[AwkwardStereo] Round removal, reason is on a need-to-know basis

Locked
Zybwivcz
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2018 5:30 am
Byond Username: Zybwivcz

[AwkwardStereo] Round removal, reason is on a need-to-know basis

Post by Zybwivcz » #635075

When and where this incident occured (Game Server, forums, Discord): Sybil
Byond account and character name OR Discord name: Zybwivcz / Maddox Ali
Admin: AwkwardStereo
ROUND ID HERE IF APPLICABLE: 180605
Detailed summary:

I was HoS. Station was IceBox. Midway through the round a couple of SEC officer instigated by the warden, Urist McMan, decide to "mutiny" which consisted of stripping me and then trying to permabrig or kill me. I ghost before they manage to do either and the warden wanders off through the station to get killed in maint. AwkwardStereo explains to me that they ahelped and he gave them the go ahead. I ask him to explain what exactly I supposedly did that caused him to give the "mutiny" his approval.

He refuses to say. I ask if he bothered to verify any of the allegations whatever they were, and how he could have done that without bothering to talk to me first. Same answer, told to fuck off. A brief examination of the logs reveals absolutely nothing that could count as a legitimate reason other than the warden, who had been doing some weird Dwarf Fortress RP thing, got bored.

At worst it was round removal for no particular reason, at best it was round removal for some unknown offense he refused to reveal to me meaning I couldn't respond to the allegation.
User avatar
Mothblocks
Code Maintainer
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 9:33 am
Byond Username: Jaredfogle

Re: [AwkwardStereo] Round removal, reason is on a need-to-know basis

Post by Mothblocks » #635077

Ticket logs of what I assume you are talking about:

From Ticket #8 during round 180605 on Sybil
Ticket opened at 2022-03-27 02:41:11 by zybwivcz
Log:
02:41:11: Ticket Opened by-zybwivcz: Unless urist the warden is somehow a ling please remind him he can't redtide and arrest the hos for the memes
02:42:07: Reply from-awkwardstereo: It's valid.
02:44:18: Reply from-zybwivcz: Since I'm ghosted can you explain whether he's an antag somehow or if my understanding of when crew can randomly attack their department head is somehow completely wrong.
02:45:24: Reply from-awkwardstereo: They (sec collectively) ahelped asking to mutiny against you. I told them the effort seemed in good faith and if they failed to prepare for whatever consequences they may receive ICly.
02:46:05: Reply from-zybwivcz: So a metagang at the warden's instigation ahelps and you don't bother to even check with me as to whether or not any of the reasons are complete bullshit?
02:49:09: Reply from-zybwivcz: Can you at least tell me what acts I supposedly performed that justify getting taken out of the round with impunity by a non-antag in my own department while HoS?
02:49:56: Reply from-awkwardstereo: You could always ask them OOC once the round ends. I don't need to check in with you specifically for something that I believe was conducted in good faith and done in character.
02:51:14: Reply from-zybwivcz: Again, if you have reasons for believing something was conducted in "good faith" that comprise actual things I did as HoS I would like to hear them, as compared to "the warden got bored and got the rest of them to ahelp about some bullshit excuse so he could get out of the brig"
02:59:32: Reply from-awkwardstereo: I couldn't tell you where you, specifically, went wrong. Your own staff decided that the round was better off without you as their head of staff and asked for permission from us to conduct a mutiny. There's nothing that I see to action on administratively on either side of this. It is solely an IC issue, and if you want a better explanation you should talk to them in OOC once the round ends to see where you went wrong.
03:01:52: Reply from-zybwivcz: Again, I'm asking if you were given any reason whatsoever beyond the warden getting bored and convincing a couple other people to ahelp with him. Any actual reasons
03:02:18: Reply from-zybwivcz: As in 'the warden told me the hos did X, I checked it out, and decided it was sufficient cause'.
03:03:55: Ticket Opened by-zybwivcz: The only explicit claim I see in deadchat is that I supposedly didn't give them syndie loot. Did they convey to you a reason beyond that for giving them the go ahead?
03:04:42: Reply from-awkwardstereo: I was given reason enough to give them a pass on it. Syndicate loot was never mentioned in the ahelp, but you are not entitled to the details of their ahelp.
03:05:21: Reply from-zybwivcz: You gave them the go ahead to remove me from the round because you felt their reason was sufficiently compelling. I'm asking you what violations of mine they cited to get you to do this.
03:07:35: Reply from-awkwardstereo: It is an IC issue, not an administrative one.
03:09:57: Reply from-zybwivcz: Just so my post in admin complaints is as clear as possible: Are you saying the alleged rule violations on my part were enough to cause you to approve my removal and just won't tell me what those alleged violations are, or are you saying there weren't any specific rule violations and you told them to go ahead because you felt like it.
03:11:58: Reply from-awkwardstereo: What I will say immediately is that this will continue in that thread and not in Ahelps. Good day.
03:12:33: Reply from-awkwardstereo: Closed by AwkwardStereo
---- No futher messages ----
This ticket was generated by Statbus v.0.14.0
Shaps-cloud wrote: Mon Dec 07, 2020 7:59 am May eventually become one of the illusive maintainer-headmins if they choose to pursue that path, having a coder in the senior admin leadership has usually been positive for both sides in the past.
Head Coder of /tg/station, hi!

Head Admin of /tg/station Feb 2022.

Mothblocks everywhere, >>> Say nice things about me <<<
Zybwivcz
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2018 5:30 am
Byond Username: Zybwivcz

Re: [AwkwardStereo] Round removal, reason is on a need-to-know basis

Post by Zybwivcz » #635078

Those are the ones. To reiterate my general complaint:

An admin giving their permission for someone to be removed from the round is an admin punishment. Admins should not mete out punishment without having a valid reason to do so. Even when they do, they should do their best to communicate to the punished player the reasons why the punishment was imposed.
User avatar
AwkwardStereo
In-Game Admin
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2021 8:24 am
Byond Username: AwkwardStereo

Re: [AwkwardStereo] Round removal, reason is on a need-to-know basis

Post by AwkwardStereo » #635222

Zybwivcz wrote: Sun Mar 27, 2022 4:07 amAn admin giving their permission for someone to be removed from the round is an admin punishment.
I did not give the mutineers permission to do anything other than telling them if they mutiny in good faith they wouldn't hear from me. They were working to Gulag you immediately after your arrest (which is not round removal, in my opinion). We never got see how that would have played out because when you realized nobody was coming to stop the mutiny you ghosted with hardly a word spoken to them during or after your arrest. None of that was coerced by me, and I didn't tell them, "Yeah, fuck this guy. Get him out of here". I am entirely of the belief this was an organic in character dispute, and the only reason they ahelped asking permission in the first place is because they didn't know that was something they could just do. I gave them information, not my blessing.
Zybwivcz wrote: Sun Mar 27, 2022 4:07 amAdmins should not mete out punishment without having a valid reason to do so.
I was asked for permission for something they didn't need to ask me for and I didn't see anything wrong telling them they were free to pursue this action if they were acting in good faith. Telling people this is a course of action they can pursue in character under some circumstance is not me doling out a punishment to you. I have no reason to believe they were acting in bad faith. As their boss you made them uncomfortable being underneath you doing whatever it was you were doing. I am firmly of the belief their actions were done entirely with the best of intentions for the round and that was a valid enough reason for me.
Zybwivcz wrote: Sun Mar 27, 2022 4:07 amEven when they do, they should do their best to communicate to the punished player the reasons why the punishment was imposed.
If there is a place I could have expanded on, it was here. I had absolute faith in the players conducting the mutiny that they were doing it with the best consideration of other players' enjoyment of the round. I didn't bother to ask them why they were doing what they were doing because I didn't (and still don't) think I needed to. If you want that answer, then I have to inform you (and the headmins) that I cannot give it.

Spoiler:
Edit: To be clear on your third point; yes, this was a failing of mine in handling this.
User avatar
Cobby
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2014 7:19 pm
Byond Username: ExcessiveUseOfCobby
Github Username: ExcessiveUseOfCobblestone

Re: [AwkwardStereo] Round removal, reason is on a need-to-know basis

Post by Cobby » #635243

Is there a particular reason theres an insistence on implying this was a collective activity and not one guy or what?

To be clear:

One man ahelped for permission (https://atlantaned.space/tgdb/ticket/180605/7) and was vagueposting, and gotten a conditional yes.
Voted best trap in /tg/ 2014-current
User avatar
Cobby
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2014 7:19 pm
Byond Username: ExcessiveUseOfCobby
Github Username: ExcessiveUseOfCobblestone

Re: [AwkwardStereo] Round removal, reason is on a need-to-know basis

Post by Cobby » #635252

Mothblocks wrote: Sun Mar 27, 2022 4:03 am 02:42:07: Reply from-awkwardstereo: It's valid.
AwkwardStereo wrote: Mon Mar 28, 2022 12:35 am I did not give the mutineers permission to do anything other than telling them if they mutiny in good faith they wouldn't hear from me.
Right but you permitted it (and in fact insisted it was acceptable) in post without looking into it, and someone contested that it was not in fact in good faith aka op.

What had to occur if not for someone directly affected by the action ahelping for you to even consider whether its good faith or not? someone dying? please help me understand this because right now this alone should warrant "going through".
Last edited by Cobby on Mon Mar 28, 2022 4:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
Voted best trap in /tg/ 2014-current
User avatar
Timberpoes
In-Game Head Admin
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:54 pm
Byond Username: Timberpoes

Re: [AwkwardStereo] Round removal, reason is on a need-to-know basis

Post by Timberpoes » #635253

I will exercise my discretion to reveal the contents of that ticket here:

From Ticket #7 during round 180605 on Sybil
Ticket opened at 2022-03-27 02:35:11 by whataterribleusername
Log:
02:35:11: Ticket Opened by-whataterribleusername: Hey our HoS is kind of insane and doing basically every shitsec thing under the sun, mutiny is acceptable here aye?
02:36:34: Reply from-awkwardstereo: If you're committing to a mutiny in good faith it doesn't bother me. Just be prepared for the IC consequences if you fail or lack popular support.
02:36:47: Reply from-whataterribleusername: Of course, thank you.
02:37:10: Resolved by AwkwardStereo
---- No futher messages ----
This ticket was generated by Statbus v.0.14.0
/tg/station Codebase Maintainer
/tg/station Admin/Discord Jannie: Feed me back in my thread.
/tg/station Admin Trainer: Service guarantees citizenship. Would you like to know more?
Feb 2022 Host Vote Headmin
User avatar
AwkwardStereo
In-Game Admin
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2021 8:24 am
Byond Username: AwkwardStereo

Re: [AwkwardStereo] Round removal, reason is on a need-to-know basis

Post by AwkwardStereo » #635256

Cobby wrote: Mon Mar 28, 2022 4:03 amIs there a particular reason theres an insistence on implying this was a collective activity and not one guy or what?

When that ahelp went out I zoomed over to them to see two officers (Purple Muggins, Andre Smith) and the Warden (Urist McMan) and witness the following conversation.

wrote:[2022-03-27 02:35:11.174] ADMINPRIVATE: Ticket #7: WhataTerribleUserName/(Urist McMan): Hey our HoS is kind of insane and doing basically every shitsec thing under the sun, mutiny is acceptable here aye?
[2022-03-27 02:35:15.931] SAY: BluBoi77/(Andre Smith) "But if you want to get em Warden, I&#39;ll stand with you" (Brig (113,171,4))
[2022-03-27 02:35:22.220] SAY: WhataTerribleUserName/(Urist McMan) "Alright" (Brig (108,170,4))
[2022-03-27 02:35:23.830] SAY: WhataTerribleUserName/(Urist McMan) "Cuffs off" (Brig (108,170,4))
[2022-03-27 02:35:25.890] SAY: WhataTerribleUserName/(Urist McMan) "Grab yer stuff" (Brig (108,170,4))
[2022-03-27 02:35:29.732] SAY: Jesusiskingdrake/(Kyle Dew) "Is clark ready to go?" (Brig (112,170,4))
[2022-03-27 02:35:34.291] SAY: Jesusiskingdrake/(Kyle Dew) "Since we have like" (Brig (111,169,4))
[2022-03-27 02:35:34.980] SAY: WhataTerribleUserName/(Urist McMan) "Bloody hell" (Brig (112,170,4))
[2022-03-27 02:35:36.227] SAY: Jesusiskingdrake/(Kyle Dew) "No evidence" (Brig (111,169,4))
[2022-03-27 02:35:37.322] SAY: Byandaccount/(Purple Muggins) "aight pact right now if the hos goes madlad mode we have to handle him" (Brig (111,170,4))
[2022-03-27 02:35:39.316] SAY: WhataTerribleUserName/(Urist McMan) "I am contactin centcomm about this" (Brig (112,170,4))
[2022-03-27 02:35:41.365] SAY: WhataTerribleUserName/(Urist McMan) "Aye" (Brig (112,170,4))
[2022-03-27 02:35:42.989] SAY: WhataTerribleUserName/(Urist McMan) "Alright men" (Brig (112,170,4))
[2022-03-27 02:35:47.853] SAY: WhataTerribleUserName/(Urist McMan) "We need to arrest our HoS I think" (Brig (112,170,4))
I didn't want to single anyone out specifically in the ticket with Zyb or here because I truthfully do not know how much I should be saying.
User avatar
AwkwardStereo
In-Game Admin
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2021 8:24 am
Byond Username: AwkwardStereo

Re: [AwkwardStereo] Round removal, reason is on a need-to-know basis

Post by AwkwardStereo » #635261

Cobby wrote: Mon Mar 28, 2022 4:32 amWhat had to occur if not for someone directly affected by the action ahelping for you to even consider whether its good faith or not? someone dying? please help me understand this because right now this alone should warrant "going through".
Didn't know and didn't ask. If sec was together with the mutiny and Zyb was the HoS I figured there was probably a good reason. If I am being honest, I still don't even really know why.
User avatar
Timberpoes
In-Game Head Admin
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:54 pm
Byond Username: Timberpoes

Re: [AwkwardStereo] Round removal, reason is on a need-to-know basis

Post by Timberpoes » #635263

AwkwardStereo wrote: Mon Mar 28, 2022 4:41 am I didn't want to single anyone out specifically in the ticket with Zyb or here because I truthfully do not know how much I should be saying.
Since complaints can quickly get messy, here's a quick primer about what I personally would be looking for:

If you don't accept the complaint as valid then you should include everything you need to address the complaint.

If you do accept the complaint as valid, then there's not much you can do execept reflect on what you could have done better in this instance and can do better in the future.

If you think it sits somewhere in the middle and you handled it fine but could have done better, you may end up doing a little bit of both.
Zybwivcz wrote:... I ask if he bothered to verify any of the allegations whatever they were, and how he could have done that without bothering to talk to me first. Same answer, told to fuck off. A brief examination of the logs reveals absolutely nothing that could count as a legitimate reason other than the warden, who had been doing some weird Dwarf Fortress RP thing, got bored.
From the above quote of Zybwivcz's OP, the player appears to primarily be arguing that you ruling the mutiny as an IC issue was not a correct ruling. They feel you didn't investigate the situation fully and properly as you weren't able to explain to the player what they actually did to warrant being mutinied against on an IC level.

Without any worry about revealing information from an ongoing shift, this is your opportunity to fill in all those gaps. A big help to the player would be explaining what investigations you did and what things you relied on to rule the mutiny as an IC issue instead of an administrative one.

If that means revealing full or partial contents of tickets with any players involved, that's fine. If that means quoting parts of logs that you relied on, that's fine too. If that means quoting rules or headmin rulings you relied on, that's okay as well.
/tg/station Codebase Maintainer
/tg/station Admin/Discord Jannie: Feed me back in my thread.
/tg/station Admin Trainer: Service guarantees citizenship. Would you like to know more?
Feb 2022 Host Vote Headmin
mindstormy
In-Game Admin
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2018 1:59 pm
Byond Username: Mindstormy

Re: [AwkwardStereo] Round removal, reason is on a need-to-know basis

Post by mindstormy » #635317

I was also online for this round and this ticket and I am willing to backup AwkwardStereo in their choice to allow the warden to do what they did. In my opinion there was enough wordlessly arresting folks, harm batoning, and thieving of minor things (toolbelts with tools) from folks during arrests that we thought this was a justified IC action for the warden to take. I did check your track record during this and you have enough over the line security behavior that I do not regret my choice to backup AwkwardStereo at all.
User avatar
AwkwardStereo
In-Game Admin
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2021 8:24 am
Byond Username: AwkwardStereo

Re: [AwkwardStereo] Round removal, reason is on a need-to-know basis

Post by AwkwardStereo » #635834

I took a long time to think and two different times focused on things that weren't really relevant to the substance of the complaint (goodbye sleepless nights efforts). I was a bit too focused on my ruling being "right", which wasn't the problem here.

I did jack shit for an investigation. I saw a stripped toolbelt at some point and 3 Security Sybilians talking in a circle, called it good enough, and made my mind up from that. If I had asked one question of the mutineers I could have given the same answer that people have already found from either witnessing, being involved, or telling me after the fact (shortly after this thread went up). Instead the only thing I've had to say is, "I don't know." Whether that would have been a satisfactory answer or not, really not relevant. I saw a situation brewing that looked like a legitimate mutiny, figured it wasn't our problem (since it seemed legit from a cursory glance), and basically set my mind in stone for it once I saw who they were about to mutiny against. When the Warden ahelped asking to mutiny I should have been asking them why they felt that was necessary to begin with. Instead, I answered a question with the wrong answer.

As much as I don't want Zybwivcz to be right, and as much I believe the mutiny levied against them was valid, they also deserved an honest effort from me to look into the issue.

Complaint is justified.
Spoiler:
edit: a word
User avatar
Mothblocks
Code Maintainer
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 9:33 am
Byond Username: Jaredfogle

Re: [AwkwardStereo] Round removal, reason is on a need-to-know basis

Post by Mothblocks » #636043

We're going to uphold this complaint, but take no action against Stereo. We're very satisfied with their response here, specifically in regards to detailing exactly what happened to make a mistake, as well as what they plan to do in the future to assure it doesn't happen again.
Shaps-cloud wrote: Mon Dec 07, 2020 7:59 am May eventually become one of the illusive maintainer-headmins if they choose to pursue that path, having a coder in the senior admin leadership has usually been positive for both sides in the past.
Head Coder of /tg/station, hi!

Head Admin of /tg/station Feb 2022.

Mothblocks everywhere, >>> Say nice things about me <<<
Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users