Player Complaint - Alberyk

[Alberyk]

You did claim that Yinzr get other crew members killed because of "muh honor", still I don't see other examples of this kind of behavior. And yes, I like to be in conflict, but I don't get out of my way to create more than necessary or just valid hunt in stupid ways, I am not the first one to grab eva gear without telling people and running after new cops with tasers and batons, or rushing situations that calls for lethals using non-lethals, or that officer that go alone and don't call for help or explain the situation over the security channel. And if the antags call for a talk, I do not refuse that interaction,

Also, if we are taking old months posts, which were made in the spirit of that thread in particular, as evidence, I would like to point that I did this in really few times where there was no command staff to keep this kind of high risk item safe and I avoid doing so when there are a better possibilities.

Also, cool, since we had no way to fight the raiders, we ran into the bridge, armed ourselves with all we could and told central about the situation. The cadet did die due to the lack of pressure/oxygen because the vacuum at this bay code is really fast to kill, yesterday we had around 4-5 persons dying in less than a minute due to a breach caused by a welding tank explosion. And I fired upon you two due to a fight between raiders happening before myself, and if I am not mistaken the other raider was firing an ion rifle against the pirate named BLACK BEARD YARRRR, so it is possible that all of your wounds were due to me. I also would like to add that the raider crew just broke into the brig opening fire at the officers without words.

So, I go looking for the cadet, and I find the pirate in the brig. Take in mind that security at this point was only two persons, myself and the other skrell officer, due to two of us being nearly killed by slimes, in a xenobio outbreak that later doomed the crew, and the rest wounded by the raider invasion. So, in the light that we had no one else to deal with the other raiders or watch a murderer which was dragging someone cuffed in a vented area, I killed you, and I didn't really tried to chop your head off. And if I can remember, you wanted me to cut off the head of the other raider that fired upon you by telling over looc, but, I didn't strike any further than necessary to kill both of them.

As I said about the cutlass thing, killing you there was a premature action, and I explained my reasoning, if I could easily contain you with cuffing there, I would not do so. Bay's code does favors more lethals situations than before, since, hardsuits as examples, offer a lot of protection and immunity to cuffs. Yes, it was a bad move killing someone because they could be a potential threat. But, I once had ert unloading a smg in my face when I was a downed vox because kill orders/no way to drag you around, so it was fine, or when people did defend executions of a cuffed personnel, by an implanted crewmember, because they were a catbeast and killed people due to the rp it would bring.

[coolbc2000]

You did claim that Yinzr get other crew members killed because of "muh honor", still I don't see other examples of this kind of behavior. And yes, I like to be in conflict, but I don't get out of my way to create more than necessary or just valid hunt in stupid ways, I am not the first one to grab eva gear without telling people and running after new cops with tasers and batons, or rushing situations that calls for lethals using non-lethals, or that officer that go alone and don't call for help or explain the situation over the security channel. And if the antags call for a talk, I do not refuse that interaction,

Also, if we are taking old months posts, which were made in the spirit of that thread in particular, as evidence, I would like to point that I did this in really few times where there was no command staff to keep this kind of high risk item safe and I avoid doing so when there is a better opportunity.

Also, cool, since we had no way to fight the raiders, we ran into the bridge, armed ourselves with all we could and told centrl about the situation. Som the cadet did die due to the lack of pressure/oxygen because the vacuum at this bay code is really fast to kill. And I fired upon you two due to a fight between raiders happening before myself, and if I am not mistaken the other raider was firing an ion rifle against the pirate named BLACK BEARD YARRRR, so it is possible that all of your wounds were due to me. I also would like to add that the raider crew just broke into the brig opening fire at the officers without words.

So, I go looking for the cadet, and I find the pirate in the brig. Take in mind that security at this point was only two persons, myself and the other skrell officer, due to two of us being nearly killed by slimes, in a xenobio outbreak that later doomed the crew, and the rest wounded by the raider invasion. So, in the light that we had no one else to deal with the other raiders or watch a murderer which was dragging someone cuffed in a vented area, I killed you, and I didn't really tried to chop your head off. And if I can remember, you wanted me to cut off the head of the other raider that fired upon you by telling over looc, but, I didn't strike any further than necessary to kill both of them.

As I said, killing you there was a premature action, and I explained my reasoning, if I could easily contain you with cuffing there, I would not do so. Bay's code does favors more lethals situations than before, since, hardsuits as examples, offer a lot of protection and immunity to cuffs.

 

Thats not what I am getting at, the point was that you shot at me with a Hostage (the cadet) in hand. With no questions asked.

[Alberyk]

Thats not what I am getting at, the point was that you shot at me with a Hostage (the cadet) in hand. With no questions asked.

 

You were before the windows at the lobby, trading blows with another raider, while the cadet was behind you, I had a clear line of fire and when you ran away, dragging her, I stopped firing upon you. Still, she died due to the place being vented, which would happen if I was there or not. Also, you guys were the ones that escalated things to no questions asked by breaking into the brig and opening fire with lethals against us without words. Dragging people around while being in a fire fight don't really mean you have hostages, mostly when you show no intention of keeping them alive, by dragging them in a vented area, or don't even use them as a shield.

[Dumplinz]

As an actual police officer, In terms of the hostage situation (and really the only thing I will comment on as it pertains to this complaint). The moment you put a gun up to a hostage's head and more so threaten to kill said hostage is the moment the police will either kill you on the spot or devise a plan to kill you. It would seem unreasonable to expect just because you have a regular worker (which I assume phoebe wasn't playing captain or cmo), to expect security to let the antagonist go, there is no expectation that the person taking the hostage captive will let them live.

The rescue plan sounds hilarious, but I think it's a stretch to expect the security to never disobey a hostage taker, the common idea in law enforcement (at least now since school shootings) is save as many people as you can by swiftly neutralizing the antagonist. You can't expect to save everyone, I do get the "take him alive" approach, but as soon as you take a hostage you rarely get that right anymore.

Look at it from the Securities standpoint, And I know it's hard, because this is "spac gaem" It is so unrealistic to expect security to be gods and take people alive who are armed, are you aware of how difficult that is in real life? your life is actually on the line, you don't know how the person is going to react, you only know they are willing to kill to escape. Nah, 100% of actual sworn officers would tell you to take the shot over taking the person alive.

If I had to add an alternative to what should have been done, Maybe.. Quarantine off the area, surround him (assuming we're talking maintc. here) Tell the hostage taker clearly that he will not be escaping, and doing anything except surrendering will lead to their death. The assumption being unless they have a strong motive to kill said hostage, they will surrender if they value their life, If they don't value their life, there can be no negotiation anyway.

In the Absence of the time and personnel to make the surrounding, you take the shot, Because while you shoot at them (at least from a human instinctive standpoint) they are going to return fire instead of offing the hostage.

[Guest]

As an actual police officer, In terms of the hostage situation (and really the only thing I will comment on as it pertains to this complaint). The moment you put a gun up to a hostage's head and more so threaten to kill said hostage is the moment the police will either kill you on the spot or devise a plan to kill you. It would seem unreasonable to expect just because you have a regular worker (which I assume phoebe wasn't playing captain or cmo), to expect security to let the antagonist go, there is no expectation that the person taking the hostage captive will let them live.

The rescue plan sounds hilarious, but I think it's a stretch to expect the security to never disobey a hostage taker, the common idea in law enforcement (at least now since school shootings) is save as many people as you can by swiftly neutralizing the antagonist. You can't expect to save everyone, I do get the "take him alive" approach, but as soon as you take a hostage you rarely get that right anymore.

Look at it from the Securities standpoint, And I know it's hard, because this is "spac gaem" It is so unrealistic to expect security to be gods and take people alive who are armed, are you aware of how difficult that is in real life? your life is actually on the line, you don't know how the person is going to react, you only know they are willing to kill to escape. Nah, 100% of actual sworn officers would tell you to take the shot over taking the person alive.

If I had to add an alternative to what should have been done, Maybe.. Quarantine off the area, surround him (assuming we're talking maintc. here) Tell the hostage taker clearly that he will not be escaping, and doing anything except surrendering will lead to their death. The assumption being unless they have a strong motive to kill said hostage, they will surrender if they value their life, If they don't value their life, there can be no negotiation anyway.

In the Absence of the time and personnel to make the surrounding, you take the shot, Because while you shoot at them (at least from a human instinctive standpoint) they are going to return fire instead of offing the hostage.

 

Okay, let me pose a couple questions for you then.

Have you, as a police officer, ever run into a hostage situation, used your taser on the hostage being used as a human shield by someone with a weapon instead of making an attempt to negotiate to get the hostage released? Is that encouraged at your police academy that you received your education at?

What about a situation where your partner who is flanking an armored suspect manages to put a full burst of rubber bullets into an armed suspect's head, what do you do with the unconscious suspect? Well, you try to handcuff them, but it looks like their wrists are far too thick for your handcuffs. Do you take your glock to the guy's temple and blast him to hell, instead of making a proper attempt in detaining them? Does your police academy also encourage murdering people who lose their threat status upon being shot unconscious?

Last I checked, cops aren't allowed to execute suspects either. So if your answers to these questions are both 'no', then my point still stands, buddo.

[Dumplinz]

Like I said in my post, When I was saying it was hilarious, I was implying that the situation was absurd and (I believe) was chosen because of the mechanics of forcing Phoebe to the ground to not get shot. I don't condone it, or think it was wise, but I think that is why they did it, as opposed to a realism stand point.

I applaud the flank, well done, I don't know too much in terms of mechanics, But is it not possible to remove those hardsuits/ Hardsuit gloves?/ helmets?

In terms of killing you, I'm simply stating, you were liable to be shot to death, the fact that you were not is an amazing feat in it of itself. The officers should not have off'd you, and I think Alb said that was too rash, I mean any time you have a perp with a slit throat after the fact, you're going to have people lose their job. I'm not defending that. I'm simply arguing against the idea that a security officer would do everything they can to secure this hostage in this situation, To which I again say no, you were liable to be shot and killed regardless of the hostage in this situation, and that isn't something that wouldn't happen in an actual real life scenario.

To be clear, You being filled with 1000 bullets would be more acceptable than having a slit throat, but because you lived, you shouldn't have been executed.

[CakeIsOssim]

Only post if involved. If you are not a moderator or administrator and were not involved in the incident(s) referred to, you may not post or reply to a player complaint regarding said incident(s).

 

Just going to pop that in there, to start off, before this becomes a problem.

This is a situation that would only work in SS13 mechanics. Flashing someone to get them down so they couldn't actually be shot unless you point-blanked them/clicked on them from a distance. I actually... kind of see this as metagaming/powergaming. I also don't like how we're adding real-world scenarios to this for comparison. Do I see anything else wrong with this? Kind of. Most of it's already been covered, though. What I can say, though, is that cutting losses is an extremely viable option. I've done it before, lots of times, and I will continue doing it. If letting the hostage-takers get away with someone, alive, means that two, three, four, five people don't have to die? I'll let them get away with the hostage. This is difficult, however, as one of the hostage's friends was an officer responding to the callout.

I believe Alberyk already admitted to the execution (throat-slitting) that one antag as a mistake. Not going to cover it.

[Alberyk]

Also, I would like to add a somewhat similar incident that happened between us, some time ago, which also include execution of potentially dangerous personnel. This round in particular.. If I can remember, we fought in the tunnels and I ended being downed, and then, killed with a smg while being on the ground, because as you said, as an unathi, I could just break the cuffs and keep fighting. The point is; I don't really recall you trying to cuff me neither or use a neck grab, which were far robust in the old code anyway. I did call it as fair, since, I could be still a threat, even if I had no choices of saying I surrender or anything. But, what is the difference between a lizardman that can break cuffs to a raider inside power armor which can't be cuffed anyway?

You made the call to kill Tarasque on the ground with the smg, without trying to cuff him or using a neck grab, because he could be not easily contained and you did lack ways to keep me under control. So, why is it so unfair or bad for me to kill you while you were a potential threat which, under my vision at that situation, could be not easily contained?

[Guest]

Also, I would like to add a somewhat similar incident that happened between us, some time ago, which also include execution of potentially dangerous personnel. This round in particular.. If I can remember, we fought in the tunnels and I ended being downed, and then, killed with a smg while being on the ground, because as you said, as an unathi, I could just break the cuffs and keep fighting. The point is; I don't really recall you trying to cuff me neither or use a neck grab, which were far robust in the old code anyway. I did call it as fair, since, I could be still a threat, even if I had no choices of saying I surrender or anything. But, what is the difference between a lizardman that can break cuffs to a raider inside power armor which can't be cuffed anyway?

You made the call to kill Tarasque on the ground with the smg, without trying to cuff him or using a neck grab, because he could be not easily contained and you did lack ways to keep me under control. So, why is it so unfair or bad for me to kill you while you were a potential threat which, under my vision at that situation, could be not easily contained?

 

Keep in mind during that round (which was almost a year back), I was assigned as command protective detail during the short era of command assigning bodyguards as if they were blueshields. I was not, however, officially acting as a member of the security department. I was no more than a bodyguard, and I was given the right to kill in order to protect command staff, when the situation turned into a full-blown emergency.

I actually happen to remember that round clear as day, and I was pushed around in that maintenance tunnel repeatedly by your force gloves. I very well made an attempt to detain you and almost succeeded, but you cuffbreaking, pushing me away and then pulling out another weapon forced me to put you down for good, given that my own life was threatened and I could've died if I didn't shoot you dead. I was a blueshield, not a security officer, I only had one pair of cuffs to begin with, and you inconveniently broke my only pair. There was no way I could've possibly neckgrabbed you when your energy-shield was activated.

I only gave chase, pursued and shot you down the second time because you were dragging the body of the captain with you, and I couldn't allow that to happen.

These instances are not the same. Your statement earlier on it 'being so hard to take people alive and it's to much easier to just kill people' is inherently incorrect, if not a lie to absolve you of responsibility. Jointlock spam in combination to jointbreaking (an ability you had at your disposal, and given you knew how to knife my throat open with the looted energy cutlass of another raider, definitely shows that you do know how the grab mechanics work), can very easily cripple and lockdown an antagonist from doing anything. Given I was unconscious and unable to react or do anything for several minutes (as a concussion sustained from rubber rounds causes a fuckton of pain and wears off very slowly), the option was clear and obvious for you to carry out to further solidify my capture.

It might be harder to 3-shot stun-for-a-minute people and cuff people in hardsuits nowadays, but there are new tricks that I've seen you even use. It's hard for me to believe you seriously didn't just know.

Unlike a year ago, in which the only way you could take someone out is by tasing, stunbatonning, flashing, you had the knowledge as of not too long ago as to how to take me in, cuffs or not. You boasted in OOC before that you had your own test server with the new code, which is how you evidently knew so much of baycode mechanics in comparison to everyone else who wanted to adjust to it naturally. I'm not convinced that it was a mistake. What happened was you seeking further valids to sate your bloodthirst for the round.

You consistently boast of how many antags you kill as security at round-end OOC. And vice versa if you are the antagonist. You or your characters never seem to care about civilian casualties, instead they rush headlong into danger without thinking of the consequences. You may not see it, but Yinzr gets innocent people killed for their ridiculous validhunting shenanigans.

So while I recognize the boldness in trying to turn a situation that happened a year ago on me which had very clearly different circumstances (in which I'm fairly certain everyone and their mother had a different opinion on the server climate and the atmosphere was clearly different), it doesn't excuse you of wantonly seeking a fight with the round antagonists and dispatching them indiscriminately. The only thing that's worse than an incompetent is a zealot.

[Alberyk]

Keep in mind during that round (which was almost a year back), I was assigned as command protective detail during the short era of command assigning bodyguards as if they were blueshields. I was not, however, officially acting as a member of the security department. I was no more than a bodyguard, and I was given the right to kill in order to protect command staff, when the situation turned into a full-blown emergency.

I actually happen to remember that round clear as day, and I was pushed around in that maintenance tunnel repeatedly by your force gloves. I very well made an attempt to detain you and almost succeeded, but you cuffbreaking, pushing me away and then pulling out another weapon forced me to put you down for good, given that my own life was threatened and I could've died if I didn't shoot you dead. I was a blueshield, not a security officer, I only had one pair of cuffs to begin with, and you inconveniently broke my only pair. There was no way I could've possibly neckgrabbed you when your energy-shield was activated.

 

 

Except by the fact that we had no weapons except two carbines and the retrolaser which we had to loot from the whiteship, since our gear was pretty much ransacked by the engineers and security, and the only things I had were force gloves and the energy sword which was logged into the captain's body. And was I said, you did kill me on the ground, people can't hold energy shields while they are down. At some point, I had to steal the captain's body from the chief engineer's graps by running after him with a e-sword, so, how could I have pulled another weapon at you?

 

You consistently boast of how many antags you kill as security at round-end OOC. And vice versa if you are the antagonist. You or your characters never seem to care about civilian casualties, instead they rush headlong into danger without thinking of the consequences. You may not see it, but Yinzr gets innocent people killed for their ridiculous validhunting shenanigans.

So while I recognize the boldness in trying to turn a situation that happened a year ago on me which had very clearly different circumstances (in which I'm fairly certain everyone and their mother had a different opinion on the server climate and the atmosphere was clearly different), it doesn't excuse you of wantonly seeking a fight with the round antagonists and dispatching them indiscriminately. The only thing that's worse than an incompetent is a zealot.

 

You do say that Yinzr gets innocent people killed due to this validhunting, still, as I asked earlier, you didn't show me any more examples of this behavior. And I do communicate, I don't act in stupid ways when confronting antags, I tell the situation over radio, I don't rush in situation in stupid manners. Several times I organize with officers to overcome and deal with situations, like I did by falling back to the bridge, telling Odin and arming us to deal with the situation.

I could cite several examples when I did play along with antags and didn't just killed them without any kind of mercy. Like the nuke round we had some weeks ago, where the new cops claimed to be from sol military forces/odin personnel, I was the last officer to open fire against them and I did join the hostages when they pointed weapons at me while my character was trying to understand what was going on, unlike your claims that I like to reckless charge into situations getting everyone killed. But, yes, if antags are going gun blazing and attack people, I will fight them back.

If you take some light-hearted teasing or boosting in ooc, which I do use to joke a lot, as proof of my valid hunting and shitcurity, I could cite passive aggressiveness or "salty" comments as a problem as well. I don't really get out of my way to take players out of the round. I do try to open dialogue and escalate force accordingly, I am not the first one to open the armory or try to arrest the strange in robes for being an intruder. For example; as nuclear operative, I always yell for non-armed/non-hostile crew to yield before shooting them for any reason they may deserve like yelling about people in red suit or trying to rush me with stun prods/tools.

And I didn't really know you could not cuff people wearing hardsuits, I just found out in that very own moment. And as I said, I should I have tried other options and my actions were harsh and hasty. Still, it is hard to find out all mechanics and situations by just spending some hours in a test server.

[Guest]

http://aurorastation.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=5317&start=30#p54558

An answer was promised a fair while ago, I believe?

[Skull132]

The admins held a meeting.

Reviewing the two situations presented, it was determined that:

The first one, though not the best roleplay, is not cause for administrative action just yet. As it stands, prior enforcement of regard for hostage situations has been relatively lax, by this merit attacks similar to this by security have almost always been permitted. Specially considering the fact that this attack would have succeeded, had it not been for the relatively new (at the time) hardsuits. If you count how many rounds Meowy was actually able to hit you with, you would have been down and out on old code. As such, the plan wasn't seen as too idiotic.

The second situation, majority of the admins saw as a definite "Ermp. Nope.jpg, please." I'm kind of on the fence, and have been sitting on that fence since the discussion. It sort of runs into conflict with two ideologies, that of OOC sportsmanship and IC motivation. The OOC side of it is simple enough: ideally, security would not do shenanigans like this to antags, full stop. Though this may lead into fun discussion about sec being forced to give antags a chance, whatever, in the long run but that's neither here nor now. The other thing is IC: Unathi are warriors, and NT does canonically hire Unathi warriors to work in sec. And where as executing a person like this would be a definite no-no for a human, it gets muddled for Unathi. A part of their culture is warfare, and if we can't nuance our characters around that, then why do we even have races?

That's my present dilemma, and input would be appreciated.

As it stands, we're keeping our ears perked for further complaints and watching him, ready to take action as necessary, and the fact that we are doing so has been discussed with him.

[Guest]

The admins held a meeting.

Reviewing the two situations presented, it was determined that:

The first one, though not the best roleplay, is not cause for administrative action just yet. As it stands, prior enforcement of regard for hostage situations has been relatively lax, by this merit attacks similar to this by security have almost always been permitted. Specially considering the fact that this attack would have succeeded, had it not been for the relatively new (at the time) hardsuits. If you count how many rounds Meowy was actually able to hit you with, you would have been down and out on old code. As such, the plan wasn't seen as too idiotic.

The second situation, majority of the admins saw as a definite "Ermp. Nope.jpg, please." I'm kind of on the fence, and have been sitting on that fence since the discussion. It sort of runs into conflict with two ideologies, that of OOC sportsmanship and IC motivation. The OOC side of it is simple enough: ideally, security would not do shenanigans like this to antags, full stop. Though this may lead into fun discussion about sec being forced to give antags a chance, whatever, in the long run but that's neither here nor now. The other thing is IC: Unathi are warriors, and NT does canonically hire Unathi warriors to work in sec. And where as executing a person like this would be a definite no-no for a human, it gets muddled for Unathi. A part of their culture is warfare, and if we can't nuance our characters around that, then why do we even have races?

That's my present dilemma, and input would be appreciated.

As it stands, we're keeping our ears perked for further complaints and watching him, ready to take action as necessary, and the fact that we are doing so has been discussed with him.

 

So only Unathi security can murderbone? I'm obviously not suggesting you're coming to that conclusion, but it's definitely what it sounds like.

[Skull132]

What is murderboning? Please define it for me.

[Guest]

Ignoring present roleplay conditions in order to pursue valids and kill their targets.

[K0NFL1QT]

You almost said it's okay for Unathi to act against standard procedure and corporate regulations there, Skull. Are they known for being tough and aggressive? Yes, hence they make good Security. Same as Klingons. But likewise, if they can't keep their shit in check, then they are no good and only serve to damage the reputation of the Security force, and Nanotrasen by extension for supporting them.

Nuanced characters? Yes, please. Characters being considered above the laws that everyone else is bound to, just because of their race? No, hell no, and no thank you.

[Skull132]

You almost said it's okay for Unathi to act against standard procedure and corporate regulations there, Skull. Are they known for being tough and aggressive? Yes, hence they make good Security. Same as Klingons. But likewise, if they can't keep their shit in check, then they are no good and only serve to damage the reputation of the Security force, and Nanotrasen by extension for supporting them.

Nuanced characters? Yes, please. Characters being considered above the laws that everyone else is bound to, just because of their race? No, hell no, and no thank you.

 

Not almost. I did say that. Characters are permitted to act against standard procedure and corporate regulation, as long as it is done within reasonable boundaries. As far as I'm tracking, Yinzr does not go around gutting prisoners who could be subdued as a part of standard protocol. Further, this situation was anything but standard.

[Guest]

>reasonable boundaries

 

 

Pump and I emote how close we're to pulling the trigger on Phoebe, yet much to our dismay, Sslazhir Yinzr decides to pop out their flash from their pocket, rushes forward, gets into spitting distance of a gun and breathing distance of Phoebe. Yinzr flashes Phoebe and fails to pull them away in time from the clutches of the hostage taker. I respond by putting 100 brute increments into the unarmored skull of Phoebe, which ends up killing her.

 

Am I just cherry-picking incidents here, or something? Is that why the complaint's not being properly considered and not being posted upon right when the head admin says they will? Is shitcurity really that unnoticable when a staff member is doing it?

[Skull132]

You're overlooking literally every other hostage situation in similar vain, which has not been punished by staff. Aren't you?

Oh, and my forum track-record has always been awful. Critical actions are usually taken on time, and on schedules posted, but the reports get stalled or lost. It is literally easier to track me down and discuss the matter 1 on 1.

[Guest]

You're overlooking literally every other hostage situation in similar vain, which has not been punished by staff. Aren't you?

Oh, and my forum track-record has always been awful. Critical actions are usually taken on time, and on schedules posted, but the reports get stalled or lost. It is literally easier to track me down and discuss the matter 1 on 1.

 

You're implying every hostage situation is the same and that the conditions do not change between them.

Here are the conditions that can be easily identified so we avoid further confusion.

Imagine, if you will, we have a day one officer named Bob Hanson, no one really knows this guy and he otherwise has a fairly clean record. Bob has to respond to a hostage situation. He arrives, a gun is pointed to a hostage's head. Bob tries to rescue the hostage, getting stupidly close to the hostage taker. Hostage ends up getting grievously wounded and/or killed, Bob ends up shooting down the hostage taker and the day ends. Most likely, the player of the hostage taker is gonna ahelp this. An admin/mod will likely speak to the player of Bob and explain what's what, give them a note/warning or whatever and ask them to restrain themselves from then on.

Now we have a second scenario regarding another officer. We will call this officer Slizard Yokel. This is where it changes a bit, Slizard Yokel is a vet officer whose player is a regular and has been around and about on the server and their character is popular, and the player has significant standing in regards to the server. So we would assume, OOCly, that Yokel would know more about security and how it operates and how they are supposed to operate, and given their time on the server, they should know how to respect RP conventions. However, it should also be noted that the character has stacked up a nasty rep of being a giant loose cannon and its player is hardly all that sorry for it. So, Yokel responds to a hostage situation. What does he do? He tries to rush the hostage taker who is in a much comfier position, initially, and expects the officer to try and comply to demands. The hostage taker shoots the hostage into crit, and then brawls with said Yokel officer while the hostage is bleeding on the floor, dying. Yokel shoots down the hostage taker.

So, question, should we pretend the second instance is just as ignorant and unaware of the rules as the first party is? Or are we going to pretend all hostage situations play out the same and that there is nothing distinguishable or notable here? Better yet: Will we learn to recognize patterns and actual non-ironic problematic behavior?

[Dreviore]

You're overlooking literally every other hostage situation in similar vain, which has not been punished by staff. Aren't you?

Oh, and my forum track-record has always been awful. Critical actions are usually taken on time, and on schedules posted, but the reports get stalled or lost. It is literally easier to track me down and discuss the matter 1 on 1.

 

You're implying every hostage situation is the same and that the conditions do not change between them.

Here are the conditions that can be easily identified so we avoid further confusion.

Imagine, if you will, we have a day one officer named Bob Hanson, no one really knows this guy and he otherwise has a fairly clean record. Bob has to respond to a hostage situation. He arrives, a gun is pointed to a hostage's head. Bob tries to rescue the hostage, getting stupidly close to the hostage taker. Hostage ends up getting grievously wounded and/or killed, Bob ends up shooting down the hostage taker and the day ends. Most likely, the player of the hostage taker is gonna ahelp this. An admin/mod will likely speak to the player of Bob and explain what's what, give them a note/warning or whatever and ask them to restrain themselves from then on.

Now we have a second scenario regarding another officer. We will call this officer Slizard Yokel. This is where it changes a bit, Slizard Yokel is a vet officer whose player is a regular and has been around and about on the server and their character is popular, and the player has significant standing in regards to the server. So we would assume, OOCly, that Yokel would know more about security and how it operates and how they are supposed to operate, and given their time on the server, they should know how to respect RP conventions. However, it should also be noted that the character has stacked up a nasty rep of being a giant loose cannon and its player is hardly all that sorry for it. So, Yokel responds to a hostage situation. What does he do? He tries to rush the hostage taker who is in a much comfier position, initially, and expects the officer to try and comply to demands. The hostage taker shoots the hostage into crit, and then brawls with said Yokel officer while the hostage is bleeding on the floor, dying. Yokel shoots down the hostage taker.

So, question, should we pretend the second instance is just as ignorant and unaware of the rules as the first party is? Or are we going to pretend all hostage situations play out the same and that there is nothing distinguishable or notable here? Better yet: Will we learn to recognize patterns and actual non-ironic problematic behavior?

Full disclosure. I'm not taking a side.

I get where you're coming from but let me ask this.

What do you want to happen to Alberyk? I mean if you want him banned, or given a warning say so.

But Skull has even said that Alberyk is currently on thin ice, and his actions are being moderated, and has been spoken to about his conductwhich is in fact a warning.

[Guest]

I want Alberyk to say he won't do anything of this nature again if he can legitimately help it.

[Shadow]

As far as I know staff talked to Alberyk and it shouldn't happen again.

Locking and archiving in 24 hours.

[Shadow]

Locking and archiving.