Staff Complaint - TishinaStalker

[Chaznoodles]

BYOND Key: Chaznoodles.

Staff BYOND Key: TishinaStalker.

Reason for complaint: Attitude unbecoming of a staff member, goading into making a complaint, one-sided view.

Evidence/logs/etc:

Catbeast murders three hostages. Catbeast gets arrested. I ask the HOp if I can take the mantle of Acting Captain for the duration of the emergency. He agrees. I walk up to catbeast, pointblank it repeatedly in the head, get arrested and dragged off to the Brig.

Secondary Admin PM from-TishinaStalker: So, why exactly did you start firing at an already detained person with a lethal weapon?

PM to-TishinaStalker: Three murders from a catbeast. The character wouldn't stand for that, with the criminal having murdered three station personnel, so decided to deal with the issue semi-permanently. This also stems from the trouble catbeasts have caused the character in the past, as shown by the "They've been nothing but bad trouble since their little revolution."

Secondary Admin PM from-TishinaStalker: You understand you're loyalty implanted, right? You shouldn't be unloading and trying to summarily execute detained personnel if they're perfectly controlled.

PM to-TishinaStalker: Loyalty implants make the person act in the best interests of Nanotrasen at the time. THe murder of three crewmembers, and possible others if they get free, is not in the best interests of Nanotrasen. There's been issues before with criminals escaping and committing murder aboard the station with Keelin in charge, and there was not going to be a repeat of that.

Secondary Admin PM from-TishinaStalker: This is simply not permissible in the slightest. You don't have the right to execute personnel like that simply because somebody escaped once. Even less as a loyalty implanted head of staff. If you don't want them to escape, then you put them in solitary or in a straight jacket. You don't stroll over and try to blow their heads off. I will be issuing a warning for this.

PM to-TishinaStalker: It was entirely fine in the situation, due to the escalation that had happened.

Secondary Admin PM from-TishinaStalker: heads off if they're already detained.*

Secondary Admin PM from-TishinaStalker: No, it was not.

PM to-TishinaStalker: It wa and I'm happy to debate it, or are you so one-sided you won't let the character's reasoning for it come into it?

PM to-TishinaStalker: The roleplay that led up to it was bloody, and the resolution was bloody.

Secondary Admin PM from-TishinaStalker: You're free to debate it elsewhere. Loyalty implanted personnel do not stroll over and try to execute detained personnel out of the blue like that. Especially if they're contained in a controlled environment.

PM to-TishinaStalker: I'll happily debate it in an admin complaint. Handcuffs don't stop roleplay.

Secondary Admin PM from-TishinaStalker: Go ahead.

PM to-TishinaStalker: Handcuffs don't bring all roleplay to an end, "Oh they're cuffed, everything's fine and dandy now." That's not how roleplay works, and if you think it does, you need to rethink your approach.

You have been formally warned by an administrator.

Click here to review and acknowledge them!

 

 

Secondary Admin PM from-TishinaStalker: There is a big difference between loyalty implanted heads and an antagonist. You're on the wrong side of the fence if you want to kill detained personnel that are your responsibility.

PM to-TishinaStalker: Loyalty implants don't turn into a robot.

Secondary Admin PM from-TishinaStalker: Thought you were going to follow that up with something else. A loyalty implant doesn't turn you into a robot, yes, but it's nowhere near Nanotrasen's interests for a head of security to go "Welp, time to summarily execute detained personnel" because that is massive amounts of legal trouble. Not only for the head of security, but for Nanotrasen as well. If they get lose, then stop them. If they're already under control? You don't blow their heads off because you're implanted. If you can't play along with that, then I suggest a different role; one that doesn't bring a loyalty implant.

Additional remarks: Has also shown the same stubborn attitude through private messages involving Botanist's prematurely shut down LoreDev application:

 

 

As a long-time staff member in senior over a number of different servers, I'm entirely sure stubbornness and this sort of attitude doesn't pull. It's ridiculous when a staff member refuses to acknowledge the points the other side is making in favour of sticking to their own, and is not what being a staff member is about.

As a side note, I'd like to note 'Only post if involved' as having been on the receiving end of this attitude or other abuse from the staff member in question, as sometimes little things aren't worth a complaint, but they add up to big things.

[Frances]

I've seen a lot of admins (and players) take issue with the sole idea of killing. I wouldn't be surprised if you had been contacted primarily because your character summarily executed another person outside of the clearly defined rules of "it's only okay to kill someone if they're trying to run away from you".

I fail to see how your character wasn't roleplaying appropriately? Implants only dictate that implantees should act in what they believe to be NanoTrasen's best interests... it's very vague and shouldn't preclude situations like this one from happening. (If your character was truly convinced executing a dangerous prisoner was the best way to serve NT then it should be the end of that.)

It might be worth noting that the alternative solution Tishina proposed (straightjacketing the prisoner and putting them in solitary) is actually a worse one from a RP standpoint (takes a person out of the round while doing nothing to advance the plot).

I don't have anything to say about Tishina's attitude personally (other than that I noticed he tends to stick more to the rules than the actual spirit they were written in in general), but I thought these observations might be relevant to the case at hand.

[TishinaStalker]

goading into making a complaint

 

I merely said "Go ahead" because you're are fully within your right to file a complaint, as per our rules. If you saw that as goading, then my bad, I didn't intend it. This is the rule as to why I said that. "All staff decisions are final. OOC and adminhelp aren't the place to argue about our staff's decisions. If you'd like to contest a punishment, rule, or actions from a staffmember, start a discussion thread in the appropriate subsection of our forums, either Unban Requests, Staff Complaints, or General Discussion (for discussing specific rules)."

Catbeast murders three hostages. Catbeast gets arrested. I ask the HOp if I can take the mantle of Acting Captain for the duration of the emergency. He agrees. I walk up to catbeast, pointblank it repeatedly in the head, get arrested and dragged off to the Brig.

 

Being made acting captain does not permit a loyalty implanted head of security to summarily execute detained personnel. Even if they are criminals. More on this near the end.

 

Additional remarks: Has also shown the same stubborn attitude through private messages involving Botanist's prematurely shut down LoreDev application

 

Once more, as I said to you privately, his application was of no concern to you because you were not the affected party. I knew that if I started talking with you, then it would turn into a huge arguement on X, Y, and Z involving Botanist's application. At that point, it's stopping myself and going "Actually, if that happens, then I'm going into an arguement with person Y involving person X's application when in actuality I should be having this discussion with person X and not person Y." I did, in fact, went on to have a discussion with Botanist privately over Skype concerning his application.

 

one-sided view.

 

Lastly, one sided reasoning, not really. I looked at it from your point of view. I really did because I don't simply decide to go "Yeah, well, this person is wrong, and I'm not going to bother looking at it from their side" because that is not productive thinking. That's the kind of thinking you employ if you want to set yourself up to fail. Instead, I looked in, saw the reason why you decided to try and summarily execute the Tajaran, and acted from there.

Loyalty implanted personnel should absolutely not, in any way, be summarily executing detained personnel. Even less a head of security that is charged with the well being of the personnel that are brigged so that they can be brought to Odin. If the Tajaran had been cuffed but in an uncontrollable area (say, on the asteroid with a hardsuit on), then that would've been fine. In this situation, something you left out, is that the Tajaran was detained on the bridge, there was no other threat nearby, and there was even additional security officers on the bridge. You attempted to summarily execute a detained person in a controlled environment as loyalty implanted personnel. That's not okay in the slightest.

I acknowledged your points, contrary to what you are saying. Did I see them as right though? No, I did not because there's a difference between acknowledging and agreeing with.

[Alberyk]

So, as the player of the character that was nearly executed. I have been warned for doing similar things, hurting cuffed people even if I had "reasons", as non implanted security personnel. If common security officers aren't free to do so, implanted head of staff should not as well, pretty sure they are put under more scrutinization while playing head of staff roles.

Besides; Mistreatment of Prisoners is a thing in corporate regulations, which are NanoTrasen best interests and something that head of security should uphold, as well attemped murder because if you fire four times against someone's head you are trying to kill them. Besides, there would be repercussion icly, for a head of staff in a NanoTrasen station for trying to murder a cuffed, which had no way to escape or even harm anyone else, suspect before most of the security and command staff. How is bringing a lot of legal trouble and breaking Biesel's law acting for the best interests of Nanotrasen?

About hostage killing; one of them tried to run/disarm me. Other was because the head of personnel fired upon the engineer. Antags have the right to kill cuffed people if they are hostages in that kind of situation, unlike loyalty implanted personnel.

[Frances]

It depends on the situation. Security isn't supposed to go insane on a regular day, but when antags and bodies start flying around I feel like it would be perfectly reasonable for a few of them to lose a screw or two (as long as done in an interesting and reasonable way).

Does wanting to summarily execute a dangerous murderer make you a bad HoS OOCly? And why? Because that's what's at discussion here.

(Implants don't matter because if Chaz's character is reasonably convinced what he's doing is best for NanoTrasen as a whole then he's free to act as he sees fit. If you don't believe me I'll get Jackboot in here to confirm it.)

 

Antags have the right to kill cuffed people if they are hostages in that kind of situation, unlike loyalty implanted personnel.

I wish these debates were less about valids and more about "does it make sense in the context?"

[Chaznoodles]

(Implants don't matter because if Chaz's character is reasonably convinced what he's doing is best for NanoTrasen as a whole then he's free to act as he sees fit. If you don't believe me I'll get Jackboot in here to confirm it.)

 

I believe I fully justified my actions in the adminhelps, putting across that it was in the best interests of the company to deal with the murderer of the Captain, CE and an Engineer, who also had a Security Officer hostage. Alongside this, I'd also like to pull Sue's thread about Tajaran into the discussion, as the one whom I was executing was a Tajaran:

 

You are marginalized.

You are not respected.

You are viewed as terrorists by the galaxy as a whole because of the war.

You are distrusted.

 

To justify the character's actions, I had in mind that the catbeast was more trouble to the company alive than dead, as it would show that the revolutionary and terrorist tendencies stemming from the revolution/war were not over. Alongside this, the character harbours IC dislike of Tajaran due to happenings involving them in backstory. The character decided to remove the catbeast from the equation due to these, and Nanotrasen would cover it up due to it being a high-ranking official who murdered the Captain, CE and Engineer, as they would not want the news that Tajaran can get away with it getting out.

 

I knew that if I started talking with you, then it would turn into a huge arguement on X, Y, and Z involving Botanist's application.

 

You turned it into an issue by deliberately snubbing it rather than replying in a polite way befitting a member of staff.

 

Loyalty implanted personnel should absolutely not, in any way, be summarily executing detained personnel. Even less a head of security that is charged with the well being of the personnel that are brigged so that they can be brought to Odin.

 

Show me in the rules where it states this. Show me in the lore where it states this. Roleplay is a fluid development, it's not confined by rules. It's about saying yes, not saying no. The roleplay itself escalated to this point as previously mentioned. The Head of Security is charged with maintaining the security of the station. Someone in a high-ranking position who murdered the Captain and CE, as previously stated, has shown themself to be a threat to the security of the station. Chancing an escape simply because 'oh no it's the right thing to do' isn't the character's thinking. The loyalty implant makes the character act in the best interests of the company, which is open to interpretation from the player of the implanted character. You can't say RP needs to go a certain way or else it's wrong, which is what you're saying as a staff member.

...Plus, doesn't straitjacketing a player and locking them in solitary for the entire round create even less of an opportunity for roleplay than what I did? Through my actions, I created a moral conflict within those present as to whether it was the right or wrong action to take, and whether their superior was in the right or wrong. Locking the player in solitary means no roleplay would come from it at all. They'd be left up there and ignored, and that's not the function of an antag. The function of an antagonist role is to create conflict and fun for the players during the round. Their hostage situation did that, their murders did that, and their execution did that.

[TishinaStalker]

I believe I fully justified my actions in the adminhelps, putting across that it was in the best interests of the company to deal with the murderer of the Captain, CE and an Engineer, who also had a Security Officer hostage. Alongside this, I'd also like to pull Sue's thread about Tajaran into the discussion, as the one whom I was executing was a Tajaran:

To justify the character's actions, I had in mind that the catbeast was more trouble to the company alive than dead, as it would show that the revolutionary and terrorist tendencies stemming from the revolution/war were not over. Alongside this, the character harbours IC dislike of Tajaran due to happenings involving them in backstory. The character decided to remove the catbeast from the equation due to these, and Nanotrasen would cover it up due to it being a high-ranking official who murdered the Captain, CE and Engineer, as they would not want the news that Tajaran can get away with it getting out.

 

Correct me if I am wrong but the only thing all of this is telling me is "Well, they're a Tajaran. I'm free to execute them if I please if they killed somebody, and I have them under arrest" which you're not. HoS isn't only charged with security of the station only. Personnel and prisoners matter too, so don't try to absolve yourself with "I am charged with maintaining the safety of the station" because I feel you're referring to the station itself and not the people in the station as well (prisoners included), then that's another issue. Also, what are you even talking about with the end of that last paragraph? That Tajaran can get away with it? Get away with what? The murder and hostage takings witnessed by several personnel and security cameras? You don't get away with murder if it's on tape. Take them in. Submit video. Hello life sentence. Absolutely zero reason to realistically summarily execute a detained person in a controlled environment. There was very little reason for you to execute them outside of "Well, the character dislikes Tajaran and Sue said that there's racial profiling on them" when I'm 100% sure Sue didn't write that with summary executions in mind. More on this lower in this post.

 

You turned it into an issue by deliberately snubbing it rather than replying in a polite way befitting a member of staff.

 

Yeah, sorry, but in an informal setting I'd personally not give you the time of day in an informal setting. Considering the fact that you've proved yourself to be very argumentative and quick to fling insults at people. In an informal setting, I don't have to talk to you, especially if it's over a matter that you're not involved in. In a formal setting, though, like this complaint or ahelps, I'll deal with you as long as it takes, but in ahelps keeping in mind the rule I pasted earlier.

 

Show me in the rules where it states this. Show me in the lore where it states this. Roleplay is a fluid development, it's not confined by rules. It's about saying yes, not saying no. The roleplay itself escalated to this point as previously mentioned. The Head of Security is charged with maintaining the security of the station. Someone in a high-ranking position who murdered the Captain and CE, as previously stated, has shown themself to be a threat to the security of the station. Chancing an escape simply because 'oh no it's the right thing to do' isn't the character's thinking. The loyalty implant makes the character act in the best interests of the company, which is open to interpretation from the player of the implanted character. You can't say RP needs to go a certain way or else it's wrong, which is what you're saying as a staff member.

 

Show me what company would prefer its security personnel to summarily execute a detained prisoner in a controlled environment on camera without submitting the prisoner to proper law enforcement. You won't find one because that's massive legal trouble. Capture them and submit them to the authorities? You're a hero and NT's image isn't as affected. You summarily execute them in a controlled environment? That is committing first degree murder, you go to jail with a life sentence, and Nanotrasen is vilified by the media and has legal action taken against it by the authorities. Now, having a loyalty implant in you, tell me which of the two is in Nanotrasen's best interests? I'm not going off the rules, I'm going off of your loyalty implant and how you should not and would not carry this out because of said implant. Even if your character dislikes Tajaran.

 

Plus, doesn't straitjacketing a player and locking them in solitary for the entire round create even less of an opportunity for roleplay than what I did? Through my actions, I created a moral conflict within those present as to whether it was the right or wrong action to take, and whether their superior was in the right or wrong. Locking the player in solitary means no roleplay would come from it at all. They'd be left up there and ignored, and that's not the function of an antag. The function of an antagonist role is to create conflict and fun for the players during the round. Their hostage situation did that, their murders did that, and their execution did that.

 

It's a shame you were playing loyalty implanted personnel then when you carried this out then.

If there's any grammatical errors and the like that made my message awkward to convey, then notify me, and I'll gladly clear it up. I'm typing on my phone.

[Chaznoodles]

There was very little reason for you to execute them outside of "Well, the character dislikes Tajaran and Sue said that there's racial profiling on them"

 

I believe I've given you seven different reasons for the execution during this thread, all of them valid reasons from both a character and roleplay standpoint. Don't try and cut it down, because it puts across the point that you're not looking at it from the other view, one of the reasons for this complaint.

 

Yeah, sorry, but in an informal setting I'd personally not give you the time of day in an informal setting

 

Also included in the reasons for the complaint, staff conduct. Now knowing that you have a bias against me due to this, I'll be sure to take any further issues I have to a different staff member who doesn't display this attitude, and ask for a different staff member to take the case if you ever message me in-game.

 

Show me what company would prefer its security personnel to summarily execute a detained prisoner in a controlled environment on camera without submitting the prisoner to proper law enforcement.

 

You understand Nanotrasen are the bad guys and trying to hide it, right?

 

Now, having a loyalty implant in you, tell me which of the two is in Nanotrasen's best interests?

 

The one which causes the least trouble for the company. Covering up the death of a catbeast and cloning the ones it murdered is easier than explaining why one was permitted to murder the Captain, CE and another crewmember.

 

It's a shame you were playing loyalty implanted personnel then when you carried this out then.

 

This literally means nothing in context.

[TishinaStalker]

I believe I've given you seven different reasons for the execution during this thread, all of them valid reasons from both a character and roleplay standpoint. Don't try and cut it down, because it puts across the point that you're not looking at it from the other view, one of the reasons for this complaint.

 

Erm, not really? It's putting across what I'm understanding from it.

 

Also included in the reasons for the complaint, staff conduct. Now knowing that you have a bias against me due to this, I'll be sure to take any further issues I have to a different staff member who doesn't display this attitude, and ask for a different staff member to take the case if you ever message me in-game.

 

Erm, not really. I'm really meh about almost everyone. Do I dislike you though? Yeah, to be honest, I do. Am I biased though? Not really, I know how to separate my personal feelings if I need to do something as staff. I've given slides to people I dislike and I even job banned a very good friend of mine for being stupid as a Warden. Almost every time I go to take staff action, I always try to consult active staff to make sure I am being reasonable about what I'm doing, regardless of who I am talking with formally. You can ask any staff member if you want verification that this is my process because I've encouraged everybody to do this ever since I was a moderator, and I tell all trial mods to do it as well because I believe it to now be a part of our MO. If we were in a formal setting, then it'd be totally different. In an informal setting, once more, I don't have to give you the time of day if I don't want to.

 

You understand Nanotrasen are the bad guys and trying to hide it, right?

 

You're not really doing much to defend your point with this. Nothing stays hidden. Especially when so many staff were affected by this. Small, isolated incident? Sure, more doable. Big incident that affected most people on station and they found out about starting with the hostage taking? Not really. Information doesn't stay hidden and even less if it's something that government officials will want evidence on.

 

The one which causes the least trouble for the company. Covering up the death of a catbeast and cloning the ones it murdered is easier than explaining why one was permitted to murder the Captain, CE and another crew member

 

I'm still failing to understand how summarily executing somebody in an incident that would be huge in media is what will cause the least amount of trouble. Had this been something like rev or mutiny, then I would've accepted it, and moved along, but it was auto traitor. Before you say round type doesn't matter, it kinda really does to how they should play out. I guess we'll need third party input on that.

[Skull132]

I won't be touching this proper until I'm back from some pause. Probably mid to late next week. You can either try to resolve the matter between the two of you, including other staff as necessary, or request the thread be locked, pending my review of it.

I will say, however. While our wiki leaves out an elaboration on what exactly a loyalty implant forces the wearer to do, the ingame message is quite clear: "You feel a sudden surge of loyalty towards the corporation." It binds you to act in the interests of NT. Following space law is implied by that statement, yes, but so is killing corporate opponents. Whether the actions adhere to space law is secondary to serving the corporate intetests through those actions.

[Frances]

You're not really doing much to defend your point with this. Nothing stays hidden. Especially when so many staff were affected by this. Small, isolated incident? Sure, more doable. Big incident that affected most people on station and they found out about starting with the hostage taking? Not really. Information doesn't stay hidden and even less if it's something that government officials will want evidence on.

 

Are we trying to establish whether Chaz's actions were acceptable for admins, or for NanoTrasen's board of directors?

All joking aside, NanoTrasen would probably be able to cover this, to a degree. It's a Tajaran, which they (along with most humans) pretty widely discriminate against, and in addition a Tajaran terrorist that killed three people on the same station. Would be easy to spin the story as "and X was brought down by our valiant security force while attempting to resist", while simultaneously ensuring the silence of witnesses present somehow.

Yes, it's a very unusual situation. So is one of your coworkers suddenly murdering three people, tho.

[hivefleetchicken]

As the lore dev responsible for outlining NT corruption, I gotta' say, this would totally go down as a "Vigilant commander of security force single-handedly eliminates a Tajaran terrorist and murderer of three" kinda' thing.

NanoTrasen is unsubtle enough to have loyalty implants be a thing. I think if the commander had straight up killed the tajaran out of nowhere at the start of the round this would obviously be as irrefutably malicious as you say, but under these circumstances, and with such little news getting out from the other side during these processes of law ICly, any actions taken against this commander would probably be dropped by a higher ranking official to keep the news out, and any reports that did finally go out would be heavily edited by Biesel's corrupt news teams.

Chaz maybe should have acted with a little more consideration towards the law part of things, but.. I can't say I blame him or his character for getting pushed over the edge.

EDIT: Some people might get the wrong idea from this; heads of staff are not invincible, but they do sometimes hold a different leverage on a few things, hence needing a whitelist to play them.

[UnknownMurder]

I was there. I was the Traitor that worked with the Tajaran AKA Alberyk AKA Raniyah. I pretended to be a hostage in that time whilst being held by Raniyah and his Engineer Friend. It kind of seems that head on shooting the Detective while she/he is cuffed. While she/he is cuffed, she/he pose no threat to the station, crew, or the Nanotrasen for the meantime. But, I can say that Head of Security played out his allotted part as I was expecting, I know his behavior. In return, I become the Interim Head of Security and assassinated Ex-HoS with almost getting caught by the Security. But still... Shooting a prisoner in the face while cuffed in front of everyone is kind of touching the line, but it helped me succeed.

[Guest]

As the HOP of the round, I can say that this murder would have been acceptable, /IF/ he had bothered speaking to her or even interacting with her before walking up and blowing her brains out. Executions are ILLEGAL under Republic Law, following republic law IS in the best interests of the corporation, because lawsuits are a thing, and a lot of personnel saw the murder that aren't loyalty implanted, by HoP for example, would never help NanoTrasen hide such a thing, as he fears the government and prison time more.

[Chaznoodles]

As the HOP of the round, I can say that this murder would have been acceptable, /IF/ he had bothered speaking to her or even interacting with her before walking up and blowing her brains out. Executions are ILLEGAL under Republic Law, following republic law IS in the best interests of the corporation, because lawsuits are a thing, and a lot of personnel saw the murder that aren't loyalty implanted, by HoP for example, would never help NanoTrasen hide such a thing, as he fears the government and prison time more.

 

"HoP, since this is a Security issue, may I take the mantle of Acting Captain until it is resolved?"

"Sure."

Unload three shots into criminal.

I don't believe Nanotrasen, being the biggest company spanning the known universe, would be willing to let the Sol Alliance meddle in their affairs. I'm betting more than a few Sol inspectors have been accidentally locked in a depressurised room due to mechanical faults. I'm quite sure your character would fear the same fate for not assisting in the coverup more than having to testify for being a bystander. People forget that Nanotrasen are the bad guys throughout the lore, and cover their actions up extremely well.

[Rechkalov]

Completely detached perspective from what's been going on here, but

1) I believe the discussion up to this point makes it pretty clear that the loyalty implant-given lines are left to interpretation in this case.

There really appear to be only two arguments, that of the danger such a person (as was the hostage) presents to NT contra respect for law as such, and in such a scenario the outcome depends entirely on whichever is more prevalent in the character.

2) Our aim, generally, is to create interesting RP, or so we like to kid ourselves. And frankly, reading this, I get the impression it was a scene I would've liked to see.

Know what I mean? This single incident is dripping with atmosphere. So with our ultimate aim in mind, I'd say this was a valid move.

2b) Apologistic addition, but since the Tajarans were already captured, I would assume the "bigger part" of the round's drama was over, so it can't be said the player was robbed of much fun... but any further elaboration would inevitably lead to the argument over whether we should prioritize each player's personal experience or the overall story, which while interesting one does not belong here.

Final note, while I happen to approve of Chaz's actions in this incident, I feel like his attitude towards Stalker is unreasonably hostile and uncalled for.

At the end of the day, you got a bwoink and a warning for killing an unarmed and detained player; it does not in any way interfere with your game experience, it's just a gentle reminder not to go gunslinging left and right (very gentle, given the contemporary vibes regarding the sanctity of player's lives).

I know how the bwoinks can make one panic and feel deeply offended and defensive, especially in high-stress rounds, and it happens that one goes a bit over the top in their reaction, but time has passed now; it would seem desirable to let the whole thing go and resume simply having fun.

[cobracoco007]

Just gonna toss in my two cents to say that shouldn't having a good character arc be rewarded? The way I see this was an interesting character dealing with their racism and the loss of lives they were trusted with, and tell me if you saw a friend and coworker murdered and it was your fault would you not be enraged at the murderer? This is what Chaz did he had his character have an outburst, and this is one of the reasons I don't play as much as if this cool and interesting roleplay of a character executing a terrorist who killed hostages and was a race that is extremely oppressed and viewed as evil even if it was wrong Nt would eat this up this would be good publicity. For an example look at America and when a shooter is killed by a person who works there now they committed murder and that was wrong obviously there would have been good non-lethal ways of disabling him but the company would champion this person for stopping the bad terrorist. The rules should promote good rp not punish it leave the option of having a breakdown ic in a non-cannon round without facing ooc punishment open. Restricting character growth and development is bad for the growth of the server, and when new players who enjoy rp see threads of someone being punished, which from an onlookers perspective appears to be, for nothing it is not good for the server. Again I know the rules exist for a reason but I just don't see how every time anyone kills anyone it deserves a player complaint I mean come on what was wrong with this he rped! We are acting like no one ever freaks out or makes a bad choice in real life tons of people fuck up in real life, but we need to rp as perfect drones who never make mistakes without ooc repercussions. I just find it kinda dumb when good rp is punished, when sec officers are punished for killing an antag when they could have taken them hostage is dumb and I feel this is the same sort of thing. /rant end/

[Tenenza]

As it's been over a month since anyone has posted in this thread, I'm just going to bump it.

If it remains inactive for a few more days, I'll archive it.