Killerhurtz Posted October 30, 2015 Posted October 30, 2015 You don't understand what you say. First, simply detaining you and taking your statement WAS attempted - you WERE in processing, and Sybil was JUST about to say that she would seek to reduce, up to nullifying, your sentence right before Ahren devoured you. Second, about these tests - you would have been the equivalent of dead regardless. You would have been heavily sedated (possibly through a constant, extreme dose of chloral hydrate) and cut open to examine your insides, THEN would have been used for chemical tests - and finally because of Sybil's curiosity about saying that Ahren never saw one of these species interact with a black hole, she'd have stationed someone with a radsuit to check the singularity while she teleported you inside with Telescience. Because that's what she does - she figures out how to make things break. And if Ahren didn't cooperate, as previously stated, it would have changed nothing simply because it would have been beyond Sybil's power to actually do that. Though I think, by now, we would profit if we got that other player in here.
Evandorf Posted October 30, 2015 Author Posted October 30, 2015 I don't think I can say it more plainly and maybe a mod could step in here. We seem to be going round in circles. First, I previously posted the exact last seconds of when I died and it appears to me you were pretty complicit in my death. Second, by tests I mean tests to verify what I was. I didn't mean scientific experiments on my person at risk to my health in the name of progress. If you had simply stopped Ahren from consuming me and then proceeded to toss me into a singularity or some other experiment you are still operating from the assumption that I am an alien and deserving of punishment or experimentation.
Killerhurtz Posted October 30, 2015 Posted October 30, 2015 Denton, there's already two mods that have pitched in. Also, there's a reason why Sybil is a RD and not a security officer. A security officer reacts in the now. Sybil thinks about all possible outcomes and acts out on that, fair or not. She had information - and with that information, the possibilities that you were a danger to the station outweighed the possibilities that you were innocent. As I said, Sybil is selfless - yes, she may be unfair in her dealings, but if it meant keeping the station safe, she would accept all the consequences that come with it. Just earlier today, Sybil was brigged for saying that if security didn't detain the rogue geneticist, she would kill him. And she would have indeed if someone didn't end up succeeding at reasoning with them (before demoting and cloning them). Was it fair? Not entirely. Was the threat within reasonable possibilities? Yes.
Evandorf Posted October 30, 2015 Author Posted October 30, 2015 Denton, there's already two mods that have pitched in. Yes and they seem to have contrasting opinions. I also would like to hear back from Tainavaa regarding my previous question. That aside, I'll respond again by saying that you had no information on which to base your judgements other than what Hawkins had told you.
Tainavaa Posted October 30, 2015 Posted October 30, 2015 Tainavaa, I would agree with you except for the point that he was playing a head of staff. Maybe I have the wrong expectation but I had assumed that if you were whitelisted as a head you understood and adhered to your responsibility to the crew. Sybil was not an antagonist so my first though was that she would attempt to resolve the issue without any crew deaths. That isn't how being a head of staff works. We expect heads of staff to understand roleplay and our OOC standards for roleplay. Heads of staff are still just people in a job, they have their own minds with their own goals and own interests. Not mindless slaves. Expecting us to railroad head of staff play is just utterly ridiculous. I wouldn't restrict a head of staff any more than a whitelisted person playing a non-head of staff. In fact I wouldn't restrict any head of staff more than I would a normal player, the idea is that the standard is uniform. What Killerhurtz did was perfectly fine roleplay, and it meets our standards just fine. There was nothing wrong with it, what I'm seeing here is that someone didn't like that they died. But once again, them's the breaks.
Evandorf Posted October 30, 2015 Author Posted October 30, 2015 We expect heads of staff to understand roleplay and our OOC standards for roleplay. Could you expand on this? Mostly what is meant by OOC Standards for roleplay. Do you mean the rules for Roleplaying that appear in the server rules? I may just be getting confused by the terminology. ...what I'm seeing here is that someone didn't like that they died. But once again, them's the breaks. I don't have a problem that I died. Obviously Hawkins was an antagonist but I was just upset with the way command handled it. I guess I was wrong in my assumption of what is required of them. Would there still be nothing wrong with it if infact I was a normal crew member?
Tainavaa Posted October 30, 2015 Posted October 30, 2015 When I say standards for roleplay, I do partially mean that it being within our rules. However I also mean it in terms of quality. People often look for excuses to kill, or to chucklefuck, or to generally be a nuissance giving the excuse that "That's what my character would do". This is generally (or at least in my opinion) regarded as low quality and even still, "low roleplay". If you have a problem with how command handled it, that's still an IC issue. Things are going to happen you don't like. That's life. Was it unethical? It looks unethical. Was it illegal? It sure as hell seems illegal. But unethical and shady characters are pretty IC, especially in controversial situations. But all this controversy is IC, taking it out of character is just no fun at all. Controversy is what makes FUN. We won't police peoples characters, that's just wrong and basically being RP police. And why would you being a normal crew member make the RD's decision any less valid from an RP standpoint?
Evandorf Posted October 31, 2015 Author Posted October 31, 2015 And why would you being a normal crew member make the RD's decision any less valid from an RP standpoint? Sorry, I'm new but I assume that if I were a normal crew, I would have another recourse. I believe the IC Incicent report forum is for that sort of thing and if there is a problem the DO talks to the crew in question during a round. Again I'm new, but that's what I gathered by looking through the forums. But the IC Incidents don't apply to antags. So in one instance, the RD might get a talking to by a DO, in another I don't see that there is recourse to be taken. Please let me know if this is wrong. I admit again that I might not know all the ins and outs of the system.
Killerhurtz Posted November 2, 2015 Posted November 2, 2015 I'll be honest, I still don't know what exactly you're trying to say, or what I should have done different. You're not angry THAT you died, just of the circumstances? Why?
Evandorf Posted November 3, 2015 Author Posted November 3, 2015 I'll be honest, I still don't know what exactly you're trying to say, or what I should have done different. You're not angry THAT you died, just of the circumstances? Why? Was it unethical? It looks unethical. Was it illegal? It sure as hell seems illegal. But unethical and shady characters are pretty IC, especially in controversial situations. Basically, in my opinion and also pulling from the above quote from Tainavaa, what you did was highly unethical at best and illegal and/or illogical at worst. When I originally created this thread it was because I thought you had not followed white-list standards for a head of staff but Tainavaa has already addressed that and says that no server rules/OOC rules were broken and that this is an IC issue. The only question I have left is whether I had any recourse in this at all. Since it is an IC issue, I assume under normal circumstances I should create an IC incident report (although I am not certain regarding this and was one of my questions in my last post). But Incident report rules are clear and you can't create an IC incident report as an antag. So it looks like I'm shit out of luck because I happened to be an antag when this happened to me.
Killerhurtz Posted November 3, 2015 Posted November 3, 2015 So. Let me get this straight. You're complaining because as a Head I didn't follow what you EXPECTED a head to be?
Evandorf Posted November 3, 2015 Author Posted November 3, 2015 You can cut the condescension. My understanding of what was required of whitelisted heads was wrong. Again, Tainavaa already addressed this. However, that doesn't make your actions any better ICly. I was just asking what if any other option was available. The incident report rules are very clear and you cannot create one as an antagonist. However, for future reference and for dealing with grey areas I'd like to know where the cutoff is. I cannot make an incident report as an antagonist or against an antagonist. In the situation we were in however, if I were not an antagonist my death would have been sanctioned by a non-antagonist working off of antag information. Based on the incident report rules I would assume this is also not suitable for an ic incident report. I was just asking for clarification. If this has stopped being relevant to this board then I can ask in the incedent report area and link to this thread but I thought I could simply get an answer here from the mods already familiar with the problem and be done with it.
SierraKomodo Posted November 3, 2015 Posted November 3, 2015 In the situation we were in however, if I were not an antagonist my death would have been sanctioned by a non-antagonist working off of antag information. Based on the incident report rules I would assume this is also not suitable for an ic incident report. I was just asking for clarification. That's a correct assumption. If the event involves or was caused by an antag, DO's can't work on it. Also, I think people need to take a different approach to when they file an incident report - I think they're better suited for continual, repeat offenses of the same nature over the course of several rounds/shifts instead of for a single offense that could have been reported and handled during the round, or for more serious incidents such as this one if it hadn't involved an antag (Albeit the death might have thrown a wrench into things as well as deaths are usually non-canon) NOTE: This is spoken as a former DO. As far as I know, the rules haven't changed for them. But if they have and I'm not aware, I could be wrong here.
Shadow Posted November 8, 2015 Posted November 8, 2015 Yes, there are always other options. However, I wouldn't consider this as "bad RP". You talked about it. I don't think a punishment is necessary. If nobody rises another issue I will lock and archive this in 24 hours.
Recommended Posts