Roostercat Admin Complaint

[SatinsPristOTD]

BYOND Key: BenAflekisanOkActor
Staff BYOND Key: RoosterCat
Game ID: cqR-drbO
Evidence/logs/etc: 

Let me preface this with saying I don't mind a warning because I did do something based on RP I wasn't aware canon. 

We had a round where the INDRA had a small, relatively contained, explosion. The AI makes an announcement that it was sabotaged, so I (The XO) check the cameras on the bridge and notice that it's not really the INDRA that's exploded, but rather a small breach in the containment wall of the INDRA. I comment that it was a "contained and controlled explosion", and the Captain asked me if it was for sure sabotage, to which I said "I don't see how it can't not be."

My reasoning for this was (and this is where I don't mind having a warning), I wasn't aware the past two times I've had the INDRA blow up (For non-antag related reasons).. wasn't canon. Thinking on it now... it's kinda stupid of me to think it was, but I am not a smart person some times. 

That, and the AI literally made an announcement saying it was sabotage and then gave no further details regarding it. 

I received an admin bwoink and was accused of metagaming and "ruining the antag gimmick". Neither of those are true, in the slightest. As a command member, I often times bend over backwards to make sure antag gimmicks go through. I wouldn't deviate from my well-established code for something like this, nor do I even know how the INDRA works OOCly. I was going entirely off what I knew ICly (and we've established that my actual mistake is not knowing the previous INDRA explosions weren't canon).

I suppose that could fall under accidental metagaming, but I never intentionally tried to ruin an antag gimmick, especially when part of my reasoning was based on something said during the round about sabotage. This warning note has almost nothing to do with anything I said. My sabotage comments came from another player and a simple pure misunderstanding. 

Also, the antags later said in OOC the gimmick had nothing to do with the INDRA. Command was already aware of the "visitors not on the manifest" and were already RPing it off as a glitch on the manifest and records system. We weren't connecting the two. 
Additional remarks:

Edited November 20, 2023 by SatinsPristOTD
I love how I continually called Roostercat, RoosterTeeth DESPITE HAVING THEIR NAME IN SCREENSHOTS

[CampinKiller]

Hi, me and @Lmwevil will be handling this complaint. @Roostercat please post your side when you have a chance

[Roostercat]

Hi. Metagaming is using OOC information in any context to influence your decisions ICly. In this case, you used what you know about INDRA explosions to justify jumping the gun and siccing security onto the case of what was, in actuality, just a mishap from an engineer/apprentice that caused the explosion. This significantly hampered the antagonist's gimmick with very little reasoning behind it. Your XO certainly wouldn't be able to tell the engine was deliberately sabotaged just by looking at it either, as it is not their expertise as an XO.

 

On 19/11/2023 at 19:33, SatinsPristOTD said:

That, and the AI literally made an announcement saying it was sabotage and then gave no further details regarding it. 

Additional remarks:

I find this deflecting of blame onto the AI very flimsy when 90 percent of the ticket was you trying to tell me why you thought it was definitely sabotage from an IC perspective and only bringing the Captain and AI into it after I pointed out your reasoning was not sound. This tells me you came to your own conclusion anyway regardless of what the AI would or would not have said. 

 

On 19/11/2023 at 19:33, SatinsPristOTD said:

Also, the antags later said in OOC the gimmick had nothing to do with the INDRA. Command was already aware of the "visitors not on the manifest" and were already RPing it off as a glitch on the manifest and records system. We weren't connecting the two. 
 

 

 

 

 

IIRC Command backpedaling was because some of them had ahelped it as engine griefing and then backed down once they were made aware of what happened so as to not further jump onto the antags, though I don't remember perfectly.

 

On 19/11/2023 at 19:33, SatinsPristOTD said:

My reasoning for this was (and this is where I don't mind having a warning), I wasn't aware the past two times I've had the INDRA blow up (For non-antag related reasons).. wasn't canon. Thinking on it now... it's kinda stupid of me to think it was, but I am not a smart person some times. 


 

 

 

 

 

You have been here for literal years. Nearly as long as me. There is no reason you should not know this by now. Especially not to the point of using it to double down hard on sabotage.

 

 

Overall, you took what was an engineering mishap and blew it up into a hunt for saboteurs and used your own OOC knowledge to justify this to me in the ahelp, making it metagaming. Incorrect metagaming. That hindered an antag's gimmick severely. I stand by the warning.

[SatinsPristOTD]

1 minute ago, Roostercat said:

you have been here for literal years. Nearly as long as me. There is no reason you should not know this by now. Especially not to the point of using it to double down hard on sabotage.

Actually, I just came back and know next to nothing about the INDRA. I took quite a long break, and didn't play the Horizon until starting in late October. Being here for "years" doesn't change the fact that I don't know anything about the INDRA. 

IIRC Command backpedaling was because some of them had ahelped it as engine griefing and then backed down once they were made aware of what happened so as to not further jump onto the antags, though I don't remember perfectly.

This is also incorrect. We were doing this before the explosion. Logs can show we were. 

Also, hearing "the the INDRA has been sabotaged" and then seeing an explosion on cameras does heavily weigh in on me using my previous IC (I wasn't aware it wasn't canon. I've heard INDRA accidents being talked about on the relay and assumed they were.) knowledge about how the INDRA explodes.

[Roostercat]

1 minute ago, SatinsPristOTD said:

This is also incorrect. We were doing this before the explosion. Logs can show we were. 

 

how exactly do you claim the engine was not sabotaged before an explosion even happens

[SatinsPristOTD]

5 minutes ago, Roostercat said:

In this case, you used what you know about INDRA explosions to justify jumping the gun and siccing security onto the case of what was, in actuality,

You are being incredibly hateful towards me. I never once told security to "sicc" an antag. I sent exactly what I said about it being sabotage in this complaint. 

 

6 minutes ago, Roostercat said:

Your XO certainly wouldn't be able to tell the engine was deliberately sabotaged just by looking at it either, as it is not their expertise as an XO.

This is, partially, incorrect as well. MY XO does have a Naval EOD degree, as well as an office adminstration degree from the Naval University on Dominia

[Roostercat]

Also, I was referring to you not knowing the rules on canonicity.

[SatinsPristOTD]

Just now, Roostercat said:

how exactly do you claim the engine was not sabotaged before an explosion even happens

We never did. We were saying the antags were glitches in the records WELL before the explosion. 

[Roostercat]

2 minutes ago, SatinsPristOTD said:

 

This is, partially, incorrect as well. MY XO does have a Naval EOD degree, as well as an office adminstration degree from the Naval University on Dominia

You are not able to use headcanoned degrees to circumvent rules on metagaming.

[SatinsPristOTD]

2 minutes ago, Roostercat said:

Also, I was referring to you not knowing the rules on canonicity.

 

2 minutes ago, Roostercat said:

You are not able to use headcanoned degrees to circumvent rules on metagaming.

That is literally not circumventing rules. Also, the INDRA exploding isn't said if it's canon or not in the rules. I just rechecked it, again. It does state that all conflict events are canon unless agree'd upon by all players. 

Is it an unwrote rule?

[MattAtlas]

One thing is confusing me, what does  "If the INDRA exploded due to sabotage, it wouldn't be on a small, isolated corner" mean? The INDRA does not have variable explosion sizes, it always explodes the same way and with the same radius.

[SatinsPristOTD]

This explosion was at just the very corner of the INDRA containment field. It wasn't the INDRA melting down because of a mechanical failure.

It looked, from a literal onlookers perspective, like someone did a controlled explosive to get into the INDRA's core area. 

It wasn't, it was an Engineering failure, but it wasn't an INDRA melt down explosion. I feel like anyone could recognize that.

And given the AI had said sabotage, it made absolute sense to say "It's a controlled explosion." 

[CampinKiller]

Hi, sorry for the delay.

We took a look at everything and have come to a decision. The AI did declare it to be sabotage immediately, so it is hard to blame @SatinsPristOTD for then calling it sabotage. The main issue that we saw in the logs, though, was that the XO then used their prior (non-canon and therefore OOC) knowledge of INDRA explosions to "back up" that the explosion was sabotage simply from looking on cameras. That said, we will leave the warning in place but adjust the verbiage, as we do not believe there was harm in the initial claim of sabotage, given the AI had stated it prior, but rather the continuation of the claim via metagaming knowledge of the INDRA and how it explodes from previous non-canon incidents.

To clear up a few things as well:

On 06/12/2023 at 17:59, SatinsPristOTD said:

That is literally not circumventing rules. Also, the INDRA exploding isn't said if it's canon or not in the rules. I just rechecked it, again. It does state that all conflict events are canon unless agree'd upon by all players. 

Something that would cause massive damage and disable/destroy a large portion of the ship, like the SM delaminating or ammunition storage exploding, is not canon. Common sense could be applied here - if the incident in question could've potentially caused great loss of life/limb/property, it's probably not canon. Additionally, you cannot use degrees that are not related to your job to claim knowledge of something that would be way outside of your job description, such as reactor sabotage as an XO. Otherwise we would have security officers who tried to claim they knew surgery to treat other officers, or electrical engineering to hack into places.

If there's nothing else, this will be locked and archived in 24 hours.