[Resolved] Staff Complaint - ShameOnTurtles

[AmoryBlaine]

BYOND Key: AmoryBlaine

Staff BYOND Key: ShameOnTurtles

Game ID: bTd-aNaj

Reason for complaint:

I was given a warning, after explaining with a reasonable amount of points that I had every reason and privilege to beat and kill Mercenary Echo. This decision to give the warning shown below came after the argument arrived at a "roundabout", and ShameOnTurtles did not want to discuss it further. For clarity, below I will explain the situation as it were that lead up to the warning.

Arriving at Cargo Upper deck and having engaged one hostile Mercenary who was dispatched with a Ion rifle, Echo, the beaten Merc, entered the killzone that had been set up by myself, and the Detective. Echo expended their ammunition, and while attempted to reload was engaged in close-quarters by me. Rather than submit after being unable to reload, he drew out a shield and began trying to deflect my baton attacks, myself and the Detective were quick to get him down, but he was not willing to remain in that position. Echo continously got up to continue to strike us- or attempt to- even after an additional security member, an unarmed cadet, arrived. Eventually, after enough beating he stops getting up, we continued to beat on him hoping he would not get up again, he does not, finally dying. We beat on him for a bit longer, but this is mainly due to addrenaline and not really being able to read the chat. Through out the ordeal I had used my macro for "Stop resisting!", although, a few of the times I pressed it, it was not entirely needed- or heard apparently as they continued to fight onwards.

I gave four reasons as to why we finished him off, if you could call it that. I'll list them here along with his response, the rest would do well to be dug up in the logs.

AmoryBlaine to ShameOnTurtles:

1. Unknown number of intruders were still within proximity 2. Keeping him alive is a strain on our already strained team 3. He had not even tried to comply until being put into a crit state that 4. I could not determin.

ShameOnTurtles to AmoryBlaine:

1. Amount of intruders on scene was known. It was known to be those two, and you had other security covering the other sectors. Even if you were not aware of this, that makes it even more reason to not just beat on a guy for 2 minutes while his buddies possibly fuck you up. 2. Yes, true, but you can minimize this strain and you had a big team with some members not equipped to fight those hostiles. 3. This has no bearing on the situation. 4. I refer back to the previous point, having some awareness of the combatants in a fight and not beating antags while they are down in crit is expected of an officer. I can understand getting carried away ICly but this doesn't look like that anymore.

To expand on this, in further reply-

1. The confirmed number within the immediate vicinity was two. One of whom was down. The known amount of intruders was three+, and given that we had not checked the next area, meant we could not afford to leave one of us with Echo. And, and stated we had almost no idea of his status inside the suit. I've seen people fucked up equally as bad get up and fight. Mind you, there was a whole conversation had between Shame and myself, so please do read that over for full understanding.

In regards to the warning itself,

"Keep in mind: Additionally, keep your character's goals in mind. For example, as security, during a traitor round, your goal is not to catch traitors, but ensure the safety of the station and provide assistance as needed. As security, you should make every reasonable effort to arrest antagonists instead of killing them. This was not done in this situation."

"keep your character's goals in mind." The goal I had in mind during this was not dying, not having the unarmed IPC die and not having the Ablative geared Detective die-- AS WELL as the wounded miner that they had gimped. The assumption that we can somehow tell if someone in a hardsuit is going to get back up or not when they have previously done so is wrong. I don't believe any of us even noticed that he began to gasp, nor that he died. What did not help this situation were the LOOC commentors that took our attention.

"As security, you should make every reasonable effort to arrest antagonists instead of killing them." Almost entirely subjective an easy to cast judgement down when not having been in the situation yourself. As previously stated, Echo had made ZERO attempts to cooperate, continuing to try and fight us up until his death. Expecting me, the IPC or the Detective to decide that a neckgrab and dislocation of legs is somehow more effective to putting down the threat is absurd. He was given an inumerable amount of times to remain down, but refused going so far as to taunt us mid combat. This, I only barely noticed and only afterwards read.

 

 

In all, I dunno what you expect when shit has hit the fan and only about thirty seconds later an explosion rocks the area validating my assumption that more were nearby. I can see how it's 'Unfair' to the Merc that we killed him, but it was his own fault for continuing to fight us so long as to encourage us in beating him to death. Also, read the logs of combat and speech. Tucked into our onslaught are his attempts to continue to strike out trying to grab a weapon. I'm not sure what else to add here so it's done now.

Evidence/logs/etc:

Additional remarks: If this is pretty shitty, please excuse it. I have trouble using this format efficiently.

[Faris]

I'm taking the complaint.

[Faris]

I'm curious on why you had to kill them? You had a plethora of options to keep them in the ground without the need to kill them or even let dislocation. They were disarmed, left only with their fists.

[AmoryBlaine]

I'm curious on why you had to kill them? You had a plethora of options to keep them in the ground without the need to kill them or even let dislocation. They were disarmed, left only with their fists.

 

I don't know about the other two, but I was in crit almost the entire fight. I wasn't even sure if I'd be standing up much longer, so I did what I did in order to make sure I wasn't going to be fucked over by a last ditch attempt at killing us.

I still don't understand why my priority is this example-less plethora of options. He falls down, doesn't get up for a minute- time, for us, is not passing like that. We just beat him until we were sure he wasn't going to get back up and attack us. A hardsuitted guy fighting an Officer with a baton, a Cadet with a maglight and a detective with something else isn't exactly putting either side at a massive advantage. He was able to draw a shield out earlier, and we still had no idea as to what else he had on him. An energy sword, a combat knife, a holstered revolver that one shot blows away my head. They had gimp'd a miner before we got there and we don't know how. When I'm in a situation full of unknowns I'm not thinking about keeping that guy alive while there are possibly further active threats nearby, as well as unsecured hostages.

This entire situation is reasonable, and yet I'm expected to step outside of reason and attempt to handcuff a hardsuit, dislocate their legs allowing them to live a bit longer or what else? Call a Doctor to a combat zone and get the guy sedated? We weren't really looking at a plethora of options when the fight was happening.

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

I'm expected to step outside of reason and attempt to handcuff a hardsuit, dislocate their legs allowing them to live a bit longer or what else?

 

yeah

[AmoryBlaine]

I'm expected to step outside of reason and attempt to handcuff a hardsuit, dislocate their legs allowing them to live a bit longer or what else?

 

yeah

 

>Try to flee

Cannot be done, it contradicts my character's occupation.

>Try to disable your opponent

This was attempted an innumerable amount of times, but they would not stop getting up to attack again.

>Roleplay out the effects

This was done within the context of there still being an on going situation, the rest of the round was spent typing this up or talking to Shame prior to the warning.

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

We weren't really looking at a plethora of options when the fight was happening.

 

There is nothing in security guides saying you cannot retreat, that's something you chose to do. You killed someone in critical in self-defense. You did not attempt to do anything other than beating them to death.

You weren't even secbanned, just giving a warning to better inform your security play in these encounters in the future. Removing the warning would be a concession that murder is ok if you don't feel like trying to disable them, which makes the rule on murder inconsistent.

[Kaed]

It's a robot. They feel no pain and can continue to get up and attempt to terminate you basically until you kill them. And they were doing that, it sounds like.

Why would dislocating their limbs even work? They don't have bones to dislocate. If they do, someone did some dumb coding.

I don't see the issue. Robots aren't even people. Legally, and possibly morally speaking, in this setting. It's not murder to disable them. You just patch them up and they start walking around again. You know, like people don't.

You can't play an IPC and exploit their immunity to pain to murderbone and expect people to treat you like a person.

Edited March 4, 2018 by Guest

[AmoryBlaine]

We weren't really looking at a plethora of options when the fight was happening.

 

There is nothing in security guides saying you cannot retreat, that's something you chose to do. You killed someone in critical in self-defense. You did not attempt to do anything other than beating them to death.

You weren't even secbanned, just giving a warning to better inform your security play in these encounters in the future. Removing the warning would be a concession that murder is ok if you don't feel like trying to disable them, which makes the rule on murder inconsistent.

 

They were given warnings, they were given a fair amount of chances to lay down and stop attacking us. They refused this and we continued to beat them knowing full well that if we stopped and he got back up, he was going to keep on trying to kill us. I am not going to let a warning sit if I think it's wrongly placed. Just because it's not a ban does it mean I should accept it, and that's an awful way to look at this. I'm still wanting to know of the plethora of options we had.

[AmoryBlaine]

It's a robot. They feel no pain and can continue to get up and attempt to terminate you basically until you kill them. And they were doing that, it sounds like.

Why would dislocating their limbs even work? They don't have bones to dislocate. If they do, someone did some dumb coding.

I don't see the issue. Robots aren't even people. Legally, and possibly morally speaking, in this setting. It's not murder to disable them. You just patch them up and they start walking around again. You know, like people don't.

 

I don't know what it was. I never actually got to see what they looked like. I think it was a person, there wasn't any motor oil, but they were acting in a manner that did feel robotic. We had fried the one that came before, but the Hardsuit didn't react to any of the Ion blasts.

[AmoryBlaine]

I think I said this before, but my entire round after the fight was spent in PMs and writing this. All I know is that eventually the guy/thing stopped getting back up and we assessed the situation and fell back after hearing an explosion that vented the Upper deck Cargo hall.

[Sytic]

ODIN here. I did agree that, while excessive, when he continues to actually be a rather solid threat (unhandcuffable, unathi with powerful punches, hardsuit that can splint limbs automatically IIRC) while there are other threats left to dispatch and subdue/eliminate, with Echo being completely uncaring to their own life while completely outnumbered and obviously still having a capacity to accept surrender (especially while AmoryBlaine was yelling "stop resisting") it seems valid. Especially considering, we had a repairable IPC which we recovered with intention to repair for questioning and arresting. Echo was being unresponsive to all requests to stop resisting (regardless whether it was a meme or not) and was still giving out pretty big hits, standing up every time he was knocked down due to his hardsuit. On top of that, we couldn't handcuff him. Our only hope was to dislocate his legs, yet every time he fell over, he got up. We beat him into crit, and then he near instantly either died or succumbed.

EDIT:

[ShameOnTurtles]

Hi. Firstly, full attack and PM logs for the situation can be found here

To get some misconceptions out of the way immediately:

It's a robot. They feel no pain and can continue to get up and attempt to terminate you basically until you kill them. And they were doing that, it sounds like.

Why would dislocating their limbs even work? They don't have bones to dislocate. If they do, someone did some dumb coding.

I don't see the issue. Robots aren't even people. Legally, and possibly morally speaking, in this setting. It's not murder to disable them. You just patch them up and they start walking around again. You know, like people don't.

You can't play an IPC and exploit their immunity to pain to murderbone and expect people to treat you like a person.

Echo, the merc in this instance, was not an IPC. They were ioned multiple times in their hardsuit, but since they were human minimal harm was actually done. I agree with you: this would be a lot more clear cut if it was a robot. That wasn't the case.

 

ODIN here. I did agree that, while excessive, when he continues to actually be a rather solid threat (unhandcuffable, unathi with powerful punches, hardsuit that can splint limbs automatically IIRC) while there are other threats left to dispatch and subdue/eliminate, with Echo being completely uncaring to their own life while completely outnumbered and obviously still having a capacity to accept surrender (especially while AmoryBlaine was yelling "stop resisting") it seems valid. On top of that, we couldn't handcuff him. Our only hope was to dislocate his legs, yet every time he fell over, he got up. We beat him into crit, and then he near instantly either died or succumbed.

EDIT:

I won't deny that the mercenary could have played this a lot better. No administrative action was taken on them in this situation, however. Hardsuits can splint limbs, but dislocations still have full effects (though, to be fair, I would not fault someone for not knowing this).

Additionally, I want to make it quite clear that telling someone "Stop resisting!" while spam clicking them with a baton, without pausing whatsoever, is not a legitimate surrender call. A bind for that is actually a pretty good idea, but not when utilized in this instance.

Other than that:

I was given a warning, after explaining with a reasonable amount of points that I had every reason and privilege to beat and kill Mercenary Echo. This decision to give the warning shown below came after the argument arrived at a "roundabout", and ShameOnTurtles did not want to discuss it further.

I don't think this is exactly a proper representation of our conversation in PMs. It went back and forth quite a bit, and after we kept arriving at the same points of contention over and over (mainly whether or not you had enough time and manpower to handle an arrest), where we just weren't agreeing even after both explaining our sides, I decided to cut off the discussion and apply the warning as putting my foot down.

 

Rather than submit after being unable to reload, he drew out a shield and began trying to deflect my baton attacks, myself and the Detective were quick to get him down, but he was not willing to remain in that position. Echo continously got up to continue to strike us- or attempt to- even after an additional security member, an unarmed cadet, arrived. Eventually, after enough beating he stops getting up, we continued to beat on him hoping he would not get up again, he does not, finally dying.

Looking over logs I can definitely say I'm a lot more aware of the situation than I was on server, and I better understand your point now. I want to draw your attention to two specific sections in the combat:

Between

[05:31:29] bTd-aNaj ATTACK: DaTimeSmog/(Echo) disarmed Casimir Fontaine (srvodeath)

[05:31:29] bTd-aNaj ATTACK: AmoryBlaine/(Daniel Carmichael) attacked DaTimeSmog/(Echo) with stunbaton (INTENT: HARM) (DAMTYE: BRUTE)

[05:31:29] bTd-aNaj ATTACK: AmoryBlaine/(Daniel Carmichael) stunned DaTimeSmog/(Echo) with the the stunbaton

and

[05:31:48] bTd-aNaj ATTACK: Sytic/(ODIN) attacked DaTimeSmog/(Echo) with wood bat (Wielded) (INTENT: HARM) (DAMTYE: BRUTE)

[05:31:48] bTd-aNaj ATTACK: DaTimeSmog/(Echo) disarmed Daniel Carmichael (amoryblaine)

There are no combat logs from Echo. This is a 19 second period that could have been utilized for something other than smashing at his prone body. I understand it's possible to get carried away during combat, and that certainly can be reasonable, so I don't think this is really conclusive.

Two:

Between

[05:32:25] bTd-aNaj ATTACK: DaTimeSmog/(Echo) has kneed AmoryBlaine/(Daniel Carmichael)

[05:32:26] bTd-aNaj ATTACK: Sytic/(ODIN) attacked DaTimeSmog/(Echo) with maglight (INTENT: HARM) (DAMTYE: BRUTE)

and

[05:32:44] bTd-aNaj ATTACK: SRVODeath/(Casimir Fontaine) has DaTimeSmog/(Echo)

There are also no logs from Echo, and in fact he is gasping in critical condition for most of that section. This is another long period of time (18 seconds) in which non-lethal measures could have been taken. Echo dies right after that last hit, as well.

 

 

Multiple times it's been stated that he was a massive threat all throughout this fight, but really, he's one man with fists and a broken hardsuit against 3 security personnel. Those three were armed with a wooden bat, a stunbaton, and a wrench. Not exactly fully armed, but certainly better equipped than the merc was at that moment.

 

The assumption that we can somehow tell if someone in a hardsuit is going to get back up or not when they have previously done so is wrong. I don't believe any of us even noticed that he began to gasp, nor that he died.

Understandable. As I said in PMs, I do not expect you to be constantly examining and being 100% aware of everything going on in combat. You are expected to have some critical awareness, however, one of those being the status of the people you're fighting. When you examine someone, you can see their wounds, and see if they're unconscious or not. This is incredibly important as security, where in general, you have an IC and OOC responsibility not to kill antagonists where it's not necessary. I pointed it out earlier that there were a couple substantial periods of time where one of you could have subdued them. It was three on one.

 

"As security, you should make every reasonable effort to arrest antagonists instead of killing them." Almost entirely subjective an easy to cast judgement down when not having been in the situation yourself.

As shown in logs, I entered the situation part of the way through the last period in which Echo did not get up while he was beat and eventually died. I saw that part firsthand, and while that doesn't put me in the forefront, I am approaching this issue with firsthand knowledge of it, not just logs.

 

In all, I dunno what you expect when shit has hit the fan and only about thirty seconds later an explosion rocks the area validating my assumption that more were nearby.

The explosion was much later, after Echo had been dead for a little while and I had been scrapped by the other two mercenaries, in fact.

The main point of all of this is that you had time to make efforts to subdue them, rather than continue to try to kill them. They were a threat, but not an exceedingly dangerous one once the situation progressed to a three on one with them dropping in and out of consciousness.

[AmoryBlaine]

Snip

 

Okay, here we are back at subduing. OTHER THAN the holy dislocation of legs-which did not occur to me- how do we deal with the Hard-suit? I'm really wanting to know at this point the previously mentioned plethora of responses we could have taken. So far Jackboot has chimed in to give me "Running away" as an option, you have yourself stated that it's a 50/50 on whether we know if a hard-suit handles dislocations or not. I had an idea that it might worked like that, but I usually just choke them out- I cannot do this anymore, because it's just as likely to kill them as it is to subdue them and we'd be right back here anyways. So please, give me more of these options we have. The scenario being he's now laying there not having gotten up for 20 seconds- you do not notice the gasping. Your adrenaline is pumped up a bit, this makes it feel like about 5 seconds. What options are on the table for you?

I want this warning removed. It asserts a false understanding of the situation and casts me in poorer light than is true. I don't deny we beat on him a bit too long- after he died. I am not willing to accept that I receive a warning for having to handle someone who completely disregarded their own instincts of self-preservation.

[ShameOnTurtles]

Snip

 

Okay, here we are back at subduing. OTHER THAN the holy dislocation of legs-which did not occur to me- how do we deal with the Hard-suit? I'm really wanting to know at this point the previously mentioned plethora of responses we could have taken. So far Jackboot has chimed in to give me "Running away" as an option, you have yourself stated that it's a 50/50 on whether we know if a hard-suit handles dislocations or not. I had an idea that it might worked like that, but I usually just choke them out- I cannot do this anymore, because it's just as likely to kill them as it is to subdue them and we'd be right back here anyways. So please, give me more of these options we have. The scenario being he's now laying there not having gotten up for 20 seconds- you do not notice the gasping. Your adrenaline is pumped up a bit, this makes it feel like about 5 seconds. What options are on the table for you?

I wasn't sure, but it was tested and confirmed during the round that dislocating worked through a hardsuit. Like I said earlier, I wouldn't hold it against anyone for not knowing that specific aspect of the mechanic.

Some options include:

• Neckgrabbing
  
• Ioning them further, although I think their hardsuit was already out of charge or pretty much there.
  
• Since he's unconscious due to critical injuries, just grabbing him.
  
• I hesitate to go this far, but possibly even breaking their hands
  

That's all I can think of at the moment. I completely understand what you're saying about adrenaline and timing. It's happened to me in the past. The thing is, just because it happens does not mean it's something that should happen, if that makes sense. We nudge people for getting carried away during combat, and this is one of those times. The warning is for that purpose.

 

I want this warning removed. It asserts a false understanding of the situation and casts me in poorer light than is true. I don't deny we beat on him a bit too long- after he died. I am not willing to accept that I receive a warning for having to handle someone who completely disregarded their own instincts of self-preservation.

There is no set format for warnings, but what I do is provide a brief description of the incident in question, link it to any related rules, and put in the notes for staff-only viewing particulars about the conversation and my judgments. I don't think the warning does misrepresent the situation. For reference, the staff only notes were: Notes regarding the warning: They were under pressure and frustrated ICly, but the beating was super excessive and they didn't even stop to attempt any kind of arrest/subduing via any methods. Argued with me in PMs about the situation, going in circles so I cut it off so we didn't really reach a consensus, but yeah. Keep an eye out for this type of behavior in the future..

I want to apologize if in my earlier post I sounded aggressive or hostile in any way, that was not the intention. I don't know if I'm reading too much into it but I just want to be safe. Your most recent post seems a little, retaliatory, I guess the word would be. Anyways yeah.

[AmoryBlaine]

EDIT: Fucking hate this shit on my phone. Impossible.

So apparently my reply didn't get sent out. Anyways,

The examples you list are weak. Two are simply having one of us- likely me- just hold the dying man so that he cannot move, which doesn't really aid anyone in this situation as he is still upstairs dying while we sort shit out. Smashing his hands is an awful idea, no sane person is going to smash someone else's hands in that situation- they're going to do what we did and kill him. Even so, again, this guy is dying because you have already beat the shit out of him. How well does, "Well, we started smashing his hands so that he wouldn't be able to use weapons." Sound to you? Ions were expended right into him. They had no effect and if they did, I'm too stupid to know what effect was had. The warning you gave is unfair seeing as we had to kill a man hell bent on expending whatever energy he had into trying to kill us rather than accepting that pain exists and that he should stop fighting. You said yourself that he got no punishment. That is an issue in my eyes. Your warning also states we made no attempts, at 'subduing' them. This is a lie, as we tried what we thought of.

I want the warning removed and the Merc warned for completely disregarding pain.

[Scheveningen]

You cannot really expect someone playing security to stop and think during a situation that requires more immediate action and resolution of a tense situation. It's not fair to warn someone for a scenario where half of the conditions weren't going to be able to be controlled by them. When an antagonist puts themselves in a situation where they're declared "neutralize-on-sight", and it isn't explicit how the neutralizing is going to be done, the security team is going to assume they have to improvise by any means necessary.

If I had to shut down an antagonist that was presenting themselves as a serious threat and the only proper resolution that would benefit everyone's safety would be killing them, then I would regrettably take that resolution. I do not care what any admin thinks, as security, either you act or people die. I would be livid if I was taken aside for a 30 minute discussion on ethics that boiled down to "you could've done better." No shit. The major takeaway from every round as security players is that we learn to do something that we did perhaps suboptimally a little better, but we do not need staff to threaten with bans and warnings to tell us that. Learn to leave well enough alone. There are no victims here, there's only a salty antagonist who's mad that he couldn't 1v3 with his suit of armor despite the fact he was enough of an idiot to run out of ammunition and still stick around. We cannot be blamed for every single occurrence in a round. You need to remove this warning if you are also not going to blame the round antagonist for lacking in fear RP and making unrealistic/impractical decision-making in IC. There is zero consistency or reason for this warning to even exist aside from fun-policing.

"In a fight with a hardsuited merc as a [...] security officer, beat them down into crit and continued for an excessive amount of time, between 1 and 2 minutes."

This phrasing pretty much flat out ignores the absurd armor values of a mercenary with a hardsuit. Melee = 80. You know what could've been done better by staff? Better comprehension of context.

"[paraphrased] Remember that your goal is to ensure the safety and security of the station/its crew."

A hardsuited mercenary magdumping everything in sight is a threat to that safety and security of the station that the staff insist is security's responsibility.

"As security, you should make every reasonable effort to arrest antagonists instead of killing them."

The most painfully obvious statements are often the most insulting to the intelligence of security players. We do this, but, do you really expect every round to go ideally as your minds can fantasize should happen, or are we going to be realistic and approach these issues without bias and understand that it is rarely ever just one person's fault? Over the past several months people on this forum have asked for peaceantags to be effectively a bannable offense, and apparently it is current policy that peaceantags are now punishable, because people have felt entitled that antags need to make the round fun for them, the expected standard is now that just about every antagonist under the sun is expected to escalate to lethal. Meaning, because security is optimal when playing reactively, we have to often respond in kind to put them down because most antagonists are armed with defensive anti-stun gear that make it absolutely impossible to safely drop them. If we cannot kite the threat by ourselves or rush it with all-out offensive force in groups, we die to the antag. Full stop.

Furthermore, contributing additional options that "we could use" to neutralize antagonists, well, let's go through this point by point.

Neckgrabbing

Dangerous and stupid vs. a hardsuit wearer.

Ioning them further, although I think their hardsuit was already out of charge or pretty much there.

Redundant and stupid, it only cripples their usage of modules, it does nothing else but remove their utility, they're still standing and capable of beating the shit out of someone in a fully armored suit.

Since he's unconscious due to critical injuries, just grabbing him.

The last concern on my mind is whether I can beat someone into unconsciousness when I am already intending to kill them.

I hesitate to go this far, but possibly even breaking their hands

Stupid, because breaking the limbs of a hardsuited individual does nothing, the hardsuit braces around their offending limbs and allows them to keep going without pain. Also absurd because it promotes breaking the Geneva convention just to arrest someone.

The arguments provided by the banning staff member are extremely weak and that makes this warning just as weak. It deserves to be removed. If the antagonist received no discipline for their actions in causing the situation, then Amory deserves no punishment or warning for their actions either, because if your belief was that the antagonist doesn't deserve to be held responsible for their actions, neither does the security officer that killed them in a 2d spaceman Mafia simulator. A warning is literally a threat of a ban if the outlined 'behavior' happens again, which it undoubtedly will, because it actually is security's OOC job to physically deal with antagonists, whether you like it or not, the encounter is inevitable.

[Faris]

My questions were answered and proper arguments were presented. I do not feel the warning is fair so I'm going to have it removed.

I feel considering the circumstances, albeit this may be an extreme action done to the antagonist in question, it was still one of the proper ones. They refused to surrender and budge, they fought tooth and nail during a time of extreme hostility and danger, so they died for it.

Leaving this open for another 24 hours.

[Faris]

Locking and archiving.