[Iain0] Jeebidon - note clarification

[cnleth]

BYOND account: Jeebidon
Character name: John Lantern
Ban type: Server
Ban length: 1 day
Ban reason: As part of a mob (who had previously trashed every computer and APC on the bridge) assaulted a security officer into crit over them "tear gassing the mob", also cited the security lethal response against the mob. All of this is valid, you are valid for being on the bridge, they're valid to tear gas and lethal you (which wasn't the person you crit either), and you're NOT valid to resist a valid teargas based arrest with lethal force. Did at least get the security officer to medical.
Time ban was placed: 2023-07-27 19:30:06
Server you were playing on when banned: Terry
Round ID in which ban was placed: 211163
Your side of the story: I'm not appealing the ban itself because it's a mass-ban and everyone got the same punishment, but I'd like to get the note changed. The note quotes me complaining about teargas. I did not say a single word about teargas in the ticket. Teargassing, flashbangs and stuns were all fine to me. I also was not part of the original mob that broke into the bridge and came to the bridge only when something like "Bridge camp" was announced over comms, there was a bonfire and basically half the crew was there. I did not arrive there to further break things. The note also makes it look like i resisted a valid arrest, while in reality me and several other people attacked and critted a seccie because he started shooting lethals at someone, I was not the one being arrested (and i did not notice anyone being non-lethally arrested there, only lasers aside from teargas and flashbangs).
Why you think you should be unbanned: The note is not entirely true.

[iain0]

Hey there, this is probably a fairly reasonable request, I had about six tickets open at the same time and there was a chunk of copy pasting and generalisation done, happy to tune this more specifically.

I will note, the seccie who got crit on the bridge I don't think participated in the lethal fire, they mostly seem to be pepper spraying with some kinda backpack sprayer I think, there are certainly lethal weapons fire in use and as discussed thats totally valid against a mob that can't really be dealt with any other way.

Please note more generally that I disapprove of the trashing of the bridge (which you are not involved in, but gives indication there is something a little too much going on here), but I end up not really minding the "sit in" aspect in its self, as long as its not violent or sufficiently disruptive. However I would also expect you to "take your knocks" from that, including possible lethal fire, without it then descending into a mass self antagging where crew start actively putting down security (who are completely within their rights in their handling of things).

How does the following sound as an alternative then.

As part of a sizable mob performing a "greytide takeover" of the bridge (which had previously been trashed, not by this player), ended up taking part in the mobbing of a security officer, helping crit them. The security officer in question had only teargassed the crowd, however other security members had applied lethal force, validly, to the mob on the bridge. The occupation of the bridge exclusively could make for some interesting RP but as a non antagonist your options versus security who are acting validly do not extend to critting sec, which is a step too far into self antagging (and runs the risk of descending the situation into a full on non-valid riot).

That any better? Seems a bit more tailored and not just the re-used ban panel reason

[cnleth]

As part of a sizable mob performing a "greytide takeover" of the bridge (which had previously been trashed, not by this player), ended up taking part in the mobbing of a security officer, helping crit them. The security officer in question had only teargassed the crowd, however other security members had applied lethal force, validly, to the mob on the bridge. The occupation of the bridge exclusively could make for some interesting RP but as a non antagonist your options versus security who are acting validly do not extend to critting sec, which is a step too far into self antagging (and runs the risk of descending the situation into a full on non-valid riot).

That any better? Seems a bit more tailored and not just the re-used ban panel reason :)

Yes, that's better, thanks

[iain0]

Updated as agreed with the caveat that it didn't fit into the ban reason, so I dropped the final parenthesis section in the ban record, and the associated note contains the full text. Nothing to worry about, just a weirdness about how notes and bans interact and are slightly different.

Thanks for the appeal, Resolved / Accepted