Staff Complaint - Juani2400

[Wigglesworth Jones]

BYOND Key: Wigglesworth Jones

Staff BYOND Key: Juani2400

Game ID: Cannot remember, it took place around a week ago.

Reason for complaint: I believe the warning I received was not needed. If I remember correctly, the items I ordered were: a balaclava, tactical HUD, combat belt, and zipties.

I do not believe that ordering these items counted as powergaming. Let's break down what was ordered.

A balaclava: This was ordered simply for the aesthetic. I thought it fit with the uniform. While it can conceal someone, I was wearing multiple items with my job title and name on it, and was identifiable as security.

Tactical HUD: If I remember correctly, there is no mechanical difference between wearing the SecHUDglasses and the Tactical HUD. I ordered it, again, for the aesthetic.

Combat belt: The combat belt can hold two more items, which are useful for inventory management. This is hardly powergaming, in my opinion. 

Zipties: The zipties are in fact worse than handcuffs, as they are easier to resist out of and break out of. Their only advantage is that they fit over RIGs, and the majority of RIGs found on station already can be handcuffed. As well, for off-station antags that utilize RIGs, the only antag that can be reliably captured when wearing a RIG is a mercenary. A ninja, if cuffed, is likely to activate their explosive implant. Zipties are functionally the same as cablecuffs, which can be crafted on station.

I believe the main reason that I got bwoinked for it was because the roundtype was Ninja, which I had no way of knowing about. 

Evidence/logs/etc:

Additional remarks: This complaint is more about me wanting the warning removed. I neglected to do so until now because I was encouraged to make a complaint.

[Juani2400]

Hello.

You should remember that I spoke to you about it, and intended to simply point it out for the future, until I read your history and found out you had already been told the exact same thing, and there were also related notes to it. The warning resulted as a natural escalation of the notes that already existed for the same matter.

The zipties, the belt and the balaclava are considered tactical equipment out of reach for officers under standard operations. This situation happened pretty early in the round, I would dare say sooner than the first 20 minutes. You shouldn't be ordering these without a pretty good reason, as an officer is not expected to carry a combat belt or a balaclava during code green with zero events that justify it.

I am against the removal of the warning, but I will leave that decision to be made by the handling staff of the complaint, which will be assigned soon. Logs and previous player's notes will be posted if necessary.

[Cnaym]

 @ParadoxSpace and I will handle this complaint. Give us a couple days to look up some things and we'll be back with a decision.

I also do not want to come back to a dogpile here. I feel like giving this warning out early on that one

[Brutishcrab51]

1 hour ago, Juani2400 said:

Hello.

You should remember that I spoke to you about it, and intended to simply point it out for the future, until I read your history and found out you had already been told the exact same thing, and there were also related notes to it. The warning resulted as a natural escalation of the notes that already existed for the same matter.

The zipties, the belt and the balaclava are considered tactical equipment out of reach for officers under standard operations. This situation happened pretty early in the round, I would dare say sooner than the first 20 minutes. You shouldn't be ordering these without a pretty good reason, as an officer is not expected to carry a combat belt or a balaclava during code green with zero events that justify it.

I am against the removal of the warning, but I will leave that decision to be made by the handling staff of the complaint, which will be assigned soon. Logs and previous player's notes will be posted if necessary.

Wrong. Balaclavas are not tactical equipment, they don't even require Armory access to open the crate associated with them. Security can wear these masks for aesthetic, no rules against it, dumb to say there is.

 

Combat Belt and Zipties? Eh, I mean, the Combat Belt is a Security belt with two more slots, Zipties are mechanically worse than handcuffs and are essentially a re-sprite of cablecuffs

Tactical HUDs ensure you can't have stuff splashed in your eyes, or be stabbed in the eyes, mechanically. Other than that, they're identical to Sechuds or advanced aviators. Again. However, Combat Belts, Zipties and Tactical HUDs are Armory-locked.

 

I order all of the above (except for the Tactical HUDs) most rounds I play. I've never been punished or PM'd or ahelped for it in the last seven months I've been playing since my last hiatus. This is dumb.

 

ADDITIONAL: As a matter of fact, you don't need any access at all to order balaclavas, and they can be found in Maintenance too. The other items are covered by Armory (Warden, HoS, Captain) access. Refer to the above for information on these items, though. They aren't Tactical Armor.

Edited October 25, 2019 by Brutishcrab51
Additional info

[Wigglesworth Jones]

As @Brutishcrab51 said, the balaclava crate does not require armory access to open. Balaclavas can be find in maint, I simply ordered the "tactical" one for an extra 250 credits. There are no mechanical differences between the normal one and tactical one, it's just a white recolor. 

While I can understand why combat belts could be seen as powergaming, it's just two extra slots on what is otherwise a resprited security belt. The tactical HUD has two slight advantages over the standard security HUD, and the only reason I bother with ordering them is because they look good with the balaclava, as it's otherwise not worth the cost. 

[Juani2400]

I'm super aware that balaclavas don't require any access, but it is still completely out of place for a security guard. The zipties and the combat belt are tactical equipment, and while there is nothing against them being ordered other than the access (which implies a granted permission by the relevant positions), which is IC, it is still kinda meta to have them ordered in the first 20 minutes of the round as a security officer when you have your regular standard-issued equipment that is intended for you to use. Every of these items have small advantages, which all combined, make up for a generalized higher advantage.

There is absolutely no reason to have these items as an officer on round start, other than the aesthetics. And the aesthetics alone will not justify such order. I am fine with a warden ordering a handful of zipties on round-start to store them in the armoury to be used if necessary. I am even fine with the warden ordering balaclavas to be stored together with the riot gear/heavy equipment. But these items are not for regular usage by the officers, and shouldn't be treated as such.

In regards to the generalized use that it's being done by other officers, the situation doesn't change one bit. There was a ruling already made by another different administrator on this very issue on Wigglesworth's notes, and this warning. that I have issued, has only served to extend it due to it being repeated after being told to stop, following our escalation process. Whoever is found or reported to be engaging in this behaviour may expect the same. The fact that you have not been noticed, or that it is not being actively enforced but passively, does not mean that it is right to do it.

Now, in regards to the thread in general, this is a staff complaint, and as such, only the involved parties are expected to participate, as per the subforum's rules. Please do not post unless you have something that is very important for any of the parties to be mentioned. You can contact me privately via forum PM or Discord for any matter that needs my attention on this, if you deem it necessary, or if you feel you can add a different angle to the discussion.

[Brutishcrab51]

35 minutes ago, Juani2400 said:

I'm super aware that balaclavas don't require any access, but it is still completely out of place for a security guard. The zipties and the combat belt are tactical equipment, and while there is nothing against them being ordered other than the access (which implies a granted permission by the relevant positions), which is IC, it is still kinda meta to have them ordered in the first 20 minutes of the round as a security officer when you have your regular standard-issued equipment that is intended for you to use. Every of these items have small advantages, which all combined, make up for a generalized higher advantage.

There is absolutely no reason to have these items as an officer on round start, other than the aesthetics. And the aesthetics alone will not justify such order. I am fine with a warden ordering a handful of zipties on round-start to store them in the armoury to be used if necessary. I am even fine with the warden ordering balaclavas to be stored together with the riot gear/heavy equipment. But these items are not for regular usage by the officers, and shouldn't be treated as such.

In regards to the generalized use that it's being done by other officers, the situation doesn't change one bit. There was a ruling already made by another different administrator on this very issue on Wigglesworth's notes, and this warning. that I have issued, has only served to extend it due to it being repeated after being told to stop, following our escalation process. Whoever is found or reported to be engaging in this behaviour may expect the same. The fact that you have not been noticed, or that it is not being actively enforced but passively, does not mean that it is right to do it.

Now, in regards to the thread in general, this is a staff complaint, and as such, only the involved parties are expected to participate, as per the subforum's rules. Please do not post unless you have something that is very important for any of the parties to be mentioned.

I'll post if you're saying stuff that's incorrect, like claiming from a position of authority as staff that all the items in-question were tactical equipment (like balaclavas??) ?

 

Additionally - no? Balaclavas require no access at all to purchase them, meaning that they are meant (or at least able) to be worn by anyone. There is no reason that should be called powergaming or somehow be OOCly moderated, they're being used as-intended and provide no mechanical buffs or abilities other than hiding ones' identity.

 

Boxes of Handcuffs have Armory requirements too when you order them, does that mean Security Officers can't use handcuffs normally? What about tasers, .45 pistols, security belts and officer vests? Those all have Armory requirements. I'd think we'd all agree that's pretty stupid if we enforced that, so let's not establish the Armory permissions requirement as a basis for what can and cannot be used normally by Security. Balaclavas are used by corporate security IRL, and our lore allows for literal Private Military Contractors (see: EPMC, which, fun fact, Wigglesworth character is), bank security (Idris), and Syndicate lookalikes (Necropolis). Combat belts? Those can be found in Maintenance too, they're Security Belts with +2 spaces. Functionally, you can get more bang for your buck having cardboard boxes in your backpack for the +4 small slot instead of +2.

 

Tactical HUDs? Aesthetic, they serve almost no other purpose. I mean, they stop you from getting stabbed in the eyes. That's what they have over normal Security glasses.

 

And again, Zipties? Literally resprited cablecuffs. Same sound, same resist time, same attributes mechanically. Just different sprites. I think we can agree cablecuffs are not a direct upgrade to handcuffs, right? And if they aren't, then how is it powergaming to use them? All in all, this is mostly down to aesthetic. Covering your face is an IC issue, and the rest of these items are not very bad mechanically. You can get the same affect from any goggle item, or cardboard box.

Edited October 25, 2019 by Brutishcrab51
A D D I T I O N A L

[Wigglesworth Jones]

1 hour ago, Juani2400 said:

I'm super aware that balaclavas don't require any access, but it is still completely out of place for a security guard.

Disagree with this heavily, considering the context. The character that ordered the balaclava wasn't NTsec, they were an EPMC, i.e. the paramilitary mercenaries. I think it makes sense for the character to wear it. 

Here are the advantages I gain from every piece of equipment ordered:

The balaclava gives face concealment, which isn't really an advantage at all. This is nullified by the multiple indicators of identity, such as the holobadge and labels on my armor. The

Tactical HUD: Protection from eye stabbing. That's it. I believe SecHUDglasses protect as well, last I checked.

The advantages of the ziptie: The zipties are mechanically identical to cablecuffs, which are easily made on station. The vast majority of antagonists do not have RIGs, so the advantage only applies in select gamemodes. This is downplayed by the fact that zipties have a shorter timer than the standard handcuffs, which is a distinct disadvantage.

Combat belt: The combat belt can hold two more items. This means that the equipment provided to me would be able to fit in the combat belt. With the normal security belt, I would have to put something in my pockets, or my armor vest, or my webbing. There are many items that provide additional storage space, such as boxes, webbing, pockets, drop pouches, or duffle bags, and I believe that two small slots would not provide a meaningful advantage.

In Summary:

The "generalized higher advantage" from all of my items is:

Face concealment. Eye protection. Two small slots. And cablecuffs.

 

I believe the warning was due in part to the belief that ordering anything from cargo is powergaming in one form or another.

Finally: Is it powergaming for a janitor to ask for an advanced mop from science? Is it powergaming for an engineer to hack a vending machine or otherwise seek out a better welding tool? Is it powergaming for medical to buy medkits, or make medicine? In the last hypothetical, could it not be argued that by doing that, medical is playing to win? 

[MattAtlas]

Stop posting if you're not involved. This is the LAST warning.

Staff will decide the policy here. Someone going in and saying "Well others did this too!" is not constructive and doesn't help. 

If a complaint warrants new policy, then policy will be made.

[Cnaym]

Resolution time. We spend a little to much time thinking and talking about this with the staff team but here is what @ParadoxSpace and I came up with:

On 24/10/2019 at 23:08, Wigglesworth Jones said:

I believe the warning I received was not needed.

The warning was given after you were already talked about this topic not long ago. The normal way to go about this is make a suggestion thread or ask on the forums whether or not we should allow or implement it. You could have even written a staff complaint back then to get the discussion rolling. Instead you decided to do the thing again and a warning is pretty normal escalation for that.

Let's go through the list of things ordered to determine whether or not the warning will stay:

Tactical HUD: One might think it works the same as the basic one, but due to it being googles that are airtight, you just received teargas and peperspray phoron protection, which is powergaming okay, since you do not have a mask on your face and most people do not know about this fact -> Attacking you with those two would result in the antag being pretty much in a world of pain

Combat belt: More slots. Nothing else to say. You order equipment that is better than the one you have just in case, or to bring more equipment. Falls under powergaming since there was no need for it.

Zipties: That's the tough nut for most. The most used argument was that they are worse handcuffs. Since you can arrest someone in a rig with those, they fall under preparing for a "what if" scenario, a.k.a. powergaming. Now multiple people have told me that the cablecoil handcuffs work the same way. Our take on this is simple: An officer  does not need cablecoils. If you walk around with those just in case you need to arrest someone in a RIG you are also powergaming the hell out of a system set up to give the antags some room for errors.

Balaclava: A yes, the visual change. This one may not be the reason for the warning issued, but let's do the math here anyway since it has been brought up.

Quote

Uniform Regulation

Uniformed security employees are to wear only standard equipment provided by NanoTrasen. Security uniforms do not include personal clothing, or items that would significantly impact the crew's ability to immediately identify security personnel. Minor alterations to uniform equipment are permitted in order to accommodate non-human species. Investigative personnel are permitted to sport business wear of their choice.

Personnel failing to meet these requirements are in violation of failing to execute an order, and are to be processed for such.

Security even got their own uniform regulation. A good one, since it is pretty clear, pretty strict and even has it's own processing reason attached to it. Bless this simple message from centcom as it does two things. First of all failing to uphold this regulation is a clear violation with a clear punishment. Think of it as the following: Every time you wear a balaclava you get a note added to your employment history with a fine. That may be a big problem in your next IR for example. Let's not do this.

Now people have raised the concern that staff members can't police clothing choice ingame. Well.... we could, but that would be no fun for either side. Instead I push this ball back to the captain and HoS. Not as a choice but as a staff ruling. This is a regulation. One that you are meant to enforce. You are loyalty implanted, so even if your character thinks this is stupid or makes no sense they would still feel strongly compelled to act according to this. That means if you allow your officer to walk around with a balaclava you are failing to RP your loyalty implant which makes it an OOC issue for the whitelist team to look into.

We usually go about this pretty chill and won't be actively punishing for not catching it the minute you step foot on the station or during a firefight, but if you allow your officers to break regulations while the station is calm and in order as loyalty implanted HoS or Captain you are doing it as wrong as you really can.

On 25/10/2019 at 04:32, Wigglesworth Jones said:

I believe the warning was due in part to the belief that ordering anything from cargo is powergaming in one form or another.

Now this line here shows how your approach to the issue was a bit lacking. It's not about ordering anything. It's about ordering things that violate IC and OOC rules, while being informed that they do so.

The normal step for an department or equipment order would be to ask the HoS or HoP/Captain for permission. They agree to order it or not and handle the payment since it is stuff needed for your department. That also involves the reasoning whether or not it is required at this point of the round.

If we wanted to have every officer pick their own gear you would spawn with 800 dollars and a weapon select wheel or (which to a fair degree is already represented in the game) let you pick things from the loadout menu to personalize your character.

So our solution to this complaint is as follows:

The warning will stay. You were talked to about this topic, you ignored it, you take the OOC consequences. That does not mean that this discussion was not needed and I personally thank you for the staff complaint as it forced us to bring out a clear ruling and how we are going to enforce this. This also gives you a simple and fair solution to avoid further consequences.

The balaclava as a "visual" item will be clearly forbidden and handled via IC means. That means it has been removed from the cargo menu for now. It also means that the HoSs and captains will be taken into the responsibility of making sure the regulations are followed (as should be done by them any way) and anyone can point out that an officer is breaking the regulation and should be charged. That means if a reporter takes a picture of you with the thing on, you done goofed and can be charged for it.

I consider this complaint as handled and will lock it withing 24 hours. If one of you wishes to change regulations or OOC rulings please use the forum for that, as a discord debate (while fun) will not receive the same level of attention, participation and official result. 

That being said, the people who's posts were removed from this thread and were warned for posting should think about doing so in the future. If a staff member tells you that they do not want to see a dogpile, shoot them a DM if you have a point or sidenote to make. I'd take this in consideration, but getting your post here removed does absolutely nothing to help further the discussion.

Edited October 27, 2019 by Cnaym
Edited the part about the tactical hud, due to new information from the coder side. Left the old parts in for people who want to read the original.

[Alberyk]

Here to make this more clear; hud, belts and balaclavas are fine to be ordered from cargo. If anything, the balaclavas are an ic issue.
But, we have decided that ordering the zipties without a reason is not a good call, and the player has been told to do not, the warning will be changed to reflect this. Due to zipties allowing people in hardsuits to be cuffed right away, unlike regular handcuffs.
If there is an ic issue with the uniform regulations, you should get in contact with cciaa.