Jump to content
TheOrleans

Staff Complaint - 3 Days ban by House of Synth

Recommended Posts

BYOND Key: TheNewOrleans

Staff BYOND Key: houseofsynth

Game ID: b1v-c43m

Reason for complaint: First, the ban reason:

 You have been banned by houseofsynth.
Reason: disfigured and threw around a deceased vox's corpse on the shuttle because it injured one of your IC friends. In addition, you've had numerous  run-ins with staff over recent times. Take this time to re-read the rules and when the ban is lifted, follow them. Further run-ins with staff will result in heavier punishment. You can find the rules here: https://aurorastation.org/rules.html.
 

Well, the reason for complaint is very simple. The Vox (a disgusting race for my character), just nearly killed Joseph Lock, who is one of the few (FEW) officers who is friendly around Nick, and who Nick likes, and then tried to kill Nick too (shoot him twice, and Nick was badly hurt too), so, my character, once the Vox was gunned down, dislocated his arm (one limb) thinking it wasn't dead. Then he was told the Vox was dead, so Nick kicked it a few times, in rage. Then, again in the shuttle, after seeing Lock so hurt, Nick was really mad, and stomped the Vox a couple more times and threw him against windows around 3-4 times more.

I don't think I deserve a punishment for this, I accepted the fact that throwing it in front of people was unprofessional, which makes sense in a high-stress situation where you were close to death and one of your friends nearly died too, it's totally logic and reasonable what I did. 

I didn't 'disfigure it' (or if it happened, it's not like I did it on purpose, I kicked it a few times and threw it around which causes little damage). I don't think I deserve any kind of punishment for this. 3 days ban? Wow. That was really unexpected.

Evidence/logs/etc: Not needed I guess?

Additional remarks: None

Share this post


Link to post

I will ask synth to provide his reasoning here and then we can go from there. 

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry for the late reply on this.

 

I banned you for going way overboard in terms of beating up this dead vox. You were dislocating it's limbs, kicking it and throwing it against the crew transfer shuttle's windows infront of 20 or so people, and continued to do so on the ODIN, because it injured your character's friend. Even other members of the crew were telling you to stop and were shoving you before we told them to stop making logs. In addition to this, you've been spoken to numerous times by staff recently and so I applied a 3 day ban so you could take a step back, read the rules and follow them when you came back. I ran this past the staff on-server at the time and was met with no objections.

Share this post


Link to post
43 minutes ago, HouseOfSynth said:

You were dislocating it's limbs

It's false I was ''dislocating it's limbs'' you're saying it like if it was something I did in a prolonged and continuous way. I did it once, at the very beginning, cause the Vox had escaped cuffs once, and I dislocated ONE limb (one arm), and then I was told it was dead. 

45 minutes ago, HouseOfSynth said:

kicking it and throwing it against the crew transfer shuttle's windows

Yes, that's something someone does when it's totally driven by madness, pain and hate towards a disgusting Vox who didn't only nearly kill one of the very few friends you have onboard, but also shot you multiple times, hurting you quite badly too, it's an IC response for something that happened IC.

47 minutes ago, HouseOfSynth said:

and continued to do so on the ODIN, because it injured your character's friend

In fact, my character continued to do so after seeing Lock again, stuttering, in a roller bed, so fucked up. It's an emotional response from a character who is a bit aggressive (without abusing this or self-antagging) when someone important for him is nearly killed. One of the very few that, in that same shift, visited him after he got out of surgery.

48 minutes ago, HouseOfSynth said:

Even other members of the crew were telling you to stop and were shoving you before we told them to stop making logs.

In fact, an IPC with 0 emotional simulation (an Idris Reclamation Unit), was telling me to stop and shoved me, and then threatened me (which was even worse for my character's emotional state), I understand an IPC is not capable of processing this, it's an IC thing. 

50 minutes ago, HouseOfSynth said:

you've been spoken to numerous times by staff recently and so I applied a 3 day ban so you could take a step back

Yes, in fact, you checked my notes and assumed all I was doing had no sense, despite me explaining why everything had a reason behind.

51 minutes ago, HouseOfSynth said:

I ran this past the staff on-server at the time and was met with no objections.

I doubt that staff was told all the reasons I explained (cause I wrote a lot to explain myself), and was fully aware of all the situation. 

 

Summary:

It's a non-crew being, disgusting race for my character (background), having this character a bit aggressive behaviour in stressful situations (not much, I never abuse it, or at least I try to abuse it), who nearly killed one of the few friends my character has, who then shot my character multiple times causing a good amount of pain (I understand that pain roleplay is not something very popular in this server cause no one even tries to act as someone with real pain, but IRL, pain causes you to act without thinking much), and I get a 3 days ban for disrespecting a corpse by shoving it, and hitting it. Is my behaviour non-believable? Ever experienced a traumatic experience IRL with real pain and stress?

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

Hey there, I'm the Player of Joseph Lock, said stuttering nearly killed Security Officer.

 

I didn't really have the opportunity to witness any of what was mentioned in this complaint. A couple blasts to my helmet-less head with whatever green spewing energy weapon and a spike thrower and I was down pretty much for the rest of the round. Only seeing Volvalaad after the EVAC shuttle had docked with the Odin and Lock was being wheeled too the medical bay outside of the docking station. When I saw this post I felt obligated to make a comment on it being the object of motivation for IC wrath.

I don't know TheNewOrleans well as a player, I can't really say that for any player on Aurora, I'm just not that in the community yet, but I'm working on it. From what I do know of Volvalaad as a character and my interactions with him is that he regularly toes the line of what is appropriate and what isn't from both an emotional standpoint and a general air of conduct. The why what and where of this behavior is not for me to comment on. But from what I've read of the server rules, especially that of character rules is that a very and I mean very strict interpretation of the rules would see him receive this three day ban. I'm not sure how that stacks up with previous notes and punishments of TheNewOrleans and this is also not really my place to comment on as I've not been involved in anything relating to him as a player prior to this ban.

But I do have one thing that I'd like to present.

One of my favorite aspects about Aurora Station and particularly the structure of how players are policed are the CCIAA and how characters themselves can be policed ICly. I find the model fascinating and I personally believe it allows for more controversial play in a HRP setting. That being said the server needs to maintain a metric of fairness and adherence to the rules, I just believe that in  cases such as Nicholas Volvalaad, the player shouldn't be punished, the character though probably should. From what I've seen I believe in the capacity of TheNewOrleans to create a realistic character, while that character may not be well-liked or well-rounded ICly, or even OOCly, I think the character and the play of said character should be policed by the CCIAA, not Administrative action. Interacting with CCIAA already has strict guidelines of what needs to be done from what I've read. From that point if the player, TheNewOrleans, inherits the belligerence of his character, the OOC administrative action would be more appropriate and highly expected. As in that scenario, the player would've displayed that he is responsible for violation of the rules and not his character.

But thats just my two cents on the matter. I won't dispute that the ban isn't valid with a strict interpretation of the Aurora Station rules, just that I don't believe that strict view is appropriate or the best action in regards to Nicholas Volvalaad.

Edited by Schmuck Lord

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

@Garnascus @HouseOfSynth

I know this is not going to be resolved before the ban ends, but I would like to hold this complaint even after the ban ends, cause I don't want to have this ban on my record cause it would be used in the future to ban me for anything with the excuse of:

On 31/05/2019 at 21:02, HouseOfSynth said:

you've been spoken to numerous times by staff recently

Even when I don't deserve it.

 

Problem with this way of applicating this is that it's a loop that leads you to getting permabanned as soon as the staff members start using it as a reason to ban or punish without really deserving it. I talked with many people about this post and they don't think this is a reason to get punished at all.

Edited by TheOrleans

Share this post


Link to post
On 31/05/2019 at 21:59, TheOrleans said:

I doubt that staff was told all the reasons I explained (cause I wrote a lot to explain myself), and was fully aware of all the situation.  

1 Staffmember and me were reading the PMs between you and synth.

Afterwards synth asked for suggestions/made a suggestion and the staff on the server came to the conclusion that the punishment was appropriate.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, Shadow said:

1 Staffmember and me were reading the PMs between you and synth.

Afterwards synth asked for suggestions/made a suggestion and the staff on the server came to the conclusion that the punishment was appropriate.

So, after reading the post, do you still think it was appropiate?

 

However if you agreed, I'm here complaining against your decision too

Edited by TheOrleans

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, TheOrleans said:

So, after reading the post, do you still think it was appropiate?

 

However if you agreed, I'm here complaining against your decision too

I am retired staff, my opinion doesn't matter and doesn't have any impact.

I just wanted to clarify that other staffmembers did indeed read your PMs and talked with synth.

 

Share this post


Link to post

So let me see if i understand this train of events.

1. Theorleans is playing as nick volvalaad during a heist round.

2. Joseph locke, an IC friend of nick volvalaad was nearly killed by a Vox.

3. The same badly hurt nick volvalaad. 

4. The Vox was gunned down in a firefight

5. Nick assuming the Vox was dead began dislocating the Vox's limbs in rage.

6. The vox dies and nick kicks their head in a bit. 

7. Sometime on the shuttle nick throws the corpse against the window. 

There is of course information i am missing. I do not know the specifics of the firefight or how the vox was gunned down. It seems reasonable though for me to assume that it was fair of you to assume the vox was dead. While i am usually very critical of security who want to do "heat of the moment" things like this i feel that the end result here was relatively tame. That is to say the body of a Vox was beaten up and abused. This would be one thing if you arrested and brigged the vox and you just decided to toss em down disposals. 

Share this post


Link to post
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7
On 31/05/2019 at 19:36, Schmuck Lord said:

One of my favorite aspects about Aurora Station and particularly the structure of how players are policed are the CCIAA and how characters themselves can be policed ICly. I find the model fascinating and I personally believes it allows for more controversial play in a HRP setting. That being said the server needs to maintain a metric of fairness and adherence to the rules, I just believe that in  cases such as Nicholas Volvalaad, the player shouldn't be punished, the character though probably should. From what I've seen I believe in the capacity of TheNewOrleans to create a realistic character, while that character may not be well-liked or well-rounded ICly, or even OOCly, I think the character and the play of said character should be policed by the CCIAA, not Administrative action. Interacting with CCIAA already has strict guidelines of what needs to be done from what I've read. From that point if the player, TheNewOrleans, inherits the belligerence of his character, the OOC administrative action would be more appropriate and highly expected. As in that scenario, the player would've displayed that he is responsible for violation of the rules and not his character.

 

Although this would have been an interesting IR, the vox is a antag, and IRs can be used when antag interactions are the crux of why said incident occured, hence the OOC punishment.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Garnascus said:

So let me see if i understand this train of events.

1. Theorleans is playing as nick volvalaad during a heist round.

2. Joseph locke, an IC friend of nick volvalaad was nearly killed by a Vox.

3. The same badly hurt nick volvalaad. 

4. The Vox was gunned down in a firefight

5. Nick assuming the Vox was dead began dislocating the Vox's limbs in rage.

6. The vox dies and nick kicks their head in a bit. 

7. Sometime on the shuttle nick throws the corpse against the window. 

There is of course information i am missing. I do not know the specifics of the firefight or how the vox was gunned down. It seems reasonable though for me to assume that it was fair of you to assume the vox was dead. While i am usually very critical of security who want to do "heat of the moment" things like this i feel that the end result here was relatively tame. That is to say the body of a Vox was beaten up and abused. This would be one thing if you arrested and brigged the vox and you just decided to toss em down disposals. 

Error in the point 5. Nick, assuming the Vox 'was NOT dead, and since it escaped cuffs already once, started dislocating the Vox's limbs both for the rage and to avoid it escaping again, and when the HoS told Nick that the Vox was dead, Nick stopped dislocating (so he only dislocated one arm)'
 

The Vox was gunned down two times. One in the Vacant Office (after nearly killing Locke), then it was cuffed, but since Vox can break cuffs (I think, or if this is not true, I don't know how he escaped cuffs), he escaped and a second firefight started, this is where Nick was badly hurt, in this firefight the Vox was gunned down again, and here is where I dislocated his arm to stop him from killing more people (and due to the rage and pain, of course) thinking it wasn't dead. Then the HoS told Nick that the Vox was dead, so Nick stopped dislocating.

 

And for point 7 ''Sometime on the shuttle Nick throwed the corpse against a window a couple of times, and hit it a couple of times too''

And I would add a point 8 to fully understand the end of the round ''Then, when arriving at ODIN, Nick saw Locke very, VERY hurt (stuttering and all), so Nick threw the Vox corpse again, this time not hitting anything, just thew it away in the hallway''

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, ben10083 said:

Although this would have been an interesting IR, the vox is a antag, and IRs can be used when antag interactions are the crux of why said incident occured, hence the OOC punishment.

I think this is a bad logic, a very toxic one for the punishment systems of the server.

-If you do something bad ICly, and someone wishes to report it, you get an IR.

-If you do something bad that breaks a rule, and someone wishes to report it, you get a complaint (or ahelp + direct punishment)

 

But, what is not right is:

-You do something bad ICly, and since it's non-canon and I can't punish it with an IRs so.... BAN HE

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, TheOrleans said:

I think this is a bad logic, a very toxic one for the punishment systems of the server.

-If you do something bad ICly, and someone wishes to report it, you get an IR.

-If you do something bad that breaks a rule, and someone wishes to report it, you get a complaint (or ahelp + direct punishment)

 

But, what is not right is:

-You do something bad ICly, and since it's non-canon and I can't punish it with an IRs so.... BAN HE

A ban is not the only way to deal with such a situation, I am not aware of the finer details of how moderators or admins deal with such situations, but I assume it is similar to how we deal with it, taking account in many factors including the incident itself when deciding punishment. A IR effectively makes the incident canon, as such, antag involvement usually invalidates the possibility of an IR and opens the door for a OOC solution.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, ben10083 said:

A ban is not the only way to deal with such a situation, I am not aware of the finer details of how moderators or admins deal with such situations, but I assume it is similar to how we deal with it, taking account in many factors including the incident itself when deciding punishment. A IR effectively makes the incident canon, as such, antag involvement usually invalidates the possibility of an IR and opens the door for a OOC solution.

Doubling down on this as a one-time CCIA, there will not be both an IR punishment and an administrative punishment for any single situation. Double jeopardy is not something that happens, incident reports can still occur however if the antagonist involvement is so miniscule as to not be the basis or a major influencing factor on a situation. This is case-by-case basis though, and the exception, not the norm.

 

If you can't be IR'd for a situation due to antagonist involvement (IE, removing the situation from the hands of CCIA due to round circumstances), then the decision must of course be left in the hands of Administrators and Moderators (IE, OOC punishments [Notes, Bans, Kicks]). That's not a toxic punishment system, that's uh, common sense.

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, TheOrleans said:

I think this is a bad logic, a very toxic one for the punishment systems of the server.

-If you do something bad ICly, and someone wishes to report it, you get an IR.

-If you do something bad that breaks a rule, and someone wishes to report it, you get a complaint (or ahelp + direct punishment)

 

But, what is not right is:

-You do something bad ICly, and since it's non-canon and I can't punish it with an IRs so.... BAN HE

The character complaints section is an OOC moderation tool for non-rule breaking things that really can't be covered via IRs. An IR is a great way to pin someone if the events within are cannon, however this cannot be done all the time. CCIA actions are an IC version of an OOC slap on the wrist. This character should then be played as having dealt with those repricussions. If they are not punishment gets worse, in the form of single character "job-bans" and eventually "character-bans" from CCIA actions. Ignoring these leads to administrative action eventually. If you are being a shit character when antags are around because "hurr durr it's not cannon!" then admins very much so should step up and do something about it.

I'm not accusing you of anything, I'm just correcting a mindset that IC actions must always be punished ICly. This is false. OOC action is how we promote good RP. This is from both sides of the fence as I have served on both the Moderation and CCIA teams.

Share this post


Link to post

Getting a second opinion on this. Sorry for the delay.

@HouseOfSynthwhat do you think about the feedback i have posted here? 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 06/06/2019 at 12:05, Garnascus said:

Getting a second opinion on this. Sorry for the delay.

@HouseOfSynthwhat do you think about the feedback i have posted here? 

Synth is chilin' it seems, he's taking his time to reply :D

Edited by TheOrleans

Share this post


Link to post
On 06/06/2019 at 11:05, Garnascus said:

Getting a second opinion on this. Sorry for the delay.

@HouseOfSynthwhat do you think about the feedback i have posted here? 

Apologies for the late reply. Looking through everything posted that seems ok. I'd originally have gone with a warning, however. But, as stated in the ban, I escalated it due to the high volume of prior staff infractions. But given the info in the thread and your own judgement I'm happy to drop it down. That's my resolution unless @TheOrleans wishes to contest anything else from within the thread.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, HouseOfSynth said:

Apologies for the late reply. Looking through everything posted that seems ok. I'd originally have gone with a warning, however. But, as stated in the ban, I escalated it due to the high volume of prior staff infractions. But given the info in the thread and your own judgement I'm happy to drop it down. That's my resolution unless @TheOrleans wishes to contest anything else from within the thread.

I would like to say that when I opened this staff complaint it was cause I didn't think that I should have been punished AT ALL. I would like to know Garn's opinion, if he thinks I should be given a warning, just a note, or nothing at all.

Thanks for replying! Better late than never right?

Share this post


Link to post

Been sick as a dog last few days. 

Anyway after getting alberyk's opinion on this i feel comfortable this situation is 100% an IC issue. It will be expunged from your record. I am making this judgement for two reasons. 

1. I believe the OP is acting in good faith when he demonstrates his reasoning for doing what he did IC.

2. The effect of his actions was exceedingly tame. 

Tame in the sense that all that really happened was a dead body got beat around and spooked everyone IC. While this is a super crazy thing to see from the perception of IC it is just that, IC. Nobody had their round ruined. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Garnascus said:

Been sick as a dog last few days. 

Anyway after getting alberyk's opinion on this i feel comfortable this situation is 100% an IC issue. It will be expunged from your record. I am making this judgement for two reasons. 

1. I believe the OP is acting in good faith when he demonstrates his reasoning for doing what he did IC.

2. The effect of his actions was exceedingly tame. 

Tame in the sense that all that really happened was a dead body got beat around and spooked everyone IC. While this is a super crazy thing to see from the perception of IC it is just that, IC. Nobody had their round ruined. 

Very appreciated, thank you!

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...