Subjects: Retequizzle and Emisse
Expectations violated: Fail to provide clear and straightforward anwser to a question, regarding rules. Fail to reason, or even explain, what i was punished for, before executing the punishment. Wrongful interpretation of me being “argumentive” in AHelp despite trying to de-escalate and move on multiple times. Wrongful permament ban, liftable via appeal, for “Validhunting as a non-antag”, “Being argumentive in AHelp”, and “Talking myself into a ban”.
Do i want for this complaint to be made public: Yes.
Detailed Summary: I was playing chemist on a Lizard server. After i finished all the chems for med, i made myself chemical bombs, just like i usually do, for purpoce of self-defence, or defending the others from danger, being mobs or antaganists.
After CMO reported a person, who stolen from them, i began looking for that person to try and find stolen stuff, and attempt to talk person into returning the stolen items. While doing so - i stumbled upon a botanist, who killed a janitor, and tried to round-remove him, using a minibomb. I proceed to kill the botanist, using chemical bombs i made, and save janitor from being round-removed.
In a short time after that admit Retequizzle asked me, about why i validhunted that botanist, which i anwsered that it is not against the rules, which i belive is true. In rules there never once mentioned term of “Validhunt”, leaving other rules covering that term up to interpretation. After my anwser, Retequizzle proceed to put a killmark on me, and made a centcome announcment encouraging crew to hunt me down, as a “punishment”. When confronted about this, stated that:“Killsign makes it not against the rules”, despite me never stating that it is.
After i asked for another admin, Emisse stepped up into AHelp, stating:“No valid hunting”. When asked which rules prohibit the validhunting - states general rule 2, and RP rule 13, which is “Don’t be a dick” and “Stick to your role” rules. I do not belive i broke any of uppermentioned rules. “Being a dick” - is described as “Don’t do anything with a goal of negatively affecting other players”, which i belive i did not do, i only killed the botanist in my attempt to save the janitor, trying to make janitor expirience better. “Stick to your role” - described as “do not preform other people jobs, including preforming a role of the security”. I belive i preformed my job as a part of medical, saving janitor from a certain round-remove, by incapasitating his attacker, so he would not interfere with me saving that janitor life, clrearly needing that janitor dead.
Then Emisse states:“It’s not in the spirit of the game”, which i belive is a phrase leaving A LOT to interpretation, as Emisse sees the spirit of the game to be.
After i argued, that what i did does not break rules 2 and 13, Emissie states, QUOTE:“Yea, but you just ruined that dude antag round…”
So Emissie agreed with me not breaking the rules he stated, with opening of “Yea, but”, now stating that i ruined expirience of a botanist, interfering with his attemt to do his objective, by making janitor un-revivable, which i belive i did, but that is not against the rules, as a rule 2 states:“Not everyone going to enjoy every round”. I worsen botanist expirience, by saving a person he needed to kill, and that is not against the rules.
In conclusion, i belive i did not break any rules, that i was punished over breaking.
I was not argumentative in AHelp, clearly stating multiple times that i do not want to argue, and asked for someone with more authority, so he could clearify the rules, as i belive admins i communicated with doing poor job of, not clearly stating what i done wrong, only telling me how they interpret rules 2 and 13 - prohibiting a validhunting.
I did not broke rule 2, by worsening the botanist antaganist expirience, since my intention not being worsen his expirience, only to save the janitor.
I did not broke rule 13, doing what medical suppose to be doing - making chemicals, being CMO right hand in treating the patients, teaching the interns, and saving a janitor, i randomly stumbled upon, presuing other task, from being round-removed by means i had in my disposals.
Oh, i’m so sorry. Forum site appear to be glitched in the time i wrote my complaint, so when i finished my first one - i couldn’t find it anymore, despite looking everywhere, and then site giving everyone “404” on connection attempt for a couple hours, so i couldn’t look back or changed any of my messages. Please discard my first complaint, and proceed with this one only.
Also i would like to add to my complaint that, after reading rules again multiple times i do noticed Emisse point in pointing me to RP rule 13 - as he interpreted me critting a botanist killing his target as me doing job of a security, which is against that rule.
I was not “patrolling” or looking for any kind of trouble. All my work in medical was finished, so i took on a secondary task - try and help CMO find his stuff, as CMO being busy teaching interns. I stumbled upon botanist killing his target by a pure accident.
“It’s one thing to come upon a murder and act, but its another to run around with pre mixed explosives looking for trouble”.
That is exactly what happened. I came to chapel, minding my own buisness, and witnessed a sindie killing and trying to gib his target in the process, which i interfere with, to save life of a janitor.
Making makeshift chemical weapons - is powergaming, which is not against the rules, and that is very wrong - stating that i do so to validhunt. By that logic any crewmember, making weapons to defend themselfs with, could be interpreted as “preparing to validhunt”.
Please look into my AHelp interaction with other admins, especially last one - ScarKyo. He AHelped me, saying i broke the rule, which i argued with, and asked about what rule did i broke, and to quote the exact line i broke, which ScarKyo proceed to do, and i did agreed with him, learning more about the rules, and never making that mistake again. That how i belive Retequizzle and Emisse should handle this situation. Instead of that they told me to not validhunt, which i did not thought against the rules at that time. Proceed to punish me, encouraging crew to hunt me down to death, which i belive is huge overstep, and escalation of situation, since i wasn’t even told what i was punished for as by that time. Then Emisse doing the right thing, pointing me to the RP rule 13, but completely failing to elaborate his point, so i didn’t even knew i was punished for allegedly doing job of a security, so i could explain myself, exactly why i make bombs, and why i was in chapel at that time of botanist murduring his target.
I was not argumentative, i simply stated that i was not “patrolling” or “looking for trouble”. I belive Retequizzle completely failed to look into the situation before punishing me with death, escalating the situation further.
The complaint panel came to the following conclusion. I concur with their judgement:
Upon review this panel believes its safe to say Mm79 most probably violated the rules for which they were banned, and we get the pleasure of leaning on the ban appeal ruling to reaffirm that.
So with that we can turn to whether the ban duration as placed fits within policy guidelines or if extenuating circumstances allow for stretching those guidelines.
By the rules as stated in both ahelps and the ban appeals, its likely they had violated some or all of 1.1, 1.2, and/or 2.13
Details
Don’t do anything with the goal of negatively affecting other players. Not everyone is going to enjoy every round. Killing someone is allowed in certain situations even though it might negatively affect them, but no one should be doing anything for the purpose of harming someone else’s experience.
Do not interact negatively with SSD/AFK players. Interactions to complete antagonist objectives or duties like security searches/arrests are always permitted.
Details
Requesting job changes is not prohibited by this rule. This rule is loosened if the station is understaffed or if there is a significant threat to you.
Don’t perform other people’s jobs, especially where the relevance to you personally is low. This also covers performing the role of security.
MRP Amendment
This is more strictly enforced on MRP.
Examples
Acceptable:
As an engineer, helping the bartender remodel the bar.
As a bartender, remodeling the bar.
As a passenger, building a maintenance bar.
As an engineer, reinforcing substations.
As an engineer, increasing the security of airlocks.
As an atmospherics technician, improving atmospheric systems.
As a passenger, fighting nuclear operatives.
As a passenger, fighting or preparing to defend yourself from someone who has been trying to kill you.
As a crewmember on a station with no engineering department, you complete engineering tasks.
Typically against the rules:
As a passenger, reinforcing substations.
As a passenger, hunting for antagonists or lawbreakers.
As a passenger, fighting or preparing to defend someone else from someone who has been trying to kill a random crewmember.
As well as rule 1.1 specifically being invoked within the ahelp.
Details
These rules are not perfect. The rules attempt to clearly communicate what the admin team intends to be allowed and prohibited, but there are likely loopholes or other flaws that can be “lawyered”. Don’t attempt to manipulate the interpretation of the rules to suit your personal goals or to degrade the experience of other players. If you are unsure of something, follow the more restrictive option until you are able to ask an admin and get clarification.
Admins can override rules if they deem it in the best interest of the current round, server, and/or community at large. Online admins are able to make final interpretations of rules during a round. Even if you disagree with how an admin interprets a rule, you must still follow the interpretation they provide for you. Admin actions and interpretations of rules can be contested through staff complaints. If admins believe that you are an overall negative impact to the community or rounds, you will be banned. Admins will be held fully accountable for their actions if they exercise this privilege.
Starting with Rule 2.13 Stick to your role, this panel believes its fair to say by the replay and by the subsequent ban appeal conclusions that this rule was likely violated and reasonable for the admins involved at the time (Emisse and Retequizzle) to have actioned. From the ahelp logs its also fair to presume that the original intent was to warn Mm79 not to validhunt as a chemist, while also smiting them to punctuate the warning. This is supported by the original ahelp where Retequizzle begins:
00:59:47 Retequizzle: so why are you going around validhunting as a chemist?
00:59:59 mm79: Isn’t against the rules
01:00:23 Retequizzle: good luck
01:00:29 mm79: Bet
01:01:08 mm79: Dude, like, actually, what the fuck?
01:01:17 Retequizzle: kill sign makes it not against the rules
Where things begin to escalate is in the following ahelp exchanges where Mm79 begins to adamantly deny their actions are against the rules and demand an immediate supervisor for Retequizzle. That is not something we do. However, since Emisse was available Emisse steps in to support Retequizzle’s actions. Emisse also takes the opportunity to point to specific rules Mm79 is in violation of and explain in short why Mm79 is in violation of them.
01:02:30 Emisse: no valid hunting
01:02:39 mm79: Is is against the rules?
01:02:42 Emisse: yea
01:02:47 mm79: Where? What rule?
01:02:49 Emisse: rule 2 and roleplay rule 13
01:03:04 Emisse: its not in the spirit of the game
01:03:21 Emisse: its one thing to come upon a murder and act but its another to run around with pre mixed explosives looking for trouble
01:04:25 Emisse: yea but you just ruined that dudes antag round by patrolling the halls with your cleanex bombs
01:07:09 Emisse: again if it happened randomly in the hall and you happened upon it thats different but patrolling the halls with bombs is too far lmao
There is also a small exchange about the ramifications of a past ruling by another unavailable admin, which after investigating Retequizzle and Emisse determine is unrelated to this incident or does not apply to this instance because the previous admin had been talking about a narrowly scoped problem and not about all instances of Rule 2.13 Stick to your role rule breaks.
After which Emisse reaffirms that the intent is to warn Mm79 for the issue.
01:11:37 mm79: So, let’s just end that pointles argument. I got targeted by you for doing something that is completely allowed, and that my end of the story. Call in the bigger admin, your supervisor or something
01:11:55 Emisse: dawg im just telling you not to valid hunt
Turning to Rule 1.2 Don’t be a dick, we have few guidelines to define exactly what the behaviors of a dick are, some citing harassment, or failure to cooperate with other players, as well as the rule’s text specifically directing players to do their best to avoid “negatively effecting other players.”
However, the same Rule 1.2 Don’t be a dick, has the further caveat “Killing someone is allowed in certain situations even though it might negatively affect them.” I think its worth examining what the intent of this carve out is, and whether this would indeed be one of those certain situations. There are five instances readily in my mind to which this may be referring within the rules and policy. In no particular order those would be:
If you are an antagonist or free agent, which Mm79 was not in this instance.
If the acting captain authorized the execution, which did not happen in this case.
Admin Intervention, which did not occur to allow Mm79 to kill players prior to the ahelp and smite applied to Mm79 by Retequizzle.
If you have followed escalation to the final steps.
In this instance this does not appear to be the case. We can check by applying the clear steps outlined in 2.11 Follow reasonable escalation where properly escalated conflict must flow through Verbal, Non-harmful, Non-Lethal, and then finally Lethal means. While the definitions of what those are is not well formed, It seems safe to say Lethal means were applied first here via Mm79’s immediate application of explosive reagent mixtures. It seems possible to view this from the standpoint that the assailant was already at the Lethal Means stage, and so Mm79 would not be in violation of escalation, but this leads us to the next applicable situation ‘actions in self defense.’
If you are acting in self defense.
Here is where we might find a possible justification for Mm79’s actions. It seems reasonable to presuppose that Mm79’s intervention to save the life of a janitor could have been in defense of the janitor, or by extension in defense of themselves in the event the assailant did not stop at the end of their assault on the janitor. This action would be self defense, however, it is somewhat troubled by the premeditated creation of explosive mixtures and direct intent to use them to find and deliver justice to some player who had robbed the CMO earlier in the round. This premeditation precludes this justification because had Mm79 not intended to violate Rule 2.13 Stick to your role by leaving their role as a chemist to pursue another player instead of utilizing security, Mm79 would not have had the materials or opportunity available to act.
Due to the reasons listed above, this panel believes its safe to conclude these “certain situations” probably do not apply, and very likely would not have satisfied the admins on the scene Emisse and Retequizzle.
Prior to this instance Mm79 had one note about escalation/self-antag violations, and one ban for escalation/self-antag/RDM. This would make the relevant ban guideline for this violation a three day game ban for a third offense if applied under Over escalation, or 7 days if applied under self-antag. This is further complicated by the fact that the CMO, Mm79’s superior in this case as they were in the role of Chemist, had potentially directed Mm79 in part to engage in their actions. This is problematic because it too could be viewed as a rule break by a rule-aware player with its own ban guideline for griefing.
Additionally, it demands evaluation whether the required modifier for Valid Rule Clarifications applies here. Mm79 did attempt to justify their actions and reasoning by invoking a prior exchange in which another unavailable admin had offered a different interpretation of a potentially similar case. Whether this rises to the bar of a rule clarification is debatable. Rule Clarifications have historically been;
Posted on the forums
Ratified by a vote of admins
Deprecated in their totality
What Mm79 seems to be citing in this case is a message from an admin in OOC or via admin-questions on discord. Further they do so with great difficulty, capable of doing so only in part and owing to the efforts of the involved admins, Emisse and Retequizzle, who subsequently deny its relevance or application to this case.
Fortunately the panel needs not determine which of the above guidelines for Rule 1.2 Don’t be a dick, nor whether admin messages as Rules Clarifications applies. This is due to the admins involved, Emisse and Retequizzle, original intent to place a warning, and Mm79’s later actions in ahelp prior to their ban.
Following here is where things begin to spiral, as Mm79 continues to double, now triple down on rejecting the ruling of the admins involved (Emisse and Retequizzle).
01:12:10 mm79: Cool. Call the bigger admin.
01:12:15 Emisse: lmao
01:12:24 Retequizzle: this isn’t a traffic stop bruh, you can just appeal it at this point
01:13:15 mm79: I am trying to get a clarification on the rules, i don’t need to appeal, i didn’t get banned. And i belive you guys isn’t competent enough to provide me a clarification.
01:13:51 Emisse: dawg i gave you clarification and if you read the rules youd see rule 1
01:14:01 Emisse: this really didnt need to turn into an argument
01:14:49 mm79: Rule 1 - fair point. I’ll take to the stuff complants now, thanks.
01:14:59 Retequizzle: dope, enjoy your appeal
After again demanding a third admin become involved, the decision is made to elevate the action to an indefinite ban, and Mm79 is pointed to Rule 1.1 Admins have final say in rebuttal of their continued belittling of the staff present.
While this may not rise directly to the guidelined “Harassing staff through the game”, it is certainly plain to see that the intent here was to challenge admins on their authority over the round and indeed continuingly into future rounds. For these reasons as well as the potential calculus of previously discussed infractions, this panel finds it reasonable for an indefinite ban to have been applied at the time of the admin’s actions.
Finally we can turn to the last claim in the complaint left uninterrogated. That Retequizzle has “[Failed] to reason, or even explain, what [Mm79] was punished for, before executing the punishment.” This fails clearly on the merits for the punishment of their ban, however it bears some consideration for the IC punishment of the Kill Smite. The smite was placed shortly after Mm79 originally offers a non-defense for validhunting in response to admin Retequizzle’s initial investigation:
00:59:47 Retequizzle: so why are you going around validhunting as a chemist?
00:59:59 mm79: Isn’t against the rules
This is plainly untrue if we examine the example of 2.13 Stick to your role wherein it is stated:
As a passenger, hunting for antagonists or lawbreakers.
As a passenger, fighting or preparing to defend someone else from someone who has been trying to kill a random crewmember.
Given this, and Retequizzle’s status as both a Fullmin and an event privileged admin, it is reasonable in the context of the game, and with a mind to both improve the overall experience of the average player in the round as well as provide a memorable and even in this case salient lesson about the rules, that the smite which makes it rule-abiding for Mm79 to be the target of other players’ intent to kill was utilized.
For this reason we do not find any issue in the application of Retequizzle’s smite in this case.
However, we do think its reasonable that Retequizzle be reminded that Smites do feel like punishments, and while it is reasonable to place them when issuing warning or as punishments themselves, it should be done with care to explain why the smite has been applied in situations where it is not readily obvious. That does seem to have been done here, but perhaps it would have been better to do so before smiting them rather than afterwards.
Professionalism is important, and in general will help reduce the number of issues you run into as staff. We expect you to deescalate, rather than escalate situations. As staff, you’re often the first person that a player with an issue will talk to. No matter your opinion on the player, do your best to be respectful towards them.
The guiding principle of deescalation seems salient here. While Retequizzle did make some efforts to engender the conversation in a friendly manner by saying:
01:01:50 Retequizzle: i’ll give you credit though, splashing people with water and then throwing potassium vials at them to get around premixing it is pretty slick
and to their credit was able to provide an additional admin for further opinion upon Mm79’s request, something not required.
It still feels important to point out the immediate smite and further quips including:
01:02:21 Retequizzle: don’t really care lol
01:12:24 Retequizzle: this isn’t a traffic stop bruh, you can just appeal it at this point
01:14:59 Retequizzle: dope, enjoy your appeal
Which serve to undercut any efforts at deescalation. This panel asks that Retequizzle consider this going forward, and pay attention to the voice or tone in which they interact with players and the ways in which it may serve to bolster or diminish their interactions.
The appropriate remedies here would then be for
The admin team re-add the explicit guideline of Warning - Indefinite Ban for violations of Rule 1.1 Admins have final say, because this is the currently applied policy despite the lack of any relevant guidelines for violations of this rule. This is evidenced both in past versions of the guidelines, as well as in rule 1.1’s premier status as the foremost and first rule.
Mm79 to open a Ban Appeal in the appropriate forum section as is their prerogative, which they have done and has since been processed.
Mm79 to open a Question in the appropriate Rules Clarification subforum: Questions - Space Station 14 Forum asking for a robust interpretation of a specific hypothetical which they believe to be unclear, if they desire to do so.
