Staff Complaint - Campinkiller

[The_Ill_Fated]

BYOND Key: The_ill_fated
Staff BYOND Key: Campinkiller
Game ID: (Unknown)
Reason for complaint: Inappropriate application of a 3-day Ban.  
Evidence/logs/etc:  I'm unable to access logs due to being banned.  
Additional remarks:  

In the relevant round, I was playing Imogen Janse, Consular Officer and located in the Consular's Office having tea with Lorraine Pannosian.  Suddenly two antagonists emagged the door to the office, and entered, one with a firearm drawn, and one without.  One of these antagonists matched the description of someone the Janitor reported as having assaulted him earlier in the round, having injected them with a dart.  (I believe the description was a Human in a trench-coat)  neither of the individuals were armored, and one had a pistol in their hand (I can't recall what sort).  It was approximately 1 hour into the round at the time, and in self-defense I drew my firearm, fired several times (I can't recall precisely, I don't have access to the logs but I had rounds remaining in the Xanan Pistol) and as quickly as physically possible sprinted outside, to summon security. During the shoot-out, I intentionally aimed only at the one closer to me, which was the only one who had a gun out at the start, they died shortly after security arrived, in the process of which I think they exchanged fire with security, the other individual was apprehended, then escaped for further antag shenanigans.  

Shortly afterwards I was bwoinked by Campin in regards to this, which I explained roughly in the same terms as I am here.  About 30 minutes - 1 hour later, they sent me a paragraph of text and issued me a 3 day ban.  The severity of this, was in their opinion dictated by a similar situation which I'd been warned for in the past, and in their opinion mandated a harsher punishment as a result.  I firmly disagree with that assessment.  

Said prior situation was different in that the individual who entered the Consular's Office was heavily armed, I believe they were Operatives if I'm remembering properly, and it was very close to the start of the round If I recall right.  In this situation Campinkiller's arguments for my warning were entirely sound I believe, their points were as follows

1. Lack of Fear RP:  In immediately drawing a handgun on a heavily armed, and armored individual, I as Imogen wasn't expressing an appropriate amount of fear or an appropriate level of roleplaying.  A reasonable figure would not do this, as it didn't make sense.  Imogen had no chance in this fight.  
2. Quashing a Gimmick:  As the event occurred early into the round, my rapid escalation of the situation robbed the antagonist, and the players of a substantial amount of roleplaying, and opportunity for engagement.  The antag here never got to go about the full breadth of their gimmick simply because they weren't afforded the time, as a result of my actions.  

Campin's justification of my ban relies on me having been warned for this prior, and still having gone about it in the manner that I did.  I firmly believe this is a false equivalency on their part and that the scenarios while similar in nature, are fundamentally different in both of the metrics they'd warned me of in the past.  

1. Fear RP:  I believe this is a different situation as a result of the disparity of force being drastically different.  In the first scenario, Imogen was confronted by an individual in heavy body armor, that was heavily armed, and acted irrationally in drawing her firearm.  In the second, Imogen's office was violently broken into by two individuals, with only a pistol being visible, along with no body armor or additional gear evident.  Imogen's reaction here is understandable, and reasonable, after all she is provided with a firearm for her own self defense.  In what seems like a fair fight, it's not a stretch from a gameplay, or roleplaying perspective to defend yourself in this situation.  Furthermore, she only shot at the person who was armed, and made the best effort to remove herself from it as quickly as physically possible to get help.  
2. Gimmick Suppression:  This event took place far farther into the round, with several small instances of Antagonist shenanigans being performed prior to this occurring, as I mentioned earlier there was already an existing report of one of the antagonists assaulting another character.  Time-wise I believe this was approximately just over an hour into the round when it occurred suddenly.  The antags had time to set up their ideas, and begin executing them elsewhere, the one who survived even doing so for well into an extension of the round.  

Fundamentally, I believe these antagonists took an action that was risky (i.e. involving an armed person) and it did not entirely play out in the favor.  I don't think that's bad performance on my part, or on their part, it's simply part of engaging in actively hostile antagonism.  Roleplaying isn't, nor can it be, regulated simply to standing idly and staring at one another while typing at each other, especially when in the context of the game, and universe it's played in, that wouldn't make sense.  I believe this ruling is made in exceedingly poor judgement, and serves to encourage an attitude that stifles, not encourages roleplaying.  

I firmly believe that I kept what Campinkiller warned me of, in the first situation in mind and acted accordingly.  The exact contents of the warning in question is as follows

"You need to act with appropriate fear or concern for your life in certain situations with antagonists. Calling someone out over the radio who said they would kill you if you did so is not doing that. Additionally, as a command whitelisted player, you should be giving antags room to develop their gimmicks when able"  

In this situation, I acted in a manner that was conceivable with the risks involved for a reasonable person to do, especially with the firearm she had in her possession given to a Consular to protect themselves in these sorts of situations, and did such at a time and place that did not end the gimmick in the cradle.  In the event that this appeal ends up being denied, I would recommend that the firearm given to Consulars be either removed, or some sort of guidelines for their defensive use be codified.  

Edited August 29 by The_Ill_Fated
Added slightly more + quotation of prior warning.

[The_Ill_Fated]

Bumping, as per Staff Complaint rules. 

[Yonnimer]

Hi, me and Owen will be taking the complaint. Give us a bit to look through it and discuss it.

[CampinKiller]

Sorry for the delay in a response, I had an exam Saturday.

I am going to keep this brief, but while this situation had different variables than your warning, it was still exhibiting the same issues.

On 28/08/2024 at 21:26, The_Ill_Fated said:

Fear RP:  I believe this is a different situation as a result of the disparity of force being drastically different.  In the first scenario, Imogen was confronted by an individual in heavy body armor, that was heavily armed, and acted irrationally in drawing her firearm.  In the second, Imogen's office was violently broken into by two individuals, with only a pistol being visible, along with no body armor or additional gear evident.  Imogen's reaction here is understandable, and reasonable, after all she is provided with a firearm for her own self defense.  In what seems like a fair fight, it's not a stretch from a gameplay, or roleplaying perspective to defend yourself in this situation.  Furthermore, she only shot at the person who was armed, and made the best effort to remove herself from it as quickly as physically possible to get help.  

As I said before I banned you, this was less of a reason than the following point regarding shutting down a gimmick, but it was still a contributing factor. Two people hacked into your office (not sure where the violent break-in is coming from) and ran in with weapons. You had some other person across from you, and you decided you would immediately draw and open fire on people who had essentially caught you with your pants down. You're a civilian government official, not John Wick.

On 28/08/2024 at 21:26, The_Ill_Fated said:

Gimmick Suppression:  This event took place far farther into the round, with several small instances of Antagonist shenanigans being performed prior to this occurring, as I mentioned earlier there was already an existing report of one of the antagonists assaulting another character.  Time-wise I believe this was approximately just over an hour into the round when it occurred suddenly.  The antags had time to set up their ideas, and begin executing them elsewhere, the one who survived even doing so for well into an extension of the round.  

This took place about an hour in, and the captain told me in msay that command, by that point, had determined that the janitor was lying and did not believe their story about the attempted robbery, saying as much over the radio. Even if that were not the case, when faced with the two antags, you instantly shot, then magdumped one to death, before they could get a word in edgewise. In a rather ironic twist, the only reason you were not killed and/or headgibbed by the antags like you were the last time this incident occurred, is because the antags were trying to roleplay with you when you immediately shot them. Players, especially command players, are expected to give antagonists some leeway, and your immediate response to try and play hero and kill the antags in your office were not in keeping with that expectation. Your actions, not this ruling, were stifling to roleplay.

On 28/08/2024 at 21:26, The_Ill_Fated said:

In the event that this appeal ends up being denied, I would recommend that the firearm given to Consulars be either removed, or some sort of guidelines for their defensive use be codified.

This is not a consular-specific ruling. If the Captain immediately shot two armed people who came into their office before they could speak a word, during code green, they could expect a similar talking to. Further, we do have guidelines on this sort of thing in our rules:

-Killing in self-defense in NOT preferred. If possible, always try to flee, or disable your opponent.

-We expect players to allow traitors some leeway. We expect players to not powergame and give the antagonists a little leeway to get away with things.

-Generally, avoid playing hero.

Edited September 2 by CampinKiller

[The_Ill_Fated]

1 hour ago, CampinKiller said:

You had some other person across from you, and you decided you would immediately draw and open fire on people who had essentially caught you with your pants down. You're a civilian government official, not John Wick.  

Defending ones-self against armed individuals who any reasonable person would assume have a substantive chance of desiring injury upon you is not 'Acting like John Wick'.  You can find a thousand videos on the internet of average people in average everyday existence, who when confronted with similar situations, with similar odds, act in a nearly identical manner. 

The goal with our roleplaying is to create, and play as characters that act reasonably within the context of the universe that they're placed within, and to do so in a manner that is both enjoyable, and consistent.  While I recognize that to some minor degree, this 'believability' needs to be mildly suspended to create a more enjoyable situation. The conditions you seem to be intent on enforcing are that where any character, no matter what the situation, just gives up at the earliest sign of any antagonist behavior, regardless of the conditions which may or may not make any action against said antagonist the most 'believable' and realistic option.  Imogen ICly, with reasonable IC justification believed she had reasonable odds, and only stayed involved in the situation long enough to remove herself from it.  At the earliest possible opportunity she got through the door, closed it behind her, and summoned security.  

1 hour ago, CampinKiller said:

The Captain told me in msay that command, by that point, had determined that the janitor was lying and did not believe their story about the attempted robbery, saying as much over the radio.

The Captain, if I remember properly specifically said that the Janitor was almost certainly lying just because he was a Guwan.  If I'm remembering properly, they didn't offer any evidence to this point, and security even reported finding a dart at the scene the Janitor reported.  So, from what it seemed like ICly, they were just doing so because they were being racist at worst, or just plain discriminatory at best.  

 

1 hour ago, CampinKiller said:

Players, especially command players, are expected to give antagonists some leeway, and your immediate response to try and play hero and kill the antags in your office were not in keeping with that expectation. Your actions, not this ruling, were stifling to roleplay.

Antagonists are responsible for their own actions, and for putting themselves into situations where risks exist to themselves, and their gimmicks.  It is absolutely unreasonable on your part to expect every single situation of antagonist interaction to result in the non-antagonist just rolling over, in some situations like for my prior warning that should've absolutely been what I did, but not in this case.    

You keep saying 'Play the Hero' as if Imogen stayed within the room, mag-dumped the first guy, magdumped the second guy, wrestled them both onto the floor and proclaimed how badass she was, while ignoring every risk of the situation.  Imogen pulled her firearm, fired several rounds only at the one that had a firearm in her hand, a sign that any reasonable person would take as an implicit threat of deadly violence, and SPRINTED from the room as physically quickly as was possible to reach help.  Imogen was not trying to kill anyone, she was trying to defend herself.  

And yes, in the narrow context you've personally assumed as the bounds of 'reasonable roleplaying' I can see how you would feel that way.  But Roleplaying consists of more than staring at another character as you talk at one another, rolling over at the first sign of any antagonist activity.  That narrow strip that you've certified as 'Reasonable Roleplaying' is repetitive, uninteresting, and inconsistent with the reality of what it would make sense to do in differing situations, for differing characters.  

1 hour ago, CampinKiller said:

This is not a consular-specific ruling. If the Captain immediately shot two armed people who came into their office before they could speak a word, during code green, they could expect a similar talking to.

I stated that as a result of my interactions with you, and your interpretation of what the Rules are, and what roleplaying should be, leave essentially no reason for a Consular to be armed.  In any antagonist-related situation, by the time it would be 'okay' in your judgement for the use of a firearm to be done, the antagonist would have noted the visible holster, and removed it.  The Consular being armed is as far as I can tell, ICly intended for personal self-defense in emergency situations, which you've judged to be 'irrational' and 'playing hero'.  

[CampinKiller]

Your justification here is "reasonable odds." That is about the same as saying your justification is "I would win," which is rather insane given what this server is, and also not a relevant nor acceptable justification. There is basically one situation where shooting first when you're not an antag is okay, and that's when there's been prior escalation, which there was not here.

On 02/09/2024 at 14:43, The_Ill_Fated said:

While I recognize that to some minor degree, this 'believability' needs to be mildly suspended to create a more enjoyable situation. The conditions you seem to be intent on enforcing are that where any character, no matter what the situation, just gives up at the earliest sign of any antagonist behavior, regardless of the conditions which may or may not make any action against said antagonist the most 'believable' and realistic option.  Imogen ICly, with reasonable IC justification believed she had reasonable odds, and only stayed involved in the situation long enough to remove herself from it.  At the earliest possible opportunity she got through the door, closed it behind her, and summoned security.  

Outside of yourself, who enjoyed this situation and got more roleplay out of it? The antags found themselves immediately dead and outed, with no further chance for actual roleplay and the round turned into a snipe hunt for the one survivor. It is a bad faith argument and completely false to claim that I'm telling everyone they must all bow down to antags no matter what (which is not the case), when I have been rather clear that the main issue is there was no roleplay or chance for roleplay at all, due to your actions of trying to win and own the antags.

Further, you have an extensive amount of exploitables on your character, which invite antagonist action, so why are you instantly killing an antag when they show up in your office? It baffles me that you have all this encouragement for antagonist action, ostensibly to encourage roleplay, but then do this. Your purpose, especially as a command whitelisted player, is to encourage roleplay, not use your position and exploitable information to bait John Traitor to target you, then own zone him when he breaks into your office.

[The_Ill_Fated]

2 hours ago, CampinKiller said:

There is basically one situation where shooting first when you're not an antag is okay, and that's when there's been prior escalation, which there was not here.

I would suggest that most reasonable people would view an armed individual hacking through a secured door which only Consulars, and the Captain have access through, a firearm in-hand after someone matching one of their descriptions was reported to have assaulted a member of the crew as an escalation.  

 

2 hours ago, CampinKiller said:

The antags found themselves immediately dead and outed, with no further chance for actual roleplay and the round turned into a snipe hunt for the one survivor.

As I stated before, Antagonists have responsibility for their actions and decision, including assuming the risk those gimmicks can involve, and this is an example of that.  Engaging in an armed robbety against an armed person, on the bridge, with windows untinted and other members of crew nearby is not precisely a low-risk activity.  Even if Imogen had 'rolled over' as you insist would've been the appropriate action, the nature of their own actions 100% would've exposed them almost immediately, it was a poor decision with substantive risk for little reward, from both an IC and OOC perspective, and they're the ones that bear that, not me.  And if their gimmick was ended for any reason, it was their poor risk assessment.  

 

2 hours ago, CampinKiller said:

When I have been rather clear that the main issue is there was no roleplay or chance for roleplay at all, due to your actions of trying to win and own the antags.

As I've said, roleplaying is not, and should not be confined to the premises of standing idly and talking at one another.  Roleplaying is the assumption of the personality of the character you play, with actions and decisions consistent with that within the context of the universe we're in.  Additionally, I find it grossly inappropriate that you insist on resorting to personal attacks in every interaction we have, insisting on forcing the most uncharitable and biased view of my actions and motivations rather than even pretending to understand any of what my points are.  

I did not try to win, as repeatedly explained apparently to no visible effect, I acted in a RP nature consistent with the conditions my character was present within, cornered in her office ARMED facing two individuals who'd just forced their way into a private, secure location after purportedly assaulting another member of the crew.  She examined that she had a chance, and took it, if that sounds like "I can win" to you, that's how reasonable people work in these sorts of situations, if you can win you can try, if you can't then you comply and hope for the best. But based on your statements between this and my prior warning, it's equally unacceptable to make any move to defend yourself when you have a good chance, and when you don't have a chance at all. So I'm once more reaching the conclusion that "Roll over and take it" is the only acceptable form of antagonist interaction in your eyes, and that's not from assumption, or an uncharitable read of the situation, it's directly from your mouth, or keyboard in this case.  

2 hours ago, CampinKiller said:

Further, you have an extensive amount of exploitables on your character, which invite antagonist action, so why are you instantly killing an antag when they show up in your office? It baffles me that you have all this encouragement for antagonist action, ostensibly to encourage roleplay, but then do this. Your purpose, especially as a command whitelisted player, is to encourage roleplay, not use your position and exploitable information to bait John Traitor to target you, then own zone him when he breaks into your office.

Again, you seem to be wildly ignoring anything I say to justify my action, and instead taking a deliberately malicious and biased choice instead.  None of the antagonists I've been talked to over  were involved in my exploitables at all, the first stumbled into my office accidentally, the second took umbrage at Imogen's actions on ship, and the third was an armed robbery. So I can only really understand this as you throwing unrelated accusations at me again just to attempt to make me look bad.  I can't see how this behavior is remotely acceptable for a member of staff on Aurora.  

As to your point about my exploitables, yes they are reasonably extensive and have been the point of antag engagement and roleplay on a dozen+ occasions, I've had Alexa Cruze bomb my office as a Solarian sleeper Agent, Elwood Johnson kidnap me probably five times for antag shehenanigans, a Dominian security officer try to force the SCC to extradite me, and a half dozen more at least that I can remember.  You are, as I've come to expect from you, cherry picking bad examples in a blatant attempt to hilight supposed maliciousness on my part, while ignoring the rich roleplaying and engagement Imogen and my other characters have been involved in.  

 

Edited September 4 by The_Ill_Fated

[Yonnimer]

Apologies for the slight delay with this, we both have gotten a little more busy than expected with school and such.

 

After plenty of discussion; we’re both in agreement that campin’s judgment was reasonable and a ban was justified.

 

While not technically command, you are still whitelisted and trusted with a firearm, as a command whitelisted player you are expected to give antags some room to develop their gimmick without instantly moving to shoot them, go with the flow a bit. Especially as a consular, you should not be shooting first, in every role, an antag showing up with a gun but not shooting first does not justify instantly shooting them. If an antag was walking in the halls with a gun out, security cannot shoot them first, if they break into security, security still cannot shoot them on sight. Both sides are expected to escalate and talk in situations like these, not just ‘bow down’, if the antag just immediately shot you, they’d have been on the receiving end of the adminhelp.

 

There was some previous buildup with the janitor Guwan being shot with a dart, and we will agree that the rest of command blowing it off still allows it to be taken into account, this isn’t enough to instantly shoot them upon breaking in, this reasoning is generally more acceptable when on red alert or killing is occurring, like cultists roaming the halls. Despite being unarmored, we do not agree this justifies anything, even if you were armored and they weren’t, you are expected to escalate just as much as they have to, it’s unfair to an antag to just immediately be shot while attempting to provide RP when it’s expected in the rules for them and you to escalate. If you had waited, talked and escalated on both sides, then this likely would not have been an issue at all.

 

When it comes to fear-rp, having people break in with a gun drawn does not make it reasonable to instantly shoot them back, especially as what is effectively a government worker. No governmental worker in a position such as yours would ever reasonably do what you did and immediately begin blasting. They’d comply under fear of their life while demands are made and potentially someone more qualified can more safely deal with the hostels and safely extract them. 

 

As a point touched on, another issue is your exploitable. Having detailed exploitable to help antags develop a gimmick and get a hook for the round is good, we’d encourage it where possible as long as the player is willing to be the target of some gimmick. The issue with this is that by instantly shooting someone potentially coming to work off of them, you effectively trapped them with this. I don’t think it was the intention with it, but, this comes across as bait-y, you should try to give antags a chance here, especially while trying to provide them with an interesting hook to work off of with the expolitables.

 

Putting all of this together, the punishment. If this was a first-time incident then a note or warning would have been the proper call, but you have previous notes and warnings detailing very similar situations of rathe rapidly jumping to shoot an antag and needlessly putting your life at risk, while also potentially killing their plans all as a command whitelisted player. It’s a consistent issue, justifying an escalation in punishment to a temp ban.

 

We’ll be locking this in around 24 hours if there are no further issues or questions.

[The_Ill_Fated]

17 minutes ago, Yonnimer said:

Putting all of this together, the punishment. If this was a first-time incident then a note or warning would have been the proper call, but you have previous notes and warnings detailing very similar situations of rathe rapidly jumping to shoot an antag and needlessly putting your life at risk, while also potentially killing their plans all as a command whitelisted player. It’s a consistent issue, justifying an escalation in punishment to a temp ban.

You seem to both be entirely missing my point with this.  While previously, prior situations have occurred that resemble this, they aren't identical. Which was the precedent quoted by Campinkiller to justify a 3-day Ban in the first place, that I'd been "Talked to about this" before.  The issues brought up by Campinkiller in the prior situations aren't the same raised here, and the only 'similar' thing about them was that they took place in the same room.  

17 minutes ago, Yonnimer said:

As a point touched on, another issue is your exploitable. Having detailed exploitable to help antags develop a gimmick and get a hook for the round is good, we’d encourage it where possible as long as the player is willing to be the target of some gimmick. The issue with this is that by instantly shooting someone potentially coming to work off of them, you effectively trapped them with this. I don’t think it was the intention with it, but, this comes across as bait-y, you should try to give antags a chance here, especially while trying to provide them with an interesting hook to work off of with the expolitables

As stated in my reply to Campin, this is an entirely irrelevant point.  Neither the first antag who again entered the wrong Consular's office by accident, second who targeted Imogen for what she had done on ship, or the third who was just committing an armed robbery had any relevance to me having exploitables.  

The contention that I've used exploitables to target antagonist players and kill/harm/etc them is patently and ludicrously false with a lack of a shred of evidence behind it.  As I've stated, when engaged in terms of my exploitables in the past, it's led to a multitude of engagement with a variety of antagonists from a dozen+ players.  This doesn't have a lick of relevance to this appeal whatsoever, and I dont' see why it's being brought up, except as malicious 'evidence' with no weight behind it. 

Regardless, please feel free to close the complaint.  As I'm electing to stop playing on Aurora because it's becoming increasingly evident that some members of the staff are wildly unprofessional, and out of touch with both the player base, and the intention of roleplaying, delightfully highlighted by Campin's aggressive ad-hominins within this appeal and your complete lack of concern for it.   I can genuinely say I had a lot of great times on Aurora, and I can also say that's decisively over.  

Edited September 4 by The_Ill_Fated