I don't think anyone has actually considered and/or evidenced the following:
• Did Kroto actually incite the station to 'rise up' as it were, against security, is there any evidence for this at all? Or did Kroto state that security castrated him once or twice, then the crew took it from there?
• If we're taking a ruling from the RP server for Main, is Kroto responsible for not knowing a ruling made on a different server, using a different codebase, with different RP standards? This ruling is not part of Main rules. If someone is going to be punished for it, then it should be part of the rules for the Main server, this means it should be in the rules. Not in the memories of admins, in the rules, as in, on the website with the rules.
As of today, 19/02/2020, rule 9 currently states that Kroto was perfectly justified to make a fuss about being castrated. It is clearly stated that the person who castrated Kroto is liable to in-character repercussions for castrating Kroto.
It'd have been much better for Kroto to have warned that in character,
Kroto-Ker will not be happy about having their genitals chopped off (Is this not kind of obvious?), I'm pretty sure Kroto now knows to mention if he will be happy about this ICly when he gives OOC consent in the future. If the admins think the RP server ruling is better and should be followed for Main, then
it actually needs to be part of the rules, and not have the exact opposite be part of the rules. Admins can change rules when they want, I know. Just update the rules and stop using "Izzy is working on new rules" as an excuse to not update the rules at all.
• Why does the note mention that borgs are not required to follow lewd law 2 requests? Were any lewd law 2 requests made? If not,
why on earth is this part of the note? We know that borgs aren't required to follow lewd law 2 requests, and if none were made, this really needs to be removed from the note as it gives off heavy implications that Kroto attempted to coerce a borg into doing lewd things with law 2. That's how I read it the first time, that's how I read it again now, and that's how future admins reading the note will probably read it. I've been an admin for enough game servers to know that this ban reason is a bit iffy for the following reasons:
1. It doesn't include a very critical piece of context which is if Kroto intended to act on the "borgs cannot refuse consent" comment, or if he did it as a joke. This context is suspiciously absent from the note, and needs to be added. How are future admins supposed to know this?
2. Kroto didn't slap the borg's ass so this is just factually incorrect. He attempted to, but it was not mechanically possible, so he punched the borg (dealing no damage).
3. What the fuck can the borg not consent to? Full ERP? Being slapped on the ass? Being hog-tied and raped for a hundred years?
Who the fuck knows, because this is left up to implication in the note. Unless there's some secret hidden admin-visible-only addendum, any admin that comes back to view the note doesn't know if Kroto was saying the borg can't refuse consent for sex, which is the implication since the note talks about how borgs can't be law 2ed into ERP, or if Kroto was saying the borg can't refuse being slapped on the ass. These are two different things that shouldn't be left ambiguous. If you don't know what Kroto was saying the borg can/can't consent to, put that in the note.
If a note has to be lengthy to include all the details, all the context, everything to make it as crystal clear to future admins as possible, then it should be as long as it needs to be. Can always just leave a TL;DR at the top.
So an update from Hazel's post, the straws that broke the camels back:
1. DMs harassment.
Discredited with images showing Kroto was dared to send lewd stuff.
2. Hexacrocin in pool.
Yeah this is pretty bad. I'd argue this is probably the worst thing on this list by far. What makes it
3. LOOCed consent to being castrated, showed a problem IC afterwards which resulted in the crew getting angry with sec.
Kroto should've mentioned that he will not be okay with this ICly. I've told him this over DMs after the fact and I'm pretty sure Kroto will remember to do this in future.
4. Random (attempted) ass slapping of a borg and joking about the ability to consent.
Admins really need to make an announcement if they want random ass slapping behaviour to stop. I have been, many times now, randomly licked excessively by dogborgs that did not ask consent. No, my flavour text doesn't say I consent to this. No, I am not always comfortable with this. Yes, the borgs stop instantly if I show signs of discomfort or if I tell them to stop. If you don't want behaviour like random ass-slapping/licking to happen, please, make the community aware with an announcement that the whole community can see. Apologies if this has been done and I'm just blind. In terms of its contribution to Kroto's perm ban, the joke is the real issue here, not the (attempted) ass-slapping.
5. Notes that have been mentioned but aren't posted.
Obviously I can't really say anything about this, hence I can't make my completely weightless not-to-be-considered judgement.
What I can say is this:
Kroto started out being incredibly abrasive, his character's quirk of disliking women was far too strong, it came across as genuine hatred and he ICly treated my character horribly for being female. I confronted him about this OOCly and explained that the character quirk is okay to have, but he needs to tone it down by a
lot. The next day, he had toned it down a ton. From personal experience, Kroto can definitely change.
In response to Derkuleen:
Until I confronted Kroto OOCly, his treatment of me IC didn't make me feel half as uncomfortable as some of the toxic members of this community have made me feel. Going to have to agree, I don't think Kroto has done enough damage to justify a perm.
In Summary:
No one gives a shit about my weightless opinion because although I've been an admin on game servers with more roleplaying than Citadel and a bigger community for years, I'm not an admin here, so...
Kroto isn't Serval Deerhunter, Kroto has changed before and I wouldn't doubt that he'll learn from this (these?) mistake(s?) after being slapped with a perm, which is a big wake-up call. Reducing this to a temp ban seems much more reasonable. How long the temp ban should be I'm not going to say, however, a vouch from a server they've been on should nullify the rest of the temp ban if the temp ban is long enough for Kroto to reasonably gain a vouch within the ban duration.