Staff Complaint - ParadoxSpace

[Evandorf]

BYOND Key: Evandorf

Staff BYOND Key: ParadoxSpace

Game ID: b5y-aQe4

Reason for the Complaint: This is regarding a gank warning I was given.

I was working with another ninja during a Visitors round. We had worked out over AOOC with the Wizard that we would choose a target and they would work to heal/protect them. Before this official warning I was spoken with once before by Shadow7889 regarding our first interaction with our target, Holiday Lynn. While stealthed I moved up to her near cargo and told her that our customers sent their regards (the customer was a family of a Unathi Consular she had previously insulted). I then grabbed her and teleported to maintenance where I tried to restrain her. She called for help, the wizard, their apprentice and security came, and then before I had to teleport away I cut at Holiday's legs. The intention was to wound her so that the wizard could play their role and we could move on to full aggression. I spoke with Shadow about this and was told that because the gimmick had taken an extended amount of time to setup (approximately 1 hr) that this was gank behavior and that only a verbal warning was needed. This was simply the lead up to the talk I had with Paradox at round end.

After the initial attack, Holiday was stabilized and taken to robotics to replace her leg which had been severed. Security was armed and mobile, robotics had built a mech, and the wizard and apprentice were keeping watch as well. I thought it best to try to thin out the protectors a bit and scare them as well so first, while stealthed, I dragged a welderfuel tank up to the door of the robotics surgery room where Holiday was being kept. A roomful of people saw the tank moving on its own and figured out what was going on. They dragged the welder tank away, down the hall. I did this a second time with another welder tank from robotics with the same result. I didn't intend to detonate these, it was mostly for show. Then I went to EVA and pulled its welder fueltank to the outside wall of robotics and detonated it using the Captain's pistol. The walls held, Holiday was moved and the hunt continued.

The rest of the round was mostly playing cat and mouse with security, popping up in front of civilian crew and threatening them, demanding Holiday's whereabouts, antagonizing crew and security over the radio; basic ninja stuff. Towards the end of the shift I heard over sec radio that they were moving Holiday to the red dock. I thought this would be a good time to get the jump on them. I moved while stealthed to the checkpoint, which security had not yet reached, lowered all the shutters and placed another welderbomb behind the door so that when they came I might thin them out some as they had moved to shooting on sight. It was quickly done, eventually security came and when the officer popped the door I shot the fuel tank and the round continued.

I will post the full logs below but the warning I was given is as follows: 

I explained to Paradox that I felt I had given the crew and especially security very fair warning that they were not only being targeted but the way in which I was targeting them. I definitely feel that I was not "wordlessly" doing anything and while the interaction given may not have been face to face it was sufficient and extended throughout the last half of the shift.

 

Evidence/logs/etc:

 

Additional remarks: The screenshots of chat were just examples I pulled to show that I was interacting with the crew as best I could while also being actively hunted by security.

I will attach the full logs to this post.

log 2020-03-02 (1 01 am).htm

Edited March 2, 2020 by Evandorf

[ShesTrying]

Myself and @BoryaTheSlayer will be handling this. 

 

@ParadoxSpace I'd like to see your side, please.

[Snakebittenn]

Essentially, I tried to get a great grasp of the scenario (as best I could from the lobby) and thought through it. But, most of my decision came from conferring with Shadow and @Cnaym in msay, in which we pretty much all agreed it was gank, especially given that guard wasn't even protecting Lynn at the time, your quarry. Getting blown up the minute you open a door, instead of perhaps just getting a 'fuck off' shot in the chest, is kinda lame. It wasn't even really a passive trap, just an active call to shoot the tank.

[Evandorf]

The main issue I have and the reason why I created this complaint is that the gank rules as written don't seem to be reflected in how they were enforced. I'd like to post some specifics and get an official answer if possible.

I'll put logs as spoilers to keep things clean.

Spoiler

This is the first interaction I had with our target, Holiday Lynn, and the screen cap goes from first contact to the first message Shadow set me. It was a pretty rapid response by Shadow and one that came while I was still trying to incapacitate Lynn in the maintenance tunnel. At this point all I had done was surprise her and use varying degrees of grabs but I was messaged for a gank violation.

The speed of the response and the fact that I hadn't used any lethal attacks or done anything truly damaging to her at the time the ticket was opened leads me to assume that the main issue in Shadow's opinion is that she had been surprised. The issue with the officer and the welderbomb was a significant escalation but only after I had interacted with the crew, had them reciprocate and escalate themselves by moving to a shoot on sight stance, and provided RP as I showed at the start of this thread.

The common element between the two instances seems to be that I surprised both my targets. Gank rules as written focus mainly on the need for appropriate roleplay before killing someone. I don't see how using traps and ambush tactics violates those rules especially when I am interacting with the crew at large, escalating appropriately, and pushing a story.

Again, I'd like to have a definitive answer on the matter because its seems contradictory and I definitely want to avoid racking up warnings and notes if I'm misunderstanding it somehow.

Edited March 5, 2020 by Evandorf

[ShesTrying]

Apologies for the delay, Matt got me sick through the internet.

 

 

On 05/03/2020 at 17:38, Evandorf said:

The common element between the two instances seems to be that I surprised both my targets. Gank rules as written focus mainly on the need for appropriate roleplay before killing someone. I don't see how using traps and ambush tactics violates those rules especially when I am interacting with the crew at large, escalating appropriately, and pushing a story.

 

I am not entirely sure where the confusion comes from. For clarity's sake, I will quote the rule here:

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

 

What you did is just kill a person who wasn't even involved in the protection of the person you were targeting. As far as I know, Danny Wiles had barely even seen, let alone interacted with you in that round.

 

Paradox's judgement here wasn't really misplaced, although I suppose it could be communicated more clearly, but honestly the situation is pretty straight-forward. Nonetheless, I'll talk to him about trying to be more clear in tickets in the future in regards as to how he makes the judgement in tickets.

[Evandorf]

2 hours ago, ShesTrying said:

What you did is just kill a person who wasn't even involved in the protection of the person you were targeting. As far as I know, Danny Wiles had barely even seen, let alone interacted with you in that round.

Let me set a timeline along with the circumstances leading to the bombing. I think it's pertinent to determining if my actions were justified.

First, I should restate that security had moved to a shoot on-sight stance and every officer I had seen thus far had fired at us.

Leading up to setting the trap with the welderbomb I intercepted the following over comms:
 

Spoiler

After this I moved to the checkpoint with the fuel tank, placed it right inside the bottom door, and closed the shutters so it couldn't be seen from the outside. Then I positioned myself in the top door of the checkpoint so I could get a clear shot at it and back out quickly. With this placement I could not see the area below the checkpoint because the shutters were down and the screen ended maybe 5 - 10 feet past my vision. Even with the thermals the suit had built in I could only really see the first person to come up to the door.

After waiting a while, Rhetoric, the AI, informed security I was in the checkpoint. Logs below.

Spoiler

My logs don't have timestamps but the time between Rhetoric stating I was there and the time of the shot was not insubstantial. I assumed that Rhetoric's message prompted security to enter the checkpoint and as they had already shown multiple times that they were out for blood I was ready to spring my trap when the door was opened.

This is a long way of saying that I had a reasonable assumption that security as a whole was active and ready to shoot me on-sight and that they were moving as a group to get Lynn to the departure shuttle. I think it's unreasonable in this situation to be required to stop and verify the activity/intent of the security crew you encounter.

I appreciate you taking your time to look over this. I want to make sure that I describe/relay my confusion of the enforcement of the gank rules, or perhaps my misunderstanding of them, so that I can avoid making the same mistakes in the future. My understanding of the rules before this round was that a murder scene itself could be wordless if enough roleplay had occurred beforehand in the round. I may not have spoken to Danny Wiles at length throughout the round but I was engaged with the crew at large over comms and several other members of security at different times. If Danny Wiles was not an acceptable target for this trap, then I have to assume that the roleplay I provided to the crew at large doesn't apply to the gank rule. I have to assume that even though I was very verbal about my goals and methods, and even though security knew I was aware of their movements, and even though Rhetoric announced my presence, Danny Wiles was not sufficiently aware or involved in my actions to be considered a valid target.

Edited March 14, 2020 by Evandorf

[ShesTrying]

Okay! Apologies for the long wait, I’ve been quite sick and a little distracted with family and the whole plague thing. Anyways, I digress.

 

After a bit of discussion, I think the warning was unwarranted. In your case, Evandorf, I ask that if you plan on placing an insta-kill trap, you give a bit more warning so people actually understand it’s going to kill them instantly. Killing someone like you did is still super shitty. You took someone out of the round you really didn’t have much interaction with, and that really sucked. There’s a somewhat fine line between ‘sec is kos on me, they are valid’ and ‘kill anyone who passes x checkpoint’. You said so yourself you could only see the first person who came up to the door-- what if it was a civilian? The bottom line is instantly killing people sucks, about 90% of the time, even if it’s valid. Try to be a little more creative with traps, and if you’re not, give very clear warning that this will absolutely wipe anyone who approaches out. After that, if anyone approaches they’re fair game.

 

That being said, your warning will be reduced to a note on the condition you keep wary of this kind of behaviour. Being an antag can be really fun, but try not to tunnel vision on ‘winning’ your goals. Focus instead on roleplaying them out, creating interaction for the whole crew, and making sure you’re not involving just a few folk.

 

You have a bit of a history of going just a bit too far with things, and I think that that happened again here. Don’t let this warning getting reduced let the talk you had with Paradox be invalidated, please. The warning is being removed because I understand why you placed the bomb, etc, not because what you did was 100% kosher. Remember that the goal of antags isn’t to win, but to drive interaction and promote a story.

 

I will be locking and archiving this in 24 hours unless either party wishes to dispute this.

[Evandorf]

Thanks for the information and I hope you're getting over your sickness and that it's not anything serious; especially with what's been going on recently. This is also not a dispute so feel free to lock this when you think it's appropriate. I guess I just wanted to put a few more things on record.

First, I understand your position on the killing and I feel like it's a stance that's resulted from a shift in the staff/community zeitgeist. This is not to say I think it's a planned or calculated change; I don't want you to think I believe there's any sinister admins or mods conspiring to force people out or change the game for their own reasons. The focus of the server has likely shifted slowly as legacy code/items are removed and lore is refined. I just wanted to express my opinion because it's been something I've been withholding for a while and this warning just happens to clearly highlight the issues I have. I may be completely wrong in my opinion but it's simply my subjective experience. The server seems to have shifted from a realism focus to one of balance/fairness. You can substitute verisimilitude for realism if someone wants to make the argument that I shouldn't expect realism in a 2D spaceman game. My point is that I find myself and my expectation on how the game should be played moving further and further from this overall stance that the staff/community seems to be adopting. This may be no one's problem but my own and I will likely need to alter my behavior/expectations but please allow me to vent a little.

I think my attitude can be condensed into the idea that being removed from the round isn't the worst thing possible. This is not to say that I think anyone who gets killed should have to suck it up and move on but many people treat death as a terrible tragedy that should be avoided at all costs and if they have to die because of story reasons then it should be a suitably poignant or meaningful death. This leads to some absurd interactions between antags and crew where you are basically trying to get consent to kill them, or at least implied consent due to them ignoring your obvious warnings and threats of death. The idea that someone unfortunately was killed with very little warning because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time when there were armed enemies fighting to achieve their goals is considered heinous simply because it took that player out of the round. People don't seem to consider that not everyone can be a significant character and that being a casualty, or "red shirt" for lack of a better term still adds to the story as a whole.

In the spectrum of antagonist interactions you have one extreme in these absurdly unrealistic interactions that would seem cliche even in the blandest, most banal superhero movies and at the other extreme you have wordless antags "murderboning" across the station. Neither example is fun. The trick is to find an interesting story to tell which strikes the perfect balance, which in my opinion is not directly in the center. I just wish more consideration was given to the situation as a whole across the station and less to an individual player's perceived right to remain in the round.

All that being said, I completely understand your position and if that is how such situations are viewed by staff then I will need to make sure I abide by the rules as you have described them. Thanks for listening to me rant a little bit. Getting clear answers over discord is difficult and I doubt I would do much better posting these concerns in a more general thread without a relevant incident or staff involvement.

Again, thanks for your time.

Edited March 21, 2020 by Evandorf