BYOND account: The unloved rock
Character name: Is-A-Lizard
Ban type: Security Jobban
Ban length: Permanent
Ban reason: Banned from Roles: Head of Security, Warden, Security Officer permanently - Banned for murder - As a security officer, improperly escalated an event with three crusaders leading to all three of them being killed by him. Ignoring the fact that he precipitated the events by telling them he was going to do so, going to security to get armed and then using this escalation as justification to kill them, he ignored CentComm direction to not harm them and admitted to acting with incomplete information when dealing with them. Given lengthy note history pertaining to similar circumstances, I don't believe this player has any reason to play security for some time.
Time ban was placed: 2020-06-22 03:27:07
Server you were playing on when banned: Manuel
Round ID in which ban was placed: 140134
Your side of the story: I was a lone security officer In a round where there was a captain, who promoted someone to the position of "thane" as his bodyguard. I didn't trust this person after they had murdered someone in front of me but other than these two there was nobody else I could expect help from. There was an HOS who was completely dead before this incident occured. Neither of these people were available at the time despite me asking for their help, one because the captain was dead and the other because the "thane" was actually a traitor. I had not spent very much time in the round in the chapel until this event.
The first bit of the round I believe is relevant is that there was a vague centcomm announcement about some sort of angels, or holy people. We were loosely advised to avoid starting conflict with them immediately, but it gave the implication that conflict was an option, though a poor one. this was very early with the round. I don't think I can find it in the logs. Between that point and dealing with the situation I have been banned for I had dealt with suspicions of a scientist planning to plant bombs, dealt with said scientist being murdered by the captain's "thane", the head of security mysteriously dying. By this point I had assumed that whatever the announcement about angels was, had completely subsided. we had recieved a command report a while back, but I didn't have the time to read it. the final situation IIRC before I dealt with the crusaders was pirates attacking the brig, causing me severe blood loss and leaving me dead in medbay for several minutes and unconscious for longer. This left me missing a lot of information in that time period as well. After this I believe i used the HOS' id to check what the command report was, and it said something about holy signals being detected on the station.
At the chapel I had found the chaplain outside, who said they had been driven out of the chapel by the crusaders. Looking into the chapel I saw an empty room with crusaders and a priest in it. I overheard them talking about how they only needed to hold the chapel for five more minutes, which concerned me. At this point I had assumed that whatever the announcement about holy people was so long ago, warning not to start conflict, had resulted in conflict, which is why armed crusaders had driven the chaplain out of his chapel. I wasn't entirely sure what to do. I had asked the captain for help, perhaps from his thane, but I got no response. I was outnumbered by the crusaders and I threatened to kill them, telling to leave the chapel, it doesn't matter how. I then went to brig to prepare if I had to fight the crusaders had they not left the chapel. This is the first point at which I was in the wrong according to the ban, as my threat to kill them if they did not leave was deemed too aggressive and was thus me escalating the conflict. I went to brig, got a riot shield, and when I went back the chaplain was already fighting the crusaders. I helped the chaplain and we ended up killing the crusaders. Afterwards I Went back to brig to figure out why the captain wasn't responding and the rest of the round I don't think is relevant. Aura did not contact me until the emergency shuttle had already left the station.
Why you think you should be unbanned:
I think that this ban is extreme in most areas, from being as bluntly wrong as "banned for murder" to it saying all three were killed by me, to that it was implying that I was doing something wrong by acting without complete information, to "Lengthy note history pertaining to similar circumstances."
I'll start with "Lengthy note history for similar circumstances." I do have a large amount of notes since I've been playing this game for over five years now, but I don't think many of them are pertaining to "similar circumstances". Many of my notes are so old that they aren't visible to me, and of those that are visible, only two of them are related to my conduct as security. One is from 2018 and pertains to me harming one of my prisoners, another is from 2019 and is for not giving a hulk medical help after I had sent them into soft critical condition at only one health below zero, with them succumbing while I was trying to get them first aid. I don't think either of these are similar circumstances to validhunting too hard on manuel.
Next is that I personally killed all 3 crusaders, murdered them as it says, which is just exaggeration. I don't know what would've happened if I had returned to the chapel after demanding the 3 crusaders disperse and they were all still here, but that isn't what happened. What happened is I returned to find the chaplain lethally fighting the crusaders. The fight was in escape, not the chapel, so as far as i could tell they had attacked the chaplain, the chaplain hadn't attacked them. The chaplain was doing decently in the fight on their own too- I didn't murder 3 crusaders, I assisted the chaplain in killing 3 crusaders. Lethal force was reasonable in that situation because I was outnumbered 3 to 1 by crusaders alone- most officers don't even carry that many pairs of handcuffs. With the chaplain, I was still outnumbered by two men with swords and armor and a priest that was effective enough at healing the others that they had went down several times. I was encouraged to use lethal force because the chaplain was already doing so- if I hadn't been there, either the chaplain would've died or the crusaders would've, or both. I didn't start the conflict with the crusaders, either they or the chaplain did. I don't think the chaplain did because I told them to wait for me to come back, but Aura had said that I had escalated the conflict by threatening to kill the crusaders. While that was with usage as an attempt to scare them, I don't see how me escalating the conflict with my words is comparable to having actually started attacking the crusaders.
"he ignored CentComm direction to not harm them and admitted to acting with incomplete information when dealing with them." is something I completely disagree with on several levels.
First off, though I cannot find the exact wording of Centcomm's direction, it was over half an hour before the conflict with the crusaders actually occured so even if I realised those words were still relevant, in my memory they weren't exactly an order not to attack the crusaders- they were more of a suggestion or warning that if you do attack them, you should be prepared for a large engagement. That doesn't mean I wanted to go against centcomm's orders and attack the large horde of baddies, but I didn't even realise those words were still relevant because of how long ago they were- I didn't have access to complete information on the situation because I was the sole security officer trying to deal with a lot of other problems and the captain didn't even provide me with the command report's information at the time it was created.
But acting with incomplete information is part of the game! SS13 is built on the fact that you can't always know everything for sure, and I was just somewhat confused on the situation with the crusaders and what signs I had pointed to them performing a violent takeover of the chapel. What I did know was that these cultists seemed dangerous, and that they just needed to hold the chapel for five more minutes, according to them- I perceived this as there being some danger if I let them control the chapel for five minutes more. When I saw them and the chaplain fighting in escape, of course I didn't know who attacked who first, but what was I supposed to do as an officer? not intervene? The chaplain was a member of the station and the 3 crusaders were invaders. I acted to defend the chaplain. When I said I acted on incomplete information I meant that the whole round was disorienting since I hadn't got access to command reports at the time they were written (if the admins wanted the information to be public about this event, they should've made it an announcement instead), the captain went missing around the same time as I was dealing with the crusaders, and I had missed about 5-10 minutes of information when I was unconscious in medbay. I also was too busy worrying about the bomb threat and the subsequent violence by the "thane" for me to have had any idea what was going on in the chapel before. I was the only security officer facing 3 opponents of unknown danger level but at minimum the level being "has a sword and armor". My first action was to try to scare them out of the chapel, my second was to prepare so I could deal with the situation properly, and the third was for me to discover the chaplain already engaged in combat with them.
"banned for murder" and "all three of them being killed by him" are gross exaggerations when the actual fighting started between the crusaders and the chaplain with me stepping in to defend the latter, the crusaders making no attempt to leave when I demanded it earlier and seemingly encroaching further into the station, acting with incomplete information is said as if it isn't an intended situation in the game and as if I was just going "I see bad man, I click", and "lengthy note history" is only accurate if lengthy means that my notes were all a long time ago. Given that I was completely alone in this situation with no one to help me and that in the beginning of the conflict I was underequipped to deal with the crusaders calmly while when I returned to the conflict it was already violent. I don't think it's fair to permanently ban me from all security roles for helping the chaplain finish off the crusaders.
[Dr. Aura] The unloved Rock - Manuel secban for validing an event too hard
-
confused rock
- Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2015 12:18 am
- Byond Username: The unloved rock
-
Dr. Aura
- Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2015 12:18 am
- Byond Username: Dr. Aura
Re: [Dr. Aura] The unloved Rock - Manuel secban for validing an event too hard
The culmination of circumstances speak for themselves, as does the magnitude of the response in relation to the nature of the offences. If you put a modicum of the effort you spent trying to defend your actions into deciding which actions are proper for the roles you have spent 5 years playing, you wouldn't be in this situation to begin with.
KNIGHT-COMMANDER OF THE ORDOM OF THE SHORT REPLY
-
BeeSting12
- Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2016 1:11 am
- Byond Username: BeeSting12
- Github Username: BeeSting12
- Location: 'Murica
Re: [Dr. Aura] The unloved Rock - Manuel secban for validing an event too hard
Two command reports were sent during the round, here are both of them:
Ticket Logs Between Aura/Rock:
Ticket Logs Between Tanachi/DrAura:
Logs are taken from the game log from round ID 140134. Lines before/after/between are omitted for irrelevancy.
Whether rock should or should not have made the death threat at the beginning is irrelevant in my opinion as the chaplain already had intentions of attacking the crusaders, and when rock came back, they were already attacking the chaplain. At this point he was pretty much obligated to help the chaplain, so he can't have been banned for killing the crusaders. That would mean he got banned for the death threat which is a moot point when the chaplain already had plans of attacking the chapel so there likely would've been a conflict there anyway.
I'd also like to add something that isn't in the rules but more about the nature of the game: players are required to act upon incomplete information. As far as rock could see, there was a hostile force holding the chapel (and the chaplain seemed to agree with this). He was fairly justified in preparing for conflict there.
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
Logs are taken from the game log from round ID 140134. Lines before/after/between are omitted for irrelevancy.
Whether rock should or should not have made the death threat at the beginning is irrelevant in my opinion as the chaplain already had intentions of attacking the crusaders, and when rock came back, they were already attacking the chaplain. At this point he was pretty much obligated to help the chaplain, so he can't have been banned for killing the crusaders. That would mean he got banned for the death threat which is a moot point when the chaplain already had plans of attacking the chapel so there likely would've been a conflict there anyway.
I'd also like to add something that isn't in the rules but more about the nature of the game: players are required to act upon incomplete information. As far as rock could see, there was a hostile force holding the chapel (and the chaplain seemed to agree with this). He was fairly justified in preparing for conflict there.
-
XivilaiAnaxes
- Joined: Sat May 11, 2019 7:13 am
- Byond Username: XivilaiAnaxes
Re: [Dr. Aura] The unloved Rock - Manuel secban for validing an event too hard
Is "admitted to using incomplete information" really used as evidence to ban?
This is a game literally based around people not having information.
This is a game literally based around people not having information.
-
confused rock
- Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2015 12:18 am
- Byond Username: The unloved rock
Re: [Dr. Aura] The unloved Rock - Manuel secban for validing an event too hard
Considering Aura's immediate dismissal of this appeal, can I get a headmin to look over it?
-
Timberpoes
- In-Game Game Master
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:54 pm
- Byond Username: Timberpoes
Re: [Dr. Aura] The unloved Rock - Manuel secban for validing an event too hard
Utilised the following filters/URLDr. Aura wrote:The culmination of circumstances speak for themselves
https://scrubby.melonmesa.com/round/140 ... ey=Tanachi
Crusaders are spawned in
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
Last edited by Timberpoes on Wed Jul 01, 2020 6:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
confused rock
- Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2015 12:18 am
- Byond Username: The unloved rock
Re: [Dr. Aura] The unloved Rock - Manuel secban for validing an event too hard
Right, so I was only even partially responsible for the death of only one of the crusaders, the crusaders had been violent before I even made the death threat, the death threat was specifically that I might kill them if they didn't leave the chapel, and the chaplain supported the idea that I had only acted to help them. What am I being banned for again? I've already had to deal with this ban for four days.
-
confused rock
- Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2015 12:18 am
- Byond Username: The unloved rock
Re: [Dr. Aura] The unloved Rock - Manuel secban for validing an event too hard
Note aura went back and banned me from detective as well so yeah, that's a thing that happened. Considering they had to time to add that ban and haven't said a single thing since their immediate dismissal 11 minutes after I first made this appeal, I highly doubt aura is considering this appeal in any way.
-
Stickymayhem
- Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2014 6:13 pm
- Byond Username: Stickymayhem
Re: [Dr. Aura] The unloved Rock - Manuel secban for validing an event too hard
Considering the consistent ruling that players should not be punished for appealing bans, for the obvious reason that it discourages people from appealing any ban, appropriate or not, I'm lifting the detective ban.confused rock wrote:Note aura went back and banned me from detective as well so yeah, that's a thing that happened. Considering they had to time to add that ban and haven't said a single thing since their immediate dismissal 11 minutes after I first made this appeal, I highly doubt aura is considering this appeal in any way.
Boris wrote:Sticky is a jackass who has worms where his brain should be, but he also gets exactly what SS13 should be
-
Dr. Aura
- Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2015 12:18 am
- Byond Username: Dr. Aura
Re: [Dr. Aura] The unloved Rock - Manuel secban for validing an event too hard
Considering the initial intent was a full sec ban, I forgot to click one button at the time of the ban, and that I was remedeying it for the sake of consistency with intent as soon as I was informed I’d forgotten, I’ll be reapplying the detective ban when I get back from work.Stickymayhem wrote:Considering the consistent ruling that players should not be punished for appealing bans, for the obvious reason that it discourages people from appealing any ban, appropriate or not, I'm lifting the detective ban.confused rock wrote:Note aura went back and banned me from detective as well so yeah, that's a thing that happened. Considering they had to time to add that ban and haven't said a single thing since their immediate dismissal 11 minutes after I first made this appeal, I highly doubt aura is considering this appeal in any way.
KNIGHT-COMMANDER OF THE ORDOM OF THE SHORT REPLY
-
TWATICUS
- In-Game Game Master
- Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2017 7:10 pm
- Byond Username: Twaticus
Re: [Dr. Aura] The unloved Rock - Manuel secban for validing an event too hard
First and foremost I need to apologize for the wait. It's no fun being stuck sitting around without a response and its not fair to anyone involved.
Below is a timeline of events for all involved parties. Sections spoilered to avoid an extremely long post. Genessee (event coordinator), Crusadors & Pastor (event roles), Tanachi (station chaplain), and Rock (sec officer)
Logs taken from https://tgstation13.org/parsed-logs/man ... /game.html & https://tgstation13.org/parsed-logs/man ... attack.txt
Event setup and announcement
Initial confrontation between the event roles and the chaplain
First altercation between the event roles and the chaplain
Rock gets involved
Final altercation
The chaplain had a very long conversation and disagreement with the event roles, and was pretty justified in not wanting them to take over his workplace. The event roles attacked the chaplain and kicked him out of his chapel, so he called for help and rock came to help him. Rock threatened them to leave, came back with gear, and ran into the chaplain being attacked by the event roles so he defended the chaplain. I see no issue with the chaplain objecting to the crusaders demands, so i see no issue with rock defending the chaplain after he called out for help. We've decided to overrule the ban and remove the note.
Headmin Votes:
Coconutwarrior97: Overrule.
Phuzzylodgik: Not available.
TWATICUS: Overrule.
Below is a timeline of events for all involved parties. Sections spoilered to avoid an extremely long post. Genessee (event coordinator), Crusadors & Pastor (event roles), Tanachi (station chaplain), and Rock (sec officer)
Logs taken from https://tgstation13.org/parsed-logs/man ... /game.html & https://tgstation13.org/parsed-logs/man ... attack.txt
Event setup and announcement
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
Headmin Votes:
Coconutwarrior97: Overrule.
Phuzzylodgik: Not available.
TWATICUS: Overrule.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users