Hi, banning admin here and the administrator who watched part of this situation unfold and investigated it at your request. I cannot ultimately rule on this ban, but I will provide my own context. Let us get one thing clear immediately:
This is your conversation with Chief_Engineer in regards to the “number of votes required to impeach the captain”. Nowhere in this entire exchange did he say, as you told me, that it has to be every single head of staff voting yes (and where a head of staff abstaining or failing to vote is counted as no, as you tried to tell me).
Regardless of this exchange, I was the administrator handling the incident at the time. While I don’t wish to step on another administrator’s toes in regards to what they may have or may not have said for a ruling, that does not mean you can just disregard my own ruling on the situation in favor of another ruling another admin may have told you before. This is irrelevant because either you lied about what the other admin told you or did not remember it correctly. Let me retell this sequence of events that happened from my observational point of view which was interrupted a few times by handling administrator functions:
I have to handle an ahelp of a blatant self-antag and happen to be watching security while doing so. The HoS in this situation handles it well with his security team. At some point there is a callout of potential nuclear operatives. While handling something else, I stumble upon you having a standoff in front of the HoP’s office with the HoS and approximately 15-20 people around you (in fact I happen to have a screenshot of this):
You were openly threatening to demote the HoS for not answering the radio. This is, in my opinion, an extremely petty reason to try and initiate a demotion of your head of staff over, especially without trying to figure out what they were dealing with from their own end. This results in the above-pictured crowd and several people taking different sides. Most notably, the other heads of staff do not agree with your assessment. You say you “decided not to demote him”, but I think this is more because the public and your other heads were against you in this mob and you realized that pushing forward would likely get you killed. I think this is the primary factor that caused you to “not demote” the HoS, not the fact that you thought better of it.
You decide to summon all heads of staff to the bridge to hold a vote to impeach you to satisfy the HoS who was getting ready to (rightfully) defend himself from an unjust attempted demotion. You are clinging on to your belief that every single head on the station needs to have a definitive “yes” vote to vote you out. As I have already stated and stated in the relay, as long as the reasoning is sound, I think a majority head of staff vote suffices, not a unanimous vote. In this case, the HoS, CMO, and HoP decide to vote you out. The CE and RD both abstain from voting and the QM could likely not be contacted. This means there were three votes to remove you, and three votes of “don’t care” or abstain. Most notably, nobody is voting to keep you in place.
The HoS here (rightfully) decides that this has concluded majority of the heads no longer trust your leadership. The HoS requests that you surrender your items to facilitate a demotion. This results in a rapid escalation after you refuse to do so because you are still clinging on to the belief you need 100% vote. You refuse to surrender, the HoS attempts to cuff you, you move back, the HoS attempts to disabler you, you whip out your laser and start blasting, everyone else crits you in a justified escalation of force that you perpetuated at every step. This begins our ahelp transaction:
You immediately start this exchange by admin-checking. You have been playing long enough to know this is an irrelevant question to ask.
You immediately start with the “all heads need to say yes” line. This has already been mentioned, I will skip over it for now.
Your reason for demotion was extremely thin, if any at all. I don’t think one instance of failure to answer the radio (which the other player stated you were using the general frequency which made it even harder to track) is a just reason to demote a head of staff. Your entire premise for this situation is already in shambles.
I ask about escalation. To your credit, you did back off and try to handle things diplomatically, but then you immediately went back in the other direction as soon as diplomacy did not go in your favor. At this point I go and talk to the HoS. The HoS tells me the same chain of events I just described; you try to demote him over nothing, they vote you out, you resist attempts to be detained and escalate conflict into lethals, to which they responded in kind. The only possible fault I have in the HoS is not giving the admin relay a heads up of a possible mutiny or captain demotion about to happen, but that is minor in the grand scale of things.
We’ll skip over the explanation of why the deathsquad comment was completely ignored.
I explain the information I obtained from talking with the other party to you. You are still hung up on needing full votes. This leads into the second page of the relay:
I explain my stance on the matter. Regardless of what another admin may have said, since I am handling the transaction, my stance should be the one you judge your actions against. If majority of the heads of staff do not want you to be leading them, they can majority vote you out. That is my simple take. My other explanation was that you were the primary instigator and catalyst for this event unfolding the way it did. You express you pretty much just want the HoS to stop being able to play the game because people took his side and not yours.
This leads into the elements of this ban, where you decide to throw a tantrum:
I sincerely and truthfully dislike being told that you are going to go find someone else who will give you the outcome you want and that I “didn’t want to do anything” after I spend ten minutes sorting out your little IC conflict and making sure I have the facts straight. I also do not like being told that you are going to go out of your way to blatantly break the rules and go metagrudge the other player in this interaction while at the same time hypocritically complaining that the HoS is not following the rules (even though you were in the wrong).
After this point I banned you for two days. Two days! I only gave you two days. In retrospect I should have probably been harsher, though I did decide after the fact that maybe a month break from command roles would change your thinking.
And let me just address a few bullet points of your appeal that have my noggin’ joggin’:
Quote
And the threat of metagruding, not the actual deed, necessitates a ban ? which i forgot about the guy’s name so even if i was unbanned i don’t think i can metagruding for the life of me i only remember he was a lizard race.
Yes, threatening to break the rules will be dealt with in the same manner. I don’t care what your excuse is. The possible scenarios here are you are threatening to break the rules and going to carry through with it, or threatening to break the rules to try and scare the other party into an action you want, neither of which I care for.
Quote
And that “favorable ruling” is something i deserved otherwise it means just anyone can murder the captain with 3 head’ approval.
This is taken out of context. The ruling here is heads of staff can “vote you out” with majority. I did not say the heads of staff can murder you. You facilitated your own murder by trying to blast someone non-forcibly trying to detain and demote you with your laser.
Quote
the matter with me threatening to metagrudge might be wrong and it was a spur of the moment anger outburst from me
No, it isn’t just “might be wrong”. I assure you, it is wrong.
Quote
but i think the admin has a part in for failing to mediate between the parties.
I talked to both parties involved in this dispute from an observer’s standpoint and tried to look at both of your situations. I did not take any action because I did not believe the HoS acted unjustly from a captain threatening to demote him over virtually nothing. People are fallible, your heads of staff are allowed to make minor mistakes, they are human beings and players too, they are not going to be perfect. You do not have the right to demote whoever you want because they didn’t do something minor.
Quote
he told me that all the heads’ had to agree to it which here they clearly did not so i had a right to adminshop it, if you can check my messages with that admin you should.
Not only were you dead wrong on this claim anyways, you do not have a “right to adminshop” anything. The administrators here are a collective team and we rule on things as a team. If two admins have a conflicting point of view on a situation, we will discuss it internally and decide how to uniformly address it if it is a problem. You do not get the “right” to run to another admin hoping they tell you yes when the admin you are dealing with tells you no.
I hope this clears everything up for whomever addresses this appeal.
