MattAtlas

It is not irrelevant. I told Sue to post because she directly witnessed an event that I needed to verify my claim of this not being a one round error, but instead behaviour that's consistent across rounds. I can see that this is not going anywhere, so I'm not going to reply to further arguments about what you did or did not do unless Garn needs me to.

Accepted.

From what I recall there was an adminhelp towards the later end of the round (at about 1:30ish) from someone complaining about FROST's general behaviour. They highlighted two problems in particular: 1. FROST responded to a medical emergency as a research module despite there being medical; 2. FROST was following the investigators around and into the office and had to be specifically told to leave for it to go away. The other thing they highlighted was that this is not a one round problem. This happens a lot with this specific cyborg and it is an assessment that I agree with. From what I collected from asking AnselmKonrad, the first problem was on shaky justification. The cyborg responded to a medical emergency because they walked into medical, saw that medical was busy and nobody was coming. This is mostly what made me raise an eyebrow, because I don't really think a research module cyborg should be doing this, unless it specifically happens in front of them. The second one was fine, but it highlighted the same behaviour. The cyborg followed the investigators all the way into their office, to tell them about the time of death of the body. It was mostly unnecessary, really, but fine. This is the one where he had to be told to leave by the investigators because neither of them wanted the cyborg around. This is where the parts about "excessively responding to things you shouldn't be responding to" and "excessively shadowing others" come from.

You are talking a lot about cyborgs and their goals, but notice that my post focused on the other part of the rule: the one where it specifically talks about your job's goals. You are required to assist people, that much is true, but like that rule says, you should keep it to where your module is relevant. This feels like common sense to me, hence why I can count the people I bwoinked about this in a three year span of being an admin on one hand, but I agree that maybe the rule should be clarified. And if it is clarified, like you said, I wouldn't be against wiping your ban off your record. You received a job ban because your history with cyborg play is pretty bad. Like I said in your ticket, in any other case this would've been a note, and in fact I gave you less of a ban than I do usually for offenses after warnings: it was a 1 day ban instead of a 3 day ban.

> Additionally, keep your character's goals in mind. For example, as security, during a traitor round, your goal is not to catch traitors, but ensure the safety of the station and provide assistance as needed. This is in the rules. It applies to jobs as well as character motivations. I bwoinked you for the same reason I would bwoink a scientist who responds to every medical situation known to man. It is infuriating, as a player, to be constantly shadowed by someone who can do your job better than you can, and it is infuriating as someone that has to deal with these situations IC to have someone constantly show up to security situations. This rule applies to the rest of what you said as well, really. I would have bwoinked a cyborg for this and I would have bwoinked a human for doing it too. It's the same thing. Lawsets do not override rules and there is nowhere in the rules where it says cyborgs are exempted from following them.

Accepted.

Reopened following your staff complaint. On trial until 26JUL2021.

I guess this is fair. We agreed to give him the whitelist, with a trial.

I agreed with denying your whitelist back then, but looking back, I don't see a discussion in the whitelist chat about you being able to apply eventually, so I don't know.

Everyone was involved but Itzal, who is on break.

We did in fact discuss your whitelist internally and we came to the conclusion that we have more evidence to think that you'd do the same thing that got you banned again than not. You can say you've improved, and while that may be true, it doesn't excuse the fact that not even five months ago your whitelist was removed for some very heated moments in LOOC and AOOC. And this tracks backwards, too: that wasn't a sole incident. Off your record, I can spot instances from March, August 2020 and June 2018 on your notes. That is not counting the following infractions you have for bad conduct on the forums: 20 March 2021, 19 January 2020, September 10 2019, September 6 2019, July 17 2019, February 10 2019. The list goes on, but you get the point. Those were all warnings regarding abusive behaviour on the forums. With all of this, I'm not keen to believe that you improved as much as you think you have. While it is possible that you go off less, you still do it a lot. And it's not like avoiding this is hard. I'm not holding you to some unreasonable standard here. And your most recent one was not a light infraction at all: it's pretty severe. That's just a lot of notes for the same thing over and over again. So, I stand by what I said: I don't trust you with a whitelist, and I'm not the only one in the command whitelist team that doesn't. You did not inquire about this, anywhere, that I'm aware of. Had you asked me for information I would've gladly given it. I keep it curt on whitelist applications because I don't intend to dump people's note history unless it's required by a complaint.

This is denied. We think you have been given too many chances with whitelists already, and another won't be given.

On trial until 22JUL2021.

On trial until 19JUL2021. Extended by 3 days.

Accepted.