[Vekter] Christopher Robin - A blow to Rule 1 Precedent 6.

[ChristopherRobin]

BYOND account: Christopher Robin
Character name: Christopher Robin
Ban type: Server
Ban length: 24 hours
Ban reason: As engineer, entered the round to find the cook setting up the SM. Wordlessly removed him from the department so he could finish it. Cook came back and, without provocation, player flashed him and threw him into the SM. You are allowed to defend your workplace but you are not permitted to escalate immediately to round removal, especially when he hasn't even done anything antagonistic against you. Please use your words or at least less permanent means of removal in the future. This ban (BanID #63095) was applied by Vekter on 2022-10-31 23:42:02 during round ID 193486. The ban is for 1 day and expires on 2022-11-01 23:42:02 (server time).
Time ban was placed: 2022-10-31 23:42:02
Server you were playing on when banned: Bagil
Round ID in which ban was placed: was placed on 193486, round the event took place on was 193484
Your side of the story:

I would like to start by saying that when the Cook had an outburst in EORchat, I waited in lobby for several minutes so that I would be able to explain my side of the story in the next round in case of a bwoink. I observed the round for a short bit and saw everything progressing as normal, so I assumed it was marked as an IC issue (as some players in OOC had joked after the cook's outburst) and left. Unfortunately, I wasn't contacted by the banning admin during that time, and the ban was placed in my absence.

Logs:
https://tgstation13.org/parsed-logs/bas ... attack.txt
https://tgstation13.org/parsed-logs/bas ... 4/game.txt

The wording of this ban horribly misrepresents the events from my perspective and is outright incorrect in some regards. I will be restating my experience in chronological order, including logs where appropriate. To begin, I checked crew manifest, found that engineering was empty, and joined as the only member of engineering. I walked directly to engineering and found it in utter shambles. Windows were smashed, doors were hacked, and both the electrical supply locker and CE locker were dragged out front, smashed open, and looted of their contents. Seeing that my department had fallen victim to some incredible tiding, I assumed that I had a long road ahead of me to reacquire the things that I would need to do my job (insuls specifically), and reenforce my department to prevent them from being stolen a second time. Needless to say, I was not happy to see the Cook hanging out in my department and appearing to be tiding even more of what little was still left. I immediately took him down with non-lethal force and placed him outside the front door:

Code: Select all

[2022-10-31 23:05:41.060] ATTACK: Christopher Robin/(Christopher Robin) shoved Doomlolcat/(Dustan Hache) with knocking them down (NEWHP: 100)  (Supermatter Engine Room (172,149,2))
[2022-10-31 23:05:41.980] ATTACK: Christopher Robin/(Christopher Robin) kicks Doomlolcat/(Dustan Hache) with onto their side (paralyzing) (NEWHP: 100)  (Supermatter Engine Room (172,149,2))
[2022-10-31 23:05:41.981] ATTACK: Christopher Robin/(Christopher Robin) shoved Doomlolcat/(Dustan Hache) (NEWHP: 100)  (Supermatter Engine Room (172,149,2))
[2022-10-31 23:05:44.165] ATTACK: Christopher Robin/(Christopher Robin) grabbed Doomlolcat/(Dustan Hache) passive grab (NEWHP: 100)  (Supermatter Engine Room (170,149,2))
[2022-10-31 23:05:44.974] ATTACK: Christopher Robin/(Christopher Robin) flashed(targeted) Doomlolcat/(Dustan Hache) with the flash (NEWHP: 100)  (Supermatter Engine Room (170,149,2))
[2022-10-31 23:05:45.782] ATTACK: Christopher Robin/(Christopher Robin) flashed(targeted) Doomlolcat/(Dustan Hache) with the flash (NEWHP: 100)  (Supermatter Engine Room (170,149,2))
[2022-10-31 23:05:46.773] ATTACK: Christopher Robin/(Christopher Robin) flashed(targeted) Doomlolcat/(Dustan Hache) with the flash (NEWHP: 100)  (Supermatter Engine Room (167,149,2))
[2022-10-31 23:05:53.863] ATTACK: Christopher Robin/(Christopher Robin) flashed(targeted) Doomlolcat/(Dustan Hache) with the flash (NEWHP: 100)  (Engineering Foyer (159,139,2))

I assume the "Wordlessly" in the ban refers to how I initiated the fight on the assumption that he was tiding. Under normal circumstances I would have, but since my department looked like it had just been used as a loot-piñata I took initiative and removed him without taking any of his belongings or causing physical harm to him. While my assumption was quick and (potentially) incorrect, I still have reason to remove him on grounds of trespassing in my ransacked department. He then began to re-enter my department, so upon seeing that my actions had failed to speak louder than words during the brief time when there was a fairly large gap between us as an opportunity to speak, (which he instead used to begin re-entering my department) I ended my 'wordlessness' by saying:

Code: Select all

[2022-10-31 23:06:04.103] SAY: Christopher Robin/(Christopher Robin) "get out" (Engineering (159,150,2))

While I am sure there are more refined things I could have said, those two words should strongly imply that I would like him to remain outside of my department while I fix the multiple breaches (into main hall, not space) in my department. The Cook chose to respond in standard tider fashion with (and this should disprove the "Cook came back and, without provocation" part):

Code: Select all

[2022-10-31 23:06:24.032] ATTACK: Doomlolcat/(Dustan Hache) shoved Christopher Robin/(Christopher Robin) (NEWHP: 100)  (Engineering (159,153,2))

There is quite a bit of us both dancing around here during these ~20 seconds, failing to click on each other in classic SS13 fashion. I understand that he is not required to listen after being told to remain out of my department and physically removed the first time, but I would also like to point out that he has no real reason to be entering my department after me, besides revenge on the 0 damage that I delt to him and to return to looting engineering. If he had a good reason to be in my department, he could have said so himself while stamcrit, or after I had left him unharmed and with all of his belongings in main hall. Instead, he opted to continue the escalation with me in my department (I believe escalations are supposed to end upon people entering crit, but I can't remember about stamcrit) and being as he is escalating in my department, he is allowed to match my non-lethal force. Fortunately for me, I land the next click:

Code: Select all

[2022-10-31 23:06:28.680] ATTACK: Christopher Robin/(Christopher Robin) flashed(targeted) Doomlolcat/(Dustan Hache) with the flash (NEWHP: 100)  (Engineering (160,150,2))
[2022-10-31 23:06:29.782] ATTACK: Christopher Robin/(Christopher Robin) flashed(targeted) Doomlolcat/(Dustan Hache) with the flash (NEWHP: 100)  (Engineering (159,150,2))
[2022-10-31 23:06:31.230] ATTACK: Christopher Robin/(Christopher Robin) grabbed Doomlolcat/(Dustan Hache) passive grab (NEWHP: 100)  (Engineering (159,151,2))

Now we are right back to where we were ~50 seconds ago. have a decision to make, do I attempt to throw him back out into main hall, with another warning, only for him to come back and potentially robust me on the third conflict (he had already demonstrated that he wanted to keep the escalation going, that escalation would probably end that way since my flash had burnt out), or do I use a very valuable Rule 1 precedent that came to mind during this dilemna:

from https://tgstation13.org/wiki/Rules

6. You may defend your workplace from trespassers who damage or steal property within that space with significantly greater force than elsewhere. If someone is severely disruptive and returns after ejected, this opens them up to "fun" of the creative workplace death variety.

While my initial assumption that he had in some capacity been responsible for the damage to my department, and that assumption may have been wrong (I still haven't necessarily been told it was), I don't believe I am required to ask why someone is trespassing before I non-harmfully remove them from the area they are trespassing in, and when they ignore a statement that clearly implies that their presence is unwanted by reentering and perpetuating a shoving match that is disruptive by nature, I feel that the situation still falls under what is described by the 6th precedent of rule 1 as listed on the wiki. Infact, I even opted for a "creative workplace death" since I remembered that part of the wording:

Code: Select all

[2022-10-31 23:06:36.491] ATTACK: Christopher Robin/(Christopher Robin) grabbed Doomlolcat/(Dustan Hache) aggressive grab (NEWHP: 100)  (Supermatter Engine (166,153,2))
[2022-10-31 23:06:37.289] ATTACK: Christopher Robin/(Christopher Robin) thrown Doomlolcat/(Dustan Hache) grab from tile in Supermatter Engine (166,153,2) towards tile at Supermatter Engine (170,154,2) (NEWHP: 100)  (Supermatter Engine (166,153,2))
[2022-10-31 23:06:37.386] ATTACK: Doomlolcat/(Dustan Hache) has died (BRUTE: 0, BURN: 0, TOX: 0, OXY: 0, CLONE: 0) (Supermatter Engine (168,154,2))

Why you think you should be unbanned:

Here's the thing, this wasn't some angry heat-of-the-moment decision or even one made arbitrarily in ignorance of the rules. My final act was literally from me trying to follow a precedent that I remember from the rules page of the wiki and have used many times in the past to deal with tiders who keep breaking in despite attempts to remove them. It is borderline essential (ironically) in the roll of Cook when some rando decides it would be funny to hop the counter and screw with me (or the robots, in that brief time back before they were made borderline invincible). I always, throw the rando out in (mostly) non-lethal fashion with a warning that they will get made into a burger if they do that again, and then I make good on that warning if they take their joke too far.

I personally don't like escalating against people at all, but if I robust someone and tell them to go away, I make use of "fuck around and find out" because some people just refuse to stop harassing me until death. I am aware that I could have initiated this confrontation with questions, but my removal of a cook from engineering is still valid on the grounds that they are a cook in engineering. If they had a problem with my removal of them from the premises, the task should fall on them to justify why they were trespassing to begin with. I'm not looking for excuses to kill people, but if I physically remove someone for a valid reason and ask them to stay out, they are now one more intentional disruption away from getting an unfortunate workplace accident under rule 1 precedent 6, which I will choose whether or not to inflict on them depending on the situation. In this situation, it strongly appeared that I would be "shittered upon" just as hard as the rest of my department had already been. I did not force the Cook to come back into engineering, they could have explained themselves, or they could have just walked away like most reasonable people do when forced to leave someone else's department. They made it clear that they would keep coming back for more until I eventually lost, and I use rule 1 precedent 6 as a shield against that.

As a final note, I would like to reiterate that R1 P6 is ESSENTIAL for dealing with people who just won't go away no matter what. I would really hate to hear that trying to be productive and do my job means tolerating people doing whatever they want in my department, since I would be able to do little besides catch and release over and over and over and over... I fundamentally do not want a note that implies a message "this guy uses R1P6 to kill bate" in any tiny capacity what-so-ever, because I really don't want to face administrative action when dealing with people who intentionally interfere with my work on the station.

References of good conduct:

I have played here for the past several years without so much as a note, literally doing what I always do and beating up people exactly the way the rules allow it, frequently being more lenient than necessary.

Anything else:
(tldr for peanut I guess?)

NSFW:

Dustan broke into engineering,

Dustan is no more,

Because when Dustan got kicked out for trespassing,

He came back, shovin for more.

He fell for my trap card, rule 1 precedent 6

6. You may defend your workplace from trespassers who damage or steal property within that space with significantly greater force than elsewhere. If someone is severely disruptive and returns after ejected, this opens them up to "fun" of the creative workplace death variety.

[Vekter]

Hey, thanks for appealing this ban. I want to acknowledge the amount of effort you put into this and say how much I appreciate you making your case in a salient and logical manner. It's hard for us to act on matters where someone's already logged off when we're notified of something, so it's very helpful to have as much information as possible.

Unfortunately, there's a lot of context that gets lost when you look at logs after the fact, so I had no way of knowing that he'd trashed the place or any other non-verbal trouble he'd given you. I had to act on what information I had and, at the time, it seemed like a very open and shut case of over-escalation.

In general, the following steps are what we usually expect out of rule 1 precedent 6 interactions: Working under the assumption that the person in the department hasn't done anything to physically harm you,

1) First interaction: Non-lethal removal with insistence not to return. (You did this.)
2) Second interaction: Lethal critical removal and transport to medical. (This was skipped in this case and is my main issue with how this was handled.
3) Third interaction: Further lethal removal including and up to round removal.

The main problem I have here is that you escalated straight to dusting him in the crystal without giving him a chance to be revived. I can acknowledge that his presence was annoying and unwelcome, but the rules of escalation still need to be followed. There's some wiggle room here, of course - had he actively been trying to kill you, this would be a lot less pertinent and we would likely not even be having this conversation.

The short of it is that I take no issue with you removing him from the department, but I do think dusting him crossed a line you didn't have much justification to cross at the time.

Given your history and the circumstances, I'm willing to lift the ban and modify the note to read as such:

As engineer, entered the round to find the engine room trashed, CE's locker broken into, and the cook setting up the SM. Removed him from the department so he could finish it. Cook came back and player flashed him and threw him into the SM. While you had reason to believe he intended you harm, you still cannot escalate straight to round removal without a valid reason. Given that he did not actively harm you past a single shove, I have no reason to believe critting him wasn't possible or viable at the time.

[ChristopherRobin]

While I appreciate your offer to reduce the ban to a note which provides a recap of events, I strongly dislike having a note that implies that I abused R1P6 when I follow the rule, as it is worded on the wiki, to the letter.

. . . returns after being ejected . . .

Which implies that this is applicable on the second offence, not the third.

. . . creative workplace death . . .

There are few things more deadly or iconic to the workplace of engineering than the SM. I went with this option specifically because of the wording of R1P6, which I had in mind at the time of execution. I understand that there is always some interpretation and reading between the lines that is needed with the rules, but your explanation of:

2) Second interaction: Lethal critical removal and transport to medical. . . .
3) Third interaction: Further lethal removal including and up to round removal.

Seems to be similar to standard escalation policy:

. . . either participant is incapacitated [lethally] . . . If you get into a conflict again with that individual, they may be removed permanently from the round.

I assumed that R1P6 exists to relax escalation policy for the player in their department (if not completely remove IC protections from the intruder), and I can understand that my interpretation might be incorrect, or that there is an unmentioned exemption specifically for workplace death that results in RR. If you insist that my literal interpretation of R1P6 is incorrect, I would appreciate the note emphasizing this, and I would hope that the limits of R1P6 might be better clarified on the rules page to ensure that anyone else who uses a literal interpretation of them isn't violating an unwritten detail of R1P6 in the future.

[Vekter]

We will have to agree to disagree on this, then. Your interpretation of the rule is flawed in that you are assuming that R1P6's mention of "creative workplace deaths" trumps the idea that you're not supposed to hard round remove someone for breaking in unless they have done so multiple times, specifically more than twice.

If you would like to provide a modified version of the note that you feel is fair, I'd be happy to go over it and we can work towards a resolution, otherwise the note will stay as-is.

E: As agreed upon in my first post, I have unbanned you. This is just us now working on what the note should say.

[ChristopherRobin]

Would

Player, upon joining the round as engineer and seeing the engineering department broken open and thoroughly tided, immediately removed a cook from engineering with non-lethal force and insistence not to return. Later dusted the cook on the SM when the cook trespassed anyway. Please reserve round removal for the third offence when defending your department.

be sufficient? It gives a quick idea of events and specifies where our interpretations disagree. I would also like to ask if the R1P6 can be edited to include that "creative workplace deaths" doesn't include round removal, and if there is a clear rule against round removal during relaxed escalations, could you point me to where it is?

[Vekter]

I can modify the note to read as such, yes.

As for the rule itself, you would need to make a thread in our Policy Discussion forum to have that possibly modified.

[ChristopherRobin]

Sounds good, I will consider making a post about it in Policy. Thank you for resolving this amicably.