Staff Complaint: Sadkermit

[Faye <3]

BYOND Key: PersephoneQ
Staff BYOND Key: Sadkermit
Game ID: ceS-dMxa
Reason for complaint: 

On the round stated above, I was warned - unfairly, in my opinion - being too harsh on an antagonist. I am appealing this warning on the grounds that circumstantial evidence was not appropriately taken into consideration. During that round, the antagonist did the usual antagonist affair of swiping the spare fairly early on into the round. However, they then blew up the station's main SMES, Medical SMES, and (I believe) a few other places. The station had absolutely no power for upwards of an hour, and during the station's attempts to restore power, the antagonist did not comment on the radio whatsoever. Instead, they lurked in maintenance and silently emptied the armory. Security was entirely unable to respond, and having been without power and suddenly no armory with no RP for over an hour, I decided to ahelp. Kermit took the ticket, acknowledged the antagonist and said they would speak to them and give them a chance. 

 

Shortly after this, they attempted to take my character hostage. My CMO got away, and the situation was avoided for the time being. The antagonist said publicly that they had plans to make another attempt at kidnapping my character, and that they would have a high ransom. Given security had no way of dealing with the antagonist (they were limited to some armor, and disruptors) my character proceeded to chemistry to prepare polysomine for her hypospray. After a back and forth with the antagonist over comms where they stated they would come for my character and not use lethals on her, I decided to segue into a confrontation considering the round was near the 2:00 mark. Hypatia (my character) asked for security to come to her location, but before they could arrive the antagonist found her. I backed away from them, and they came towards Hypatia and began to shoot her with the stun function on the carbine. It was then that I hyposprayed them acting in my character's defense, ending the confrontation at around the two hour mark. My character acted in her own self-defense, as she was publicly indicated as a hostage target by an antagonist who had completely removed security's ability to fight back, and bombed multiple areas of the station. 

To summarize, I acknowledge that the use of a polysomnine hypospray isn't exactly fair. However, I believe that it is about as far as silently blowing up the station's main powersupply, bombing medical, silently lurking in maintenance and then emptying the armory completely without a word. The crew was removed of virtually all ways to fight back against the antagonist. Kermit acknowledged that the antagonist could have done better, as evidenced by their reply that they would speak to them and give them another chance. This is the only time I have ever used the hypospray in this manner in my near year of maining CMO, and do not plan to use it in this manner again. I understand and respect Kermit's decision, but I am requesting that the decision be overturned or the warning be downgraded to a note. I disagree that I shut down an antagonist. They had nearly the entire round to swipe the spare, lurk in maintenance, empty the armory completely and bomb multiple SMESs to severely harm the station. The antagonist being hyposprayed at near or around the 2:00 mark after being able to do all of that with virtually no contest is not being shutdown. 

Evidence/logs/etc: The warning in question: 
Additional remarks: None.

Edited November 7, 2021 by Faye <3

[kermit]

Hey there.

After reviewing my initial decision, I do think a note would’ve been better suited than a warning. I’ll be fine having the warning downgraded to a note, if you're happy with that.

[Garnascus]

On 06/11/2021 at 23:16, Faye &lt;3 said:

Shortly after this, they attempted to take my character hostage. My CMO got away, and the situation was avoided for the time being. The antagonist said publicly that they had plans to make another attempt at kidnapping my character, and that they would have a high ransom. Given security had no way of dealing with the antagonist (they were limited to some armor, and disruptors) my character proceeded to chemistry to prepare polysomine for her hypospray. After a back and forth with the antagonist over comms where they stated they would come for my character and not use lethals on her, I decided to segue into a confrontation considering the round was near the 2:00 mark. Hypatia (my character) asked for security to come to her location, but before they could arrive the antagonist found her. I backed away from them, and they came towards Hypatia and began to shoot her with the stun function on the carbine. It was then that I hyposprayed them acting in my character's defense, ending the confrontation at around the two hour mark. My character acted in her own self-defense, as she was publicly indicated as a hostage target by an antagonist who had completely removed security's ability to fight back, and bombed multiple areas of the station

@SadKermit Assuming all of this is true it sounds like @Faye <3 took nearly every precaution imaginable before she hyposprayed the antag. It certainly does not sound like she was hunting through the halls looking to 360noscope with her hypospray. Can you walk me through your thought process here? When CAN a player utilize a hypospray of knockout juice if not in a situation like this? 

[kermit]

Sure thing, I'll break down my side of things in a neat-ish way so it's easy to pick out any parts where I've gone wrong.

The issues I had with this were:

• The fact no meaningful talk was held when the antagonist tried to begin some kind of verbal confrontation, granted Faye's CMO did agree to this meeting in the first place.
• Faye had two opportunities to run after the antagonist began shooting them.
  • First was darting left and out of Medical, or sprinting down into an OR.
  • When the antagonist broke line of sight to exit the Exam Room, opening a window for Faye's CMO to run into an Operating Room that they were stood right besides (this being the most obvious)
• The antagonist was far better equipped than Faye's CMO - they had complete ballistic plate and a lethal/stun weapon. Generally, one's response unless they have absolutely no other option when faced with odds like this is to run - Faye did not run and instead waited for the antagonist to approach (all while being shot by stuns) and then lunged forwards with the hypospray.

I opened the ticket to:

• Remind them to take into consideration that their character shouldn't be standing off against an antagonist far better equipped than them. Instead, they should have considered running, given they had the opportunities to do so.
• Not let their frustration/dislike of an antag's gimmick excuse them from engaging with antagonists as Command. You cannot pick and choose which gimmicks you engage with.

During the ticket:

• Faye insisted that under no other circumstance would she have stood off against the antagonist. The circumstances outlined by her in the ticket appeared to be that the antagonist was playing to win, so in response she'd do the same. This was an OOC issue that was handled by myself, and shouldn't have justified IC action.

 

22 hours ago, Garnascus said:

When CAN a player utilize a hypospray of knockout juice if not in a situation like this? 

Not when there is room to engage with an antagonist and aid them in driving the story the antagonist was hoping to achieve. Despite the antagonist failing to engage with the crew in the previous 1 hour 30/40, the meeting they wanted was to make amends for this. Ultimately, their attempt to drive a story was waived off and discarded. Command have an obligation to engage with antagonists, just as much as antagonists have an obligation to engage with crew. Disliking where an antagonist has taken the round doesn't excuse anyone from this, and efforts should always be made to give antagonists a chance to drive a story.

Nor when there are opportunities to run, of which there were two; one being very explicit and kind of hard to ignore (the antagonist walked away at one point to leave a room they were in before continuing shooting). Had there have been no way to run (i.e. cornered in a dead end, no access to the doors around you), had the antagonist not been actively shooting Faye's CMO and therefore self-preservation wasn't something to keep in mind, then it would have been acceptable. I don't really think it was acceptable in this case. Before and throughout my trial, it has been established to me that running is usually the best option to take when faced with an antagonist when not equally matched.

Edited November 10, 2021 by SadKermit
spelling

[Garnascus]

So, I am going to expunge this warning and I will explain why. 

1. Security was not capable of protecting Faye

    They could not access their armory and had only a few spare disruptors.

2. The antagonist was very clear in his attempt to kidnap and ransom her.
    

    This establishes the extreme risk posed to Faye by the antagonist.

3. The antagonist utilized non-lethals with his carbine

    Stun beams hurt like hell and rushing down the hallway to beat down a nukeop with your bat is gonna get you a swift bwoink. However we can at least conclude Faye was not being hunted to be killed.

When we combine what we know of all three of these points we understand that security cannot stop the antag, the antag will continue hunting for Faye and that the antag intends to capture her with stun beams. Therefore it seems to me she chose to defend herself with a hypospray that she knows will bypass the antagonists armor and quickly knock them out. While i do not doubt that Faye was motivated by her frustration at the gimmick and that perhaps the Antag was not driving as well of a story as he could of both of these things are actually not relevant to the situation. It makes sense you assumed it was because it sounds like @faye admitted to it in the ticket. The first issue at hand here is whether or not Faye had a good reason to defend herself. The answer to that is yes. The second issue is whether or not we ALWAYS expect non-security to retreat from combat situations. The answer to that is no. There are numerous situations where we allow players to engage in combat situations. A medical doctor running into crossfire to save a wounded individual might feel compelled out of duty, an engineer might coordinate with security personnel to destroy a hive beacon and even the janitor might grab a bat to destroy some viscerators attacking medical. 

 

[kermit]

Sounds good, then. I'll be sure to take all of this into consideration going further on in my trial and keep it in mind during similar situations to avoid making the same mistakes.

[Faye <3]

I am satisfied with this resolution, I have nothing more to add. Thank you to everyone involved.

[Garnascus]

Locking and archiving.