[Resolved] Staff Complaint: ShameOnTurtles

Before you start Sharp, THERE IS NO INFORMATION THAT WOULD HELP A PLAYER IN HERE. Also, I have no way of knowing when the round will end or of telling if it has.

BYOND Key: Gamerlord_357

Staff BYOND Key: ShameOnTurtles

Game ID:

Reason for complaint: Below.

Evidence/logs/etc: Below.

Additional remarks: God I hate the system you guys have set up.

Many things are forgotten between shifts and shifts, like the name of that one guy who murdered everyone and danced in their entrails. Some things are known across all stations, and all shifts. 'Katheryn Linerbord is a bitch' is one of them. Therefore when a bloodthirsty cultist needs to find a sacrifice, who does she go for? That cute looking Tajara who might make a good recruit to the cult of Narsie? Or that utter thundercunt Katheryn? Now, say that the admin decides that this is metagrudging and OOC, (even though it is an IC decision due to the IC behaviour of another character), and threatens that if you target her you will be banned. You of course ask if that means if she is harmed at all you'll be banned and the admin says no, only if she is targeted. There is a problem here my friends, and if you are clever you might spot it. How exactly, does an admin know what you were thinking? All names apart from Katheryn's have been filed off to prevent round-complaint interference.

Before you start Sharp, THERE IS NO INFORMATION THAT WOULD HELP A PLAYER IN HERE. Also, I have no way of knowing when the round will end or of telling if it has.

 

[secondary Admin PM] ShameOnTurtles: ADMIN LOG: Gamerlord_357/(*&@#$!@ *#@) used a communicate rune to say 'Someone brutally murder Katheryn Linerbord please? That utter bitch doesn't deserve to live in Narsie's light.' (JMP) - Yes you are.

PM to ShameOnTurtles: That is in fact a reasonable reaction from a bloodthirsty cultist who has EVER interacted with Katheryn.

PM to ShameOnTurtles: If I was a cultist of Narsie in real life and knew Katheryn she would be the first sacrifice upon my altar.

The only reason I'm not applying a ban for constant rule violations is because you need to somehow reply to posts made in this thread.

Jesus Christ y'all suck at making a standard title. Nobody cares that now it's in the right subforum and nobody cares about Schrodinger. I put in a modicum of effort into changing the thread title for you and now it's staying that way. Short, sweet, name's on the tin. Stick to that.

Before you start Sharp, THERE IS NO INFORMATION THAT WOULD HELP A PLAYER IN HERE. Also, I have no way of knowing when the round will end or of telling if it has.

In the age of information, ignorance is not an excuse. You're able to ascertain the status of the round on discord, by messaging people on Byond, or by simple not getting banned for metagaming in the first place. These are all viable options.

The information in the complaint are for the admins. It allows them to understand what the round is that the events took place on, who was involved, any information they might need to better handle the complaint.

Firstly, what caught my attention was the cultist communicate you made specifically targeting Katheryn Linerbord, the security officer that had recently arrived on station, and designating them as a kill target.

[13:49:10] bT5-bYMr ADMIN: Gamerlord_357/(Tabitha Close) used a communicate rune to say 'Someone brutally murder Katheryn Linerbord please? That utter bitch doesn't deserve to live in Narsie's light.'

On it's own, this is acceptable. However, when taking into account the language and justification used in the communicate, the recent complaint you made against a staff ruling and by extension Linerbord, and the fact that this targeting strayed from the accepted gimmick that you yourself proposed, I saw this as metagrudging.

For reference, that gimmick was as follows:

[13:07:22] bT5-bYMr OOC: (ANTAG) Valkrae : OOOOOH

[13:10:09] bT5-bYMr OOC: (ANTAG) Valkrae : so uh

[13:10:16] bT5-bYMr OOC: (ANTAG) Valkrae : are we gonna do a gimmick or

[13:10:27] bT5-bYMr OOC: (ANTAG) KARPET : you choose

[13:10:33] bT5-bYMr OOC: (ANTAG) Valkrae : i dont wanna be the leader

[13:10:47] bT5-bYMr OOC: (ANTAG) KARPET : same

[13:11:00] bT5-bYMr OOC: (ANTAG) Gamerlord_357 : i'll do it i guess

[13:11:28] bT5-bYMr OOC: (ANTAG) Gamerlord_357 : how about forcing the station to kneel before Narsie and worship him by force in a brutal theocracy?

[13:11:38] bT5-bYMr OOC: (ANTAG) Valkrae : that seems a bit ganky

[13:12:20] bT5-bYMr OOC: (ANTAG) Gamerlord_357 : well then you guys come up with something

[13:12:32] bT5-bYMr OOC: (ANTAG) Valkrae : we can do it if you want

[13:12:51] bT5-bYMr OOC: (ANTAG) Gamerlord_357 : actually, how about openly carrying energy swords for security?

[13:13:03] bT5-bYMr OOC: (ANTAG) Gamerlord_357 : i mean AS security

[13:13:50] bT5-bYMr OOC: (ANTAG) KARPET : should we force someone to be in our cult?

[13:14:08] bT5-bYMr OOC: (ANTAG) Gamerlord_357 : the other security officers.

[13:14:18] bT5-bYMr OOC: (ANTAG) KARPET : i got just the guy

[13:14:20] bT5-bYMr OOC: (ANTAG) Valkrae : im down

[13:14:34] bT5-bYMr OOC: (ANTAG) KARPET : meet me in security, valkrae

[13:14:46] bT5-bYMr OOC: (ANTAG) Gamerlord_357 : okay that's enough aooc talk

[13:14:52] bT5-bYMr OOC: (ANTAG) KARPET : agreed

[13:14:53] bT5-bYMr OOC: (ANTAG) Valkrae : yeah

The communicate you made clearly violates the gimmick. This, among the other reasons I've mentioned, convinced me that this was indeed the result of metagrudge.

Frankly, filling this ban appeal with insults towards Katheryn Linerbord- when the ban has very little to do with them- doesn't convince me that you aren't metagrudging them.

Also, I thought I was clear in the adminPMs, but someone else also raised a concern over my usage of the word 'targeting' and how that applies to any IC antagonistic action. Let me clear that up now:

targeting ≠ attacking

Going after someone due to OOC motivations to kill/harass/otherwise impede their character regardless of IC circumstances = targeting

Killing the security officer that discovered you converting someone in maintenance ≠ targeting

To put this in more context of the round, going after Katheryn outside of your gimmick or general cultist duties would, in general, be a no-go. Killing them/converting them due to IC circumstances or as part of your gimmick would have been acceptable. Yes, you are correct in that it is impossible for me to read your mind to discover your intent. However, I can use the information available to me and my judgement to form the most likely reason for your behavior, in the context of the situation.

I told you to accept the ruling and let it go, or make a complaint if you still disagreed, and then I closed the ticket after that last adminPM you post. You immediately took it to OOC, which is in direct violation of our server rules. For reference:

All staff ingame decisions are final. OOC and adminhelp aren't the place to argue about our staff's decisions.

On a last note,

PM to ShameOnTurtles: She routinely skirts the line of abuse-of-authority, refuses to treat anyone with the slightest respect and expects everyone not of security to defer to her. She's a bitch and I will treat her like one, no matter if her player either IS the admin (kinda suspicious of you right now) or has performed some possibly sexual favour for admin. Katheryn Linerbord is a complete and utter cunt. Not going to treat her like she isn't.

((I'll admit that was a bit uncalled for.))

You think?

The communicate you made clearly violates the gimmick. This, among the other reasons I've mentioned, convinced me that this was indeed the result of metagrudge.

What gimmick? We hadn't even decided upon a gimmick at that point!

I told you to accept the ruling and let it go, or make a complaint if you still disagreed, and then I closed the ticket after that last adminPM you post. You immediately took it to OOC, which is in direct violation of our server rules. For reference:

All staff ingame decisions are final. OOC and adminhelp aren't the place to argue about our staff's decisions.

Actually I didn't. I asked a hypothetical in OOC, which could have easily stayed a hypothetical if you hadn't started telling me to stop. It was a legitimate question too, and not one that you've answered yet. There's no such thing as 'general cultist duties'. Also, if I need to kill a security officer and choose someone other than Katheryn Linerbord because I'll be banned if I choose her, isn't that more deserving of the title of 'targeting due to OOC reasons' than 'I needed a sacrifice and decided to kill the one who get's on my nerves all the fucking time'? Frankly ShameOnTurtles? You aren't thinking this through very well. Maybe get someone who isn't invested in the decision like you are to look it over, because at present you seem intent on trapping me into positions where I cannot be an antag without getting banned.

The communicate you made clearly violates the gimmick. This, among the other reasons I've mentioned, convinced me that this was indeed the result of metagrudge.

What gimmick? We hadn't even decided upon a gimmick at that point!

I told you to accept the ruling and let it go, or make a complaint if you still disagreed, and then I closed the ticket after that last adminPM you post. You immediately took it to OOC, which is in direct violation of our server rules. For reference:

All staff ingame decisions are final. OOC and adminhelp aren't the place to argue about our staff's decisions.

Actually I didn't. I asked a hypothetical in OOC, which could have easily stayed a hypothetical if you hadn't started telling me to stop. It was a legitimate question too, and not one that you've answered yet.

What you said in OOC was not a hypothetical. It was continuing the argument we were having in adminPMs before I shut it down. Doing that is against the rules, end of story. The question you asked was how could I determine whether you were targeting or not, and I have given you an answer. I gave one to you in adminPMs, and an answer here in this thread. That answer is this:

Yes, you are correct in that it is impossible for me to read your mind to discover your intent. However, I can use the information available to me and my judgement to form the most likely reason for your behavior, in the context of the situation.

Frankly ShameOnTurtles? You aren't thinking this through very well. Maybe get someone who isn't invested in the decision like you are to look it over, because at present you seem intent on trapping me into positions where I cannot be an antag without getting banned.

Not once have I said if you took antagonist actions towards Katheryn Linerbord during that round, would you be banned. I said that you would be punished if you targeted them, which I feel I have explained what that means and how I would determine it.

I feel it's also worth it to note that I am not the one handling this complaint, that would be down to another admin. Which one, I am not sure. I could not handle this appeal objectively, and am merely posting my side of the situation.

I'm not exactly involved in this complaint, but I wanted to chip in regarding one thing I saw him do. One round we were both on during, he began naming cleaning robots (and possibly other robots) things like "Linerbord is a bitch" just to make his salt known to the world. It's nothing too bad, but I mean, if he's willing to do something that small just to insult another player, do we even want him around at this point?

Additional remarks: God I hate the system you guys have set up.

We can't really be held liable when we make the necessary things visible and you don't read it, three times so far?

As for the complaint itself. I find Shames judgement to be valid. Frankly, uncalled comments, bad attitude and then egging on staff by taking issues like those per the rules are quite clear cut. I'll reiterate, your attitude is less than optimal and if you continue as such you can't expect us to behave as patiently with you as we already have, you got off lucky with Shame. I originally kept the topic vague in the other complaint you raised in hopes you'd catch up, but you didn't.

What you said in OOC was not a hypothetical. It was continuing the argument we were having in adminPMs before I shut it down. Doing that is against the rules, end of story. The question you asked was how could I determine whether you were targeting or not, and I have given you an answer. I gave one to you in adminPMs, and an answer here in this thread. That answer is this:

Yes' date=' you are correct in that it is impossible for me to read your mind to discover your intent. However, I can use the information available to me and my judgement to form the most likely reason for your behavior, in the context of the situation.[/quote']

 

Frankly ShameOnTurtles? You aren't thinking this through very well. Maybe get someone who isn't invested in the decision like you are to look it over, because at present you seem intent on trapping me into positions where I cannot be an antag without getting banned.

Not once have I said if you took antagonist actions towards Katheryn Linerbord during that round, would you be banned. I said that you would be punished if you targeted them, which I feel I have explained what that means and how I would determine it.

I feel it's also worth it to note that I am not the one handling this complaint, that would be down to another admin. Which one, I am not sure. I could not handle this appeal objectively, and am merely posting my side of the situation.

Take another look at the logs up in the op.

OOC: Gamerlord_357: let's talk hypothetically for a moment here

OOC: Gamerlord_357: if an admin says he'll ban you, for doing one thing, but not another, when the only difference is inside your own mind and he cannot know, is that fair?

OOC: ShameOnTurtles: do not bring this into OOC, dude

OOC: Geeves: Lmfao.

OOC: Gamerlord_357: i am seriously having trouble parsing this.

OOC: Gamerlord_357: it does not make logical sense.

I was clearly asking for help on how to deal with a Sword Of Damocles over my head whenever I make a decision as an antag. I didn't continue the argument at all. I asked a hypothetical question that I needed the answer to in order to play the round. You were refusing to work with me on that note and again, you have not sufficiently explained 'targeting'. I need a set of ironclad guidelines here, not 'if I don't like how your acting in regards to this person you're banned'. To be an antagonist requires the freedom to decide your choice of victims and the avenues of attack. I can't effectively or fairly play ANY antag role if I have to put kid gloves on and treat a player as sacrosanct. It is unfair to every player on the server. Both my allies who are being handicapped and the non-antag players who are both being unfairly targeted when I can't take an easier route through Linerbord and because they don't get a fair and fun game. Now, instead of arguing ridiculous and pathetic semantics work with me on this.

I'm not exactly involved in this complaint, but I wanted to chip in regarding one thing I saw him do. One round we were both on during, he began naming cleaning robots (and possibly other robots) things like "Linerbord is a bitch" just to make his salt known to the world. It's nothing too bad, but I mean, if he's willing to do something that small just to insult another player, do we even want him around at this point?

I only named cleaning robots. That was the extent of my efforts to cleanse the salt in my heart, the first round after the last problem. It's called catharsis tbear13, sometimes it's needed. For the record, that is the complete and utter extent of my OOC actions. Everything else is completely and utterly IC and at this point I'm getting kinda disgusted at the fact that a roleplay server doesn't allow people to react to other character's IC attitudes. I mean, are you kidding me?

We are not responsible with your inability to understand clear, concise and to the point administrative verdicts.

[secondary Admin PM] ShameOnTurtles: Well, that sucks then, because while I am not restricting you from doing antagonistic actions towards them, I am restricting you from targetting them, as you just tried to do. If I see you targetting them again harsher punishment will be applied.

This is precisely what they told you.

[secondary Admin PM] ShameOnTurtles: ADMIN LOG: Gamerlord_357/(*&@#$!@ *#@) used a communicate rune to say 'Someone brutally murder Katheryn Linerbord please? That utter bitch doesn't deserve to live in Narsie's light.' (JMP) - Yes you are.

You are singling out a single player for ooc reasons that you cannot rightfully justify. This is metagruding. You want a player murdered. You don't want them converted, you don't want them sharded, you never specified anything else, you just outright asked they be murdered. This is the textbook version of meta-grudging another player because you wanted them removed from a round for your very blatant and clear dislike.

My verdict stands, I'll only reply and review my decision if new information is brought to light.

I'm also going to directly state this. The core principle of our rule boils down to not being a dick. The rule is simple, clear and direct. A person that is unable to understand generally does not speak English then, so it's understandable by everyone here in this thread. Your attitude as I outlined before needs improvement, towards the community as a whole, both the players and the staff.

OOC: Gamerlord_357: let's talk hypothetically for a moment here

OOC: Gamerlord_357: if an admin says he'll ban you, for doing one thing, but not another, when the only difference is inside your own mind and he cannot know, is that fair?

OOC: ShameOnTurtles: do not bring this into OOC, dude

OOC: Geeves: Lmfao.

OOC: Gamerlord_357: i am seriously having trouble parsing this.

OOC: Gamerlord_357: it does not make logical sense.

 

We are not responsible with your inability to understand clear, concise and to the point administrative verdicts.

 

[secondary Admin PM] ShameOnTurtles: Well, that sucks then, because while I am not restricting you from doing antagonistic actions towards them, I am restricting you from targetting them, as you just tried to do. If I see you targetting them again harsher punishment will be applied.

 

This is precisely what they told you.

 

[secondary Admin PM] ShameOnTurtles: ADMIN LOG: Gamerlord_357/(*&@#$!@ *#@) used a communicate rune to say 'Someone brutally murder Katheryn Linerbord please? That utter bitch doesn't deserve to live in Narsie's light.' (JMP) - Yes you are.

 

You are singling out a single player for ooc reasons that you cannot rightfully justify. This is metagruding. You want a player murdered. You don't want them converted, you don't want them sharded, you never specified anything else, you just outright asked they be murdered. This is the textbook version of meta-grudging another player because you wanted them removed from a round for your very blatant and clear dislike.

My verdict stands, I'll only reply and review my decision if new information is brought to light.

I'm also going to directly state this. The core principle of our rule boils down to not being a dick. The rule is simple, clear and direct. A person that is unable to understand generally does not speak English then, so it's understandable by everyone here in this thread. Your attitude as I outlined before needs improvement, towards the community as a whole, both the players and the staff.

1. It is NOT a clear and concise verdict. I have made this very clear Sharp, the entire current situation arising from the fact the concept of 'you can fight her, you just can't target her' not being as clear as you seem to think.

2. FOR. THE. LAST. TIME. It is not OOC. I can justify it very well and have done so multiple times now. My problem is not with the player. Let me say that again so you can get it through your skull. My problem is not with the player. That would be OOC. My characters have problems with the player's character. THAT IS IC. You know, since OOC means out-of-character and IC mean in-character. Now stay with me Sharp, this might be tricky but I need you to understand, but if my characters have problems with another character, when deciding to kill someone or choosing a course of action as an antag, they might choose someone they dislike or have a grudge against. Maybe instead of converting that bitch they hate to the light of their glorious god, they wish to deny his grace to her forever. Do you understand now? Or do I need to find some way to dumb it down further? At this point if you can't get it I'll have to assume you're just fucking with me. My attitude is completely and utterly fine. Besides petty worthless gestures like renaming cleanerbots I am acting in an a way that is IC.

3. Can some admin OTHER than Sharp or ShameOnTurtles please chime in? They seem intent on sticking to their guns, which are mostly either logically inconsistent or outright wrong and we'll never get anywhere if this keeps up. If someone does decide to show up, please bring some point of view/argument other than 'this thing that is utterly murky and arbitrary isn't murky and arbitrary' and 'you're doing this because you are being a salty cunt, not because your characters have a severe and understandable dislike of another character'. I mean, it's getting old and kinda sad.

EDIT: Oh! I almost forgot. If someone decides to play a character who is rude, abrasive and an all-round pain to be around, they need to own it when said character makes enemies.

Your ban is being upgraded to a permanent one. You may appeal it in a month from today, that would be the 27th of May.

Locking and archiving.

Edit: For clarity sake.

Metagrudging is not allowed. Metagrudging is whenever your OOC opinions of a player or their character negatively affect your IC interactions with that character. Basing your IC interactions with a character on events rendered non-canon is also considered metagrudging.