% sure that that's the captain's job and theirs alone???

[BrolyButterfingers]

I dunno about you but if I was in Maia's shoes I would probably have done the exact same thing. If security cannot contain you for your punishment for whatever reason, be it an utter lack of suitable holding areas, or you having a way to cleanly and efficently get out of their grasp, them killing you becomes very reasonable very fast.

also does anyone know where the fuck people thinking the HoS has any right to say who does and who does not get executed came from??? i'm like 94% sure that that's the captain's job and theirs alone???

I know for certain I would have 100% blasted their ass and moved on, I've done it earlier in revs and for less.

[Lacran]

also does anyone know where the fuck people thinking the HoS has any right to say who does and who does not get executed came from??? i'm like 94% sure that that's the captain's job and theirs alone???

There's a rule 3 precedent under chain of command:

The internal chain of command for security is Head of Security > Warden > Officers & Detective.
Security are expected by default to follow the orders of their superiors, especially when determining the punishment of those you apprehend. When determining severe punishments such as permanent incarceration or execution, make an effort to contact a superior if the situation permits it.

Following this any member of security can perform an execution, but officers and wardens should contact the HoS for permission, and the HoS should contact the Captain for permission but it isn't mandatory.

What generally happens is the Captain gets the final say on an execution but typically delegate executions to the HoS unless they are going to be clearly controversial. From an officer or warden perspective, the HoS generally decides executions.

[Boris]

snip

After a quick comb through the wiki it turns out that the captain job page, the guide to security page, and space law itself mention that only the captain gets to authorize execution.

The blurbs in the MRP rules page regarding executions are more recent, and actually in the rules page though, so it's prooooooobably what should be followed?

Someone should probably make a policy discussion thread regarding this tbh.

[MooCow12]

the phrase "playing-to-win behavior" in their ban reason makes me want to make a lizard named "plays to win" (he does esports)


Also I dont think solving a situation as fast as possible in order to move onto something else is necessarily playing to win, even if the prisoners had some sort of god given right to not be executed I don`t think their right to live outweighs their need to be "dealt with" so the officer can move onto more pressing matters.

More importantly I dont think left clicking someone who is already defeated is playing to win either, you can call it being a dick or grief but its not playing to win when you already "won"

[BONERMASTER]

snip

After a quick comb through the wiki it turns out that the captain job page, the guide to security page, and space law itself mention that only the captain gets to authorize execution.

The blurbs in the MRP rules page regarding executions are more recent, and actually in the rules page though, so it's prooooooobably what should be followed?

Someone should probably make a policy discussion thread regarding this tbh.

Quoting space law, are we? Kappa


With funny regards
-BONERMASTER

[ekaterina]

This is the worst ban since Crag's entrapment. Admin complaint material right here.

[sinfulbliss]

4 headmins voting to uphold that ban was a shame, but not a precedent. Because I hope they were a one-off and no future headmin team takes the same approach in the same situation.

If 3 MRP admins that were popular enough to run for and win headmin, would all vote to uphold it as a dayban, it tells me it’s more likely than not that that’s the majority opinion among whatever circles influence that community.

So I’m not nearly as confident as you that this was a rare exception, but I hope you’re right. If you’ve ever considered futureproofing though there’s no time like the present

[TheLoLSwat]

snip

After a quick comb through the wiki it turns out that the captain job page, the guide to security page, and space law itself mention that only the captain gets to authorize execution.

The blurbs in the MRP rules page regarding executions are more recent, and actually in the rules page though, so it's prooooooobably what should be followed?

Someone should probably make a policy discussion thread regarding this tbh.

[Not-Dorsidarf]

"Only the captain can authorise executions" did use to be a thing that actually mattered in theory.

I mean, the captain basically never said "no" but they did theoretically have to say ":s we caught a bad guy captain can we kill him"

but its been many years since anyone gave a shit about that, so long in fact that an entirely new execution authorisation rule was made

[Archie700]

One of those executed was a confirmed traitor who was the mastermind behind the escape.
This is more than enough for Maia to execute that man, and the others for assisting him.
She's also one person against three, what is she supposed to do at that point, especially with a revolution currently brewing and heads barricaded at security.
It doesn't matter if security wasn't attacked, there was a linked borg with the prisoners, it was only a matter a time before the AI took action to free the prisoners, especially since they got as far as Labor Shuttle Dock before Maia intercepted.

[RedBaronFlyer]

One of those executed was a confirmed traitor who was the mastermind behind the escape.
This is more than enough for Maia to execute that man, and the others for assisting him.
She's also one person against three, what is she supposed to do at that point, especially with a revolution currently brewing and heads barricaded at security.
It doesn't matter if security wasn't attacked, there was a linked borg with the prisoners, it was only a matter a time before the AI took action to free the prisoners, especially since they got as far as Labor Shuttle Dock before Maia intercepted.

It kinda feels almost like armchair security for the ban reason. Like, yeah, hypothetically, Maia should have stun batoned them all, detained each one separately, and waited for mindshields. I'm not great at logdiving but I do know (via watching HurrDurrHurr/BrollyButterfinger's stream) that cargo was controlled by revolutionaries at one point, and had several compromised techies waiting for a chance to pounce on the QM prior to actually going through with it.

I feel like it's almost being taken in a vacuum as if it was that the Warden randomly decided to kill all the prisoners for trying to escape, when the banning admin really should have considered the context in which the summary execution took place. A warden mowing down the prisoners and a borg in an isolated and out-of-context situation sounds like shitsec behavior. During a green/blue alert a ban for such behavior would be justified (DEPENDING ON CONEXT). Killing prisoners (one of which was a perma'd antag) trying to jailbreak during a revolutionary round with several heads of staff dead and multiple departments fallen to revs is a completely different scenario.

[conrad]

Admins need to get a more coherent metric for reform.

Maia rontegen back when she first started playing was a dumbass, they were clueless and super volatile and got into trouble A LOT, but they did improve. I remember dealing with them when I played HoS and I can definitely affirm a gradual and very noticible improvement. I took some breaks from ss13 and coming back Maia is genuinely one of the most consistent and reliable security players on MRP. They can still get a bit too fired up but the improvement they have made is genuinely impressive. If admins are giong to constantly punish Maia for their history they need to also acknowledge that the quality and conduct of this player is very different to the one a year ago.

Decisions from the admin team are always gonna be inconsistent. Everything is mostofthetimerisms. Ban durations are never set anywhere (the closest thing are permabans and the 1 day per kill thing). Any time I brought this up I got "it's only a gas sim maaaan" or "stop bloating the rules nobody reads them".

That's just the nature of the game. It's probably worse on Manuel since there's more admins there and they tend to disagree a lot.

[BrolyButterfingers]

Ayy, the ban got lifted and isn't being replaced with a note.

Maia is really getting unlucky with her note history being used against her.

[Lacran]

Yeah good on isra for dealing with it maturely and with humility

[Vekter]

Yeah, that seems fair.

[Likteer]

aura of mald in the whole appeal

What are you on about - that this person is SECRETLY too angry about the whole thing?

[RedBaronFlyer]

aura of mald in the whole appeal

What are you on about - that this person is SECRETLY too angry about the whole thing?

For some bizarre reason some users see being frustrated by something stupid as a weakness.

It’s part of the reason why arguments on TG always have this “I’m not mad bro, you’re mad, you’re so mad bro” energy to them.