[Nabski] Unjustified Ban

PurpleWitch · Post by **PurpleWitch** » Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:40 am #462905

Byond account and character name: SpookyPurpleCat - Len Hollow
Admin: Nabski
Time and Server(Bagil or Sybil) incident occurred: Around 1:00 PM
ROUND ID HERE: 98418
Detailed summary:

I wrote this already, but it was deleted because Opera refreshed.

From the beginning, it was a regular round. Chadwick and I were both robot engineers. This was a revolutionary round, which no one knew at first. A security officer walks in, and they want augmentations. I say sure, and they get on the table, strip their gear, and I begin to grab the drapes for augmentation- then quickly Chadwick begins to flash the officer repeatedly on the table and begins to put on all of his gear. I grab the tazer on the floor, and shoot the other Roboticist with the tazer, and the other officer cuffs them. We hear on the radio that it's revs from the announcements and screaming so we assume he's a rev. The officer then tells me to force borg Chadwick the Rev, which I then do. Immediately after I borg him, he says- "Fuck you." and suicides. I ahelp this, after he was forceborged he suicided, at the time he looked like a revolutionary to us, so they were treated as an antagonist. (Act like an antagonist, get treated like one.)

Nabski then replies to me saying something like, "forceborg or voluntary?" , I reply with "force borg." , and then questions me, "did you know if they were a rev or not? did you try to check?"

The person just almost killed me and the security officer during a REVOLUTIONARY round, by flashing the security person, vulnerable on the table. Keep note that he did nothing in robotics but just watch me up to this point till he began to flash. He was treated like a revolutionary due to his actions.

The round ends, and Nabski moves on and threatens me with stuff like: https://gyazo.com/cd7040069730eb2c97f124c40b267a65 (Not in order.)

"Admin PM from-Nabski: The officers getting something more, but you're still getting part of this for being involved in something so stupid"

"PM to-Admins: Are you seriously banning me cause some dip decided it was a good idea to flash an officer?"

"Admin PM from-Nabski: Yes, pick one, week of robotics or hour from server."

I then at this point, absolutely fed up with Nabski's BS, wonder if I could ask a Headmin to call him out on his BS, which didn't work, and it was a well worth try.

He then proceeds to ban me for "admin shopping", doubling the original ban sentence by x24 when I was trying to get a Headmin to call Nabski out on his unjustified shenanigans.

I ran this through grammarly so sorry if there's still any mistakes.

MaterialisticThings · Tue Dec 18, 2018 6:25 am

I would like to start off by saying that I did not flash Harvey LeBird repeatedly I had only flashed him once according to the logs. You should've been aware that I had picked up a flash from the table and had put it in my bag since you didn't ever leave. Yes, I did flash Harvey LeBird and take off his gear and I was tazed by you and restrained. Harvey LeBird immediately wanted to have me borged instead of any other form of punishment. It was obvious that I was not a head rev since I had taken the flash from the table and you saw it. I was constantly pointing out to implant me and see that I am not a head rev and just to give me jail time. Harvey LeBird constantly wanted me to be borged instead of anything due to a past conflict I had with him 1 to 2 rounds ago where I had done the same thing but got away with it. Harvey LeBird is just trying to powergame by getting every improvement surgery at round start and I'm not a fan of that. Harvey LeBird remembered that I had formally done that to him and wanted me borged that way he didn't have to deal with me again the rest of the round. (Metagrudging) Harvey LeBird had made a blanket assumption about me and didn't make an effort to even check if I was a head rev. I am very upset that it had to end like this and I am very upset with your actions towards me on Discord. I doubt I've left anything out, but if I did I will add onto this.
'

Yakumo_Chen · Post by **Yakumo_Chen** » Tue Dec 18, 2018 6:32 am #462909

"did you know if they were a rev or not? did you try to check?"

What baffles me is how it is even remotely possible to check if someone is a revolutionary or not without an implant, which a roboticist should not be expected to be able to do.

All of the rule precedents support the robo being valid. Escalation policy supports it, as does the classic "acting like an antag, especially the same antag as the roundtype is". If you randomly fuck with people using stuns, don't whine if you get dunked. Don't suicide as borg either, you can ahelp that too.

Harvey LeBird is just trying to powergame by getting every improvement surgery at round start and I'm not a fan of that.

So you're literally admitting to you metagrudging him?????

PurpleWitch · Post by **PurpleWitch** » Tue Dec 18, 2018 6:33 am #462910

Like I said, I assumed you were a rev. I did not see you take the flash from the table, I was further more busy on giving the officer guy his augmentations, cause I had nothing better to do. I don't care or whatever metagrudge you both are taking apart of, I just don't want to be apart of it. It doesn't justify you flashing him though cause you wanted to prevent him from power gaming or whatever. I did not want to be caught up in the ban because of what the officer said, I just did what they told me to do, and was unaware about the situation except for the the fact you tried to flash a vulnerable officer on the table and tried to take his gear. That is something an antagonist would do to overtake a security officer in a crucial moment that could determine whether they get end-game'd or not. I was acting on the spot, since Brig was already seemingly overrun and trying to get an implant would just result in both the officer and me or them getting killed, so I was acting on the spot with the best options available following the attempted attack.

MaterialisticThings · Tue Dec 18, 2018 6:44 am

"What baffles me is how it is even remotely possible to check if someone is a revolutionary or not without an implant, which a roboticist should not be expected to be able to do."
Sorry if I was not clear enough, I was expecting Harvey LeBird to check which should be obvious anyways.

"So you're literally admitting to you metagrudging him?????"
No, I would do it to any officer that had that sweet loot sitting there for me.

I had taken the flash from the table before he even arrived. You partook in it and didn't think to yourself. "Hey maybe this guy is right, we should probably check if he even is a rev before we go through we this, we could be making a mistake." For you to help him borg me would make you guilty by association.

PurpleWitch · Post by **PurpleWitch** » Tue Dec 18, 2018 7:00 am #462912

I need to go to work, but.

You basically admitted to metagrudging him in a way.

"No, I would do it to any officer that had that sweet loot sitting there for me."

Then you shouldn't have been surprised that you were force borged, during a REVOLUTION. You were seen as an antagonist, and were treated as such.

You knew exactly what you were doing and you took the hit for it. There's nothing surprising about that. It's security during a revolutionary round, what do you expect, a free implant in r o b o t i c s?

I'll respond later when I'm back.

MaterialisticThings · Tue Dec 18, 2018 7:22 am

I was just stating that he’s powergaming and that it’s not cool. I would not hold a grudge against him in game. As for the implant part, I could’ve easily been rushed to sec to get an implant.

Screemonster · Tue Dec 18, 2018 8:00 am

Stunning and robbing a sec officer does not entitle you to their leniency. If you start a fight and steal someone's shit and they kill you for it, consider not stealing next round.

This is a shit ban.

imsxz · Post by **imsxz** » Tue Dec 18, 2018 8:17 am #462919

edit: nevermind this is a complaint not an appeal I’m retarded.

Regardless, you were banned for admin shopping mainly, trying to weasel your way out of tickets that don’t favor you is a fantastic way to make an ass of yourself. Your complaint would be much more valid had you eaten the 1 hour ban and made the complaint afterwards rather than bugging headmins on discord.

Rustledjimm · Post by **Rustledjimm** » Tue Dec 18, 2018 8:23 am #462921

I'd be interested in seeing all the relevant logs. Adminshopping is very frowned upon and most certainly can result in a warning/ban if it goes too far.

Pepper · Post by **Pepper** » Tue Dec 18, 2018 11:55 am #462933

What is admin shopping? Isn’t it the right thing to do to recuse yourself on tickets regarding people you already have an open complaint with?

Qbmax32 · Post by **Qbmax32** » Tue Dec 18, 2018 12:55 pm #462937

Pepper wrote:What is admin shopping? Isn’t it the right thing to do to recuse yourself on tickets regarding people you already have an open complaint with?

It’s perfectly fine to request help from a different admin but going from one admin to the next until you find one that agrees with you is not.

I think in this situation as soon as they were banned they went on discord and started pinging the headmins instead of making an appeal/complaint

Pepper · Post by **Pepper** » Tue Dec 18, 2018 1:27 pm #462942

Qbmax32 wrote: I think in this situation as soon as they were banned they went on discord and started pinging the headmins instead of making an appeal/complaint

If I’m reading the OP right then the order of events are the opposite of that, considering “admin shopping” is supposedly in the ban reason.

elyina · Post by **elyina** » Tue Dec 18, 2018 2:12 pm #462952

Generally speaking you are expected to attempt an appeal before you open an admin complaint when it comes to a ban. Then you open a complaint if you are not satisfied with the result of the appeal.

Nabski · Post by **Nabski** » Tue Dec 18, 2018 3:12 pm #462959

Pepper wrote:
Qbmax32 wrote: I think in this situation as soon as they were banned they went on discord and started pinging the headmins instead of making an appeal/complaint
If I’m reading the OP right then the order of events are the opposite of that, considering “admin shopping” is supposedly in the ban reason.

Late to the thread, and at work so my response will be short. Correct, mid ticket they said "I'm going to the headmins with this real quick, gimme a sec", with a later "I was more of getting a statement from a Headmin as a "Fuck you" to your awful interpertation of the entire situation". (In theory neither of us should be posting only snippets of logs because that's terrible, but in theory this should also be a ban appeal)

The last time you had a ticket with me not go your way, you pinged supportmins and were told you needed to listen to the original admin and take it up on the forums.

Rustled, at least PART of the ahelp logs were posted in adminbus last night, however due to short rounds (rev and wizard) the logs are in multiple places and incomplete.

The original ban was going to be because you've been warned about forceborging people before. You were the one to declare him a head rev, and you were the one to kill him. Nothing other than radio chatter at that point told you revs. Your coworkers behaviors were shit and worth escalation from the officer, but not particularly from you. Entertainingly if they had flashed you you'd have both more and less of a good reason to kill them, as they involved you more in the conflict as well as let you know they weren't actually a head rev. It was intended to be a slap on the wrist "pick which of these you find the lesser punishment".

All that was thrown out the window when you decided to try to ignore the system that we have in place. The system exists for a reason. You're not special enough that you get to ignore it. Stop it and stop harassing players in DMs.

Pepper · Post by **Pepper** » Tue Dec 18, 2018 7:59 pm #463038

Nabski wrote: The last time you had a ticket with me not go your way, you pinged supportmins and were told you needed to listen to the original admin and take it up on the forums.

Who is he talking about in this part of his post?

Nabski · Post by **Nabski** » Tue Dec 18, 2018 9:05 pm #463071

Pepper wrote:
Nabski wrote: The last time you had a ticket with me not go your way, you pinged supportmins and were told you needed to listen to the original admin and take it up on the forums.
Who is he talking about in this part of his post?

Oh, I can see how this is unclear. The you is the maker of the complaint.

Quoting that post was just because it was correct and I wanted to draw attention to it.

Post by **Arianya** » Tue Dec 18, 2018 11:13 pm #463089

I'm forced to remind people who I'm pretty sure should know better that you are not allowed to peanut post in Admin Complaints.

I've deleted a swathe of posts and there are several more in here that are borderline.

Please remember to only post if you are OP, the banning admin, a GameMaster, a headmin, or you have a Peanut Policy Compliant Post™. You can refer to the stickied threads in the subforum for specifics on what is Peanut Policy Compliant.

BeeSting12 · Post by **BeeSting12** » Tue Dec 18, 2018 11:29 pm #463094

The round ID listed is six days earlier, might want to put in the right one. I'm finding logs right now.

edit: Proper round ID is 98802
Date is: 2018-12-18 04:27:42
Full ban reason is: Do not adminshop. Adminshopping is trying to find another admin who will possibly give you a different ruling than the first. The ahelp in question took place during rounds 98800 and 98801. This is not the first time you've done this.

Post by **oranges** » Tue Dec 18, 2018 11:31 pm #463095

You know what, I do have a point of policy actually

Adminshopping Admin shopping is defined as going to different admins until you get a favorable ruling. It's highly frowned upon, don't do it.

https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic ... 73#p341313

This thread was about people looking to get others banned, and it certainly was never discussed about complaining to the headadmins about an admins conduct, which is something everyone has a right to do. No matter how they choose to do it. Banning someone for complaining about your conduct to a HEADADMIN is insane, and extremely dangerous to allow as a precedent.

Honestly I can't even see a person agreeing that is is a bannable offence, is there even any precedent for that? It's just frowned upon. How can any sane person come to the conclusion that that extra ban hours was anything but bias and motivated by spite? That is gross misconduct imo.

Nabski · Post by **Nabski** » Tue Dec 18, 2018 11:35 pm #463096

https://tgstation13.org/parsed-logs/bas ... und-98800/ Round that started it (Rev)
https://tgstation13.org/parsed-logs/bas ... und-98801/ Mild investigation and allowing time for a headadmin to possibly respond (wiz died)
https://tgstation13.org/parsed-logs/bas ... und-98802/ Ban applied

If you want to get a headadmins ruling on something, then ban appeals or admin complaints is a great time to do it. Not discord in the middle of a ticket. We had ways set up for this kind of thing to happen already.

BeeSting12 · Post by **BeeSting12** » Tue Dec 18, 2018 11:46 pm #463099

Adminhelp Logs Between Nabski and SpookyPurpleCat:
Round 98800 (nice dubs):

Spoiler:

Continued into the next round.
Round 98801:

Spoiler:

Ticket starts here:
[2018-12-18 03:56:28.951] ADMINPRIVATE: PM: Nabski/(Nabski)->SpookyPurpleCat/(SpookyPurpleCat): Did you guys make ANY attempt to figure out if they were an rev? Head beating, considering implants?
[2018-12-18 03:57:04.248] ADMINPRIVATE: PM: SpookyPurpleCat/(SpookyPurpleCat)->Nabski/(Nabski): I did whatever the officer told me to do since it was revs and I didn't wanna get killed. I was just told to borg the rev, thus.
[2018-12-18 03:57:50.507] ADMINPRIVATE: PM: Nabski/(Gene Ball)->SpookyPurpleCat/(SpookyPurpleCat): that's shit, "just following orders" does not fly as an excuse for murder
[2018-12-18 03:58:24.424] ADMINPRIVATE: PM: SpookyPurpleCat/(SpookyPurpleCat)->Nabski/(Gene Ball): I mean, he tried to pickup a taser and flashed the officer on the table who was vulnerable like, many many times so, that's definitely not out-of-the-ordinary
[2018-12-18 03:58:31.292] ADMINPRIVATE: PM: Nabski/(Gene Ball)->SpookyPurpleCat/(SpookyPurpleCat): The officers getting something more, but you're still getting part of this for being involved in something so stupid
[2018-12-18 03:58:53.871] ADMINPRIVATE: PM: SpookyPurpleCat/(SpookyPurpleCat)->Nabski/(Gene Ball): Are you seriously banning me cause some dip decided it was a good idea to flash an officer?
[2018-12-18 03:59:10.977] ADMINPRIVATE: PM: Nabski/(Gene Ball)->SpookyPurpleCat/(SpookyPurpleCat): Yes, pick one, week of robotics or hour from server.
[2018-12-18 03:59:29.844] ADMINPRIVATE: PM: SpookyPurpleCat/(SpookyPurpleCat)->Nabski/(Gene Ball): I'm going to the Headmins with this real quick, gimme a sec.
[2018-12-18 04:08:12.363] ADMINPRIVATE: PM: SpookyPurpleCat/(SpookyPurpleCat)->Nabski/(Gene Ball): 1.) Explain why you should be banning me, as the person involved in the subject at hand was already acting suspicious, and then forth again, FLASHING the vulnerable officer while I was augmenting them. Tell me why that isn't valid. They tried to flash an officer that was vulnerable during augmentation during high reports of a revolution and murder and etc.
[2018-12-18 04:09:06.432] ADMINPRIVATE: PM: Nabski/(Gene Ball)->SpookyPurpleCat/(SpookyPurpleCat): So does that mean you're back from trying to admin shop?
[2018-12-18 04:09:41.862] ADMINPRIVATE: PM: SpookyPurpleCat/(SpookyPurpleCat)->Nabski/(Gene Ball): I was getting more of a statement from a Headmin as a "Fuck you." to your awful interpretation of the entire situation.
[2018-12-18 04:09:59.390] ADMINPRIVATE: PM: Nabski/(Gene Ball)->SpookyPurpleCat/(SpookyPurpleCat): which one?
[2018-12-18 04:10:16.158] ADMINPRIVATE: PM: SpookyPurpleCat/(SpookyPurpleCat)->Nabski/(Gene Ball): And that matters for you, why?
[2018-12-18 04:21:40.228] ADMINPRIVATE: PM: Nabski/(Jackson McDonohugh)->SpookyPurpleCat/(SpookyPurpleCat): So did you actually manage to talk to any of the head admins?
[2018-12-18 04:22:04.624] ADMINPRIVATE: PM: SpookyPurpleCat/(SpookyPurpleCat)->Nabski/(Jackson McDonohugh): I asked, and would prefer to wait for a response from them rather than bug them about it.
[2018-12-18 04:22:15.803] ADMINPRIVATE: PM: SpookyPurpleCat/(SpookyPurpleCat)->Nabski/(Jackson McDonohugh): Did you answer the question of justification?
Round ends before he gets a response (wizard).
https://tgstation13.org/raw-logs/basil/ ... 1/game.log
Lines omitted for irrelevancy. All bolded text is my notes.

Round 98802:

Spoiler:

BeeSting12 · Post by **BeeSting12** » Tue Dec 18, 2018 11:59 pm #463104

Adminhelp Logs Between Nabski and MaterialisticThings
98800

Spoiler:

98801

Spoiler:

98802

Spoiler:

Cherrypicked instances of OOC in IC from MaterialisticThings
98800

Spoiler:

BeeSting12 · Post by **BeeSting12** » Wed Dec 19, 2018 12:33 am #463110

Asay Logs: This is where it gets juicy
98800

Spoiler:

98801/98802: Didn't find anything relevant to it in round 98801 and nothing incriminating the next round.

Ahelp Logs with the Sec Officer
None for 98800

98801

Spoiler:

98802: No further ahelp logs.

He did not get a note or a ban from the situation.

Nabski · Post by **Nabski** » Wed Dec 19, 2018 2:08 am #463120

Giving comments on what are key moments.

Get the first basic ahelps, comment on what I think of the situation (A player that I personally consider of negative value to the community due to their inability to follow basic rules, harassment of other players, the fact that they have a complaint against me, the fact that they tend to escalate tickets and demand answers to be to their liking) was involved with a character that played a stupid game and won a stupid prize.
Other admin agrees with at least the game premise part, but not my personal feelings because the admins don't have feelings as a group towards players.

The first two things I ask about are was it forceborging and what was the OOC in IC (because there's a giant ranting tyrade in the say logs)

ROUND ENDS

Continue talking to the two roboticists, trying to get information that I can't just get from logs.

Start expressing that I'm not happy with how this is turning out, and spooky asks if they are getting banned. My options are "Yes, No, I haven't determined that yet". The easiest answer is "here's a punishment that's slightly more than a note, you have the option to continue playing all evening if you're willing to do a different job" and then the ticket will be complete. I think that's acceptable because I don't like the fact that spooky both declared that his coworker had been the one to declare him a headrev AND was the one to kill him while trying to use the officer as a shield for his actions.

The ticket now takes a turn massively towards shitty situationville. I bet I could have avoided it if I was more cagey about "am I going to get banned", but I had thought we were on the same page of "I've messed up and am about to get punished, how bad is it going to be so I can get it over with". That's a relatively common player response, If you're getting banned for 60 minutes why waste 30 arguing about it. They go for a headadmin and I pull back to see if there's a chance they want to respond.

I spend this time talking to the officer, who gives a full and clear report of what happened, why they did or didn't do things, and what they were going to do if things didn't go as they hoped. Makes perfect sense 10/10 ahelp strive to be this dude. Best person involved in this entire situation.

Spooky returns and says "hey I was just doing this to cause you grief"

I no longer give a shit about mediocre escalation, because it doesn't annoy me nearly as much as pulling the same thing as you were told not to do last week, but exchanging supportmins with headadmins. I wait a bit for possible headmins to become aware of the situation and maybe respond, pinging them myself as well and trying to bring them generally up to speed in discord. Once about 20 minutes have elapsed I ban spooky for being a shit.

Yakumo_Chen · Post by **Yakumo_Chen** » Wed Dec 19, 2018 2:35 am #463126

For the record:

Was MaterialisticThings actioned against, at any point (note, ban, etc)?

So far logs have proven he has:
-Suicided as Cyborg (against Silicon Policy)
-Ban Baited (Ahelped getting killed for initiating a fight)
-OOC in IC
-Netspeak

And he has admitted in the thread he was metagrudging another player.

BeeSting12 · Post by **BeeSting12** » Wed Dec 19, 2018 3:05 am #463135

Yakumo_Chen wrote:For the record:

Was MaterialisticThings actioned against, at any point (note, ban, etc)?

So far logs have proven he has:
-Suicided as Cyborg (against Silicon Policy)
-Ban Baited (Ahelped getting killed for initiating a fight)
-OOC in IC
-Netspeak

And he has admitted in the thread he was metagrudging another player.

Nabski literally just gave him an OOC in IC note during the round ongoing on bagil. Would not be surprised if it was done after your post, but I haven't converted time zones yet since server time it is 12/19 and we're still on 12/18 for the forums.

He did not get punished for the cyborg suicide or anything else.

Nabski · Post by **Nabski** » Wed Dec 19, 2018 3:16 am #463140

Yeah that note was 100% after your comment. I forgot.
I knew nothing about any metagrudging at the time this ticket was being made.
I did end up talking to them later in the evening on discord after the messaged me due to DM's by spooky.
This was my fifth reply to them. I had posted the rest of the conversation yesterday in adminbus.

At this point I was already in bed trying to fall asleep and no-where near a computer.

Screemonster · Wed Dec 19, 2018 3:25 am

Nabski wrote:The ticket now takes a turn massively towards shitty situationville. I bet I could have avoided it if I was more cagey about "am I going to get banned", but I had thought we were on the same page of "I've messed up and am about to get punished, how bad is it going to be so I can get it over with". That's a relatively common player response, If you're getting banned for 60 minutes why waste 30 arguing about it. They go for a headadmin and I pull back to see if there's a chance they want to respond.

You can't really infer "am I going to get banned" as the player admitting they messed up considering that they may in fact be acting under the belief that an unjustified ban is coming their way. Just 'cause it's the outcome they expect doesn't necessarily mean it's the outcome that's right.
They wouldn't be unreasonable in believing this, considering you openly state:

BeeSting12 wrote: [2018-12-18 03:50:05.530] ADMINPRIVATE: ASAY: Nabski/(Gene Ball) "on one hand I hate haku" (Robotics Lab (113, 84, 2))
[2018-12-18 03:50:19.328] ADMINPRIVATE: ASAY: Nabski/(Gene Ball) "on the other I don't really think this is actionable" (Robotics Lab (113, 84, 2))

Nabski wrote: (A player that I personally consider of negative value to the community due to their inability to follow basic rules, harassment of other players, the fact that they have a complaint against me, the fact that they tend to escalate tickets and demand answers to be to their liking)

bolded for emphasis because hoo boy that doesn't show bias at all

Post by **Cobby** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 11:05 pm #463677

The key point of adminshopping (the point at which it should become punishable) is not informing the other admin that it has already been ruled on.

Someone asking your "superior" to look into the situation specifically because they disagreed with your ruling is not adminshopping.

Nabski · Post by **Nabski** » Mon Dec 24, 2018 5:46 pm #464393

So in summary:

The original ban length was based on the fact that you jumped to a role that didn't make much sense based off their actions given the scant information you had (radio chatter and accusing them of being a head rev despite them not trying to convert you or anyone else despite being a job that starts with the flash). Being both the one to claim that's what they were, and preform the execution is shitty valid hunting. Despite all that, the punishment was originally intended to be a wrist slap barely larger than a note as notes are not a punishment. I thought you understood what you had done wrong since you asked if it was going to be a ban (Implying "is this a ban or a note?" to me).

At this point you went to discord to try to get someone else to deal with it. You were clearly told the previous week that once one admin has a ticket that is who is going to be handling it. You clearly remembered this incident because you changed it from a supportmin to a headmin ping, and admitted that you only did it out of spite for me.

This entire thing should have been a ban appeal, not an admin complaint. The complaint here is about my manner of enforcement rather than any random abuse that I performed on anyone during any round.
If the complaint is that the ban is valid and you are unhappy about my demeanor during the ticket, then that makes sense to me. There's a clear difference in quality between the tickets between the three players. That doesn't seem like the case since you titled it "unjustified ban".

BeeSting12 · Post by **BeeSting12** » Tue Dec 25, 2018 10:10 pm #464632

Nabski wrote: The original ban length was based on the fact that you jumped to a role that didn't make much sense based off their actions given the scant information you had

Isn't working off of limited information a large part of the game? He had plenty to go off of, and a lot more than I've had when I kill someone for similar stuff.

1. Radio chatter that the round type is revs.
2. He flashes and steals from an officer.

Combined, that's enough evidence to suggest that he's at least a rev, if not a head rev, and nobody has any obligation to implant a rev or a head rev. Relevant rule below.

4. Lone antagonists can do whatever they want.
Short of metagaming/comms, bug/exploit abuse, erotic/creepy stuff, OOC in IC or IC in OOC, and spawn-camping arrivals. Team antagonists can do whatever they want as per lone antagonists, as long as it doesn’t harm their team. Non-antagonists can do whatever they want to antagonists as per lone antagonists, but non-antagonists are not allowed to pre-emptively search for, hinder or otherwise seek conflict with antagonists without reasonable prior cause. Non-antags acting like an antag can be treated as an antag.

With this information alone, we can agree that both the officer and roboticist are innocent of any wrongdoing. It shouldn't have taken longer than that round or maybe into the first part of the next one to discover this.

Nabski wrote:Being both the one to claim that's what they were, and preform the execution is shitty valid hunting. Despite all that, the punishment was originally intended to be a wrist slap barely larger than a note as notes are not a punishment. I thought you understood what you had done wrong since you asked if it was going to be a ban (Implying "is this a ban or a note?" to me).

Shitty validhunting doesn't exist on a rev round when it's a literal TDM sorry sweatie. I still don't understand what he did wrong or why he needed a wrist slap.

Nabski wrote: At this point you went to discord to try to get someone else to deal with it. You were clearly told the previous week that once one admin has a ticket that is who is going to be handling it. You clearly remembered this incident because you changed it from a supportmin to a headmin ping, and admitted that you only did it out of spite for me.

He pinged the headmins because there was clearly some bullshit going on. Keep in mind, at the time, he believed he was going to get banned for doing nothing wrong and he wanted to see if he could prevent it before even getting banned. The average player does not want to spend any more time in the ban appeals section than they have to. He was not admin shopping because he was getting the ultimate authority on the matter: if the ultimate authority didn't agree with you, then it doesn't matter what you think, because you were wrong and the ban would never have held up.

Nabski wrote: This entire thing should have been a ban appeal, not an admin complaint. The complaint here is about my manner of enforcement rather than any random abuse that I performed on anyone during any round.
If the complaint is that the ban is valid and you are unhappy about my demeanor during the ticket, then that makes sense to me. There's a clear difference in quality between the tickets between the three players. That doesn't seem like the case since you titled it "unjustified ban".

It's pointless to appeal a 1 hour ban, by the time the appeal is resolved, the ban will probably have expired by 167 hours. There shouldn't have been any "manner of enforcement" here because nothing should have been enforced at all: there is no rule supporting your cause.

Post by **Cobby** » Wed Dec 26, 2018 2:21 am #464649

If the ban was made because an action was done "to spite [the banning admin]" then it should be removed under the same pretense of admins involving themselves with ahelps surrounding them ICly. Bans shouldn't be created/lengthened because the admin involved had some personal investment in the situation, which I believe the complaint robustin made that was upheld would reinforce that.

iamgoofball · Post by **iamgoofball** » Wed Dec 26, 2018 3:40 am #464656

BeeSting12 wrote:It's pointless to appeal a 1 hour ban

Wrong, a ban appeal can help get the notes reverted, and considering how heavily the administration likes to trot out people's note count and not the actual contents of said notes, it can paint a misleading picture.

Nabski · Post by **Nabski** » Wed Dec 26, 2018 4:47 am #464663

Re: Cobby, the robust in complaint was because I took him out of the round when it wasn’t needed, leading to continued shitty attitudes that were unproductive. The ban was because they were told not to do something previous and did a barely modified version of it, with a history of subtly breaking or bending the rules as it suits them.

Re:beesting you’ve said a lot of things I don’t agree with, but you’ve made a wall of text so I can’t give it a decent reply until I’m off Christmas vacation and have a computer again. The three sentence version is: if the only thing to go off is common channel radio chatter and your making the choice to go full tdm your doing it wrong when we have a ghost job make specifically to falsify radio chatter. Shitty valid hunting does exist when you try to fall back as quickly as possible as you can to murder without even attempting to confirm the situation. Nothing we have is a full tdm, and acting as if we do kills the little rp we manage to have.

Post by **Isratosh** » Wed Dec 26, 2018 7:50 am #464674

Spoiler:

These are the first seven instances of the word "rev" in the say logs in chronological order. No relevant say logs by PwntQ or SpookyPurpleCat were omitted in between these snippets.
https://tgstation13.org/parsed-logs/bas ... 0/game.txt

The security officer was the first party to decide that the roboticist was a revolutionary with evidence from the radio, and his role on the station permits him to make these judgments or at least with more validity than the rest of the crew. The existence of the ghost role that Nabski talks about was created with the intention to cause disarray solely from radio chatter and this contributes to the overarching theme of SS13, which is paranoia and limited information on a space station with potential hostile forces all around you. We cannot assume that every player is going to have every piece of information available to them, and the security officer's judgment was well-founded due to the other roboticist assaulting and looting him in a vulnerable state. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. It may be unfortunate that acts like this that normally would end in a brig sentence are instead dealt with more severely due to apparent hostile forces, but this is the nature of the game and you make yourself vulnerable to these assumptions when you act like a cock. Consider not stealing from a security officer next round.

As per rule 4, individuals acting as antagonists may be treated as antagonists, and the crew may do whatever they wish to antagonists. The officer and the roboticist had no obligation to allow the alleged revolutionary any mercy, and were permitting him to participate in the round by putting him into a cyborg. There is no requirement for either of the two to seek an implant as outlined by our rules, and would have been more than justified to beat him to death on the spot.

Increasing a ban length because they went to the headmins about the situation is a horrible precedent to set, especially on the basis of an already unfounded ban. This is not admin shopping.

BeeSting12 wrote:[2018-12-18 03:50:05.530] ADMINPRIVATE: ASAY: Nabski/(Gene Ball) "on one hand I hate haku" (Robotics Lab (113, 84, 2)) wtf?
[2018-12-18 03:50:19.328] ADMINPRIVATE: ASAY: Nabski/(Gene Ball) "on the other I don't really think this is actionable" (Robotics Lab (113, 84, 2)) wtf???

This is very telling and should not be ignored.

Nabski · Post by **Nabski** » Wed Dec 26, 2018 8:13 pm #464752

Isratosh wrote: Increasing a ban length because they went to the headmins about the situation is a horrible precedent to set, especially on the basis of an already unfounded ban. This is not admin shopping.

The ban wasn't INCREASED because they tried to get a ruling off discord. The ban was completely because they tried to get the ruling off discord while things were ongoing. If it was increased I would have mentioned the other parts of this ticket in the ban reason. The ban message is: "Do not adminshop. Adminshopping is trying to find another admin who will possibly give you a different ruling than the first. The ahelp in question took place during rounds 98800 and 98801. This is not the first time you've done this."

Spoiler:

If you are going to treat players as antags under rule 4, then it's worth making some effort to make sure they are actually an antag. I don't think that flashing to rob as a job that starts with a flash, but not otherwise attack is enough to clearly mark someone as a rev or headrev. Otherwise you're acting under escalation policy. On one hand we have the security officer who was assaulted, that guy is open to all kinds of retaliation. We also have a co-worker who started the round by disarming and tabling his coworker, but stopped the robbery. This isn't really his fight, but he has a reason to be involved since he was up to the augmentation.

[2018-12-18 03:46:54.917] SAY: 03:46:54.917] SAY: SpookyPurpleCat/(Kathy Pink) "I don't know what's exactly happening but I'm just doing what the security officer told me." (Robotics Lab (114, 82, 2))
and in ahelps the next round
[2018-12-18 03:57:04.248] ADMINPRIVATE: PM: SpookyPurpleCat/(SpookyPurpleCat)->Nabski/(Nabski): I did whatever the officer told me to do since it was revs and I didn't wanna get killed. I was just told to borg the rev, thus.

If you don't know what's going on, maybe you shouldn't be blindly following orders of someone that doesn't have power over you and murdering people. That was the point of the original ban before headmins were called. Shifting the responsibility like that only works if you're silicon.

Nervere · Post by **Nervere** » Thu Dec 27, 2018 4:00 am #464876

Apologies for the delayed reply. This complaint happened to fall near the holidays, we were all pretty busy.
We've decided to uphold this complaint. Let's go through this bit by bit.

Scenario/Adminhelp
Firstly, the actual situation that was ahelped: Nabski made the wrong call here. Taking an ahelp involving someone with an open complaint against you is poor conduct itself (you should recuse yourself in this sort of scenario), but the actual situation was dealt with incorrectly, too. It wasn't unreasonable for the roboticist (SpookyPurpleCat) to make someone who was acting like an antagonist into a revolutionary, especially when ordered to by a security officer, who are generally thought to be an authority on crime/antagonists. Now, receiving an order to do something from security isn't always an excuse to do something, but the point is that the roboticist in this case clearly had sufficient IC reasoning to do what they did.

Nabski said it himself:
[2018-12-18 03:50:05.530] ADMINPRIVATE: ASAY: Nabski/(Gene Ball) "on one hand I hate haku" (Robotics Lab (113, 84, 2))
[2018-12-18 03:50:19.328] ADMINPRIVATE: ASAY: Nabski/(Gene Ball) "on the other I don't really think this is actionable" (Robotics Lab (113, 84, 2))
(source: raw game.log sorted by ASAY, these two lines cherrypicked. link: https://tgstation13.org/raw-logs/basil/ ... 0/game.log)

Biases
This is when we come to the biggest issue with Nabski's conduct: bias. It wasn't enough that he had an ahelp against someone he knew he could not remain unbiased towards, but he also admitted that he hates the player and didn't think the situation should be actionable. It is doubtful that this situation would have even been pursued further, had Nabski not pursued his grudge. What is interesting is that, even after Nabski found the security officer to be fine with IC reasoning for his actions, he continued to allow the situation with SpookyPurpleCat to escalate, even though the roboticist would have been much less at fault, if anyone, than the security officer in this scenario. Eventually, Spooky was banned for adminshopping, after they pinged us headmins in Discord asking for us to look into the situation.

Adminshopping
In the end, this ban's formal reasoning was adminshopping, but we have determined that this ban isn't valid. Asking the headmins to investigate something another admin did is not adminshopping. Adminshopping is, generally, ahelping until you get the response you wish to receive from an admin, going through several admins in the process, or similar such behavior. What happened here and what adminshopping is are two situations that cannot be equated as equal.
(Disclaimer): While it's not adminshopping, pinging headmins when you disagree with an admin is shitty behavior, and won't do you any favors. If you have a problem with what an admin did, make a complaint. Don't try to start a Discord argument.

Spooky's Ban
This complaint has sort of turned into a weird hybrid of an admin complaint and a ban appeal. Typically, if someone has a problem with a ban, they should APPEAL FIRST and the complain if they disagree with the ruling the admin makes on the appeal. Otherwise, you get complaints like these where it's just an awful mess. So I'll say this: the ban has expired, and it's just a note now. We have ruled that the ban was invalid, so I will lift the note for you.
In the future, if your complaint revolves around a ban, either appeal first or risk keeping the punishment.

Verdict
This is not the first time the headmin team has had to talk to Nabski about his behavior. Back during the Hathkar complaint against Nabski, we opted to speak with him privately to ensure that he would be more diligent and careful in his actions.
That being said, the bias, poor judgement, and overall failure to rectify a pattern of poor behavior that Nabski has demonstrated in this complaint and others has reached a critical point, and it will no longer be tolerated.
We have decided to uphold this complaint, and remove Nabski from the administration.