Staff Complain: Garnascus

[mirkoloio]

BYOND Key: mirkoloio

Staff BYOND Key: Garnascus

Reason for complaint: Unjust Punishment.

Evidence/logs/etc: Soho: Stamos was treathened by Kaitlin Richards today in Cargo. WIth a canesword. She Said "Gimme your ID or I cut your Hand off". We all know Stamos. He doesn't take shit, and even less shit from a Woman. So, He said "Nope" and thought he can handle Richards because of Johnny Bravo thinkinh. Went rather Well. He disarmed her and fled, called the CMO for help. She came, along with the Detective. | Here begins the Actual Complaint, the other stuff is context| The detective, as he was told to arrest Richards, drew his Lazor gun and aimed it at Stamos. He fired it at Stamos once and then Lowered his Aim. Stamos used the lowering of the aim to disarm him wich caused the Strugle-code to fire another shot at Stamos. As Stamos disarmed the detective, he reflexively took the gun and shot at him, downing him. As soon as it was done he threw the gun away and got distance between him and the Detective. I was soon after that contacted by Garnascus as to Why Stamos didn't get downed as he was shot twice by Lazors. He said I am Ignoring pain RP to lay down and be pained when I was shot twice. Now, I've never, never ever, seen any Nuke op or other traitor lay down when they were shot twice by a Lazer. Never. They just kept merrily running and shooting. And so do our Kind Sec officers. YOu shoot them and they keep comming untill they fall. All the time. I received a Warning for Ignoring Fear/pain RP.

Logs and screenies:

 

Additional remarks: none as of now

[Japak121]

The biggest issue I have is this: Using other players poor RP as an excuse to do so yourself.

If you see it happen, ahelp it and they'll get the same warning. It's poor RP.

That said, they are military/pirates/mercenaries. YOU are a cargo tech. A cargo tech, not a soldier used to get shot at/getting shot. You aren't a hand-to-hand combat specialist. You aren't a gritty urban cop or a mercenary or any of those things. Your job revolves around crates and paperwork. How the hell would you have the ability to disarm a sword wielding officer AND a detective armed with a rifle? Just because YOU are robust doesn't mean you should rambo people who ICly should be able to knock you on your ass.

By the way, I was watching the entire incident unfold because there was a chance this could turn out to be some good and new antag RP from the officers. Your robusting them put a stop to that for the most part.

Overall, I feel like Garnascus made a solid call here. The above proves that the call was just and fair.

[Garnascus]

I applied a warning to your account as i found your level of RP to be far beyond anything reasonable a rational sane individual would do in your shoes. Let me be clear, it was the entirety of the situation with the officer and the detective that led me give a warning to your account.

You claim we all know stamos and that he "doesnt take shit" especially from women. this is fine and would be reasonable if said women were merely giving you attitude or was perhaps a head of staff giving you orders. However she explicitly stated she would cut your hand off if you didnt give her your ID. regardless of whatever pride or contempt for women your character may have it is in no way reasonable to /disarm/ them of their weapon when you are threatened with bodily harm. Perhaps if she had tried to kill you.

Second the gun was being aimed at you and he fired a shot, now you took this opportunity to rush them and in the struggle were fired at AGAIN. THEN you took the gun and fired at them in turn, you demonstrated a complete lack of fear RP, pain RP and being able to handle a laser rifle. This is completely unreasonable and unjustifiable in my eyes.

given these facts i stand by my decision and im sorry if you feel others not following similar pain RP conduct but all i can say is ahelp it and we will deal with it, just because you dont see a player banned doesnt mean we arent doing something about it.

[Shadow]

Right. I observed the scene as Kyra Hill, CMO.

I mean, a normal person wouldn't charge at someone that just shot you twice with a laser rifle.

I could have flashed him but I didn't since he had a rifle and was willing to use it.

Basically, Japak said everything. A cargo tech couldn't take two shots and then charge at someone and take their gun while you you were in critical condition (according to my health HUD) and then shoot them to near death. Although, I need to say that I didn't observe the incident with the sword and the officer.

[mirkoloio]

I'M not saying Stamos is a damn nuke op. What I was trying to say: Is that no antag, Be it ling, wizard, Or normal traitor. RPs to lay down when he's shot twice. Did you ever see someone "rest" down when they were shot twice? Ever? It's also not only antags who don't go down after being shot twice.

Edited August 13, 2015 by Guest

[Garnascus]

I must have been a bit unclear, im not saying you had to literally "rest" and lie down but i am saying you should RPed some serious pain and NOT rushed.

[Shadow]

I'M not saying Stamos is a damn nuke op. What I was trying to say: Is that no antag, Be it ling, wizard, Or normal traitor. RPs to lay down when he's shot twice. Did you ever see someone "rest" down when they were shot twice? Ever?

 

In fact, yes, I did see a good amount of traitors wizards "rest" because they got shot. Although I never saw a ling "rest". Not many do it, but still, there are people who "rest" when they got shot because of the pain.

[mirkoloio]

And that's the point. Nobody, do they rest or do they don't, ever as to my knowledge has been punished for it.

[Japak121]

FACTS:

- You were a cargotech with no military skills.

- You were given a way out without violence.

- You got away and came BACK into conflict.

- You got an ahelp against you and a mod responded to it.

- You defend yourself by saying 'they do it, so why can't I?'.

Look over those facts and tell me if you really think this complaint is valid.

Let the 'rest' thing go. It's not the point and is just detracting from the actual one. He obviously implied you should have handled Pain RP better and not rushed the officers. That's the whole point here. Focus please.

[Japak121]

And hold up a second. Where did Garnascus, anywhere in your screenshotted log, say he should have rested? Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't even see that.

[mirkoloio]

Yes, I am like "Why can everyone else but me?"

Also note that I didn't come "back" to combat. The combat came to me into cargo. I did never expect the Detective to aim the gun at me. And a way without violence... The detective opened fire while I was two tiles away. That's not really a way without Violence

Also, What's with all the other "normal roles" wich are willy nilly handed guns out to and they join combat? I don't want to call names here but there are certain Chars wich sometimes are playing normal roles and then going on the witch hunt once Antags show their faces. You know they exist, don't deny it. I can call out names, if you wish me to.

[Japak121]

Yes, I am like "Why can everyone else but me?"

Also note that I didn't come "back" to combat. The combat came to me into cargo. I did never expect the Detective to aim the gun at me. And a way without violence... The detective opened fire while I was two tiles away. That's not really a way without Violence

Also, What's with all the other "normal roles" wich are willy nilly handed guns out to and they join combat? I don't want to call names here but there are certain Chars wich sometimes are playing normal roles and then going on the witch hunt once Antags show their faces. You know they exist, don't deny it. I can call out names, if you wish me to.

 

1. Well it's a poor and childish excuse. We're cracking down on this sort of thing, because it's poor RP and we get complaints about it enough that it's a major issue. You're the first to ever contest a warning about it, to my knowledge, believe it or not.

2. You were in the cargo office, disarmed the officer, ran into the cargo bay, stopped, and came BACK at the officer instead of running.

3. Not sure what you mean by "normal roles" which get guns willy nilly. In that round, they used an emag and broke into the vault to get weapons.

4. And those people are generally warned just like you were if we see them. People get a few warnings of the same type, they get a temp ban and so on untill they learn or are permanently banned. If you see them, ahelp it and we will deal with it. Funnily enough, I am willing to bet most of the people you would list HAVE been bwoinked and warned about it. Quite a few are working on not doing it and we understand that.

[mirkoloio]

ONe of those Normal Roles is played by a Staff member. That were different shifts.

What happened in the bay was: I tried to close the doors to stop them from following me. WIch failed so I had to disarm them again.

[the_furry]

So I’m just gona throw my two cents in. I don’t think mirk should have gotten a warning over this and I can go indepth as to why that is the case. But I will sum up the inconsistency pretty quickly. The argument seems to be that no cargo tech should have been able to robust these characters nor even attempted to because they are cargo. Now if my memory serves right I’ve seen yinzr play as cargo tech plenty of times, and he is known to be robusty. I highly doubt he would have received a warning for this issue. Now if he would not receive the warning for the same behavior, I have to ask why would you single stamos out but not yinzr? Yinzr’s primary job is security, but if he is a cargo tech that means that it is possible to have a background in security/robustyness and still be a cargo tech. Now I don’t know what stamos’ background is but if his background involved piracy/security/robusting then I think it’s very fair and in character that he behaved the way he did (as he seems to establish about his character). So by giving stamos a warning you are singling out a player for the same behavior that would be completely acceptable by another player. That it simply unfair and sends mixed messages of what the rules of the server are.

*Edit*

Now japak says “you guys are cracking down on this sort of thing”. If that is true then you are cracking down on way the wrong person. Why not crack down on yinzr, or jackboot, or half the others in security that does this? Unless you guys have thrown them warnings to and others (such as myself) are just not aware of it. if that’s the case and it is a general and honest crack down then the warning to mirk does make since. I am curious to see if robustyness from other characters(specifically security) will be tolerated by admins, because thus far it has been.

Edited August 13, 2015 by Guest

[Guest]

 

 

Let's go over this again, because this is a specific incident where the evidence is pretty damning.

First off, what the shit was going through your head?

You decide it's a splendid idea to rush at someone in an effort to disarm them of their own laser rifle, and then once you finally succeed after failing two fucking times and allowing the other party to put two lasers into you (in which you should've fucked off and gotten medical treatment), you then proceeded to pick up the laser rifle and then proceed to turn it on the other party and laser them into hardcrit. Hardcrit is past -50, in which you begin to suffocate. You very nearly murdered someone as a non-antagonist.

You should've been banned right off the bat for ramboing + self-antagging to a disgustingly stupid degree just so that you could get a weapon, you wouldn't even have gotten away with this on a medium RP server. My only complaint here was that the handling moderator was too lenient, and likely doesn't know who you are and how you've behaved in the past.

[Guest Menown]

While I don't agree with 'A cargo tech wouldn't know how to do that', I do agree with the rest of it.

A cargo tech at the age of sixty or even twenties-thirties could easily have served in some other position. The logic of limiting somebody on what they can do based on job only flies at bay.

Attempted murder is attempted murder, You disarm somebody holding a weapon and they shoot you, you don't go, 'Let me get this gun when I'm clearly in the wrong and try to kill this person.'

[Garnascus]

So I’m just gona throw my two cents in. I don’t think mirk should have gotten a warning over this and I can go indepth as to why that is the case. But I will sum up the inconsistency pretty quickly. The argument seems to be that no cargo tech should have been able to robust these characters nor even attempted to because they are cargo. Now if my memory serves right I’ve seen yinzr play as cargo tech plenty of times, and he is known to be robusty. I highly doubt he would have received a warning for this issue. Now if he would not receive the warning for the same behavior, I have to ask why would you single stamos out but not yinzr? Yinzr’s primary job is security, but if he is a cargo tech that means that it is possible to have a background in security/robustyness and still be a cargo tech. Now I don’t know what stamos’ background is but if his background involved piracy/security/robusting then I think it’s very fair and in character that he behaved the way he did (as he seems to establish about his character). So by giving stamos a warning you are singling out a player for the same behavior that would be completely acceptable by another player. That it simply unfair and sends mixed messages of what the rules of the server are.

*Edit*

Now japak says “you guys are cracking down on this sort of thing”. If that is true then you are cracking down on way the wrong person. Why not crack down on yinzr, or jackboot, or half the others in security that does this? Unless you guys have thrown them warnings to and others (such as myself) are just not aware of it. if that’s the case and it is a general and honest crack down then the warning to mirk does make since. I am curious to see if robustyness from other characters(specifically security) will be tolerated by admins, because thus far it has been.

 

Stamos could have been the most grizzled and hardened head of security in the sector and i still would have applied this warning. he rushed someone after taking a laser shot to the chest without wearing any sort of armor and then after attempting to disarm them of it they were shot a second time. they THEN decided to take up the weapon and shoot the antag to crit. the culmination of all of this is why i have applied this warning and why i still stand by it. If it was yinzr, jackboot or any other player in this exact type of situation with the exact same type of playout i would have also applied a warning.

[Japak121]

While I don't agree with 'A cargo tech wouldn't know how to do that', I do agree with the rest of it.

A cargo tech at the age of sixty or even twenties-thirties could easily have served in some other position. The logic of limiting somebody on what they can do based on job only flies at bay.

Attempted murder is attempted murder, You disarm somebody holding a weapon and they shoot you, you don't go, 'Let me get this gun when I'm clearly in the wrong and try to kill this person.'

 

See, the issue is you're focusing on that one aspect of this case and somehow applying it to other cases with other modifiers.

This is STAMOS as a CARGO TECH who rushed TWO antags who each had different weapons. This is a specific incident. The post I made was about there character falling into all of those variables. And saying that about attempted murder as if anyone would do what he did is a bit crazy. Plenty more people would just...cry or plead for mercy or just hand over there ID to the crazy sword wielding security officer.

This also goes back to "Just because others do it doesn't mean you should too" thing. This is a roleplaying game and we expect on the server a high level of roleplay. Which means your characters should be unique. IF everyone handles antags the same way, what in the hell is unique about it? You're just turning it into some kind of wierd action-adventure thing by basing your actions of those who have come before you. I understand creativity only goes so far, but everyone doing this when confronted needs to stop. I'm not saying no one can ever do it, but if you make a young guy with no military training/law enforcement training/krav magav or whatever, then it's expected you don't act like you have all of that. If you want to be like that, make them a vet. If you don't want someone who knows combat, then DON'T have them roleplay like it. I really just don't get it and if someone would like to..i don't know, explain it to me in private, I'd genuinely appreciate it.

Examples of different people in the same situation: (as in if these people were a cargo tech under the exact circumstances as this)

Yinzr - Has security training and a combat background: It would be understandable that they would know the movements/have the skill to take down an attacker.

Locklear(Either of them) - Have no combat experience at all: They would be expected to at the very least comply, be extremely frieghtened, or attempt to flee.

Isra - No combat experience but has a known temper: Would be expected to resist some, but not to use a weapon.

I don't know if that helps explain where my thoughts are at, but at this point, I feel like I've explained about all I can on how I feel.

[mirkoloio]

I'll from now on monitor /every/ combat I can and will toss ahelps at you for everyone who doesn't back off after being shot twice. I will. And, If you're handing out warnings to them too, then I'M good. If not, I'll reroll this complaint. Please, I'd like this to be sealed.

[Doomberg]

Okay. You were confronted by an armed antag while being entirely unarmed, yourself. Your lack of cooperation isn't necessarily the issue here - the issue I see is this: Instead of refusing to cooperate by putting as MUCH distance as possible between you and said armed terrorist/murderer/pirate and setting a sort of trap or doing your best to gain the advantage or just never encounter them again, you stepped over to disarm them of their weapon. Generally speaking, trying to wrestle a sword out of someone's hand when you have the ability to get the hell away and fight later on even ground is not a very sane course of action.

I can't ask you to drop to the ground and become useless in a hostile encounter the moment you're shot - I've seen that sort of enforcement elsewhere and it was always a mess - but unless you are completely cornered and there is no possible escape, you really shouldn't be trying to take on someone with a lethal weapon when you have no arms to your name.

Tl;dr: When in doubt, bugger off and fight another day.

I'll leave this up for 24 hours in case anyone has anything to add.

[the_furry]

So I was going to leave this as is but I’m noticing a clear incongruity between what several of the admins are saying here and it concerns me.

Japak, you elaborate really well on the ideas that I was trying to get at. This was a role play issue, the act of robusting and downing two hostile people while unarmed is not inherently wrong for players to do. Had yinzr done what stamos did there would be no problem here. So the actual behavior is not what is in dispute (as the warning suggests) instead what is important is the context of the behavior. The warning is wrong, or at least worded wrong. I want to elaborate. Your statement "Just because others do it doesn't mean you should too", is true, but I understand the word ‘you’ to mean the character not the player. Had mirk been playing yinzr instead of stamos then he would not have received this warning (according to Japak if I understand correctly). The reason for that is because of the difference between lore/background/personality of the two characters. Stamos (from what I understand) is simply a cargo tech, he has no established background that would give him credit to downing two armed men, and so by doing so mirk broke immersion and character contiguity which resulted in poor roleplay. However if mirk was playing a character with an established security background and personality traits that include, rashness, boldness, zero self-preservation, then mirk would have fit immersion and contiguity just fine and it would make since for him to take down two armed men (the way yinzr does all the time). If this is the case then the warning and other admins have not conveyed it.

So that’s what I get from japak and I agree, I think the warning should be removed or at least reworded to reflect it was an rp issue not that the behavior itself is bad. Let’s get into the incongruity between the admins in what’s said here. Garnascus says “Stamos could have been the most grizzled and hardened head of security in the sector and i still would have applied this warning.” Which would indicate an exact counter to what japak is saying. Garnascus is suggesting that the behavior itself (of downing two armed people while unarmed) is inherently wrong. Furthermore he says that he would have applied the same warning to yinzr and jackboot and anyone else that does this action. Now if that is the case there’s some clear problems with this. The first of which is the obvious favoritism being shown, I was on a round just last night where the player that played yinzr robusted two or three ninjas and I highly doubt he was warned (alist told me garnascus was active on at the time). As doomberg said, Enforcing robustness to this level is always a mess. It will create favoritism to some players (such as yinzr) while others are receiving warnings for the exact same behavior.

What garnascus is saying is the exact opposite of what japak is saying, one of these stances I take major issues with. To sum up, I think the wording of the warning should be changed. I feel that way because as it stands right now if mirk creates a new character in the future that is an exact mirror to yinzr (yinzr2.0) and he does what yinzr would do then he would be banned even though he was doing exactly what yinzr would do with an established reason to do it. mirk hampered roleplay by playing a charater that has no established security or combat practice as if he was a god at combat. That is a role play issue, the behavior itself was not wrong; which is why others such as yinzr can do it and stamos can not. mirk, however, could do this (if he wanted to), by creating an established character that would fit that roleplay feature.

[Alberyk]

The problem, furry, is that he charged at someone without any weapon, just using disarm. Yinzr never do it, no one wants to be shoot by lasers or bullets, when I am going to fight, I am not going to fight unarmed, even if the only thing I have is the baton, just going ahead and disarming is bad. Also, in that said round, I was playing another character, a m'sai tajara sec officer, I didn't charge at the ninjas unarmed and neither I did tried to steal their weapons to bash them with it. When I have a gun and I see that someone unarmed is getting too near, I just shoot. Mirk had rng luck and probably the player was not really to murder him right there, so, that is why he managed to put him down.

There is a difference between pushing or punching someone that is fighting at melee with you, with something like a wrench or a stool, but, charging at someone with a gun and just disarming then, well, it is kinda bad. I don't think the problem is robusting people, but, the way you do so. In that said ninja round, I fought against the ninjas using only the carbines, never getting in melee or even in any direct contact physical with them. Yinzr can be bold and prideful, but, it gets him killed a lot, but, I never ever try to run toward people with gun and just disarm them with barehands, if I am trying some kind of thing, I am using at least the stun-baton, but, it will probably end with Yinzr dying or getting really hurt.

[Japak121]

I have to say, the_furry, that was very well articulated. You are correct about quite a bit, but there are a few (relatively minor) issues that just aren't that easy to address.

Occasionally things like staff having varying opinions will happen because we aren't robots, but people, with all the side effects that come with that. Sometimes we're just having a bad/good day and sometimes an issue comes up that one staffer may view differently than another based on there own experiences. It happens and there is very little we could really do about it other than creating rules for every single possible situation and every variation of that situation, which isn't possible.

Also, I think it's a bit unfair to assume automatically that there would be bias for whatever reason. If mirk created a space-nam' veteran with a strong military background who proceeded to be as robust as Yinzr, I wouldn't see the issue as long as it was properly RPed. I've bwoinked pretty much everyone by now at least once for one thing or another and judgeing from notes I've seen, I think everyone has. No one is perfect. We also have a rule about handling things we are involved in or have personal bias with. Admins/Mods occasionally pass on ahelps because they have an OOC issue with someone. I imagine if they ever didn't, and another staffer knew, then another staffer would address it and take over the issue.

Overall, should the wording be changed? No. The player ignored fear/pain RP. There character had no logical excuse to do what they did. So the warning is stated accurately.

[Garnascus]

So I was going to leave this as is but I’m noticing a clear incongruity between what several of the admins are saying here and it concerns me.

Japak, you elaborate really well on the ideas that I was trying to get at. This was a role play issue, the act of robusting and downing two hostile people while unarmed is not inherently wrong for players to do. Had yinzr done what stamos did there would be no problem here. So the actual behavior is not what is in dispute (as the warning suggests) instead what is important is the context of the behavior. The warning is wrong, or at least worded wrong. I want to elaborate. Your statement "Just because others do it doesn't mean you should too", is true, but I understand the word ‘you’ to mean the character not the player. Had mirk been playing yinzr instead of stamos then he would not have received this warning (according to Japak if I understand correctly). The reason for that is because of the difference between lore/background/personality of the two characters. Stamos (from what I understand) is simply a cargo tech, he has no established background that would give him credit to downing two armed men, and so by doing so mirk broke immersion and character contiguity which resulted in poor roleplay. However if mirk was playing a character with an established security background and personality traits that include, rashness, boldness, zero self-preservation, then mirk would have fit immersion and contiguity just fine and it would make since for him to take down two armed men (the way yinzr does all the time). If this is the case then the warning and other admins have not conveyed it.

So that’s what I get from japak and I agree, I think the warning should be removed or at least reworded to reflect it was an rp issue not that the behavior itself is bad. Let’s get into the incongruity between the admins in what’s said here. Garnascus says “Stamos could have been the most grizzled and hardened head of security in the sector and i still would have applied this warning.” Which would indicate an exact counter to what japak is saying. Garnascus is suggesting that the behavior itself (of downing two armed people while unarmed) is inherently wrong. Furthermore he says that he would have applied the same warning to yinzr and jackboot and anyone else that does this action. Now if that is the case there’s some clear problems with this. The first of which is the obvious favoritism being shown, I was on a round just last night where the player that played yinzr robusted two or three ninjas and I highly doubt he was warned (alist told me garnascus was active on at the time). As doomberg said, Enforcing robustness to this level is always a mess. It will create favoritism to some players (such as yinzr) while others are receiving warnings for the exact same behavior.

What garnascus is saying is the exact opposite of what japak is saying, one of these stances I take major issues with. To sum up, I think the wording of the warning should be changed. I feel that way because as it stands right now if mirk creates a new character in the future that is an exact mirror to yinzr (yinzr2.0) and he does what yinzr would do then he would be banned even though he was doing exactly what yinzr would do with an established reason to do it. mirk hampered roleplay by playing a charater that has no established security or combat practice as if he was a god at combat. That is a role play issue, the behavior itself was not wrong; which is why others such as yinzr can do it and stamos can not. mirk, however, could do this (if he wanted to), by creating an established character that would fit that roleplay feature.

 

Moderators are not a hivemind, some of us disagree on certain stances but at the time the decision to apply a warning, while initially mine was /unanimous/. Almost always however the judgement is left up to whoever calls dibs or investigates the issue. Whatever issue there may have been with ninjas yesterday im unaware of,i wasnt paying much attention to the game since i was playing another game and was relying on the ahelp noise to tab back in. I think its unfair to claim im showing favoritism and then point to an example where you see i may have not acted, we do not hand out bans like candy nor do we report to the general players on punishments we may or may not dish out. The behavior itself was actually wrong and anyone in the exact same situation would also have been warned. ( do not even try to take this as yinzr being in full security gear while stamos still being in only cargo tech attire) when i say exact same situation i mean exact same.

The warning is staying as i frankly see no reason to change it.

[mirkoloio]

Thanks, Furry. THis is what I tried to Point out all the time. You're my Hero. I'm simply lacking the ability to articulate this good in english. My English IS very advanced for my age and area of Residence in germany. But I am not Space Jeebus