Jaeger Brothers Posted June 5, 2023 Posted June 5, 2023 BYOND Key: Tzui5020 Staff BYOND Key: Roostercat12 Game ID: coa-cDFR Reason for complaint: I was Permanently Job Banned From Security Officer for saying the Antag was "Possibly Armed" while they were wearing clothing that would Conceal Weaponary Evidence/logs/etc: First off I do not have any Warnings for Metagaming in the past nor Have I been Ever talked too about Metagaming in the past the red suit Mentioned was this: which you can easily Hide a weapon under and they had a Duffel bag which would then In character give the Possibility of a gun under the suit or in the duffelbag which I sadly don't have a Picture of Because it quickly escelated and I didn't have time to take a picture. The door Opend in medical was the glass windows next to the Medical console which Assistants don't have access to and they were Printing Medical Records so I also had cause to call for backup to cut off an Escape. Additional remarks:
Roostercat Posted June 5, 2023 Posted June 5, 2023 You saw someone in a red suit walk into medical and immediately jumped on them. This is because you know OOCly that a red suit is usually only something antags get a hold of, which you then used as justification to call backup on them. You then said they were possibly armed because you know antags can buy firearms. Saying you did it because they had "clothing that could conceal weaponry" is not a justification because the same could apply to basically everybody on the ship. You saw red suit, you followed them, and called backup because you knew they were an antag. There was not really another IC reason to justify this as they had not done anything prior to suggest they were armed. 4 minutes ago, Jaeger Brothers said: BYOND Key: Tzui5020 Staff BYOND Key: Roostercat12 Game ID: coa-cDFR Reason for complaint: I was Permanently Job Banned From Security Officer for saying the Antag was "Possibly Armed" while they were wearing clothing that would Conceal Weaponary Evidence/logs/etc: First off I do not have any Warnings for Metagaming in the past nor Have I been Ever talked too about Metagaming in the past the red suit Mentioned was this: You do infact have a note on metagaming a changeling, meaning you have absolutely been talked to in the past about this, hence why it is a ban.
CampinKiller Posted June 5, 2023 Posted June 5, 2023 @Jaeger Brothers to make sure I have this right, you saw someone enter the area behind the front desk in medical and print medical records, while wearing a red suit. Because they had a red suit and a bag, you said that they may be armed and required backup. Could you explain why you came to this conclusion (both needing backup and why they may be armed). At first glance, your stated reason of "a bag/the suit can be used to conceal a weapon" is incredibly flimsy, and, as rooster said, would apply to nearly everyone on the ship. You have been spoken to previously (4 days ago) about metagaming a ling's revival ability. That, coupled with other notes/warnings regarding your security play that you have accumulated over a short period of time, would justify a job ban, even for something you have not previously been warned for. Players are expected to be familiar with the rules, and just because someone hasn't explicitly been talked to about X, but has been about Y and Z, doesn't mean that they cannot receive a ban if their overall behavior/play is not improving.
Jaeger Brothers Posted June 6, 2023 Author Posted June 6, 2023 The suit was unusual for normal crew and it coverd the entire Body I caught him red handed Opening the windows to access the console so I called for backup to cut off possible escape route through medical the call for "Possibly armed" was ment to state that my Colleagues should be careful that I can't confirm nor Deny a weapon on the person due to the Softsuit. For the Other Warns and Notes you've mentioned I have worked on The excessive Force one and I don't know If I got a note about self-preservation but a player told me I should do more of that so I did.
CampinKiller Posted June 6, 2023 Posted June 6, 2023 Let me start at the top here: 5 hours ago, Jaeger Brothers said: The suit was unusual for normal crew While crew wearing around softsuits aren't exactly common, it's also not something that is rare enough to warrant instant suspicion, beyond a "huh, weird." It being a red softsuit that's commonly used by antags does make it seem odd that you found it suspicious. 5 hours ago, Jaeger Brothers said: I caught him red handed Opening the windows to access the console so I called for backup to cut off possible escape route through medical At this point, all you have witnessed the person doing is trespassing, a very minor offense (one that people are fined for or can even simply be let off with a warning for). There isn't really an indication that this person is going to flee, or would flee when challenged. While calling for backup in and of itself isn't necessarily a problem, the fact that your reasoning is "they might run," despite having no IC justification that they may run, shows that you are taking what you know OOCly into account (them being an antag). 5 hours ago, Jaeger Brothers said: the call for "Possibly armed" was ment to state that my Colleagues should be careful that I can't confirm nor Deny a weapon on the person due to the Softsuit. As I stated earlier (and rooster as well), this would apply to the entire crew (or anyone in a voidsuit/softsuit). Anyone could be carrying a weapon, by this logic. By calling someone out as "possibly armed," with no actual IC indication that they are armed, you are both needlessly escalating the situation, and again using OOC knowledge that they are an antag, and could buy a weapon, to go after the person. At all points in this situation, you appear to be reaching for IC justification that just simply was not there, and this metagaming aligns with past behavior. You are claiming that, due to someone wearing a softsuit and trespassing behind the medical desk, that they may flee and/or be armed, and needed backup. This is not a logical conclusion from the IC information, especially given that the person hadn't given any indication they were doing anything beyond trespassing. It reeks of metagaming and validhunting behavior, and you were even spoken to shortly before this ban about using antag status to be a super security officer and kill other antags. Overall, I see no issue with the way this was handled by @Roostercat, and a job ban is absolutely justified given your history, and the incident in question. As rooster said, you are free to appeal the ban in a month, and I recommend taking the time in between now and then to show that you are familiar with the rules, and can be trusted to play security again in the future. If nobody has anything to say, this will be locked and archived in 24 hours.
Recommended Posts