[R3dtaile] Punchies735 - Main Perma Ban

[Pandora]

The event that brought this ban into place, where he says ""Technically borg's can't NOT consent" feels double-edged. It feels like more of a joke to me, rather than a statement that you're allowed to non-con borgs with law 2 (Because you're not.) I understand it made someone feel uncomfortable, but I don't feel like that was the intent at all. I wasn't there, so I don't have much more to say about it.

From the Main rules themself

Harassing another player with unwanted ERP is a first-time permabannable offence. If you do not have consent from another player, either IC or OOC, you will be banned; and an appeal will be unlikely

As you can tell by how harsh the punishments for breaking this rule are, it's a topic that's taken very seriously by staff. Even if it was "just a joke", it's still a very contentious thing to say.

[Punchies735]

The joke went too far, it was entirely wrong of me to joke about consent. It's a serious topic, and can easily make people uncomfortable. I've apologized to the AI who made the ahelp, although I haven't been able to contact the borg, I do wish to apologize to them as well. It was an inappropriate way to try and fulfill my objectives and won't be doing it again. In the future, if I ever intend to do something lewd to another character, I will always make sure to ask them LOOCly beforehand. I haven't been on the best behavior, but I regret my actions, and I promise that I'll be avoiding this in the future.

[DeltaFire]

Sadly, with something in that area of problem having happened before, yet having been repeated despite you saying that wouldn't happen, I cannot simply believe that you are going to change and are just out of thin air going to stop with borderline creepy stuff or rule 9 breaks.
Therefore, I am not in favor of supporting this. Rule 9 is one of the most seriously taken rules after all, too.

[derkuleen]

I don’t know yall, im torn. While I understand the reason behind the ban im still iffy on the idea that it should remain permanent. Given a period of time to let the punishment sink in who are we to say that no change is possible? Whats more is, while many of these instances of toeing the line exist in some sense theres yet to be any major ahelps telling “hey this guy makes me uncomfortable” or the like I cant recall any recent LOOC that has the same effect. I understand where the argument is coming from in regards to the rule break but I feel like its very flimsy. I don’t think they should get off free, but I also don’t think its fair to end it here. I strongly feel that the ban length should be shortened to 2 weeks up to a month, time start upon resolution of this thread, in place of a perma ban. Repeat behavior upon return would be immediately obvious and easy to deal with. I find it odd when so many players who act in rather toxic manners in the community see so much leniency but other receive none as evidenced here.

[Kat]

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.

[deathride58]

After a while of thought and deliberation, this ban won't be lifted without a vouch from a reputable server, preferably one that's stricter on this topic than we are (For example, VOREstation, TGStation, Yogstation, Colonial Marines, etc. Basically any server with either a strict "no erp" rule or a strict "no prefbreaks, period" rule). If you're able to exist for a prolonged period of time in an environment with higher standards than us, then we'll have confidence that you've reformed. It's important to note that a fairly lengthy history of your past behavior has played a major factor in this ban being placed. The usual punishment for violations of the "don't be a creep" rule is a straight-up community ban across all of our servers, typically completely unappealable due to the nature of the rule. So historically, this is the lightest punishment anyone's ever gotten for violation of the rule in question. Please don't make me regret allowing a vouch in this specific instance, and I wish you the best of luck on your future endeavors.

Also, @Kat: You're looking at a very outdated rules page (up-to-date ruleset found here) and are ignoring the fact that knowingly causing a huge ruckus (without your partner's consent) regarding things you OOCly consented to but don't consent to ICly was ruled as a violation of "don't be a dick" (not "don't be a creep"), a ruling that has stayed consistent across both servers ever since it's originally had to be enforced on Citadel RP. Additionally, things under additional info are not actual rules, they are examples and clarifications regarding the rule itself. In the case of the line "Non-consensual scenes that are agreed to out of character are not protected and liable to any in character repercussions.", this is referring primarily to the consequences that may occur if someone stumbles across the scene without going out of their way to look for it, or if the dominant agrees to the scene's presence being made public (whether it be by actually doing it in public, allowing the submissive to shout over radio, or otherwise consenting to having potential bystanders). While I hate noncon, it's important to note that a lot of the folks that do it on server do it primarily to get their rocks off, saying in LOOC "yeah you can do noncon on my character" but leaving out "but only if you're alright with me calling for sec the moment i'm free" is kind of a dick move, and there are numerous instances where this has happened with the intent of banbaiting (or in the specific context of RP, PKbaiting) or otherwise causing OOC drama for the sake of causing drama. Also, the rules page is far from being an exhaustive list; SS13 is way too dynamic of a game for most rulings to remain consistent from situation to situation. Rules that apply in one situation might not apply at all in another, cases where rules have been violated may be waived under very specific cases, and sometimes there's cases where certain rulings simply aren't written in the rules, whether it be due to the ruling being an extremely rare circumstance, or due to the ruling being in way too specific of a situation (which, let's face it, the majority of dont-be-a-dick violations stemming from oocly-consented noncon going wrong are fairly specific situations). As for "admins can change rules when they want", they can't; changes to the rules require very thorough discussion prior, which means the rules page usually doesn't have many changes. This is the same reason why Izzy's rule overhaul is as big of a deal as it is, as the current draft goes into detail about quite a few rulings, and the structure along with the tech backing it up makes writing down rulings a lot easier than they currently are. All that being said, please keep armchair ruleslawyering out of the appeals section, as the historic precedence has shown that the appealing party is far more likely to end up with a harsher punishment with the more people there are in the thread that aren't involved in the actual ruling.

[Putnam]

Buns of steel was added and I removed it and replaced it with a proper pref because a good section of the community is uncomfortable with random ass slapping, yes, and this is pretty well-known.