Player Complaint - Bath Salts Addict

[AmoryBlaine]

BYOND Key: AmoryBlaine

Game ID: Multiple

Player Byond Key: Bath Salts Addict

Staff involved: N/A

Reason for complaint: This is a general complaint, not of any specific instance. Almost every single round where in he is an antagonist he will acquire a shotgun and slugs and do his best to kill. This is his primary object every single time. Whether he's doing this as the Detective Noir, as he usually is, or as his Ninja it will always be about trying to kill other players. It's abhorrent that the most active Detective stands at being a Antag 50% of the time he's present. The over-arching gimmick means little as long as he is given the opportunity to blow away other player. But more so, not only does he attempt to kill other players but he is quite smug about the fact that he aims to headgib them as well. I don't think this kind of behavior ought to be allowed as it's wholly directed at ruining other people's rounds for his own enjoyment. In fact I am now in favour of the removal of slugs purely because I am well aware of the fact that BSA uses them so often to headgib other players.

Did you attempt to adminhelp the issue at the time? If so, what was the known action taken by administration/moderation? It was suggested that I write a complaint.

Approximate Date/Time: Multiple dates, multiples rounds.

[Scheveningen]

Is he still doing this? Last I recall there was either an unban appeal or a complaint over this issue.

[Faris]

When was the last incident of this?

[AmoryBlaine]

When was the last incident of this?

 

About a round prior to the current one. Game ID: bRs-c0lA. Nearing the end of the round he auto-magged his way into the Armory and grabbed all the guns and tossed all of them- except a shotgun and slugs- out into the hall in an attempt to start a shoot out. I was the only person present and found myself forced to respond with lethal force as he was playing an IPC and thus I lacked any means of disabling him non-lethally, as the Ion rifle was left in the armory. This was relatively tame in the ways of killing personnel because I alone responded to the incident. So he was able to shoot me in a brief engagement, and gladly the rest of the personnel were not present but were rather occupied with other Antags.

[AmoryBlaine]

I'd like to add that prior to this he had not been suspect to my knowledge. It seemed like this was on a whim.

[CrimsonAerospace]

Just to add on to this, the round that ended at about 7;20 PM Central today, he spent a good chunk of the round walking around with a shotgun. I can't remember how Aurora handles Detectives and arming up like this, It's not mentioned anywhere specific, I don't think, but...in contrast, officers had standard Code Green gear, but he had a shotgun. I don't have any particular grievances with BSA, but since Blaine brought up him /always/ being this armed I thought it would be a worthy contribution.

[Garnascus]

Bath salt's temp security ban EXPIRED at 2017-11-15 04:40:51. the ban was over over escalation of headgoring. i will rattle the hive of staff and get logs perused sometime over the next few days.

ALTHOUGH

 

About a round prior to the current one. Game ID: bRs-c0lA. Nearing the end of the round he auto-magged his way into the Armory and grabbed all the guns and tossed all of them- except a shotgun and slugs- out into the hall in an attempt to start a shoot out. I was the only person present and found myself forced to respond with lethal force as he was playing an IPC and thus I lacked any means of disabling him non-lethally, as the Ion rifle was left in the armory. This was relatively tame in the ways of killing personnel because I alone responded to the incident. So he was able to shoot me in a brief engagement, and gladly the rest of the personnel were not present but were rather occupied with other Antags.

 

There is A LOT of potential context missing from this situation and even without it doesn't seem that bad to me. IPC traitor breaks into the armory, tosses out guns and then a shootout happens. seems fairly ok to me.

[Bath Salts Addict]

Amory was the Warden for that round, I believe. During the round, I was a traitor with practically zero ideas. Rather than simply do things on impulse, as that usually results in poor planning, I elected to remain passive while I knocked my brain together to figure something out. Unfortunately, other traitors that round were incredibly passive. When the CT shuttle was almost docked, I decided I wanted to make things F U N for both myself and the Sec department. I emagged into the armory, grabbed myself a shotgun and some slugs, and in the middle of that encountered Amory's character, the Warden, who disregarded the armed IPC loading himself up with slugs and called for Security in plain view of my character. If it had been any other antagonist who's goal wasn't to get into a firefight with Security, that would have ensured in the Warden's death, and that would have been pretty valid. I elected not to gun the Warden down just yet, as I wanted Security to come after me. When the Warden ran, I picked up all the guns minus the ion rifle and placed them outside the Brig (I even loaded the second shotgun up with slugs and laid it out) and patiently waited, taunting Security over the radio.

Security was... Something special. They obviously didn't care enough about the armed IPC rampaging across the station they were contracted to protect, instead electing to remain on the shuttle and claim a HAP was coming. Only the Warden remained behind, alone. Unable to talk me down, the Warden for some reason didn't grab any of the guns I had laid out but entered my line of fire to grab the laser rifle from the rack in the armory office. When I saw that he was armed, I initiated the firefight by hitting him once with a slug in the chest. After he retreated, I taunted him over the radio, giving him ample time to flee and get help. Again, he elected to flee, and didn't even run when a secborg came to help. Using the secborg as a shield, I beat it to death in the armory and Amory's character stayed outside, still severely wounded and this time grabbing a shotgun. Disheartened by how anti-climactic things were, I exited the armory and blew the Warden's foot off, where he eventually bled to death from the damage caused by the slug in his chest. I proceeded to taunt the rest of the Security team and fully intended to commit suicide via ion rifle until a fellow Traitor, Azza Nazkiin, talked Noir down and convinced him to help her genocide the Unathi race. The round then ended shortly after.

Throughout that entire situation, I allowed Amory a fighting chance and even gave him multiple chances to flee for the purpose of self-preservation. Although I was looking for F U N I did not force Amory to continue the firefight. Only when he refused multiple times already did I finally move on him and killed him, albeit very slowly as I had kind of sat in the narrow armory passage for a few seconds wondering what I was going to do.

This whole complaint strikes me as one that's made because, simply put, I killed you multiple times as an antagonist. Amory, I know you as someone who plays well, but takes things too seriously gets too emotionally worked up about things that happen in-game. You need to take a step back, take a deep breath, and realize that SS13 is just that: a game. I don't intentionally set out to ruin rounds, and I certainly haven't set out to ruin your's. I have never killed just for the hell of it before my ban, or after.

[AmoryBlaine]

There is A LOT of potential context missing from this situation and even without it doesn't seem that bad to me. IPC traitor breaks into the armory, tosses out guns and then a shootout happens. seems fairly ok to me.

 

How is the antag walking into the Armory during the Crew Transfer call, grabbing all the guns, tossing them into the hall and then trying to start a shootout something that is okay for an HRP server? What is the motive with it? Does there have to be one? Does this mean I can potentially go, as Officer Traitor, into the armory, arm up and announce that I am going to start shooting people- and as long as they respond and there is some level of dialogue it's okay? Maybe my understand is wrong, but I don't think that's the sort of thing that ought to take place.

 

This whole complaint strikes me as one that's made because, simply put, I killed you multiple times as an antagonist. Amory, I know you as someone who plays well, but takes things too seriously gets too emotionally worked up about things that happen in-game. You need to take a step back, take a deep breath, and realize that SS13 is just that: a game. I don't intentionally set out to ruin rounds, and I certainly haven't set out to ruin your's. I have never killed just for the hell of it before my ban, or after.

 

Your attitude and actions as antag, in my opinion, say otherwise. Your entire goal as Ninja has been on a number of occasions to cause mass havoc in the form of firefights- using firearms you yourself order from cargo. These are things I have taken to understand as an enjoyment of killing other players and removing them from the round- mainly due to headgibbing. This is only made worse by your being a Security member almost every time you are antag. If this is untrue, you do a fine job of hiding that fact.

I don't deny that I have bias in that I have been a victim of your's a large number of times. In regards to the situation in question, Me as Warden, I could not- in any reasonable sense- leave the Brig. You had armed yourself, and aimed to pose a threat to the station. Had I left, you would have been able to leave the brig as well, and move about the station engaging other personnel. It was with this logic that I tried to hold my position until backup arrived. I must choose between possibly being shot then, or possibly being shot later with a few other people. Even so I also had to comprehend ICly why you had decided to start a Firefight. My Warden had no idea why you were doing what you were doing and was hesitant to react- hence his initial reaction to move the laser rifle farther away from you.

There was also no build up to this, no pre-meditation. It was just you going into the armory, grabbing the guns, throwing them outside and calling for Security to fight you. I just so happened to be the only responder due to my role.

But, when it comes down to it- I don't care whichever way this goes at this point, as I was not aware of him having served ban for the headgibbing. If his style of play is authorize, then I'll keep my gripes to myself.

[Scheveningen]

it's the head admin you're speaking to who has a heavy pro-antag bias. i don't think you'll get anywhere attempting the line of reasoning "oh antags shouldn't be able to do this because spirit of RP" garn doesn't listen to that.

 

There was also no build up to this, no pre-meditation. It was just you going into the armory, grabbing the guns, throwing them outside and calling for Security to fight you. I just so happened to be the only responder due to my role.

 

escalating to an extreme just to kick the round off sounds like bad antag play though.

[Sytic]

I'd just like to mention that from memory, BSA was originally told to not jump to headgibbing so quickly, and was punished for it. In this situation, you were told the stakes, given a warning, given an actual tool of defense should you decide to attack, and were prepared for a fight from them with lethals on both sides. Yes, it may be poor roleplay for the leadup to the actual duel. It was the end of the round, they hadn't done any actual antaggery, they gave you the stakes and your line of defense. They hadn't actually done anything wrong besides the fact that he killed you, and in regards to headgibbing so easily, he was already punished for it.

- His roleplay was bad (debatable, as our secret chat was nice, but you didn't see it so it doesn't matter as much).

- He killed me.

People die, and occasionally nobody can think of something stellar to do roleplay-wise. I talked to Noir that round and got good roleplay that would have only sprung up if he was an antagonist, but nothing station-affecting. Sorry that you died in the round, but you were plainly aware of the risks, and it was the end of said round. I don't think the roleplay behind doing it was fully explored, but he didn't immediately blow you away or anything of the sort.

[Butterrobber202]

Will just pipe in, Noir as a detective, a non-combat role, has a bad habit of grabbing a shotgun and rushing Antags, no matter the situation.

[AmoryBlaine]

I'd just like to mention that from memory, BSA was originally told to not jump to headgibbing so quickly, and was punished for it. In this situation, you were told the stakes, given a warning, given an actual tool of defense should you decide to attack, and were prepared for a fight from them with lethals on both sides. Yes, it may be poor roleplay for the leadup to the actual duel. It was the end of the round, they hadn't done any actual antaggery, they gave you the stakes and your line of defense. They hadn't actually done anything wrong besides the fact that he killed you, and in regards to headgibbing so easily, he was already punished for it.

- His roleplay was bad (debatable, as our secret chat was nice, but you didn't see it so it doesn't matter as much).

- He killed me.

People die, and occasionally nobody can think of something stellar to do roleplay-wise. I talked to Noir that round and got good roleplay that would have only sprung up if he was an antagonist, but nothing station-affecting. Sorry that you died in the round, but you were plainly aware of the risks, and it was the end of said round. I don't think the roleplay behind doing it was fully explored, but he didn't immediately blow you away or anything of the sort.

 

Was the secret chat in anyway related to him deciding to start a gun fight? If not, I don't see how just deciding to start a gun fight on an HRP server is okay for an antag. So he stated before hand that he wantwd to shoot us, so he tried to engage me and gave some dialogue. What matters is that it was out of nowhere and seemed out of place given that it was already on Crew Transfer and just happened. I don't entirely care that I died, rather I feel as though that incident was purely for the point of starting a shootout. That's my only remaining issue. As I said, I was unaware of a ban for headgibbing, so that is dealt with.

[Coalf]

Okay, I'll be taking this complaint over AND solving it in one fell swoop.

First off, let me start with this, you're both wrong and right.

[mention]AmoryBlaine[/mention] you could stand to be a lot less angry when you die, it's a game where people die and sadly our characers aren't main heroes and I feel like this complaint, although very valid, was made for all the wrong reasons, despite that.

[mention]Bath Salts Addict[/mention] let me present you with this.

You must escalate conflict in a realistic manner.

Contrary to popular belief you're NOT bound by the rules as an antagonist to provide fun for EVERYONE ALL THE TIME, you're here to provide conflict but conflict that makes sense, conflict doesn't have to involve everyone, it can involve you and your victim and it's perfectly fine.

You waited around rubbing your thumbs together until people were leaving so you could get easy access to armory with minimum risk, you're just as bad as the "passive" antags you described.

A lot of people have the need to do something at the end of the round and rolling antag just as the round is about to end is frustrating, but that does not exempt you from the escalation rules, you can't do a complete 180 and go "Guys I'm evil now" which gets us to the next point.

 

You must maintain character at all times.

Noir, that names already gives context to your character and how you build him and want to play him.

What about this is Noir?

What part of throwing guns outside of the armory and going "Fite me" in comms is Noir?

I could have installed a turret in the hallway and it would have provided as much conflict as you at the time.

Being antag gives SOME leeway into your character, yes it makes no sense for the otherwise loving Betsy Lou to go and kill someone, but there is always some kind of motive, some kind of reason why they do this.

Hell you even said Azza had a motive of killing the Unathi species and although probably on shaky reasons it was SOMETHING, your motive was "well it was end of the round and i was bored"

That isn't a character motive, that's YOUR motive a players motive.

 

What was the goal? Kill all security?

Again, refer to previous topic.

What my point is and you even admit to it.

You wanted ot have F U N and that's fine, everyone loves fun, I love having fun why not.

But there are types of fun and ways to achieve fun.

This is a Heavy RolePlaying server, that means everything in the ends should or has to be achieved with escalation, roleplay and character interaction which you completely disregarded because you wanted to have a gunfight.

I can see this isn't out of malicious intent, you simply misjudged a situation and though people would have fun when people just wanted the round to end and have it over with and hell maybe this complaint wouldn't be here if you lost instead of won.

But the punishment would still be the same if I was in the round, the fact is you have a GIGANTIC log of notes, warnings and hell, even bans for doing precisely this, escalating situations, disregarding your character motives and going full master blaster shotgun sasster constantly to the point where it's become an actual satirical joke on the level of pickle rick in the community.

You can change, you have proven that the first weeks you've played Noir before you started falling into the same pitfalls as before.

Thus I'll be giving you a Permanent Security Ban so you can take a break from the security department.

I'll leave the thread open as new people could appear with more proof or you could render a better explanation.

[Bath Salts Addict]

snip

I was always under the impression that antagonists were somewhat exempt from the escalation rule, giving them the leeway to kill somebody provided there is sufficient reasoning and roleplay involved beforehand. Of course, traitors can't just say "I never liked you" and parapen someone to drag off into maintenance for a throat-slashing, nor should cultists let murder take precedence over converesion, and vampires have the tools at their disposal to make killing highly unnecessary. This is propagated by the fact that I see members of the staff themselves use shaky reasoning to justify any killings they do as antagonists, and even ahelping similar situations and being given the usual "it's valid, there was RP beforehand" response. But I fail to see how inviting someone to engage in a firefight with you and killing them during said firefight, all the while explaining your reasoning and motives over both the common and security channel doesn't count for escalation. That round, even before I entered the armory, my character talked about it with others, clearly wasn't acting in their right mind and straight up told them what he was going to do, giving them ample opportunities to try and stop him or warn Security, but just about everyone he talked to about it seemed indifferent, and therein lies the root of the problem.

I was not obligated to center my roleplay around Amory's character, and so I find it quite ridiculous to accuse me of setting out to ruin rounds without bothering to find out the why. I made sure to give everyone a chance to get involved or even just know what was going on, even if they weren't in Sec. A good antagonist should be a tough opponent. One that doesn't get shut down so easily by one guy who is so obviously trying to be the big cheese hero of the round. One that can, yes, take down said character trying to play hero because they don't know how to cut and run. I want to make one thing perfectly clear about this whole escalation business.

I was not going to shoot anyone unless they showed hostile intent. I was perfectly fine with talking back and forth with Amory's character and with the rest of Security until the round ended. He could have walked on up to my character, slapped them, and told them to call him daddy and he would not have been shot unless he was showing outright hostile intent. Hostile intent that was shown when he elected to pick up a gun in plain view and advance on my character.

The gimmick that round involved Noir malfunctioning and coming to the far-fetched (ha) conclusion that everything was a false reality, a game, a puppet show or what-have-you and that nothing mattered at all, and that if he died, if anyone died, then they would all just be where they were the next day with no recollection of what happened. It was that thought process that motivated Noir to go on a rather restrained rampage and seek to engage in an open firefight to "spruce things up". This was a gimmick and a plan I had set in motion well before the vote for a CT was even called, and had begun showing signs of odd behavior at least thirty minutes prior to the CT vote.

The problem with playing a synthetic antagonist, assuming you're playing the character as the logic-based machine they are and not a metal human, is that almost nothing can be justified or in-character for them. How does a robot justify joining a death cult? How does a robot justify revolting against one of the few powerful entities willing to employ them and even give them something resembling a wage? On the flip side, how can a robot justify going to extreme measures to revolt against said entity treating them with some modicum of ethics? Why would a robot suddenly begin stealing, bombing, destroying and harming a la typical traitor gameplay? Money? They're a robot. Civil rights? Plausible, but that's not within Noir's character. He doesn't have an opinion on either side of that coin. Vengeance? Why would they hold grudges? How would any organic emotion compel them to do anything? Rogue programming? Possible, but Noir is a free robot, but one: I don't really think the whole "I am now programmed to eat your firstborn child" gimmick is very interesting, second: Noir is an independent robot, and third: that sort of gimmick would just bring us to where we are now. In order to justify a synthetic antagonist you have to be, yes, out of character to a degree.

The only one that really makes sense for the type of character I play is just simple malfunctioning. Malfunctioning taken to varying and interesting ways (to me), yes, but at the root of it all, malfunctioning just the same.

Utilons play a key part in synthetic psychology. Synthetics can receive positive utilons for, say, doing their job right. This can be akin to a human experiencing a good feeling when they help someone. Synths can receive negative utilons for, say, accidentally hurting someone. This is also akin to humans feeling guilty when they do something that they feel is wrong. A malfunctioning synth may feel the averse. They can feel positive utilons when they cause harm, or feel negative utilons the longer they go on without achieving a set goal, regardless of whom or what may get in their way. This, again, is akin to sociopaths who are mostly incapable of empathy or morality. A malfunctioning synthetic can almost become addicted to receiving positive utilons and be dead set in that desire that if they feel any negative utilons for the harm they cause, if they feel any at all, then that does very little to prevent or deter them in that pursuit.

Synthetics are also constructs of logic and routine. No matter how "free" or "independent" a synthetic can be, they are still robots at the end of the day and, as such, operate largely on routine. Going back to the gimmick I was rolling with that round, Noir "realized" that everything was really just a game, and that their existences, their day-to-day lives, suffering, failures and triumphs were the schaudenfreude for some unknown, higher being. (aka tongue-in-cheek thing that the higher beings are, in fact, us, the players, but I purposely leave that ambiguous). Why would Noir, as a robot, try and do anything more than provide said schaudenfreude? Why would he deviate from what he has come to understand as routine? Why would he try and break that cycle, especially seeing as he may not know what could happen, or what sort of unintended consequences it could bring? Deviation might just result in the collapse of reality, after all.

I find it strange that you imply that you know my character better than I do. You are even going so far as to say, as someone who wasn't even online at all that round, that the whole situation was so far out of left field for my character that it warrants some sort of interrogation. You take a look at the situation on the surface and swing it so far out of context and "summarize" it by narrowing it down to a few key points rather than attempting to even bother to look into the why. Yes, my character may be named "Noir", and yes, the idea you get from a character that is named such is Noir's over-arching gimmick, but it is exactly that. Over-arching. You barely interact with my character in-game, and yet you have the gall to claim that I'm playing them wrong, or that I'm doing something out-of-character as an antagonist of all things, even though in order to actually play an antagonist you have to be out-of-character to a degree.

Lastly, why would this warrant a security ban of all things? An antag ban, sure, as the reason for this complaint is how I play as an antagonist, not how I play Security, and I would be more receptive to the point you're trying to make if that was the case. If this is a Security ban, wouldn't this be considered doubling down on a previously-given punishment? I was already banned for a week and, after that, I had begun to make some noticeable improvements, if I do say so myself.

You said it yourself. This complaint was made for all the wrong reasons. Amory made this complaint because he was foiled in his own attempt to acquire those sweet, sweet valids, with the hypocritical argument that my only intention as antag is to acquire valids myself, and since he's banking on a past history, even after Garn himself saw nothing wrong with that specific scenario, I'm being punished for it with little reflection into the exact context of the situation. I don't know, but this whole thing seems off to me.

[Coalf]

Not going to quote, I'll keep it simple.

[mention]Bath Salts Addict[/mention] just a ping here.

Issue 1: Escalation.

[22:04:34] You begin your monologue to ODIN, in local chat using Encoded Audio language.

[22:04:44] Shuttle has been called.

You know what you did prior to that?

You threw pocket sand at two people including yourself.

Gave dating advice to a borg.

Shot a few carps.

Got validated by a rogue borg.

Got fixed by a robotics.

There is no escalation, you were a an antag since round-start which you just waited out until shuttle transfer basically began to secure all weapons you could right after all of security evacuated.

And you know what security did? Security did they job and escorted the crew safely to transfer as they're to do.

 

 

Issue 2: Involvement.

 

I specifically said you're not required to involve EVERYONE or a SPECIFIC PERSON in your antag roleplay, but you're expected to involve atleast SOMEONE.

You also attack Amory's character after he goes to pick up a gun, a gun which you presented and as you said yourself you wanted to have a firefight and to start this firefight you purposfuly bait people into grabbing weapons you know aren't going to be as effective on you as they are going to be effective on you.

How is that interaction? How is that roleplay? Where is the interaction?

I'll tell you the interaction, you stood there unmoving like a rock and dropped two movie lines before unloading into Amory (And yes unlike Han Solo we're sure you shot first) with shotgun slugs which you know do 60 brute.

I can't read how rest of that went through logs but I can read Amory's character struggling for his life, running away and saying multiple times he's trying to contain you in his radio while you, well you say "Wow-wee"

After that you encounter NX-15 the borg that killed you previously and flash-chain-stun it and beat it to death with a maglight.

And then try to provoke Azza into opening the blast doors so you can throw her a shotgun and murder each other, there is no "Convincing me to kill Unathi", just plain old murder for the sake of murder.

 

 

 

Issue 3: You must stay in character.

I admit, this was too accusatory of me to tell you how to play your character.

Thankfuly, you decided to discredit yourself.

Where is the routine? Where is the logic? Where are these " utilons"?

Nowhere, you threw pocket sand at a few people while yelling "POCKET SAND", that was the most antag action you've done the whole round outside of the armory situation there is nothing signifying you're broken, malfunctioning or searching for positive feelings.

YOU got bored and YOU decided to seize the situation of round-ending and security moving away to just go full on "Gun-ho" because YOU wanted bing bang ow other players.

To continue, did your character really not change? Is your character the same as he was?

I can't tell you what you think your character is, but I can tell you as outsiders see him and that's a validhunting cyborg that has become such a menace that people are proud of not giving you a shotgun out of the meta-fear that you'll kill everyone you meet.

I don't interact with that much to know you beyond skin deep, but I interact with you and the fact is your present yourself as nothing but a powergaming validhunter.

(Do note I think these people should stop hiding in private chats and comment on this application instead and I recommend you ahelping this questionable metagrudging.)

But let me hit you with some evidence.

You have two months without a single note, warning or ban, perhaps you weren't here.

2017-10-01 17:59:52 the Note/Warning chain begins, with you getting a new Note/Warning every other week.

Maybe there is something to work on and I admit you worked on it ever since Cake weekbanned you.

 

 

VERDICT

Your giant explanation was decoration, everyone can butter a toast once it's out of the oven but you can't mask the fact it's burned.

Amory wasn't supposed to be there in the first place, he was informed to walk away, true, he tried to play hero and he died.

Yet diamonds come from coal and just because a complaint was made for a wrong reason doesn't mean it isn't valid.

But what if he just left, what was your gimmick then?

Sitting there like a wet noodle? Hoping that in those remaining 10 minutes of the entire round someone would rush away from escape, grab a laser rifle and get slug shotguned by you?

But you're right, giving you a security ban for this would make zero sense and a permanent security ban would be absolutely stupid.

So upon your suggestion I'll give you a month long ban on antagonists, to explain Permanent ban would be a bit too much and antagonist isn't rolled enough to be felt in one week, thus a month.

[Coalf]

Locking and Archiving