Unban Request - Swagbag

[Swagbag2]

BYOND Key: Swagbag
Total Ban Length: N/A
Banning staff member's Key: N/A
Reason of Ban: I wiped most of security team with a grenade and EMP next to a welder tank during a heist to the Horizon’s cannons.

Reason for Appeal: I’ve always enjoyed playing antagonistic characters in many roleplay settings, ranging from scumbags, outright traitors, or simply disagreeable, Machiavellian, or insufferable characters. I’ve found that given the room and freedom that is often limited to a role like traitor, there is much more room to contribute to other player’s story and the direction of a round. I see the all-too-common trope of crew traitors purchasing a gun or weapon and going berserk all too common, predictable. This hardly contributes to a round’s progression, other character’s development, and the world story. Often these characters only initiate a direct interaction with security, while inconveniencing most of the crew. While I am at fault for this specific issue in the past, I’d like to have the opportunity to be trusted with antag roles, so I am able to have more freedom to contribute to the Aurora story and make other players experiences more memorable and interesting.

In other settings outside of SS13, I’d focus on characters with realistic goals and arcs that’d build up to an eventual betrayal of the group they were in, many times the betrayal wasn’t black or white or entirely “evil” but a reaction to what the character had been through and what they viewed as their best way to deal with it. In SS13, and Aurora specifically, this can be more limited owing to the shorter rounds. However, I do think there is still plenty of room to contribute to arcs and create compelling and realistic conflict. The trope of a “person with a gun” or events leading up to a shooting with security is all too common and personally, too boring for my taste.

 

I’d like to create conflict that’s more reasonable, but not within the scope of a regular, non-antag crew member. One example I have for traitor is a therapist gaslighting their patient, forging fake documents for an involuntary hold and if caught, not resorting to the all-too-common purchase of a gun with telecrystals, but rather a realistic improvisation that involves other characters and a believable goal. 

 

[Roostercat]

Ultimately, what you were banned for was a matter of escalation. I.E. wiping out most of security with a grenade with little to no lead-up. In your own words, what would you say is adequate escalation for an action like this in the future? 

[Swagbag2]

On 26/09/2024 at 01:19, Roostercat said:

Ultimately, what you were banned for was a matter of escalation. I.E. wiping out most of security with a grenade with little to no lead-up. In your own words, what would you say is adequate escalation for an action like this in the future? 

As I recall from the round and the video I had, I wordlessly threw the fragmentation grenade and EMP grenade near the welder tank I setup outside the gun room anticipating a security response. This could have been done a lot better and definitely more believable. Given we were burglar's with a limited arsenal, general equipment, and tools, stealth was our go to off the bat, we stuck to maintenance and hid ourselves from the crew the best we could. As far as it went to escalation, there was no build up on my part. I could have done this in a myriad of ways, leaving a paper outside the cannon room airlocks warning any impeding crew of a booby trap, retaliation, the likes. This would have defined a warning and retaliation to any actions taken. Prior to any hypothetical engagement, other ways I could have done this would have been using my radio after being made known of the security team outside and warning them of a myriad of actions, be it just an empty or real threat (the room you're about to enter without suits is breached, we will sabotage the cannon should you attempt to enter).  Given that the security team vastly outnumbered and outgunned us, I would have avoided my escalation from physical, verbal confrontation and stick to escalation attempts to radio, paper, or anything else available. If all these hypothetical warnings or consequential statements failed and there was clearly defined escalation, only then would I escalate to the stated threats or an act of violence of throwing the grenade.

Simply put, escalation needs to be stated in some manner with believable intent and fear or consideration of the consequences and actions leading up to it. My decision to wordlessly wipe the security team did not contribute to those player's rounds in a meaningful manner and was a bad use of an antag role and had no defined escalation.

[Roostercat]

Closing this due to admin reasons