Sphiral - Changeling: disregard of server rules due to "server culture" and non-sensical warning

Staff Complaints Public Rejected
,
1

Subject: Sphiral

Policies or Expectations Violated: Disregarding server rules in favour of “server culture”, telling me not to ahelp every rule break and be more lenient as security because “the server culture has changed” and security is expected to deal with it IC (???), despite rules clearly prohibitting the behavior that I ahelp about.

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

Detailed Summary: I took a longer break from wizden SS14 servers, previously it was unnacceptable for non-antags to so much as interrupt arrests as it created an unplayable environment for security, now I had a long conversation with admin Sphiral in round of Lizard #46971 and the round prior, also had a converstaion with the same admin Sphiral in ahelps a few days ago about a similar subject where I ahelped about being clearly metagrudge roundstart.

I frankly don’t care that “server culture” has changed, the rules have not. It’s unnaceptable to me to be told that server rules are not there to be enforced when they are clearly being broken and that I should ahelp less. I don’t want to play with tiders, self antags and people that intentionally target security. That is exactly the behavior that results in me being strict, because I cannot give an inch to these people that play just to get a high from tiding.

The named admin has given me a warning for being strict IC as security/command and for ahelping these incidents. You cannot at the same time tell me to be less strict as security and tell me that these issues are to be taken care of by security IC, that’s contradictory.

Rounds: Lizard #46971 and prior

2

Sorry this has been sitting for so long, complaints have been backlogged

3

The main incident seems to occur in Lizard 46967 where the following ahelp occurs:

Quote

:sos: **00:10:02** **Changeling:** Zeranov Ubrazek is again arming up as a cargo tech
:inbox_tray: **00:26:15** **Changeling:** Mime Frankie Hujsak is constantly slipping security and assiting hostile skeleton during combat
:inbox_tray: **00:30:16** **Changeling:** Zeranov Ubrazek is stealing security gear and resisting arrest
:inbox_tray: **00:37:17** **Changeling:** Lawyer Meejapa-Am was stealing security weaponry and items from an arrested prisoner
:outbox_tray: **00:45:18** **Sphiral:** Zeranov has been handled, I’ll look into the mime, and the lawyer is fine. If you don’t want lawyers helping in minor sec duty’s you can just tell them as such. Don’t got to arrest them.
:inbox_tray: **00:45:56** **Changeling:** lawyer wasnt "helping" he was snitching gear and arming up
:outbox_tray: **00:50:15** **Sphiral:** Please try to be less strict with your accusations. Some people just wish to help and don’t have bad intentions. If you jump at the slightest sign of it, they may they gain "bad blood" towards you.
:inbox_tray: **00:50:39** **Changeling:** can you explain to me how stealing LETHAL GUN from security is not bad intentions?
:inbox_tray: **00:50:59** **Changeling:** they have express job rules to NOT interfere with arrests
:inbox_tray: **00:51:05** **Changeling:** literally outlined that it results in job bans
:inbox_tray: **00:51:19** **Changeling:** and he was taking shit from prisoners items as I was stripping them
:outbox_tray: **00:53:37** **Sphiral:** They were trying to help with the skeleton, due to the entire situation being chaotic and people slipping. That’s trying to be a good crewmate to help sec, not bad intentions.
:inbox_tray: **00:54:22** **Changeling:** the skeleton was long dead when lawyer was found to have the gun in brig and taking items from ground 
:outbox_tray: **00:55:35** **Sphiral:** Are you sure we’re talking about the same lawyer? Because I have logs confirming otherwise.
:inbox_tray: **00:56:07** **Changeling:** Lawyer Meejapa-Am was found with mk58 gun inside brig AFTER the skeleton was already dead, while I arrested them for taking items from a prisoner I was stripping

Ahelps from Lizard 46971 seem to be related:

Quote

:outbox_tray: **Sphiral:** Alright, I see where the confusion comes into play. My apologies, I see how it may seem bad on their part, but you still could be a bit less strict with people. You are a tad too gun-ho to ahelp or arrest people. Please simply try to be more understanding/lenient.
>
> :arrow_forward: _**Round started**_
>
> :inbox_tray: **00:07:57** **Changeling:** I will never stop ahelping perceived rule breaking behavior and you really should never tell anyone to not ahelp IMO
:outbox_tray: **00:10:13** **Sphiral:** I’m not telling you to not ahelp, I’m telling you to curb your perception. You are far too strict with other players, and it negatively impacts both admins, and players alike, creating problems that do not need to be problems. Please understand people mess up, and you can just warn them or talk to them *before* going into admin/physical action.
:inbox_tray: **00:11:03** **Changeling:** alright I’m willing to admit I can make mistakes, can you tell me exactly which cases were wrong for me to ahelp? 
:inbox_tray: **00:11:59** **Changeling:** all things that I ahelp I know for a fact are against rules from rule explanations on forum and the rules page, so I’m gonna need some clarification as to which ones you meant
:inbox_tray: **00:12:21** **Changeling:** so if a rule says "x get job y banned" I will ahelp it, just like with the laywer previously
:outbox_tray: **00:13:30** **Sphiral:** I don’t have a list compiled with me, but a lot of the ones I see from you are generally a small thing that are either reasonable within context, or simply do not need to be ahelped. Things like a mime slipping you a couple times, or ahelping someone that could be easily dealt with IC, and don’t need admin punishment.
:inbox_tray: **00:14:08** **Changeling:** mime slipping security has resulted in bans previously and is also not allowed to my knowledge to abuse 
:outbox_tray: **00:14:14** **Sphiral:** As for the lawyer situation, the player accidentally forgot they had the gun, and it seemed bad, yes, but it turned into a much larger situation, and caused a much bigger than needed headache. Especially with the though that lawyers can be antags
:inbox_tray: **00:14:56** **Changeling:** they also "accidentally" were picking up the items on ground
:outbox_tray: **00:15:00** **Sphiral:** It’s very contexual, but there is a difference between a mime slipping a random crewmate who happens to be sec/command a few times, and a mime actively helping an antag/shitter via slipping
:inbox_tray: **00:15:16** **Changeling:** I mean you can watch the replay yourself and see them loot the cuffs from the stripped prisoner
:outbox_tray: **00:15:16** **Sphiral:** They were trying to prevent you from searching because they were asking for a warrent, which you never provided them
:inbox_tray: **00:15:36** **Changeling:** lawyer cant prevent sec from searching anyone as that is grounds for job ban
:inbox_tray: **00:15:42** **Changeling:** says so literally on the rules page
:inbox_tray: **00:15:54** **Changeling:** "Deliberately interfering with Security’s normal operation and processing/searching of prisoners."
:outbox_tray: **00:16:21** **Sphiral:** But also sec cannot be unreasonable with searches/using their power. If they believe you to be doing as such, they can try to intervene as a player, not as a lawyer.
:inbox_tray: **00:16:27** **Changeling:** I mean if you as admin even say that they were TRYING TO PREFVENT me from searching them
:inbox_tray: **00:16:32** **Changeling:** then I really dont know what to say
:outbox_tray: **00:17:30** **Sphiral:** They were trying to ask you for a warrent/context, which you didn’t provide, so they were trying to get a response out of you. Yes, it was a bad call on their part, but not something we’re going to job ban over.

 

Quote

:inbox_tray: **00:18:20** **Changeling:** I really don’t like your accusations of me being out of line while at the same time confirming with your own words that the lawyer was interfering with normal security operations
:outbox_tray: **00:22:17** **Sphiral:** This is exactly what I am talking about. You are taking a small situation, and bloating it up ten fold. Overall, this was a very small scenario, which just had some misunderstandings, but I have been banging my head against it, trying to figure out what all happened, because of how big a deal you’ve made it. *You do not need to try to get people in trouble.* People make mistakes, and can simply be told "hey stop that" before you need to do anything else. If it escalates, then yes, you can ahelp/arrest/whatever; but it shouldn’t be a first response.
:inbox_tray: **00:24:14** **Changeling:** I’m sorry but I’m used to certain standard of gameplay and it seems to have seriously deteriorated since I took a longer break, I wont stop ahelping people being tiders and fucking with sec, I’m not "bloating it up", this happens every round and you turning a blind eyes will not help in the slightest because you think it’s a minor issues, if everyone causes a "minor issue" then sec is unplayable as happens quite regularly
:outbox_tray: **00:31:51** **Sphiral:** You do have some good, honest ahelps, yes, and we appreciate those, but you are also far too strict with them sometimes. You may be used to a older playstyle, I understand that. But the culture has changed and more minor incursions are for sec to deal with, because we’re not going to try to force everyone to follow every single rule down to a T, otherwise rounds will become stale and feel far to forced. People would complain they feel like they are simply re-acting out a "perfect round" due to strictness of rules. Along with this, if we bwoinked everyone for every misclick, every small mistake, every step out of line, we would have a much angrier and annoyed playerbase. We let sec deal with minor crimes, because thats what they’re there for. Ahelps are for excessive crimes for people who you believe to not be antags. Not for every John Greytide who stole Ward’s favortie donut.
:outbox_tray: **00:34:38** **Sphiral:** We also have had multiple reports of you having degraded other’s rounds because of how strict you are. I am leaving this conversation here, because I do not wish to argue, and I can feel myself getting heated. I will simply leave it at: Please just be more kind, and understand how people feel. Everyone is human, and not perfect. They mess up, and can simply try to be talked to first. Have a good day, good luck with nukies.

4

Sorry for the delay. This complaint has been rejected.

Findings

  1. The admin investigated and contacted every player reported by the complainant during round 46967.
  2. Two of the three players reported by the complainant during Lizard 46967 had an admin action taken against them during the round in relation to the report by the complainant.
  3. The replay for round 46967 does not load so logs have to be relied on entirely for confirming what happened during the round, which means some context or information may have been missed.
  4. While logs do indicate that a weapon and later handcuffs were picked up by the lawyer, it is not clear that any rules were violated by the lawyer when doing this. Chat logs don’t support the idea that the lawyer was attempting to interfere in the arrest or detention of a player because they seemed to be continuing to have a conversation with the player after the player was uncuffed.
  5. Due to finding 4, the admin cannot be presumed to have responded inappropriately by not treating the situation as a rule violation by the lawyer.
  6. Rules, like self antag rules, attempt to draw a line on a spectrum of behavior. It is incredibly difficult to precisely define this line, so admins have some discretion on a case by case basis. While interfering with security is said to be against the rules, not every minor interference is considered a rule violation. Admins should look to the severity of the interference, the frequency, and the reason for it when determining if it is a rule violation.
  7. While many rule violations can be responded to IC to some degree, players are free to ahelp anything that they reasonably believe is a rule violation, and are generally not intended to be the sole or primary response to a rule violation.
  8. Sphiral may not have communicated ideally in the ahelp. They said that they feel they could have handled the ahelp better.
  9. Not enough information could be found to evaluate the appropriateness of the note that was left in relation to the incident. Based on the information that could be gathered, it is presumed to be sufficiently likely to be appropriate that removal or modification of the note is not necessary. This should attempt to be revisited if the the note becomes relevant for a more impactful admin decision, such as an admin application, ban, dewhitelisting, or other admin action with an outcome that is affected by the note.
  10. Players should be discouraged from making inappropriate ahelps, but they should not be discouraged from making appropriate ahelps. Admins should err on the side of tolerating inappropriate ahelps to avoid discouraging appropriate ahelps. Ahelps where a player reasonably believed that a rule violation occurred are appropriate ahelps.
  11. The complaint could not be fully investigated due to the amount of time that passed between the incident and the handling of the complaint.
  12. This is not the fault of or contributed to by the complainant, who made the complaint in a timely manner.
  13. This is not the fault of or contributed to by the subject of the complaint, who was not contacted about the complaint soon enough for it to be reasonable for them to remember everything needed to fully investigate the complaint.

Resulting Actions

  1. Sphiral was contacted about the complaint, resulting in finding 8.