Slayerhero90 - Staff Application

[Slayerhero90]

BYOND ckey: Slayerhero90
Character name: Coriander Maddock (Zephyrine Courtemanche before)
Discord username (+user id): Slayerhero90#5845
How long have you played on Citadel?: My first run went from the first days of October 2015 and ran until about late January/early February 2016, with a break around December in which I spent a bit of time on a private server running Citadel's code. My second significant run was for about half a month, I believe, contained within the month of December 2016. I'm currently on my third significant run, which started in late October 2017, just before we got the Halloween races.
How long have you played SS13?: I started back in... I'm gonna say about the spring/late winter of 2014? Pretty sure it wasn't before 2014 started, and wouldn't have been later.
What is your timezone/general hours of activity?: I live in the Mountain Time Zone, but since I don't have a job or school or anything, my sleep schedule creeps very steadily forwards and I stay up later and later every night/day, so at some times, I'll be able to deal with the day crowd, and at others, the night crowd
Previous SS13 related admin experience: Not much, but I was a game master on that private server mentioned above, so I have a bit of familiarity with the relevant panels, at least.
Previous non-SS13 related admin experience: None, I'm afraid.
Current administrators who have agreed to support your application: None. Hope that isn't an app-killer.
Reason for application: This is among the few communities I've played in where all the admins aren't... y'know, distant, non-player observers. That's how it was when I first started here and it still applies today, and I want to help keep that going. It seems to be a little less like that now than it used to. The only other community I can think of where I have recent evidence of the admins regularly mingling with the playerbase ingame is Virgo, and that place never holds my attention for long.

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?

Large chunks of this  reflect what I'd do regardless of who involved, if anyone, adminhelps.

This seems like reasonable escalation to me, regardless of antag status. It's not a pleasant conclusion for an argument to result in a critting, but the first punch had contextual reason to be thrown and it just naturally got met with another punch. And thus both parties consented to a sincere fight and it ended at a reasonable conclusion. This is, of course, assuming that neither party tried to actively disengage after the punches were thrown. That would change things a little, depending on when either party tried to bail. So the fight itself? Not worthy of intervention.

...Unless Player 1 was, like, sec or a head and had the means to incapacitate Player 2 without resorting to critting them and leaving them for dead. That there, it'd be reasonable to inquire as to why they got so violent. Definitely perma-jobban this fool if this is in their history and they don't have a good excuse like, say, "given Player 2 had traitor equipment, I thought he was a traitor actively trying to kill me and not just a miscreant who'd stolen traitor gear". At the very least, a security-role Player 1 should have /said/ something on public or security comms after battle.

...Or unless Player 2 has a history of starting fights like this, where I'd have to talk to them about playing aggressive characters right and in a fashion that doesn't make people avoid shifts when you're on and complain about you. I'd message them nicely, within reason, and after giving them a little time to cool off. Because someone who just got they ass handed to 'em doesn't need a snide admin up in their business. My tone would change, though (professional but unsympathetic), if they continually refuse to treat me with respect. If others have already talked to Player 2 about this, a temporary ban might be in order, or perhaps just a temp character ban. 'Put that character through some off-site anger management courses.

It's the aftermath where I've more reason to intervene, and more reason to alter my decision based on if anyone adminhelped. If nobody adminhelps? I don't think I'd intervene at all. The loser clearly doesn't have any interest in getting the staff involved, and I'm content to leave that call in the hands of the one most hurt by this event.

If Player 1 adminhelps, trying to clear their name or just asking what to do? I'd reassure them that thus far, they hadn't done anything seriously against the rules, but I'd also be sure to advise them that they should see to it that Player 2 gets brought to medbay and healed if they want to be wholly in the right as an upstanding non-antag. If the player then refused to comply with my advice without good reason, I'd add a note that, when asking an admin what to do, they refused the advice given to them, showing a disappointing lack of commitment to the act of clearing their name, as well as warn them that asking the admins' advice and refusing that advice is a waste of admin time and faith.

Now if Player 2 adminhelps, and doesn't have a history of this kinda shit, I'd be, again, cordial to the loser of this scuffle, but inform them that this was a predictable and reasonable response to Player 2's actions. But other than that, I wouldn't do anything. The bar is a very public place and even if the critted Player 2 dies of their injuries, they'll most likely be found and brought to medbay.

The only remaining issue I can think of is if Player 1 actively interfered with the healing of Player 2, either by trying to get medical staff to not treat Player 2 or going back and finishing the job. That's  murder without even the flimsy justification Player 1 would have had if Player 1 kept beating Player 2 until dead and /then/ went to heal themself. Extracting one's self from the situation after almost-lethally pacifying a foe, only to re-involve one's self to the point the foe is ensured dead, merits a warning and a note, assuming no history of overkill.

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?

This does not require my involvement yet at all. The actions committed are illegal within IC laws and seemingly aimless and almost like lame griefing, and could well be the struggling of a super-new player to comprehend how to play SS13 (we are public, after all), but they haven't, y'know, caused any problems meriting admin intervention. If I had the time at my disposal or someone said something via adminhelp, I'd send them a friendly message asking if they're new to SS13 (unfortunately a little condescending, I know, but it's efficient) and if so, verify that they're familiar with server rules and expectations, but in doing so mention that they haven't yet done anything against the rules.

I'll get involved when they start stealin' high-security shit and nobody ICly intervenes.

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?

This heap of bad, I need to take piece by piece.

The first thing of note is something I almost missed. I'm going to assume that by "scientist", what's meant is the specific job "Scientist" and not "someone who works in research". As such, a non-Roboticist, non-RD building a combat mech, whether or not but especially if active players /are/ occupying those roles-- it's cause for awareness, but not alarm. It's not unreasonable to /build/ a combat mech for, say, mining's use on the dangerous hellscape known as lavaland, and it's definitely not unreasonable for a scientist to fill in for an absent roboticist. Same department.

Giving the mech to an assistant, though... well, the wording of the prompt has multiple possible implications (like "Hey assistant, get this puppy over to mining for me." "Okaaay--" 
*lying through teeth*) but given the actual course of events in the prompt, the only difference is whether I should be talking to the scientist about metabuddies or about unbridled optimism, both of which would come alongside a note detailing what they allowed to happen. Of course, if there's a history of this degree of metabuddying, especially if it extends beyond Player 1's occupation as a scientist, I believe there'd be cause to slap a day ban from the server on the scientist rather than a department ban. Of course, this will all only happen as a result of what Player 2 did; if Player 1 gave the mech to an assistant for no good reason and the assistant then surrendered the mech to sec when prompted, I wouldn't get on Player 1's ass for it.

So then Player 2 gets in a fight with sec. I believe there's a line somewhere when not cooperating with sec where one goes from acceptable miscreancy to self-antagging, and that line is without a doubt crossed when Player 2 decides that, rather than surrender the mech or try and escape (starting a manhunt itself could be counted as self-antagging too, I'm aware)-- it's crossed when Player 1 tries to kill non-antag crew for doing their job. Maybe it's a panic reaction but it's still against the rules (and someone whose instinct is to kill innocents trying to take their illegal toys shouldn't be in possession of these things in the first place).

Since the prompt doesn't say sec did anything wrong here, the most I'm gonna do to the security players who killed this fool is ask them their perceptions on the event, just to get their take on things.

As for Player 2... Well, a move must be made, and whichever move comes first governs how I'll handle this.
- If Player 2 leaves after dying, either before I can message 'em or ignoring my messages, I believe a permaban is in order, asking them to appeal on the forums.
- If Player 2 messages me before I can message them:
-- and Player 2 is complaining about shitcurity, I'm slapping that three-day sever ban for griefing by way of self-antagging on them, and instructing them to cool off in the interim. This assumes there is no prior history of this shit. If there is, I'm dealing a permaban.
-- and Player 2 is aware they've fucked up and cooperating with me, I'd inquire as to their reasoning while investigating whether they have a history of this behavior or not. I'd like to take what appears to be penitence at face value but I'm well aware of the existence of the kind of person who does bad and emptily apologizes and tries to make nice about to to cut losses. So if:
--- Player 2 has a history of this severe grade of behavior, I think a permaban from the server is due. It's griefing and it's griefing they've been guilty of before.
--- Player 2 has never done this before, I'd see the extent to which Player 2 understands what they've done wrong before sympathetically informing them that, since they did break a pretty serious rule but they were chill about it, I'd have to temporarily server ban them, at the very least as an assurance that they'll come back definitively cooled off-- though I'd ask any other active staff for their opinion on procedure first. But if none could weigh in? Maybe I'm being too merciful here, but my inclination is to dispense either a three-hour ban so they miss at least one shift or a dayban, depending on the degree of their cooperation.
- If, after giving them a couple-minute grace period, I have to message first, roughly the same will occur, except:
-- I'll be more inclined to hand out a dayban to a cooperative Player 2 than a three-hour ban.

But if they were antags?
- If the scientist was an antag and Player 2 didn't know about that or also was an antag, I wouldn't get involved unless a victim of Player 2's resistance or Player 2 'emself adminhelped. Giving some nobody a big conspicuous toy they shouldn't have makes for a great distraction! And then if Player 2 wasn't an antag, I'd normally not get involved, but an attempt was made to kill non-antags as a non-antag, so the punishments described in the tree above would pretty much be doled out the same way.
- If Player 2 was an antag, I'd tell any ahelping members of sec "it's been addressed" and deal no punishment to Player 2. 'Cause in Player 2's case, that's either an antag getting really lucky with a bad scientist (see far above course of action for dealing with the scientist) or the collusion of antags and no sin on Player 2's part.

And of course, any warnings or bans doled out would be accompanied by notes. Good bookkeeping is crucial for keeping dipshits from being permitted to just repeat the same rulebreakings over and over again.

EDITED FOR READABILITY

[cebutris]

These are really fleshed out answers and I can't find anything wrong of note. I haven't seen you around at all but at the same time I haven't been all that active. I wouldn't be opposed to seeing how you do

[Kenzie]

to be honest i remember you from back when i actually used to play, and as long as you would be active i think this would be a pretty good idea

[Jay]

Approved.

[Slayerhero90]

thanksies. i won't letcha down

[Kersakof]

I don't know um, which means they aren't a troublemaker.

[A.Echard]

Answers seem good. Don't have memory of you being a troublemaker, and I think you're alright to have on board.

[Ruby Flamewing]

CHEEKI BREEKI I V DAMKE

...shit, wrong application.
They be good. Remember nothing bad, is good thing. Give them chance, see how it goes.