[Main] Auris456852 - Questionable Ban

[Ragolution]

BYOND Name of complaint against: Auris456852

Your BYOND name:

Date of issue and round ID: N/A

Reason for complaint:

Despite the short duration and being a very 'soft' punishment, I don't feel that this ban was appropriate. I'm not seeing anything here that would justify him being punished other than a lot of butthurt from players who would inevitably AdminPM and complain about it. Clowns slipping people during Red Alert can certainly be seen as over-the-line, certainly, as it's obstructing gameplay, but punishing him for spraying people with dye doesn't seem to fall under any specific rule and just seems to be something triggered by public outrage instead of some kind of infraction of the rules.

At the very least, I would like some further insight into the matter as, at first blush, banning a clown for doing very clown-centric things would be just about as silly as noting the mime for stealing a cake from the kitchen, but far worse.

[auris456852]

While I actually don't personally feel too strongly about the prank I actually had to ban over and would've honestly just let it slide, I was told that we do, in fact, punish people for this sort of thing... And if you apply it for one person, gotta apply it for the rest.
It's mainly due to how difficult it is to reverse - it's easier to fix having your hair shaved off and shoes stolen than it is to restore your hair color, oddly, despite how it normally works IRL. Wherein you can regrow your hair instantly at a mirror, precise hair color changes currently require a competent geneticist. Were it otherwise, it'd have never been a concern at all and just be an IC issue. As it is, a round-long mark just for a so-called "funny prank" on random people across the station isn't cool.

The rule applied would be rule 1 - bit of a stretch even by my own standards and there is a possibility that the Clown didn't even know it's as difficult to fix as it as ahead of time, but still. If it wasn't for all the previous notes (which I've mentioned in the very appeal you linked) and the rather short time gap between the supposed "last warning" and the time of the event, I'd let them off with a warning and note at most. It's a soft punishment that's only really supposed to tell them to think about their pranks a bit before they do them.
Maybe I could've gone for 1 day, come to think of it.

I know it sounds unfair, to ban someone over simply coloring someone's hair, which is a prank I'm rather sure some people would even do IRL, but mechanically, that's how it is. With hope, an easier option to change hair color will be added shortly, for all your color-changing shenanigans.

[Redtail]

At present, dying hair is only fixable through genetics. It's not like you can run to the mirror and change your hair color. People are attached to their schracters, and someone forcibly changing them is a distinct infringement of our don't be a dick rule, because of how difficult it is to fix. It's kind of grieffy towards players, and just because rules are somewhat relaxed for clowns and mimes, doesn't mean that you're allowed to grief with them or be a dick to other players.

[Ragolution]

To be blunt, I don't feel strongly about it, either. You can easily shoot holes in my little complaint by saying I don't play on the server. My original hope was that there was some detail I was missing, but I honestly don't believe that to be the case, at this point. I find a change in hair color to be intensely minor, especially on a server that was once so aggressively over-the-top and ridiculous.

My main problem is that I don't consider this violation to fall under the purview of 'grief', under any circumstance, and I really don't enjoy being a rules-lawyer towards the people who are meant to enforce those rules. There's a list of examples there and I'm not seeing it come under the categories there; It isn't spamming, randomly attacking people, exploiting a bug or causing damage to the station (etc). Redtail's response simply reinforces me to think that this was something done in kneejerk response to a sudden burst of public outrage because of their character's traits being unexpectedly changed.

I most certainly think this is not even close to the things we've put on the level of Rule 1, in the past, and cannot be compared to things like forced race changes, which I absolutely agree do fall under considerations of Rule 1. Your point in saying the clown wasn't even aware it was so difficult to fix sort-of reinforces that. It's certainly a mistake I, myself, could have made. And it's important to realize he didn't use the Colourful Reagent which is far easier to make, and far more disruptive. ("Grieffy", if you will.)

I'm under the understanding that it was his 'last warning', but coming from the inside, I often know how the admin team can be 'looking for' punishments. It's not as if I expect you to get removed from the team for this, as it's relatively minor, but it was something that drew me to concern. Maybe, at best, I'll force you to reflect on the ban, which is what my real intention was.

Furthermore, Rule 1 has this nasty habit of a constantly moving bar. If you really think that this falls under the domain of Rule 1, I think a lot of this could be avoided if there was some kind of documented list where everyone could see all of the previous Rule 1-based punishments so they can get an idea of what isn't kosher.

The exampled list on the Rules page is extremely limited, and I know for a fact that having that information available cannot do more harm than good. The sole argument that can be made is that people will 'rules lawyer', but even despite that, giving the community an idea of past decisions is good for public health. Courts in the real world backlog all and every case they handle so they can keep records on what falls under the umbrella of jurisprudence and precedent. Saying people will 'rules lawyer' because of that is akin to complaining about being held accountable. There's always arguments that can be made against precedence, especially if the server has changed in some major way, and I understand the hesitance to add further clerical bullshit to the ban process, but I truly think it would be very helpful.

[Redtail]

The rules are presently being worked on, but there's far too many possibilities in the game for there to be a conclusive list. It's a safe bet that if your "prank" is going to near-permanently alter someone's character sprite , because people are attached to their sprite, you shouldn't do it (Hell, we'eve even had to yell at antags for doing it as well. It's proven to be very frowned on. Note how we've changed changeling sting from being a permanent change to a temporary change.
Sure, a list of examples would be helpful, but there's too many possibilities and most importantly of all, context matters. I understand you don't personally think it's a bannable offense, but a lot of the present admin team does, because it is in fact griefy with how the code is presently done. If hair dye was easy to fix, it wouldn't be as frowned upon, but that's not how it is, so it's ruled as being a dick and a form of griefing. The clown is not a license to grief, and if more people understood that we probably wouldn't have issues such as these.

[auris456852]

Anyone to completely blow off a complaint solely because someone doesn't play is silly. You're silly.
Anyhow... As much as it used to be all that you say, coincidentally, it's the exact opposite that drew me here. It's calmer than some of the places I've been to before.

Admittedly, it can be rather difficult to make a completely fair and impartial decision, when you have people yelling from all sides for a punishment to be applied. Even if you try not to pay attention, they'll still be somewhere there in the background. But I'd like to believe that I tried my best to be at least mostly so, with what I had on hand.
That said, sometimes, you needn't look to just the side parts, but also to the main rule. As it defines griefing, "Griefing is deliberately irritating or angering another player using aspects of the game in unintended ways."... And, reading this, it's clear that it was, at most, partially deliberate, due to them not knowing that dye here is actually really hard to remove, but they did intentionally apply it, which would mean that I could really rule it either way. Looking at it from here, with no other context, applying the ban would make me look like an asshole.

I am afraid I have to disagree on Colorful Reagent being more disruptive. Sure, it makes a big mess that you have to clean and might change an entire character's color for a while, but it can be cleaned by about anything that cleans, so it's really not much worse, if at all, than a glitter bomb if used to color rooms and a pie to the face if used on people. I literally just tested to make sure - cleaner, soap, shower, they all can clean it just fine.

Yeah, punishing someone for something they were unaware of is actually kinda really shitty, when it's over something that isn't even very clear from just reading the rules alone. Someone could argue that they could've known if they looked into its properties, but still. I'd love to look into all previous warnings they had personally, to make sure none of it was questionable before I took action, so I could then, with a clear mind, just give them another warning instead of nervously handing out a punishment just for the sake of the previous warning not losing its meaning, but that would've taken a lot of time to do before actually handling the ahelp(s), so I can only really hope they were. They'd hopefully be appealed and removed otherwise.
If the appeal wasn't enough already to reflect on it, this would be the icing on the cake. I'm sorry you feel it was completely unacceptable, but the decision has been made and confirmed with other admins to make sure. We may only hope no one will get punished for hair coloring again, because it just sounds silly.

A statbus sorta thing would most likely be a nice thing to have on one hand - means people would know all the bans. Could've sworn we had one, really. On the other, some people may not want everyone to know why they were yeeted. Ultimately not up to me to decide, though - I wouldn't be the one making it, and one that's updated manually would likely end up really disorganized really quickly.

[Ragolution]

No worries. Thanks for taking the time to read and respond to my grievance. I know the Statbus was taken down at some point for a weird reason that made me sus, but I suppose there's nothing for it.

[kevinz000]

Statbus was taken down due to a security hole by the host, just for the record. I've tried to get in contact with people for a working version but right now public bans are dead I guess, even if some other parts work.

[Fractious]

I'll be closing this complaint for now since I believe it has been properly answerered.

Rag re-apply for min already.