Faris

Just a post saying I'm going to handle this.

To clear up a few things, while we are still looking into a few things, we have made a decision on others. 1) If a person tries to be a hero, then they are subject to the punishment of failure, which is basically being at the mercy of the person they failed against. This includes being charged with a spear or have a Molotov thrown at you. Both can cause serious damage, so the gloves being removed to retaliate is something normal. A giant can still squash an ant if it's annoying. 2) I don't think stealing surgical equipment even from both rooms is really bad? Obstacles do drive roleplay, even if both rooms were taken, it is an obstacle that could be overcome. I think it would only be an issue for me if they removed healing methods to wipe out the station, which I don't think is really the case here. Basically it boils down to intentional massive collateral, which is in the rules, which again does not seem to be the case this round. 3) I can see that a genuine attempt was made by some of the antagonists here. Yes, they did go through a route to establish their superiority compared to station resources, but from what I see they still tried to involve people. 4) Flamingo and I did spot some unsavory behavior, which for the time being is remaining vague as we look into it further. Mainly on the aggressiveness front. We'll try to finish this up in the next 48 hours.

Locking and archiving.

I'm not going to remove your ban yet since this is not your first. I've detailed a lot of my issues in my other post. https://forums.aurorastation.org/viewtopic.php?p=103896#p103896 I'm willing to give you a chance but not yet. Appeal in 2 months. Appeal denied. Leaving this open for another 24 hours.

The important bit, now let me link you a few things from our rules. I bolded the important bits. Now onto your history. First Seen 2018-03-09 01:35:08, your first log in, but your time seems to have started around 23205 2018-04-05 04:43:23. Admittedly one of my quickest permabans but I still feel it's justified, which I'll explain why. Out of your 13 staff entries, you have 4 bans. The issue here is you have a history of consistent rule violations, repeats. So with a lot of trouble caused, you decide to send an ahelp that violates our rules, then when I asked you about our rules, you tell me you were perfectly aware of the issue. You frankly have gotten more chances than you deserve. The ban is deserved and will stick unless [mention]Garnascus[/mention] says otherwise.

Locking and archiving.

You were never told to stop this specifically. Locking and archiving as nothing new has been added.

The complaint isn't about the ERT, that's for different areas of the forums. So as expected, that side of the argument did go no where as it isn't the reason of the complaint. The complain is about your interactions with Amaya Stone. How you want to handle the situation is up to you, within confines of the rules. I disagree that the rifle argument is null, because you're a perceived threat. If you're holding a weapon in a state which permits you to immediately fire, then it's only fair for people to assume you're a threat. You made the decision to run after them and they reacted. Nothing of that nature was even said. As said above, when a character presents themselves as a possible danger, in this card an emergency response member armed with a hardsuit and weaponry, then perhaps consider how others would react? If you'd like us to brush off on how else you could've handled it, then I'll be happy to, since I sense the thought that there was only one course of action, which is the one you took. 1- If you wanted to emphasize dialogue, the station in every department has request consoles which you as an ERT should be able to broadcast an announcement. Assuming that doesn't work, there are command consoles around the station which you could also use. 2- The usage of cover prior to the immediate chase, putting yourself in a safe position to still speak to them. 3- Waiting for your team to arrive, as ERT are a team rather than lone operatives. Once they arrive, a plan or a more safer course of action could be made. 4- Consider the possibility they are luring you and instead flank/intercept them elsewhere. Few options that come to mind. So no, you don't need to drop your gun, you're just required to think given the context of the situation what could happen and adapt. Going after someone whom you made a general announcement to surrender and then called out personally, where in both cases they did not comply, you still chose to go after them alone, while visibly a threat to them. I'm not really interested in a back and forth argument here so unless further information is brought, I'll archive this tomorrow. Bottom line is, you committed to an action, the antagonist reacted, that's about it. If you want to discuss the presence of ERT on the station, then the Character/Player complaints isn't the place.

Generally when an Emergency Response Team is called, is not that all RP is thrown it, it's that at that point, escalation of conflict has generally reached at the end of the spectrum. The calling of an ERT is generally called when on-station assets on this station were not sufficient, which in this case was. It's for an emergency the station cannot handle. Now, the series of events that I see are as follows, based on logs provided here. I don't see the issue with this? You're chasing them with a weapon, there's intent to disable them. There is roleplay that covered the entire round which resulted in ERT being called, their objective is to end what ever emergency there is. Stopping Amaya Stone falls under their objectives one way or another. The Trooper called them out, Stone made the conscious decision to still evade so the trooper pulled out their weapon and went through a door they closed behind them. You engaged in a chase and they effectively ambushed you, taking you out as a threat to their livelihood. Usually we close complaints that have already been resolved, but I still gave this a double look. I just think the main issue here stems more as an error of judgement. To avoid that issue of being engaged like that and effectively losing a part of your body, the trooper should have considered alternatives to approach this. The Trooper went after them alone with a held and ready rifle instead of coordinating with the entire team or considering the trickery here. What does this all mean? This last bit is an indication that this is really more of an in-character issue here. Basically this checks out. Keeping this open for another 24 hours.

I'll just start this by saying our investigation turned out that what verdict CCIA came with was valid. We'll go over a few points. The difference in punishment may be severely different, but that is due to the amount of issues CCIA have found with each individual. When we isolated each individual with their punishment and actions, we found it to reasonable. Especially the Chief Engineer who was working on the Head of Security advice. The investigative procedure itself didn't really seem to have any lapses. We went through each individual interrogation and seeing as they were provided with the relevant logs to conduct their investigation. This also was not a singular effort, but rather a group effort by a number of their team, showing us to they were rather thorough. We feel the points in which they picked their punishments were also valid, which Synnono was kind enough to clarify here.

Keep this to people involved now. Those with opinions on the matter have shared it already.

Locking and archiving as concluded.

Locking and archiving as accepted.

This took me a while to think over, so I'll go over it point by point until I reveal the verdict. I do need to agree that there does appear a disparity in Jawdats playstyle as command. For a server which values persistence and consistence in character roleplay, doing 180 degree switches such as those don't really paint a positive image to me. I'm not sure what's there to call out about the specific type of administration. If a staff member sees an issue, naturally it'll be a gotcha to the player. I don't believe you're being inherently malicious here with these shifts, but it's still an issue. You have a character, yes they can change, but they shouldn't flip from being a sun and then a moon each round. So I do agree with them on this point. As unfortunate as it is to say, you do have a history with brushing up against the rules, some while playing command and others revolve around general rule violations. As per the rules of staff enforcement, punishments are given for a sum of violations. This is doubly mentioned in the command whitelist rules. They've stated that they've reviewed your entries, which I also double checked, so I do concur with them that they are proper on this front. Reviewing the thread a couple of times now, I've noticed that the person filing this complaint seems to have bypassed a couple of points raised and diverted to other topics. Given the time this complaint has been up, I'm going to assume that no suitable reply was thought of. An example. This point by Alberyk was never really countered? I'm just seeing an argument about catch 22 and how they aren't giving you a singular path. I don't see the team as punishing you for all the paths. I'm seeing part of the reason of the strip as due to my first point. There seems the belief that the action of the strip was something spearheaded by Coalf on some form of agenda. As per reviewing their discussion and responses, I also feel that this claim doesn't have much ground to stand on. I've specifically reviewed their discussion and the decision was a collaborative effort. With all those points said and done, my verdict is that the punishment given was just and fair given the material reviewed, which I do not find to be lacking. Meaning that the whitelist is not being returned. I have went ahead and asked for the conditions of reapplication if you'd like to. You can reapply a month after the date of the whitelist being stripped. You're free to use your previous application, but that does not guarantee being accepted. In the notes section, you'll need to outline the reason it was initially stripped.

I'm mostly referencing this. To be on the straight page, no ahelp was taken by staff? Who directed you to make the complaint?

If this round was as bad as some make it sound, why did no one report it to staff?

Alright, I'll accept this appeal. Next time it happens while your warning is active it'll be permanent until appeal/

The issue is this isn't your first time. You even have a warning from before

It's a week, not perma. And it's only bartender.

Locking and archiving as denied.

The bottom line, the action that can be considered the final straw here was something deserving of punishment, it was wrong and I am slightly disappointed it happened in the first place. That being said, after consulting what was said here and in my discussions with a number of people mainly on discord, I've reached a decision. I do want to say that a whitelist strip in my opinion is an applicable punishment. I'll outline a few main points of relevance. The verdict is as follows. Now for some feedback. 1- Mostly covered, but your reliance on sedatives is a major issue here. 2- Playing characters that are dicks is fine. It becomes an issue when people apparently cryo when they see you. It's easy to say that people can join to become residents, and it's something I advise as well, but during cases of extreme emergencies, who has the time to teach new people mechanics? It's hard and time consuming. The understand that behind that screen is a person should be considered, so resorting to suspending people all the time is not something I've grown fond of, and I advise you approach that option more selectively. A person that is clearly new and struggling? Okay, maybe they cannot handle the more extreme of operations, so send them off to more basic things they can pull off. We are a community based on a game, people will struggle, people will learn, this happens. You can retain a character that other characters dislikes while at the same time not being off-putting to players. This is not all strictly for Resilynn as I'm aware a good majority of people that play medical are reading this. I've played medical, and I've found it that as a random character, that it is extremely off putting recently. You're a nice person and I never had the chance to speak to you about this, with my recent break, but I know you're not doing all this intentionally. So keep everything in mind. This'll stay up for another 24 hours unless anything relevant is added.

I am curious on your reasoning behind this? I know you've discussed it with Alberyk on PM's, but, this encounter specifically outlines a few things to me. 1- If you had the time to stand and talk, it strikes me that you didn't have anyone specifically in need for you right now. 2- The previous two encounters had Lok Cromwell as suffering, per my memory, an acid cloud and later he was gasping. 3- He's telling you that he's being attended to by one of your own staff. A chemist yes, but it was not exactly a usual situation, so all hands on deck. 4- Sedating someone without them being a threat and lacking sufficient reasoning can even incur infractions. Bottom line is. Why was it so important that you had to sedate someone who has asked for medical attention beforehand, and from their point of view shunned? Who at the time of those logs, was receiving some receiving some care. While you may not have perceived as something majorly serious verdict, it is still a verdict which you affirmed? For reference, this is from https://forums.aurorastation.org/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=9533 Regarding Command whitelist removal:

He's in charge of the whitelists and was the one that wanted to punish me as his posts on my staff complaint on house of synth shows. All three are in charge of whitelists.

How did Price come to the realization that crisis borgs were ineffective when the time between swiping for crisis and ERT was around 2 minutes?

This is a clarification post and is in no way a verdict. It'll detail the information I've gotten so far. To clarify a bit about punishments. Reprimands are given based on the sum of all actions. What I gather, that while the latest incident was the final straw so to speak, it wasn't the only thing. The next note is a bit iffy and under review in conjunction with the one that placed it. I plan on pushing out the verdict within 24 hours.