Complaint - Ana Roh'hi'tin

[Susan]

I am aware Ana is a character. Yes, sometimes I know her aggression is uncalled for - but that's her character. She has a short temper and a hair trigger and sometimes the hostility is not invited. But that is what I'm trying to accomplish. She is a bitter security veteran with very little love for the job or the crew and sometimes her anger gets the better of her and she goads conflict or creates it.

But that's what I want to happen. My opinions about antagonists have nothing to do with Ana or this complaint as far as I'm concerned - I don't see why wanting the revolver nerfed (because it can one shot decap, how is that cool) or wanting more extended makes me Hitler or whatever.

Ana is a hostile, bitter character to most characters she does not know. That is her personality. I'm not offended you don't like interacting with her, because honestly, if she doesn't like you why would someone purposely seek out contact with a hostile, unpleasant person? I don't think this is a bad thing. But I do not like the constant whining about 'b-b-but lethal force' or 'i was arrested ban she' that make up 100% of complaints against me. Yeah, she insulted her first. Yeah, she applied the law despite having started it. Was it not nice? Of course it wasn't. But Ana isn't nice. She's a hardass.

And if other characters hate her for it, I am okay with that. That's relationship and development.

[Erik Tiber]

I am aware Ana is a character. Yes, sometimes I know her aggression is uncalled for - but that's her character. She has a short temper and a hair trigger and sometimes the hostility is not invited. But that is what I'm trying to accomplish. She is a bitter security veteran with very little love for the job or the crew and sometimes her anger gets the better of her and she goads conflict or creates it.

Or sometimes she goes on a rampage, not as a security officer, killing handcuffed fleeing suspects.

But that's what I want to happen. My opinions about antagonists have nothing to do with Ana or this complaint as far as I'm concerned - I don't see why wanting the revolver nerfed (because it can one shot decap, how is that cool) or wanting more extended makes me Hitler or whatever.

Ana is a hostile, bitter character to most characters she does not know. That is her personality. I'm not offended you don't like interacting with her, because honestly, if she doesn't like you why would someone purposely seek out contact with a hostile, unpleasant person? I don't think this is a bad thing. But I do not like the constant whining about 'b-b-but lethal force' or 'i was arrested ban she' that make up 100% of complaints against me. Yeah, she insulted her first. Yeah, she applied the law despite having started it. Was it not nice? Of course it wasn't. But Ana isn't nice. She's a hardass.

I think calls of "b-b-but lethal force" are rather valid if the character in question is not supposed to be out arresting people and is going on a psychotic rampage, killing people with little reason, and acting in a manner that would frankly be worthy of federal intervention if this actually happened in real life.

Like if Ana doesn't ever respect anyone, and constantly acts in an abbrasive manner, and constantly uses excessive force, and constantly goes beyond the parameters of her job to use said force, and is known for ignoring orders if it means she can't use excessive force or engage in whatever petty act of revenge she wants, there may be a problem.

And if other characters hate her for it, I am okay with that. That's relationship and development.

Yes, except she's blatantly worthy of being removed from her position given her long history of gross misbehavior. It's somewhat strange if you can't see how her behavior is literally beyond the pale.

[Jamini]

I'm not going to touch on this very much more, except to say the following:

Ana Ka'rima/Issek/Ro'hi'tin has long been an acquaintance/friend of my own character since both of our old Baystation days. The two of them, and sue and myself, have a fair bit of history. Some of it quite good, others not so good.

Ana was not always quite so bitter or violent. While she has had a hair-trigger as long as I remember, the overall violence and rapid escalation of her character has mostly been reactionary in nature to the high-stress environment that SS13 frankly is. While I will not comment on how acceptable such behavior is, I will state that since I last played with Sue she has become even more retaliatory and lethal than I recall her being on other servers when we did play together.

Despite her nature to escalate issues, I still do not see her generally going beyond what she is permitted by regulations ICly. Ana/Sue may toe the line, but she does not generally cross it. In this case she used slightly more force than was necessary. She die not, however, break any actual rules or act out of character.

Simply put, Sue isn't the person that needs to change when playing Ana. The regulations she follows do.

[Susan]

I reiterate: simply because you are of the opinion that there is 'excessive force' does not mean there actually is any. I always have reason and justification for doing what I do, if it's not enough to satisfy you then oh well. A vast majority of players here seem to think using anything more than a flash at any time is shitcurity, and there's no amount of explaining that will make them realize shooting people is situationally okay.

You are grossly embellishing what is actually going on. There are no 'rampages', and I guess everyone loves bringing up Brar because I managed to justify it and they're so upset that they didn't get to crucify me for it or something. There is no 'constant' excessive force, there rarely is ever any to begin with. And she isn't known for ignoring orders. You are just pulling all of this out of thin air to try and have an argument materialize when in reality there is none.

It's always the same people whining about the same things that were already cleared up simply because they apparently can't stand the fact that other people thought it was justified.

[Frances]

We need cold, hard facts, people.

You simply can't say "X character constantly does this" and not actually present at least one instance of an incident. Because from where I'm standing this is a bad rep being perpetuated by the server hivemind, but is there actually any material to hold against Sue? It seems clear to me this complaint has been explained, and her actions sufficiently justified.

[Chaznoodles]

We need cold, hard facts, people.

You simply can't say "X character constantly does this" and not actually present at least one instance of an incident. Because from where I'm standing this is a bad rep being perpetuated by the server hivemind, but is there actually any material to hold against Sue? It seems clear to me this complaint has been explained, and her actions sufficiently justified.

 

I'm rather sure I've pointed out numerous occasions in which Ana has been hugely aggressive with no reason, as have others, both in OOC, deadchat and admin channels. I know I've been on the receiving end of an extra 20 minutes onto a brig timer because I insisted on calling Ana a furball, cat, and the like.

On this note, I find the cause for the report and the actions taken by Sue absolutely ridiculous. You don't go waving your authority around as Security just because you can. The player was causing absolutely no harm by sitting on the cargo tug, and by ordering the player off it then verbally abusing them, you caused the situation. You then proceeded to use extremely harmful levels of force on the player because of the situation you had caused in the first place. There is no justification for any of this, in the slightest.

Personally, if I was dealing with this case and due to the history attached, I'd issue a jobban from Security until the player was found to be able to deal with the role appropriately again.

[Frances]

I'm rather sure I've pointed out numerous occasions in which Ana has been hugely aggressive with no reason, as have others, both in OOC, deadchat and admin channels. I know I've been on the receiving end of an extra 20 minutes onto a brig timer because I insisted on calling Ana a furball, cat, and the like.

All I want is for people to link to complaints, logs, even player notes that prove such things, and that prove they happened recently. I believe at this point this is more of an impression being perpetuated against the player than anything else, because most users' complaints amount to "I feel like Ana has been bad before".

 

You don't go waving your authority around as Security just because you can. The player was causing absolutely no harm by sitting on the cargo tug, and by ordering the player off it then verbally abusing them, you caused the situation.

Yes, said character got overly pissy about a minor thing, after having a very bad day. I see nothing wrong with that from an OOC perspective. Can you explain what OOC responsibility you believe Sue failed by having Ana act the way she did?

 

You then proceeded to use extremely harmful levels of force on the player because of the situation you had caused in the first place. There is no justification for any of this, in the slightest.

The poster of the complaint made all of the security staff chase them for an extended period of time - to which Ana responded with one hit from a harmbaton (after the complainant tried to steal said baton, no less), and that hit turned into two due to clickspamming, which had the unfortunate effect of breaking the complainant's ribs. But I thought we had established that the force used here was not excessive.

[Susan]

I don't think you'll get that, Frances, or if you will it will be logs taken out of context in an Ace Attorney sort of 'take that!' way.

Chaz is incredibly biased, as am I against he. I severely dislike him, and the sentiment is equally returned, so it doesn't surprise me to see him immediately jump in on the side against me despite ample arguments over the points he's brought up previously either debunking or explaining them, as he seems wont to do in several threads. Or he ignores points entirely, which is why he says 'there is no justification' despite it being explained and stated earlier.

I mean, he's complaining about getting added time for continuously harassing security like he was dealt some kind of mortal blow. You'd think the character would just stop pissing off security, but I guess I should have just let the harassment slide because that stuff is a-ok and not breaking corporate regs.

[Frances]

Shit slinging really doesn't do anyone any service.

However, a lot of points that Chaz tried to bring up have already been explained in the thread, which is why I'm a bit surprised by his reply.

[zonk]

I don't think you'll get that, Frances, or if you will it will be logs taken out of context in an Ace Attorney sort of 'take that!' way.

Chaz is incredibly biased, as am I against he. I severely dislike him, and the sentiment is equally returned, so it doesn't surprise me to see him immediately jump in on the side against me despite ample arguments over the points he's brought up previously either debunking or explaining them, as he seems wont to do in several threads. Or he ignores points entirely, which is why he says 'there is no justification' despite it being explained and stated earlier.

 

Even if you two have a history together, Chaz is right. This was my character's first interaction with yours, and honestly it was, as he put it, absolutely ridiculous. Your character created a situation where there didn't even have to be one, and then escalated it by hurling insults at my character. The way that it ended--your character beating my unarmed character with a stunbaton until her ribs cracked when there were 3 officers standing by to back you up--was completely inappropriate and unjustifiable. This is not how security is supposed to act, period. On any other server you would get a jobban from security for something like this.

Like someone said earlier, the way a competent security officer would handle this situation (apart from not causing it in the first place) would be to use a flash. Oh, she was wearing sunglasses? Then use a taser, or a baton. Don't set your intent to harm and then beat them with it.

The only legit justification you've provided is that your character was 'under stress' that round, which is a weak attempt at justification at best. Just look at how police brutality plays out in real life.

 

I mean, he's complaining about getting added time for continuously harassing security like he was dealt some kind of mortal blow. You'd think the character would just stop pissing off security, but I guess I should have just let the harassment slide because that stuff is a-ok and not breaking corporate regs.

 

From my experience the other night your character is not very difficult to piss off. You seem to think it's completely fine for your character to harass other players, baiting them into retaliating and then arresting them for it. This is a very "I am the law" way of looking at things, and is typical shitcurity behavior. That's my main gripe with how Ana conducted herself, which you still haven't really addressed besides telling us that Ana is not a nice person. Hardass she may be, but she is not above the law.

[Guest]

Can you explain what OOC responsibility you believe Sue failed by having Ana act the way she did?

Rule one.

Dont be a dick.

 

The poster of the complaint made all of the security staff chase them for an extended period of time - to which Ana responded with one hit from a harmbaton (after the complainant tried to steal said baton, no less)

The poster fo the complaint called Ana a furball, and had the entire security team chasing them for an extended period of time. The security team was not forced at gunpoint to chase them because they insulted Ana, after she insulted them first.

They could, at any time stop and do something else instead. They did not. Unless you we're operating under the assumption that calling someone a furball is proof of terrorist activity.

 

But I thought we had established that the force used here was not excessive.

Everything about this was excessive dickery, for the sake of dickery.

What roleplay does harmbatoning someone untill their ribcage breaks for calling you a furball cause?

[Cassie]

If I'm completely honest, I've seen rivalries, bar fights, job role fights, arguments that escalated into violence, etc. I'm not unfamiliar or against conflict RP, in fact, I love it. But!

The shuttle was coming and the round was ending, what benefit would using a harmbaton (knowing the risks) be on producing enjoyable RP for both parties? It seems OP would have been slowly dying and gasping on the shuttle until the end of the round, and this strikes me hard because I do recall being harmbatoned by EMT before shuttle departure too by another player once - it's ridiculous. There's nothing you can do, often you bleed and lose consciousness.

A normal stun baton used repeatedly on non-harm intent and Ana Roh'hi'tin screaming, "I'm tirrred of you! I am tirrrred of everrrything!" would have produced a better effect imo.

[Frances]

The harmbaton being used twice was an accident, one that Sue already apologized for. The intent was not to cause serious harm, or to go as far as to break bones. The intent was to use more force than necessary, although the unintended consequences of that (ribs breaking) should have been fully dealt with IC, not as a player complaint.

Security chose to chase you, because you ran away from them. I am not sure what you expected, but people losing their cool because you act like a shit (yes, Ana did, so did your character by resisting arrest) is something that makes perfect sense for a roleplay server. We are here to create interesting situations, not to evaluate how good people would be if they were real cops.

 

Rule one.

Dont be a dick.

Does that mean everyone who is not playing as an antag should be expected to act like an angel at all times?

[Chaznoodles]

The harmbaton being used twice was an accident, one that Sue already apologized for. The intent was not to cause serious harm, or to go as far as to break bones. The intent was to use more force than necessary, although the unintended consequences of that (ribs breaking) should have been fully dealt with IC, not as a player complaint.

 

If people don't feel that it has been dealt with appropriately, either ICly or OOCly, they are allowed to make a complaint. That is what it is there for.

 

Rule one.

Dont be a dick.

Does that mean everyone who is not playing as an antag should be expected to act like an angel at all times?

 

It means people should be respectful to others. Disrupting someone's round for no reason other than what you caused yourself is not respectful.

[Frances]

If people don't feel that it has been dealt with appropriately, either ICly or OOCly, they are allowed to make a complaint. That is what it is there for.

They can, at which point we establish whether the complaint was valid or not.

 

It means people should be respectful to others. Disrupting someone's round for no reason other than what you caused yourself is not respectful.

Are you saying players should cause no conflict whatsoever unless they are antags? And what about antags themselves, how is what they are doing not equating to disruption, by that logic?

[Chaznoodles]

I'm saying that a player shouldn't be harmbatoning people for a problem they caused themselves as a Head of Staff, especially as Security. This is the sort of thing I believe other people have been jobbanned for before.

[Frances]

What about escalation of conflict?

(And again, please do consider the harmbatoning was minor.)

[Chaznoodles]

There was no conflict to escalate. Sue caused the original conflict, Sue escalated it, the person who submitted the complaint did nothing but try and stop what was happening getting out of hand. The harmbatoning broke someone's ribs, which can result in death. That's not minor.

I'm not wanting to turn this into a back and forth. I've expressed my views on this and how I think it should be dealt with, and I'm leaving it as that.

[zonk]

The harmbaton being used twice was an accident, one that Sue already apologized for. The intent was not to cause serious harm, or to go as far as to break bones. The intent was to use more force than necessary, although the unintended consequences of that (ribs breaking) should have been fully dealt with IC, not as a player complaint.

Security chose to chase you, because you ran away from them. I am not sure what you expected, but people losing their cool because you act like a shit (yes, Ana did, so did your character by resisting arrest) is something that makes perfect sense for a roleplay server.

 

Again you try to excuse Ana from her actions. Why? Security chose to chase me because Ana ordered them to. My character's decision to run from them was because she was afraid, not because she was a "acting like a shit". The HoS had just verbally abused her after treating her like shit, and then ordered her arrest for "insulting" her. If four officers start chasing you with weapons in hand after this occurred, of course you'd be shocked and the natural response would be to flee.

 

We are here to create interesting situations, not to evaluate how good people would be if they were real cops.

 

As Cassie pointed out, the round was ending. I fail to see how the decision to harmbaton created an interesting situation for anyone other than Sue. After it happened I was dragged to the shuttle brig, still bleeding, and that was it. Furthermore while I agree that we shouldn't be evaluating how good people would be if they were real cops, this server still expects a certain degree of realism in the interactions that take place here. We all know this, and I don't see why a scientist who turns himself into a slime should have to face repercussions yet Ana always seems to slip away from the consequences of her aggressive behavior as sec.

[Rusty Shackleford]

You know, in my own mind, I've been giving Sue the benefit of doubt. Ana's an angry bitter character after all, and so she's prone to being more abrasive, that's a given. But when complaint after complaint keeps coming in, coupled with the fact that some people actively avoid your character ICly because the OOC knowledge of what she does causes them distress, maybe you're the one with the problem that needs fixing. The general feeling I'm getting is that you've been toeing the dreaded line of "shitcurity" for so long that people have gotten used to it, and now you're actually crossing the line and very few people are actually noticing.

You might want to consider rectifying the behavior before people stop defending your actions for you.

[Cassie]

Okay, about the harmbatoning. I tested it on my own baystation server, and it seems that harmbatonning does not produce three messages when on harm intent - it produces one. Another friend I pulled from the depths of the earth told me it produces two per hit on their build. On Aurora's build I reserve judgement until I actually see it for myself in screenshots since I know it's a modified chimera, I admit. I noticed the messages just say "beaten" on mine, and "stunned" on a few on Auroras.

My complaint however was the fact she used the harm intent in the first place - I realize that you mention this was IC but I bring us back to the fact that the shuttle was coming and there's a particular rule that is on our server that prevents escape fights:

 

-End-round grief is punishable by an automatic 3-day ban. The moment the shuttle docks with the station, all conflict is expected to end in and around the shuttle boarding area. (Escape and adjacent corridor).

 

Can someone bring up the reason this rule was create and why, despite the shuttle only being a few seconds away from docking, why it exists om the context of conflict?

I realize that this rule does not technically fully apply to this situation but the courtesy should OOC'ly stand. Ana harmbatonned the OP's character, which causes physical harm - on an unarmored person just before the shuttle was about to dock. Not only that, the chance of breaking bones (as Sue said) would be after the second hit, but as you can see in the screenshot OP's character's chest ripped open with only one hit because the stun baton on harm intent and is a very powerful weapon which is enough to cause bleeding, dizziness, infection and eventually lost consciousness in some cases.

As evidenced by posts here, it does not seem there was a genuine interest to roleplay with OP, it was OOC aggression channeled into IC and the disregard of the power and risk of harm batonning shows this. Were weapons really needed over name calling? Really? Anything written RP wise to indicate to the OP's character "Hey, this is an RP situation, play along?". No.

All in all, Sue's character basically went to lethal weapon mode over being called a 'poopyhead', which resulted in a "messy mistake" with very little leading up to it in the view of OP who is new and did not get any enjoyment or any interesting RP from this apart from gasping on their way to Centcom HQ. In my opinion this was not truly caused by Ana Roh'hi'tin's emotional trauma, but rather the player Susan's "Talk shit, get hit" attitude which is something that security shouldn't play because it leads to things like this.

Edited April 15, 2015 by Guest

[Frances]

Again you try to excuse Ana from her actions. Why? Security chose to chase me because Ana ordered them to. My character's decision to run from them was because she was afraid, not because she was a "acting like a shit". The HoS had just verbally abused her after treating her like shit, and then ordered her arrest for "insulting" her. If four officers start chasing you with weapons in hand after this occurred, of course you'd be shocked and the natural response would be to flee.

The reason why I am calling out your character on her actions is because she

fought with security and tried to steal the weapon off of an officer

Now I do not particularly care whether you want to try your chances fighting off sec, but it does not paint your character as a blameless victim. Also, running from the cops is never a good idea. If security tries to arrest you peacefully, and you start running away, of course they'll start to chase you and attempt to subdue you. No security officer will go "oh, we scared the perp off, better give them a break then." I've actually let people off the hook before when I was going to arrest them because they displayed clear regret of their actions (as well as showed they were in over their heads), but this isn't what you did here. You basically insulted back somebody who insulted you, then ran.

 

As Cassie pointed out, the round was ending. I fail to see how the decision to harmbaton created an interesting situation for anyone other than Sue. After it happened I was dragged to the shuttle brig, still bleeding, and that was it. Furthermore while I agree that we shouldn't be evaluating how good people would be if they were real cops, this server still expects a certain degree of realism in the interactions that take place here. We all know this, and I don't see why a scientist who turns himself into a slime should have to face repercussions yet Ana always seems to slip away from the consequences of her aggressive behavior as sec.

(The harmbatoning happening at endround was minor. I'm willing to guess the complaint would've been made regardless of when during the round the actions happened, as they were quite dubious without context.)

Anyway, yes, there is a certain standard of conduct everyone must adhere to, but I do not believe it was broken here. The character in question was just nearly blown up, and their player had not initially planned or expected to be playing in the HoS role. Additionally, the only fault that can really be held against Ana was to be overly strict and stick someone with a BS charge, whereas the harmbatoning resulted from reasonable escalation of conflict.

[Frances]

Can someone bring up the reason [the EOR grief rule] exists and why, despite the shuttle only being a few seconds away from docking, why it exists?

Yes. The EOR grief/fighting rule actually exists to prevent people from fighting on the shuttle, because it is a very small space most of the round's players end up with at the same time, and fights on it have a tendency to devolve into something terrible.

An addendum was actually recently added to this rule, which allows conflict to progress organically if it was already started before the shuttle docking. In this case, Officer A acts like a hardass towards Person B, insults person B, person B talks back, gets arrested over bullshit by officer A, person B resists, tries to steal an officer's weapon, and gets beaten as a result. (Not in a way that imo was excessive, given that it was intended to be a single baton click. I actually went and hit myself with a baton on the server just now, and it created two messages (with the "stunned" message missing), but you can clearly see by the logs repeating ("beaten" "beaten" "stunned") that these are messages attached to the same action, even though I'm not sure why zonk got three messages and I only got two.

 

Were weapons really needed over name calling?

You cannot ignore the fact that this person was harmbatonned for running away from sec and trying to steal an officer's weapon, not simply for saying something mean.

[Witt]

Ok, I know I probably don't need to be posting, but quite honestly, this entire situation went bad on both sides of the field; however given the myriad of other ways Sue could have incapped the perp, as well as her history of being slightly overly violent on small issues; I would personally like to either see a Ret-con of some of Ana's more violent traits OOCly or a consensus from both Sue and other involved parties that this issue should be handled ICly through the D.O. Corps (since this is why they exist).

[zonk]

You cannot ignore the fact that this person was harmbatonned for running away from sec and trying to steal an officer's weapon, not simply for saying something mean.

So Sue claims, but my story is a bit different. I'm not going to go into that however. It really doesn't matter.

What you can't ignore is the fact that she broke my character's ribs over a conflict she herself started, as HoS. I don't care if the harmbaton was an accident or not because there is no way of proving that. She shouldn't have been using lethal force, period. She had ample ways to stun me, not to mention 3 officers wielding stun weapons to back her up.

 

Anyway, yes, there is a certain standard of conduct everyone must adhere to, but I do not believe it was broken here. The character in question was just nearly blown up, and their player had not initially planned or expected to be playing in the HoS role. Additionally, the only fault that can really be held against Ana was to be overly strict and stick someone with a BS charge, whereas the harmbatoning resulted from reasonable escalation of conflict.

If anything I would think surviving an explosion would make her character show a softer side. You know, what with being thankful for not being blown to bits and all...but that's all subjective, and a pitiful excuse for what she did.

Look, we can keep going back and forth like this but the bottom line is that security's job is to diffuse conflict and ensure the safety of the crew. If an officer is actively creating and then escalating conflict...well do you see the problem? What would you do to a janitor who slips floors and creates messes?