Staff Complaint - Melariara

[UponASeaOfStars]

BYOND Key: UponASeaOfStars
Staff BYOND Key: Melariara
Game ID: cme-chln
Reason for complaint: 

Prelude

First, a little context so things aren't entirely confusing for people without access to asay:

As Security Officer Si'raya Mratiirr, I took a briefcase in the loadout, which spawned inside my backpack. I put my gear inside my briefcase. I was then bwoinked, told "that's a bug", and given an indefinite server ban when I expressed surprise and offered to fix the bug. 

My case here hinges on three main points: I object to the premise of the ban, the procedure that was followed, and the principle of taking such an approach.

There's a TL;DR at the bottom.

Premise

When I say that I disagree with the premise of the ban, I mean, quite simply, that this isn't something anyone should be banned for. We shall discard the, quote, 'rather large history of powergaming' (an assessment which I strongly disagree with, and will address later) and instead focus on the incident itself - spawning with a briefcase, and putting things inside it. Melariara, an administrator and thus a senior representative of the Aurora staff team, would have us believe that this is, quote, 'bug abuse [and] extremely powergamey'. The definition of bug abuse is simple: knowingly abusing a glitch or bug to gain an advantage. An example of this might be putting a bucket over a merchant's head in Skyrim to blind them while you steal their stuff. It's a glitch or bug (you really shouldn't be able to do that), and you're abusing it to gain an advantage (free stuff). This can, and must, be contrasted with game design as a result of system quirks - to use Skyrim as an example again, sneak-attacking invincible NPCs to level your sneak skill without killing anyone. This example is an overlap of two aspects of the system: sneak attacks (which grant levels when attacking from stealth), and invincible NPCs (who cannot be killed). To return to the main point, the overlap of 'loadout items' (which spawn in your bag) and 'briefcases' (which are a loadout item) results in briefcases spawning in your bag. I personally know of at least five people who do this exact thing (which doesn't sound like a lot until you remember we're lucky to have 20 people on the manifest in highpop), and it's hardly a secret - this functionality has existed since the loadout system has existed, and the fact that it's gone this long without anyone complaining, suggests that it is (until now, at least) accepted as another quirk of SS13. It's like how putting four loose pills in your bag takes up the same space as a combat medical kit, which contains 40 pills, or how you can put a gas mask in your internals box because they're a subtype of breath mask.

So what about powergaming? Is it powergaming to spawn with a briefcase? The fact that it's an option actively provided to us suggests no. The fact that it provides no tangible advantage (since you're unable to put the briefcase back in the bag, it doesn't expand your storage capacity, and since you're unable to withdraw from it while it's in the bag, it actively hinders you by taking up bag space) suggests no. The fact that I've shown this to other players and received the overwhelming response of "you should appeal that" suggests no. But let's check the rules to be sure. We're defining powergaming in our rules as the following:

Quote

Also know as 'playing to win'. If you're trying to complete your objectives, kill the antagonists, or 'win', at all costs and ignore RP, you may be better off somewhere else. This includes having your character unafraid of death or pain, resistant to any torture, ready to battle alone against a crowd of opponents, or, being unarmed, senselessly attacking a gun wielder or hostage taker. This also includes loading up your character with items 'just in case', for example wearing internals 'just in case' there's a hull breach or plasma leak. Or wearing a spacesuit indoors for no reason. Further, this includes using knowledge that your character would not possess: such as knowledge of changelings, the cult, syndicate, etcetera, and acting on it.

 

Does having a briefcase in your bag fall under any of those? No. It doesn't help complete objectives or kill antagonists. It doesn't bring victory. It's not a 'oh, just in case'. It's not knowledge that our characters shouldn't have. And since we've already demonstrated it provides no tangible advantage (in fact, I daresay it's a disadvantage given that being able to actually take things out of your bag and put them back in is kind of an important part of the storage system), it's certainly not 'playing to win'. So what about ignoring RP? Is it failRP to put a slightly smaller bag in your regular bag so you can have a bag in your bag? The existence of boxes suggests otherwise, but let's roll with it.... I have seen actual, genuine HRP roleplay (yes, high roleplay roleplay!) regarding the quirks of the SS13 storage system. I've seen people talk to each other about how it's weird that four pills take up the same size as a full medkit, and find ways to explain it IC. I've personally taken part in a RP scene where it was explained as "I spent half an hour this morning trying to shove this thing in there", which anyone who's ever gone to school with fifteen textbooks will be able to attest to the reality and truth of. So no, it's not powergaming, and it's certainly not worth an indefinite ban.

Procedure

I call into question now the actions of the administrator in handling the ticket; the first question I was asked (past the 'hi, got a moment?') was "Are you aware that spawning with a briefcase [in your backpack] at spawn is a bug, and thus you putting things in it to be extracted later on is bug abuse, on top of being extremely powergamey?". We'll put aside the fact that it's intentional game design and provides no advantage, and accept arguendo that putting objects inside objects at spawn, as ReadThisNamePlz puts it, is, quote, 'bug abuse [and] extremely powergamey'. That is to say: "Sure, okay, let's roll with it. Was the procedure correct?". And looking at the evidence provided, I'm going to go ahead and say no, it wasn't. There is no missing context, no edited screenshots to hide the rest of the bwoink. That's it. I was asked 'are you aware that this is bad?', answered with surprise (note that I disagreed with the administrator's opinion, but obviously saying that when bwoinked is a one-way ticket to ban-town) and offered to fix the bug for everyone using my knowledge of the code and github... and was then told "no, you won't fix it, you're getting banned instead".

That's correct. When I was told of the existence of a bug, I offered to fix the bug myself on the spot. I was then indefinitely banned. The response of 'no, I had no idea, but I'll do my best to fix it for everyone' resulted in an indefinite ban, on the spot. I question, then, what response would have been 'acceptable'; to me, this suggests that the administrator's mind was already made up the moment I was messaged. I was treated with the same ruthless efficiency that is, or should be, reserved exclusively for engineers starting phoron leaks in central primary, assistants wordlessly bashing people's skulls in with fire extinguishers, people spawning in as Boe Jiden the triple-amputee afroed Lab Assistant. I was approached not with an open hand, but a closed fist.

As someone who has been on the administration team of multiple servers myself, I'm not going to say a closed fist should never be used. If someone is egregiously and unquestionably griefing, then yeah, take them out back and crack their knees with the banhammer. But spawning with a briefcase, an option provided to us in the loadout, and putting things inside the briefcase, an option provided to us by the storage system? It is patently absurd to suggest that this is equivalent to Boe Jiden, especially when the 'suspect' expressed a desire to immediately improve the server through fixing the alleged bug. And unless the administration team is prepared to stand their ground and claim that spawning with a briefcase is worthy of an indefinite ban (a stance to which I'm not sure many would agree, from my own canvassing of the community), then I think one fact has been made crystal-clear.

This was never about the briefcase.

Principle

That's right. It's not about the briefcase at all. It's about this alleged 'large history of powergaming' that the administrator claims I have; it's about the reputation that I have gathered among certain members of the staff team. The briefcase was merely a pretense for removing me from Aurora: if it had not been the briefcase, it would have been something else... like that time I was told 'yeah, you can make the basic chems as physician' and then given a formal warning for making the basic chems as physician (which I successfully appealed). Or that time I was given a dayban and an indefinite medical jobban for helping an overwhelmed and understaffed medical team while off-duty (which I successfully appealed). Or that time I was grilled over wearing sandals, the default footwear for Tajaran security cadets, as a security cadet.

I get it. You don't like me. (And by 'you' I mean certain members of the staff team, not the entire team as a whole - I know I'm on good terms with most of them, and I appreciate that.) And I get it, when you don't like someone, you assume the worst of them. And I get it, when you assume the worst of someone and you have a hammer with which to ban them with... it's an easy hole to fall into. You ever heard of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy? Shoot a hundred bullets at the side of a barn, then paint a target around the tightest cluster and claim to be a sharpshooter? Yeah, this is that. This is one of those instances where the conclusion ("Stars is a powergamer, and thus, should not be on Aurora") leads to the evidence ("see, here's proof, she put things in her briefcase!"), rather than the other way around. So let's see.

I don't kill antagonists, ever, even when they're outright hostile. The role of an antagonist is to bring a little spice to the round, and it's kind of hard to do that if they're dead. Even in situations where the "optimal" route would simply be locking the door, throwing in a teargas grenade, and handcuffing everyone... I don't do that, because that's unfun. It is a net loss of fun to the round.
I don't ignore pain or torture, and I'll actively go out of my way to roleplay it even when it's not mechanically supported. Mechanically, after surgery ends, you're totally fine five seconds later. Mechanically, if you hurt yourself, you're still able to just shrug it off and keep playing the game, maybe slap a band-aid on it so it doesn't get infected. But I don't do that either, because that's unfun. It makes the round less enjoyable.
I don't charge into fights alone against overwhelming odds or robust people with the basics of CQC. I could, mind you - I've been playing SS13 for years, and I know enough about the combat system to be able to exploit it in ways that would bring me victory and bring others loss - but I don't, because that's unfun. It's not about winning. It's not about getting the most frags and the highest K/D and the biggest internet clout for having 360 noscoped the Technomancer with a burst rifle. It's about creating a good round, a good community, and a good experience. It's about maximising happiness.
I don't bring gear that my character would have no reason to have, like a medic carrying around a stunprod and hacking tools. I don't bring gear that I would have a reason to have, but that takes away from other people's enjoyment of the rounds, like nanopaste for characters with prosthetic limbs (objectively useful for healing your own limbs, but it takes away the RP you'd get with the machinist). I was given a warning for making basic chems as a physician, yes, but that wasn't for 'just in case' powergaming - that was because it was determined that it's not something my character would've been able to do (and I haven't done it since).
I don't metagame antag capabilities or know things about their gear that my characters wouldn't. If I see someone with an armblade, I won't suggest cutting off their head and force-borging them so they don't revive, because that's not something my character would know. If I see a technomancer, I won't go 'alright, let's take your backpack to R&D for deconstruction', because that's not something my character would know. If an antag gets arrested and their PDA uplink is open, I will actively close the uplink so they can use it later for a chance to escape. Once again, I prioritise fun and the enjoyment of the community and the players in the round. That has always been my priority.

And if you'll forgive me for soapboxing for a moment-- that should be the priority of the staff team as well. Whenever a disciplinary action is taken, the question should first be asked: "Does this bring more good or bad to Aurora?". "Does this make Aurora a better community?". "Does this increase the enjoyment of the Aurora playerbase?". Administration is much like security, in that the correct approach is the approach that uses the minimum force required. Now, I've been here for two months. In that time, I've made contributions to the wiki and the codebase. (The R&D guide that the wiki uses? Yeah, that's me.) I've taken on a coding project (the sign-to-speech gloves) and collaborated with several prolific community members. All these moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. I'm not going to pull the 'I did some cool things so I get immunity' card. I'm going to pull the 'I'm very obviously not here to be a LRP shitter, so please don't treat me like one' card.

I believe that this ban, and the treatment I have received, is indicative of a larger problem with the staff team. I believe it is indicative of a 'shoot first, ask questions later, no mercy' approach - an approach that prioritises winning at all costs over creating a good experience, an approach that ignores RP in favor of maximising killcount. Banning someone for having a briefcase in their bag is like permabrigging someone for having a techno backpack: it's powergaming, plain and simple. So where do we go from here?

Proposition

The rules on staff complaints are simple: peanut-galleries aren't allowed. Only those who were involved in the incident, who have direct evidence, or who can testify regarding staff behavior or player claims... or people on the staff team. I'm not going to ask people to chime in with their own thoughts; instead, I'm going to ask you, dear reader, to substantiate my claims. My aim here is to prove two things:

Firstly, that I'm actually not a terrible roleplayer, and that me being on Aurora improves things, at least a little. Am I a presence that you enjoy seeing in a round? Have I made you smile, even once? Mind you, this isn't a horn-tooting bragging statement; I believe that nearly every player contributes something to the community, and brings more than they take, and that people who make the community better, have a home here. Do you agree? And if so, do you think I'm someone who belongs here? If you think I'm an okay roleplayer and an okay person, and I deserve to stay... I ask you to leave a 👍.

And secondly, that this is not an isolated incident. This is not a one-time mistake from a member of the staff team making an oopsie, slipping and falling on the 'indefinite ban' button. This is one part of a consistent pattern of behavior, and that some members of the staff team could do with being a little less forceful. I know several people who have stories of being subjected to similar approaches, who have had negative experiences and have lost faith in individuals (or worse, in the team as a whole, though I must stress that the vast majority of the staff team do not abuse their power). Are you one of these people? If you have witnessed or been subject to a disproportionate or heavy-handed response from the staff team... I also ask you to leave a  👍.

Incidentally, the reason the emoji is shared between both is so you don't have to disclose which one you agree with. I'm not asking people to start a revolution here. But it's worth noting that, even if this ban is reversed, it won't make it go away. I'll still be persona non grata, viewed with extreme suspicion. It won't remove the reputation I've been sullied with, and it won't make certain members of the staff team like me. But I don't care about that. As long as I can be a part of the community that I love, as long as I can continue to contribute and make positive improvements and bring joy to people's rounds, I'm fine with being on the watchlist... but I don't want anyone else to have to go through the same treatment. This isn't about the briefcase... and it's not about me either. It's about the role of the staff team in improving the server, and whether or not there is a place for such responses.

Evidence/logs/etc: Cited already.
Additional remarks:

The TL;DR, as promised.

- I was banned for powergaming, for putting things in a briefcase that spawned inside my bag. This isn't powergaming, this is how the inventory system works.
- After I offered to code in a solution and adjust the inventory system to prevent others from being targeted for the same thing, I was banned indefinitely on the spot.
- This isn't the first time certain members of the staff team have been trigger-happy, with me or with others. This kind of treatment is just going to scare people away.
- Had good experiences with me? Toss a 👍. It's not about the briefcase, it's about if I belong on Aurora. You be the judge.
- Had bad experiences with someone on staff? Toss a  👍. I mean, hey, maybe I'm the only one who thinks there's a problem. You tell me, chief.

[MattAtlas]

42 minutes ago, UponASeaOfStars said:

this isn't something anyone should be banned for.

Any rule breach is something someone can be banned for. You don't have immunity to being banned simply because you broke "a small rule", otherwise we'd have people with 90 notes going around breaking the rules constantly and not getting banned for it. Looking at your notes, you have eight notes for powergaming, one of which is a medical permaban. You powergamed again after your seventh note, so a permanent ban is more than appropriate. But it's not just the act of powergaming that got you banned - you used an exploit knowingly. We'll get to that later.

The rules state when a permanent ban is allowed, and they are pretty clear on it. You received both warnings and temporary bans in the past, so you can't say you were caught unaware:

Quote

Permanent Ban: Permanent bans are issued in two general cases. First, to force communication with staff regarding an issue which was left unresolved, usually due to the player logging out mid-discussion. Second, as a final attempt to curb a player's behaviour, following warnings and temporary bans.

42 minutes ago, UponASeaOfStars said:

I put my gear inside my briefcase. I was then bwoinked, told "that's a bug", and given an indefinite server ban when I expressed surprise and offered to fix the bug. 

To establish this as an exploit, all you need to know is that you can't put a briefcase back into your backpack, much like someone can't put a backpack inside of their backpack, because you're duplicating your storage. It's very clearly not intentional behaviour.

You say you "expressed surprise" and that you didn't know better. You're lying.

You knew that you couldn't put the briefcase back in. You intentionally didn't take it out until you needed to. Hence, you were not only powergaming, you were using an exploit you knew of AND spread to other people.

With these things in mind, this complaint holds no water. You have no ground to stand on to say that we're "heavy handed" and "shoot first ask later" when you have 20 notes. That's an amount that problem players reach in a year and you've actively played for maybe a month or slightly over that. The bottom part of your complaint is not only pointless and against the complaint rules, but also clearly only angled at guilt tripping staff into unbanning you, which isn't going to work.

This complaint is handled and will be closed in 24 hours.

[UponASeaOfStars]

7 minutes ago, MattAtlas said:

Any rule breach is something someone can be banned for. You don't have immunity to being banned simply because you broke "a small rule", otherwise we'd have people with 90 notes going around breaking the rules constantly and not getting banned for it. Looking at your notes, you have eight notes for powergaming, one of which is a medical permaban. You powergamed again after your seventh note, so a permanent ban is more than appropriate.

It's a little difficult to defend myself against notes that I can't see and haven't been informed of until now. If you want to discuss the notes, you're welcome to discuss the notes, but in order to do so we'd need to actually see the notes. The permaban in question was successfully appealed already, and was related to character knowledge rather than powergaming.

Quote

You say you "expressed surprise" and that you didn't know better. You're lying.

You knew that you couldn't put the briefcase back in. You intentionally didn't take it out until you needed to. Hence, you were not only powergaming, you were using an exploit you knew of AND spread to other people.

I expressed surprise that it was considered a bug. I think I've established already that I disagreed with the assessment that it was a bug instead of a quirk of game design. It's not that I didn't know briefcases can't be put back in your bag; it's that I considered that one of the quirks of SS13 inventory management.

Quote

With these things in mind, this complaint holds no water. You have no ground to stand on to say that we're "heavy handed" and "shoot first ask later" when you have 20 notes. That's an amount that problem players reach in a year and you've actively played for maybe a month or slightly over that.

See above. I can't defend myself against notes that I don't know about, so there's no evidence to suggest that any of those notes are even accurate if I haven't been given the chance to refute them.

Quote

The bottom part of your complaint is not only pointless and against the complaint rules, but also clearly only angled at guilt tripping staff into unbanning you, which isn't going to work.

This complaint is handled and will be closed in 24 hours.

It's clearly angled at exposing a problem with Aurora that, in less than two months, I've been able to identify. As I already stated, this isn't about me. This is about how people are treated here.

It's about whether or not it best serves the community to take the approach of an indefinite ban when literally just going 'yeah, that's a bug, don't do that' would suffice.

Edited February 6, 2023 by UponASeaOfStars

[UponASeaOfStars]

Also remind me please, what unfair advantage does this provide over just wearing the armor? Powergaming must create an advantage over the alternative, correct? It is far more 'advantageous' to simply wear the armor and have a cardboard box to hold the cuffs/flash, as well as like, five other things of your choice. Putting your armor in a briefcase actively puts you at a disadvantage, because you lose the protection it offers and have to play inventory tetris to get it out in a hurry, and you still end up with less storage than just having a cardboard box. If I were a powergamer I'd just wear the armor, it's totally fine on code green anyway.

My actions do not line up with the actions of a theoretical powergamer. My actions line up with the actions of someone who likes RP and doesn't play to win.

[MattAtlas]

27 minutes ago, UponASeaOfStars said:

It's a little difficult to defend myself against notes that I can't see and haven't been informed of until now

You have been informed of them, because you were bwoinked. A note is only placed at the end of a ticket on you - think about it as the verbal version of a warning. If I bwoink you for something and tell you not to do it - that is a note. We don't place notes arbitrarily or randomly, and I think the implication of there being some sort of conspiracy to get you banned is a weird one.

29 minutes ago, UponASeaOfStars said:

I disagreed with the assessment that it was a bug instead of a quirk of game design

1. You can't put a briefcase in a backpack. It literally tells you "this item is too big".
2. You spawn with a briefcase and it's forced in the backpack.
3. You yourself say that you can't put a briefcase in the backpack.

With all of this considered there's no real argument for you to say that it's a quirk of game design.

30 minutes ago, UponASeaOfStars said:

It's clearly angled at exposing a problem with Aurora that, in less than two months, I've been able to identify. As I already stated, this isn't about me. This is about how people are treated here.

I don't really appreciate you taking the high ground and trying to paint us as oppressors. You're one person in a community of hundreds of unique individuals every few months. You can't really claim we systematically treat people badly just because you were permabanned.

[MattAtlas]

26 minutes ago, UponASeaOfStars said:

Powergaming must create an advantage over the alternative, correct?

You do have an advantage over the alternative - which is more inventory space while abusing a bug. No real way to argue that it isn't powergaming. The contents of what you put in the briefcase don't matter because you can put 4 times the amount of stuff in the satchel now.

[UponASeaOfStars]

Thank you, Zulu. This kind of behavior - immediately ruling the staff complaint as handled without an opportunity for an open and honest dialogue, utilising the maximum possible force instead of attempting to engage in conversation and find peaceful, non-disciplinary resolutions - is exactly what I'm talking about.

Is it really that hard to just put away the hammer and sit down and talk to people? Is it really that hard to be honest, and transparent, and talk instead of being judged and sentenced behind-the-scenes and then punished without recourse? When people speak out, they are silenced, because it is against the rules to speak out.

With regards to the notes: again, let's discuss them if they're relevant. If they're purely intended as a notepad for the staff team, then they're irrelevant to this case. If they're intended as a history of warnings given to someone, then they're evidence in the case, and as such, should be made clear.

And yes, I stand by the quirk of game design comment, because SS13 is weird and BYOND is a hell codebase and it's absolutely full of silly interactions like that. I know of at least one codebase where you're immediately dusted if you touch the supermatter, but you're perfectly safe to drag it around with CTRL-Click as long as you don't bump into it. SS13 is weird, and anyone who thinks it's a perfectly logical game is pretending.

[MattAtlas]

Seeing as you are interested in only breaking the rules more (as you reposted a post that was removed for breaking the complaint rules), this thread is being locked now.