[Main] Dapnee, poor judgement, antag bias

Nayser
Junior Member
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2020 2:04 am
Contact:

[Main] Dapnee, poor judgement, antag bias

Post by Nayser »

BYOND Name of complaint against: Dapnee

Your BYOND name: Nayser

Date of issue and round ID: 04.03.2020 21838

Reason for complaint: I believe i was given a note and "final warning" by Dapnee unjustly and all his reasoning for his warning kept changing through conversation, the final reason is "This is medium roleplay server". It seems Dapnee was very protective of one antagonist who went around killing openly before being dealt with and given me a "final warning" for metagaming, more about it later.
The traitor (R.O.F.L) attacked me right as i arrived (as a hos), tried to kill me right inside arrivals shuttle. After a fight he was put in perma, later i learned from acting captain he had rising bass and received order to execute him which was done by me and warden. But even with that Dapnee had issue because traitor was executed /incorrectly/. He was just beaten to death with batons. Seems a little picky... but okay. He had started complaining IC'ly as cent-com which... honestly doesn't really feel like how cent-com would react to death of an enemy that was going around killing everyone and in my opinion it was in poor taste from roleplay stand point.

Later after fighting blob and panicing, i had taken time to investigate theft of secret documents from vault which had broken wall. I had found prints of same traitor that was executed. And since seemingly same methods were used to break open vault as armory, where a reflective vest was stolen and the fact that not secret documents or reflective vest were found on traitor's person i had come to conclusion that said items are being hid with storage implant, so i went and extracted implant as i was correct, finding all stolen items. And that was apparently a problem again. Dapnee basicly claimed that storage implant has meta protection and i had no reason to look for it despite me explaining everything, he claimed that this is medium roleplay server implying what i was doing is low rp. The rules regarding knowledge of antagonists are written clear as water and they suggest what i did is not wrong.

"Characters may know what antagonist equipment is and what it does, but may not pre-emptively search for it without prior knowledge of an antagonist being present." -Server rules, point 5: Do not metagame

Below are copypastes of his CC messages and adminPM conversation and some comments regarding messages


Central Command Update
Don't think that's how you execute someone. Hopefully the syndicate didn't see that...
-
Captain Announces
Central this is the acting captain, they murdered multiple people, and had a fighting style involving their fists, not offical, but their dead
-
Central Command Update
Y'all shot first and then decided to execute someone that was already in perma. We don't make the laws, but that's kinda shitty.

And now the admin PMs

-- Administrator private message --
Admin PM from-Dapnee: Any reason you're dissecting him?

PM to-Admins: looking for stolen documents, come on... he is long dead, it doesn't even matter

-- Administrator private message --
Admin PM from-Dapnee: It does, cause you honestly don't have a reason to.

PM to-Admins: I litterally just said a good reason, multiple items are completely missing, everything leads to dead ROFL, so might aswell check him

You successfully remove the storage implant from R.O.F.L.'s chest.
PM to-Admins: OH LOOK I WAS RIGHT!

-- Administrator private message --
Admin PM from-Dapnee: That's still a bad reason, why are you assuming there's only one traitor?
(comment: Uh, i'm not entirely sure what he ment there by saying i assume there's only one traitor? And is it bad to assume there is only one traitor?)

-- Administrator private message --
Admin PM from-Dapnee: Just cause you were right or not doesn't make it okay.

PM to-Admins: I'm not assuming there's only one traitor, i think there might be more.

PM to-Admins: Let me say again, i had a /GOOD/ reason, i have made investigation which led me to see ROFL's prints on places where items were stolen, said items were not found on him, thus it's fair to assume he could have storage implant with great chance, and it turns out i was correct.

-- Administrator private message --
Admin PM from-Dapnee: You need actual proof they have it first, such as the implanter. Storage implants are meta protected.
(comment: This is the most questionable part as i had never heard or read anywhere such thing. I think thats just making rules on the go)

PM to-Admins: Knowledge about syndicate items is allowed, so we can have reasonable suspicion those are used. I had never heard anything about storage implants being meta protected before, were rules updated? Is it written somewhere?

-- Administrator private message --
Admin PM from-Dapnee: This is a medium roleplay server. Today I watched you shoot at someone to check for sleeping carp (someone you didn't even need to attack) for no reason before incorrectly executing them. You then come back and decide to do a storage implant check without proof beyond the guy touched some doors. Stealth items have meta protection and you've shown to me you're only here to get valids and not roleplay. You are the very thing reducing roleplay and I want to give you this final warning. Do not metagame, do not play this game just to win.
(comment: I have not shot at anyone to check for sleeping carp during that round or had fired at a sleeping carp user or any martial arts user that round, why would he lie? He did also say there was no reason to check for martial arts but captain clearly stated that traitor has rising bass which is kind of a very good reason. Logs are there to prove everything but besides the point, if some one was susspected to have martial arts, it was always okay to shoot them to check but now it isn't? Also it is kinda ironic how he claims i'm here only to validhunt when traitor litterally attacked me right as i arrived. So by his logic a traitor wordlessly going around killing and attacking the only sec member before he can even gear up increases roleplay?)

PM to-Admins: Get your things right, i had not shot to check for sleeping carp. And since when is it not allowed? People did it for like 3 years it was never a problem. And are you fcking kidding me? I'm reducing roleplay? You're protecting a guy who tried to kill me right as i arrived and blatantly went around killing anyone, despite clearly it was not his objective

PM to-Admins: You know what... we'll continue this on forums. Have a good one.

-- Administrator private message --
Admin PM from-Dapnee: Right, I'll just grab these logs now and leave a note so you have something to slap on your complaint.

Ticket closed by an administrator.

User avatar
HazelBailey
Senior Member
Posts: 500
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 9:55 am
Contact:

Re: [Main] Dapnee, poor judgement, antag bias

Post by HazelBailey »

You have a note for cavity searching people that you got barely a month ago. You've been told in the past that you need a reason to search for these and "items are missing" isn't a good enough reason. to search for a storage implant. This is nothing new, and this wont change any time soon.

This particular ruling also has TWO different references in the rules page, under rule 5.
Characters may know what antagonist equipment is and what it does, but may not pre-emptively search for it without prior knowledge of an antagonist being present.
and
Unacceptable:
Searching someone for antagonist items without a clear or justifiable reason to search them.
You need a hard reason to believe the implant exists, such as having seen the implanter, or hearing them mention the implant themselves. You had proof that they stole the items, but not that the implant existed until you dug it out of their chest.

The bwoink was valid, and the note is valid.

User avatar
Dapnee
Junior Member
Posts: 38
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2019 7:32 am
Contact:

Re: [Main] Dapnee, poor judgement, antag bias

Post by Dapnee »

The player “openly running around killing” killed two people that were their objectives, to which they got more objectives that weren’t based around murdering. When you arrived on the station, the player ran around you in circles and did not at all attack you. You detained them once hearing they murdered two people. Then you sentenced them to perma, which fine, fair. Your warden then decided to randomly shoot them, neither of you had discussed dealing with him or anything, to find out they had rissing bass. You then re-decided to execute them. The complaints were in character and mainly just me disagreeing with the fact you could have EASILY CUFFED HIM AFTER FLASHBANGING HIM TWICE. And as such, I left it at that.

Your note is more so over deciding to check for an implant without a good enough reason. It’s been ruled you need solid proof the implant exists before digging through a corpse for it, namely, finding an implanted/the box it came in. The traitors corpse was already in security’s morgue and would more likely than not, have remained, but you decided on an OOC hunch that the stolen items were in a storage implant.

The actual note is here: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/ ... nknown.png

You have previously been spoken to about implant searching people without a good reason last month, an incident with Cheri. The fact I had to speak to you again over it and the matter of which you acted in character have me doubting you listened to the previous admin that talked to you over this.

Now, antag bias, hmm. I was watching them, yes. Me knowing what I saw is the reason I even spoke with you. I will acknowledge I slipped up by thinking the warden was you. I might reconsider the decision to check for bass, only cause I’m quite certain the antag never used the skill at all that round, to which I’ll need to discuss with the captain about it, but that’s not in line with this thread.

All in all, I stand with what I said and did. But as well, I feel a HoS ban/sec ban should be considered since I’ve been told by others of your history of implant checks and undesirable security work. Which I’m sure you’ll ask what history and to that I’ll welcome relevant peanut posting.

Nayser
Junior Member
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2020 2:04 am
Contact:

Re: [Main] Dapnee, poor judgement, antag bias

Post by Nayser »

HazelBailey wrote:
Wed Mar 04, 2020 4:45 pm
Unacceptable:
Searching someone for antagonist items without a clear or justifiable reason to search them.
You need a hard reason to believe the implant exists, such as having seen the implanter, or hearing them mention the implant themselves. You had proof that they stole the items, but not that the implant existed until you dug it out of their chest.

The bwoink was valid, and the note is valid.
In my opinion having high suspicion based on many facts found during investigation that storage implant is in use is in fact a clear and justifiable reason. But i guess apparently it's not? Guess antags can go laugh at you and go fck all with storage implant because it has exclusive feature being admin protected. :huh:
Basicly what you just said means if you use storage implant and get rid of injector and never mention it, you have full immunity to sec searching for it.
(Honestly, storage implant needs to go with ammount of bullshit thats surrounding it)

Nayser
Junior Member
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2020 2:04 am
Contact:

Re: [Main] Dapnee, poor judgement, antag bias

Post by Nayser »

Dapnee wrote:
Thu Mar 05, 2020 6:04 am
The player “openly running around killing” killed two people that were their objectives, to which they got more objectives that weren’t based around murdering. When you arrived on the station, the player ran around you in circles and did not at all attack you. You detained them once hearing they murdered two people. Then you sentenced them to perma, which fine, fair. Your warden then decided to randomly shoot them, neither of you had discussed dealing with him or anything, to find out they had rissing bass. You then re-decided to execute them. The complaints were in character and mainly just me disagreeing with the fact you could have EASILY CUFFED HIM AFTER FLASHBANGING HIM TWICE. And as such, I left it at that.

Your note is more so over deciding to check for an implant without a good enough reason. It’s been ruled you need solid proof the implant exists before digging through a corpse for it, namely, finding an implanted/the box it came in. The traitors corpse was already in security’s morgue and would more likely than not, have remained, but you decided on an OOC hunch that the stolen items were in a storage implant.

The actual note is here: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/ ... nknown.png

You have previously been spoken to about implant searching people without a good reason last month, an incident with Cheri. The fact I had to speak to you again over it and the matter of which you acted in character have me doubting you listened to the previous admin that talked to you over this.

Now, antag bias, hmm. I was watching them, yes. Me knowing what I saw is the reason I even spoke with you. I will acknowledge I slipped up by thinking the warden was you. I might reconsider the decision to check for bass, only cause I’m quite certain the antag never used the skill at all that round, to which I’ll need to discuss with the captain about it, but that’s not in line with this thread.

All in all, I stand with what I said and did. But as well, I feel a HoS ban/sec ban should be considered since I’ve been told by others of your history of implant checks and undesirable security work. Which I’m sure you’ll ask what history and to that I’ll welcome relevant peanut posting.
To be more precise, i noticed they were trying to get near me so i avoided them by going everywhere out of their way to ensure they're not following me, i detained them before i heard they killed multiple people. I probably would've let them go if i didn't hear it tho. And warden shot to check them only because captain said said traitor had rising bass. It was also not my decision to execute them. But i guess it has little importance.

Okay, about the note, do i need to even point out whats wrong here? Rule 5, okay given newly discovered ruling regarding storage implant i can understand it and will change accordingly. But rule 7? Are you for real? It's litterally security's job to investigate missing high value items and apprehend traitors and those who endanger crew and station, aka so called valid hunting. So what you're saying is security is not allowed to deal with antagonists now? And if i'm doing something "undesireable" as security and it's not worth pointing out to me from admins, then i believe it's not worth pointing out at all, because salt exists, people who get caught/killed get salty constantly and i can see how being curbed by sec is undesireable if you're antag.

I'll just recommend this, update rules please. If you're enforcing invisible rulings that are not written anywhere, ofcourse there will be issues. Storage implant is perhaps exclusive in the way it's treated OOC'ly so it won't hurt to have a small addition in rule 5 explaining it.

Cameron Lancaster
Junior Member
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2017 3:18 pm
Contact:

Re: [Main] Dapnee, poor judgement, antag bias

Post by Cameron Lancaster »

The new rules are much more clear about storage implant searches, the current rules are not. I've played here for several years and would assume this line of evidence would be fine (knowing items were stolen by a specific person, but not found in their belongings). The new rules make it more apparent this isn't the case.
Characters may know what antagonist equipment is and what it does, but may not pre-emptively search for it without prior knowledge of an antagonist being present.
No relevance, as they were aware an antagonist was present. The player did not run afoul of this clause.
Unacceptable:
Searching someone for antagonist items without a clear or justifiable reason to search them.
Without more specific examples (which the new rules provide) this is too vague and, again, I would assume as a long-time player that the gathered evidence would provide justification.

I don't think it's fair to note someone for a failure of the rules to be clear, in particular in a situation where no one was harmed. The antagonist had already been removed from the round far in advance of the search, there was little or nothing to be gained by finding the implant other than satisfying curiosity. It seems overzealous to note someone over this.

User avatar
Dapnee
Junior Member
Posts: 38
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2019 7:32 am
Contact:

Re: [Main] Dapnee, poor judgement, antag bias

Post by Dapnee »

Breaking a rule is breaking a rule Cameron. Just cause it “didn’t hurt anyone” doesn’t make it fine. A note is also not overzealous as well, I gave them a warning, and as such, admin policy dictates a note be left.
2. Players are to always be noted for warnings. Do not skip this step.

Nayser
Junior Member
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2020 2:04 am
Contact:

Re: [Main] Dapnee, poor judgement, antag bias

Post by Nayser »

Dapnee wrote:
Sat Mar 07, 2020 11:42 pm
Breaking a rule is breaking a rule Cameron. Just cause it “didn’t hurt anyone” doesn’t make it fine. A note is also not overzealous as well, I gave them a warning, and as such, admin policy dictates a note be left.
2. Players are to always be noted for warnings. Do not skip this step.
It does make it fine actually... a lot of the times other older admins often were lenient on some rules because it simply didn't hurt anyone. Basicly, there's absolutely no reason you should enforce rules super strictly, after all the first purpose of rules is to make game fun for everyone. But somewhy i actually doubt you're super strict on rules, i have a feeling it's just personal.

User avatar
Putnam
Junior Member
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2019 12:46 pm
Contact:

Re: [Main] Dapnee, poor judgement, antag bias

Post by Putnam »

It doesn't make it fine (this is a rule that's in place to make antag play fun), there is a reason we should enforce rules strictly (because otherwise people will accuse us of favoritism), this rule's purpose is to make the game fun for antags too, and that last point is complete wishful thinking by assuming that everyone agrees with you on the "rules should not be followed actually" point.

Nayser
Junior Member
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2020 2:04 am
Contact:

Re: [Main] Dapnee, poor judgement, antag bias

Post by Nayser »

Putnam wrote:
Mon Mar 09, 2020 12:20 pm
It doesn't make it fine (this is a rule that's in place to make antag play fun), there is a reason we should enforce rules strictly (because otherwise people will accuse us of favoritism), this rule's purpose is to make the game fun for antags too, and that last point is complete wishful thinking by assuming that everyone agrees with you on the "rules should not be followed actually" point.
I disagree, it is fine because if you'd choose to ignore it simply nothing would happen. But wether you want to ignore it or not is entirely up to you and your common sense. Basicly what i'm saying, try to push for what rules are ment to do. As you said the rule is in place for antags to have more fun, as a result of my action said antag didn't have any less or more fun since they were dead anyways but i was satisfied to have my investigation conclude succesfully. And please, no one had ever said "rules should not be followed". Rules should be followed although in that case i wasn't thinking i was doing anything against rules. Although i really wasn't, only your judgement purely decided that what i was doing is wrong. I have never seen any admins accused of favoritism for being lenient. However I have a feeling of opposite case to favoritism regarding me.

Do answer regarding me breaking rule 7 please. I am eager to learn how does it apply to me since i was a member of security and was entirely doing my job. Are there more unwritten rules?

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests