Staff Complaint: Garnascus (II)

[Jboy2000000]

BYOND Key: Jboy2000000

Staff BYOND Key: Garnascus

Reason for complaint: I feel Garn made a very bad call during an ahelp where I had been ganked by someone who had just had antag ban lifted, and was supposed to be on thin ice because the amount of complaints that lead to the antag ban was substantional. However, Garn decided that Techno metagaming that I had traitor items, and walking into a bathroom and saying absolutely nothing before shooting me three times with a combat shotgun was an IC issue after an "investigation" that lasted a very short amount of time from what I could tell, watching Techno's character stare at nothing for a few minutes, and left me completely un-included, saying absolutely nothing to me past saying he was going to talk to them.

Evidence/logs/etc: Sadly, I have no idea how to use the log system, even though I thought I did it right, so I have no logs to give, but as of posting this, the round ending less than 10 minutes ago, so Im hoping it won't be to much of a task for admins to go back and look, Im sorry for that.

Additional remarks: This is Garn's second staff complaint about them making questionable decision in a very short time. Something to consider.

[Garnascus]

I investigated this issue and found the jump to lethals reasonable yes, i informed you during the ahelp that there is certain evidence that i cant give out due to IC in OOC rules. however i can tell you now. He was aware you knew he was the traitor and he also knew you were the traitor due to finding PDA message logs on katelynn's PDA pinning the traitor title on you. He reasoned that with this information you were going to give out this information to ERT/security and he would be screwed so was left with no choice but to execute you. The knowledge of very incriminating activities as well as proof you being a traitor as well led me to logical assume the jump to lethals was justified and that was the decision i made.

Look if i made a mistake thats one thing and ill do my best to fix it.

[Jboy2000000]

So because he knew I was a traitor, that gives him the excuse to run in and shoot me while saying nothing? How is that fair, at all? I got no RP whatsoever.

[Garnascus]

Essentially, yes. i felt he had reason to silence you as ERT had showed up and you had knowledge of his activities. He felt their was too much of a risk of you ratting him out so he followed you around and then shot you to death. He was likely prompted by you about to rat them out when you said they had both been naughty over comms.

[Jboy2000000]

Antags are here to improve roleplay. How, in any way at all, did this improve my roleplaying experience, or his? This was gank, if he was going to kill me, he should have talked to me first.

[Dreamix]

First, you might want to link the complaint about Techno in here, as it is related.

Second, "This is Garn's second staff complaint about them making questionable decision in a very short time. Something to consider." It's first real complaint about him, I think. As my complaint against Garn was resolved one/two hours after I submitted it, and Contextual's complaint is already resolved (sort of) on ban request on Ffrances.

Third, I don't understand something. Was Kaipov an antag? Was Keener an antag? I don't see a way this would be "valid", with an antag killing an innocent, it wouldn't be okay because of lack or RP. With innocent (detective) killing an antagg, it wouldn't be okay because of lack of RP and killing as non-antag security officer.

[Garnascus]

both individuals were antags. My reasoning for this being ok is essentially from doom's sticky regarding gank situations. http://aurorastation.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=2193

I reasoned that since your character jboy had caught kaipov in numerous illegal and incredibly incriminating situations that kaipov could consider you an extreme threat and could attempt to silence without RP. that was my reasoning and so far im standing by it, i am however open to being shown im wrong. Its entirely possible for me to make mistakes.

[Jboy2000000]

I caught him in the compromising acts a long time ago. It shouldn't have applies to me anymore, at least I think it shouldn't, because that was at least an hour ago when I saw him.

"The character in question is a physical threat to you (he is armed or can be reasonably expected to be armed) and catches you IN an illegal or otherwise compromising act."

The way this is worded, it sounds like it applies to them being found DURING the criminal actives, at that point, not an hour later.

Here is something else I just noticed-

 

I was playing the nurse who took you to the medbay for cloning. Victor Kaipov told me your location, after I asked him.

So, yeah. If he told me where your body was, why would he kill you before "without any role play"?

 

If Victor was trying to keep me quiet, why would he explicitly tell medical my exact location so I could be cloned? I wouldn't remember he killed me, so its not to intimidate me, and I can't think of any other reason he would do it than.

Edited August 20, 2015 by Guest

[Garnascus]

Maybe it should...maybe it shouldn't, the problem is there's such a grey area with these things.When you witnessed the acts he didnt yet know you were a traitor as well so he needed time to "gather evidence" so to speak. Also i think he told medical staff so you could be cloned because he was being a good sport, silencing you is all well and good but you still shouldnt be taken out of the round COMPLETELY like if he had taken your head and spaced it.

[TishinaStalker]

Just going to chime in: It seems that the death served absolutely no purpose whatsoever. The memory loss from CMD expands to half an hour prior to death. Killing someone to "silence them" well after that half an hour and then calling medical to the body served no purpose for their Jboy aside from completely taking him out of the round for however long it took him to get cloned. Jboy's character still would've remembered the acts from an hour ago; which would still make him "a threat". I can understand if he wants to be a good sport by telling medical, but killing Jboy served absolutely 0 purpose other than take him out for an undefined number of time, and leave Techno possibly still thinking "I still need to get rid of this person because they still remember."

Jboy would not have remembered:

• Being called to where they died
  
  Technokat being the killer

 

Jboy would have remembered:

• Technokat doing a whole bunch of crimes

 

Killing without purpose is still bad. Was any interesting RP given to Jboy? Nope. Walked into a room, died, and then got the usual clone RP maybe. Was any interesting RP given to Technokat? Nope. Walked into a room, killed Jboy for X reason, but X reason was immediately made invalid because he told Medical where to find the body.

[Guest]

I have a question. I would assume it's a good question, but perhaps that's just confirmation bias getting to me. It probably is.

Why keep someone on your staff team if they're I.) Going to cause problems, II.) Problematic enough that issues will be brought up around them, and/or III.) Consistently deviating from the observed Aurora Server Staff Modus Operandi, and not quite grasping the objective goal of the Staff team (and thus making calls as a staff member that renders the staff POV on a subject rather inconsistent, since dissent is now prevalent)?

Clearly, three complaints have brought up the subject regarding dissatisfaction with a trial moderator's performance.

Would it be more or less prudent to reconsider their performance as a trial moderator?

[Garnascus]

Just going to chime in: It seems that the death served absolutely no purpose whatsoever. The memory loss from CMD expands to half an hour prior to death. Killing someone to "silence them" well after that half an hour and then calling medical to the body served no purpose for their Jboy aside from completely taking him out of the round for however long it took him to get cloned. Jboy's character still would've remembered the acts from an hour ago; which would still make him "a threat". I can understand if he wants to be a good sport by telling medical, but killing Jboy served absolutely 0 purpose other than take him out for an undefined number of time, and leave Techno possibly still thinking "I still need to get rid of this person because they still remember."

Jboy would not have remembered:

• Being called to where they died
  
  Technokat being the killer

 

Jboy would have remembered:

• Technokat doing a whole bunch of crimes

 

Killing without purpose is still bad. Was any interesting RP given to Jboy? Nope. Walked into a room, died, and then got the usual clone RP maybe. Was any interesting RP given to Technokat? Nope. Walked into a room, killed Jboy for X reason, but X reason was immediately made invalid because he told Medical where to find the body.

 

I suppose i figured he just wanted to buy some time? although at this point i admit im extremely conflicted. It might be i made an error in judgement here...

[Guest]

I suppose i figured he just wanted to buy some time? although at this point i admit im extremely conflicted. It might be i made an error in judgement here...

 

I'll admit I did not anticipate a willingness to concede and consider a plausible motive regarding a case.

Interesting.

[Garnascus]

I have a question. I would assume it's a good question, but perhaps that's just confirmation bias getting to me. It probably is.

Why keep someone on your staff team if they're I.) Going to cause problems, II.) Problematic enough that issues will be brought up around them, and/or III.) Consistently deviating from the observed Aurora Server Staff Modus Operandi, and not quite grasping the objective goal of the Staff team (and thus making calls as a staff member that renders the staff POV on a subject rather inconsistent, since dissent is now prevalent)?

Clearly, three complaints have brought up the subject regarding dissatisfaction with a trial moderator's performance.

Would it be more or less prudent to reconsider their performance as a trial moderator?

 

I disagree, the complaint on suicide was simply an error in communication and a vagueness of when suicide is accepted or not. I had my reasoning for the one concerning frances's CMO and i admitted i should have pmed them about it. This current complaint i am still conflicted about. I do no make excuses for my mistakes nor am i overly concerned about making mistakes in the first place. If im shown i am wrong or made an error in judgement ill admit to it and do my best to fix it. If i worry too much about making mistakes then i might ignore or hold back and stagnate my ability as a moderator.

Essentially i look for every opportunity, mistakes especially as a learning experience.

[Frances]

Solely having people complain about your behavior does not necessarily put you in the wrong. If we used that logic, a lot of regular antag players would have been banned by now, simply because antagging tends to make some people pretty salty.

As for the complaints posted against Garnascus (and idk why that one needs to be numbered lmao), I don't see anything that Garnascus has done as the mark of a bad moderator.

Garnascus has shown to be incredibly civil and open to discussion. He was able to share an understandable reasoning for the calls he made, and of the two other complaints made, one was solved after clearing up an (understandable) misunderstanding (Garn even said he'd make an effort to communicate more clearly in the future) and the other (the one against me) involves a topic the community seems to have very diverse opinions on (and I thus don't think he should be faulted for taking the stance he did).

Keep in mind even senior members of staff make mistakes all the time, because administrating a HRP server causes you to run into a lot of gray areas while still requiring fast in-round decision making. I believe Garnascus has demonstrated to be both a pleasant and reasonable individual (two super important qualities for a mod), and I think it'd be a little unfair to say his position as a trialmod needs to be put in question simply because complaints have been made against him (instead of looking at the way he addressed the complaints.)

[Jboy2000000]

The reason I numbered this is because theres another complaint against Garn, and I didn't want two threads to have the exact same title as another because that might get confusing.

[EvilBrage]

The memory loss from CMD expands to half an hour prior to death.

 

I was under the impression that it extended through whenever the last genetic backup was taken of a character - that's what the link through the rules says, anyways.

In any case, if they knew an individual was a traitor for well over an hour, you could at least have some fun with them; they've likely told all of the relevant authorities that they needed to, if they were going to. From what I understand, Garnascus is new and we could chalk this up to a learning experience, but I also have to disagree with his decision based on the information we have. Yes, perhaps they were reasonably expected to be armed, but we have a hostage-taking mode (or at very least, you could blow off his leg before you waltz up and make your verbal point) to prevent people from accessing inventories and the like while they're being held up.

However.

We're missing some information. A combat shotgun is a large item - did Jboy react and try to fight them as soon as they saw the combat shotgun? Was Jboy admiring themselves in the mirror before the antagonist wordlessly waltzed up and blasted his brains out?

We need more context.

[Jboy2000000]

I was hiding in a bathroom stall using a voice changer to talk on the radio, Techno opened the door and started blasting, I had zero time to react, and I was typing to yell whoever open the door to get out because my character was going to use going to the bathroom as their excuse to be in there when I heard the door opening, so I was focused on looking at my keyboard to type rather than whoever opened the door.

[Guest]

I have a question. I would assume it's a good question, but perhaps that's just confirmation bias getting to me. It probably is.

Why keep someone on your staff team if they're I.) Going to cause problems, II.) Problematic enough that issues will be brought up around them, and/or III.) Consistently deviating from the observed Aurora Server Staff Modus Operandi, and not quite grasping the objective goal of the Staff team (and thus making calls as a staff member that renders the staff POV on a subject rather inconsistent, since dissent is now prevalent)?

Clearly, three complaints have brought up the subject regarding dissatisfaction with a trial moderator's performance.

Would it be more or less prudent to reconsider their performance as a trial moderator?

 

I disagree, the complaint on suicide was simply an error in communication and a vagueness of when suicide is accepted or not. I had my reasoning for the one concerning frances's CMO and i admitted i should have pmed them about it. This current complaint i am still conflicted about. I do no make excuses for my mistakes nor am i overly concerned about making mistakes in the first place. If im shown i am wrong or made an error in judgement ill admit to it and do my best to fix it. If i worry too much about making mistakes then i might ignore or hold back and stagnate my ability as a moderator.

Essentially i look for every opportunity, mistakes especially as a learning experience.

 

These were good answers, and I'm convinced you're telling the truth.

Regarding the current complaint, what exactly do you believe you're conflicted about?

[Garnascus]

So ive given this one some though and i think i might be able to explain what im conflicted about here. Lets start by talking about what i think is /good/ here. techno gathered some evidence and pieced the clues together and just when jboy thought he was most safe taunting them over the radio under the alias, in reality techno knew it all in an interesting plot twist and shot him dead in the bathroom. This sequence here i think is interesting, however we can all also universally agree that getting shot out of no where at least from jboy's perspective isnt very fun.

So....what do we do here? do we ALWAYS have to ensure RP at least makes some effort to make things interesting for the victim or in slowing things up do we let go of otherwise interesting situations that could happen? Or is it perhaps more healthy to embrace that not everyone is always going to have a "fair" time and with all the ludicrously lethal and dangerous things and situations in this game its a wonder any of us are alive at the end of a round. At the time i wasnt entirely sure and im still not.

Essentially what im trying to say is i think there was a decent amount of good here, and a sizable portion of bad here. this of course brings up another conflict, what SHOULD i have done if indeed i did make a mistake? should i have banned techno from antag roles as hes on thin ice? or should i have added a warning as perhaps it wasnt ENTIRELY a gank? or is it something as simple as a communication error and me not explaining well enough at the time to jboy why i did not consider him to be ganked? I dont know but i do know that asking these questions will make me a better moderator.

[Jboy2000000]

"Interesting plot twist." I think the thing people here are missing is that Aurora is Heavy RP, and me and Techno had absolutely zero contact, no RP, no interaction outside seeing each other through a window, and he wordlessly killed me with zero reason and purpose.

Something else, is like Garn said, Techno is SUPPOSE to be on thin ice, hes SUPPOSED to be on probation, and as was said on page one, he wordlessly killed with zero reason and purpose. From where Im sitting, its not even a question he should have been given a punishment, but instead Garn decided it was an IC issue, and he didn't even tell me he decided that until I asked if I was going to be revived twice.

[Frances]

To be honest, I don't really know if Garnascus' call was wrong. After rereading this thread I find the evidence of the PDA messages discovered by Techno's character to be pretty valid. He could've threatened you, explosive-implanted you, kidnapped you, or do idk what thing to prevent your character from selling him out, but due to how unreceptive a lot of characters are to antags I don't think he was under any obligation to do so. At some point, you don't think it's a bit silly that antags have to "kidnap" or somehow keep alive every character problematic to their plan for the sake of roleplay?

It's like, for example, if you engage in violent traitorous acts, and security comes to fight you with laser rifles, and you end up killing a member of sec or two that you've had little interactions with prior. Would that be considered ganking, and if not, what's the difference between that and this? They're both situations where an antag kills another character without extensive roleplay, for a believable motive, in an effort to protect themselves.

If he had a clear advantage on you, a short courtesy conversation explaining to your character why he was executing them before pulling the trigger would've been nice, but given that a lot of players are tempted to resist even while being held at gunpoint, I don't think I can even really fault him for skipping that.

[Jboy2000000]

It's like, for example, if you engage in violent traitorous acts, and security comes to fight you with laser rifles, and you end up killing a member of sec or two that you've had little interactions with prior. Would that be considered ganking, and if not, what's the difference between that and this? They're both situations where an antag kills another character without extensive roleplay, for a believable motive, in an effort to protect themselves

 

The difference there is that, that situation is clearly outlined in Doom's footnote about gank.

 

Example situation one:

You are a security officer who gets held up by an antagonist. You are armed, you have a tazer on your belt. You think you may have a chance to take down the antagonist. You go for your tazer and engage the antagonist. Obviously, the antagonist, at this point, can kill you without any further emotes or say's involved. Whoever wins, wins (the main argument being, if the antagonist was truly in control of you and the situation, you'd die. Horribly).

 

To be honest, but due to how unreceptive a lot of characters are to antags I don't think he was under any obligation to do so.

but given that a lot of players are tempted to resist even while being held at gunpoint, I don't think I can even really fault him for skipping that.

 

Metagaming. What you're describing there is metagaming.

[Frances]

Is it metagaming, when you know the other character to be an antagonist?

The actual lore/game outlines on what antags "are" are pretty vague (since a lot of them choose not to RP being syndicate), but I think an antag should be allowed to surmise a fellow antag would have access to the same tools he or she does, and could demonstrate a high level of both training and aggression.

Edit: If you want to look at it from an OOC perspective, antags put themselves at risk whenever they try to coerce someone to do their bidding via RP (since it's so easy to screw an antag over by telling on sec, running around and causing a huge ruckus, or simply screaming on the radio). As an antag, I expect most bystanders to give me the courtesy of playing along to a reasonable extent (as that usually ends up creating more interesting situations than generic arrest/manhunt number 3000), but I could definitely see an antag pointing a gun at another antag as free rein for the second antag to do whatever they please to get out of the situation.

[Jboy2000000]

What antags are, are non-canon. If antags are non-canon, how would they know at all how someone, especially someone who they've never had a violent/tense encounter with, would react poorly?

 

but given that a lot of players are tempted to resist even while being held at gunpoint, I don't think I can even really fault him for skipping that.

 

A lot of PLAYERS. Players. The people who play the characters. OOCly. OOC knowledge.