Jump to content

Staff Complaint - WickedCybs


Recommended Posts

BYOND Key: Ciruk
Staff BYOND Key: WickedCybs

Game ID: cj1-an8H - Alberyk sent it to me!

Reason for complaint: What I think is an unfair justification to permanently ban me of antagonist roles. 

Evidence/logs/etc: I lay out the explanation down in the remarks. I'm questioning their judgment, not that they did anything beyond having an unfair opinion towards me (And possible meta-favoritism, but I have no proof of that), and I'd be happy to deliverate with them on everything on this here. I'll be pasting the circumstances of my banning down in the remarks, and evolving from there with the hopes of achieving some peer-reviewed accountability. 

Additional remarks: I do not think that the ban was justifiable based on my actions in-game. I do not aim at people's heads in a gamey sense of desire to "take them out of the round;" I aimed at their heads, in that shoot-out, because it is the cleanest and most efficient method of ending another fighter who just seconds before was shooting you, killing you, or trying - and later succeeding - with their own gun. The whole approach of this adminhelp felt like a resentful dig at me, as well, as the roleplay was still unfolding and the situation was still aspiring to certain lengths and it only served to impute me as a roleplayer and didn't let me continue associating and socializing with the rest of the people in the round.

The fight went this way, and anyone is welcome to refute it if they have proof: We were in the XO's office, doing the usual trading of bullets and laser shots. One of our Mercenaries refused the orders of the Ensign to back up, and they were forced to retreat left down the hallway above Bridge. The Ensign followed, and my character backed him up as his protection. As we rushed out into the hallway, and began heading to the left, the officers harassed us and followed us even after we retreated.

This presented my Elyran RIIS agent an impossible situation: if we kept running, they were faster than us, and would push us and eventually kill us through atrition. So instead he pushed security back, abusing his assault rifle's spray, and chased them into a corner and killed them in a moment of weakness as they perished to the wounds inflicted by my character's 7.62's.

The officers harassed our unit perfectly, and forced that kind of response. The only reason my character chose to burst those around him quickly and cleanly was with a desire to bring finality to the engagement and quickly hurry back to their Ensign, who was injured and retreating to the ship. It was a moment of desperation, of gritty violence, and one that unfolded as such. It's really offending and unfair that you just assume the kind of player that I am, and presume why I do the things that I do when I've always done my best to stick to roleplay and act only reasonably, as a character would. 

You also boinked me for the same reason in the past for attacking the same player, one of the officers, Azhara in their Antagonist character, as a Unathi officer myself when they ambushed me at an elevator. And even then, you agreed with my reasoning and left it be. So what else do you have that implies I have a propensity for beheading people? The whole thing feels incredibly disingenous and, to even some degree, ripe with bias and, at best, favoritism.

Was I belligerent in the adminhelp? To some degree: I thought it was very mean and unprofessional that you'd barrage me with messages when you knew for a fact that my character was in the middle of roleplay and acting out the round as it was. It was so shocking to me that I even asked if you were one of the security officers my character fought against, because your messages came so suddenly and felt spiteful. 

But I invite you to go through our conversation and find a single time where I disrespected you, called you anything, or acted entirely in an immature way in any way. I was polite with you through our exchanges, and only disagreed. You straight up called me a liar, when I lied about nothing. Yes, the security officers were retreating after I charged them, but that was only a counter-attack: moments before they were charging us. They were retreating because they were losing, and then they did. They had a shoot-out with Antagonists: often times security wins. This rare, particular time, they didn't. Security almost always kill the antagonists, this time the antagonists killed security. It was just chance: I could've lost, but I didn't. Shooting them in the chest 17 times, to shooting them in the head 1 time, would've netted the same result of killing them: I chose the latter, because I had very little ammo.

If there's a strict rule that says antagonists cannot kill security officers who have succumbed to their injuries in the middle of an active firefight, then crucify me. Throw me out on the boat, I'm done, I fucked up. I'll take the ban. But, as far as in-character perspective goes, my character went up to three officers actively gunning him down, and killed them in the swiftest way possible to get back to their Ensign as quickly as was possible. It was brutal, it was gruesome, and I happen to think it was good roleplay if you don't mind your character being the one that dies from time to time. Mine does, almost all the time, but it happens.

My character died about five minutes after, because his lungs had been shot. I was also taken out of the round, for what is worth.

I'll add here, as an addition and example from the round, the same behavior was visited upon the antagonists by Security not too long after the last stand, where the Antagonists lose. As often is: we're tools for the crew to derive their story, they're intended to lose.

image.png.491bc5d9ead94f28c87b83e5a5b37c5a.png

Here, D'jar Sa'Kuate did the same thing, the exact very same thing, to a fallen Elyran soldier. Shot them three times in the head while they were on the ground, in the middle of a shoot-out. The Elyran was out. They weren't a threat anymore, active. Do I think they are wrong for doing this? Fuck no: he was finishing the job, and then moved on to acquire another target. Summarizing doing that as him just, "Being gamey and decap-prone" is an incredible injustice. Are you going to ban him from playing security? The situation let him to shooting that hostile who was still on the ground in the head, and ending the fight to the best of his abilities.

My character did the same. Active shoot-out, both sides incredibly wounded and worn-out, walked up to them, and Tarantino-fired down on their most delicate places as a fitting coup de grâce. Please believe that any other kind of interpretation towards my actions is an injustice towards my perceived character and not just the sort of guy that I am: I am here for the story, that is why I've stayed on Aurora and lived for Aurora on my SS13 existence to this day. 

I legitimately believe there is some kind of favoritism or bias of sorts here. 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Cirukcaller said:

The fight went this way, and anyone is welcome to refute it if they have proof: We were in the XO's office, doing the usual trading of bullets and laser shots. One of our Mercenaries refused the orders of the Ensign to back up, and they were forced to retreat left down the hallway above Bridge. The Ensign followed, and my character backed him up as his protection. As we rushed out into the hallway, and began heading to the left, the officers harassed us and followed us even after we retreated.

This presented my Elyran RIIS agent an impossible situation: if we kept running, they were faster than us, and would push us and eventually kill us through atrition. So instead he pushed security back, abusing his assault rifle's spray, and chased them into a corner and killed them in a moment of weakness as they perished to the wounds inflicted by my character's 7.62's.

This is still a complete lie and the same reasoning you gave to me in the ticket. I watched the entire exchange. You were ordered to fall back by your lead and the other merc was already far behind you so you were protecting nobody. You charged up to people just covering the position you came from and your "impossible situation" was running at people barely retreating away after suffering already lethal wounds to point blank them in the head when it was already clear enough they were not getting up again. You even attempted to shoot to kill an unarmed person which was contrary to your claims of only gunning for people firing back.

Antags are allowed to kill their opposition generally but in this case the trend of you walking around in your super-powerful gear nobody can really damage and just PBing anyone in the head who went horizontal was way too much. Especially as you do the same when you play an officer. That's not really "gameplay" we encourage on either end.

2 hours ago, Cirukcaller said:

You also boinked me for the same reason in the past for attacking the same player, one of the officers, Azhara in their Antagonist character, as a Unathi officer myself when they ambushed me at an elevator. And even then, you agreed with my reasoning and left it be. So what else do you have that implies I have a propensity for beheading people? The whole thing feels incredibly disingenous and, to even some degree, ripe with bias and, at best, favoritism.

agreed with your reasoning to behead someone? No I did not. You were noted, I told you in no uncertain terms to never do that again and I told you an officer trying to behead someone with an axe was insane and unreasonable. Despite having a baton and other tools you went straight for an axe to chase an unarmoured person and exclusively attempted to hit their head. This is quite a reversal from how apologetic you were in that ticket, which is concerning to me now.

That aside, you've been trying to connect some supposed ulterior motive of mine to your post, that I'm apparently spiteful and gunning for you in particular. As you also say later on in this post, you even accused me of even being one of the people you executed and then changed the narrative to me "protecting" the officer's player when I told you we don't handle tickets we're personally involved in. The antagonist and officer you mention are two completely different people. They were both M'sai. M'sai just look similar due to their limited colour selection

The reality is I joined the game and watched the firefight, then sent you a message. I didn't pay much attention to see if you were the same person I've talked to in the past. We generally take care of problems as we see them, or if they're ahelped.

2 hours ago, Cirukcaller said:

Was I belligerent in the adminhelp? To some degree: I thought it was very mean and unprofessional that you'd barrage me with messages when you knew for a fact that my character was in the middle of roleplay and acting out the round as it was. It was so shocking to me that I even asked if you were one of the security officers my character fought against, because your messages came so suddenly and felt spiteful. 

Well, let's take a look.

Quote

[03:04:30] wickedcybs -> ciruk: I need to talk to you about what you've been doing this round 
[03:04:46] ciruk -> wickedcybs: Sorry? 
[03:05:00] wickedcybs -> ciruk: Your actions. I saw you walk up to 3 non threats and pb their heads to decap them, then walk away 
[03:05:06] wickedcybs -> ciruk: Can you walk me through why this happened 
[03:05:41] ciruk -> wickedcybs: What do you mean? I was retreating, and I secured three kills: they weren't "non-threats": they were gunning me literally seconds before I walked up and shot them in the head. The reason they fell over to begin with (?) is because they lost the fire-fight against my character. 
[03:06:41] wickedcybs -> ciruk: They were non-threats, as they couldn't resist. Just "losing" a firefight isn't justification enough to straight up execute someone 
[03:06:49] wickedcybs -> ciruk: If they did the same to you I would be having this conversation with (?) them 
[03:07:08] wickedcybs -> ciruk: Why were you intent on kill securing 
[03:07:18] ciruk -> wickedcybs: What do you mean, they couldn't resist? They could've stood up at any moment, grabbed their guns, and fired at me. The only people I killed were security. Am I supposed to stop shooting them just because they happened to be stunned by pain, or by the bullets? 
[03:08:04] wickedcybs -> ciruk: They evidently were not stunned and were dying already. You've had this problem before with (?) instantly going for peoples heads and trying to kill ocnfirm them. 
[03:08:26] wickedcybs -> ciruk: You were also told to go back instead of charging forward to execute them 
[03:08:37] ciruk -> wickedcybs: They weren't evidently anything, I'm afraid. I was in a rush: there was a shoot-out, my character was gasping from getting shot several times in the chest. I made a push, and finished them while they were on the retreat. Any other version of events is straight up a lot. That I fired at their heads when they were down was just a way to expedite the process. 
[03:08:40] wickedcybs -> ciruk: You can't claim self defense or blatant executions with (?) people who had no means to oppose you anymore 
[03:09:02] ciruk -> wickedcybs: I would've pulled back. My *desire* was to pull back, but one of us pushed ahead, prolonged the shoot-out, and the Ensign and I pushed together to find them. Then we retreated. 
[03:09:21] ciruk -> wickedcybs: None of that would've happened if our third hadn't disregarded all of the Ensign's orders. 
[03:09:48] wickedcybs -> ciruk: Do not lie to me. I saw them go back afterward. You were the one charging forwards and then proceeding with (?) the exeecutions 
[03:10:33] ciruk -> wickedcybs: Yes, because as we were retreating security was following us. If they hadn't harassed us all the way to the stairs I wouldn't have pushed back and dealt with (?) them as I did. Everything that I did was reactive, and ended the problem successfully. If security had stayed on the retreat instead of harassing us on *our* retreat, none of this would've happened. 
[03:10:50] ciruk -> wickedcybs: This really just feels like you're boinking me because you got killed, friend. Tell me: were you one of the security officers involved? 
[03:11:44] wickedcybs -> ciruk: We don't involve ourselves in anything we're personally in. 
[03:12:09] wickedcybs -> ciruk: Your lack of understanding aside, this is some terrible behaviour and I do not believe you can be trusted to play antagonists properly 
[03:12:19] wickedcybs -> ciruk: I'll be applying an antag ban, which you are welcome to appeal on the fourm. 
[03:12:27] ciruk -> wickedcybs: I'll make sure to do so. 
[03:14:04] ciruk -> wickedcybs: The hypocrisy of this, by the way: an actual execution was performed on Solarian players last round and no one was given trouble for it. The moment it happens in a justified shoot-out, you see issues with (?) it: are you legitimately telling me this isn't some kind of bias? Because it is. It has to be. 

I give you simple explanations and rebuttals. I do not belittle you. I tell you what the problem is. You come out swinging with...

Quote

[03:09:48] wickedcybs -> ciruk: Do not lie to me. I saw them go back afterward. You were the one charging forwards and then proceeding with (?) the exeecutions 
[03:10:33] ciruk -> wickedcybs: Yes, because as we were retreating security was following us. If they hadn't harassed us all the way to the stairs I wouldn't have pushed back and dealt with (?) them as I did. Everything that I did was reactive, and ended the problem successfully. If security had stayed on the retreat instead of harassing us on *our* retreat, none of this would've happened. 
[03:10:50] ciruk -> wickedcybs: This really just feels like you're boinking me because you got killed, friend. Tell me: were you one of the security officers involved? 

It's honestly just really strange?

2 hours ago, Cirukcaller said:

Here, D'jar Sa'Kuate did the same thing, the exact very same thing, to a fallen Elyran soldier. Shot them three times in the head while they were on the ground, in the middle of a shoot-out. The Elyran was out. They weren't a threat anymore, active. Do I think they are wrong for doing this? Fuck no: he was finishing the job, and then moved on to acquire another target. Summarizing doing that as him just, "Being gamey and decap-prone" is an incredible injustice. Are you going to ban him from playing security? The situation let him to shooting that hostile who was still on the ground in the head, and ending the fight to the best of his abilities.

It's not really the same. The difference here being that security can't detain people in hardsuits without cable coils, the guy was actively getting back up again and killing a bunch of people and the headshots were only tickling their head because the hardsuit fully resists it. It was a full on crew beatdown in an attempt by the crew to inflict enough pain damage so they couldn't get up and kill more people. It quite literally took a force of kataphracts, the entire usage of the crew armoury and surviving security to take them down. You can even see in the log you posted pretty much everybody is attempting to hit them, three crew died already and there is an elyran still standing. Despite it all, they were not even half dead in the end when they finally fell too.

In your scenario you just executed an officer and someone armed from the crew armoury who were already shot many times, then when another person wandered by you instantly lit them up and decapped them too while they were begging for their life and surrendering. 

So with all that in mind and with consideration that you've attempted to do similar things before, it was an antag ban. If there was some more understanding here, maybe I would not have needed to do so. I'm not exactly going to discuss something further with someone who assumes the worst and accuses me of handling my own situation in a ticket though.

Edited by WickedCybs
formatting
Link to comment
36 minutes ago, WickedCybs said:

This is still a complete lie and the same reasoning you gave to me in the ticket. I watched the entire exchange. You were ordered to fall back by your lead and the other merc was already far behind you so you were protecting nobody. You charged up to people just covering the position you came from and your "impossible situation" was running at people barely retreating away after suffering already lethal wounds to point blank them in the head when it was already clear enough they were not getting up again. You even attempted to shoot to kill an unarmed person which was contrary to your claims of only gunning for people firing back.

Antags are allowed to kill their opposition generally but in this case the trend of you walking around in your super-powerful gear nobody can really damage and just PBing anyone in the head who went horizontal was way too much. Especially as you do the same when you play an officer. That's not really "gameplay" we encourage on either end.

Sorry man, but you got the whole thing here wrong. The Ensign wasn't requesting my character to pull back, he was requesting the other member of our team to pull back. The Ensign and I, if you are to check the logs, repeatedly yelled at our third member who was at the door actively engaging security. Our original intent in this fight was to pull back and retreat further into the bridge. The Ensign himself waited with me at the XO's inner door, again, for a bit, before it became obvious that our third member wasn't paying attention and took off into the hallway. Our Ensign at the time, thankfully, is an administrator. Corroborate through them. It was ReadThisNamePlz, and they saw this unfold. You don't have to take my word for it. The same Elyran who refused to listen to the Ensign was the same guy who ended up getting mobbed last in that picture. Same players.

My character was always the third, behind the Ensign, protecting him. And it was that same desire to protect them as security was shooting at us from behind whilst we chased our wayward member that had me walk up to the officers and execute them.

36 minutes ago, WickedCybs said:

agreed with your reasoning to behead someone? No I did not. You were noted, I told you in no uncertain terms to never do that again and I told you an officer trying to behead someone with an axe was insane and unreasonable. Despite having a baton and other tools you went straight for an axe to chase an unarmoured person and exclusively attempted to hit their head. This is quite a reversal from how apologetic you were in that ticket, which is concerning to me now.

That aside, you've been trying to connect some supposed ulterior motive of mine to your post, that I'm apparently spiteful and gunning for you in particular. As you also say later on in this post, you even accused me of even being one of the people you executed and then changed the narrative to me "protecting" the officer's player when I told you we don't handle tickets we're personally involved in. The antagonist and officer you mention are two completely different people. They were both M'sai. M'sai just look similar due to their limited colour selection

The reality is I joined the game and watched the firefight, then sent you a message. I didn't pay much attention to see if you were the same person I've talked to in the past. We generally take care of problems as we see them, or if they're ahelped.

Look man, I've been in this community a while and some things just seem a certain way to me, you understand? And your way of handling me came across as very combative, very ulterior, so it shouldn't surprise you when I try and cross-analyze why you're treating me in a way that feels outright unfair. If at any point you think I changed "the narrative," is because I believed you when you said that wasn't the case, but the taint of feeling like you weren't being completely honest with me was still there. I still felt like I was being maligned, because things devolved this way not of my own choosing: I wanted to head back to the Bridge with the Ensign. I was the last person on that hallway in the fight. 

The third member wasn't "far behind me:" he was, instead, the complete opposite: far in front of me and the Ensign. Our original purpose was to remain at the Bridge, and it was him running off that had us chase after them, and away from the Bridge. 

You are right when you say that it is very unfair that I claimed you had some kind of ulterior motive. I shouldn't have done that. I'm generally a very suspicious person, and when I can't coherently justify someone else's actions towards me the two conclusions left in my brain are a clear bias, or a misunderstanding. And you did not come across as confused to me at all. 

That time where I was a Unathi Officer who attacked a HoT criminal with the fireaxe you adminhelped me in the very middle of the engagement as well, and something that stuck with me was that after I answered you a couple of times you closed our conversation with a very deadpan answer at the same time that the very same antagonist I hit with the axe had essentially gained the upper hand and escaped on their ship.

It felt IFFY bro, I'm not just pulling shit out of my ass. I love this server, it fucking pains me to antagonize members of its team, but I will still give my opinion, you know? 
 

36 minutes ago, WickedCybs said:

It's not really the same. The difference here being that security can't detain people in hardsuits without cable coils, the guy was actively getting back up again and killing a bunch of people and the headshots were only tickling their head because the hardsuit fully resists it. It was a full on crew beatdown in an attempt by the crew to inflict enough pain damage so they couldn't get up and kill more people. It quite literally took a force of kataphracts, the entire usage of the crew armoury and surviving security to take them down. You can even see in the log you posted pretty much everybody is attempting to hit them, three crew died already and there is an elyran still standing. Despite it all, they were not even half dead in the end when they finally fell too.

In your scenario you just executed an officer and someone armed from the crew armoury who were already shot many times, then when another person wandered by you instantly lit them up and decapped them too while they were begging for their life and surrendering. 

So with all that in mind and with consideration that you've attempted to do similar things before, it was an antag ban. If there was some more understanding here, maybe I would not have needed to do so. I'm not exactly going to discuss something further with someone who assumes the worst and accuses me of handling my own situation in a ticket though.

That guy was being mobbed by over six people. It would've taken one person to grab them and keep them in a hold until zipties and-or cable-coils arrived. It's been done many times, but regardless,

Look, I'll be honest, I had no idea that my Elyran hardsuit was the Terminator suit. I wholeheartedly expected to walk out there and get shot and die and suffer the same fate of every antagonist that fights Security in an open hallway. I was convinced I'd die, period. And if I was wearing any other gear, I would've died, period. But I wasn't -- apparently this hardsuit was special. I don't know the numbers behind it, how much it resists: the mechanics of Aurora, the intricate numbers of equipment and all of that meta-statistic bullshit is unknown to me. I was ready to die. 

If you feel like with D'Jat the situation is different to mine, then at least understand that it didn't feel that way to me. Me, at the time, was completely unaware that I possessed very powerful gear. I thought I was the actual underdog in the situation, outnumbered and under dire straits, and got a small chance and took it to kill the actual officers. But my team was on the move: the shooting them in the head was an execution, make no mistake, but this was in the middle of a fire-fight all the same. One I was more than prepared to lose, like it always and usually happens in the average antagonist round, but this one was special. We had bigger toys. 

The only reason I got the hardsuit was because the two members of my team requested it. This is part of the logs, and something our Admin Ensign can also corroborate. They were the first one to request the hardsuit that came in our package, and then the other guy who got a different hardsuit he didn't like. The only reason I asked for a third is so that we'd look uniform, at the advice of ReadThisNamePlz after he said that we were at a disadvantage anyway because one of our players had quit. I didn't purposefully put myself in that situation, I just followed the lead.
 

36 minutes ago, WickedCybs said:

Well, let's take a look.

They are security, belonging to the corporation, beholden to a strict and regulating code set there by said Corporation. If they executed an actually unarmed person on the ground I'd say that it is a good thing that you are having that conversation with them: that you are asking them why it is that they just executed a person who was on the floor, given into their injuries. My character was, according to the administrative body handling our equipment and in the AOOC chat, essentially the CIA. Elyran intelligence. The guys with the license to kill: that is why they are Antagonists, I imagine, in this effect.

I shot three officers who fought to the teeth to try and kill me, and they succeeded. They popped my lungs, my character suffocated five minutes later. He was dead, in essence, and he barely was able to finish the job with those three before he stumbled out into the bridge, then into space, and died by some communication relay.

He died in a sort of romanticized way, apologizing to their superior officer, and just perishing. He also gunned down three security officers, walked up to them, and executed them.

That fourth person who was unarmed, it was a doctor. I never purposefully shot at them, they got hit by the spray. They also ran into maintenance. Did I give chase? No. Did my character refuse to show mercy to the Skrell, who on the ground was begging for mercy after they had hit my character several times with a laser beam? No, he didn't show them mercy. He was upset: that Skrell toasted his internal organs and led to his demise, again, five minutes later. It was all a set of very grim and brutal exchanges, but they weren't without their precedent. I am a roleplayer, even if you believe otherwise, and I don't just do things because I like red text. Everything in the right place, according to its time.

Addendum: I like to think that anyone who's played with me in this game, through my several static characters, knows that I try my best to roleplay out situations and stay true to the in-character circumstances. That adherence doesn't just go away when I happen to play an antagonist role. And the reason I don't always play them, and often keep the role in 'off', is because I respect it enough that the notion of playing an antagonist fills me with anxiety because I'm worried that I'll need to perform extra-good.

You afforded me zero the benefit of the doubt, and that obviously made me upset. I'm a person, I got upset, but I didn't call you names. I wasn't belligerent. And my passive-aggressiveness is lame at best, it didn't get in the way of explaining my pov.

Edited by Cirukcaller
typos and stuff
Link to comment
37 minutes ago, Cirukcaller said:

Sorry man, but you got the whole thing here wrong. The Ensign wasn't requesting my character to pull back, he was requesting the other member of our team to pull back. The Ensign and I, if you are to check the logs, repeatedly yelled at our third member who was at the door actively engaging security. Our original intent in this fight was to pull back and retreat further into the bridge. The Ensign himself waited with me at the XO's inner door, again, for a bit, before it became obvious that our third member wasn't paying attention and took off into the hallway. Our Ensign at the time, thankfully, is an administrator. Corroborate through them. It was ReadThisNamePlz, and they saw this unfold. You don't have to take my word for it. The same Elyran who refused to listen to the Ensign was the same guy who ended up getting mobbed last in that picture. Same players.

I don't need to take your word for it, true. Read themself was telling me you were told to go back and I saw the order that corroborates this. The only one not listening to them was you.

38 minutes ago, Cirukcaller said:

That time where I was a Unathi Officer who attacked a HoT criminal with the fireaxe you adminhelped me in the very middle of the engagement as well, and something that stuck with me was that after I answered you a couple of times you closed our conversation with a very deadpan answer at the same time that the very same antagonist I hit with the axe had essentially gained the upper hand and escaped on their ship.

No, you were talked to during the end of that after you already almost killed them. They were begging for their life and were a non-threat you almost killed. Only saved by their buddy coming in and distracting you. 

So, you've lied that I agreed with your reasoning and didn't acknowledge it either. Now you've shifted to saying you were struck by how I ahelped you in the middle of it and how deadpan my answers were. 

40 minutes ago, Cirukcaller said:

I shot three officers who fought to the teeth to try and kill me, and they succeeded. 

There was no "battle fought to the teeth" in you getting slugged once while chasing after people to kill them despite orders to reinforce your buddies, and then decapitating two people who were not shooting at you at all, almost killing a fourth as well.

51 minutes ago, Cirukcaller said:

You afforded me zero the benefit of the doubt, and that obviously made me upset. I'm a person, I got upset, but I didn't call you names. I wasn't belligerent. And my passive-aggressiveness is lame at best, it didn't get in the way of explaining my pov.

What you were saying clashed with what I directly saw. I was watching the full exchange. When you clearly do something wrong, there's not much else to do other than elaborate on the why. This is also pretty hypocritical to say after admitting earlier that you jumped to conclusions as quoted below.

1 hour ago, Cirukcaller said:

You are right when you say that it is very unfair that I claimed you had some kind of ulterior motive. I shouldn't have done that. I'm generally a very suspicious person, and when I can't coherently justify someone else's actions towards me the two conclusions left in my brain are a clear bias, or a misunderstanding. And you did not come across as confused to me at all. 

Don't act as if crafting a conspiracy, lying about our interactions and assuming the absolute worst about me is anything other than belligerent here. The only relevant things you're saying are in regards to whether your status as an antagonist gives you a justification to execute anyone in your way, and I believe you crossed a major line.

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, WickedCybs said:

I don't need to take your word for it, true. Read themself was telling me you were told to go back and I saw the order that corroborates this. The only one not listening to them was you.

Alright, I see you telling me this right now, but I'm letting you know: this is impossible. Because it was me, and ReadThisName, at that inner XO door facing towards the bridge, yelling for our guy to come back from the door. They must be mistaking me for that third Elyran who rushed out into the hallway. Like, there is no doubt here, there is no argument to make about this: I always listened, and the only time I stepped away from the Ensign was to cover them from security, where-in our shoot-out I was able to beat the officers because of my nasty suit and kill them. And this was at the very end of the bridge fight, not at the start, or through it. This was outside, as the Ensign and I were together walking down the hall towards starboard, and the stairs.

Look, I wouldn't be putting myself in ReadThisName's hands if I wasn't sure of this. I am. I listened, all the way, unless they yelled at me at some point when I was off-screen at the moment that I pushed security when the fight was over. And if that's the case, I was strictly not within view and red-text was already flying.
 

9 minutes ago, WickedCybs said:

No, you were talked to during the end of that after you already almost killed them. They were begging for their life and were a non-threat you almost killed. Only saved by their buddy coming in and distracting you. 

So, you've lied that I agreed with your reasoning and didn't acknowledge it either. Now you've shifted to saying you were struck by how I ahelped you in the middle of it and how deadpan my answers were. 

That isn't true. They weren't saved by their friend, at any moment: they didn't distract my character or have him stop in any way with their presence. I would've been able to continuously hit this person in the head and nothing would've stopped me other than my own compunction about hitting someone with an axe, and that's because the compunction was there: like I told you in that adminhelp, I didn't want to behead anyone, and I apologized at the time because I knew that it seemed that way, and it's not the kind of person I want to paint myself as. My character was set upon by them from the elevator, and the fireaxe was used as a situational mode of defense.

Look man... I haven't shifted my perspective of that conversation, nor did I lie about it: I further explained myself, because you made me harken back to the moment with the question I originally quoted you on. Stop with the cheap mental gymnastics, calling me a liar, saying that I'm shifting the truth. I'm not. It's all there, and I'd like and prefer a third party to cross-analyze this. Hopefully with our Ensign admin here to lay down some information on their POV, which I feel is vital.

 

11 minutes ago, WickedCybs said:

There was no "battle fought to the teeth" in you getting slugged once while chasing after people to kill them despite orders to reinforce your buddies, and then decapitating two people who were not shooting at you at all, almost killing a fourth as well.

No there was. We exchanged shots for quite a while in the XO's office. They even brought in that huge cannon from the armory that fires what looks like anti-tank shells, and the area where we fought actually had several used cartridges from this gun littered around. It was a long, drawn-out engagement, and you're now downgrading the gravity of the circumstances just to paint me in an even poorer light. You shouldn't be a Moderator: you're a gas lighter and a manipulator. 

Every person that I killed was a security officer who at some point shot me in that same firefight, or was the one who actually wounded me to the point of killing me. Prove otherwise. Show me beheading, executing, killing anyone that isn't a security officer at point blank like you say I did. 

15 minutes ago, WickedCybs said:

What you were saying clashed with what I directly saw. I was watching the full exchange. When you clearly do something wrong, there's not much else to do other than elaborate on the why. This is also pretty hypocritical to say after admitting earlier that you jumped to conclusions as quoted below.

You do realize that you're calling me a hypocrite for essentially admitting and humbling myself on what I did wrong? Of course I was wrong to assume that you were the person I was hitting, and that you were getting involved solely because of that. That doesn't diminish everything else. I have a legitimate claim here, a real concern, because it's not fair on me as a writer and as a player. Or so I feel.

The reason I brought back the previous adminhelp from where you derive my notes is because that's the situation where you claim I'm all about decapitating people on your ban reason and, luckily, also the one where I first caught a whiff of you being the sort of game staff who comes very strongly at people and doesn't, in this case, give them the benefit of the doubt. Also one that isn't very patient when people are still talking and typing at them. 

 

17 minutes ago, WickedCybs said:

Don't act as if crafting a conspiracy, lying about our interactions and assuming the absolute worst about me is anything other than belligerent here. The only relevant things you're saying are in regards to whether your status as an antagonist gives you a justification to execute anyone in your way, and I believe you crossed a major line.

In a different circumstance I'd say that you read my words wrong and then I'd tell you that the reason I said this is because I wanted to give you a window into my head, why I said it and thought that you were behaving in a meta-biased manner. Followed by another apology, because I like to think I'm reasonably apologetic. But I don't think you're minscontruing my words on accident: I think you're doing it on purpose. 

I also never lied about our interactions. You got my perspective of them, which you're free to refute, but it is my opinion that it's usually the one pointing fingers and declaring a liar is the liar themselves. 

Link to comment

So, I went and communicated with ReadThisNamePlz and together we went through the events. I will not be posting their perspective on them or how they feel about them, that's up to them. What I will do, however, is post these images as they told me to do so and, honestly, why not. It adds perspective, and that's a good thing.

image.png.27045647f60fe9ea8e4fb1e4c8496093.png

This is a picture to illustrate the beginning shoot-out. My character, Ciruk, remains by the door and arranges the lockers in such a way as to have retreating cover from the window shooting. Our Ensign, Read, is by the door yelling at the Chosen of Muhammad to pull back, while the Chosen occasionally steps out and flanks sec who's lasering us through the windows. Ensign gets pegged a lot here, as well as the Chosen. At one point he gets hit raw with the PEAC but doesn't give a shit.

image.png.1a2e3305c2bf48e406b929a85a9c5582.png

Eventually the Chosen takes off, to the left. Ensign and I stay in the XO's office for about thirty seconds, which is an eternity, one spent getting pelted by lasers and trying to communicate with the Chosen. The Chosen doesn't answer. The Ensign made a judgment call: we need to save Muhamad. They rush out, I'm right behind them. As we're running through, we stand there for a moment, trying to get a feel for which way he went: Left, or Down? As we deliberate, sec boys roll up from behind us, shut the airlocks, and begin lasering our asses.

Now it's me who's made to make a judgment call: go left, or go right. Ensign goes left, since they're closer to cover, but I'm fucked. I can't fire back because I have ballistics, and I can't get to cover before eating 50 lasers, so I decide to push them, buying the Ensign time in the process.

image.png.a15212d5d1c27fb2b7a25f4d541cc53d.png

Here, my Rifleman separates from the boss, who's now chasing after the indestructible chosen. Security is shitting me up with bullets, and I'm shitting them back, but it's looking very grim regardless. Winning or not, everyone involved in the shoot-out to the right is a dead man walking. 

image.thumb.png.2084576a6270cac04104caf3d8199911.png

Stepping back into the XO's office front and the hallway in question. Now the airlocks are out of the way proper, and I'm laying actual fire on sec. Because of my hardsuit, and the 7.62 being really good in general with burst fire, I win out the exchange. They begin to retreat up, and just in time too, since a Unathi backup was just rolling up with a laser rifle.

image.png.b2f4b82343da7f99b08cb7770ac6ccc1.png

Unathi and I trade for a while, but he gets had too. It is at this point that things get very grim for them. The Unathi stumbles to the left, falls over with the other sec boys who're currently trying to field-dress themselves, and I roll up and proceed to shoot them in this state. They aren't fighting back at this point: they're trying to stop themselves from dying. Once they've been brought down, and they're gasping, and grunting, and in horrible pain, my character rolls up and finishes it. I won't say he did it out of mercy, but rather anger and resentment. 

It is also why he stepped on the Skrell's head on the way back down, the fourth, and last security officer. They weren't my character's work though, they got dodung'd by the Chosen I think. 

TLDR: The situation developed the way it did because our Chosen's balls rolled so hard there were no magboots on station with enough grounding to keep him from sliding into the hallway and murdering security and everything in their way. The Ensign chased after them to try and help them, and I followed after the Ensign to cover them.

If our Chosen wasn't so much a badass and listened to our Ensign, we would've retreated to the Bridge as was the original plan. I was a victim of the circumstances, and outnumbered, and thinking that also outgunned, and on the throes of death, my character killed his enemies and then died himself, after, fittingly. This wasn't gamey. This was roleplay, unfolding on its own, and while cruel and brutal in the end, it had rhyme and reason. 

Edited by Cirukcaller
typos and stuff
Link to comment

Just to add context to your battle debrief, I was the other Elyran and due to the PEAC and a frag I was deaf until the Ensign and I got back into our ship to recover and regroup. We were getting other sec coming up the main stairs and I chased them down till they fled into medical. 

Edited by Evandorf
Keeping things just to the details
Link to comment

Hello, I play the Tajara officer you call out by name here and I also submitted the ahelp to figure out if any of this was kosher or not, since I wasn't really sure myself if it was within reason for heads to start getting popped like bubble wrap. It felt more like a CM round than Aurora. Either way, I want to clear up a couple of things.

10 hours ago, Cirukcaller said:

You also boinked me for the same reason in the past for attacking the same player, one of the officers, Azhara in their Antagonist character, as a Unathi officer myself when they ambushed me at an elevator.

I don't play antagonists more than once in a blue moon, and the last time I did (aside from being converted into one by revs/culties) was quite a while ago. I don't know what Tajara you're talking about, but it wasn't even me, and I don't appreciate your insinuation here that this is some kind of persistent vendetta or administrative shielding on my part. Thankfully, I don't even have to justify this since any investigation into that round will prove it was some other ckey playing whatever M'sai antagonist that was, but I want to reiterate that I am wholeheartedly unhappy about this veiled attempt at painting me as a consistent problem for you or something.

10 hours ago, Cirukcaller said:

Here, D'jar Sa'Kuate did the same thing, the exact very same thing, to a fallen Elyran soldier. Shot them three times in the head while they were on the ground, in the middle of a shoot-out. The Elyran was out. They weren't a threat anymore, active. Do I think they are wrong for doing this? Fuck no: he was finishing the job, and then moved on to acquire another target. Summarizing doing that as him just, "Being gamey and decap-prone" is an incredible injustice. Are you going to ban him from playing security? The situation let him to shooting that hostile who was still on the ground in the head, and ending the fight to the best of his abilities.

This is just whataboutism even without context; with context, you're essentially complaining that the crew responded in kind after you started this behaviour. What do you expect? Yes, the crew is probably going to field execute the antagonists when they've deadchecked somewhere in the vicinity of 5+ people in cold blood already.

Beyond that, I'm not really going to pick through the majority of your creative writing exercise here because I frankly don't want to, don't care to, and don't have to. I think the fact that you're treating a staff complaint like an opportunity to stroke off how 'badass' your merc team was speaks for itself, honestly.

The hardsuits were armoured to the point where nothing on the ship could even properly penetrate them except the crew armoury rifles on AP mode and shotgun slugs, and when you have assault rifles on full auto as well I can understand wanting to left click everything in sight until you wipe the ship, but please don't tie a ribbon around a donkey and tell me it's a horse. I don't feel like my roleplay experience was particularly enriched by your actions and I am not really sure why going so far out of your way to explicitly permakill as many people as you did was as vital to your narrative as you say it is. I don't buy the excuse, and I'd respect you more if you just had the balls to admit that you popped heads off because you were in a position to. I could accept that as something that happens in the heat of the moment, but what I don't accept is that it was entirely story-driven and that you had no OOC stake in it, and I think it's insulting that you expect me to believe that it was all to craft a grand story -- doubly so when you can't even get through your own explanation of events without embellishing it like you're writing a novel.

I would counter-complaint you for the veiled 'Azhara as their Antagonist character' (whatever that means?) accusation, since I think that's a clear attempt at smearing foul play on me, but instead I am just gonna ask @MattAtlas to address that as part of this overall investigation or whatever.

Link to comment

Okay, I'm gonna set some ground rules.

1. I do not and cannot care about any positional information here. As this is a complaint, I can't confirm or corroborate any of this beyond "he said she said", and it is on the player to make sure that their positioning is correct and doesn't lead to any misinformation in case of a complaint or if in an adminhelp where the staff member just logged on and hasn't seen whatever fight broke out.

2. I'm going to focus on the gameplay aspects of the mentioned executions, as that's the main issue we take with them -- it's generally just shit to execute people beyond where there is an actual solid need (some dude keeps getting back up and trying to kill people, like a ling or a hardsuited guy and there's no real means to immobilize them).

10 hours ago, Cirukcaller said:

That guy was being mobbed by over six people. It would've taken one person to grab them and keep them in a hold until zipties and-or cable-coils arrived. It's been done many times, but regardless,

For the record, being grabbed does not stop hardsuit users from using their integrated gun (which the Elyrans did use, a lot). So, there is no real way to stop someone in a hardsuit without killing them in this particular situation.

6 hours ago, Cirukcaller said:

I was a victim of the circumstances, and outnumbered, and thinking that also outgunned, and on the throes of death, my character killed his enemies and then died himself, after, fittingly. This wasn't gamey. This was roleplay, unfolding on its own, and while cruel and brutal in the end, it had rhyme and reason. 

Here is where I take issue: this was a lot more deliberate than you make it sound.


[03:01:01.736] ATTACK: Ciruk/Rlfman. Al-Zaheed attempted to remove a ballistic helmet from omicega/(Azhara Shas'kui) (INTENT: HARM)
[03:01:02.693] ATTACK: Ciruk/Rlfman. Al-Zaheed shot (/obj/item/projectile/bullet/rifle/a762) *no key*/(Azhara Shas'kui) (INTENT: HARM)
[03:01:03.065] ATTACK: Ciruk/Rlfman. Al-Zaheed shot (/obj/item/projectile/bullet/rifle/a762) *no key*/(Azhara Shas'kui) (INTENT: HARM)
[03:01:03.463] ATTACK: Ciruk/Rlfman. Al-Zaheed shot (/obj/item/projectile/bullet/rifle/a762) *no key*/(Azhara Shas'kui) (INTENT: HARM)

You purposefully removed someone's helmet in order to decap them. This wasn't accidental nor a necessity (and you stated in your ticket response that you did it 'in a rush') - you had the time to sit still for 3 seconds to remove their helmet and then headgib them, which doesn't seem very necessary to me. And while it may make sense for characters to go for the permanent kill, that isn't necessarily how we judge whether things are fine or not. This is mostly a gameplay thing we're talking about, where executing people when there's no need to is basically just a net detriment for the round. And we do bwoink officers for this just as much as we bwoink antags.

To take a look at another execution:

Spoiler


[02:59:57.833] ATTACK: The unloved rock/(Hossl Suazra) shot (/obj/item/projectile/bullet/rifle/a556) Ciruk/Rlfman. Al-Zaheed (INTENT: HARM)
[02:59:58.944] ATTACK: Ciruk/Rlfman. Al-Zaheed shot (/obj/item/projectile/bullet/rifle/a762) The unloved rock/(Hossl Suazra) (INTENT: HARM)
[02:59:59.359] ATTACK: Ciruk/Rlfman. Al-Zaheed shot (/obj/item/projectile/bullet/rifle/a762) The unloved rock/(Hossl Suazra) (INTENT: HARM)
[03:00:01.537] ATTACK: Ciruk/Rlfman. Al-Zaheed shot (/obj/item/projectile/bullet/rifle/a762) The unloved rock/(Hossl Suazra) (INTENT: HARM)
[03:00:02.162] ATTACK: Ciruk/Rlfman. Al-Zaheed shot (/obj/item/projectile/bullet/rifle/a762) The unloved rock/(Hossl Suazra) (INTENT: HARM)
[03:00:02.318] ATTACK: Ciruk/Rlfman. Al-Zaheed shot (/obj/item/projectile/bullet/rifle/a762) The unloved rock/(Hossl Suazra) (INTENT: HARM)
[03:00:02.342] ATTACK: The unloved rock/(Hossl Suazra) shot (/obj/item/projectile/bullet/rifle/a556) Ciruk/Rlfman. Al-Zaheed (INTENT: HARM)
[03:00:05.257] ATTACK: Ciruk/Rlfman. Al-Zaheed shot (/obj/item/projectile/bullet/rifle/a762) The unloved rock/(Hossl Suazra) (INTENT: HARM)
[03:00:05.591] ATTACK: Ciruk/Rlfman. Al-Zaheed shot (/obj/item/projectile/bullet/rifle/a762) The unloved rock/(Hossl Suazra) (INTENT: HARM)
[03:00:07.390] ATTACK: The unloved rock/(Hossl Suazra) shot (/obj/item/projectile/bullet/rifle/a556) Ciruk/Rlfman. Al-Zaheed (INTENT: HARM)
[03:00:07.663] ATTACK: Ciruk/Rlfman. Al-Zaheed shot (/obj/item/projectile/bullet/rifle/a762) The unloved rock/(Hossl Suazra) (INTENT: HARM) <-- this is where they went down
[03:00:31.528] ATTACK: Ciruk/Rlfman. Al-Zaheed shot (/obj/item/projectile/bullet/rifle/a762) The unloved rock/(Hossl Suazra) (INTENT: HARM)
[03:00:31.900] ATTACK: Ciruk/Rlfman. Al-Zaheed shot (/obj/item/projectile/bullet/rifle/a762) The unloved rock/(Hossl Suazra) (INTENT: HARM)
[03:00:32.177] ATTACK: Ciruk/Rlfman. Al-Zaheed shot (/obj/item/projectile/bullet/rifle/a762) The unloved rock/(Hossl Suazra) (INTENT: HARM)
[03:00:33.814] ATTACK: Ciruk/Rlfman. Al-Zaheed shot (/obj/item/projectile/bullet/rifle/a762) The unloved rock/(Hossl Suazra) (INTENT: HARM)
[03:00:34.065] ATTACK: Ciruk/Rlfman. Al-Zaheed shot (/obj/item/projectile/bullet/rifle/a762) The unloved rock/(Hossl Suazra) (INTENT: HARM)
[03:00:35.658] ATTACK: Ciruk/Rlfman. Al-Zaheed shot (/obj/item/projectile/bullet/rifle/a762) The unloved rock/(Hossl Suazra) (INTENT: HARM)
[03:00:35.993] ATTACK: Ciruk/Rlfman. Al-Zaheed shot (/obj/item/projectile/bullet/rifle/a762) The unloved rock/(Hossl Suazra) (INTENT: HARM)
[03:00:37.015] ACCESS: Logout: *no key*/(Hossl Suazra) <-- this is where they died
[03:00:37.015] ACCESS: Login: The unloved rock/(Hossl Suazra) from XXX || BYOND v514
[03:00:37.137] ACCESS: Logout: *no key*/(Hossl Suazra)
[03:00:37.137] ACCESS: Login: theunlovedrock/(Hossl Suazra) from Xxx || BYOND v514
[03:00:37.157] ATTACK: Ciruk/Rlfman. Al-Zaheed shot (/obj/item/projectile/bullet/rifle/a762) *no key*/(Hossl Suazra) (INTENT: HARM)
[03:00:37.483] ATTACK: Ciruk/Rlfman. Al-Zaheed shot (/obj/item/projectile/bullet/rifle/a762) *no key*/(Hossl Suazra) (INTENT: HARM)
[03:00:37.850] ATTACK: Ciruk/Rlfman. Al-Zaheed shot (/obj/item/projectile/bullet/rifle/a762) *no key*/(Hossl Suazra) (INTENT: HARM)

This all just seems unnecessary. And I checked the logs surrounding these, by the way -- you were not being shot at. These were deliberate executions, which I do not think are okay in the context of the round. So I have to ask again what exactly the reason behind this was -- was it just preventing them from being rezzed, was it roleplay, was it driving your story?

The hardsuits being handed out with NOBODY, somehow, knowing how powerful they were is a separate issue that I will handle later.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Omicega said:

Beyond that, I'm not really going to pick through the majority of your creative writing exercise here because I frankly don't want to, don't care to, and don't have to. I think the fact that you're treating a staff complaint like an opportunity to stroke off how 'badass' your merc team was speaks for itself, honestly.

If I had any want to stroke how much of a badass I may presume I am, I wouldn't be handing out all of the credit over to the hardsuit. I was essentially untouchable. Had I been wearing anything other than the suit I had, my character would've died at the hallway. Was that not clear enough? How many times do I have to say it, that under any normal circumstance I would've just been another dead antagonist for going loud, outnumbered, and usually outgunned? Summarizing the rest of my clarifications as writing exercise is kind of fucked up, by the way, but I won't even get into that.

My accusation wasn't veiled, it was pretty straight forward: it also wasn't an accusation. I said that I had no proof of it quite literally on the first few lines of the thread's beginning, and explained it as a 'feeling'. It's your right to make of that what you will. 

 

4 hours ago, MattAtlas said:

For the record, being grabbed does not stop hardsuit users from using their integrated gun (which the Elyrans did use, a lot). So, there is no real way to stop someone in a hardsuit without killing them in this particular situation.

I think I was the only one with a hardsuit gun, our boy in this example only had a netting gun. The same one the ninja gets? Otherwise he was just using normal, conventional weapons. I could be mistaken though.

 

4 hours ago, MattAtlas said:

Here is where I take issue: this was a lot more deliberate than you make it sound.


[03:01:01.736] ATTACK: Ciruk/Rlfman. Al-Zaheed attempted to remove a ballistic helmet from omicega/(Azhara Shas'kui) (INTENT: HARM)
[03:01:02.693] ATTACK: Ciruk/Rlfman. Al-Zaheed shot (/obj/item/projectile/bullet/rifle/a762) *no key*/(Azhara Shas'kui) (INTENT: HARM)
[03:01:03.065] ATTACK: Ciruk/Rlfman. Al-Zaheed shot (/obj/item/projectile/bullet/rifle/a762) *no key*/(Azhara Shas'kui) (INTENT: HARM)
[03:01:03.463] ATTACK: Ciruk/Rlfman. Al-Zaheed shot (/obj/item/projectile/bullet/rifle/a762) *no key*/(Azhara Shas'kui) (INTENT: HARM)

You purposefully removed someone's helmet in order to decap them. This wasn't accidental nor a necessity (and you stated in your ticket response that you did it 'in a rush') - you had the time to sit still for 3 seconds to remove their helmet and then headgib them, which doesn't seem very necessary to me. And while it may make sense for characters to go for the permanent kill, that isn't necessarily how we judge whether things are fine or not. This is mostly a gameplay thing we're talking about, where executing people when there's no need to is basically just a net detriment for the round. And we do bwoink officers for this just as much as we bwoink antags.

To take a look at another execution:

  Reveal hidden contents


[02:59:57.833] ATTACK: The unloved rock/(Hossl Suazra) shot (/obj/item/projectile/bullet/rifle/a556) Ciruk/Rlfman. Al-Zaheed (INTENT: HARM)
[02:59:58.944] ATTACK: Ciruk/Rlfman. Al-Zaheed shot (/obj/item/projectile/bullet/rifle/a762) The unloved rock/(Hossl Suazra) (INTENT: HARM)
[02:59:59.359] ATTACK: Ciruk/Rlfman. Al-Zaheed shot (/obj/item/projectile/bullet/rifle/a762) The unloved rock/(Hossl Suazra) (INTENT: HARM)
[03:00:01.537] ATTACK: Ciruk/Rlfman. Al-Zaheed shot (/obj/item/projectile/bullet/rifle/a762) The unloved rock/(Hossl Suazra) (INTENT: HARM)
[03:00:02.162] ATTACK: Ciruk/Rlfman. Al-Zaheed shot (/obj/item/projectile/bullet/rifle/a762) The unloved rock/(Hossl Suazra) (INTENT: HARM)
[03:00:02.318] ATTACK: Ciruk/Rlfman. Al-Zaheed shot (/obj/item/projectile/bullet/rifle/a762) The unloved rock/(Hossl Suazra) (INTENT: HARM)
[03:00:02.342] ATTACK: The unloved rock/(Hossl Suazra) shot (/obj/item/projectile/bullet/rifle/a556) Ciruk/Rlfman. Al-Zaheed (INTENT: HARM)
[03:00:05.257] ATTACK: Ciruk/Rlfman. Al-Zaheed shot (/obj/item/projectile/bullet/rifle/a762) The unloved rock/(Hossl Suazra) (INTENT: HARM)
[03:00:05.591] ATTACK: Ciruk/Rlfman. Al-Zaheed shot (/obj/item/projectile/bullet/rifle/a762) The unloved rock/(Hossl Suazra) (INTENT: HARM)
[03:00:07.390] ATTACK: The unloved rock/(Hossl Suazra) shot (/obj/item/projectile/bullet/rifle/a556) Ciruk/Rlfman. Al-Zaheed (INTENT: HARM)
[03:00:07.663] ATTACK: Ciruk/Rlfman. Al-Zaheed shot (/obj/item/projectile/bullet/rifle/a762) The unloved rock/(Hossl Suazra) (INTENT: HARM) <-- this is where they went down
[03:00:31.528] ATTACK: Ciruk/Rlfman. Al-Zaheed shot (/obj/item/projectile/bullet/rifle/a762) The unloved rock/(Hossl Suazra) (INTENT: HARM)
[03:00:31.900] ATTACK: Ciruk/Rlfman. Al-Zaheed shot (/obj/item/projectile/bullet/rifle/a762) The unloved rock/(Hossl Suazra) (INTENT: HARM)
[03:00:32.177] ATTACK: Ciruk/Rlfman. Al-Zaheed shot (/obj/item/projectile/bullet/rifle/a762) The unloved rock/(Hossl Suazra) (INTENT: HARM)
[03:00:33.814] ATTACK: Ciruk/Rlfman. Al-Zaheed shot (/obj/item/projectile/bullet/rifle/a762) The unloved rock/(Hossl Suazra) (INTENT: HARM)
[03:00:34.065] ATTACK: Ciruk/Rlfman. Al-Zaheed shot (/obj/item/projectile/bullet/rifle/a762) The unloved rock/(Hossl Suazra) (INTENT: HARM)
[03:00:35.658] ATTACK: Ciruk/Rlfman. Al-Zaheed shot (/obj/item/projectile/bullet/rifle/a762) The unloved rock/(Hossl Suazra) (INTENT: HARM)
[03:00:35.993] ATTACK: Ciruk/Rlfman. Al-Zaheed shot (/obj/item/projectile/bullet/rifle/a762) The unloved rock/(Hossl Suazra) (INTENT: HARM)
[03:00:37.015] ACCESS: Logout: *no key*/(Hossl Suazra) <-- this is where they died
[03:00:37.015] ACCESS: Login: The unloved rock/(Hossl Suazra) from XXX || BYOND v514
[03:00:37.137] ACCESS: Logout: *no key*/(Hossl Suazra)
[03:00:37.137] ACCESS: Login: theunlovedrock/(Hossl Suazra) from Xxx || BYOND v514
[03:00:37.157] ATTACK: Ciruk/Rlfman. Al-Zaheed shot (/obj/item/projectile/bullet/rifle/a762) *no key*/(Hossl Suazra) (INTENT: HARM)
[03:00:37.483] ATTACK: Ciruk/Rlfman. Al-Zaheed shot (/obj/item/projectile/bullet/rifle/a762) *no key*/(Hossl Suazra) (INTENT: HARM)
[03:00:37.850] ATTACK: Ciruk/Rlfman. Al-Zaheed shot (/obj/item/projectile/bullet/rifle/a762) *no key*/(Hossl Suazra) (INTENT: HARM)

This all just seems unnecessary. And I checked the logs surrounding these, by the way -- you were not being shot at. These were deliberate executions, which I do not think are okay in the context of the round. So I have to ask again what exactly the reason behind this was -- was it just preventing them from being rezzed, was it roleplay, was it driving your story?

The hardsuits being handed out with NOBODY, somehow, knowing how powerful they were is a separate issue that I will handle later.

In the second post to my answer to WickedCybs, I wrote that at this point the sec fireteam was too injured to fight back. They had gone down. They were licking their wounds, trying to keep themselves alive, and I rolled up on them and shot them as they were tending to themselves. This wasn't, however, a triage situation where they went back to some medical back-up location where doctors were treating them. No, two seconds before they were there in that picture they were shooting at me: this was a, "I drop my weapons, and proceed to pull a medkit out of my satchel and heal myself as the person who shot me is still around the corner."

The reason I removed the helmet from the Tajar is because it was ballistic. My bullets didn't seem to be affecting them, and I didn't do this on anyone else because their helmets weren't able to withstand the rounds. I had fired at them before but my bullets didn't seem to be working as effectively, so I pulled it off to burst-fire them in the head. If I hadn't been burst-firing, and instead single-shot firing, the result would've been the same: they would've died, and they would've retained their heads. My goal here wasn't to behead anyone. My character wanted them dead.

It is very confusing to me, by the way, that there's this remaining fixation on me wanting to behead people. Why? There's no cloning in this server, there's no reviving people after they're dead headless or not, I don't see why you'd think this is some special and gamey method from me to keep people permanently out of the game as an antagonist. It is not. The same result would've been achieved if I shot them in the chest, but the head was just more ideal of a solution. It is almost more realistic to quickly unstrap someone's headgear than dress them down. Would it have been fine to just take off their whole plate carrier and burst their chest instead? At some point they just feel like semantics, boss.

 

4 hours ago, MattAtlas said:

This all just seems unnecessary. And I checked the logs surrounding these, by the way -- you were not being shot at. These were deliberate executions, which I do not think are okay in the context of the round. So I have to ask again what exactly the reason behind this was -- was it just preventing them from being rezzed, was it roleplay, was it driving your story?

So, as I said before, these people getting shot here is right at the end of the shoot-out. It is what ended it. In that last 'vignette' of images you see there, my character is pushing back two officers, heavily injuring them. They run up in the holodeck's direction, at which point a Unathi officer shows up, and the officer engages him too. As he pushes up to the Unathi, he finds them all curled up by the tree below the Holodeck's entrance trying to heal themselves. The Unathi has gone down, the rest of them are trying to heal each other in desperation, keep themselves from dying. My character refuses this, shoots them still. It's very fucked up, everything involved, real fucked. But it was a continuous result of an on-going shoot-out, it wasn't me staking them out, seeking them out, or otherwise going out of my way to do anything. This was the fight.

It was a point A, to point B, thing, and if they had just continued to walk away instead of healing themselves right around the corner as the battle raged on this wouldn't have happened. It was their stubbornness to remain or their inability to leave due to many injuries. 

That officer Hossl Suazra was one such officer. If you follow close track to the timeline of their harming, you'll see there that I engaged them in a matching fashion as the situational image progresses from the one previous to the last, and then the last one. The officer is pushed back, injured. He falls down in the garden under Holodeck. 20 seconds of me fighting his Unathi fellow officer ensue, where he's receiving medical help or just laying there while the other officer, the Tajara Azhara, heal themselves. After those 20 seconds, the Unathi dies, my character rolls up to them, and shoots them while they're dying on the floor. It is why the point of going down, and the point of being dead, are far apart by seconds. A less-than-a-minute thing, because the shoot-out ended in less than a minute after that point. See, everything is connected closely?

If I had downed them, then left, and returned five minutes later to finish the job at the Medbay, I'd understand feeling some kind of way about it. But I cannot emphasise enough how this was an active situation brought upon my character because of the shoot-out, they didn't seek it out. If I was being blasted by several officers, I like to think I'd be in such an adrenal state of stress and survival instinct that in my self-defense I wouldn't hinder myself from shooting them after I've managed to topple them over. But I don't really know, never experienced it, my life is decent. 

So yeah, it was part of the roleplay. It wasn't brought about by some bloodthirst in your player, by some desire to harm-intent anything, it was just how an actual shoot-out developed. One that wasn't started by my character, either. They just happened to have really strong gear and were able to finish it. I've played many antagonist rounds,

Edited by Cirukcaller
typos words and stuff
Link to comment
19 hours ago, Cirukcaller said:

It is very confusing to me, by the way, that there's this remaining fixation on me wanting to behead people. Why? There's no cloning in this server, there's no reviving people after they're dead headless or not, I don't see why you'd think this is some special and gamey method from me to keep people permanently out of the game as an antagonist. It is not. The same result would've been achieved if I shot them in the chest, but the head was just more ideal of a solution. It is almost more realistic to quickly unstrap someone's headgear than dress them down. Would it have been fine to just take off their whole plate carrier and burst their chest instead? At some point they just feel like semantics, boss.

This semantics problem is a misunderstanding and I don't know why you took that specifically from my statement. Here is what I said:

23 hours ago, MattAtlas said:

You purposefully removed someone's helmet in order to decap them. This wasn't accidental nor a necessity (and you stated in your ticket response that you did it 'in a rush') - you had the time to sit still for 3 seconds to remove their helmet and then headgib them, which doesn't seem very necessary to me. And while it may make sense for characters to go for the permanent kill, that isn't necessarily how we judge whether things are fine or not. This is mostly a gameplay thing we're talking about, where executing people when there's no need to is basically just a net detriment for the round. And we do bwoink officers for this just as much as we bwoink antags.

This whole paragraph focuses on executions, not decapitations, which are written just as a synonym of an execution (which is what you did). You killing someone by bursting them 25 times in the chest would have prompted the same paragraph, except with the words "bursting them 25 times in the chest" instead of "decapitation". If you were to remove their chest armour and do that, I would still focus on you removing chest armour, because that means that the execution wasn't an urgent necessity.

Roleplay justifications only work in certain contexts -- let's say maybe you're playing an antagonist, someone kills your character's best friend and you want to blow their brains out. That's totally fine. You're a mercenary and someone's trying to actively kill you no matter what, they got back up after going down and are shooting on you? Sure, you can assume they're a threat that can't be contained. You need to kill an officer because it's 1v4 and you can't afford ANYONE getting back up? Depends on round context, but that can be fine. Starting a firefight and "wanting to finish it" isn't something I would consider a reasonable roleplay justification, personally, especially considering the giga gear you guys had: if we allowed this kind of thing, executions would snowball a lot. They would become way more common simply because people would be able to justify it with "I want to finish the firefight and it's the natural conclusion", or some variation thereof. The mercenaries are firing at security? Security would be able to use your same exact excuse and get away with it, simply because we'd be setting precedent that executions are the natural ending to a firefight. And, like I said many times in the past, precedent-setting is something that does happen in complaints, and a lot.

The benefit of the doubt goes both ways. Security has to give the antags the benefit of the doubt by not instantly executing them with flimsy reasoning (we bwoink people for this, a lot, before anyone says we don't). Antagonists should also keep in mind the round flow when considering whether to execute people or not -- gameplay is much enhanced when medical has something to do instead of just bagging people up. And there are other ways of making sure that security doesn't come back, mind, such as taking their guns/armour, which you all were in the position of doing. If a traitor, for example, wanted to take out an officer and had no choice but to execute them because they don't have the time? That'd be fine. But when it's 3 mercs with ultra armour up against security who is 2-3 officers down? That reasoning can't be applied.

The shootout by that point was already over and I don't see the need for kill confirming, basically, nor do I think the given justification is particularly appropriate. Normally, escalation-wise this would be a temporary antagonist ban, but the fact that you didn't see the issue in the ticket is what led to it becoming a permanent one. And I can't say that justification is wrong, really. Accusing modmins of being personally involved and they're the person you killed is also kind of just bad faith as well. You shouldn't really be saying that. Furthermore, the ending of the ticket where you were calling Cybs hypocritical is also not okay. Each case is different and just because one wasn't handled due to the modmins being busy or because it was ruled okay doesn't mean you can just go around calling staff hypocritical with no context.

20 hours ago, Cirukcaller said:

They were licking their wounds, trying to keep themselves alive, and I rolled up on them and shot them as they were tending to themselves. This wasn't, however, a triage situation where they went back to some medical back-up location where doctors were treating them. No, two seconds before they were there in that picture they were shooting at me: this was a, "I drop my weapons, and proceed to pull a medkit out of my satchel and heal myself as the person who shot me is still around the corner."

This is also a major assumption on your end, that they would treat their wounds and immediately shoot you when they were basically knocking at death's door. Just because someone shot you before doesn't mean they'll do it again instantly and we generally tell people to have some restraint in these cases, as mentioned before -- you have the means to do so as an antag, by aiming at people and telling them to stay down, for example, none of which were explored. Keep in mind also that these people had 7.62 wounds and those are GRIEVOUS to the point where you are ENTIRELY DISABLED and functionally cannot go to the medbay alone, hence the need for them to treat themselves right there or kick the bucket. Doctors also aren't expected to go into active combat situations to treat people, as a 7.62 round will basically game end them as a stray. I can see in the logs that a non-combatant was also shot, hence why people were reluctant to go and roller bed security to medical or whatever.

This complaint is considered handled and the ruling is sticking. I will be closing it in 24 hours.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, MattAtlas said:

You need to kill an officer because it's 1v4 and you can't afford ANYONE getting back up? Depends on round context, but that can be fine.

This is essentially what it was. All of those people were shot seconds from the moment they went down: it wasn't about killing them for the sake of gaining satisfaction or taking them out of the round. It was the most efficient method to end the gunfight and keep them from standing up and shooting me more times. I was fighting four people, four officers. Even if the fourth was downed by another Elyran, that same fourth officer, the Skrell, still was the one that did the most damage to me. 

 

 

4 hours ago, MattAtlas said:

Accusing modmins of being personally involved and they're the person you killed is also kind of just bad faith as well.

I know it is. I gave my apologies earlier in the thread, in one of my posts: I knew I shouldn't have done this. And anything else I said on the matter after this was me explaining my mentality behind saying it to begin with. I even prefaced the thread with my reasoning saying that I possessed no proof of it, only that it was a feeling, because it happens to be that metagaming claims are very hard to prove and I legitimately can't prove such a thing. More-over, it is just distasteful as a whole: it is a roleplay server, metagaming would just ruin the fun for the person in specific, so I should've had the sense to not even mention it. But I was upset, and I did, and again: I shouldn't have. Hindsight 20/20 and whatnot. 

 

 

4 hours ago, MattAtlas said:

you have the means to do so as an antag, by aiming at people and telling them to stay down, for example, none of which were explored.

I've played in this server as an antagonist many times, it's been several years. Through those several years I explored these options in sensible moments and did them when it felt plausible, and feasible. It is my way-to-go, and how I usually do things, only that this time, in this fight, that never felt as though available. The whole endeavor developed purely through mechanics, and shooting, and people trying really hard to kill each other. At no point did it feel like there was room for this.

I feel as though if I were the person I'm being portrayed as here I would've given this server, and your administration team as a whole, a lot more trouble than I have during the many times I've had the privilege of playing here. 

But listen, it's become obvious to me that you guys have a perspective that isn't changing and I have my own, and my view on how I was treated by WickedCybs isn't resonating with anyone, so I'd like to call a conclusion to this, it's beginning to feel pointless, and no one wants to read my creative writing exercises. Sorry for the trouble. 

Edited by Cirukcaller
typos and framing and stuff
Link to comment
36 minutes ago, Cirukcaller said:

I've played in this server as an antagonist many times, it's been several years. Through those several years I explored these options in sensible moments and did them when it felt plausible, and feasible. It is my way-to-go, and how I usually do things, only that this time, in this fight, that never felt as though available. The whole endeavor developed purely through mechanics, and shooting, and people trying really hard to kill each other. At no point did it feel like there was room for this.

I feel as though if I were the person I'm being portrayed as here I would've given this server, and your administration team as a whole, a lot more trouble than I have during the many times I've had the privilege of playing here. 

But listen, it's become obvious to me that you guys have a perspective that isn't changing and I have my own, and my view on how I was treated by WickedCybs isn't resonating with anyone, so I'd like to call a conclusion to this, it's beginning to feel pointless, and no one wants to read my creative writing exercises. Sorry for the trouble. 

To be clear, I'm only looking at this complaint from the lens of "was the ruling fine". I'm not abscribing any sort of label like "fragger" or "CM player" to you, nor do I intend to -- if we thought you were beyond redemption or anything of the sort, it would've been an unappealable permaban. But it isn't, and you're free to appeal it and say that you understand the problem. Maybe Cybs will require some additional playtime, but at the end of the day, we all know that these things happen to everyone. Most staff members have had a note or warning for accidentally going nuts once too.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...