Karolis2011 (9/11/19)

[EvilBrage]

BYOND Key: EvilBrage

Staff BYOND Key: Karlois2011

Game ID: b3b-c2tH

Reason for complaint: Elected to "warn" me for the following:

Quote

Failed to follow ERT trooper orders as cargo tech, hack there way to excape pods, justifies things by being ex pirate.

This is a vast oversimplification of the argument I provided. My character Jaylor has a long-standing (years, mind you) history of engineering expertise and knowledge. This is reflected in his records, the pre-set skills on character generation, and in his actions. Through the round, the Emergency Response Team was acting in an overtly hostile manner as they are wont to do, threatening crew members and generally engaging in terrible behavior. Jaylor elected to avoid the incident unfolding at the red dock and instead proceed through to the escape pods, which were the only other reliable means of egress from the station.

Karolis2011 elected to ignore the character and instead focus on the job - stating that a cargo technician would be unable to hack their way through a door, also declaring that the ERT was "there to protect you." It seems that an individual taking quasi-legal measures to protect themselves was completely beyond the pale for this moderator in particular and reflects a lack of understanding with regards to differences between characters and how this can impact an individual's capabilities. Adhering to this standard across the board would reduce every character to a caricature depending on the job they held.

My actions played very little role during the round as a whole, beyond sheltering individuals in cargo - the only individual who could have possibly taken issue with my actions was the ERT trooper whose power trip was interrupted when I departed the security checkpoint after unreasonable (in my character's point of view) singling out and demands. Hearing the quote "I am about to go lethal on all of you" is not confidence inspiring, and so having Jaylor depart after such a threat seemed fitting. The only other sure means of escape from the station was the Escape Pods.

To summarize:

1. Disobeying an ERT trooper is not against server rules.
2. Having a character with knowledge spanning more than one department is not against server rules.
3. Playing a former criminal is not against the rules.

Considering these three facts, and there is nothing else contained within the warning, I must arrive to the conclusion that Karlois2011 has made an error in judgment that should be rectified.

Evidence/logs/etc:

Quote

 [Moderator PM] Karolis2011: So how you got the the pods?
PM to Karolis2011: Jacked open the doors.
 [Moderator PM] Karolis2011: As cargo tech?
PM to Karolis2011: He's been able to do this forever. Check the records and skill set.
 [Moderator PM] Karolis2011: Why you didn't go then on main shuttle?
PM to Karolis2011: Jaylor has a mistrust for authority, and the ERT was being incompetent. So we found another way.
 [Moderator PM] Karolis2011: And you think this is a good reson to just powergame your way to escape pods?
PM to Karolis2011: That's not what powergaming is.
PM to Karolis2011: Where did I utilize a skill Jaylor would not have, realistically?
PM to Karolis2011: Moreover, did my actions significantly impact someone else's round?
 [Moderator PM] Karolis2011: Your records aren't good, and this behavour isn't top notch high RP we are expectig.
 [Moderator PM] Karolis2011: Correction: your notes*
PM to Karolis2011: Everything there has been from backstory and things that have actually happened during canon rounds.
PM to Karolis2011: Specifically dated events.
 [Moderator PM] Karolis2011: Still, it's unreasonable for cargo tech to go and hack there way to escape pods.
PM to Karolis2011: For a cargo tech with no engineering experience? I agree - but that's not what happened.
 [Moderator PM] Karolis2011: I am going to warn you about this, and how it's a little bit over the top. Please try to restrain yourself and use such skills in emergincy situations, not in like I didn't like them and so I am going to do it my way.
PM to Karolis2011: That's absolutely not what happened; you're misreading the situation that did not impact anyone's round. What I did was completely and wholly within the rules, and now we're holding up the next round and splitting hairs.
PM to Karolis2011: This was absolutely an emergency situation - it's not like this was an extended round on code green without people dying.
 [Moderator PM] Karolis2011: Were you directly thretened? No. Were you chased by hostiles? Also No as most of them were dead at that time.
PM to Karolis2011: I was directly threatened by Trooper Jones, yes.
PM to Karolis2011: "I am about to get lethal on you."
 [Moderator PM] Karolis2011: They are to protect crew and you probably were armed.
PM to Karolis2011: That's about as close to a threat as it gets. So I elected not to take the shuttle with the gung-ho rookie and find the only other method of egress.
PM to Karolis2011: Were you playing the trooper in question? I see no other reason we should hold things up like this.
 [Moderator PM] Karolis2011: They did what they were supposed to do, they asked you to disarm and you failed to follow that is unrealistic to listen to called emergincy response team. Your hbehavour now was unreasonable. Enougth.
 [Moderator PM] Karolis2011: My decision is final, you got warning and if you fell this is unfail take this to forums.
PM to Karolis2011: My behavior was entirely reasonable, and I will not be changing that opinion because you believe otherwise with no supporting evidence.

 

[Garnascus]

I will get this after @Karolis2011 gives their side. 

[Karolis2011]

8 hours ago, EvilBrage said:

Through the round, the Emergency Response Team was acting in an overtly hostile manner as they are wont to do, threatening crew members and generally engaging in terrible behavior.

 

8 hours ago, EvilBrage said:

... taken issue with my actions was the ERT trooper whose power trip was interrupted when I departed the security checkpoint after unreasonable (in my character's point of view) singling out and demands. Hearing the quote "I am about to go lethal on all of you" is not confidence inspiring, and so having Jaylor depart after such a threat seemed fitting.

What I understood from situation / other's statements is that you as cargo tech came to checkpoint armed, and didn't disarm when was asked to do so. So it realisticly escalated to ERT trooper threatening to use lethals, Most hostiles were down, but from Trooper's perspective there still could be hidden hostiles along the crew. There were even announcements made by AI regarding that.

Then you proceeded to find your way off station at any cost, involving you hacking your way to escape pods. Like you had enough time to hack in to command surface and get on escape pod. For me it looked like - must win mentality that often leads to bad experiences.

My warning was mostly based around rule "Characters must be believable, and well-rounded". You character looked like engineer that is ex pirate currently playing cargo tech. That on it's own is okay... But your behaviour then felt a bit over the top. Warning seemed like appropriate action at the time.

Also I see little bit of self-antag undertones: cause conflict with ERT, that justifies breaking in to escape pods. Yes, your character migth be just like that, but I am bad at judging character deeply and line on what is okay is blurry, and your character seems to fall in to that unclear zone. I am willing to remove this warning if other staff member judges your character. Also I might have worded warning badly.

[Scheveningen]

Was present for that round. That ERT trooper was indeed an asshole and did threaten to hunt down Jaylor, and implied they would also kill them after Jaylor left. I'd probably turn around and pick another route to escape too.

Literally the entire sec force were full of cultists that killed the HOS within 20-30 minutes into the round, plus one vampire. It was an incredibly terrible round considering all of sec save one and the HOS were antagonists and pretty much sent the station into "every department for themselves" mode.

Can also attest for the fact that Brage is a long-time player (from 2014) and Jaylor's character + skillset has been deemed okay in past administrations. I'm not seeing exactly why issue is being taken over it now, considering it's been cleared, brought up and cleared again many times over.

Edited September 12, 2019 by Scheveningen

[Shadow7889]

Hi there. I was that ERT Security Trooper that you met at Red Dock. I'm going to give my side of things from an IC perspective, best as I can. First off. I didn't threaten to hunt Jaylor down or threaten to kill them at all after they left. I told then clean up would detain them for acting so carelessly/aggressively. 

We got dispatched to deal with hostile crew. Most of the ISD were a problem being cultists, as well as a few that weren't ISD. I did my best to deal with any hostile element without lethals. Crew or construct. When we called evac to get the crew out, Jaylor and half an engineering team/Qm came up I think. All heavily armed. We as ERT had dealt with as many as we could. Lead was either dead or dying. I was alone on red docks too. Everyone except Jaylor and what I assumed the QM had ZERO issue disarming after I issued the order to do so. Even the CE had had enough of Jaylors nonsense. I had told Jaylor to disarm four times. He even started trying to force his way into the checkpoint. I did state at that point I was going to use lethal force on anyone who broke into the checkpoint. Engineering all had disarmed without issue.  Jaylor and who I assumed to be the QM both threw insults at me and left. Server logs will show what's not accounted for. If I was overly aggressive as ERT, I do apologize. I try not to be. 

[EvilBrage]

16 hours ago, Shadow7889 said:

Hi there. I was that ERT Security Trooper that you met at Red Dock. I'm going to give my side of things from an IC perspective, best as I can. [...] I had told Jaylor to disarm four times. He even started trying to force his way into the checkpoint. I did state at that point I was going to use lethal force on anyone who broke into the checkpoint. [...] Jaylor and who I assumed to be the QM both threw insults at me and left. Server logs will show what's not accounted for. If I was overly aggressive as ERT, I do apologize. I try not to be. 

You may very well not have intended for your ERT trooper to sound as threatening as they did, but that's the way it came across - both to me, and multiple other individuals in the round. In fact, the threat of being hunted down after departing from the red dock was precisely what pushed me so hard in the direction of the pods to begin with. This was compounded by finding the dead body of another cargo technician with zipties - the ISD would have used handcuffs, leading me to believe this was the responsibility of the ERT (and considering the hostiles had originated in the ISD to begin with, that was all the reason needed to distrust the ERT). Seeing your side of things, I can interpret the hostility to be an attempt to secure control of an increasingly chaotic situation in which you were unable to keep track of what was happening. Case in point is that you were unable to keep track of many things that change the story dramatically.

To begin with, Jaylor was one of the first individuals to surrender his weapon at the red dock. The logs will show Jaylor throwing his shotgun almost immediately after being ordered to do so. The requests made at this time were entirely reasonable - you even pulled the shotgun into the security checkpoint and began issuing threats from inside to the others that arrived. At no point did Jaylor attempt to break into the checkpoint. You are thinking of the chaplain who wandered into the security checkpoint after the cyborg opened the door, took the shotgun, then wandered back out without a fuss. It was at this point I began to consider leaving the dock - the hostility of the trooper simply cemented that decision. Jaylor was accompanied by an assistant, not the quartermaster, which was clear by his ID. You continued to request Jaylor disarm after he had already done so, by which point I began to sense that you had no idea what was going on. Then came singling out and requests to lie on the ground, and we both know that's not where the conflict would've ended. Continuing to stay in the area amidst the chaos and overt hostility was hardly ideal, and so we chose to leave.

It's good to see your perspective on the scenario, but ultimately none of this is the issue at hand - rather, a warning was issued when nothing remotely approaching a rule breach took place. Our interaction was never at issue, but rather is being used to back-fill the rationale behind a decision.

19 hours ago, Karolis2011 said:

What I understood from situation / other's statements is that you as cargo tech came to checkpoint armed, and didn't disarm when was asked to do so. So it realisticly escalated to ERT trooper threatening to use lethals, Most hostiles were down, but from Trooper's perspective there still could be hidden hostiles along the crew. There were even announcements made by AI regarding that.

None of this was contained in the PMs between us, and was based on an erroneous recollection of the incident. The logs will demonstrate this. Regardless, why had you not asked about this if that was truly the issue? More importantly, where in the rules does it state that all crew members must cooperate with an ERT at all times?

19 hours ago, Karolis2011 said:

Then you proceeded to find your way off station at any cost, involving you hacking your way to escape pods. Like you had enough time to hack in to command surface and get on escape pod. For me it looked like - must win mentality that often leads to bad experiences.

I repeatedly asked you to elaborate on whose round was negatively impacted by Jaylor's finding a method to escape the station. You did not provide an answer. You are making broad assumptions about my intentions (never mind that I'm not sure how you think reaching the escape pods is "winning.")

19 hours ago, Karolis2011 said:

My warning was mostly based around rule "Characters must be believable, and well-rounded". You character looked like engineer that is ex pirate currently playing cargo tech. That on it's own is okay... But your behaviour then felt a bit over the top. Warning seemed like appropriate action at the time. Also I see little bit of self-antag undertones: cause conflict with ERT, that justifies breaking in to escape pods. Yes, your character migth be just like that, but I am bad at judging character deeply and line on what is okay is blurry, and your character seems to fall in to that unclear zone. I am willing to remove this warning if other staff member judges your character. Also I might have worded warning badly.

The text in the rule is within character creation and goes on to specify: No insane or psychotic characters. No Mary Sues. (Over the top characters, characters who know too much, have no weaknesses, etcetera.) This has nothing to do with what you've been accusing me of. Jaylor acted in neither an insane nor psychotic manner, and was perfectly reasonable given the circumstances you neglected to ask about.

In fact, your only question seemed to be: Why can a cargo tech hack doors? When I provided the rationale, you deflected and insisted that you were going to apply a warning anyways. You made multiple (ultimately false) assumptions about what Jaylor had experienced that round and refused to acknowledge that events did not unfold as you assumed they had.

The fact of the matter is that you obviously made a decision to take action before you'd even spoken with me, and without seeking both sides of the story - instead, you elected to subject me to entirely one-sided questioning without any elaboration on where the exact conflict was. Reading the warning itself, no one could come away thinking a rule had been broken at any point. Like I pointed out before:

1. Disobeying an ERT trooper is not against server rules.
2. Having a character with knowledge spanning more than one department is not against server rules.
3. Playing a former criminal is not against the rules.

You formed an opinion about what happened prior to speaking with me and are now back-filling your warning with a rationale you never brought up in our initial discussion. Your decision to chastise me for behavior within the rules is improper and, frankly, reflects poorly on your ability to adjudicate in a proper manner. This is a trend reflected in another report outstanding against you as well.

If all this sounds like I'm coming down a bit harsh on you, it's because I am. I've been with Aurora since we split from Apollo - I guarantee you my character's actions in this round have been repeated time and again through countless rounds without issue, and for good reason; they don't break the rules.

Please be more careful in the application of your administrative powers - and specifically, be able to articulate precisely which rule was broken and why before you do so.

Edited September 13, 2019 by EvilBrage

[ben10083]

7 hours ago, EvilBrage said:

To begin with, Jaylor was one of the first individuals to surrender his weapon at the red dock. The logs will show Jaylor throwing his shotgun almost immediately after being ordered to do so.

I saw the escape pod incident myself, and this is what I saw:

What you had on your possession:

• tactical hud
• Ballistic Vest
• Insulated Gloves
• Toolbelt

and most importantly, I remember you saying this, which set off alarms bells for me: ""Thank god they didn't take my submachine gun"

Why would a cargo tech, before all this "hostility" took place, try to smuggle aboard a machine pistol?

As a side note, I took a look at your records, and for ease I will summarize it since it seems to be a major talking point here

• Certified in Engineering, EVA, and any certifications needed for QM while in a prison
• Certified to act as a Security Officer by things that happened in rounds

Overall I feel that having Character that is both a engineer, CT/QM, and security officer is too much for one character, especially a ex-convict where the records say should only have low-risk jobs. (yes I am aware it said "use your best judgement before using him as a security personnel", but the idea of a officer who can do engineering as well it too mcuh even on its face)

[Garnascus]

Will finish this in about 15 hours. 

[EvilBrage]

5 hours ago, ben10083 said:

Why would a cargo tech, before all this "hostility" took place, try to smuggle aboard a machine pistol?

Because the greatest threat to Jaylor's life had come from the ISD and the ERT itself. I found the other cargo tech murdered and ziptied and a plethora of rifle ammo casings scattered around him, so there's really no question who killed him. And again, disobeying the ERT is not a rule breach.

Where are you going with this?

You're making the same mistake as Karolis - rather than asking, "why would a cargo tech try to smuggle aboard a machine pistol," ask instead "why would an ex-pirate contractor with a mistrust for authority who saw his coworkers murdered want to smuggle aboard a machine pistol?"

The idea that all characters must unequivocally trust the response team despite whatever hostility they endure (and their background) is, hopefully, not what you're proposing.

5 hours ago, ben10083 said:

Overall I feel that having Character that is both a engineer, CT/QM, and security officer is too much for one character, especially a ex-convict where the records say should only have low-risk jobs. (yes I am aware it said "use your best judgement before using him as a security personnel", but the idea of a officer who can do engineering as well it too mcuh even on its face)

I have no problem with the security officer stuff going away - I'd actually been thinking about it because the other named individuals are gone.

I've never used it to actually have Jaylor conduct security duties, and anyone could look at the record on its face and realize that the entry in the record says more about the individual recommending Jaylor than Jaylor himself. To clarify, Jaylor absolutely should not be doing security business and has zero knowledge of security protocol, but canon rounds saw the individuals named recommending him for the position since he took (mostly self-interested) control of difficult situations, so it was appropriate to add to his record at the time.

None of this touches on the subject of the warning, however, so I don't see how you believe this is relevant.

Edited September 13, 2019 by EvilBrage

[Garnascus]

On 12/09/2019 at 04:57, Karolis2011 said:

What I understood from situation / other's statements is that you as cargo tech came to checkpoint armed, and didn't disarm when was asked to do so. So it realisticly escalated to ERT trooper threatening to use lethals, Most hostiles were down, but from Trooper's perspective there still could be hidden hostiles along the crew. There were even announcements made by AI regarding that.

Well i am sorry but this pretty clearly sounds like an IC issue. Players are not necessarily required by the server rules to follow every order given by ERT. A lot of this seems to stem from evilbrage playing a criminal character with certain skills. This is what our rules state. 

Quote

Criminal characters are allowed, if they are done in a believable fashion whilst non-antagonists.

For characters whose criminal background isn’t known to local authorities, this would mean trying to keep their criminal involvement low-key. Try to find subtle ways to further your characters goals when not an antagonist, and to avoid the ire of security and the duty officers through blatant actions (such as a large scale breakin, murder, etcetera).

For characters whose criminal background is known to local authorities (they have been arrested for crimes in the past), it is recommended that you look for ways to incorporate the punishment given into the character’s roleplay and posting/activity on the station. A person convicted of murder, for example, would probably not even be hired, a character with a background of theft convictions would probably not be entrusted with higher positions, and so on.

So under the letter of the law here it is perfectly acceptable to be a criminal cargo tech who might have problems with authority (ERT) and is able to hack into an escape pod. It seems to me that given the context of the round jaylor's actions where reasonable. I imagine i would be similarly miffed if i found my fellow cargo tech murdered. I suppose the hickup here is the records jaylor has to be a security officer. Given the context of the rest of the character its probably not ok. 

So, i  do think the warning should be expunged unless my snail brain is missing something egregious.  

[Karolis2011]

On 14/09/2019 at 06:17, Garnascus said:

Well i am sorry but this pretty clearly sounds like an IC issue.

 

On 14/09/2019 at 06:17, Garnascus said:

So, I do think the warning should be expunged...

Garn has summarized it well. It was mistake on my end. I am sorry that this had to happen. I approve of warning removal.

[Garnascus]

I will remove this in the morning when i wake up. 

[Garnascus]

Done. Locking and archiving.