The_Ill_Fated

You left out [Common] Mae Lin asks, "Extra meat, maybe?"

BYOND Key: The_Ill_Fated Total Ban Length: Permanent Banning staff member's Key: garnascus Reason of Ban: Self-Antagging Reason for Appeal: Forgot to turn off my VPN like I usually do, and I caught someone else's ban from 2018. I'd appreciate getting it lifted. Thanks.

You seem to both be entirely missing my point with this. While previously, prior situations have occurred that resemble this, they aren't identical. Which was the precedent quoted by Campinkiller to justify a 3-day Ban in the first place, that I'd been "Talked to about this" before. The issues brought up by Campinkiller in the prior situations aren't the same raised here, and the only 'similar' thing about them was that they took place in the same room. As stated in my reply to Campin, this is an entirely irrelevant point. Neither the first antag who again entered the wrong Consular's office by accident, second who targeted Imogen for what she had done on ship, or the third who was just committing an armed robbery had any relevance to me having exploitables. The contention that I've used exploitables to target antagonist players and kill/harm/etc them is patently and ludicrously false with a lack of a shred of evidence behind it. As I've stated, when engaged in terms of my exploitables in the past, it's led to a multitude of engagement with a variety of antagonists from a dozen+ players. This doesn't have a lick of relevance to this appeal whatsoever, and I dont' see why it's being brought up, except as malicious 'evidence' with no weight behind it. Regardless, please feel free to close the complaint. As I'm electing to stop playing on Aurora because it's becoming increasingly evident that some members of the staff are wildly unprofessional, and out of touch with both the player base, and the intention of roleplaying, delightfully highlighted by Campin's aggressive ad-hominins within this appeal and your complete lack of concern for it. I can genuinely say I had a lot of great times on Aurora, and I can also say that's decisively over.

I would suggest that most reasonable people would view an armed individual hacking through a secured door which only Consulars, and the Captain have access through, a firearm in-hand after someone matching one of their descriptions was reported to have assaulted a member of the crew as an escalation. As I stated before, Antagonists have responsibility for their actions and decision, including assuming the risk those gimmicks can involve, and this is an example of that. Engaging in an armed robbety against an armed person, on the bridge, with windows untinted and other members of crew nearby is not precisely a low-risk activity. Even if Imogen had 'rolled over' as you insist would've been the appropriate action, the nature of their own actions 100% would've exposed them almost immediately, it was a poor decision with substantive risk for little reward, from both an IC and OOC perspective, and they're the ones that bear that, not me. And if their gimmick was ended for any reason, it was their poor risk assessment. As I've said, roleplaying is not, and should not be confined to the premises of standing idly and talking at one another. Roleplaying is the assumption of the personality of the character you play, with actions and decisions consistent with that within the context of the universe we're in. Additionally, I find it grossly inappropriate that you insist on resorting to personal attacks in every interaction we have, insisting on forcing the most uncharitable and biased view of my actions and motivations rather than even pretending to understand any of what my points are. I did not try to win, as repeatedly explained apparently to no visible effect, I acted in a RP nature consistent with the conditions my character was present within, cornered in her office ARMED facing two individuals who'd just forced their way into a private, secure location after purportedly assaulting another member of the crew. She examined that she had a chance, and took it, if that sounds like "I can win" to you, that's how reasonable people work in these sorts of situations, if you can win you can try, if you can't then you comply and hope for the best. But based on your statements between this and my prior warning, it's equally unacceptable to make any move to defend yourself when you have a good chance, and when you don't have a chance at all. So I'm once more reaching the conclusion that "Roll over and take it" is the only acceptable form of antagonist interaction in your eyes, and that's not from assumption, or an uncharitable read of the situation, it's directly from your mouth, or keyboard in this case. Again, you seem to be wildly ignoring anything I say to justify my action, and instead taking a deliberately malicious and biased choice instead. None of the antagonists I've been talked to over were involved in my exploitables at all, the first stumbled into my office accidentally, the second took umbrage at Imogen's actions on ship, and the third was an armed robbery. So I can only really understand this as you throwing unrelated accusations at me again just to attempt to make me look bad. I can't see how this behavior is remotely acceptable for a member of staff on Aurora. As to your point about my exploitables, yes they are reasonably extensive and have been the point of antag engagement and roleplay on a dozen+ occasions, I've had Alexa Cruze bomb my office as a Solarian sleeper Agent, Elwood Johnson kidnap me probably five times for antag shehenanigans, a Dominian security officer try to force the SCC to extradite me, and a half dozen more at least that I can remember. You are, as I've come to expect from you, cherry picking bad examples in a blatant attempt to hilight supposed maliciousness on my part, while ignoring the rich roleplaying and engagement Imogen and my other characters have been involved in.

Defending ones-self against armed individuals who any reasonable person would assume have a substantive chance of desiring injury upon you is not 'Acting like John Wick'. You can find a thousand videos on the internet of average people in average everyday existence, who when confronted with similar situations, with similar odds, act in a nearly identical manner. The goal with our roleplaying is to create, and play as characters that act reasonably within the context of the universe that they're placed within, and to do so in a manner that is both enjoyable, and consistent. While I recognize that to some minor degree, this 'believability' needs to be mildly suspended to create a more enjoyable situation. The conditions you seem to be intent on enforcing are that where any character, no matter what the situation, just gives up at the earliest sign of any antagonist behavior, regardless of the conditions which may or may not make any action against said antagonist the most 'believable' and realistic option. Imogen ICly, with reasonable IC justification believed she had reasonable odds, and only stayed involved in the situation long enough to remove herself from it. At the earliest possible opportunity she got through the door, closed it behind her, and summoned security. The Captain, if I remember properly specifically said that the Janitor was almost certainly lying just because he was a Guwan. If I'm remembering properly, they didn't offer any evidence to this point, and security even reported finding a dart at the scene the Janitor reported. So, from what it seemed like ICly, they were just doing so because they were being racist at worst, or just plain discriminatory at best. Antagonists are responsible for their own actions, and for putting themselves into situations where risks exist to themselves, and their gimmicks. It is absolutely unreasonable on your part to expect every single situation of antagonist interaction to result in the non-antagonist just rolling over, in some situations like for my prior warning that should've absolutely been what I did, but not in this case. You keep saying 'Play the Hero' as if Imogen stayed within the room, mag-dumped the first guy, magdumped the second guy, wrestled them both onto the floor and proclaimed how badass she was, while ignoring every risk of the situation. Imogen pulled her firearm, fired several rounds only at the one that had a firearm in her hand, a sign that any reasonable person would take as an implicit threat of deadly violence, and SPRINTED from the room as physically quickly as was possible to reach help. Imogen was not trying to kill anyone, she was trying to defend herself. And yes, in the narrow context you've personally assumed as the bounds of 'reasonable roleplaying' I can see how you would feel that way. But Roleplaying consists of more than staring at another character as you talk at one another, rolling over at the first sign of any antagonist activity. That narrow strip that you've certified as 'Reasonable Roleplaying' is repetitive, uninteresting, and inconsistent with the reality of what it would make sense to do in differing situations, for differing characters. I stated that as a result of my interactions with you, and your interpretation of what the Rules are, and what roleplaying should be, leave essentially no reason for a Consular to be armed. In any antagonist-related situation, by the time it would be 'okay' in your judgement for the use of a firearm to be done, the antagonist would have noted the visible holster, and removed it. The Consular being armed is as far as I can tell, ICly intended for personal self-defense in emergency situations, which you've judged to be 'irrational' and 'playing hero'.

Bumping, as per Staff Complaint rules.

BYOND Key: The_ill_fated Staff BYOND Key: Campinkiller Game ID: (Unknown) Reason for complaint: Inappropriate application of a 3-day Ban. Evidence/logs/etc: I'm unable to access logs due to being banned. Additional remarks: In the relevant round, I was playing Imogen Janse, Consular Officer and located in the Consular's Office having tea with Lorraine Pannosian. Suddenly two antagonists emagged the door to the office, and entered, one with a firearm drawn, and one without. One of these antagonists matched the description of someone the Janitor reported as having assaulted him earlier in the round, having injected them with a dart. (I believe the description was a Human in a trench-coat) neither of the individuals were armored, and one had a pistol in their hand (I can't recall what sort). It was approximately 1 hour into the round at the time, and in self-defense I drew my firearm, fired several times (I can't recall precisely, I don't have access to the logs but I had rounds remaining in the Xanan Pistol) and as quickly as physically possible sprinted outside, to summon security. During the shoot-out, I intentionally aimed only at the one closer to me, which was the only one who had a gun out at the start, they died shortly after security arrived, in the process of which I think they exchanged fire with security, the other individual was apprehended, then escaped for further antag shenanigans. Shortly afterwards I was bwoinked by Campin in regards to this, which I explained roughly in the same terms as I am here. About 30 minutes - 1 hour later, they sent me a paragraph of text and issued me a 3 day ban. The severity of this, was in their opinion dictated by a similar situation which I'd been warned for in the past, and in their opinion mandated a harsher punishment as a result. I firmly disagree with that assessment. Said prior situation was different in that the individual who entered the Consular's Office was heavily armed, I believe they were Operatives if I'm remembering properly, and it was very close to the start of the round If I recall right. In this situation Campinkiller's arguments for my warning were entirely sound I believe, their points were as follows Lack of Fear RP: In immediately drawing a handgun on a heavily armed, and armored individual, I as Imogen wasn't expressing an appropriate amount of fear or an appropriate level of roleplaying. A reasonable figure would not do this, as it didn't make sense. Imogen had no chance in this fight. Quashing a Gimmick: As the event occurred early into the round, my rapid escalation of the situation robbed the antagonist, and the players of a substantial amount of roleplaying, and opportunity for engagement. The antag here never got to go about the full breadth of their gimmick simply because they weren't afforded the time, as a result of my actions. Campin's justification of my ban relies on me having been warned for this prior, and still having gone about it in the manner that I did. I firmly believe this is a false equivalency on their part and that the scenarios while similar in nature, are fundamentally different in both of the metrics they'd warned me of in the past. Fear RP: I believe this is a different situation as a result of the disparity of force being drastically different. In the first scenario, Imogen was confronted by an individual in heavy body armor, that was heavily armed, and acted irrationally in drawing her firearm. In the second, Imogen's office was violently broken into by two individuals, with only a pistol being visible, along with no body armor or additional gear evident. Imogen's reaction here is understandable, and reasonable, after all she is provided with a firearm for her own self defense. In what seems like a fair fight, it's not a stretch from a gameplay, or roleplaying perspective to defend yourself in this situation. Furthermore, she only shot at the person who was armed, and made the best effort to remove herself from it as quickly as physically possible to get help. Gimmick Suppression: This event took place far farther into the round, with several small instances of Antagonist shenanigans being performed prior to this occurring, as I mentioned earlier there was already an existing report of one of the antagonists assaulting another character. Time-wise I believe this was approximately just over an hour into the round when it occurred suddenly. The antags had time to set up their ideas, and begin executing them elsewhere, the one who survived even doing so for well into an extension of the round. Fundamentally, I believe these antagonists took an action that was risky (i.e. involving an armed person) and it did not entirely play out in the favor. I don't think that's bad performance on my part, or on their part, it's simply part of engaging in actively hostile antagonism. Roleplaying isn't, nor can it be, regulated simply to standing idly and staring at one another while typing at each other, especially when in the context of the game, and universe it's played in, that wouldn't make sense. I believe this ruling is made in exceedingly poor judgement, and serves to encourage an attitude that stifles, not encourages roleplaying. I firmly believe that I kept what Campinkiller warned me of, in the first situation in mind and acted accordingly. The exact contents of the warning in question is as follows "You need to act with appropriate fear or concern for your life in certain situations with antagonists. Calling someone out over the radio who said they would kill you if you did so is not doing that. Additionally, as a command whitelisted player, you should be giving antags room to develop their gimmicks when able" In this situation, I acted in a manner that was conceivable with the risks involved for a reasonable person to do, especially with the firearm she had in her possession given to a Consular to protect themselves in these sorts of situations, and did such at a time and place that did not end the gimmick in the cradle. In the event that this appeal ends up being denied, I would recommend that the firearm given to Consulars be either removed, or some sort of guidelines for their defensive use be codified.

I've thoroughly enjoyed roleplaying with Ayishah, she's a well thought-out character that's consistent and well done. I'm confident that that they'll make an equally enjoyable command-staff character, and I think their application reflects that. +1

I'm very much in agreement with all of what Peppermint said. I believe that these sort of 'high intensity' combat, explosive focused Odyssey rounds should firmly remain in the minority, it shouldn't be the Horizon kicking down EE or whomever's doors every single round. It shouldn't be every single member of the crew, no matter what their role is, flooding down onto the planet below. It just doesn't make sense for how things are set up, 80% of the roles on the ship just don't fit into this being the standard, and it crushes a wide swathe of the Roleplaying availability for the players. Personally I played from round start to I think almost 3:00. From start to about 1:45 it was 'GO GO GO' with order after order, request after request, with no room at all for me to even think about roleplaying. It wasn't fun at all, it was running around like a chicken with my head cut off pressing button after button, while people screamed over the radio at me. And from what I've gathered, this is what quite a few others felt as well. Overall, this test, and specifically some members of staff's statements in regards to it remind me of Baystation's shift to their 'militarized' setting. I think while there's appealing aspects to it, it is going to end up drastically curtailing a multitude of jobs, or at least making them all but pointless, crushing a substantial amount of roleplay that isn't 'kick in a door shoot a dude', and limiting the sorts of characters it makes sense to be involved in these sorts of things. It's just a test, and I think the option is open for this to be implemented in a positive manner. But I'm very much afraid it's not going to be.

+1 Comet plays a memorable, compelling, and engaging character on Aurora, and has for a long time. I have nothing but faith that them having a Command Whitelist would do nothing but further the sort of environment we're looking for.

BYOND key: the_ill_fated Discord Username: the_ill_fated Character names: Imogen Janse Hazel #S-H11.101 Ilo Kerr Andromeda Maschera How long have you been playing on Aurora? 2.5ish Years Have you received any administrative actions? And how serious were they? Yes, I previously held a command whitelist and had it stripped. I've also received 1 warning regarding shutting down an Antag gimmick in an inappropriate manner. Please provide well articulated answers to the following questions in a paragraph each. What do you think the OOC purpose of a Head of Staff is, in-game? Heads of Staff on Aurora in a lot of cases hold the quality of RP in their hands. Just because of the position of responsibility the characters are in a lot of cases the 'conduit' through which RP flows out towards the rest of the crew, largely in terms of interactions in events, in Antagonist RP, and with off-ship roles. It is the inherent responsibility of Heads of Staff players to act with this in mind, a poor choice while playing in one of these roles can basically break the round, and just turn it into pseudo-extended, where the potential existed for something more engaging. There's also just the aspect of coordinating your crew while in-game. A head of staff can really impact how a round goes just in terms of organization, which can really make a round more enjoyable and create the room for RP to exist, where as the pure-chaos that can go down sometimes in-game when nobody has any idea what's happening isn't super entertaining, or compelling in most cases. What do you think the OOC responsibilities of Whitelisted players are to other players, and how would you strive to uphold them? This largely ties in with the previous question. But it's the OOC responsibility of a Whitelisted player to further the roleplay of the server as a whole, even if it sometimes comes at the expense of your character's engagement personally. An action that might make individual sense for your character to do, can have the impact of clamping down on a gimmick, or crushing RP before it really has the time to take off. Foremost, it's important that you are in a role, with these OOC responsibilities, to try to funnel the round in a direction that is fun, and engaging, even if your own RP misses an opportunity or two because of it. In the end, it narrows down to making the game fun for the server as a whole. We're all here to try to relax, enjoy some RP, and have a good time. A Head of Staff who acts with this in mind isn't a guarantee it's going to be a great round or anything, but a Head of Staff that doesn't is eventually going to ruin someone's round, and probably make them mad, and that's not what anyone's here for. Explain how the recent events in the Spur changed your character and how they came to be employed on the SCCV Horizon. It’s been twenty three long years since she’d left. Twenty three years since she’d last seen the sickly green-teal swirl of the algae belt slip away, her face pressed against the glass while the only world she’d ever known turned into nothing but a pale blue dot in the distance. At times she remembered the salt-breeze whipping at her hair, the feeling of her bare hands in the sand, the taste of Reacher Gar, cooked over a roaring fire, confined to naught but an echo of memory. Things have changed since then, She’s changed since then. Barely sixteen when she’d boarded that transport, yet now her fourth decade encroaches upon her, closing in day-by-day. Then she knew only what little the Viceroyalty has seen fit to bestow upon her, now she gazed upon the PH.D. decorating the wall of her Corapt with pride, though she tried not to think of the debts she’d gathered in the process. She’d expected things to be different, knew things would be different. She was right, they were though not nearly as much as she’d feared, yet more than she’d hoped. Shackling herself to Zavodski had been one of the few cards on the table, yet so far it's played out. She counted on it staying that way. The last two decades had been busy, to be certain. She’d never expected that, for the time to have passed her by so swiftly, so surely. Yet the frontier wars of Dominia, the rapid expansion of Biesel, and the inevitable civil strife of Sol had broadened the Spur’s already insatiable hunger for weaponry, filling her days and her pockets. While she toiled unceasingly, whether in the fortified recesses of research-complexes, or in the depths of space, Zavodski provided, both for her, and the Spur’s incessant need for weaponry. Most days despite the hefty demands of her remaining loans, she lived comfortably, if uneasily. It ate away at her, day after day, month after month, year after year, eventually she took the time to consider it. Is this what she fled Sun Reach for? Is this all the Spur had to offer? Is this all there was? No, it couldn’t be. The forms were numerous, they always were. So she worked away at them, day after day in whatever spare time she might have, suffering the repeated, pointless interviews. Then, finally an email graced her inbox. “Reassignment Request: SCCV Horizon” The first line “Congratulations - Status: Accepted” A smile crossed her freckled face, the broadest she’d managed in years. It’d turned out that even one of the most illustrious assignments in all of the SCC, and it’s member-corporations, was always in need of personnel. Maaike Hoeke, Research Director. That would do, very nicely indeed. What roles do you plan on playing after the application is accepted? I plan to play Research Director during the trial period, and following. With Consular, and probably some others following it. Have you familiarized yourself with the wiki pages for the command roles? I have yes, prior to applying I took a solid couple hours to thoroughly re-read all of the Command Role wiki pages, and ensuring I had a more thorough and complete understanding of their requirements, and roles. Characters you intend to use for command or have created for command. Include the job they will be taking: Maaike Hoek - Research Director Imogen Janse - Consular Officer Do you understand your whitelist is not permanent, and may be stripped following continuous administrative action? Yes, I do. Have you linked your BYOND account to the Forums? I have. Extra notes: I fully acknowledge that I was pretty grievously negligent in the process that led up to my whitelist being stripped. It was not something I did intentionally, or with any degree of malice, or ill-intent, but in the end that doesn’t matter. It could’ve had some pretty serious consequences to another player, and their character had it gone differently and that’s unacceptable behavior on my part. I’ve taken the month-ish between to consider what I’ve slipped up on in the past, and how I can rectify that, and improve my behavior in-game and oocly to allow for a better experience for other players, as a Head of Staff whitelisted played should. I hope I demonstrate that I fully intend to proceed on a more deliberate, and considered basis, and avoid the mistakes I’ve made previously.

Because I didn't think it exceptionally urgent at nearly 11PM at night. I knew that it would be a continuing topic of discussion, and that I could mention it then. On top of that, while me and Lain have gotten fairly friendly, me getting comfortable with him is a recent occurrence. I didn't want the guy waking up to a bunch of notifications in the morning, and getting annoyed with me messaging him.

I informed Lain of that based off an assumption, I assumed that given the circumstances involved (i.e. a Dominian showing up for an Asylum application with an IPC in-tow), and the history of this type of thing with Dominians. Later in the round I basically had the thought of "Fuck, I should probably figure out for sure". At that point, I ran into Nines in-front of Medical, and directly asked her, she asked why it was relevant, I explained it was a factor that would put Erwin's life at risk, and Nines said the line you quoted. Imogen said either she would consider lying about it, or would lie it about, I don't remember the exact phrasing it's been a few weeks . At this point Lain was off-line, and I didn't message him about it then, but I informed him of the fact that they were not in a relationship the next day when I saw him online. I made a substantial error in not telling him that Imogen had considered lying, even if she had changed her intentions at that point.

At this point, I am not arguing that I shouldn't have lost my whitelist. As you yourself just said, the possibility exists that I exceptionally poorly worded several important, perhaps in a negligent manner, during this. That is neither how yourself, nor Matt have addressed me regarding this. You directly, in your initial discord message said "You lied to the Lore team", as pictured above. @MattAtlas directly above said that because of prior offenses in unrelated parts of command play it cannot be attributed to a misunderstanding, i.e. I was lying. I'm not suggesting that you, or Matt personally have a direct issue with myself, that you are taking out via Administrative action. I am suggesting that when acting in your administrative role, you assumed the worse of the two options presented to you, and accused me of lying because of my prior poor decisions while in a command role. In addition 'My past history' is precisely with this issue, as according to @MattAtlas it means my actions can't be attributed to any sort of mistake, or misunderstanding. At this point, I really would just suggest a more considered approach to this sort of situation, even if it only amounts to more careful wording. I did not lie, I will not lie, and I have at no point in time wanted a character to disappear for OOC considerations, nor would I do anything intentionally to cause that.

With this, I think is the reasoning for the support of the majority of the individuals who have reacted positively to this. A mild inconvenience is being suffered as a result of the similarity of names of the various Hazels, and rather than taking the time to engage with the individual Hazels, and learn them out via roleplaying, or writing them down somewhere for reference, a hammer apparently needs to be brought down and forcibly change these individuals so you might avoid.....mild confusion? I don't think this is the sort of thing that should be encouraged on a serious roleplaying server. Forcing other players to make what is, in some cases a substantive alteration to a character concept, so that you can avoid having to remember what number does what job.