Citadel Community

BYOND ckey: Raeschen
Character name: Raeschen
Discord username (+user id): Raeschen#9563
How long have you played on Citadel?: Since end of Jan/start of Feb 2017, just shy of 6 months.
How long have you played SS13?: As above, this server is my first.
What is your timezone/general hours of activity?: Timezone is GMT, general hours of activity can vary - up to about 4-6+ hours a day peak.
Previous SS13 related admin experience: None
Previous non-SS13 related admin experience: Host of a tf2 server a very long time ago. ~6 months staffing on Icefuse SWRP server (Reached Administrator rank)
Reason for application: Desire to be of assistance to a community and a server that one's time is enjoyed in very much. 

Below you will be required to describe how you would handle a handful of scenarios that may or may not require admin intervention. 
For every scenario, describe your personal opinion of the intentions of the player(s), whether you think you should intervene, and how you would initiate an intervention with the player(s) if you decide to.

There are technically no "correct" answers for this, but you will be judged on how you respond to these questions.
You observe two players having a fist-fight in the bar. Player 1 puts Player 2 into critical condition, and then Player 1 quickly leaves the bar to go heal them-self. Checking their attack logs, you find that neither of them had any interaction before they started fighting. Checking their say logs however, you discover that both of them got in a verbal confrontation that got very heated, and that Player 2 both initiated the confrontation and threw the first punch. How do you proceed?

Such a situation can be described as 'realistic' i.e. in real life, people engage in verbal confrontations that evolve into fights all the time, and thus such an action would be considered IC/RP and not really a violation of the rules. In the case of this being an observed situation, this would be left.
If such a situation was ahelped by player 1 (As is described loosely as the victim), response would depend on checking antag status of player 2. In both cases, a response to player 1 would be that it is an IC issue, however if player 2 is not an antag, monitoring may be required. It'd be important to not reveal the checked antag status of player 2, to player 1. 


You observe one player acting suspiciously and decide to watch them. While watching, you discover that they are a new player with less than a day of time on the server. You also discover that they haven't said anything for the entire round. Their contents include a full set of tools, and not much else. While watching they spend their time breaking into unsecure areas like the bar back room, hydroponics, the chapel office, EVA. How do you proceed?

An absolute first step in this situation would be to verify if their actions are valid or not. If they are an antag, then all the described actions i.e. having tools, breaking into rooms might be part of their objective. 
In the case that such actions are not valid, then some rule violations may be in place, such as Rule 9 part 3, however once again, Rule 9 part 5 must be observed. It'd be assumed in such a situation that absolute confirmation of foul play by the player is required before informing them or warning them - and there are a good few reasons why they might be valid in their actions. 


You observe Player 1 who is a scientist building a combat mech. When they're finished, they allow Player 2 who is their friend and an assistant to come and take the combat mech out of the department. Later, Player 2 gets into a fight with security over the possession of the combat mech, and decides to try killing the security players but fails and is killed by security instead. How do you proceed?

Once again, validity of action must be confirmed. Player 1 and 2 may both be antags, in which case (providing they are communicating in-game with a traitor comms channel or PDAs) their actions could be valid and part of the game. Additionally, the act of security managing to subdue the individual, be their actions valid or not, could also be seen as an IC resolution to the situation thus not requiring administrative intervention. If the actions are blatantly invalid, a word may need to be had with the individuals on the powergaming evident in their play, however given that the issue was resolved IC, little action would need to be taken beyond a note and further observation.

This application is okay at least, my main concern here is how prone to overreaction you seem. The one recent instance that immediately comes to mind is you turning a subtlemessage asking you not to do something into a half-hour paragraph pm-fest. I guess if you could put my mind at ease about this somehow it would be helpful.

Kenzie wrote: This application is okay at least, my main concern here is how prone to overreaction you seem. The one recent instance that immediately comes to mind is you turning a subtlemessage asking you not to do something into a half-hour paragraph pm-fest. I guess if you could put my mind at ease about this somehow it would be helpful.

I'd say that this specific occurrence was a private matter and there was a lot more going on than just overreaction to a single subtlemessage. Either way i feel like that situation is resolved now.

I personally don't see it as over-reaction, more that I simply desire some kind of closure to a dispute over just leaving it void, though i can understand how it might be seen as such.

I believe that the individual in question would corroborate my claim of resolution. It wound down to a deeper-seeded misunderstanding between myself and them at the time.

Don't mean to be like, shotgunning concerning instances at you to debunk or whatever, but I also remember you flipping out once because you got blown up during end of round while everyone else was also getting blown up suspecting an admin of aiming for you specifically. Even if that was the case it's end of round who cares. Just putting this here because I recall it now and want to clarify that I haven't reached this conclusion from a single solitary instance.

Kenzie wrote: Don't mean to be like, shotgunning concerning instances at you to debunk or whatever, but I also remember you flipping out once because you got blown up during end of round while everyone else was also getting blown up suspecting an admin of aiming for you specifically. Even if that was the case it's end of round who cares. Just putting this here because I recall it now and want to clarify that I haven't reached this conclusion from a single solitary instance.

That's perfectly fair. I imagine someone worthy of serving as moderation staff should be expected to take criticism without flipping out.

I'll freely admit that yes, sometimes I get angry and passionate about things. Would this ever cloud my judgement given responsibility? I'd like to say no, however this cannot hold truth to your own perspective until proof is given. Until then, all you'd have to go on is my word. Perhaps someday I can prove this to you.

In this situation, I had ran, as a borg to a remote part of cent com at the end of round, and noticed a sudden bunch of minibombs appearing. I was trying to snag the pulse carbine in the vault for EORG shenanigens and there was no one else around me. At the time I was salty and felt targeted, however I realised afterwards that it was EORG, anything goes, and it really doesn't matter.

All I can do here is apologise for maybe getting a little bit too mouthy.

Your response here was good so I'm going to tentatively support this.

I'm willing to vouch for Raeschen being a mod. I've known him for a bit now, good dude. Notes are clean and I think he'd make a good mod.

We're all human. We've had our bad and our good times. If the person cares about the server, that's probably the hardest thing to "teach". The rest can come with time and effort. Not like we're all perfect angels 24/7.

Raeschen a good boy. uwu

Okay I will accept this.

---

Accepted as of 7/19/2017.