Repo - Games_Sweat_Shop

Subject: Repo

Policies or Expectations Violated: 2.6, inappropriate response to situation,

Do you want this complaint to be made public after it is processed: Yes

Detailed Summary: I joined the round as a passenger. I found David Matthews, a player I enjoy playing with and we spoke for a bit. He was playing as CMO. He asked if I wanted to trade clothes because it would be funny, which I agreed to. Briefly after trading clothing, I received an ahelp asking why I had given all my gear to a passager. I will clarify that the CMO did not give any critical items to me, only clothing and that I have seen countless people do such gimmicks, and never once have I seen it become an issue, I did not imagine this would be. To try and show I was not the CMO I asked repo to follow me and pointed at my passenger id followed by telling them that we traded clothes because we thought it would be funny. The resulting conversation is linked below. After the first ahelp and no response to my reply, I was in the hall when security chased David for “stealing the CMO ID” this is an understandable thing to do. I watched for a minute becuase it was funny and said something along the lines of “Get him, he probably stole it.” I knew that it would be resolved when anyone there saw his ID or checked the crew manifest, so I didn’t think joking around would be considered self antag. Repo then exploded both David and I, before talking to me about the issue. If at any point in this entire interaction I was ahelped and told that switching clothes is a violation of the rules / problematic I would have stopped immediately and not done it again. Furthermore the situation would have solved itself within 30 seconds of the explosion incident. Such pranks and gimmicks are commonplace and a part of the spirit of LRP ss14. I fail to see how this is an issue any more than a captain giving a clown captain clothing. Furthermore being exploded feels like a very poor way to handle this, especially being exploded before communicating the issue in Ahelp. Repo later offered to respawn me, which was appreciated. 

As a side issue, I was told I do “perpetual tider shit” and am a frequent self antag in the ahelp. If this is the case I would love to be told when I am doing wrong / what was wrong when things happen. From what I’ve been told and seen other players tend to have rather good experiences with my characters, and I tend to enhance the rounds I am in. If I am problematic, I would prefer to be bwoinked or at the very least noted so I can fix such behaviors. This is a great community and I strive to be a great part of it and make it better for others.

Thank you for your time.



The round was Lizard 39707. A replay is available at

Here is a copy of the ahelp:


:sos: **Games_Sweat_Shop:** the game mode is public for some reason

:arrow_forward: _**Round started**_

:outbox_tray: **Repo:** Why have you given all your gear to a passenger?
:inbox_tray: **Games_Sweat_Shop:** follow me for a sec
:inbox_tray: **Games_Sweat_Shop:** we traded clothes for the funny
:inbox_tray: **Games_Sweat_Shop:** what did i do that deserved that?
:outbox_tray: **Repo:** Im going to start banning you if you dont stop this perpetual tiding shit, giving the CMO gear away is just going to cause issues.
:inbox_tray: **Games_Sweat_Shop:** i am a passanger, he gave me his clothing 
:inbox_tray: **Games_Sweat_Shop:** i am not CMO
:inbox_tray: **Games_Sweat_Shop:** He did not give away any serious equipment either
:inbox_tray: **Games_Sweat_Shop:** hey could we talk about this? I wasnt the CMO and what you did felt very much unwarrented.
:outbox_tray: **Repo:** You gave me the answer of for the funny instead of just answering, when i see you self antaging for the 5th time in the last few days this is enough.
:outbox_tray: **Repo:** Your both complicit in the self antag. You were pretending to be CMO when sec and capt were questioning then
:inbox_tray: **Games_Sweat_Shop:** Im sorry, i failed to see how that was an issue when they would have checked his id a few seconds later and laughed it off
:outbox_tray: **Repo:** Its an issue because your generating aHelps because you two are giving gear away to do some tider pranks.
:outbox_tray: **Repo:** Do you want a respawn?
:inbox_tray: **Games_Sweat_Shop:** no
:inbox_tray: **Games_Sweat_Shop:** thank you for offering though

Thank you for your complaint, it has been accepted.


  1. Repo’s first response to notification of the complaint acknowledged that the they went to far in this incident.
  2. Repo’s first response to notification of the complaint claimed that the justification of doing something “for the funny” is a common response given by players causing issues, particularly self antagging, and that this contributed to his response. Repo made this claim in a way that appeared to simply be providing an explanation for what led to his later actions, not in a way that undermined finding 1.
  3. The justification “for the funny” is a common response given by players causing issues, particularly self antagging, but the complainant’s handling of the ahelp, including their response about trading clothes “for the funny” was free of any issues.
  4. Repo’s first response to notification of the complaint claimed that, in his experience over the last week or so, he’s seen a group of players tiding to the point that it has approached rule issues, and that you appear to have been in that group. Similar to finding 2, this claim was made in a way that did not appear to undermine finding 1.
  5. Repo has previously placed a note on your account for self antagging.
  6. The other player involved in the incident has a more significant note history, which Repo said may have contributed to his perception of the situation.
  7. Based only on the information provided by the complainant and by Repo, the behavior of the complainant in-game was not problematic for LRP.
  8. Repo’s first response to notification of the complaint claims the offer to respawn the complainant was made after catching up with things and analyzing the situation more.
  9. Repo’s offer to respawn the complainant was an attempt to mitigate the negative impact the situation had on the complainant.

Resulting Actions

  1. Repo was contacted about the complaint. This resulted in findings 1, 2, 4, and 8.
  2. The note related to this situation was removed from the complainant’s account.
  3. After being contacted, unprompted, Repo offered an apology to be relayed in this complaint. The apology is included below.

Due to Repo’s response to action 1, and his history, no further action appears to be necessary.


Hello Games_Sweat_Shop

I would agree with your complaint that the smiting was an over-escalation to your situation in retrospect and would like to apologize for the round removal.

At the time, the extent of the situation and distinguishing players intentions were not entirely clear. When I initially questioned both of you to get some info after receiving an aHelp, you both gave me quite a standard self-antag commentary that I commonly get in admin’ing, “it’s for the funny/it’s a prank,” for justification. I did follow your character as mentioned in the aHelp after this, and you then gaslit the other player (CMO) to sec, telling them to ‘get him’. Based on what seemed like disregarding the aHelp, the continuation of the situation with several sec having to deal with two non-antags, the ‘doing a funny’ comment and a third party aHelping about the situation, I believed it had moved into self-antag territory. I didn’t think a ban was warranted on such a small thing, but it was causing a disruption.

I checked both your and the other party’s notes, which had a history of self-antag behaviors, and I also had some anecdotal observations of both of you engaging in tiding/self-antag actions in previous days of admining, which I inelegantly mentioned in the aHelp. This, in retrospect, was harsh, and I should have discussed it with you at the time, so I apologize for this as well.

I also missed your attempts to reach out in the dead chat due to the volume of admin activities at the time. Upon later review, I realized the situation may not have been as severe as I initially thought, which led me to offer a respawn.

I hope this response helps you understand my perspective at the time. Generally, I will let IC conflicts play out, but in this case, the cards were stacked over the line towards the self-antag. Retrospectively, it could have sorted itself out IC, and I should have contacted you at the time for the other issues. Although they seemed minor, in hindsight, they appeared to be part of an actionable trend at the time of this.

I have seen you also contribute to positive experiences in-game too, so it’s not a black or white situation. In that time and place, I chose what I thought to be the best course of action, but I will strive to better assess such situations and ensure fair and more considerate responses in the future.