Staff Complaint- ReadThisNamePlease

[SatinsPristOTD]

BYOND Key: BenAflekIsAnOKActor

Staff BYOND Key: ReadThisNamePlease

Game ID: b7Z-caGV

Reason for complaint: Resistance to understand a situation. Removing a Command member from a round (during a dire situation) for over 15mins just to not listen to their reasoning and tell them "don't do it again". Causing more harm to a round than the actual "problem" was.

Evidence/logs/etc:

Additional remarks:

Security was
1 HoS
1 Cadet
1 Detective
1 Officer
1 CSI

HoS was overwhelmed with spiders, a prisoner (the detective) and a cargo tech (Miller) who had ordered 2 Marksman rifles.
Cadet was off-duty due to brain damage caused by the Detective
The Detective was obviously a prisoner
Officer was off-duty due to brain damage caused by the Detective
Who knows what that CSI was doing, but it wasn't being helpful.

So we had Miller order 2 guns and we had about 6 adult spiders. Lin was RPing, very well, that she was overwhelmed at the chaos of Miller's gun issue, and the spiders.

While this situation was not DIRE ENOUGH FOR ERT, we still needed help with Miller WHO HAD TWO WEAPONS. So I called for help (as the Captain) from off-duty sec visitors and offered to pay them out of pocket to help with the situation.

This did a few things. 1) It kept players in round IN ROUND, and let them have something to do with the traitor gimmick.
2) It kept ERT/Merc from being called and railroading any other potential traitors on the round
3)ICly it saved the company money, and it made sense as we had an ACTIVE weapon situation, and a beacon can take up to 30mins to handle.


I was taken out of round during a VERY MEMEY situation at the end (constant spamming of radiation storm TC messages and hallway venting) to argue with Read about whether I should have just handed this situation off to a beacon (I.E not let players handle it, and open up ghost roles instead).

I feel them removing me from round just to argue with me over something that benefited the round is insane, and really the rule lawyering over something I had good justification for is a bit abusive of power. Read is a bit known for messing with me in rounds, and I'm a bit tired of being singled out for it.

As a Command member, I have to help drive a narrative. I have to help make sure players IN ROUND are having fun, are connected to the round, and I still have to maintain good RP. My justification for what I did not only ticked off the "Does this make sense RPly" rule, but also ensured I kept up my promise as a Whitelist holder.

Rule lawyering is not okay. Not every situation fits in a box. It shouldn't have taken as long as it did to hear my side, and just say "you know, it made sense at the time." Nothing I did broke a rule. I broke an IC regulation, sure, but that's still an IC issue, and that regulation did not break the immersion of the round.

[Garnascus]

Ok so can you actually explain what the issue read pointed you to was? You're being frustratingly vague in saying it was just "rules lawyering" and "taking me out of the round to argue". I need to know the actual facts. @ReadThisNamePlz Can probably tell me about it. 

4 hours ago, SatinsPristOTD said:

Read is a bit known for messing with me in rounds, and I'm a bit tired of being singled out for it.

He did this exactly one time and was reprimanded for it. He also apologized to you. This has absolutely no bearing on this complaint and im kind of annoyed you would even try to suggest it. 

[SatinsPristOTD]

52 minutes ago, Garnascus said:

Ok so can you actually explain what the issue read pointed you to was? You're being frustratingly vague in saying it was just "rules lawyering" and "taking me out of the round to argue". I need to know the actual facts. @ReadThisNamePlz Can probably tell me about it. 

He did this exactly one time and was reprimanded for it. He also apologized to you. This has absolutely no bearing on this complaint and im kind of annoyed you would even try to suggest it. 

Correction, I've only REPORTED it once, and given how staff complaints are usually dealt with, I don't really enjoy making them for every little thing.

The issue is about me taking 4 off-duty security and deputizing them when we had 1 person that could handle dire but not ERT level worthy problems. Basically, I got reprimanded for breaking an IC regulation, not an OOC rule.

I gave my reasoning why I did it, and for that round it was a fairly valid reason to do what I did, but Read didn't care. They had me back and forth in ahelps for over 15 minutes, arguing the semantics of an IC regulation, and at the time she or he did this, a rather meme tastic gimmick was going on and I couldn't focus on it as Captain to handle it properly.

[ReadThisNamePlz]

1 hour ago, SatinsPristOTD said:

Correction, I've only REPORTED it once, and given how staff complaints are usually dealt with, I don't really enjoy making them for every little thing.

The issue is about me taking 4 off-duty security and deputizing them when we had 1 person that could handle dire but not ERT level worthy problems. Basically, I got reprimanded for breaking an IC regulation, not an OOC rule.

I gave my reasoning why I did it, and for that round it was a fairly valid reason to do what I did, but Read didn't care. They had me back and forth in ahelps for over 15 minutes, arguing the semantics of an IC regulation, and at the time she or he did this, a rather meme tastic gimmick was going on and I couldn't focus on it as Captain to handle it properly.

I don't really know what you mean by messed with you more than once. I've only messed with you one time, and I was reprimanded for it. I apologized and still feel bad to this day. 

I do not mean to make you feel singled out, I hardly even interact with you anymore because you've made your dislike for me very very clear. 

If the round is not dire enough to warrant an ert, then you should not be promoting visitors to emergency positions. It says that in the station procedure. Not the ert part, but the dire part. I do not really know what to say about this complaint, because I don't want to run around in circles. 

I told you that I understand your thought process. But just because I understood it, does not mean it is right or able to bypass the whole "visitors cannot be promoted unless the situation truly calls for it, etc." And I didn't feel like one gunman with a lwap and a machine pistol, was dire enough for the emergency officers. I'll happily rescind my ruling on the situation if @Garnascus see's fit, but until then, I standby my judgement that it just wasn't justified enough to ignore the procedure. I wasn't even trying to punish you. I was trying to tell you to just not do it again unless the situation is worse than the last. I'm sorry I ruined the end your round, it wasn't my intention.

[Flamingo]

Hello. @MattAtlas and I will be taking this complaint. Please allow us some time to go over everything. Thanks.

[Flamingo]

Alright, Matt and I have had some time to go over things and have come to a decision. After reviewing the logs and provided testimony, we've ruled this complaint to be invalid.

Our reasoning hinges on the fact that, as Read ruled during the round, the situation was not dire enough for the promotions. The security team was indeed injured, but the Head of Security could still effectively deal with the situation. Spiders, while posing a threat, can be largely ignored for a few minutes. The prisoner from our understanding was HuT and can easily be stuffed in a cell for a few minutes while the HoS deals with things. Finally, the Head of Security is adequately equipped to deal with a single cargo tech with some rifles.

From a logical standpoint, we understand your thought process behind promoting visitors to bolster the Head of Security's effective reach, but the directive cited by Read in the original ahelp was enacted due to gameplay reasons, not in-character logical ones. Visitors are generally only to be promoted if a situation has already reached the point where ERT is going to be called regardless. This is of a similar caliber as handing out weapons to the crew at large, as that is effectively what a visitor is, regardless of training. Acceptable under the right circumstances, but not when there's some minor issues.

If there are no further concerns, we will be locking and archiving this thread in 24 hours.

[SatinsPristOTD]

Actually, our prisoners escaped, adding even more to the bumfuckery of the round. One blew up in the middle of the Brig, adding chaos and stress to an already over worked HOS. You can't expect someone to play a superhero cop that can handle giant spiders, escaped prisoners and "a cargo tech with some rifles."

The problem here is there is no actual RP seriousness being applied to the situation at hand. "Some cargo tech with some rifles" is not how you respond to someone with two high power guns. You don't just leave giant spiders to roam the facility and eat people.

I'm not ever going to ask a Command member to play as some super emotionless, non mistakes made cardboard cutout. I didn't break a server rule, and the IC rule I broke still had logical reasons behind it.

In the end, there still wasn't a need for an ahelp.

One last note,

There's a massive difference between handing out "weapons to the crew" and handing out weapons to trained individuals that the company already trusts enough to wield said weapons.

[SatinsPristOTD]

My last final remark to this is one that I am a firm believer behind.

And that is promoting RP to players currently in round, and ensuring antags still have a way to build their story.

If we have a directive that effectively kneecaps your Command players ability to do both of those things, then the directive is wrong and/or being applied to a situation incorrectly. There isn't actually a gameplay mechanic that the directive "fixes" and it hinders logical HRP. At some point, admins have to understand certain situations just play out better for the round, as a whole, and that is what we're all here to do.

If we start making IC "directives" admin worthy, then there's no room for creative play. We're all drones, expected to RP the way you want us to RP, even if that RP you're asking us to do just doesn't make sense.

Bringing in ERT would have put an immediate stop to any other antags that could have spawned (It's Autotraitor. They pop up whenever). Furthermore, ERT is basically a "end all fuck all" to any sort of RP given to those that have already stuck through the round.

What I did didn't hurt the round. I guess what's so mind blowing to me is Aurora has incredible double standards. I'm not allowed to bend the IC rules a bit because of some arbitrary "RP" reason that doesn't make sense, but it's okay for traitors to continuously spam rad storm messages back to back to back to back because they've realized it's an easy enough exploit to get what they want, even if it makes little to no sense.

 

[Flamingo]

I will keep my response brief in the interest of not dragging things out as much as possible. Matt and I discussed the scenario and are in agreement here. While I can definitely understand the logical thought process behind it, the fact of the matter is that the directive DOES in fact address a very real gameplay problem, which was why it was created in the first place. That problem being security visitors specifically, being deputized during rounds in order to combat antags, thus bolstering the station forces.

If you disagree with the policy in place, I encourage you to head over to the policy suggestion subforum and create a thread where it can be discussed. Otherwise, I will be locking and archiving this thread, as it is resolved.