Byond account and character name OR Discord name:The unloved rock, Is-A-Lizard
Admin: Dr. Aura
Round ID: 140134
Detailed Summary:
Complaint has been written after the appeal, which can far more likely give more context to the situation. https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=26942
Logs: https://tgstation13.org/parsed-logs/man ... /game.html & https://tgstation13.org/parsed-logs/man ... attack.txt
While I have reasons to believe Aura may be biased against me for them disliking me before they were an admin, there's no way to prove that, and it doesn't really matter if it was bias or just Aura deciding to be cruel one day. I don't understand why they would have any reason to be so harsh even disregarding that I was the only living member of security- they cite my note history but I'll get into that later. I believe Aura intended to ban me with the intent of making it as hard for me to deal with as possible, for almost everything about the ban as well as them dealing with the appeal.
First off, the reason is factually incorrect as far as I am concerned, and the most optimistic way I could describe it is grossly exaggerated and uninformed. However, As Dr. Aura had talked with both me and the chaplain, they had information that they went against entirely.
Ban reason being:
Banned from Roles: Head of Security, Warden, Security Officer permanently - Banned for murder - As a security officer, improperly escalated an event with three crusaders leading to all three of them being killed by him. Ignoring the fact that he precipitated the events by telling them he was going to do so, going to security to get armed and then using this escalation as justification to kill them, he ignored CentComm direction to not harm them and admitted to acting with incomplete information when dealing with them. Given lengthy note history pertaining to similar circumstances, I don't believe this player has any reason to play security for some time.
Most of this is false by some metric. The first being "Banned for murder". The tone of this absurd and describing any of what I did is murder for reasons listed in the appeal. You could call it excessive force, which would still be wrong, you could call it validhunting, which would still be wrong, but murder implies I ran up to some completely innocent person and killed them, and so the only reason to use such language is for the admin to express their distaste for my actions further. Except this is saying I murdered three people, not one, which is also wrong (I actually only killed one of the crusaders- and by killed, I mean me and the chaplain TOGETHER brought the crusader to around -40 health, at which point he succumbed. Thus I am one of the three people who together lead to the death of ONE crusader, not one person who killed three crusaders. They also say I "precipitated the events by telling them he was going to do so" which is to say, I told the crusaders that I would kill them if they did not leave the chapel, and then gave them several minutes to leave. When I got back, the chaplain was already fighting them. The "centcomm direction to not harm them" was a message so much early in the round, and so vague, that when I met the crusaders after so much other chaos had happened I wasn't even entirely sure this was related to that centcomm message, and because that centcomm message warned of possibly increased aggression ("wrath" the announcement says) if we fight the holy people, and that it had been so long and the crusaders were forcing the chaplain out of their chapel, I had reasonably assumed we had ALREADY incurred their wrath. And "admitted to acting with incomplete information" Is absurd. This is like writing a negative note saying that I wet the floors as a janitor. Acting on incomplete information is part of the game and it's impossible to avoid doing so. Acting with incomplete information is something to justify my actions. I was in a chaotic situation with the captain missing (dead) and me completely alone after recovering from severe injury and with a missing third pirate being a possible threat. Lastly, they bring up my note history. I do have many notes (which isn't reason to ban me when I did nothing wrong in the first place) but the vast majority are before 2016, when notes became public. Past that point, There are two security related bans in the past FOUR YEARS, and neither of those were on manuel or even added at a time when manuel existed. The first is in 2018, A temporary ban which I think is slightly strict, about me harming a prisoner too much and ultimately gibbing them after they attempted to murder me by using the AI. I don't think this qualifies as a lengthy note history, unless by lengthy you mean all my notes are very old. My second security note is from 2019, for when a hulk, a person who can only be stopped with lethal force, Started breaking things in brig, so I brought them to negative one HP, still conscious, and went to the brig medbay to heal them. When I got back, they had already succumbed (which is to say they succumbed in seconds) so I assumed they didn't want to play the round and I threw their body out of brig. This note is entirely absurd and especially goes against the idea that succumbing will result in stricter punishment for your attacker, so I don't think that this note is relevant in any way. If both notes were relevant to this situation, that's.. two notes. Unless the notes from 2016 are Damning?
Imagine if I had appealed this ban a long time from now. (which Aura seems to have wanted me to do in saying that I had no reason to play security "for some time" and that it was a permanent ban when month job bans happen as well) They would see it as me murdering 3 innocent people, ruining an event, while centcomm was actively making announcements not to hurt them, That "acting with incomplete information" is a negative in this instance so I must have done something heinous like played the game blindfolded, and that it tells admins that no, you don't need to check to see that he only has two negative sec notes in the past four years. I assure you, he's got a LENGTHY note history.
Another point of Aura acting maliciously is that they basically came into the situation thinking in advance that they were going to ban me, and they just wanted to see what evidence they could get to support this conclusion. This isn't a matter of Aura being completely confused and making stuff up for my ban, not that that'd be good, it's of them lying to make sure I was the one who suffered. I didn't realise this at first until I saw their logs with tanachi, the chaplain, however.
This is how they talked to me, basically just asking me if I had any last words before they banned me. I don't have too much to say about this, not that I think it was good admin conduct. I'll talk about how it contrasts with Tanachi though.
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
This is mostly illegible but it clearly contrasts Aura telling the chaplain shortly into the conversation that they aren't in trouble, despite them being even more involved than me. Even with this said, Tanachi seems to feel like they might still be in trouble so they're careful with their words when replying to Aura, but still clearly denies Aura's accusations. Aura, on the other hand, is effectively asking tanachi how they can incriminate me.Accusation implies statement of wrongdoing by one party: I have evidence in furtherence of the wrongdoing as corroberated by multiple parties. I just want to know what you were thinking when you did it.
After that point in the conversation is where Aura is clearly just trying to convince Tanachi that I did something wrong so they'll say I did, though.
Aura tells Tanachi that I just "more or less included themselves into it" (Despite this literally being my job) and Tanachi responds by clarifying twice that they had asked me for help and once that we are outnumbered. Aura tries to put more words into tanachi's mouth, that they "went in with the express purpose of subduing them, not killing them" To which Tanachi is nervous but basically says that no, they weren't worried about subduing them. They had no issue killing the crusaders- Which is what actually happened, as the Chaplain had fought the crusaders with lethal force.[2020-06-22 03:00:22.737] ADMINPRIVATE: PM: Tanachi/(Constanze Morschaff)->Dr. Aura/(Tickles-The-INTERNAL DISCUSSIONS): I was just trying to talk to them, they attacked me and Bobby first, so I left the chapel and told the HoS what happened, and overheard the pastor say they needed to hold my chapel. I went to robotics, got some flashes, and decided to do things myself because, well, it's my chapel, and what sort of chaplain would let people kick them out of their own chapel. Naturally, since I had flashes, I won, especially with help from the HoS halfway through
[2020-06-22 03:03:30.993] ADMINPRIVATE: PM: Dr. Aura/(Tickles-The-INTERNAL DISCUSSIONS)->Tanachi/(Constanze Morschaff): So you were taking care of things and the HoS more or less just included themselves into it, right?
[2020-06-22 03:03:59.103] ADMINPRIVATE: PM: Tanachi/(Constanze Morschaff)->Dr. Aura/(Tickles-The-INTERNAL DISCUSSIONS): Yeah. I had asked them for help because it was 3v1 otherwise. I asked them to help me
[2020-06-22 03:04:44.526] ADMINPRIVATE: PM: Dr. Aura/(Tickles-The-INTERNAL DISCUSSIONS)->Tanachi/(Constanze Morschaff): But you went in with the express purpose of subduing them, not killing them? You said flashed, there were centcomm messages about it.
[2020-06-22 03:05:33.371] ADMINPRIVATE: PM: Tanachi/(Constanze Morschaff)->Dr. Aura/(Tickles-The-INTERNAL DISCUSSIONS): I thought those were for stopping people just outright killing them to begin with. I didn't think it mattered if I killed them or not after they attacked me and the geneticist with swords
The ban reason being grossly inaccurate isn't just a matter of Aura being uninformed on the situation and making bad assumptions, which isn't right. The ban reason is grossly inaccurate because not only did Aura come into the situation with as negative a mindset about me as possible and tried to put words into the chaplain's mouth who was even more involved in the conflict than I was, but because even when my and Tanachi's replies were against what they were saying, Aura spun me being stuck in a confusing situation as a bad thing when that's part of the nature of the game, and more egregiously outright ignored Tanachi specifying that I was just there helping them and that they had no intention of non lethally subduing the crusaders as it didn't fit their narrative.
Next there's the duration of the ban, which is just absurd. There is no reason for the ban to be permanent, except if Aura wanted this to be as difficult a situation for me as possible. By the time headmins were able to remove the ban it had been in place for ten days, and it could've been in place longer had I not appealed it immediately. If it were a week ban or something it would've expired by that time, but Aura made sure that this absolutely ridiculous ban would give me trouble for as long as possible.
The appeal showed further issues with Aura. 11 minutes after the ban is their only real reply to me. I see from this that it's clear Aura had no intention of unbanning me or even making me understand the situation better so I would improve. They just wanted to rub salt in the wound. Keeping the ban permanent and refusing to give the slightest implication of considering otherwise as well as having it be a permanent ban were all to make this as harsh as they could make a ban. I don't think it's fair that Aura be able to make such ridiculous bans over basically nothing, wasting 10 days of any players time because they know that it only takes one admin to make a ban but it takes 2/3 headmins to get rid of one, and that is why I appealed, because I don't think this should ever happen again.
This is incredibly vague and I think mostly exists for them to say they replied to it and to insult me. I find the part about them telling me I should've put more effort into my actions than into my appeal to be awful for a variety of reasons, but especially because later they ban me from detective as well to mirror the prior sec ban. They tell me I didn't put enough effort into my decisions while putting in so little effort that they forgot to ban me from an entire job. (Did they forget captain as well? They're in charge of executions. Maybe they didn't think it was important since my most played character is a lizard so it wouldn't hurt as much to be unable to play captain.) Unless, of course, Aura DIDN'T forget detective and instead banned me in response to the appeal. It's very unlikely I would've been banned from detective by aura had I not appealed. I hadn't even played detective between being banned by aura and receiving the detective ban, nor have I played it since. I don't think Aura was doing it in response to the appeal as much as I believe they intended to make this ban as terrible as possible, but if they were, and that is a possibility, then it's completely unjustifiable. Players being able to appeal a ban or write a complaint without fear of punishment is one of the strengths of TG's administration. I was banned by Aura because I have an open complaint against RaveRadbury and they couldn't punish me. I truly hope that the reason for me being banned from detective isn't because I appealed a ban that I received because I made a complaint.The culmination of circumstances speak for themselves, as does the magnitude of the response in relation to the nature of the offences. If you put a modicum of the effort you spent trying to defend your actions into deciding which actions are proper for the roles you have spent 5 years playing, you wouldn't be in this situation to begin with.
Whether Aura has let their personal grudges get the better of them when they tried to ban me or they keep this guilty-even-if-proven-innocent mindset with every ban they make, I don't think that it's fair Aura be able to get away with such an utterly ridiculous ban and learn from it that they can ban any player they like for ten days and force them to appeal, so long as the headmins are currently in a situation which makes it harder for them to respond to appeals.
