Jump to content
Bath Salts Addict

Staff Complaint - Garnascus

Recommended Posts

BYOND Key: Bath Salts Addict

Staff BYOND Key: Garnascus 

Game ID: b30-aKft

Reason for complaint: I was banned for pursuing a course of action that resulted in conflict with a group of antagonists when my character and his co-workers all had valid reasons to believe their very lives were on the line.

Evidence/logs/etc:

To preface this complaint, I have nothing in particular against Garnascus or how he administrates. However, I feel as if his decision in this particular instance was unreasonable and, judging by my conversation with him via ahelps, he didn't have the context necessary as he didn't even know what the antagonist gimmick even was in the first place to have made the decision that he did.

Now, to explain the incident that took place I'll have to explain the round from my point of view.

Act I: "They're cutting our pay, empty the bank accounts!"
A normal round starts. I'm the lovable, somewhat-controversial IPC detective Noir, who finds fulfillment in stomping crime, squashing injustice, saving damsels in distress and looking stylish while doing it. There is one security officer, Brett Feufer (another one, Ziithrik Kuth'rex, later latejoins a bit later), a cadet, Mali Soun (another, Sloan something-or-another one later joins too), the warden London Werry, and a CSI, Amanda Ivanou. Unbeknownst to all of us, though, the CSI is a dreaded revhead. Things progress, and as Noir is talking to Sterben in the medbay, an announcement goes through that NanoTrasen is reducing pay by a whopping one hundred percent. Wowzers! Being an IPC, Noir isn't all that disturbed. Money, while a useful resource, isn't wholly necessary to their continued existence. Noir runs a P.I business on the side as a hobby more than anything, but if the going gets tough he can always take on a second (third?) job or start looking for a new employer. Despite NT not being able to really do anything about bank accounts, though, Noir follows Sterben's example and empties his bank account from the nearest ATM. Five hundred and fifty dollars, whoopee.

People are miffed and disgruntled, but otherwise fine.

Act II: There One was Some Mercs from NanoTrasen, Who Shot at Crew for No Raisin
A bit while later, while everyone is still grumbling about the admittedly hefty paycut, Noir finds itself in the Brig lobby trying to convince a borg and a Diona why the color red is a much better paintjob for the Brig than blue and that having a red Brig is not at all fascist, no sirree. Just as those words escape its ash-encrusted speakers, a heavily armed group of four intimidating individuals in red suits march past the Brig, only stopping to regard the lobby's occupants with a wordless stare before moving on. The AI freaks out, security freaks out. The Warden calls everyone to the armory and they rush inside. Lucky for Security, RNGesus himself descended from the heavens and bestowed upon the cargo warehouse an ERT ammo vendor full of delicious automatic .45s, buckshot and... Of course, slugs. Noir regards this act of divine providence with its usual bemusement, and considers the options.

An ion storm took out comms but the announcement was missed by the whole of Sec, leading to concerns that the redsuits took out comms somehow.

There are four group of potentially no-good red suits. There are two officers, a Warden who should be staying in the Brig as much as possible, and two cadets with minimal training at most. Concerned and wanting to even the odds, Noir gains the officers' blessing to assist as the chainsoking robotic hero the station needs and grabs a shotgun, loading it up with much-coveted slugs. While still in the armory, Security gets informed by the AI that these random redsuited individuals just so happen to be a Policy Enforcement Team sent by NanoTrasen and that the previously 100% paycut is now merely a 50% cut and that Security should stand down. Security is skeptical and, while in the armory, hear small arms fire coming from outside the Brig.

The entire Security team rushes out of the Brig and forms a horse-shoe shape in front of a pair of mercenaries, who they saw firing energy carbines on stun down the hallway towards medical. They're hesitant to tell Security what they were shooting at, but eventually do. While everyone was arming up, the CSI threw a can at them. This seemed like a remarkably petty thing to stun someone over, so Security requested they stop. At that moment the RD pushes her way past the throngs of armed Security to stand between them and the equally-armed band of "Policy Enforcers". She has a conversation with them and tells Security to stand down, an order which is begrudgingly accepted. Guns are put away. At this point no one is sure what policies they're enforcing or why contracted employees need to be overseen by armed guards while the real policy handling comes from NT's off-station accountants and managers handling who gets paid what.

Noir points this out along with the simple fact that the mercenaries can't be hired by NT. For starters, one of them is an IPC, which aren't even allowed in the ERT. The mercenaries then proceed to explain they're a third party group hired by Central Command to enforce the policy changes. (Still not clear what policies, but alright). Security is, as always, skeptical but shuffles off back to the Brig debating what to do. As a whole, they feel betrayed and dishonored. Despite being otherwise upstanding employees, Security has had their pay cut along with the rest of the station and is expected to acquiesce the majority of their authority to a third-party gang of vicious, armed thugs who've already shot at someone for very little reason and are loyal only to their phat paychecks.  After they depart, the CSI arrives and loudly proclaims to her unenthused colleagues that they would, to paraphrase, "rebel with me!" and fails to give very convincing arguments otherwise. And despite Noir's suggestion to not go around talking so loudly about open rebellion, she storms off in a huff, irritated that her colleagues won't join her cause. While Noir and others are skeptical and passively suggest a peaceful strike, the Warden remains firm in her belief that they should let things play out according to NT's wishes.

As one member in security put it best, "I bet they cut our pay to pay these guys!"

Act III: The Girl Who Cried "REBELLION!"

While sitting in the Brig pondering on what to do, Noir and others state their affirmation that if NT is going to cut their pay by half, then they should only do half the work where gruntwork is involved. Of course, with these sketchy mercenaries roaming around, Security remains firm in its resolve to step in and protect the crew if things start going south and innocents are potentially harmed. The CSI then radios and informs them that she is being arrested for sedition.! What a shocker.

It's at this point the Research Director, Cleo Ora, announces to the crew that she has assumed the position of acting Captain and that all "mutineers" are to stand down or be "forcefully brought to their knees". Noir expresses concern over her less-than-tactful wording, and it is then reported that the RD and the mercenaries plan to cyborgify the CSI! Wait, what? Noir takes a cursory glance into Corporate Regulations and discovers that sedition is a medium level violation, the maximum sentence of which is Holding until Transfer. Mutiny, on the other hand, a more violent form of sedition in which the CSI was most undoubtedly not, does. Noir points out this discrepancy and blatantly illegal act to the acting Captain when she finds herself in the Brig, to which she replies: 

p2XotnD.png

Noir and others point out that she can't do that, but their arguments fall on deaf ears. Instead she, while standing in the doorway of the Brig with an adjacent door next to it, attempts to push Noir aside. Being a metal man weighing somewhere in the ballpark of two hundred to three hundred pounds, Noir fails to budge both out of physicality and on principle.

The following exchange is had.

EYBBjqT.png

bPcWZDn.png

aKzT0Vl.png

The acting Captain makes clear her intentions to cyborgify Noir, even alluding to gaining sadistic curiosity from watching a free IPC be turned into a lawed stationbound. Not one to acquiesce to petty threats or injustice, Noir meets her hostility with a challenge. And out loud, at Noir's accusation, admits to the majority of Security sitting in the lobby that she has gone mad.

As Noir informs the Warden of what was said between them, Cleo speaks with her off-screen mercenary goons outside the Brig:
iNu0lZ4.png

Wait, what?

Act IV: Desperate Measures and a Showdown at High Noon

If Noir was a being capable of feeling panic, this would be it. To face potential repercussions for their defiance was one thing, but the Research Director had blatantly gone and lied to her goons that Noir's defiance was, in fact, Security's as a whole and that they planned to mutiny. Keyword here being mutiny. If non-violent sedition was enough to attempt cyborgification on the CSI, who knows what sort of depraved tortures a sadistic, self-professed madwoman like Cleo Ora had in store for alleged mutineers? Not just Noir itself was on the line now, but it was starting to look like it may have just unintentionally condemned its undeserving colleagues to potential hellish slavery as well.

Security remained rooted in the Brig lobby as they had that entire round, pondering their next course of action. And there they sat when the mercenaries, after likely having formed their own plan of action, showed up. Three of them stood near the entrance, guns in hand, to force Security to heel and relinquish their arms. They were faced off by Noir and three other members of Security, demanding the mercenaries do much the same. While they promised no one would be cyborgified if they laid down their arms, Security couldn't reasonably expect that a lying, clinically-insane sadist like their acting Captain could be expected to keep her word. She had already proven herself capable of lying to get her way and already attempting cyborgification on an otherwise harmless CSI. There was simply no way to tell if disarming would have resulted in their deaths. And while they generalized Security as a whole, Noir knew deep down that the acting Captain's ire was directed at them and them alone. Even if Security stood down, Noir would be cyborgified regardless for its defiance.

Literal and metaphorical gears churning, Noir began formulating a plan of action to save both its own metal skin and the fleshy, squishy skin of its organic comrades. Three redsuits. Two were fairly standard redsuits with shields and submachine guns. The Unathi, however, was problematic.

Unathi in a RIG with an assault rifle. That's bad. Unathi in a RIG with an assault and also an ion rifle slung across its suit. That's double bad for Noir, who is an IPC.

It's at this time that it starts looking for Brett Feufer, who had the ion rifle. Right on queue, she appears and informs Noir that the fourth mercenary, the IPC Tin, is lurking around maintenance, most likely to flank. This is a threat assessment Noir agrees with, and informs Feufer to be ready to blast their ion on the Unathi once things escalate. You see, not if things escalate. Neither side was acquiescing, and their argument was circular. The tension was thicker than whip cream, and twice as delicious. Things were beginning to escalate, and with Tin in maintenance it was highly likely they were planning to strike first.

This would not do.

The Unathi, by virtue of wearing a RIG and carrying an ion rifle capable of crumpling Noir like a wet paper bag in two shots, made himself the primary target. Feufer was informed of this priority, and... As they refused to stand down for the umpteenth time, security began to get into position. As the de facto leader, Noir's word was heeded by the team. They began to shuffle, finding the best position to shoot from. Some members of the team got onto the front desk and closed the windoors, giving them the best vantage point to fire on the mercenaries with their laser weaponry and be shielded by their bullets. A few took positions on the front door to form a deadly firing line should the need arise, trusting in their trigger fingers to win the day when the shots began to fly. Noir hung back behind the safety of the Brig door and windows to protect itself from bullets and also the ions while also watching maintenance for the illusive flanking mercenary.

The mercenaries, for the most part, didn't budge an inch. Either they didn't notice what Security was doing or they were confident. But as we all know, overconfidence is a slow and insidious killer.

Once everyone was in position, Noir PDA'd Feuffer to begin the engagement.

With a vicious battlecry of "Tata", Feufer opened with the ion rifle, emptying the entire thing downwind into the RIG-wearing Unathi's chest. Their ion rifle was disabled, and Security began to open fire. As Feuffer fell back, Noir took her place and opened up alongside their comrades, killing the Unathi in a hail of concentrated fire and forcing Cleo and the other two mercenaries to retreat.

No one wanted to fight. When the fighting settled down and the onlookers gathered to assess the situation, the team gazed down upon the fallen Unathi with a mixture of regret, anger and sadness. One member resolved to not participate in the coming conflict, citing honor. Noir declared that Cleo Ora was to be arrested. The Warden and Feufer spoke with a potential cargo militia to form an alliance and bring the acting Captain and her cronies to justice.

One mercenary returned, walking into the Brig. Security stared at them with rapt attention, wondering if another fight would occur. This lone mercenary once again began to demand security's surrender, although being just one man they were scoffed at. What could one man do against a team that took no casualties against a team of armed, armored thugs in an enclosed space?

Then Brett Feufer fell over, seemingly SSD.

Act V: The Bwoink Knight Rises

It became abundantly clear that not everyone on the opposing side was perfectly okay with how things played out. Security had engaged first, and had to in order to have even a chance of winning. It just so happened that the lead mercenary, the Unathi who died, was typing at the time the attack started but his chat bubble was bugged. But as Feufer laid into him with an ion rifle for a full five seconds before the rest of Security began shooting, he never moved an inch. Even as he was getting killed even with his superior armor, he didn't think to close his chat box, click into the game and run into cover. And as he died, he ahelped.

And what's worse: Security started the engagement! A grand sin!

Unbeknownst to the rest of us, Garnascus answered the ahelp and rounded on the first person to shoot: Feufer. I'm not entirely sure what was said between them, but I imagine they never told him that Noir told them to do it, but once Garn started talking in LOOC we realized. Not one to quietly twiddle my thumbs while someone else took my fall, I told Garn and we took the discussion to bwoinks. He made it fairly clear early on that he was going to ban me despite my attempts to argue otherwise and his supposed 'empathy'.

Now I'm sure he or someone else are more than capable of pasting the full, raw logs of the ahelps and I am willing to argue whatever points get brought up later but first there is something I want to address.

Somewhere around Act 3 in our little story, I ahelped asking if I could be made a replacement revhead, as our current one (the CSI) proved herself to be a bit of an unsubtle nincompoop, was getting herself cyborgified, and the round was about to stagnate because while the loyalists had put in oodles of effort to make an interesting gimmick, all she did was run around, throw junk at the mercs, scream "REBEL WITH ME" out loud, disarm spam them and get arrested, all without using the mechanical conversion function. Even before that I had expressed an interest in assisting her, but she never used that feature. They were obviously a new player who checked all the antag roles they possibly could without considering the amount of effort they'd need to put in to creating a fun round.

I was fully willing to bear that burden to jumpstart the round early on, I told Garn of this, as well as Noir's IC reasoning that security was being shafted by NT, someone was being illegally cyborgified on a trumped up charge, and that the RD was blatantly abusing her power. His response was thus:

JYYgb8t.png

So with this in mind, I began operating under the assumption that the RD, as acting Captain, was liable for breaking regulations. Of course, to do that, Security needed to get through her goon squad to get to her first.

However, upon discussing the matter with Garn he says the following:
7rD08lz.png

iLrMZvU.png

Qqm98JK.png

This answer is two-fold. Firstly, it reveals that Garnascus was barely paying even a modicum of attention to the round. He likely just tabbed in when he heard the noise, saw a bloodbath and resolved to get the bare minimum story. He had not been watching the round or the steady escalation of conflict between Security and the Loyalist-aligned mercenaries as they tried to make each other see reason. When I ahelped, he was under the assumption that the RD hadn't declared herself acting Captain and was commanding both the AI and a squad of mercenaries to make any attempt at pursuing legal proceedings against her impossible without doing something about the mercenaries. He was also under the assumption that these were just run-of-the-mill mercenaries, without at the time stopping to consider the fact why there were mercenaries running around and security was focusing on arresting some RD being screwy with regulations.

This segues into the secondary implication that if Garn or another admin had been paying attention, he'd have granted my request. And if he had granted my request, then perhaps I wouldn't have been banned and this entire situation could have been avoided.

When I point this out to him, it goes a little something like this:

Jk9nQdd.png

6dKlVXS.png

...As a headmin? I have no idea how Aurora staff works, but I'm under the assumption that admins - and by extension headmins - are given the leeway to make reasonable decisions in favor of keeping the round's narrative going. After all, aren't headmins the highest administrative rank below Skull himself? 

Sadly the round was coming to a close, and Garn didn't want to drag the argument on long enough to cause a delay, so he laid out the ban shortly after some more circular discussion. Luckily, the player of Brett Feufer was promptly unbanned after Garn had deemed himself too harsh.

DuTal9u.png

 

In Summary:

For those of you uninterested in the finer details, I was banned for my character and its colleagues defending themselves from the threat of cyborgification. Because the team posing the threat was 'CC-approved', Security should have been expected to throw all caution to the wind, lay down their arms and potentially risk detainment and cyborgification because their supposed would-be dedication to the corporation that axed their paychecks in half should trump all instincts of self-preservation and a desire not to be made into a mindless slave.

To Summarize Garn's Arguments as I Interpret Them:

  1. Security, neither being loyalists nor revolutionaries, should have complied with the sketchy-as-all-hell Central Command-authorized team of violent thugs in all aspects despite the blatant breach of both regulations and federal law.
  2. Security, when accused of being mutineers and held at gunpoint by the acting Captain and her mercenaries, should have acquiesced to the lying lunatic who attempted cyborgification upon a much less defiant offender because... Hey, CC-approved!
  3. Any instincts of self-preservation or self-defense that Security and Noir may have had because they didn't trust a proven liar are "irrelevant" because, by Garn's logic, an antagonist waving around an unproven fax that no one but the RD herself actually saw claiming to be from Central Command should be listened to in spite of the entire team being betrayed, treated like dirt, accused of being mutineers and held at gunpoint under the threat of cyborgification even while doing nothing but sitting around the lobby all round should be listened to without question. Even at the near-certain risk of Security's own life.
  4. Security, despite contending with, yet again, a proven liar, sadist and madwoman and held at gunpoint by her own cronies, "over-exaggerated" the threat to their lives.

I really shouldn't need to deconstruct those arguments further because I've already picked them apart with my not-so-passive summary, but here we go.

My Counter-Arguments:

  1. Security, with the exception of the Head of Security of which none existed that round, were not loyalty implanted. While Noir and the rest of the team may not have been loyalists or revolutionaries, they acted on the perogative of their own character's ICs. They did not go seeking conflict, the antagonists of that round brought the conflict TO them and forced them into a potentially dangerous situation in which they needed to act, and preferably act pre-emptively to neutralize the threat to them. We did not openly accuse the mercenaries of being phonies, we only questioned their validity until the point where the AI and RD began spamming the announcements that they were legitimate. When the fighting was over, we did not chase them down to finish the job. Some decided to continue with their course of action to see Ora brought to justice while others opted to stay out of any future fighting and prioritize themselves and the uninvolved crew. This is entirely fine.
  2. Security should not be expected to be so loyal that they would potentially risk their lives when the only lives at stake are their own. The RD lied to get them accused of mutineers by the mercenaries, and it wasn't a stretch of the imagination to assume she would lie again to get them on the operating table ready for cyborgification, or turn around and order the cyborgification anyways.
  3. As above, Security are not loyalty implanted. They can not in any way shape or form be expected to willingly give up their guns and risk cyborgification by a corporation that just cut their paycheck in half... By armed thugs hired by that very same corporation. Noir is an IPC, and those are supposed to value self-preservation above all else, as IPCs are arbitrarily expected to despite being a goddamn robot. Security was comprised of humans (and one honor-bound Unathi who in the end opted to stay out of the fighting) who were also fearing for their lives and acted accordingly in defense of themselves and their friends. In real life, cops are trained to prioritize the safety of themselves and their fellow officers first and foremost, especially when compared to a life-threatening suspect. You cannot expect Officer Joe Blow to not defend himself even if it was the President of the United States holding a gun to his face. Security are trained much in the same way. They're human, and most of them were contractors anyways. They had no love or comraderie for the faceless redsuits pointing guns at them. They were a threat, and they were a threat that was neutralized in the name of officer safety.
  4. The RD, in her capacity as acting Captain, blatantly disregarded regulations in a self-professed non-emergency, violated federal law, attempted to cyborgify someone for a medium-level crime, openly claimed to be insane, told Noir in private that she was going to cyborgify it and lied repeatedly to the CC-sent mercenaries to get the rest of Security painted as violent mutineers for doing next to nothing. The mercenaries, for their part, weren't loyal to anything but their paycheck and were following Cleo's orders without question, holding Security at gunpoint demanding their surrender while a fourth mercenary skulked around in maintenance, most likely preparing to flank and initiate an engagement if security continued to refuse.

It's highly likely that my three day ban will expire long before this complaint gets resolved, but for the possibility of getting both my note expunged and preventing a dangerous precedent that is inevitably going to lead to more pointless bans while hopefully setting my own and fleshing out the ins and outs of security play, I will keep this one going.

And on the topic of precedents...

If This Ban Sets a Precedent:

I roll traitor. I get my revolver and some ammo and one of those announcement maker thingies. The announcement is from a Central Command department on the Odin with a fancy name that says the following:

"Tater McTot has been sent to the NSS Aurora to handle labor disputes. Security is to comply with their requests by any means necessary and allow them to perform their work unscathed."

I swear up and down in AOOC that my character is a LEGITIMATE agent sent by Central Command to do his assigned task. Because I'M the only one that can provide oversight to my gimmick, goddamnit! So I grab my gun and I patrol around the station, earning skeptical glances from Security who have no actual clue ICly or OOCly what to do as I force them to comply with my dumb ass gimmick being forced upon them like a sweaty old man at Hooters, probably resulting in more than a few cryos from people who just don't want to deal with the piping hot plate of bullshit I'm offering.

And then I find him. The bartender. I do some courtesy RP with him, spout some edgy nonsense and find a contrived reason as to why he's a filthy SLACKER and NanoTrasen has no place for SLACKERS like him on his glorious station. Without further ado I whip out my revolver and gat the dumb drink-jockey down amidst the screams of the common channel and the AI freaking out. For good measure, I shoot that goddamn monkey, too.

As I busy myself by hacking apart Pun Pun with a shard of glass, Security bursts in and demands my surrender. I spout some edgy nonsense about how I'm from Central Command itself. As they try to subdue me, I open fire upon them as well for obstructing CORPORATE JUSTICE. In the ensuing gunfight, I am killed and I smash that F1 button faster than my step-dad slams down rye-and-cokes. I explain my gimmick and that I am a LEGITIMATE CENTRAL AGENT and that I wasted my TC on a COMPLETELY LEGITIMATE ANNOUNCEMENT and the admin agrees, bans the dirty nasty no-good seccies who dared defy the will of NanoTrasen, rejuvenate me, give me a cookie and a glass of milk and send me on my merry way.

Does that seem far-fetched? You bet. But it's not a far cry from what happened here. What the loyalists and mercs were doing that round was a GOOD gimmick. But if arbitrary announcements trump reasonable IC response, then you will no doubt begin to see gimmicks that get progressively worse and worse.

If This Appeal Goes Through and Sets a Precedent:

If this appeal succeeds and sets a precedent, then Security and the players that comprise it can rest easy in that their individuality as fleshed out, lovingly crafted characters (2D pixels as they may be) with their own aspirations, relationships, goals, likes, dislikes, development, personalities and the IC decisions that occur as a result don't play second-fiddle to an arbitrary ideal of loyalty forced upon them without care or regard to how the round itself plays out. IC perogative and decisions drive a round forward, and so do conflict and how it escalates or de-escalates. A round should progress in as fluid a manner as possible without administration attempting to stifle player creativity and what makes Aurora a server with unique characters that are lovingly crafted to interact with the world around them. 

Additional remarks:

Part of me enjoys writing these complaints, because they give me the opportunity to potentially change the way Aurora is run for the better. It's far from perfect, but I enjoy it for what it is in spite of all the ups and downs. An appeal like this lets me address those issues in the way that I see them, and hopefully bring it to light to the multitude of other players who have in some way shape or form encountered the same issues I have. Pressure being applied on players who put the time and effort to create unique and interesting characters in an attempt to artificially make them bland and uninteresting to mould someone else's view of how the server should play, the constant mashing of F1 anytime anyone dies as they desperately grasp at straws to get some measure of vindication, policies that are supposed to be IC being enforced as an OOC extension of the rules in non-canon situations.

I love Aurora, but there are just so many things that need to change to make it even better.

Edited by Bath Salts Addict

Share this post


Link to post

I was the warden in the above narrative. I'm not going to write out everything that happened given that Noir already has, but I was (and am) still extremely confused as to why any bans were handed out to begin with. Someone mentioned it was due to escalation, but there had been plenty . Likewise, the whole rev side was played out so terribly that nobody had any idea what was actually going on. My version of the events are as followed:

 

  • A rather garbled message from centcom stated that all income was being reduced to 100%, as well as a bunch of random letters. Nobody had any idea what this was actually about and when I commented on it in general, I was bwoinked (still not entirely sure why). During the conversation I had with Sonic, even he said that he wasn't sure what the message was meant to mean and no direction was given.
  • The AI told us that there were hostiles taking the CMO hostage. We reacted and armed up. There was no announcement forthcoming and we had no idea what was going on.
  • Given that we were low on officers and had no HoS, I armed the cadets and detective too, given we thought we were about to deal with boarders.
  • Whilst doing so, there was gunfire outside. We went to check and a bunch of mercs began threatening us whilst refusing to answer why they were there. Eventually they said it was to do with the pay cuts, but quoted a different number to what the fax had already said.
  • Bear in mind that at this point, we'd had no messages by any heads as to what was going on. We had no HoS, so were not receiving the faxes and were running blind.
  • Eventually the RD shows up and tells us to stand down. We do so and still get no news as to what the fuck is going on. Eventually the AI lets us know, whilst also saying that it would be hostile to anyone getting in the way of the mercs.
  • We go back to sec and discuss what to do. At this point I would like to point out that sec was split down the middle over our allegiances. Some of us were willing to support CC, whilst others were opposed. Overall this seemed like an interesting introduction to a rev round. The general consensus is to stay in the brig, but protect the crew should it come to it.  But..then things get messy.
  • Eventually one of the revheads is arrested and apparently they're to be turned into a cyborg. Again, sec is still mostly split on who will and who will not support CC. Some of us were fine with a mutineer getting executed, whilst others were not. 
  • Some time goes by and the captain (Ex-RD) comes back to tell us that mutineers will be 'put on their knees' and the penalty for mutiny is now cyborgification. Again, some of us are okay with this.
  • Noir then proceeds to go through the regulations and point out that this is illegal. The captain promises to have him borged. It's at this point that loyalty shifts and all of sec are now on side with turning against the mercs, especially given the downright insane way the RD acts.
  • There's talk of how sec is planning to mutiny. At this point, we weren't. We were simply going to oppose the mercs should they begin to harm the crew.
  • The mercs come back and demand we disarm, whilst throwing around threats. Some have weapons out, despite the fact that none of us do. They were told to back off multiple times, whilst likewise insisting we comply or they'd use force.
  • Given we are seriously outgunned, eventually - after a while of talking, I might add - we open fire and kill one merc. I would like to note that as soon as the others backed off, nobody went to hunt the others down or the like. We simply stayed put whilst deciding how the fuck we were going to weather the fallout. Or so we tried. Which brings us on to issue number two.

 

I'm a firm believer that there was plenty of escalation here, yet the scene stopped as Garn announced over LOOC that he was going to enjoy handling the request. He then made comments about how there was 'one down, one to go' or the like, at which point Brett fell SSD. At this point, the arguments began. Firstly over the fact that we were well within our rights to open fire for a variety of reasons, - with support from observers - , then secondly over what the next move was. Given that we'd just lost two members and the merc had been revived, the odds were now ridiculously unfair. Either way, there was a heated discussion whilst waiting for at least some form of guidance over what the plan was, and I very much hope someone else has screenshots/logs of it all.

Eventually a fight started, though I'm not entirely sure why, at which point another merc was killed. Given that at this point every ounce of momentum has died, none of us are really acting IC and most are plain confused, the rest of the round is a painful slog of nobody having any idea over how to play the rest of it out. My issue with the whole thing is that it felt rather obvious that Garn had no real idea what was going on in the round, as well as how the general rev issues were handled. I feel we were justified in the attack, given that we'd been provoked and left in the dark. This is due to:
 

  • Confusing messages from CC.
  • An overwhelming lack of clear communication.
  • Mercs showing up with IPCs.
  • Mercs firing upon the crew.
  • The mercs dragging a diona off and throwing them into maints, at which point they almost die.
  • The breaking of regulations to cyborg a crew member.
  • The mercs refusing to work with us or communicate in any meaningful way. 
  • The pressure to disarm despite clearly hostile elements on board
  • The AI telling us it would take action if we did not disarm, whilst also bolting down doors.
  • The threats from command combined with the threats of the mercs.

I'm not sure how it can be argued that, IC, the members of sec didn't have very real reason to fear for their lives and those of the crew. I am also doubly confused over the argument that 'It's from CC, you have to follow it', despite the fact that no rev round I've been a part of has ever played out like that before. None of us were loyalty implanted and those likely to have qualms over going against CC both voiced and acted upon them, until things heated up and one of our own was threatened for questioning orders. 

 

That said, Garn did make it clear that he felt the ban on Brett was too harsh, and made clear efforts to try and inform her that it was lifted. I have no issue on that side of things, as he very much forthcoming in having messed up. Buutt..the ban on Noir seems odd to me, as does the fact that there was any intervention at all. But perhaps I'm missing something?

Edited by Lemei

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Bath Salts Addict said:

Security, with the exception of the Head of Security of which none existed that round, were not loyalty implanted. While Noir and the rest of the team may not have been loyalists or revolutionaries, they acted on the perogative of their own character's ICs. They did not go seeking conflict, the antagonists of that round brought the conflict TO them 

I do not think this is correct. I watched you and most of the sec force follow them around for most of the round. Two faxes where sent and the AI and the CMO both verified them with station announcements. That is all you need to know IC to follow their orders.

2 hours ago, Bath Salts Addict said:

Security should not be expected to be so loyal that they would potentially risk their lives when the only lives at stake are their own. The RD lied to get them accused of mutineers by the mercenaries

You where ordered to disarm many times. Refusing to do so was mutiny.

 

2 hours ago, Bath Salts Addict said:

They're human, and most of them were contractors anyways. They had no love or comraderie for the faceless redsuits pointing guns at them. They were a threat, and they were a threat that was neutralized in the name of officer safety.

I think this argument only works with the context that the redsuit guys are antags and you immediately know that OOC when you see them. Thus your reasoning becomes motivated. Which is exactly what i feel the security department was doing this round. If you had not followed the mercs around all through out the shift being extremely aggressive then i might buy that. One officer even tried to suggest the AI was subverted when it declared the merc team's legitimacy. 

2 hours ago, Bath Salts Addict said:

The RD, in her capacity as acting Captain, blatantly disregarded regulations in a self-professed non-emergency, violated federal law, attempted to cyborgify someone for a medium-level crime,

Refusing to hand over weapons is mutiny. Mutiny is not a medium-level crime. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Dont remember who the CMO was but i do recall @Azande was playing as the AI. Who probably saw even more than i did. 

Share this post


Link to post

Hello, I was the AI as @Garnascus has said.

When the Mercs first arrived, I reported them as intruders as they were not on the manifest and they were heavily armed and moving towards the bridge, then communications went down and I could not communicate with these intruders or the crew. Then I saw the CMO approach them, and to me without being able to hear it seemed like they had blocked the CMO off from fleeing towards the bridge or center of the station as they were flanked on either side of them. This is when I made my announcement that the intruders had made it to the bridge and were taking the CMO hostage - as this was my best knowledge at the time.

Once communications came up, the Mercenaries and Command both touched base with me to clarify they were from Central Command - cue the CC Announcement clarifying their role. I immediately informed Security it was a false alarm that was completely my fault while they were in the armoury still gearing up. Instead of stopping their gear-up, they continued and one officer accused me of being subverted.

Security continued to ignore Station Command's order to disarm, the Acting Captain's order to disarm, and the CC Announcement saying listen to the god damn Policy Enforcement (Merc) Team. Then, the Forensic Technician said something like "You should just rebel then." - due to the fact security was fully armed WITH tactical gear due to a lucky cargo find, refusing to comply with command's orders, and now one of them was encouraging sedition - I informed Command and the Mercenary team that Security was beginning to behave seditiously and that a mutiny could very well break out. Security was also talking about having a strike.

Lo and behold', Security got tired of debating with the Mercenary team, who had thus far only stunned a person that was encouraging rebellion (Security stuns people ALL the time and yet they were ready to go to war over this incident), and I wasn't aware of any incident with the diona except the fact the diona was actively harassing both me the AI, and the mercenary team.

Security's decision was to suddenly open fire on the mercenaries in the security lobby with no legitimate provocation, in an act of blatant mutiny. Noir stated their intent to seize Acting Captain Ora, and this sent me into mutiny mode. I locked down security, informed crew that they were committing a mutiny, and ordered all synthetics slaved to me to protect the Command Staff.

I have no information after this as I ended up wiping core to handle an extensive ahelp discussion regarding an AI's ability to harm people to defend command staff from mutiny.

In my opinion, Security engaged in hyper-valids this shift refusing the direction of numerous sources of corporate authority to stand the fuck down. It really annoyed me, and I wish I had just locked them in the armoury so they couldn't have interfered with the gimmick so much. But I don't know which of the security members were revs, loyalists or such - so that changes the dynamic a lot. I thought it was just MERC for the longest time.



 

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Garnascus said:

I do not think this is correct. I watched you and most of the sec force follow them around for most of the round. Two faxes where sent and the AI and the CMO both verified them with station announcements. That is all you need to know IC to follow their orders.

This is untrue, at least where Noir is concerned. The only time it left the Brig to confront the mercenaries was with the rest of security asking them why they were shooting down the hallway. Afterwards, Noir and I'd say most of the team spent the remainder of that round in the lobby talking. We were following orders despite some grumbling here and there, but they were still accused of trying to kickstart a mutiny. I'm not sure if anyone was following them around, and if there was I never knew about that unless it was the CSI.

6 hours ago, Garnascus said:

You where ordered to disarm many times. Refusing to do so was mutiny.

Technically speaking, I guess so! But why, again, is that so bad if it's for a perfectly valid reason? Security had reason to believe they were in danger. Noir even moreso.

6 hours ago, Garnascus said:

I think this argument only works with the context that the redsuit guys are antags and you immediately know that OOC when you see them. Thus your reasoning becomes motivated. Which is exactly what i feel the security department was doing this round. If you had not followed the mercs around all through out the shift being extremely aggressive then i might buy that. One officer even tried to suggest the AI was subverted when it declared the merc team's legitimacy. 

Security isn't a hivemind. What they do for the majority of the round is their own business. But you simply can't sit there and insinuate that was following them around most of the round because I simply wasn't. No one was out for valids like you believe they were. I took the round as it evolved around us, looked at the facts and the steady escalation and figured there was very real enough grounds for Noir and the team to figure that there was a credible danger to themselves, and that the RD would go back on her word if they disarmed. So Noir told Feuffer to start the engagement to neutralize the threat.

6 hours ago, Garnascus said:

Refusing to hand over weapons is mutiny. Mutiny is not a medium-level crime. 

Now you're just misconstruing my words. The CSI was charged with sedition, a medium level charge, and nearly got cyborgified for it. (I say nearly because she showed up later, sans her ID and apparently better, but the RD told us she getting cyborgified?)

It stands to reason then that the punishment for mutiny is going to be much the same, if not somehow worse. This was what security was being accused of, so they acted within the interests of their self-preservation and by Lord I can't stress this enough. Self-preservation is infinitely more important, whether the person threatening it is from Central Command or not. You can't say the threat was exaggerated when you weren't even paying attention to the round or how it escalated.

2 hours ago, Azande said:

Hello, I was the AI as @Garnascus has said.

When the Mercs first arrived, I reported them as intruders as they were not on the manifest and they were heavily armed and moving towards the bridge, then communications went down and I could not communicate with these intruders or the crew. Then I saw the CMO approach them, and to me without being able to hear it seemed like they had blocked the CMO off from fleeing towards the bridge or center of the station as they were flanked on either side of them. This is when I made my announcement that the intruders had made it to the bridge and were taking the CMO hostage - as this was my best knowledge at the time.

Once communications came up, the Mercenaries and Command both touched base with me to clarify they were from Central Command - cue the CC Announcement clarifying their role. I immediately informed Security it was a false alarm that was completely my fault while they were in the armoury still gearing up. Instead of stopping their gear-up, they continued and one officer accused me of being subverted.

Security continued to ignore Station Command's order to disarm, the Acting Captain's order to disarm, and the CC Announcement saying listen to the god damn Policy Enforcement (Merc) Team. Then, the Forensic Technician said something like "You should just rebel then." - due to the fact security was fully armed WITH tactical gear due to a lucky cargo find, refusing to comply with command's orders, and now one of them was encouraging sedition - I informed Command and the Mercenary team that Security was beginning to behave seditiously and that a mutiny could very well break out. Security was also talking about having a strike.

Lo and behold', Security got tired of debating with the Mercenary team, who had thus far only stunned a person that was encouraging rebellion (Security stuns people ALL the time and yet they were ready to go to war over this incident), and I wasn't aware of any incident with the diona except the fact the diona was actively harassing both me the AI, and the mercenary team.

Security's decision was to suddenly open fire on the mercenaries in the security lobby with no legitimate provocation, in an act of blatant mutiny. Noir stated their intent to seize Acting Captain Ora, and this sent me into mutiny mode. I locked down security, informed crew that they were committing a mutiny, and ordered all synthetics slaved to me to protect the Command Staff.

I have no information after this as I ended up wiping core to handle an extensive ahelp discussion regarding an AI's ability to harm people to defend command staff from mutiny.

In my opinion, Security engaged in hyper-valids this shift refusing the direction of numerous sources of corporate authority to stand the fuck down. It really annoyed me, and I wish I had just locked them in the armoury so they couldn't have interfered with the gimmick so much. But I don't know which of the security members were revs, loyalists or such - so that changes the dynamic a lot. I thought it was just MERC for the longest time.



 

You're an otherwise upstanding member of the security team employed by a big megacorporation. During what seems like an ordinary day, NanoTrasen suddenly announces that your pay is cut by a huge margin and fail to explain why. There's no audit or anything, just a blanket cut across the entire station. To add insult to injury, while you're starting to consider looking for a new employer, a group of four armed, sketchy guys in red suits show up like they own the place without any fanfare or announcement beforehand regarding their arrival. These mercenaries tell you that they're a third-party hired by NT to enforce their "policies" that aside from the paycut you're unsure what there is to even enforce. To make matters worse, they're probably being paid better than you and you're told to practically just suck it up.

You've been shafted, had your credibility called into question, betrayed, insulted, dishonored, and forced to have your job acquiesced to a gang of armed thugs who hold no real interest in keeping the peace save for a phat paycheck. You can't tell me any non-implanted crew, security or otherwise, is expected to stay all nice and loyal and compliant. Tack on the fact that they stripped a Diona of all its belongings and locked it in maint and open fired on some random CSI for throwing a can at them, it's very clear they're violent, no-good thugs, whether they're hired by Central Command or not. No one should be forced to acquiesce to strike breakers, especially when said strike breakers come to you spoiling for a fight.

I find your pompousness absolutely laughable as you go on to claim Security was only going in it for the valids and how you were oh-so annoyed that the gimmick was "interfered with" when it was clear all you wanted to do that round was bolt and shock doors to soft-antag as the AI.

Nowhere in the gimmick's many announcements did it declare that the acting Captain could start cyborgifying people on trumped up charges. The only announcements made were in regards to a paycut, and that's it.

 

On_Ganking_Security.PNG?width=713&height

I also want to address this. What weird, double standard is it that antags can wordlessly open fire on Security without any provocation but when the tables are reversed, and there is mountains upon MOUNTAINS of steady escalation and provocation from both sides that Security can't open fire against a superior force to try and minimize their own losses? Why are they railroaded to comply with a gimmick that has done nothing but agitate and antagonize them out of blind loyalty and not 'mutinying' when the IC of each individual character that round dictates they shouldn't?

There's just so many blatant inconsistencies in regards to how situations are handled that I'm not even sure if setting a precedent is going to work anymore. Every situation will just be handled regardless of how similar situations were. Some people will be punished for less at the staff member's discretion and people doing much worse will get off scot free. When nothing is clarified and nothing is for certain, how is it fair to expect that anyone gets punished for acting within the best interests of their character with plenty of escalation and reasoning to back it up?

Edited by Bath Salts Addict

Share this post


Link to post
29 minutes ago, Bath Salts Addict said:

On_Ganking_Security.PNG?width=713&height

I also want to address this. What weird, double standard is it that antags can wordlessly open fire on Security without any provocation but when the tables are reversed, and there is mountains upon MOUNTAINS of steady escalation and provocation from both sides that Security can't open fire against a superior force to try and minimize their own losses? Why are they railroaded to comply with a gimmick that has done nothing but agitate and antagonize them out of blind loyalty and not 'mutinying' when the IC of each individual character that round dictates they shouldn't?

There's just so many blatant inconsistencies in regards to how situations are handled that I'm not even sure if setting a precedent is going to work anymore. Every situation will just be handled regardless of how similar situations were. Some people will be punished for less at the staff member's discretion and people doing much worse will get off scot free. When nothing is clarified and nothing is for certain, how is it fair to expect that anyone gets punished for acting within the best interests of their character with plenty of escalation and reasoning to back it up?

I am going to make this clear before someone tries to abuse this screenshoot. There is no such thing as gank policy, I have spoken with prate about this. The rules explain; you need a reason to kill someone, even as antag. And in the case that a security officer is going to bust you for something that will just get you locked behind cells, yes it is fine. In the same way it is fine for an officer to use lethal force against someone going at them with a energy sword. The only guidelines in this case are going to be the rules. Prate just poorly worded this, so, the rules are going to be used here, not some unwritten policy. Admins and moderators should apply the rules to each situation.

Share this post


Link to post
38 minutes ago, Alberyk said:

I am going to make this clear before someone tries to abuse this screenshoot. There is no such thing as gank policy, I have spoken with prate about this. The rules explain; you need a reason to kill someone, even as antag. And in the case that a security officer is going to bust you for something that will just get you locked behind cells, yes it is fine. In the same way it is fine for an officer to use lethal force against someone going at them with a energy sword. The only guidelines in this case are going to be the rules. Prate just poorly worded this, so, the rules are going to be used here, not some unwritten policy. Admins and moderators should apply the rules to each situation.

Then it's a matter of arguing how being held at gunpoint and forced to surrender with the threat of cyborgification looming over you and your friends' heads is any different from being attacked with an e-sword. I, for one, am of the opinion it's not. If a security officer has a gun and is being advanced upon by someone with an e-sword and fires upon the antag, then it's valid. If mercenaries, CC-approved or otherwise, refuse to back down and have set a precedent with their violent actions force Security into a confrontation and hold them at gunpoint and force them to act accordingly to protect themselves, then I'll argue that it's valid as well.

Edited by Bath Salts Addict

Share this post


Link to post

Just a notice that I’ll be helping Alberyk with this.

 

Keep future posts concise and with relevant proof to the context of the complaint itself. No rumors or gossip.

Share this post


Link to post

Hi I was accused of wanting to valid and bolt down doors and electrify them as AI. I wish to clarify, as my last response here, that I did not shock any doors at any point in that round, and I only bolted doors twice.

Once, when the Mercs arrived and rushed towards the bridge - I locked the bridge down. And the second time when Security opened fire on the now confirmed CC Merc Team. I would appreciate that further slander against me or my character not occur on this complaint, especially when such commentary is not related to the complaint at all.

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry for taking this long, it was a lot to read and investigate, and life got on the way. Now, there are two points which we must address here;

First, the cyborgification and the revolt part. We believe that the concret threat of cyborgification was enough to allow people to act against command staff and their new security force. The rules are clear on this, you can do start conflict as long there is enough escalation and reason, and we believe that this is the case. The main theme of the revolution round, as the name say, is to cause some kind of revolt, and not only antags should be able to do this. So, we believe that garn is wrong in this aspect.

However, we also noticed another issue. From what we could gather, you were doing your best to attempt to poke holes in their story, even if they had an announcement at some point;

Spoiler

[2019-11-10 04:58:58.681] b30-aKft SAY: Bath Salts Addict/(Noir) : (Ceti Basic) Your arrival wasn&#39;t exactly announced, even when we <i>had</i> comms.
[2019-11-10 04:59:45.418] b30-aKft SAY: Bath Salts Addict/(Noir) : (Ceti Basic) What kind of policy team employs IPCs when the ERT itself won&#39;t accept them?
[2019-11-10 05:00:06.781] b30-aKft SAY: Bath Salts Addict/(Noir) : (Ceti Basic) So you&#39;re a third party.
[2019-11-10 05:02:01.023] b30-aKft SAY: Bath Salts Addict/(Noir) : (Ceti Basic) Why are they telling us this <b>now</b>?
[2019-11-10 05:02:05.591] b30-aKft SAY: Bath Salts Addict/(Noir) : (Ceti Basic) Shouldn&#39;t we have been told beforehand?
[2019-11-10 05:04:37.211] b30-aKft SAY: Bath Salts Addict/(Noir) : (Ceti Basic) I believe we have a right to be told, at least. Or to have their orders represented by officials.
[2019-11-10 05:10:06.918] b30-aKft SAY: Bath Salts Addict/(Noir) : (Ceti Basic) Why does their enforcement team get to bring lethals?

Spoiler

"Noir points this out along with the simple fact that the mercenaries can't be hired by NT. For starters, one of them is an IPC, which aren't even allowed in the ERT."
This is not really true, because they are indeed allowed in the ert, mercenary teams, tau ceti legion and even as some contractors.

It is not really unbelievable that NanoTrasen may make use of third parties as security. They do right now with contractors, or mercenary teams answering as ert, or even during that week event where we had most of security being replaced with eridani forces. This pretty much falls in line with the guy suggesting that the AI is subverted somehow, and when taking in consideration that people have little to no reason to don't trust central command announcements, since their subvertion is reserved to antag interactions. We do believe that you were acting in bad faith, taking in consideration your notes, by trying to find any excuse to just bust the supossed mercenary team. A delay in communications is not really that unfeasable, taking also in consideration the situation setup by the antag's gimmicks.

As result of this, we are rewording the ban reason to don't include the attack and the borging, but your overall behavior towards the team as explained above. I will also have a talk with all the team about the revolution case and possible motivations for conflict as a non antag.

The ban reason will be changed to this:
 

Spoiler

Valid hunting behavior wherein the player tried to grasp at straws to delegitimize a mercenary team sent with central backing. Given your notes, this warning has been reworded to reflect rule violations on your end while removing the aspects you were not in the wrong for.

 

Share this post


Link to post

Understandable. I could have handled this a bit better. I will take this into consideration for next time. 

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Alberyk said:

Sorry for taking this long, it was a lot to read and investigate, and life got on the way. Now, there are two points which we must address here;

First, the cyborgification and the revolt part. We believe that the concret threat of cyborgification was enough to allow people to act against command staff and their new security force. The rules are clear on this, you can do start conflict as long there is enough escalation and reason, and we believe that this is the case. The main theme of the revolution round, as the name say, is to cause some kind of revolt, and not only antags should be able to do this. So, we believe that garn is wrong in this aspect.

However, we also noticed another issue. From what we could gather, you were doing your best to attempt to poke holes in their story, even if they had an announcement at some point;

  Hide contents

[2019-11-10 04:58:58.681] b30-aKft SAY: Bath Salts Addict/(Noir) : (Ceti Basic) Your arrival wasn&#39;t exactly announced, even when we <i>had</i> comms.
[2019-11-10 04:59:45.418] b30-aKft SAY: Bath Salts Addict/(Noir) : (Ceti Basic) What kind of policy team employs IPCs when the ERT itself won&#39;t accept them?
[2019-11-10 05:00:06.781] b30-aKft SAY: Bath Salts Addict/(Noir) : (Ceti Basic) So you&#39;re a third party.
[2019-11-10 05:02:01.023] b30-aKft SAY: Bath Salts Addict/(Noir) : (Ceti Basic) Why are they telling us this <b>now</b>?
[2019-11-10 05:02:05.591] b30-aKft SAY: Bath Salts Addict/(Noir) : (Ceti Basic) Shouldn&#39;t we have been told beforehand?
[2019-11-10 05:04:37.211] b30-aKft SAY: Bath Salts Addict/(Noir) : (Ceti Basic) I believe we have a right to be told, at least. Or to have their orders represented by officials.
[2019-11-10 05:10:06.918] b30-aKft SAY: Bath Salts Addict/(Noir) : (Ceti Basic) Why does their enforcement team get to bring lethals?

  Hide contents

"Noir points this out along with the simple fact that the mercenaries can't be hired by NT. For starters, one of them is an IPC, which aren't even allowed in the ERT."
This is not really true, because they are indeed allowed in the ert, mercenary teams, tau ceti legion and even as some contractors.

It is not really unbelievable that NanoTrasen may make use of third parties as security. They do right now with contractors, or mercenary teams answering as ert, or even during that week event where we had most of security being replaced with eridani forces. This pretty much falls in line with the guy suggesting that the AI is subverted somehow, and when taking in consideration that people have little to no reason to don't trust central command announcements, since their subvertion is reserved to antag interactions. We do believe that you were acting in bad faith, taking in consideration your notes, by trying to find any excuse to just bust the supossed mercenary team. A delay in communications is not really that unfeasable, taking also in consideration the situation setup by the antag's gimmicks.

As result of this, we are rewording the ban reason to don't include the attack and the borging, but your overall behavior towards the team as explained above. I will also have a talk with all the team about the revolution case and possible motivations for conflict as a non antag.

The ban reason will be changed to this:
 

  Hide contents

Valid hunting behavior wherein the player tried to grasp at straws to delegitimize a mercenary team sent with central backing. Given your notes, this warning has been reworded to reflect rule violations on your end while removing the aspects you were not in the wrong for.

 

You're taking the first set of quotes out of context. When the mercenaries first arrived, everyone was under the impression that they were an "official" team a la ERT, not mercenaries or even TCFL. That's why Noir pointed out there was an IPC among them. Every line before when it says "So you're a third party" was before it was informed the mercenaries were, in fact, a mercenary team hired by NT.

And if the ERT is accepting IPCs now, I genuinely didn't know OOCly. And knowing that now I feel like it undermines TCFL's initial gimmick but what do I know? That's neither here nor there, anyhow.

Everything after was Noir attempting to highlight just how hard the Security department was getting shafted by Central and was in no way trying to insinuate they were illegitimate. Nor am I also the guy who tried to claim the AI was subverted. I don't know if people keep trying to make a point with some random guy I don't even remember saying that or what, but I'm not him. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Noir said at any point that they weren't legitimately hired by NT. There were announcements, there was a fax, the RD and the AI were backing them and the CMO was remaining a begrudging neutral party. The only thing I can see wrong is that perhaps my noticable OOC distaste for "CC-approved" antag gimmicks, but that never colored Noir's behavior or the reason why the conflict escalated towards violence in the first place.

CC-approved or not, Noir and Security opened fire because there was a credible threat to their lives. At no point did Noir initiate the conflict because "hmm I don't think these guys are legitimate", it did so solely because "holy fuck the RD wants to borg me and maybe even my colleagues, we gotta stop this from happening".

And validhunting? Can you even validhunt with words? I fail to understand how that is possible. There are only seven lines of dialogue from Noir that could be misconstrued as it questioning the legitimacy of the mercenaries, and that was all within a few minutes during the initial confrontation with the mercenaries. This initial confrontation served to provide exposition to security as to what their purpose was for even being on the station. At no point did Noir ever encourage action against the mercenaries on the basis that they weren't real CC-approved mercenaries, because that was never in dispute. If anything, Noir didn't encourage action against them at all. At one point Noir suggested going on strike, but that suggestion was quickly shot down by the Warden.

And even then? Punishing someone for seven lines of dialogue spanning a few minutes during a period of misinformation, poor communication, poor procedure/loyalist announcement mismanagement and a comms blackout in a round that lasted roughly an hour and thirty minutes seems entirely unfair and totalitarian to me. By that logic, you'll also need to comb through all the off-handed comments of crew who were saying stuff along the lines of "wow these guys are sketchy, are you sure they're from NT"? Because trust me, there's a lot.

The fact that you acknowledge the reasoning for security initiating the firefight as valid proves the validhunting argument as illogical for the simple facts that:

  1. From the moment Noir stopped speaking with the mercenaries to the period spanning the firefight in the lobby, Noir did not move from said lobby. That goes back to my previous question. How can you validhunt with words? What validhunting took place when all that occurred was Noir discussing the on-going situation via the radio, PDA and in-person with the people also in the lobby? When at no point via radio or PDA did Noir try to form a battle plan or plan of action against the mercenaries in the first place.
  2. Much of security's initial questions about the mercenaries was born out of a misinterpretation of their initial contact with Command by the AI, a comms blackout, miscommunication, lack of forewarning, and poor usage of the loyalist announcement system to provide the necessary exposition. Once it became clear that they were sent by CC, no one acted against the mercenaries under the belief otherwise.
  3. The conflict and reason for escalation was brought to Security on a silver platter and was, in all honesty, forced upon us in a way. Again, we (or at least Noir, the Warden, a cadet and maybe two officers) did not leave the Brig and confront the mercenaries under the pretense of their legitimacy or even seek to stop them and the RD from doing their thing. Even the CSI's reported borging was met with a consensus of "wow wtf" and not much else.
  4. It's already been established by Alberyk's own validation that Noir and by extension the rest of Security were in the right for escalating the conflict under the belief that their lives were in danger. Considering again that they did not go out looking for a fight, how can it even be argued that I was trying to validhunt? I don't understand how that conclusion can be drawn. Maybe I'm overthinking things but in the interest of preventing a similar situation from occurring in the future, I'd like to explicitly request that this train of assumption gets painstakingly explained to me in the most juvenile manner.
  5. If the reason for conflict to escalate to violence is deemed valid, then is it really valid hunting?

If anyone should be at fault here, it would be the AI. They intentionally mislead the RD to believe Security was planning a mutiny despite having every tool under the sun to monitor both their comms. PDA and even their conversations in the lobby. ICly and at the time OOCly we were lead to believe the RD was lying to the mercenaries to get a disgruntled Security out of the way. Maybe in a way she was, but mostly she was acting on misinformation from the AI. Said AI obviously just wanted to see security get stomped by the mercenaries, and bolted what they could to force the conflict to take place in as confined a space as possible. In no way should an AI be attempting to escalate conflict as a non-antag, especially where crew safety is concerned.

And not to drag this out into a personal slight against Garn's overall behavior, but it's been proven time and time again that he's incredibly biased towards antagonists, to the point where it noticeably colors his behavior and administrative decisions. At one point he even tried to insinuate via OOC that a full 50+ server of people were bad at RPing because they didn't immediately accept a malf AI's demand to lynch the HoS under the threat of mutually assured destruction. This isn't just a claim by me, but looking at a great many of the complaints against him, accepted or otherwise, and speaking with a vast quantity of people who share the same views (but for some reason are too scared to make their own complaints regarding said issues). He regularly plays bald, black-eyed, thirty year old human janitors with randomly generated names who are, despite his cautionary advice to Naelynn in a complaint against them, for all intents and purposes "antag mains". I don't think he ever actually plays the game unless it's to try and roll for antag, or screw around as a janitor if he didn't manage to. While he and I share a love of in-game combat and the interesting narratives stemming from the conflict that arises, the difference is that he only wants to see the antagonists succeed and everything they do go smoothly and according to plan.

The reason why I formatted my original post in "chapters" a la a story but then abruptly shifted to an OOC perspective and provided no IC conclusion? Because there was none. I did this to highlight the fact that Garnascus, rather than act in a headmin's intended function of keeping a round going smoothly as possible, did the complete opposite and put an end to anything that made the round interesting or fun. As soon as they realized what was happening, both Security and the antagonists stopped, more or less said "fuck this" in LOOC and stopped any and all narrative progression for the rest of the round.

In rounds where antagonists are meant to have heavy involvement with the crew, conflict is what drives the round forward. I and many other people adore conflict in all its forms. It's not enough to just play a deathmatch against each other, but there needs to be an underlying motivation. Why is my character fighting? What happened to make this timeline come to fruition? What part of my character's personality will be revealed to other characters amidst an evolving crucible of desperation and violence? I desire it, thrive on it, feed off it, but never force it. Forced conflict is not fun. And a forced end to otherwise enjoyable conflict is like a sneeze that never happens, or being told that you're going to be taken to Chuck E. Cheese's after a visit to your grandma's house but instead your mother spends the entire night chatting away while you die of boredom in a flat that smells like old people and has toys from thirty years ago. Because despite my aforementioned distaste for CC-approved antagonists and revs in general, I was actually enjoying that round. It had all the makings of a round that would become truly memorable in my eyes thanks to being driven forward by a collaboration of unique, interesting characters like the RD, CMO, the mercs and Security,, but Garnascus instead opted to butcher, cleave, massacre and gut the round because one dead antagonist suddenly decided he wasn't having fun anymore, and if he wasn't having fun then no one else should be.

There was no grand revolt in the face of a cold, corrupt corporate entity. Security and its impromptu militia didn't arm up and lay siege to the powermad queen and her army of elite baddies. The RD and her cronies never got the chance to see corporate power triumph over a station in open rebellion. The cargo techs didn't get the chance to put aside their typical differences with Security and band together in the name of truth, justice and the American way. London Werry never got the chance to (for a round at least) realize just how corrupt a corporate entity like NT can truly be and see the value in following a moral code rather than a pre-written one. Noir, a character I have lovingly created and cherished and continued to play on this server time and time again despite just how ridiculously petty and illogical some people can be, never got the chance to truly display how well the very foundations of its persona and year and some of steady character development could shine. But none of that happened, because we got cucked out of it.

And THAT is what makes me so darn disgruntled. Miffed, ruffled, plucked, and floozled. I'm a writer by nature, and mediums like Aurora are an untapped goldmine of potential. When that potential gets wasted by crass decisions borne out of an intentional ignorance towards context, I get just a tad displeased.

And boy, it sure is nice to be told that my ban is being changed to a warning LONG AFTER said ban already expired a long, long time ago, I'm gonna have to continue my objections. If Garn wasn't so noticeably biased towards antags - or in fact if any other staff member had handled the initial situation, this ban wouldn't have occurred. At all. This complaint would not exist, and if any other staff member had seen the misconstrued logs that somehow imply I was trying to validhunt, they'd shrug and go "meh" because, again, the round wasn't colored by said IC statements in any way.

So how exactly is it fair that I have to continue to bear the weight of this cross well after that it's been proven that I've done very little wrong?

Hell, if Garn had even been paying attention at all to the round this probably wouldn't have happened, but that ties in to him being biased towards antagonists. 

Edited by Bath Salts Addict

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, Bath Salts Addict said:

And boy, it sure is nice to be told that my ban is being changed to a warning LONG AFTER said ban already expired a long, long time ago

They are changing the specific wording of the ban message to better reflect your actions. They did not change it to a warning. 

On 21/11/2019 at 18:38, Alberyk said:

As result of this, we are rewording the ban reason to don't include the attack and the borging, but your overall behavior towards the team as explained above

 

17 hours ago, Bath Salts Addict said:

Hell, if Garn had even been paying attention at all to the round this probably wouldn't have happened

Wrong

17 hours ago, Bath Salts Addict said:

So how exactly is it fair that I have to continue to bear the weight of this cross well after that it's been proven that I've done very little wrong

You have over sixty notes that say otherwise. 

Share this post


Link to post

I'll be taking this point by point and trying my best with keeping it short.

1- While it may be applicable to have given you a measure of benefit of doubt, we feel that given your history, which has been mentioned, around sixty entries on record going from notes, warnings, job bans, antag bans, server bans both temporary and indefinite, that it wouldn't be appropriate to do so to the degree of someone without a history.

2- We reviewed the logs of how you acted. It was deemed that the reason and escalation for the shoot out were legitimate, thus it was removed. However, it was also deemed that other actions were not okay, so the ban reason was changed. This was the simplest thing to do without disrupting the staff tools. This does not mean Garn was right. To expand, if we deleted the ban and placed a note in place of it, when staff look up "ban" entries, they wouldn't see it.

3- Reasons for a punishment are rarely independent or first time incidents. The escalation to temporary server bans is a result of cumulative rule breaking entries.

4- The time it took us. This might not have been the fastest complaint we handled, 3 days isn't exactly a lot of time to go through everything. The thread itself had around twelve thousand words. Your entries around three thousand words. The logs around ten thousand lines, some of these lines having from simply five words to an entire paragraph, which then had to be trimmed multiple times to see different perspectives and making sure our decision aligned with the narrative. Couple this with the fact Alberyk and I are quite busy as of late, it paints the picture of why it took us this long.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...