Staff Complaint: ryverstyx

[CyberCide]

BYOND Key: CyberCide
Staff BYOND Key: ryverstyx
Game ID: ccQ-cxrb
Reason for complaint: Banned unfairly
Evidence/logs/etc:

After joining a low pop round (3 total) I decided to do a little maintenance diving as usual, I looked through the sector behind the science department and then through the bar maintenance, as I approached the airlock room behind the old theatre, while I was hacking the wires, the emergency shutters closed, which prompted me to verify the pressure in the area. After noticing that it did in fact dropped, I called out in the commons that: "Meteors struck the station," after moving to a secure location (the bar) and fixing the airlock's wiring. I made my way back to science maintenance to contact the Engineering Cyborg (which was playing chess with the librarian) to report that there was a breach. 

Not soon after, ryverstyx approached me in a ticket, asking me if I was hacking my way into a vented area, to which I responded "no" and adding "it got vented while I was in there". ryverstyx proceeded to present an image of me hacking into a door prior to the area losing atmospheric pressure, I acknowledged that I was in fact "maintenance diving" and received the response that "As a roboticist you should not be trying to hack any doors"  (even though I had all of the roleplay reasons to be able to, not excluding IC punishments for doing so) and remarking that I already had been warned in the past for hacking doors (even though said "doors" were leading to secure department areas, not maintenance tunnels, and those events happened years ago when I first started playing in Aurora) while accusing me of lying about me denying I was never warned about it.

I asked if I had ever received a warning regarding me hacking into maintenance tunnels, which prompted no response aside "In general you are not allowed to hack into any location you do not have access to as a non-antag" which I do not disagree with, but seems like an overreaction where the only trespassed areas are filled with literal garbage and miscellaneous items of interest to prompt exploration.

After explaining that I was merely looking for trash and receiving the response that I couldn't, I indirectly asked why with "just because of the non-antag thing?" to which he responded with:

1. You lied about what you did. (which I didn't)
2. You caused a breach. (which I didn't)
3. You have been warned for hacking into areas before (which were highly secured areas, not maintenance tunnels)

 

I denied all the accusations fore-mentioned and opened the possibility for him to show evidence on how I was incorrect, instead he chose to correct himself from "caused a breach" to "spread it" (3kpa pressure drop in maintenance tunnels), reiterating that when he asked if I was hacking doors I said "no", and said that "Breaking into departments is the same as breaking into maintenace in terms of access." which I will to disagree with for a multitude of reasons, but mainly because there are no points of interest such as highly valuable equipment (i.e. Captain's spare, the SM, the armory …). Insisting on my forced entry into a vented area with the following image: 

Which shows Adam exiting and repairing the wiring of the airlock (Note that the footprints are leading outside with an added de-tour in order not to extend them outside of the tunnel)

I corrected him with the following text, explaining what was truly depicted on the image:

And while waiting for a response, I get banned without further discussion.

I believe I was wrongly accused and having in consideration that he was a trial moderator that self advertised having clinical training in Psychology and Sociology and "prioritizing communication" in his moderator application. I don't demand any particular punishment, but I hope the situation is dealt with accordingly.

Additional remarks: I am aware that the ban was temporary, but I find it unfair that I'm being flagged for something undeservingly and as such I'm addressing this issue.

 

Edited July 3, 2021 by CyberCide
Duplicated image

[RyverStyx]

Posting full ticket for reference

 

I just want to start off by saying that I did misspeak when I said you caused a breach. However, I rephrased in the following messages.

When I first asked if you were hacking doors you did say “no, it got vented while I was in there”. To me this seems like a way to weasel out of admitting you were hacking a door (something that you later admitted too after I sent the pictures).

The long pauses in our communication were due to me asking more senior staff how to proceed.

I also do not appreciate you attacking me as a person (bringing up my degrees and whatnot) as that is not relevant to the issue at hand.

Regardless on how you feel about maint not being as secure as the bridge it does not mean you can freely hack into it. That as well as your general attitude in the ahelps is why you got a day ban.

[RyverStyx]

Other photo for reference

[CyberCide]

Firstly, I responded "no, it got vented while I was in there" because I wasn't hacking into a vented area, or at least that wasn't my intention, but I did admit to hack in the following messages 

I didn't mind the long pauses in the communication, I do however mind that you banned me without priorly announcing so and without allowing me to defend myself.

I apologize for offending you after bringing up your degrees, but I mentioned those because during the ticket you didn't act the way you said you would, barely accepting any input and flat out ignoring some of my questions.

Regarding the "spread of the breach", I had no idea of how it occurred or had any intentions to spread it, disregarding the fact, that this "spread of the breach" consisted in a drop of 3 kpa in the maintenance tunnels, which, had it been intentional, would be greatly larger.

Lastly I would like to say that I didn't go around maintenance because it's easier to break into than the bridge, I used the term "secure department areas / secure areas" to convey that breaking into the bridge is severely more punishable than breaking into the tunnels.

39 minutes ago, RyverStyx said:

That as well as your general attitude in the ahelps is why you got a day ban.

Can you elaborate more on what's my general attitude in ahelps? I was never rude or toxic while talking to members of the staff team, so I would appreciate if you could explain this better.

[RyverStyx]

The reason I did not accept input is because hacking doors into maint as a roboticist is already against the rules. As far as your attitude goes- You pushed back repeatedly after told it was against the rules. I don't intend to argue here so I feel we should both wait for more input,

[ReadThisNamePlz]

Hello, I will be taking this complaint. 

I'll be log diving today, and hopefully reaching a decision by tonight or tomorrow evening. 
Do note that this is a day ban, so it is likely that the timer will run out by the time I am finished deliberating on the proper solution.

[ReadThisNamePlz]

Alright. @CyberCide

After reviewing logs, and speaking with other staff members- I have decided that @RyverStyx's judgement is correct. 

Yes, Roboticists have the skillset to hack into doors, however this does not mean you should. Just like any other place that you don't have access to, maintenance is restricted. Yes, there is really just "trash" in there, but it's the fact that you're willingly bypassing the access restriction to just maintenance dive. You should not willingly be bypassing access restriction without an actual reason. I.E Someone is dying or your life is in danger. 

With that said, you do not have a warning history, but you do have notes about hacking into places you shouldn't be, and doing things outside of your skillset. 
So again, Ryvers judgement is correct. I do not believe you would have been banned if you were not so confrontational as well. Remember Rule 1. 

Now, to the resolution. I am not going to be clearing the ban from your record, by this time the ban has already ran out. However, I will be applying a warning for the behavior seen in this complaint (We both know what I'm talking about, I won't quote it exactly because you edited it out) and how you acted towards Ryver in the ticket. You should never attack someone on a personal level in a complaint. I ruled out the idea of a forum warning because, frankly I don't think it would get the message across. 

I will keep this thread open for 24 more hours. 

[CyberCide]

I would like to clear up some information,

I wasn't or intended to be "confrontational" in the ticket, I never lied, and I attempted to answer everything that was asked me. I could have answered more should I had not been banned abruptly, all I was doing as being defensive and trying to reason, I may have been confrontational but only as I tried to explain what actually happened to clear up the situation.

The only thing I edited out was a duplicated image, this one:

as it is noted on the post.

I'm going to repeat, I didn't bring up what they said that they were capable of to attack them, it was only to make a point on how they acted and how they publicly described themselves in their moderator application.

[ReadThisNamePlz]

1 hour ago, CyberCide said:

I would like to clear up some information,

I wasn't or intended to be "confrontational" in the ticket, I never lied, and I attempted to answer everything that was asked me. I could have answered more should I had not been banned abruptly, all I was doing as being defensive and trying to reason, I may have been confrontational but only as I tried to explain what actually happened to clear up the situation.

The only thing I edited out was a duplicated image, this one:

as it is noted on the post.

I'm going to repeat, I didn't bring up what they said that they were capable of to attack them, it was only to make a point on how they acted and how they publicly described themselves in their moderator application.

The comment about their degree's was perceived as a personal attack. 

Regarding the edit, my Laptop has been having issue's loading full forum posts lately, similar to the mobile issue I used to have, so I thought you had edited it out.