Doomberg

When you tick your antag preferences on, you do so accepting the fact that you are likely to end up in cuffs, a cell, a straight jacket, or the morgue, depending on your actions and partly on your luck. Security is not obligated to give you a chance as long as their conduct is within the boundaries of our rules - you're expected to create your own backup plans and escape routes. Had you cooperated, I have no doubt that no straight jacket would have been involved, but you used your powers while in captivity, so security removed the possibility for you to use them any further. You were completely within rights to ghost and request a respawn at that point, and it would have most likely been granted to you. It's relatively normal to be pissed off about getting caught (I do too), but I do not see any OOC issues here.

Alright. Due to general inactivity and failure to utilize the proper format, I'll be locking this. The author is free to PM me at any time to have it reopened - with the proper format, preferably.

Locking and archiving as per request.

Avery Dawkins. (Atton, particularly at 1:10. Actual KOTOR 2 spoilers ahead.)

As this is a staff issue first and foremost, you'll probably want to post it over http://aurorastation.org/forums/viewforum.php?f=36 here, as that is the appropriate subforum for complaints regarding the actions of a member of staff. Though, let me take this moment to address a glaring issue here: No one but the wizard can use the wizard's staff. Anyone else who does use it is in clear violation of the rules.

Gank is defined as the act of attacking or killing another player with no interaction or roleplay leading up to it. This definition unfortunately leaves a lot to the imagination, thus creating many gray areas and resulting in numerous player complaints. Following our last staff meeting on the 18th of April, we tried to shed some light on what is and is not considered gank. Neutralizing another character without roleplay is allowed /only/ under the following circumstances: The character in question is a physical threat to you (he is armed or can be reasonably expected to be armed) and catches you in an illegal or otherwise compromising act. The character in question fails to comply with your demands (for example, he yells for security over his headset despite being aimed at and told to remain silent). Characters that do not fall under the above parameters are to be interacted and roleplayed with until they fail to comply or become threats. Players found to be constantly over-escalating force will see disciplinary action taken against them, adjusted according to the severity of the offense. The main point of debate in this thread is in regards to hostages, or, more specifically, resisting in a hostage situation. Should a player who is in possession of a weapon and not restrained be allowed to attempt to take down his captor if the opportunity arises, or should he be OOCly constrained to comply outside of exceptional circumstances? Let's consider some examples. Example situation one: You are a security officer who gets held up by an antagonist. You are armed, you have a tazer on your belt. You think you may have a chance to take down the antagonist. You go for your tazer and engage the antagonist. Obviously, the antagonist, at this point, can kill you without any further emotes or say's involved. Whoever wins, wins (the main argument being, if the antagonist was truly in control of you and the situation, you'd die. Horribly). Example situation two: Same setup, you're a sec officer, armed, you walk up to an antagonist and you have a weapon on your person, easily accessible. However, the rules now dictate that you must comply with the orders, at least, on the count of not being able to directly retaliate. You can try and run, but going for your weapon is off limits. If the targeted crew member is in a non-combat role, has no combat training, but happens to be armed and/or attempts to outrobust the antag, they will be investigated under the clause of powergaming. Which of these examples do you find ideal, and why?

Considering the implications of the gamemode and the circumstances, I don't think this is worth a formal warning or jobban. It's potentially the most difficult gamemode to play AI in, and - at least in my opinion - the AI has to decide which of the heads of staff has legitimacy, so to speak. I'll have a word regarding how station AIs should generally work in this case with my colleagues, but as it stands, I see no reason for outright punishment.

Once more, please use the appropriate format found http://aurorastation.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=23 here. Failure to do so will result in this being locked.

Do remember to remain civil and not taunt each other. With that aside, I'll be waiting for a few more witnesses to speak up, since you two seem to be contradicting each other. Any names would be appreciated, particularly those of the captain/head mutineer.

We have a standard complaint format for a reason. Please make use of it: http://aurorastation.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=23

Alright. Locking up and archiving. Feel free to PM me if you have anything to add/contest.

Alright, so, we've had an explanation from either party. I don't see this issue as entirely black and white, more of something that should be noted in case further incidents of this sort occur and, if possible, treated as a learning experience. While the argument of doing this as an incident report may be initially valid, we'd have to keep a Vox incursion canon, which is... less than optimal. How do you want to proceed?

From what I can tell, the chosen course of action might not have been the most ideal or conducive to further roleplay, but I can't exactly fault 1138 for reacting in this fashion, considering the fact that he had already broadcasted a general warning and HoP's /are/ known to be issued a personal defense sidearm. Following our recent staff meeting, we've outlined a few clarifications regarding the gank rule, which should hopefully prevent further issues like this from cropping up. At the end of the day, I think this should be treated as a learning experience for both parties. Thoughts?

The title should perhaps be adjusted to "this week has been a shit", considering the circumstances. I don't blame you.

Avery Dawkins. Give me infinite regret and grief.

And I was hoping for swimsuit pics. Get better soon, yes?

Alright. I believe we can safely lock this for the time being, considering the hundred or so posts made without reaching any sort of agreement. Ultimately, I would deem this an IC issue. My offer still remains - if you believe this decision is wrong, you're free to PM me and I will have either of my colleagues review the complaint individually. Until then, locking and archiving.

For clarification regarding the amount of baton hits, mainly aimed towards those who might deem it relevant: http://puu.sh/hfiKt/c5bb17295b.png there were four attempts, two missed, two hit, as confirmed by our friendly developers. Each successful attack produces three separate logs. Each unsuccessful attack produces a single one. Regarding the argument of previous incidents - yes, they exist. Yes, they are relevant and should be brought up, but they are not recent and in this instance I do not see an issue with Sue's OOC conduct. With that aside, I'd like to lock this to prevent things from spiraling out of control. My take on it is that this is not an OOC matter, but if you would like, I can have either of my colleagues read over this and give you their verdict as well. Thoughts?

The very same on my end, because I see this as an IC issue. I will confess that I believe it would have been dealt with in a different fashion ICly, though. The incident report forum is for when people feel that an IC issue was not appropriately resolved ICly, which is precisely what this is. As said previously, I cannot punish anyone OOCly for having a mean character/being ICly abusive when justified. That's for the DOs to sort out, but they cannot act on OOC information, which is why I HEAVILY encourage people to post incident reports for things like this.

Let's start with a quick definition of end round grief. End round grief is pretty much performing any sort of /physical/ hostile action on yourself or others, especially if it generates attack logs. It refers to physical conflict. Fights. Unless Ana is gifted with Thu'um (forgive the shoddy attempt at relieving tension), I do not believe her insults physically harmed the character in question. As for the argument of the harmbaton being end round grief, let us take into account the fact that the suspect disarmed a security officer - which is, yes, a hostile physical action that generates logs - of his weapon before being subdued and smacked. Had Ana harmbatonned the suspect for the insult, this would have been an entirely different story. The harmbaton was a result of resisting arrest, assault, and theft of a weapon from a security officer. The IC motivation for this is there. Half of the command staff was lost to a mad bomber and Ana was practically drafted to command security - she did not have a choice. Should Ana be fired, at this point? Very likely. Can you get her fired? Potentially. http://aurorastation.org/forums/viewforum.php?f=81 first step begins right here. This is perfect material for an IC report, and grounds for IC punishment, but I cannot, in good conscience, punish someone OOCly because their character was being mean.

You must provide us with phooootooos. I need to see what Pacific Hell looks like. Until then, take it easy! Enjoy the break from the server. You've earned it! Hope you have fun. He just wants photos of you in a swimsuit. Have fun, don't get eaten by dragons. I hear they have those there.

Had a word with Bokaza and explained how loyalty implants should work, and what sort of actions aren't permitted while implanted. I'll be locking and archiving this, as it's more or less resolved. Consider it a learning experience.

Okay. Let's put it this way. The world is big. There are many people in the world. Some of these people may have identical names. I see absolutely no issue whatsoever here. I'm going to be locking and archiving this. You're free to PM myself or Jenna if you want to contest this - otherwise, this is pretty much resolved.

Slime 'nam. No prisoners. Only death.