[Main] H.I.Jinxy

Nayser
Junior Member
Posts: 29
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2020 2:04 am
Contact:

Re: [Main] H.I.Jinxy

Post by Nayser »

Just a quick update. Even though what I was noted for wasn't really against server rules and whats generally accepted in game at the time, the new rules have a lot that says what I did was okay.
From rule 7 Powergaming: If no one is around to stop a hostile threat, it is not validhunting to do it yourself.
This cannot be more clear.
I feel there should be a trial admin guideline in future to avoid simmiliar situations that say: "Trial admins MUST work with other admins when dealing with players"
This would help avoid some people enforcing their personal view of the game and rules on the server.

zI-H482
Member
Posts: 96
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2020 7:36 pm
Contact:

Re: [Main] H.I.Jinxy

Post by zI-H482 »

As it stands right now, this is something for an appeal and not complaint. I cannot see any particular problem with HiJanxy’s conduct in what you’ve written nor in a cursory review of the logs of the round and, while disagreements about rules and administrative actions do happen as the staff team is only human, a disagreement or even a misinterpretation does not mean they’ve conducted themselves in a way that’s unbecoming of an admin.

From what I can tell, you had to have taken a circuitous around the station from Xenobiology to be able to see them at the Armory afterwards on Meta, which would be the exact opposite direction of someone simply trying to get back onto the station from either Departures or Arrivals. As well, the logs only say that they fired a laser after you said they were breaking in. While the logs aren’t very good at capturing hostile motion without shots fired or hits landed, it does seem like you forced a confrontation with the antagonist. (34:00 on the dot when you announced the break-in versus 34:33 when they make their first shot.)

This isn’t to say an appeal couldn’t pass because breaking into the armory is pretty serious business. However, the part of rule 7 you quoted is not immediately exculpatory because if trying to stop the threat is what made them hostile, it’s a tough sell to say you were stopping them *because* they were hostile. You could say that it couldn’t be clearer that they were hostile because they tried breaking into Xenobiology from space (as part of their objective to nab a slime extract if there was still confusion about why they did it), but that’s also an arguable point, not a willful ignorance of the rules and precedent.

As well, our staff team is a small one and we don’t have a formal process for training trial admins. Without a radical change in size and scope of the server, we are not likely to introduce one. So, as it stands right now, if we cannot trust a trialmin to have the self-awareness to know when to reach out to other staff, we would simply not trust them with the position to begin.

Nayser
Junior Member
Posts: 29
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2020 2:04 am
Contact:

Re: [Main] H.I.Jinxy

Post by Nayser »

Sorry for mixing up complaints and appeals then, I was thinking appeals are for when you agree you did something bad. I don't remember situation that well anymore sadly because it has taken a fairly long time for this to be reviewed but I often mix up stations and take wrong turns since different stations tend to have arrivals and escape on opposite sides, also at that time I was trying to meet the miner at arrivals which for me was completely opposite side of station so it didn't matter much which turn I took, i just went where i felt like is the shortest way. I think if you dig up logs you'll see me messaging a miner to meet up.
zI-H482 wrote:
Sat Aug 14, 2021 10:57 am
As well, the logs only say that they fired a laser after you said they were breaking in. While the logs aren’t very good at capturing hostile motion without shots fired or hits landed, it does seem like you forced a confrontation with the antagonist. (34:00 on the dot when you announced the break-in versus 34:33 when they make their first shot.)
I don't see why it seems like I forced the confrontation, unless me alarming everyone about break in is a way to force it. All I can tell you is if i did try to stop them first, they would not have laser guns in the first place, but i was simply observing instead and since i was able to see it i'm sure you can tell i was close enough to reach to attack first, especially while they are occupied breaking down a wall. I kinda let them do it because i didn't think they'll start shooting me once they get guns.

The antagonist though repeatedly proven that he attacks crew not for objective but just out of malice, he was absolutely looking to attack as many people as possible from what I saw, that I can remember well enough. I'm not saying thats completely wrong since it's antag. But this note basicly implies if we have no one to protect us, antags are free to attack us and we are not allowed to retalliate, which is just stupid.
Also, this note is very irrelevant with new server rules and may end up affecting an admin decision if i will have to speak to some one again if i do something possibly wrong. If previously it was implied we can protect ourselves if there's no one to do it, now it's very clearly written we are allowed to deal with a threat.

zI-H482
Member
Posts: 96
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2020 7:36 pm
Contact:

Re: [Main] H.I.Jinxy

Post by zI-H482 »

Appeals are for appealing decisions, for when you want a second opinion or think there ought to be a different decision on an administrative action. Complaints are for lodging a complaint, for when you think someone’s done something wrong and require a headmin to examine it.

The reason I brought up the possibility of reading it as confrontation was in case this was a genuine complaint. As for how it could be seen as forcing a confrontation, they chased you off once only for you to announce their crimes and quickly show back up; you have may have thought they’d choose flight, but it’s possible to read this situation as a baited fight. I am not the only admin who has looked into this situation and gotten that impression.

The bar for appealing a note is pretty high. Our long-standing policy for their appeal is we only accept them if there’s something factually incorrect about the note, if they’re missing critical information, if they’re worded in an unintelligible way or if the decision was incorrect and it was a warning. Concerns about it effecting a future admin decision is not grounds for an appeal. As well, if this note was under the previous ruleset (which I have been told it was) those previous rules were a fair bit more exacting and had a general onus to try to escape and survive so my decision as a headmin is, if to be viewed as an appeal of a note given under the previous rules, it doesn’t pass.

I will note that there is more room under the current rules for taking action in place of Security if the department is absent. The previous rules didn’t really take that possibility into account to their detriment.

Nayser
Junior Member
Posts: 29
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2020 2:04 am
Contact:

Re: [Main] H.I.Jinxy

Post by Nayser »

zI-H482 wrote:
Fri Aug 20, 2021 2:09 am
Appeals are for appealing decisions, for when you want a second opinion or think there ought to be a different decision on an administrative action. Complaints are for lodging a complaint, for when you think someone’s done something wrong and require a headmin to examine it.

The reason I brought up the possibility of reading it as confrontation was in case this was a genuine complaint. As for how it could be seen as forcing a confrontation, they chased you off once only for you to announce their crimes and quickly show back up; you have may have thought they’d choose flight, but it’s possible to read this situation as a baited fight. I am not the only admin who has looked into this situation and gotten that impression.

The bar for appealing a note is pretty high. Our long-standing policy for their appeal is we only accept them if there’s something factually incorrect about the note, if they’re missing critical information, if they’re worded in an unintelligible way or if the decision was incorrect and it was a warning. Concerns about it effecting a future admin decision is not grounds for an appeal. As well, if this note was under the previous ruleset (which I have been told it was) those previous rules were a fair bit more exacting and had a general onus to try to escape and survive so my decision as a headmin is, if to be viewed as an appeal of a note given under the previous rules, it doesn’t pass.

I will note that there is more room under the current rules for taking action in place of Security if the department is absent. The previous rules didn’t really take that possibility into account to their detriment.
So you're saying a really questionable note in context of previous rules and completely wrong in context of new rules is going to stay? I don't remember exact previous rules anymore but it was common knowledge that if antag goes super-aggressive and there's no sec or command to stop him, people are free to do it. It was just made more clear with new rules.
Besides i still cannot see how observing from relatively far distance is baiting, especially when i'm doing nothing when i absolutely had the opportunity. Like at this point i clearly show i'm not gonna do anything to you besides saying you did bad if you don't touch me. How is this baiting, i genuinely cannot comprehend.

If removing it is not an option than at least please slightly change the note by additing to it information that this note was applied with old rules and is no longer relevant with new rules. I don't want it to be used against me in the future just because some one won't even know it's a note that is no longer relevant.

Nayser
Junior Member
Posts: 29
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2020 2:04 am
Contact:

Re: [Main] H.I.Jinxy

Post by Nayser »

While i still remember. I'm probably repeating my self but conflict on citadel was always a thing. Non-antag crewmembers often killed and critted each other in the past and still do. Conflict was always a part of citadel fun. In situation regarding this note, antag started a conflict with me when he decided to try to kill me. Are antagonists exempt from rules regarding conflict?

"Players are allowed and encouraged to spark reasonable in-character conflict."
This is from current server rules, rule 8. I believe in previous server rules there was also something simmiliar written.
There was however never written that non-sec crew aren't allowed to act vengefully against antagonists. There's just so many reasons why this note is wrong in my eyes.

zI-H482
Member
Posts: 96
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2020 7:36 pm
Contact:

Re: [Main] H.I.Jinxy

Post by zI-H482 »

There is not a lot about in-character conflict in the previous rules, with the term “conflict” itself reserved for law conflicts in Silicon Policy. There are blurbs about needing a strong reason to murder people as a non-antagonist scattered around, but the previous rule for validhunting was fairly strict. You were only allowed to attack antagonists if you or someone near you were under direct and immediate threat. Furthermore, it stated that the “general rule of thumb is that if it's not your job to directly confront an antagonist, your goal should be to survive and escape, not to try to kill or subdue them.” While it also says that parts of the rule can be ignored under a station-wide emergency and within reason, what parts of the rule and what constitutes reasonable wasn’t ever stated.

I know the question you’re asking about whether antagonists are exempt from usual rules regarding conflict is rhetorical, but the answer under the previous ruleset was yes, unambiguously. If an antagonist shot you with a gun and stole stuff off your lifeless body, it would have been validhunting to craft a spear and try to get back at them outside of a self-defense situation if you weren’t Security and if there wasn’t a station-wide emergency.

Yes, the old rule was bad, not only leaving far too much entirely up to admin discretion and leading to very inconsistent and spotty enforcement, but also not really meshing with what a gameplay server should be about. However, the new rules are more than just a restatement of the old ones and are meant to better reflect what all consider reasonable and appropriate for Citadel.

I will add that this note was given to you under the previous ruleset to avoid any confusion and to allay any concerns related to that. If there’s no other decisions you require a headmin to be making in regards to this note, I will be marking this as resolved.

Nayser
Junior Member
Posts: 29
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2020 2:04 am
Contact:

Re: [Main] H.I.Jinxy

Post by Nayser »

I will just say that the antag in question was starting to prove to be hostile to everyone and seeking to do far more chaos than objectives, such antags can be considered station wide threat and are okay to be dealt with especially in context of no security whatsoever. I can definitely remember in old rules it was written somewhere that if some one proving to be a station wide threat, it's okay to deal with them. Thats one more reason I believe this note is wrong.
In a way, when I approached and observed them near armory, letting them continue to cut into it, it was me saying, "Hey, i see you're doing naughty but i'm not gonna touch you." In which case they tried to kill me, confirming they were attacking everyone and not targetting people/items for objectives.

Another reason: This note exists entirely because i followed them in space but it seems i'm simply not believed or you are refusing to take this detail into account. I shot them off screen in a straight line and assumed they won't think fast enough to lay down to avoid getting hit, right before they were offscreen i saw they were low health. So i fired more and assumed that critted them, then i jumped after them in same trajectory to get their body back to station.

Upon arriving to first thing on the way, i saw them standing up and slowly healing, so i fired few more times to finnish them. If my assumption that they were in crit was correct, then I would simply get their body back to station and this note wouldn't exist. In another scenario if i didn't find their body, i'd realise they got up and left, so i would've went back my self to station and there once again wouldn't be a note. Even if they just reacted fast enough to me approaching and ran before i could shoot, I wouldn't follow either.

Either my intention here is completely ignored or i'm not believed.
But anyways those are last two undebunked reasons that make me believe this note is wrong.
If anything, i'll be dissapointed that it'll stay on me because i still don't think it's correct. But at least it shouldn't affect me now that it's been added that this note is irrelevant with new rules.

zI-H482
Member
Posts: 96
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2020 7:36 pm
Contact:

Re: [Main] H.I.Jinxy

Post by zI-H482 »

Right, I'm moving this one to resolved since I have no further decision to make on this one.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests