[RP] - [Scorpion117/Administration] - 1 week: CC involving meta-grudging

[snow n' chrysanthemums]

BYOND Name: Snow n chrysanthemums

Reason Banned:viewtopic.php?f=24&t=2257&p=7473#p7473
Week headban due to the behavior exhibited during interaction with the Cyborg, Cerberus. Ordered the Borg debrained due to serving dangerous amounts of alcohol to someone that asked for dangerous amounts of alcohol. Also admit that behavior from past rounds was used to influence their decision

Admin who banned: Unknown as of now 3/4/19 7:45 CST.

Length Banned:1 Week

Appeal Reason:
1) I was not aware that the drunk had been served alcohol after he stated it on common after we had debrained them.
2) My time on baystation always had extended rounds become fully cannon, and that the basis for IC decisions there could be used in regards to later rounds. It appears that I am somewhat un-aware of the line between cannonity and meta-grudging. Given that I was never warned beforehand, a warning is enough as I will simply act on information given per a round instead (Ex: Deconstructing a borg after it assaults a head of staff, sets off a massive phoron fire). I have, as a player, not deliberately gone with malicious intent to remove someone from the round, rather had simply responded to previous events from what I believed were fully cannon and thus allow for such an IC action. Given that was fruit from the poisonous tree, I shall refrain from doing so in the future.

[Vincent Airin]

As it stands, there's no folks on the admin team willing to just let this go, what got you in trouble was less what might have occurred in character, but rather the admittance of using OOC information to weigh on your decisions on top of de-braining a borg for what is at best a misunderstanding.

However, not only does it seem you aren't satisfied with just a temp ban, it was seen that you were putting forward what is effectively referred to as "grudge code" when it comes to silicon laws. Such behavior does not show that you are not so keen on learning and refraining from actions, but rather that you wanted to have your way instead in this affair.

Unless another team member corrects me in the future before this ban expires, it will not be over turned.

[scorpion_117]

I was following through the 1 week headban for crash, this was me applying the ban for them as they were going to bed during that time. Either way I'm not going to overturn this.

[snow n' chrysanthemums]

You never finish the thousand steps if you never take the first one.
My reason for the application of this appeal is not for the ban per say, but two questions:
1) What is a grudge code now that you bring it up? I as a player have no grudge against synthetics. Please elaborate what you mean by this as I am either not reading the rules correctly or I am misunderstanding.
2) How is it ooc information if the information I obtained was purely IC and during a cannon round as well?

The first negative interaction with Cerbreus with Tashi is 02/05/2019, then one on 02/16/2019 (maybe another somewhere between), and one finally on the 02/20 that results in the complaint. You can see for that I asked Ru to check Cerberus.
[2019-02-20T02:37:02]SAY: CKEY_REDACTED/(Samdup Tashi) (55,54,7): (Command) Ru? Mind taking Cerb apart to make sure it's not rouge?
I probably should have worded that to, "Check Cerb's laws" in this case.

Here is my issue, the primary reason for Samdup pushing to decommission Cerberus is the fact that from my vantage point it appeared that they did so without warning it would do self harm (This is 3 weeks after the report so my memory is fuzzy, if anyone can pull up chat logs that prove contrary then I will gladly retract this statement). The secondary reason is because of previous encounters, and finally the third reason was because of her personal prejudice against Cerberus. Were this any of my strict discipline characters, they would have done the same thing given the impression that the borg deliberately broke the law regarding harming crew (Remember, I as a player was NOT aware of the fact they had explicitly asked to be served after a warning). After reading the logs another time I realized I also messed up later, bold emphasizes mine:

[2019-02-20T02:41:50]SAY: CKEY_REDACTED/(Uwasv Sidanelv) (34,73,5): (Command) AI, Cerberus has gone against everyone at every turn. This time, they have actually caused the harm of crew knowingly.
[2019-02-20T02:41:58]SAY: CKEY_REDACTED/(Lisa Kirkan) (59,68,7): (Command) He isn't harming, Faux requested the units, cerb complied. I missed this statement like a complete imbecile.
[2019-02-20T02:42:03]SAY: CKEY_REDACTED/(Samdup Tashi) (70,53,6): (Command) I suggest faxing central for permanent decomission.
[2019-02-20T02:42:06]SAY: CKEY_REDACTED/(Jermaine Mcfall) (48,67,7): (Common) Guys, the power.
[2019-02-20T02:42:15]SAY: CKEY_REDACTED/(Sajiid Vihtori Al-Shakoor) (62,39,15): (Command) that isnt quite how cerrrberrrus' laws worrk...
[2019-02-20T02:42:16]SAY: CKEY_REDACTED/(Lisa Kirkan) (59,67,7): (Command) actually they did laugh once they saw Faux dying.

I am aware of your post scorpion_117. My main reasoning for this appeal is less of the actual ban length/type/duration and rather more of the issue of how I can change, as I am failing to grasp the root issue no matter how many times I read the rules, ban reason, and the complaint over. Given that I play command somewhat often, I anticipate that I will have character complaints sooner or later due to the nature of command.

[HazelBailey]

I'm not really willing to support the unban, myself. I'd say take the week, learn from the mistake, and move on.

[HazelBailey]

Moving to denied because this expires tonight.