Jump to content
Lordnesh

Player Complaint - Marc Price

Recommended Posts

BYOND Key: Lordnesh

Game ID: b8Z-dCqb

Player Byond Key/Character name: Marc Price (Head of Security)

Staff involved: Issue was not ahelped by me specifically, but the other mercenaries did so.

Reason for complaint: 

I believe the player of Marc Price has demonstrated their lack of ability for the role of Head of Security. This round they seemed completely uninterested in roleplaying with the antags, and more interested in killing us, as well as the innocent crew we'd taken hostage. As was demonstrated in the chat logs (link below). We'd had several hostages, safely behind us and away from security (a fact they were well aware of), but they were completely uninterested in negotiating. From an IC perspective this demonstrates a gross lack of consideration for the crewmembers they're supposed to protect, and from an OOC perspective demonstrates their unwillingness, or disinterest, in roleplaying with antags. And that was just from our first encounter. In our second encounter, whether ordered to do so, or working off their previous mandate of "kill the intruders, even at the cost of the crew", security charged into medical (I don't know if Marc Price was there at the time or not), which we'd essentially taken hostage, unconcerned about the innocent medical staff caught between us.

Admittedly, at this point I committed a minor mistake by firing a frag grenade at the Dionae that charged us, when what I thought I was firing was smoke. After that things quickly descended into chaos, and medical got shot up. But none of that would have happened if security had bothered to give us time to react and roleplay. Instead they just charged in, which, from our previous encounter, we were justified in interpreting as a threat.

The logs clearly demonstrate that security was well aware that, not only did we have hostages, we were also armed. At one point, before things really started, one of security fired off a shot. However, we held back, figuring it was a mistake. Despite repeated mentions of there being hostages, at no point did anyone seem genuinely interested in pulling back and attempting to negotiate. Instead, they pushed in, putting significant pressure on us to react as our choices of responses became more and more limited. Which demonstrates Marc Price either had no intention to do so, or was unable to exercise command/influence over his department. Considering the casualties that occurred as a result of this, most of which were caused by security, and not the antags, I believe Marc Price should either have their whitelist removed, or be placed under review (which action should be taken will largely depend on any past issues, imo).

 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UKJAUNFnL4sQl3SJKTp9c1yzRrVoG_C7S2rKdiy5zyU/edit?usp=sharing

Did you attempt to adminhelp the issue at the time? If so, what was the known action taken by administration/moderation? I did not. The other mercenaries said they had, and I was still able to interact in the round. So I left it to them. I did ahelp after the fact, to see if I could get any information on what had been done as a result. I only received vague answers as a result, and so I decided to open a complaint on the forum, as was suggested.

Approximate Date/Time: Sept 5, 2020 around 9 PM my time.

Share this post


Link to post

This was ahelped in round and the staff involved didn't find any significant issue, as I recall. Regardless, here's what I was aware of, and the reasoning behind my decisions:

The terrified cadet yells that a group of armed hostiles are running past the checkpoint, and heading downstairs. Cool, so we crack open the armory. As we finish, the reports of Robotics being held hostage comes in. Officers respond to the scene, and report back to me that the intruders have taken hostages and are beating them and trying to leave. Not good, as now in any reasonable person's mind, the hostiles cannot be trusted to not harm the hostages. This makes ending the situation quickly a bigger priority, and it also makes it harder to negotiate. I finally am able to get there in order to try and negotiate. Upon my arrival, one of the hostiles (Bishop, I believe), aims his rifle at me and then fires at me. At this point, all bets are off, as before I can even get a word in, a member of your team has shot at me. Now here is what I know about the situation at that time:

1. Hostages are apparently being beaten (yes, I know from the ahelp later that it was just a few punches for noncompliance, but until then I was operating under the impression that the mercs were beating hostages for fun).

2. You are trying to leave with the hostages that you are beating by escaping through maintenance, which makes me believe you wish to do further harm to the hostages. If you're beating them in front of us, you will probably kill them later, or do further harm. That cannot be allowed to happen.

3. A member of your team aimed and then fired at me the moment I showed up, indicating that you have no intent of negotiating and intend to kill (at the very least) me, if not my entire team. 

There is no reasonable way that I can trust your team to not harm the hostages, and not shoot at security. So I decide that we must take you down. One of the hostages manages to escape, and we recover them. I order a flashbang before entry so the hostages will be on the floor as opposed to being used as a meatshield (spoiler alert: that didn't happen). I order the cyborg ioned, and none of us are aware that one of the hostages is a shell. That is unfortunate, but they did not appear to be a shell, and with the complete chaos and hostility from your team towards me and my officers, it's not like we were able to make that realization. In the end, unless I am wrong, the only crewmember that died was Julissa Lord, who stood in the open and tried to 1v3 the mercs once the shooting started. The IPC did die, but its brain was recovered, and eventually placed in a new shell, to my knowledge. The other hostage was injured but recovered. Obviously it was not the outcome any of us wanted, but sometimes shit happens. When you are harming hostages, start shooting at security, and try to run into maintenance with your hostages, there cannot be an expectation for negotiations. As HoS I must end that threat, because if you're already beating hostages and shooting at me, you may very well turn around and shoot the hostages in the head at any moment in time.

I was not in medical for that shooting until the very end of it, but when you've shot up places and medical screams for security, I don't know what you expect. You didn't have any hostages in medical that I was aware of, and security was already there being treated and guarding prisoners.

Contrary to what you said in your post, I do negotiate with antags, on a regular basis, and I do make deals with and for hostages, also on a regular basis. I do things that may not be realistic so I don't just shut down antag gimmicks before they can get off the ground every single round. However, your team left me very little choice here, as I said earlier, by being overtly hostile, harming your hostages, and then firing at me the moment I arrive to open negotiations. I believe one of your crew threatened to shoot a hostage about five times after I got there too, and there really is not much choice for me at that point.

EDIT: Quick edit, I forgot to mention that Alszar fired back at the merc that shot at me, so again, Sec did not shoot first, but rather returned fire.

Edited by CampinKiller

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, CampinKiller said:

Not good, as now in any reasonable person's mind, the hostiles cannot be trusted to not harm the hostages.

This is largely irrelevant, because your concern shouldn't be about possible injury, but with their possible death. A hostage will survive a butt-stroke or two, and they honestly have no one to blame but themselves for not complying with the big scary people with guns. However, their chances of survival seriously diminish if they're caught in the middle of a fire fight. There was a specific reason I cuffed all of our hostages as my very first action (I was the borg). It was to discourage heroism, and discourage antag aggression in response. I am well aware of the reputation of both antags and security, so I took that step in order to prevent that. Hell, at one point I had to put on another pair of handcuffs, because someone had managed to slip out of them while we were trying to figure out what Security was going to do.

 

1 hour ago, CampinKiller said:

Upon my arrival, one of the hostiles (Bishop, I believe), aims his rifle at me and then fires at me. At this point, all bets are off, as before I can even get a word in, a member of your team has shot at me.

I only recall a brief exchange before things went off, and after a closer examination of the screencap I realize I was in error in my original post. Bishop did aim at security, however it was at Szekzhekh. Also, the two apparently aimed at each other, with Bishop aiming first, and Szekzhekh aiming back, presumably triggering Bishop's aimed shot. Which then triggered Szekzhekh's. (Additionally, not to put Bishop on blast, but they were new. Very new. They probably didn't realize that what they were doing meant they wouldn't have any control over when they fired. Which, leads into my next paragraph.)

But this speaks on why I made this post in the first place. Your actions as Head of Security were too aggressive and unfit for someone holding a command position. Your actions directly led to crewmembers being placed in harms way. I don't know about the rest of the mercs, but I felt threatened by Security attempting to surround us and gain firing angles. Particularly because I had been paying attention to your comms, and noticed a distinct lack of interest in negotiation. At one point you (I'm assuming you are the player for Marc Price at this point, and if this is in error I apologize) specifically said "Engage them if the hostages are not in your line of fire." You then made the ridiculous logical leap of "If they're beating them, they'll kill 'em." And, as I mentioned above, I specifically went out of my way to handcuff our prisoners to discourage a shootout. (Screen caps are in the link.)

Simply put, your words and actions directly led to the endangerment of the crew. You put the mercs under an extreme amount of stress by surrounding and crowding us, even entering robotics at one point. You also demonstrated an unwillingness to negotiate through your own words. If anyone showed restraint, it was the mercs. Because we didn't immediately open fire when you breached robotics, and instead attempted to retreat into the tunnels. Then, presumably, the AI shut the shutters (seemingly unprompted by the way), splitting us off from each other. Which, tactically was a sound decision. From security's perspective. The hostage we took into the tunnels? They didn't appreciate it as much. Particularly when they were shot in retaliation for your supposed actions (supposed, because I don't recall actually seeing you order that).

 

2 hours ago, CampinKiller said:

1. Hostages are apparently being beaten (yes, I know from the ahelp later that it was just a few punches for noncompliance, but until then I was operating under the impression that the mercs were beating hostages for fun).

I already addressed this in my first paragraph.

What indications did you have that the hostages were being beaten for fun?

 

2 hours ago, CampinKiller said:

2. You are trying to leave with the hostages that you are beating by escaping through maintenance, which makes me believe you wish to do further harm to the hostages. If you're beating them in front of us, you will probably kill them later, or do further harm. That cannot be allowed to happen.

We were retreating into the tunnels because we were surrounded, and you even eventually breached into the room itself, putting further pressure on us. We had no other choice. You literally were putting our backs against a wall with your actions. And you know what they say about cornering a wounded animal.

We had actually demonstrated that we weren't interested in killing the hostages. All of them were handcuffed, and relatively unharmed. As I said previously, a butt-stroke or two won't kill anyone. You had no justification for thinking we might kill the hostages. We had taken so long just getting into the station, that you spotted us immediately. So you had no prior knowledge of us, or our tactics.

2 hours ago, CampinKiller said:

3. A member of your team aimed and then fired at me the moment I showed up, indicating that you have no intent of negotiating and intend to kill (at the very least) me, if not my entire team. 

I only recall the one exchange between Bishop and Szekzhekh. If another shot occurred I don't recall it. Playing antag stresses me out, so I don't always track everything well. I am open to being convinced. However, your comment of "one fired at us," (instead of "me") leads me to believe you were not shot at.

 

As for the incident with the shell, I don't know that I really blame you for that. Like you said, it wasn't obvious they were a shell in the first place. However, this brings me back to my point about your actions needlessly putting the crew at risk. Aside from the brief exchange, we hadn't fired any shots. The hostages were.. relatively unharmed, and cuffed. Hell, we even had them laying down at one point.

 

2 hours ago, CampinKiller said:

I was not in medical for that shooting until the very end of it, but when you've shot up places and medical screams for security, I don't know what you expect. You didn't have any hostages in medical that I was aware of, and security was already there being treated and guarding prisoners.

By the time Blondie and I made it to medical, security was not there. Well, there was one cadet being treated, but that was it. The shooting only happened when security barged into medical. Again, without attempting to negotiate. As for what happened afterwards, I am partly to blame for that. When I saw security charge into medical, I immediately assumed we'd have a repeat of what happened in robotics. So, I attempted to fire some smoke (note the attempt to use non-lethal devices again). However, when it didn't work, I made the erroneous assumption that the grenade launcher had smokes. Needless to say, it did not. The syndicate cyborg is very non-intuitive by the way. I'm not sure I ever managed to get the damn gun to work.

 

2 hours ago, CampinKiller said:

You didn't have any hostages in medical that I was aware of, and security was already there being treated and guarding prisoners.

As I said, security was not there. Hence, the entirety of medical was essentially our hostage. We had guns, and they did not.

 

2 hours ago, CampinKiller said:

Contrary to what you said in your post, I do negotiate with antags, on a regular basis, and I do make deals with and for hostages, also on a regular basis. I do things that may not be realistic so I don't just shut down antag gimmicks before they can get off the ground every single round. However, your team left me very little choice here, as I said earlier, by being overtly hostile, harming your hostages, and then firing at me the moment I arrive to open negotiations. I believe one of your crew threatened to shoot a hostage about five times after I got there too, and there really is not much choice for me at that point.

I was specifically talking about this round in particular, and if I said otherwise it was a mistake. If you point it out to me, I will edit the original post to reflect that.

You left us with very little choice. Listening to your comms showed a lack of interest in negotiation. Through your actions you made the people with hostages feel threatened. It is your actions that cause the firefight in science to happen. You were completely justified in arming yourselves heavily. What you were not justified in, was showing up in numbers, and attempting to back us into a corner.

Security is a joke. Both IC'ly and OOC'ly. People joke, in character, that they are more worried about what security will do to them, then they are what anyone else will. And this is an example of why. You showed up, uninterested in attempting to deescalate things or negotiate. You arrived, armed to the teeth, and backed the people with innocent crew members as hostages into a corner. Hell, just the other day I experienced security fire into the medical lobby, with the only two doctors inside, just so they could kill a skittering changling. It's this sort of behavior that discourages more people from becoming antags, as well as discouraging people from joining security in general. It certainly is for me at least.

 

Honestly, we were a fucking joke that round. Two of our members, one of which disconnected before we even get to the station, were new. We took over an hour to get inside, and nearly popped our lungs because someone tried to vent the airlock when no one had suits on. I fell down a hole because I don't know how jetpacks work, damaging the borg before we even entered (never was able to repair that damage). Eventually we find an airlock, and waste more time trying to get in. Eventually we give up, and just dock at arrivals. By this time, we'd already wasted over an hour of the round.

We finally get inside, start heading to science. Find someone in the lounge above dorms, and take them hostage. I immediately put them in cuffs, for reasons I've stated already. We drag them with us into the elevator, at which point we've already been spotted. Rush into science, and start taking hostages in robotics. More cuffs. Get them in the back, and on the ground, so they're out of the way of the shootout we're expecting to have with security. Because, again, we've been listening in.

Security arrives, and starts taking up flanking positions, within easy sight lines of us. You breach robotics, and are warned off by Blondie. You ignore them. We start backing towards the tunnels. I think half of us get in, and suddenly science is on lockdown, and we're split up. Blondie and I take to the tunnels, to attempt.. something. Eventually get to medical. Rush to the GTR, and spot our comrade on a stretcher. We try to get to them, but security barges in, rushing us, again. Oh, and it's a robust dionae, so OOC I'm like, "tough fucker, better do something". I have thermals, so I attempt what I'd thought of since the beginning, and use smoke to my advantage. No luck with the smoke dispenser. Maybe the grenade launcher has them? NOPE. That's a frag. Figure, fuck it, we're already in too deep. I just fragged both of my teammates. Might as well go all in. Chonk chonk. Two more go out, and after that I shortly die.

 

Again, knowing what I know about security, and the messages we'd intercepted, I was under a fair bit of stress. So I don't recall everything that happened. However, from the screencaps I did take, I don't see any attempts on security's part to talk to us. Just Blondie and Luke warning you off. Presumably, receiving only silence and armor in return. However, I'm not certain on this point. I would be interested in a more detailed log, because I don't ever recall you attempting to communicate with us before breaching robotics.

 

To sum it up, whether intentionally or not, your actions directly lead to the endangerment of the crew. You demonstrated a lack of interest in negotiation, and by extension roleplay. You jumped to erroneous conclusions without any evidence to support them. You do not get to make assumptions about our intentions, and then cry fowl when you place us in an extremely compromised position, and we react accordingly. We tried to deescalate by retreating into the tunnels, but you wouldn't let us. You forced us to engage in a firefight we did not want by refusing to give us room, and time, to react. Hell! I don't even know what we wanted! That's how much of a clusterfuck we were, lol.

Another thing. I am curious where you were during all of this?

Share this post


Link to post

I don't know how to split quotes, but, anyway:

In regards to the medical situation, officers responded to calls for help, and you had no hostages. Your simple presence in a department does not mean the entire department is your hostage, especially when that department is yelling for help and are able to successfully run away from you. And of course they fired at you, as you'd fired at them and tried to kill them already. That is pretty standard.

When it is reported to me that hostages are being beaten, there is no way for me to ICly know that they were slapped a few times for non-compliance, not being savagely beaten for reasons unknown. My concern is for the well-being of the crew, and if I am told that the hostages are being beaten by the hostiles, then it is not at all an unreasonable jump to fear that they may be killed without intervention. Hence my initial orders of "engage if hostages are clear." I do not want the hostages being beaten to death or shot by what appears to be completely unpredictable hostiles. I then arrive and am shot at (he aimed at me, because I got the 'don't move!' message), and I do not have a way of knowing this is a new player or not. Those are both very good indicators that you may well just up and kill the hostages. You've supposedly beaten one, and then you unpredictably fire at security. All the while one of your team is yelling how he's going to blow someone's brains out.

If you find it to be unreasonable for security to respond to a hostage situation in force, then I'm not sure you are being serious. Security is absolutely justified in responding to the area, and setting up a perimeter, on an armed force that just took hostages, and is supposedly beating at least one of those hostages.

I absolutely had evidence to support my conclusion that you were intending to harm the crew - literal seconds after you were reported on common as being in robotics, you're reported as beating the hostages. In my mind, you've gone from 0 to 100, because you take hostages and apparently start beating them. And then you say you wished to de-escalate by retreating into maintenance - why would I let people who have demonstrated sheer hostility to myself, are a clear danger to the hostages they have (by beating them), and are wildly unpredictable and threatening the hostages with death back into a place where we cannot observe, cannot rescue the hostages if you start beating them or killing them, and where you may very well go and attack more crewmembers. From my perspective, retreating into maintenance was not de-escalation. You had the option, but you were taking the hostages with you, hostages which you'd supposedly already harmed.

The portion of my original post regarding how I do those things (negotiate, etc.) was included because you are wanting my whitelist to be removed, so I am providing context in regards to that.

What do you mean where was I?

Share this post


Link to post

(Down at the bottom of the post is a plus sign next to "Quote". Click that. Now, whenever you highlight a selection, a little button should pop up that says "quote selection". Press that, and it'll quote the thing you highlighted.)

(Were you the HoS when the AI had its laws change to make it believe the HoS had been fired from their position? I believe it occurred on August 26. I think it was you, but I'm not certain of that and would need confirmation.)

 

To clarify, I don't want your whitelist removed. I would prefer that you be placed under some sort of review period and have your actions monitored. However, I believe this is a consistent pattern of behavior on your part, and the best course of action may be to have the whitelist removed. I hate gatekeeping other people's fun, but if this is how you normally approach conflict, then I don't think you're suited for the role.

 

3 hours ago, CampinKiller said:

literal seconds after you were reported on common as being in robotics, you're reported as beating the hostages. In my mind, you've gone from 0 to 100, because you take hostages and apparently start beating them.

I don't recall if we hit the first person we took hostage. Someone else will have to confirm or deny this, as I didn't take any screenshots of that.

Again, beating a hostage doesn't mean we're going to kill them. That's a conclusion you made. As far as you were aware, the worst we'd done since coming on station was to hit a hostage or two.

3 hours ago, CampinKiller said:

If you find it to be unreasonable for security to respond to a hostage situation in force, then I'm not sure you are being serious.

I never said it was unreasonable. I even stated that you were justified in arming up when you had a known armed and dangerous group on the station.

3 hours ago, CampinKiller said:

Security is absolutely justified in responding to the area, and setting up a perimeter, on an armed force that just took hostages, and is supposedly beating at least one of those hostages.

You are. However, have you ever watched any TV or movies that have hostage negotiation as a part of it? Did you ever notice how they set up a perimeter? Or, more specifically, how far away from the hostage takers the perimeter is set up? The problem isn't that you set up a perimeter, the problem is where you set up the perimeter. You set it up in our face. And then you kept moving closer and closer.

3 hours ago, CampinKiller said:

I then arrive and am shot at (he aimed at me, because I got the 'don't move!' message)

This is part of the problem, and why I asked where your character was specifically. As a Head of Staff why did you approach an armed and hostile group to within aiming distance? You are part of command, and most importantly, you are valuable. You are command and control. What you are not is some grunt with a gun. You shouldn't be in the front, risking yourself, unless it is absolutely necessary. You can do things that no one else can, and putting yourself at risk in such a way is wasteful.

The station is large, and there was no reason you all had to be right in our faces. Doing so made it so that we had to worry about controlling the hostages (one of which actually managed to slip their cuffs), and being shot by security. And regardless of the actions we took, or the hostages we butt-stroke, we did not fire until security was within weapons range. You have no one to blame but yourself for that. You put your people at risk, and made no attempt to deescalate. Which is the crux of the matter. At no point did you seem at all interested in deescalating the situation. You gave us no opportunity to roleplay, until you were in our faces.

I'd appreciate if someone could check to see what steps Price did take to deescalate, if there were any. Because from what I gathered from the intercepted comms, there was no attempt made to negotiate, or even interest in trying. There was no attempt (that I noticed) of trying to communicate with us over the common channel. They just went from "hostage getting butt-stroked" straight to "gotta kill the bad guys" with nothing in between. Which, if I'm correct about them also being the HoS for that one game I mentioned at the top, would demonstrate a consistent pattern of behavior.

3 hours ago, CampinKiller said:

All the while one of your team is yelling how he's going to blow someone's brains out.

And why didn't you take the threat seriously and back off? I'm fairly certain we were trying to get you all to back off, but you wouldn't. You just kept pushing us further and further into a corner, forcing a confrontation.

 

I have a few specific questions about your actions, and I would like you to address them. 

1. What steps, if any, did you take to deescalate the situation? I'm not interested in any justifications you might have for why you did what you did. I just want to know what you did specifically to deescalate the situation. If you did anything at all.

2. Why did you enter the robotics lab when we were using hostages as human shields? Why did you continue to put pressure on us when there were hostages in the line of fire?

3. Why did you ignore our threats to harm the hostages, and instead continue to ignore the vocalized and known threat to crew?

I hesitate to make assumptions about other peoples actions, but it almost appears as if you engineered the situation to happen the way it did. You gave us no chance to roleplay a negotiation from a comfortable distance. Instead, you seemingly ignored our threats so you could get closer and closer. Putting more and more pressure on us. Forcing us to respond or get rolled. Your refusal to listen to any of our demands directly lead to innocent crew members getting injured.

You've mentioned, repeatedly, that you had come to the conclusion that we were a threat to the hostages. However, your actions don't reflect that you actually cared about the hostages. What your explanations do reflect are your internal justifications for discarding the opportunity to open a dialogue (and roleplay) as well as increasing the chances a firefight would occur. No one was dying. No one was in immediate danger of dying. You had no justification for rolling up on us the way you did, and forcing us into a corner. I don't know whether or not it was done deliberately, but you certainly didn't seem interested in deescalating things. You went from 0 - 100, not us. Hostages got beaten! Whelp, guess we gotta kill the hostage takers now.

Let me reiterate. At no point did you attempt to open a dialogue with us, and attempt to deescalate the situation. And no, trying to negotiate in our faces does not constitute an attempt to deescalate. Breaking into the room, and invading our space counts as an escalation. Despite claiming to be worried about the safety of the crew, your actions placed the crew in more danger. Instead, your concern about the safety of the crew seems to serve more as justification for taking the actions you decided to take, and discarding negotiation completely.

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Lordnesh said:

(Were you the HoS when the AI had its laws change to make it believe the HoS had been fired from their position? I believe it occurred on August 26. I think it was you, but I'm not certain of that and would need confirmation.)

Nope.

8 minutes ago, Lordnesh said:

However, I believe this is a consistent pattern of behavior on your part

I'm not sure where you get that idea.

9 minutes ago, Lordnesh said:

Again, beating a hostage doesn't mean we're going to kill them. That's a conclusion you made. As far as you were aware, the worst we'd done since coming on station was to hit a hostage or two.

The thing that you are failing to understand here is that harming your hostages absolutely destroys your credibility. I can not trust you to act in good faith if your first actions are to beat hostages, and I for sure cannot trust that I will get them back alive and in one piece. It was the conclusion I made, but it is a reasonable conclusion to reach, as, to my knowledge, you are actively doing harm to your hostages. They may not even be hostages, but rather meat shields, as there aren't any good reasons for beating a hostage. It's the reason that police forces around the world IRL stop truly negotiating when someone throws a body out the front door, because now they have to act before anyone else is killed.

16 minutes ago, Lordnesh said:

You are. However, have you ever watched any TV or movies that have hostage negotiation as a part of it? Did you ever notice how they set up a perimeter? Or, more specifically, how far away from the hostage takers the perimeter is set up?

This is a video game where you have to be within a certain range to see things that realistically you'd be able to see.

14 minutes ago, Lordnesh said:

This is part of the problem, and why I asked where your character was specifically. As a Head of Staff why did you approach an armed and hostile group to within aiming distance?

I am the Head of Security, and it's not like I was throwing myself directly into your line of fire. The Head of Security is not a sit at a desk role, and I do not frontline as one, but there are times when it is required to be at a situation. This is without a doubt one of those times. I was not at the front, I was to the south in the R&D hallway. I was far enough away to where if I had to, I could easily withdraw or fight. But this is not like your local station Captain showing up to the hostage situation - it's best equivalent is a police supervisor showing up to take command and establish contact.

18 minutes ago, Lordnesh said:

1. What steps, if any, did you take to deescalate the situation? I'm not interested in any justifications you might have for why you did what you did. I just want to know what you did specifically to deescalate the situation. If you did anything at all.

First off, you don't get to demand no explanation for my actions. My actions are driven by what has occurred, which requires context. News flash, every situation cannot be de-escalated. De-escalation is not some magical power that works at every opportunity. You were supposedly beating hostages, then fired on Security, there was no room to de-escalate, nor did it seem like it was in the best interest of the safety of the crew.

20 minutes ago, Lordnesh said:

2. Why did you enter the robotics lab when we were using hostages as human shields? Why did you continue to put pressure on us when there were hostages in the line of fire?

As I have said twice already, because you fired on security and the decision was made to end this situation before you killed any of the hostages that you'd already harmed.

21 minutes ago, Lordnesh said:

3. Why did you ignore our threats to harm the hostages, and instead continue to ignore the vocalized and known threat to crew?

I did not ignore them, but when you've already harmed your hostages and are threatening to blow their brains out, the best course of action in that moment is to remove the threat to the crew, not back off and let you continue harming them.

23 minutes ago, Lordnesh said:

I hesitate to make assumptions about other peoples actions, but it almost appears as if you engineered the situation to happen the way it did. You gave us no chance to roleplay a negotiation from a comfortable distance. Instead, you seemingly ignored our threats so you could get closer and closer. Putting more and more pressure on us. Forcing us to respond or get rolled. Your refusal to listen to any of our demands directly lead to innocent crew members getting injured.

At this point, this will be my last post on this matter, because I am repeating myself, you are refusing to accept any of my points, and now you make this asinine statement. How in the world did I "engineer" you to harm hostages, or someone to report it? Guess what, when you harm hostages and shoot at security, security will respond with force. You had no demands to speak of, as you even said in your OP. If the staff that take this complaint need any information or have any questions, I will respond, but I will not continue to repeat myself (to no avail) and be accused of somehow "engineering" your own actions.

Share this post


Link to post

I will respond to your points, and then I suppose we will just have to leave it up to the moderators.

31 minutes ago, CampinKiller said:

The thing that you are failing to understand here is that harming your hostages absolutely destroys your credibility. I can not trust you to act in good faith if your first actions are to beat hostages, and I for sure cannot trust that I will get them back alive and in one piece.

I do understand that. However, what you fail to understand is that there is a huge difference between beating a hostage into submission and executing them. Which we never did. At no point did we do more than butt-stroke any of our hostages.

37 minutes ago, CampinKiller said:

It's the reason that police forces around the world IRL stop truly negotiating when someone throws a body out the front door, because now they have to act before anyone else is killed.

I would grant you this point, however, we never killed any of the hostages. And no, threatening to blow someone's brains out, when you're in the room with us, does not count as justification for your actions in hindsight.

43 minutes ago, CampinKiller said:

This is a video game where you have to be within a certain range to see things that realistically you'd be able to see.

You have cameras, comms, and I believe you even had an AI. There was no reason you needed to be so close. Not with so many people.

 

1 hour ago, CampinKiller said:

I am the Head of Security, and it's not like I was throwing myself directly into your line of fire. The Head of Security is not a sit at a desk role, and I do not frontline as one, but there are times when it is required to be at a situation.

You were close enough that one of our numbers was able to target you for aiming. That's too close in my opinion.

1 hour ago, CampinKiller said:
2 hours ago, Lordnesh said:

1. What steps, if any, did you take to deescalate the situation? I'm not interested in any justifications you might have for why you did what you did. I just want to know what you did specifically to deescalate the situation. If you did anything at all.

First off, you don't get to demand no explanation for my actions. My actions are driven by what has occurred, which requires context. News flash, every situation cannot be de-escalated. De-escalation is not some magical power that works at every opportunity. You were supposedly beating hostages, then fired on Security, there was no room to de-escalate, nor did it seem like it was in the best interest of the safety of the crew.

2 hours ago, Lordnesh said:

2. Why did you enter the robotics lab when we were using hostages as human shields? Why did you continue to put pressure on us when there were hostages in the line of fire?

As I have said twice already, because you fired on security and the decision was made to end this situation before you killed any of the hostages that you'd already harmed.

2 hours ago, Lordnesh said:

3. Why did you ignore our threats to harm the hostages, and instead continue to ignore the vocalized and known threat to crew?

I did not ignore them, but when you've already harmed your hostages and are threatening to blow their brains out, the best course of action in that moment is to remove the threat to the crew, not back off and let you continue harming them.

And as I have said repeatedly, all of this only occurred because of your aggressive actions in handling the situation. The hostages were in the back, and on the ground, before security even showed up. They only became human shields when we felt threatened by Security showing up in force, and right in our face.

What do you expect us to do when heavily armed people show up and rush us, without attempting to communicate. I'm surprised the new player was able to stop firing after the initial exchange. Which would have been a perfect time for us all to step back and try to open dialogue.

We threatened to kill a hostage in order to get you to back off. Which you never did. You just kept pushing forward. Forcing us into a corner, and limiting our available options.

To put it plainly, the antags were attempting to put some distance between us so we had a chance for dialogue, but security was having none of it. All of which is completely obvious from your own communications. Whatever your ingame justifications were, you never even tried to deescalate. As soon as you felt there was justification for escalating things, you jumped all over it. All of your communication made in game highlights your focus on winning the firefight that hadn't even started yet (which you can see in the screenshots.). At no point did you ever try to look for another option that didn't involve shooting.

There was no legitimate justification for assuming we were going to kill the hostages. You hadn't even spoken to us. All you'd seen was a few roughed up hostages. And if you did think we might kill the hostages, you should have backed off to give us some room to calm down, instead of backing us into a corner where we would be more likely to kill a hostage. You don't get to use us taking human shields as justifications for your actions, when we did so in response to your aggressive actions and demonstrated lack of interest in negotiation.

Share this post


Link to post

Marc Price seems to have a "I must collect them all"-attitude when it comes to antagonists.

The most recent example of that would be a cult round (b83-cWfL) where he kept the station on code red for a extended period of time (for more than 1 hour; The total round time was 03:48) after only a single cultist was still at large.
(The security department at the time was fully staffed)

The code red announcement contains the following:

Quote

There is an immediate serious threat to the station. Security may have weapons unholstered at all times. Random searches are allowed and advised.

A single cultist with a sword that can teleport is not such a threat if there is a fully staffed security department (with a total of 8 people) available.
Even after centcom questioned weather a single person is such a threat, the HoS still maintained the code red.
The situation was only resolved when a ERT Team has been sent at the 3h mark, which managed to apprehend the individual in 15 minutes. (without the advanced pinpointer).

By maintaining code red and refusing to lower it to blue (even after a centcom message questioning the extended code red), they forced every player on the server to sit around while security tries to find and apprehend a single person, when they could have lowered it to blue and given the playerbase the choice if they want to continue this round or not.
(Which imho highlights their "I must collect them all" attitude)


Such an attitude might be alright with pokemons, but its imho not a quality we should look for in head of staff players.

I made the post in this topic since there is already a complaint regarding the playstyle of marc price, but I can also make a separate complaint if thats desired by whoever is going to handle it.

Share this post


Link to post

That is an incredibly hot take to have. You seem to have neglected to mention where these people, including the one at large, committed several serious crimes, attempted to kill and assaulted members of security, and were an overall threat to the station. Given what myself and the Chief Engineer were aware of, we decided to keep it at red during the round, because of the armed person teleporting around that had attacked crew. This was not a solo decision. I gave the CE and later the Captain multiple statements of 'we could lower' that were not taken up, so this is not a solo decision. I was even contacted by Yonnimer before I realized it was 2:30 (as I latejoined), and there was no indication I should break character to lower the alert. 

7 minutes ago, Arrow768 said:

A single cultist with a sword that can teleport is not such a threat. Even after centcom questioned weather a single person is such a threat, the HoS still maintained the code red.
The situation was only resolved when a ERT Team has been sent at the 3h mark, which managed to apprehend the individual in 15 minutes. (without the advanced pinpointer)

I disagree based upon the IC knowledge of the round, but by the time CC questioned it the Captain was on station. Apparently I am the only decision-maker, though. The ERT is also outfitted with advanced weapons and things security does not have. They arrived as the antag (who for some reason in your eyes shares no blame for doing nothing except cult-walling themselves when found and teleporting away) actually did something, and didn't set up walls properly, so they got predictably bodied. 

What I don't understand is that we are expected to roleplay properly, but you expected us to break character and shoehorn it for a round time problem, despite an ongoing threat. The reason they were free is we tried to get them to surrender instead of just up and shooting them, but I suppose by your line of logic I should immediately order them shot before they turn expressly hostile next time, as opposed to actually acting realistically. But then I guess I would be breaking the rules regarding escalation, so I can't win, can I?

But yes, you're right, my "I must collect them all" attitude of allowing heisters and merc teams to escape, agreeing to call a truce and let hostiles leave, negotiating for the safe release of hostages, etc. is really what is going on here. Amazing work for you to catch that, from a completely reasonable IC response to IC actions, that weren't solely my decision.

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, Arrow768 said:

Marc Price seems to have a "I must collect them all"-attitude when it comes to antagonists.

The most recent example of that would be a cult round (b83-cWfL) where he kept the station on code red for a extended period of time (for more than 1 hour; The total round time was 03:48) after only a single cultist was still at large.
(The security department at the time was fully staffed)

The code red announcement contains the following:

A single cultist with a sword that can teleport is not such a threat if there is a fully staffed security department (with a total of 8 people) available.
Even after centcom questioned weather a single person is such a threat, the HoS still maintained the code red.
The situation was only resolved when a ERT Team has been sent at the 3h mark, which managed to apprehend the individual in 15 minutes. (without the advanced pinpointer).

By maintaining code red and refusing to lower it to blue (even after a centcom message questioning the extended code red), they forced every player on the server to sit around while security tries to find and apprehend a single person, when they could have lowered it to blue and given the playerbase the choice if they want to continue this round or not.
(Which imho highlights their "I must collect them all" attitude)


Such an attitude might be alright with pokemons, but its imho not a quality we should look for in head of staff players.

I made the post in this topic since there is already a complaint regarding the playstyle of marc price, but I can also make a separate complaint if thats desired by whoever is going to handle it.

As a security player who had played in the same round, I don't think that it's fair you are shifting the blame towards Campinkiller. The cultists on-station had their motives largely unknown and were capable of technologies not known before to the crew. As such, they are utterly unpredictable. When we thought there was only one, there were 4 more, people who can hide in plain sight. As per the regulations and detail on the wiki, a code red threat means that a threat is confirmed. To lower it to blue would mean that it would have had to have been eliminated beyond a reasonable doubt, which it wasn't.

 

By narrowing your blame at Campin, you're ignoring the fact that the final antagonist spent over half an hour hiding and teleporting away from security, while at the same time making absolutely no effort to involve the crew in any action. I've also played numerous rounds with him and I can attest to him being the complete opposite of a "catch them all" type player that you detail. This round was a frustrating one for security players not because of him, he was facilitating roleplay and being informative to crew. It was frustrating because an antagonist decided to play cat and mouse and die alone instead of furthering a compelling narrative.

Share this post


Link to post

I would like to refute the above statement outright posted by Arrow, having played as the Captain for the latter half of that round that they mentioned. The way they paint the subject of this complaint is a little ridiculous.

While a majority of the cult gave themselves into security there was still one cultist left and for all security knew, they weren't aware of the person's full capabilities. Being able to teleport at will, put up invisible and invulnerable obstructions and otherwise engage in the supernatural or mutant in terms of abilities is not a very typical or low bar for a threat.

It's absolutely hypocrisy to accuse the head of security for trying to draw out the round in pursuance of valids while also adminbusing in an ERT that was neither needed or asked for by command in that round, to then 'clean up the round' and pursue their own 'valids' if we call trying to conclude any plot threads as something as utterly insidious as claiming valid-salad. That was an absolutely unorthodox and uncalled-for OOC use of ERT to forcibly conclude a round, and is otherwise a gross misuse of admin powers to influence the round too. It makes no sense to force an ERT when you point out in IC that there is an entire security department during a round in which there were few if no deaths on the station's side.

It makes no IC sense to expect that a station must go to code blue when there are still active associates of a terrorist group running around the station unless you OOCly expect and demand the round end at 2:00 on the dot every time.

It's even more ridiculous to paint the command staff player's behavior as being more responsible for the antagonist's behavior that round than the antagonist themselves for deciding to yakkety sax throughout the station and deliberately hold the round hostage with their behavior. Sec unfortunately has the burden of having to chase the antagonist when they are ordered to because it is practically dumb to not to, because any terrorist can resurface if allowed to let go and then come back to hurt people. It's not like people can jump off the surface of the station, despawn and never come back. Everyone is stuck on the station together, meaning they have to deal with each other by containing one another or killing the other.

It's such a crazy conflict of interest there is with you making this testimony and also actively using your admin powers to seek an outcome that makes Marc Price look ICly bad as well as make their player look bad too.

I will say that my vote and that of the CE was of the conclusion that it wasn't right to lower the code level until security managed to properly contain or kill the remaining cultist in that round. It is unfortunate to drag a round out and have any responsibility in doing so: but you open a huge fucking can of worms if we start punishing people who don't mean any malice and just want to play here. Campin did not really fuck over that round any at all. The antagonists were doing far more damage than he did. Recall that he is not all powerful and all-seeing as an admin is and thus is not capable of making the most optimal decisions because he is still a player who has to work with the information he is given. It is an unfair expectation that other people should have to put more effort through to reach the same level of understanding of how the round is going because you have easier access to it than other players do.

Edited by Scheveningen

Share this post


Link to post
39 minutes ago, Scheveningen said:

It's absolutely hypocrisy to accuse the head of security for trying to draw out the round in pursuance of valids while also adminbusing in an ERT that was neither needed or asked for by command in that round, to then 'clean up the round' and pursue their own 'valids' if we call trying to conclude any plot threads as something as utterly insidious as claiming valid-salad. That was an absolutely unorthodox and uncalled-for OOC use of ERT to forcibly conclude a round, and is otherwise a gross misuse of admin powers to influence the round too. It makes no sense to force an ERT when you point out in IC that there is an entire security department during a round in which there were few if no deaths on the station's side.

To clear something up:
The ERT got added after command and security was incapable of ending the round in a reasonable time. (Even after yonnimer contacted one of them.)

I should also add that the ERT was discussed between everyone who was present in asay and approved by everyone who was in that discussion, so it was definitely not my sole decision to do that.
 

39 minutes ago, Scheveningen said:

It's even more ridiculous to paint the command staff player's behavior as being more responsible for the antagonist's behavior that round than the antagonist themselves for deciding to yakkety sax throughout the station and deliberately hold the round hostage with their behavior.

The antagonist has been talked to by someone else aswell and been told to pick up the pace. Which they did to the best of their abilities.

In my opinion it is ridiculous to claim that a single person with a sword, that spent most of their time running around in maint is a  "immediate serious threat to the station".
Especially since the lowering announcement is:

Quote

The immediate threat has passed. Security may no longer have weapons drawn at all times, but may continue to have them visible. Random searches are still allowed.

It does not imply that there is no threat. There can still be a serious threat to the station. It´s just no longer a immediate threat.

I made a drawing to further explain that a bit:
alert_levels.png.1a23a91ce1a155a1e62549dd58957d71.png

When you have reliable information that there is something going on at the station, you elevate to code blue. (Position 1)
As the situation progresses, it might escalate into a immediate and serious threat to the station.
That is when you elevate to code red. (Position 2)
At some point the threat is no longer a immediate threat, whoever it can still be a serious threat.
Once it is no longer a immediate threat, you lower to code blue again (Position 3).
And once all the issues have been resolved, you can lower to code green (Position 4).

This is further reinforced by the announcements for raising/lowering the alert levels.

Quote

ALERT_GREEN All threats to the station have passed. Security may not have weapons visible, privacy laws are once again fully enforced.
ALERT_BLUE_UPTO The station has received reliable information about possible hostile activity on the station. Security staff may have weapons visible, random searches are permitted.
ALERT_BLUE_DOWNTO The immediate threat has passed. Security may no longer have weapons drawn at all times, but may continue to have them visible. Random searches are still allowed.
ALERT_RED_UPTO There is an immediate serious threat to the station. Security may have weapons unholstered at all times. Random searches are allowed and advised.

(I intentionally left out yellow as that is the special carp case which is not relevant here)

Edited by Arrow768
Spelling

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Arrow768 said:

I should also add that the ERT was discussed between everyone who was present in asay and approved by everyone who was in that discussion, so it was definitely not my sole decision to do that.

Ah, so this is not your sole decision, but keeping it at red was my sole decision, got it. Thanks for clarifying that double standard.

Share this post


Link to post

Recall that before Kait Tea was a large number of cultists who had already assaulted the security force with their array of various cult-typical abilities, which in the context of any 'normal' character is a step above fantastical/horrifying. According to what I had heard happened before, sec almost got rolled but barely survived getting rolled by the cult. There was really no verification but a hunch on the IC or OOC that Kait Tea was /really/ the only one left either.

I believe there were more orthodox and easily more constructive options to communicate when was an appropriate time to elevate or de-escalate the threat level, whichever it may be in any given situation. It is rather clear that in this situation that it would've been more constructive and better-suited for the state of the round at an OOC level to simply communicate that, "Hey, it's been code red but fairly tame from an antagonist viewpoint for a bit, would you consider lowering to blue?" in ahelps.

The reason for this is that unless a direct order is given via fax, pretty much everything sent by CC as a response is either a reinforcement of already existing policy or a suggestion as to how the situation should develop - but not an actual binding advisement as to how the "IC" state of the round should go forward.

tl;dr you really should've just bwoinked Campin but not under the pretense he was in trouble or anything. I've been asked by admins to try to close out the round before from an OOC motivated standpoint and I have still been able to concoct reasonable IC explanations to do so. It is much harder to motivate characters to do things they wouldn't normally do in IC, but the OOC side is easier to motivate.

Edited by Scheveningen

Share this post


Link to post

After a discussion with @CampinKiller I came to the conclusion that I am being not exactly fair here.

While imho they should have made the push to lower the alert level a while ago, they were not the only person responsible for it.
In addition there is a lack of good documentation regarding the alert levels (There is some documentation in multiple places on the wiki that each contains different information)

Given that, I do not think my post in that complaint is worth pursuing.
(For the sake of clarity in the original complaint thread, it might be worth to move the posts related to this into a different topic in resolved complaints)

Share this post


Link to post

Another example of a round where negotiations weren't even attempted is round b86-cWOq

Within the round proper, we were a team of raiders intending to pose as command members sent to the station. This fell through pretty much immediately, as antag gimmicks are wont to do, and a bunch of chaos ensued. Fair. The events proper happened quite far into the end of the round: my raider, Jake Lenkins, had been very heavily wounded. Another raider, Crunk, had been cuffed by security. Opposite to this was a heavily wounded member of security whose name I don't recall, collapsing from broken ribs/laser fire. The final remaining raider, an IPC, offered security a very firm deal: hand over the raiders, take your man, no more people die. Said IPC had a mech and fired a laser out a window as a warning shot before; he did not have a history of needlessly antagonising security; he did not go back on anything. Even so, and even after the officer was let go, security comms was awash with the sounds for IONS, RIGHT NOW and the like.

It's a valid play to go back on your word, I guess, and it may not even break the rules, but I'm not going to bother trying to negotiate with anyone unless I have to, for the foreseeable future.

Share this post


Link to post

My guy, I arrived to the real Command calling for your heads and literally kept the Sec team from arresting all of you. I faxed Central Command for confirmation, and only held the RD for attempted murder of the Warden (apparently), and the HoP for breaking into the Captain's office. I never grabbed the ion, the officers wanted the ion. I arrived on the Bridge, prisoner in tow, and opened some doors for officers to escape. Guess what happened? The escaped. Nobody was hostage, I simply allowed them to run by using my access. We even left the HoP (you) behind, to my knowledge, just trying to get the warden out of harms way. There was no reason for us to hand over the prisoner when we were literally there just to escape.

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, CampinKiller said:

My guy, I arrived to the real Command calling for your heads and literally kept the Sec team from arresting all of you. I faxed Central Command for confirmation, and only held the RD for attempted murder of the Warden (apparently), and the HoP for breaking into the Captain's office. I never grabbed the ion, the officers wanted the ion. I arrived on the Bridge, prisoner in tow, and opened some doors for officers to escape. Guess what happened? The escaped. Nobody was hostage, I simply allowed them to run by using my access. We even left the HoP (you) behind, to my knowledge, just trying to get the warden out of harms way. There was no reason for us to hand over the prisoner when we were literally there just to escape.

The.. .prisoner that someone dragged in there.... the prisoner that was used as a body shield.... The prisoner that shouldn't be there if you actually wanted to keep the prisoner safe.... that specific prisoner, right? 

Here's the deal. Antags have to make concessions to facilitate rp. They /COULD/ just take guns and go shooty bang bang, but that's shitty rp. So antags SHOULD try to talk first, and try to get some rp to happen.

Problem with that situation? Security didn't bother RP-ing. The IPC was asking for their crew and granted you your officer, without further harm, as a good will gesture. Sec then runs away with the other prisoner and doesn't give a fuck. What happens? The IPC chases with their giant ass exo suit that you guys arn't equipped to handle and almost kills all of you. 

The antags WERE NOT GIVEN A CHOICE IN THE MATTER DUE TO LACK OF INTERACTION ON SECURITY'S PART.

What mechanically happened is irrelevant. We are an RP server, so RP.

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, CampinKiller said:

My guy, I arrived to the real Command calling for your heads and literally kept the Sec team from arresting all of you. I faxed Central Command for confirmation, and only held the RD for attempted murder of the Warden (apparently), and the HoP for breaking into the Captain's office. I never grabbed the ion, the officers wanted the ion. I arrived on the Bridge, prisoner in tow, and opened some doors for officers to escape. Guess what happened? The escaped. Nobody was hostage, I simply allowed them to run by using my access. We even left the HoP (you) behind, to my knowledge, just trying to get the warden out of harms way. There was no reason for us to hand over the prisoner when we were literally there just to escape.

My buddy, you were literally talking on security comms and telling people to bring the ion rifle, at which point it solidly becomes your decision instead of some officer lugging it along. There was absolutely a hostage, since a guy with broken ribs being two tiles away from a mech with a mounted laser cannon is on the same level as that same person having to deal with a revolver being trained at them. If you were literally there to escape, you had a means of doing so by.. Walking away, instead of approaching the man. That you chose to bring a prisoner along, that you told your people to bring the ion rifle, that you stalled for time, that you did not engage with the IPC raider at all, and that you're trying to pass off the blame to your officers gives me the sense that you're being rather disingenuous here. 

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...