Staff Complaint-LilahNovi

BYOND Key: Bygonehero

Staff BYOND Key: lilahnovi

Game ID: bVd-cSSa

Reason for complaint: Error in ruling, Expunging of note on ruling.

Evidence/logs/etc:

Additional remarks: I wish for the note concerning this round be removed from my player account. I do not believe anything I have done this round was ahelpable. I believe I performed the duties of warden exactly as they are to be represented. I believe I escalated properly and responded properly when the antagonist disabled one active security officer and killed another. I do not believe it is my responsibility to identify if all members of security are afk or not before responding to an emergency. I took the effort to organize and arm the members of security that I was aware of before responding to the emergency myself. Because there were only a cadet and two active security officers, one of who was killed and the other disabled I believe constitutes a situation where the warden may act as a security officer, as described in the wiki. The points brought up in this ticket do not make sense to me as something that should be warned about or ahelped.

A notification I'll be handling this complaint with [mention]Doc[/mention] and [mention]Datamatt[/mention]

Edit: I've effectively let them handle the complaint on their own.

I did not suggest that you need to identify if anyone is AFK or not, and I told you multiple times that your actions were perfectly reasonable with the knowledge that you had. I merely told you to be more wary of reacting to calls as a warden, check the manifest regularly to be aware of your coworkers, to play a security officer if you were interested in responding to calls consistently. However, you continued to argue it, and on top of that, I was told that you were hoarding rifles, and wouldn't let others have them. I'm not a sec player, so I don't understand the dynamics of that, but yeah. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt on that and not calling it metagaming or whatever. As a warden, you already have your own sidearm as far as I understand, so I don't see the reason why you needed a rifle.

What really solidified the problem was your poor attitude. You proceeded to state that you would keep doing the same thing again in future rounds as a warden. I told you that if you kept doing it, you would get job-banned. Simply put, it didn't have to go there. A warden is not a security officer unless otherwise ordered, and there are many who will ahelp a warden leaving sec to respond to a call. I originally needed to confirm with you that you understood the duties of a warden, and that was about it. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. It can be tough when to decide to act in an emergency situation as a warden, but the request is that you be more reluctant to leave your post in future rounds.

I did not suggest that you need to identify if anyone is AFK or not, and I told you multiple times that your actions were perfectly reasonable with the knowledge that you had. I merely told you to be more wary of reacting to calls as a warden, check the manifest regularly to be aware of your coworkers, to play a security officer if you were interested in responding to calls consistently. However, you continued to argue it, and on top of that, I was told that you were hoarding rifles, and wouldn't let others have them. I'm not a sec player, so I don't understand the dynamics of that, but yeah. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt on that and not calling it metagaming or whatever. As a warden, you already have your own sidearm as far as I understand, so I don't see the reason why you needed a rifle.

What really solidified the problem was your poor attitude. You proceeded to state that you would keep doing the same thing again in future rounds as a warden. I told you that if you kept doing it, you would get job-banned. Simply put, it didn't have to go there. A warden is not a security officer unless otherwise ordered, and there are many who will ahelp a warden leaving sec to respond to a call. I originally needed to confirm with you that you understood the duties of a warden, and that was about it. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. It can be tough when to decide to act in an emergency situation as a warden, but the request is that you be more reluctant to leave your post in future rounds.

I passed out both shotguns and both carbines as well as lethal 45. The only armory gun I kept on my person was the laser rifle, in the event the head of personnel who could give themselves all access tried for the armory. Any other weapon I picked up in the field from the killed or disabled officers. I did not have a poor attitude. I defended my point which from your own admission I did nothing wrong. So when you say to be more cautious than I am currently, it makes it seem like I did something wrong. If I did nothing wrong then why was this repeatedly reiterated? The entire conversation went on and on because I had no idea what you were trying to say. I could not have done more than what I did and I tried to explain that.

Additionally. I denied access to lethal only firearms at first because security wanted to kill the head of personnel, not arrest them. I followed escalation better than the officers that you cite I kept weapons from. I gave them access to lethal only weapons when the situation escalated further.

The issue was not that you needed to do more-- it was that you potentially needed to do less. The situation is far more grey than "You shouldn't have or should have done it." I thought perhaps you acted out of line, but decided to give you the benefit of the doubt since your intentions were good. A number of people felt you acted out of the place of the warden, and so as a precaution, I was letting you know to be more wary about leaving your post in that job in the future. It was a formality at best, and meant to be the closer of the ticket. Literally a gentle reminder.

However, you decided to be indignant towards me being completely soft on you and then proceed to say "I did everything right... I will continue to play the way I have played this round." I considered not even placing a note until that line. In fact, I don't really see how you thought saying that would help you or make the situation better at all.

If you cannot agree that the Warden's place is the Brig and the Armory, and as a last-ditch officer in the case of a direct order from an HOS, then my ruling stands. Going, "I do understand the role of the warden, very much so" is not an agreement or an indication that you are willing to move forward with caution, especially when you acted out of place and multiple folks noticed.

From the Wiki: "You are not a Security Officer and should not leave the brig if possible. However, you may operate as an officer shall the need arise, under the permission of your HoS." Basically, it's not your call.

Also from the wiki: "...you can be helpful to your team by coordinating with officers over your radio channel, checking cameras when people call for help, and updating arrest records. You can also do roll call every so often, to make sure that the officers are still alive and well. You have the opportunity to make Security run like a well-oiled machine, but don't start acting like your boss."

If you want to get in on the action, you should play a security officer. You shouldn't be carrying around a laser rifle. I've made my point. I'm not sure what else to say on the matter.

After reviewing the logs and evidence we have found the note to be justified.

While in some cases a warden responding to an emergency can be justified, in this case there simply were not enough attempts to get all the officers to the scene. Not knowing there wasn't an officer is not an applicable excuse as you should've known from the arrivals announcement and the crew manifest.

Additionally, holding back security's main lethal weapons (the shotguns are now LTLs unless purposefully rearmed, and carbines are very light-duty weapons that while lethal, are incredibly lacking compared to rifles- it is a notable downgrade) is not acceptable.

Lastly, your attitude in the adminhelps is incredibly inappropriate and likely would have netted you a warning or even a ban from other staff members. You are free to disagree with staff rulings through complaints, but simply stating that "I will continue because I have done nothing wrong" is not an acceptable course of response to a staff decision.

Considering all of this, the trial conducted themselves properly and applied the proper measures.

After reviewing the logs and evidence we have found the note to be justified.

While in some cases a warden responding to an emergency can be justified, in this case there simply were not enough attempts to get all the officers to the scene. Not knowing there wasn't an officer is not an applicable excuse as you should've known from the arrivals announcement and the crew manifest.

Additionally, holding back security's main lethal weapons (the shotguns are now LTLs unless purposefully rearmed, and carbines are very light-duty weapons that while lethal, are incredibly lacking compared to rifles- it is a notable downgrade) is not acceptable.

Lastly, your attitude in the adminhelps is incredibly inappropriate and likely would have netted you a warning or even a ban from other staff members. You are free to disagree with staff rulings through complaints, but simply stating that "I will continue because I have done nothing wrong" is not an acceptable course of response to a staff decision.

Considering all of this, the trial conducted themselves properly and applied the proper measures.

I don't get it then. I really don't I guess theres no point in playing warden when you should just let security murder the antags. The CE told me to try to capture them nonlethally so I released nonlethal and less than lethal weapons, keeping the lethal only ones. The officer in question yelled for help. I do not know what else could be done to warrant an emergency. I did not have an attitude. I asked for them to explain what I could have done differently. Would it be acceptable for example to respond once everyone is dead? If so then I will not respond until all of the security is dead, even if they call for help. As for what I said. I said it because they were just telling me to be more careful. That is useless information. I WANT TO KNOW WHAT I DID WRONG. That is being angry. I do not know how much clearer I could be.

Simply stating- You should be more cautious. Is not useful information. It does not tell me what I did wrong. I KEPT ASKING why I should not respond for pleas for help. Or why I should not respond when the only two security officers are disabled and dead. It made sense ICly to respond so I don't know why I couldn't. Is it an OOC rule?? Please help me out here. I never got an answer. All I got were misinformation about me hoarding the weapons, and continued reiterating that "You should be more wary." Ultimately, Why can't I respond to a situation when it makes sense to do so Icly? Wardens, do it all the time I see, so what is different about this case? I am truly trying to understand, and if I am critical or come across as such its because I really, really don't understand. At all.

After reviewing the logs and evidence we have found the note to be justified.

While in some cases a warden responding to an emergency can be justified, in this case there simply were not enough attempts to get all the officers to the scene. Not knowing there wasn't an officer is not an applicable excuse as you should've known from the arrivals announcement and the crew manifest.

Additionally, holding back security's main lethal weapons (the shotguns are now LTLs unless purposefully rearmed, and carbines are very light-duty weapons that while lethal, are incredibly lacking compared to rifles- it is a notable downgrade) is not acceptable.

Lastly, your attitude in the adminhelps is incredibly inappropriate and likely would have netted you a warning or even a ban from other staff members. You are free to disagree with staff rulings through complaints, but simply stating that "I will continue because I have done nothing wrong" is not an acceptable course of response to a staff decision.

Considering all of this, the trial conducted themselves properly and applied the proper measures.

Four score and 11 days ago I opened this complaint to resolve an issue about ambiguous adminship and generally poor communication. Since, I've had another bad interaction with novi, where they fail to answer the most basic questions clearly. It is in these troubling times that I awaited docs responses to my concerns even after directly asking discord DMs. I'm not sure what more I can do. I have ahelped similar behavior from other wardens doing the exact same thing. Its not clear what I did wrong it still isnt. This failure of general communication has greatly effected my perception of this entire process.

I'd like to begin by just saying I am sorry, because I very clearly dropped the ball and failed to appropriately follow up on this complaint- I just forgot about it. There's nothing I can really say to excuse that, but, it is an explanation of why this has happened. Now that that is explained, I'll continue to address your concerns.

Regarding the presence of additional security members: As the warden, it is absolutely your responsibility to be aware of the officers and other members of your team and to ensure they are adequately informed and armed to handle ongoing situations, particularly in a situation lacking a Head of Staff. The simple reason that they "didn't speak" is not an excuse to completely ignore the presence of an additional security member, when they should have been brought to the armory and equipped.

Regarding nonlethal versus lethal weapons and their distribution: If you were ordered only to distribute nonlethal weapons, this is fine, but the pointed issue that remains is that you had lethal weapons, and used them to respond to the situation in medical personally, while the rest of the security team did not even have them due to your lack of effort to coordinate with and organize an armed response to the hostile situation.

Regarding responding to the emergency situation personally: This is a pretty clear failure to appropriately follow your duties as the warden: rather than personally responding to the situation with lethals, there were other officers that were present that could have and should have at the very least been informed of the situation before you took it into your own hands, and ensured that your other functions did not need to be immediately performed before you did so- which they did, as noted above. This is on top of the fact that it would have been very easily possible for you yourself to have been killed or downed in the fight you sought out, which would have then both given armory access to the attacker and removed it from the security department in general, when they still had not be adequately armed from it.

Regarding when it would have been acceptable to respond personally: Essentially, when at least some attempt to rectify all of the above issues had been taken. If you had openly requested the available officers to report to the armory for weapons to respond to this situation, knowing about the presence of the additional officer due to adequately keeping up with the status of the security team, and had received a reasonable response detailing why they are unable to do so, or even no response at all, then it would have been reasonable for you to arm up yourself and respond personally, as at that point it would have become clear you were the only possible response to this emergency situation. This issues detailed above all outline facets of the situation that you did not attempt to confirm or rectify before moving to the situation yourself, and those are the reasons why you received the note.

Regarding Novi's phrasing and the intent behind the note itself: It's very clear, throughout the exchange of PMs, that Novi did not want to give you a warning or ban for this issue. Be it because she personally felt the issue was too small to bother with that over, because she believed you had done those actions with good intent and had made an honest mistake in doing what you did, or whatever other reason she may have personally had, she openly chose to defer to a simple verbal warning had you agreed to following the instructions she put forward. Now, it is clear that you were not completely understanding of the issues that led to these instructions, and while it may have been possible for her to have explained these issues in more detail and with more reasoning, this does not change the actual result of the note or its contents, and so this note will not be removed. The issue of phrasing and explanation will be brought up with Novi so as to avoid another situation like this in the future, such as including examples of similar improper behavior and detailing what could have been done instead to rectify the rule-breaking behavior.

With that I will consider the complaint closed, but it will remain open for a response for 24 hours. [mention]Bygonehero[/mention]

Closing and archiving as no more responses have been given in... more than 2 days.