Jump to content

[Resolved] Staff Complaint: NursieKitty, 2018-04-16, 17:43


Recommended Posts

BYOND Key: Icuris

Staff BYOND Key: NursieKitty

Game ID: bTU-dvHg

Reason for complaint: At around 16:30 I issued an adminhelp concerning the character Macy Poehl, a security officer who was a conscientious objector to using lethal use of force.

As far as the round is concerned, ICly we were stretched too thin, and had too many things happening for me to adequately address this in game.


Regardless, I view it as an OOC issue


I view a "conscientious objector" to lethal use of force; to fall under the CCIA ruling, that no character may posses disability, or in turn adopt a practice of belief that actively prohibits them from doing something in their job description.

It is a well known fact that in game sec officer's may/will use lethal force if the situation demands it. There is not a place in the entire modern world that would ever knowingly hire, train and dispatch a law enforcement personnel who would not use lethal force due to any system of belief.


Evidence/logs/etc: https://ibb.co/iDKXxS


Additional remarks: I take issue with the ruling, as I believe it to be done without context of the round, where only two sec officers were present at the time, and an easy scan of logs will showcase the necessity of a player/character who adequately meets the demands of their job in game. It was not an interesting addition of IC conflict, it was a stonewall in what is well known to be a basic requirement in game, and for every ooc law enforcement agency ever.


If this argument is accepted, I would like "conscientious objector" trait completely removed as I view it unacceptable for any security player to possess (aside from maybe forensics).

Link to comment

I took this ahelp because Shame, iirc, asked me to look at it. I think that it was very easy to discern that it was an IC issue, especially after you had admitted it yourself in the ahelp. Now, there's a few chunks of this issue that I want to examine, first and foremost being the necessity of lethals in the situation. Firstly, the situation in which lethals are required - this was a ninja, and if I'm correct, things had escalated to a "hunt them down" situation, with all officers being issued lethal firearms, which I do think is an acceptable situation to refuse lethal arms. Were they actively in danger, I imagine their tone would change (after combing through the logs, I'm certain it would change) to actively protect themselves and the station. I disagree, also, with the notion implied that security officers are not allowed to be characters with moral objections to certain facets of their job. Security is not expected to need to resort to lethals within a shift, just like all officers are not expected to need death implants, or advanced weaponry, and as such, should not be ousted from security because they do object to these things.


After combing through the logs of the round today, I'm actually finding dialogue that contrasts to what you're accusing them for. They advocated for lethal action far before you did and did not refuse to use them for the entirety of the round - though it was only after some haranguing.


 

notepad_2018-04-17_17-58-56.png

notepad_2018-04-17_18-02-54.png

notepad_2018-04-17_18-05-52.png

 



I did confirm with other administration that this refers to a lethal laser beam. There were multiple instances of this.

They did continue to morally object over communications throughout the round and I witnessed them personally carrying an ion rifle later one, when I started looking into it.

This could mean one of a few things, on the officer's side:


A. ) They were verbally objecting due to personal morality, but carrying out orders regardless.

B. ) They are mechanically inexperienced. There are a few things about the character that make this seem likely.

C. ) They wanted to aggravate you, for some reason, as a result of actions during the round.


It is completely understandable that you were frustrated with this character. It is excruciatingly difficult to apprehend or kill a ninja who teleports every which way at any given time. I hold my stance regarding the ruling, especially after coming through the logs of the round.

Link to comment

I invite you to post the original ahelp if you feel inclined to quote it.

The jist of it being "Character X has IC trait 1, I don't think okay ICly. Not in the mood to deal with it ICly."

Which in my mind is acceptable, considering I viewed it as an ooc issue.


1. Lethals being valid in the circumstance of the round was never a question.

2. From the wiki,

NanoTrasen Security functions first and foremost as a mediator to conflict, for better or worse, your job encompasses keeping the majority of the Staff (and the Station) safe and productive while disciplining troublemakers or more serious criminals. Your top priority is the protection of NanoTrasen assets.

 

Adding to the fact that when pressed on the matter, the alternative was for them to use gear we didn't have (Ninja stole the ion early, ended up ordering a second).

Simply put. Lethal force=Lethal Scenario, you are being put in mortal danger by participating in the scenario in any form, and refusing to adequately arm yourself, not follow the instructions of a superior, and yet still participate; puts yourself and others at needless risk.


The consequences of this scenario, if I am following you correctly are what you evaluated to consider this an IC issue. Correct me if I am wrong.


I am standing on my argument that regardless of consequence, it is unacceptable for a character to not do a basic facet of their job because of an IC character trait.

I'm viewing this in the same circumstance of a MD player refusing to treat an alien player due to IC spess racism. I


Question: What do you think is an appropriate IC response. To be direct, I'd simply demote anyone who came forward as a conscientious objector completely out of security.


I strongly dislike the IRl argument, because it is a game, and I do agree that the consequences of the player were minimal at best, but a person would actually NOT be hired in any work that has lethal compliance tools if you morally objected to taking a life.


End note


I appreciate the provided example of them readjusting as the round demanded. Thank you for going through the logs.

Link to comment

notepad_2018-04-19_00-35-27.png

 


Obliged.



 

NanoTrasen Security functions first and foremost as a mediator to conflict, for better or worse, your job encompasses keeping the majority of the Staff (and the Station) safe and productive while disciplining troublemakers or more serious criminals. Your top priority is the protection of NanoTrasen assets.

 

Adding to the fact that when pressed on the matter, the alternative was for them to use gear we didn't have (Ninja stole the ion early, ended up ordering a second).

Simply put. Lethal force=Lethal Scenario, you are being put in mortal danger by participating in the scenario in any form, and refusing to adequately arm yourself, not follow the instructions of a superior, and yet still participate; puts yourself and others at needless risk

 

None of this refutes the fact that heavily armed hostiles are not expected to appear on the station, as such, lethal force (in regards to people) would not be seen as necessary. I would go so far as to say that "NanoTrasen Security functions first and foremost as a mediator to conflict," even contradicts it, as mediator in most, if not all, circumstances refers to someone who brings conflict to a peaceful end. Yes, I still stand by my ruling that this is an IC issue.



 

I am standing on my argument that regardless of consequence, it is unacceptable for a character to not do a basic facet of their job because of an IC character trait.

I'm viewing this in the same circumstance of a MD player refusing to treat an alien player due to IC spess racism.

 

Such a man would quickly lose his job and not be allowed to reclaim it.


As a command player, you have direct contact to CCIAA and full authority to remove a person from your department for almost any reason, and you are free to use this authority as you see fit.


As for this complaint, you seem to both admit this was an IC issue and additionally admit you were not in the mood to deal with it ICly, and have demonstrated that you are well aware of how you can use your position as a head of security to prevent this from becoming an issue.

Link to comment

If the argument presented is based on what we should view as the "reasonable" or "expected" circumstance of the game, we will go nowhere slowly. There are many mechanics, and even roles in game that are not "expected" to be needed; but, we as players know better, and live with the small amount of meta necessary to allow "unreasonableness" to be present in game.


Regardless, and I am repeating myself, the officer who refuses to be adequately equipped and the medical doctor who refuses to treat an individual based on their species fall into the same category of issue. I strongly disagree with the idea that the incident be measured on the consequences of the player's actions to determine if it's an OOC issue or not.


IE if the MD's allows the patient to die by refusing to provide treatment, or if an officer fails to perform a task by refusing to use certain equipment.

 

As for this complaint, you seem to both admit this was an IC issue and additionally admit you were not in the mood to deal with it ICly, and have demonstrated that you are well aware of how you can use your position as a head of security to prevent this from becoming an issue.

 

There is either misunderstanding, or misquoting occurring if this statement is taken at face value. My original admin help is very clear.


I see the incident as an OOC issue. It is not for me, as a player to handle OOC issues. Hence the ahelp.


My willingness to handle the issue is irrelevant if I see it as an OOC issue. Hence the ahelp.


My awareness on how to handle an IC issues is to the wind, if I consider the issue to be OOC. Hence the ahelp.


If there is anything else that needs to be clarified, say so.

If not, I have said my piece and will wait for [mention]Sharp[/mention].

Link to comment

Hi, sorry for the delayed reply here.


 

At around 16:30 I issued an adminhelp concerning the character Macy Poehl, a security officer who was a conscientious objector to using lethal use of force.

As far as the round is concerned, ICly we were stretched too thin, and had too many things happening for me to adequately address this in game.


Regardless, I view it as an OOC issue


I view a "conscientious objector" to lethal use of force; to fall under the CCIA ruling, that no character may posses disability, or in turn adopt a practice of belief that actively prohibits them from doing something in their job description.

Aurora's Security is not military, it's a Security team, and while use of lethal force when the situation demands it is generally an IC requirement for them to stay employed, it's absolutely not out of the question that an Officer could be hired while not expecting to ever have to use a lethal weapon.


 

I take issue with the ruling, as I believe it to be done without context of the round, where only two sec officers were present at the time, and an easy scan of logs will showcase the necessity of a player/character who adequately meets the demands of their job in game. It was not an interesting addition of IC conflict, it was a stonewall in what is well known to be a basic requirement in game, and for every ooc law enforcement agency ever.

Context does not change the fact that an Officer not being satisfactory at their job in a near worst-case scenario is an IC issue. If they are not doing their job, you fire them or demote them to Cadet, and make an IR.


 

Regardless, and I am repeating myself, the officer who refuses to be adequately equipped and the medical doctor who refuses to treat an individual based on their species fall into the same category of issue. I strongly disagree with the idea that the incident be measured on the consequences of the player's actions to determine if it's an OOC issue or not.

Both instances here, while absolutely failing to perform their job as expected, and while they would lose their jobs without question, are still IC issues.


Now, if the Officer in question is repeatedly seen displaying an unreasonable amount of "conscientious objection" OOC action may be in place, but as it is right now, I'm standing by Nursie's original ruling: This specific case is absolutely an IC issue. Fire Officers that do this, demote them, file an IR on them. These things need to be handled ICly, and if you're stretched thin during a round that it happens, that is just how things go.


I'll leave this open for 24 hours, if there's anything else to say, go ahead, [mention]Icuris[/mention].

Link to comment

Thank you [mention]nursiekitty[/mention] and [mention]SirCatnip[/mention] for fully explaining your justifications for the ruling. It should go without saying, but this complaint is only in place as it is the most suitable way to discuss these issues and is not reflective of any personal conflicts I have with either of you.


My issue boils down to this.

Aurora's Security is not military, it's a Security team, and while use of lethal force when the situation demands it is generally an IC requirement for them to stay employed, it's absolutely not out of the question that an Officer could be hired while not expecting to ever have to use a lethal weapon.

 

We know Sec isn’t a military group, that was never a question.

I absolutely hate the “but IRL” argument but it is out of the question for an officer. They aren’t given a firearm to look cool.


Any job that involves the use of lethal force will simply ask you during your interviews, “are you willing to use lethal force on a human being”


If the awnser is no, you’re not hired.


Hence my view that an officer with this behaviour would never be hired in the first place, thus making it an ooc issue.


My argument is just my own expectations for players and their characters and my understanding of the actual security jobs. Regardless of the outcome, I will shift my view in accordance with the final decision.

Link to comment

I know I'm not supposed t o comment on these, and I am endlessly sorry to our benevolent administration overlords for my transgression, but

If they are not doing their job, you fire them or demote them to Cadet, and make an IR.

[...]

Fire Officers that do this, demote them, file an IR on them. These things need to be handled ICly, and if you're stretched thin during a round that it happens, that is just how things go.

If you're firing on someone in an IC situation with lethals, it's because of antag involvement. If it's not, it's an OOC issue that will be resolved by staff and deemed non-canon. You can't make an IR on someone for refusing to fire a weapon because the only situations that would come into effect would be if it was non-canon.

A thousand apologies dear admiiniistrator gods. Forgive me for my intrustion. i shall continue my penance

Link to comment

You can't make an IR on someone for refusing to fire a weapon because the only situations that would come into effect would be if it was non-canon.

 


Hi Ornias. I hope you are well!


Regarding your message here, it should be noted that situations like this often require CCIA's best OOC judgement in regards to "how much antag involvement is too much antag involvement?" When an IR is submitted more as a character complaint, we would consider that character's behavior while obfuscating as much of the antagonist detail as possible. It is entirely possible to be reported for behavior witnessed during a mostly non-canon situation.


For example, if a traitor bombs research and kills someone, and then medical royally screws up the cloning treatment and gets reported for it, it is likely that we would process that IR and go forward with an investigation. The bombing would just be referenced as some sort of accident or other emergency rather than a terror act.


In this situation, being told to 'hunt someone down' by a superior and being handed a lethal weapon doesn't have to be in the context of a ninja attack. Maybe it's a false alarm, or a convincing drill, or an unknown threat that turns out to be a really ominous-looking carp. Refusing in any of those situations would be acceptable cause for IC review if a co-worker objected and couldn't resolve it in the round. The observable behavior was between two non-antags, and while they were certainly in a stressful situation, the antagonist can probably be removed from it in the retelling and leave the behavior intact. The belief of the presence of a threat requiring lethal force is all that was required to force this scenario.


We also work with admins who may have handled ahelps like the one in this complaint before we even start, to see whether a case was handled OOC, or whether it should be handled OOC due to antag involvement. If they say that it really is an IC issue, that feeds into our decision making process.


With all that said it seems as though [mention]Icuris[/mention] is taking issue with Poehl's behavior as somehow unbelievable, which was the cause for the original ahelp. In this case, it is not necessarily a character reporting another character, but a player believing that another player is not roleplaying believably. Due to that, I feel like maybe a character complaint would have been more appropriate than either this staff complaint or an IR, to address the original concern. If the character is not necessarily breaking a rule in the moment but exhibits a trait that seems fundamentally flawed to me, that would be the place I would talk about it.

Link to comment

[mention]Synnono[/mention]


I am under the impression that since I'd ahelped the issue, and it was deemed an IC issue, that a character complaint would not be considered as they are not used to circumvent a staff decision .


From the player/character complaint rules.

If the infractions described in the complaint have already been dealt with by a staff member in-game, a player complaint will not change the outcome of this. If you feel that the outcome was unjust, you are encouraged to post in the Staff Complaints section of the forums.

 

This in mind, I am unsure of what other avenues you are suggesting I take, when none appear valid besides a staff complaint.


Regardless, your extended break down of how CCIA may handle issues with heavy antag involvement, or incidents generated only from antags is greatly appreciated.

Link to comment
If you feel that the outcome was unjust, you are encouraged to post in the Staff Complaints section of the forums.

 

This is the correct way to address concerns you have about a staff decision regarding an OOC rule being broken, yes. In my opinion, a character complaint is the correct way to start a discussion about a character with qualities that may not fundamentally fit the setting, or the game. It's also usually the best way to involve the player of that character in the process, which I think has been helpful in the past.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...