Jump to content

Recommended Posts

BYOND Key: Scheveningen
Staff BYOND Key: Simon_the_miner
Game ID: b3j-dClv
Reason for complaint: To dispute the following warning, have said warning removed, and have the situation that surmised during the round determined as an IC issue:
image.png.fbdab6f20248d7a37932479d69efe8fb.png
Evidence/logs/etc: Ticket logs:

Spoiler

VIEW

Ticket #11 - scheveningen - Closed by simontheminer
VIEW

Ticket #4 - scheveningen - Closed by yonnimer
VIEW

[X] Messages for ticket #12:

[02:44:52] simontheminer -> scheveningen: Hey, did you turn the vaults lasers on?

[02:45:10] scheveningen -> simontheminer: I did. Sec decided to charge us. I turned on the turrets. They had the choice of being patient.

[02:45:28] simontheminer -> scheveningen: Do you know what ended up happening?

[02:45:53] scheveningen -> simontheminer: Well, kinda hard to survive the vault's defenses when you're locked in. intentional ofc. Sec being stupid held a price.

[02:46:35] simontheminer -> scheveningen: And did you voice to security that you were going to turn the vaults turrets on if they got too close/rushed you?

[02:47:01] scheveningen -> simontheminer: No, not really. We expected better of security to not rush us since we didn't do anything, really.

[02:47:32] simontheminer -> scheveningen: well you effectively ganked one of your own teammates and the RD, with little to no RP towards them, do you see the issue with this?

[02:47:53] scheveningen -> simontheminer: Butch was being stupid, abusing prisoners and acting like a badass when it wasn't necessary. They got left behind. Just how it is.

[02:48:11] simontheminer -> scheveningen: So you see nothing wrong with ganking 2 other players?

[02:48:16] scheveningen -> simontheminer: Gank is subjective.

[02:48:43] scheveningen -> simontheminer: According to the victims, if I backstab people, it's gank. When they do it to others, it isn't.

[02:49:35] simontheminer -> scheveningen: Do you think it is fair to the research director, who would have had no idea that you would have turned the turrets on if security got to close, without informing security you would do that if they go to close as well?

[02:51:18] scheveningen -> simontheminer: SS13 innately is unfair. It is a game about preparation and being crafty in order to survive. Sec fucked with us when they didn't have to, they paid the price in the blood of the research director. I obviously couldn't inform the security team that I had the ability to change the turrets to lethal because that was my worst-case scenario plan in case security decided to be stupid. We got who we could out, and left.

[02:51:57] scheveningen -> simontheminer: If I told the sec staff the price of betrayal, they would've planned accordingly for it. That was my trump card to sink the knife in deeper for their betrayal.

[02:52:28] simontheminer -> scheveningen: Just because it is innately unfair does not mean it is ok to kill someone without the proper escalation RP, there is a reason Im speaking with you and not them.

[02:52:44] scheveningen -> simontheminer: It was escalate. Sec rushed us. We fuck them back. That's how it goes.

[03:02:15] simontheminer -> scheveningen: Right, Im assuming you believe its ok to murder two players without a proper amount of RP, even a simple warning that you would turn the vaults turrets on if security fucked with you would have worked.

[03:03:45] scheveningen -> simontheminer: You ain't listening. We're done talking if all you wanna do is repeat the same thing over and over again and barely try to even consider what I've just told you.

[03:04:48] simontheminer -> scheveningen: Right, since you think we are done, we can be done. Please remember, this is a HRP server, rp is a requirement. Ahelp the next time someone ganks you, and just because its happened to you before/the game is innately unfair, doesnt mean its part of the rules.

[03:05:37] scheveningen -> simontheminer: The fuck does what I had to say at all what's been done to me in the past? That isn't the point. What goes in IC goes, unless RP actions are done for no reason. I didn't kill the RD without cause.

[03:07:11] simontheminer -> scheveningen: I am under the impression you are using this, "According to the victims, if I backstab people, it's gank. When they do it to others, it isn't" to justify not informing security that you would kill someone for approaching

[03:08:09] scheveningen -> simontheminer: It's stating factually that gank is so subject to immediate interpretation that calling this and that gank is pointless, when gank is defined as "killing someone for no reason". I didn't kill the RD without reason.

[03:09:15] scheveningen -> simontheminer: From the RD's point of view, maybe it did come out of the gate, but they didn't get to see sec try to screw us up by breaching into the divide where we were with flashbangs. We had a perfectly good standoff that could be maintained, and they made their move first. I popped smoke and then immediately went for the turret control to ensure sec paid for their bad call.

[03:10:49] simontheminer -> scheveningen: A warning that you would turn the vaults turrets on the research director would usually kept security at bay, im trying to convey that the lack of a threat and "they should have know I would have done it" isnt an acceptable reason to kill, even if you got antagonised

[03:11:44] scheveningen -> simontheminer: While antags will sometimes kill, it is expected for you to provide interesting roleplay to your targets first, if your goal is assassination. This does not mean that you need to monologue your opponent before killing them: roleplay leading up to a murder can take place over the course of the entire round, for example, leaving the murder scene itself to be "wordless". Collateral damage is acceptable within reason, but this means you must use common sense, and avoid creating scenarios with a lot of potential for collateral (setting bombs in high-traffic areas, etc.)

[03:12:38] simontheminer -> scheveningen: Im aware of our rules, this collateral damage could have been avoided had you given a warning, instead the lack of warning resulted in two players dying to the vaults turrets

[03:13:44] simontheminer -> scheveningen: Common sense would dictate that giving a warning to the people you are trying to keep at bay via a bargining chip (the RD) would have made more sense than you assuming the security team would automatically know you would default to killing/harming the RD that way

[03:13:54] scheveningen -> simontheminer: The deal with security was thusly: everyone waits outside the vault in a Mexican stand-off patiently until the RD finishes up cracking the safe. Sec intervened and decided to try to charge us, making the deal immediately forfeit. The RD's life was collateral.

[03:16:26] simontheminer -> scheveningen: I want you to answer this to me honestly, if you were a security officer in thisi exact same scenario, or the RD who was killed as collateral, would you believe it would be reasonable to have been warned "If security gets too antsy and rushes us, we are going to kill the RD/you via the lethal turrets in the vault."

[03:16:50] scheveningen -> simontheminer: I wouldn't have charged in the fucking first place while a deal was already made.

[03:17:14] simontheminer -> scheveningen: Thats not what Im asking, do you think it would be a reasonable thing for a raider to warn security?

[03:17:51] scheveningen -> simontheminer: I'm done talking, for real this time. Warn me if you like, I'm taking this to the forums.

[03:18:57] simontheminer -> scheveningen: Right, I wasnt going to warn you, but since you are so set in your ways of me being wrong instead of humoring me and at least trying to see why im messaging you, Ill warn you and let this go to the forums.

I was not able to obtain screenshots of the textport to prove security threw the flashbang first during the Mexican standoff.

Additional remarks:

Tl;dr, I was given a BS warning over something that escalated in IC. While the decisions I made were questionable (the same can be said of many characters that round), I do not believe they were roleplay breaking or rule-breaking. The death of the RD was not personal nor initially intended, but I held the ability to kill another character should the worst-case scenario have happened. It did happen, and a mod gave me immense amount of shit over it while failing to understand the context of the situation, why I acted the way I did, et cetera. I do not believe I did anything objectively wrong from a roleplay/gameplay standpoint. I did not kill the RD for no reason. The RD died as a means of intentional collateral if security were to act during the Mexican standoff that was not a peaceful action. At worst, the culmination of the events happening was a result of a falling out of trusts on both side of the conflict, but consequences arose from the fight that happened. I enacted those consequences intentionally because my character felt betrayed in the instance where the flashbang was thrown in, and they immediately registered security was preparing means to breach into our area of the hallway and then flood in to fight us. I'm sorry to @CommanderXor for killing them in such a fashion, but it was a call I made in a tense situation and it seemed like the best call at the time to put security into a worse off position.

Edited by Scheveningen

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...