[NoxVS] poor ruling in case of security ignoring job duties

Locked
User avatar
EmpressMaia
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2022 8:22 pm
Byond Username: EmpressMaia

[NoxVS] poor ruling in case of security ignoring job duties

Post by EmpressMaia » #754076

hello,

on round 240418, noxVS ruled that 2 security officers that went on strike due to not being allowed armoury gear to deal with an eye-less cult was valid and no administrative action should have been taken. noxVS argued that i should have opened the armoury because of "what if cult handed you and round removed you". i do not want to deal with "what ifs" as hos. i knew there was a cult we nipped in the bud early by catching someone with runed metal less than 15 minutes into the round, they didnt have eyes, and were likely scattered. armoury gear was not required to deal with less than 5 cultists, and 2 officers derelecited duty because they thought otherwise. the officers behaviour directly goes against the following rules and policies:

1. The roleplay servers have a higher expectation of roleplay.
3. Chain of command and security are important.
If you're in the Chain of Command or in Security, you're expected to put in the effort and do your job as a departmental leader.
6. Deal with the bad guys in proportion to their crime(s).
Security are expected by default to follow the orders of their superiors, especially when determining the punishment of those you apprehend. When determining severe punishments such as permanent incarceration or execution, make an effort to contact a superior if the situation permits it.

i do not believe noxVS made the correct choice in this ruling.
Top
User avatar
NoxVS
In-Game Admin
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2018 7:43 pm
Byond Username: NoxVS

Re: [NoxVS] poor ruling in case of security ignoring job duties

Post by NoxVS » #754088

Please fix formatting, if you don't mind

Overall, I determined that officers going on strike to prompt the armory to be opened (Under what felt like a pretty justified reasoning) was entirely within the realm of IC.
You are allowed to disobey a superior's order with appropriate in-character roleplay reasoning.
I'm not saying you should have opened the armory, I'm saying I didn't feel like it would be positive for the game to tell the officers they aren't allowed to go on strike and that they have to obey you even though they strongly disagreed. There was no obligation that you listen to them or behave how they wanted.

For points 1 and 3, it felt like they had a good justification. Their reasoning seemed fine, it made sense for them to behave how they did.

For point 6, that's more for determining how you deal with them once you get them. I'd argue wanting gear early is more along the lines of powergaming, but even then doesn't really apply here with how absurd cult can be.
The weak should fear the strong
thehogshotgun wrote:How does having jannies like you, who have more brain tumor than brain benefit the server
Top
User avatar
Timberpoes
In-Game Head Admin
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:54 pm
Byond Username: Timberpoes

Re: [NoxVS] poor ruling in case of security ignoring job duties

Post by Timberpoes » #754104

The key issues at play here are the following precedents under RP Rule 3:
...
2. Security are expected by default to follow the orders of their superiors, especially when determining the punishment of those you apprehend. When determining severe punishments such as permanent incarceration or execution, make an effort to contact a superior if the situation permits it.
3. You are allowed to disobey a superior's order with appropriate in-character roleplay reasoning. Complete disregard for the chain of command as a member of security is not tolerated.
"Appropriate in-character roleplay reasoning" is basically whatever satisfies the admin online that the decisions to disobey is both reasonable and driven by relevant IC factors.

I'll wait for my co-headmins to weigh before pushing for a formal conclusion here but I'm far more on the side of not upholding this complaint on the basis of how vague the rule is on disobeying superior orders, personally - Unless you can clearly and coherently state the case that this was complete disregard for the Chain of Command. Yet even then we're getting into the realm of But Ackshuallies and nobody likes But Ackshuallies.

This may be something that could be addressed via a policy post exploring what role we expect heads to play and especially the HoS and Captain within the RP rules.

Are they merely roles whose, in the case of Cap and HoS, only IC task is to authorise or not authorise executions? Does following the wording or spirit of the above quoted precedents defeat the point and purpose of heads on MRP and basically put them at the same level as their LRP compatriots - barely more important than their own departmental pets to the grand scheme of the shift?

Maybe such a policy post would be the catalyst for change. Or would just reaffirm status quo.
/tg/station Codebase Maintainer
/tg/station Game Master/Discord Jannie: Feed me back in my thread.
/tg/station Admin Trainer: Service guarantees citizenship. Would you like to know more?
Feb 2022-Sep 2022 Host Vote Headmin
Mar 2023-Sep 2023 Admin Vote Headmin
Sep 2024 Player and Admin Vote Headmin
Top
User avatar
Timberpoes
In-Game Head Admin
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:54 pm
Byond Username: Timberpoes

Re: [NoxVS] poor ruling in case of security ignoring job duties

Post by Timberpoes » #754108

Actually while I'm here maybe I'm changing pace a bit - as per the ticket they ignored the HoS, the HoS tried to arrest them, the HoS failed and got their ID stolen, the HoS later got their ID back, and the sec officers just refused to do any duties.

Refusing orders/going on strike as sec against their HoS is technically mutiny by the definition of the word. And resisting arrest/demotion for this really starts to muddy the waters way, way more. The HoS has every right to arrest and/or demote them for refusing to do their jobs. It's not even an RP rule, it's under Server Rule 5:
... As an upside, being THE BOSS allows you to dictate the workflow of your department as you like, so long as you are reasonable - and have the ability to demote staff who do not comply, with similar protections that security is afforded for valid arrests.
Looking at the ticket list from 240418 I'm not sure what the real IC reasoning the sec officers had for resisting arrest/demotion and taking the HoS's ID (regardless of it being returned).

I do know Maia's reasoning though. Cult didn't have eyes yet, so they weren't an emergent threat. They believed there were more sec team members than there were cultists. Maia was hoping to organise them into teams to sweep maints.

To which Nox's response was:
If they demanded the armory be opened without any kind of justification, sure. They had a justification that I don't take issue with, and all they did was go on strike. I don't intend to change my answer, you are free to open an admin complaint if you still feel I'm making the wrong decision.
There don't appear to have been any tickets opened that shift to get the sec officers' sides of the story, so I'm not sure how Nox knows what justification the sec officers actually had. DrAmazing was also online during at least part of the ticket and talking in asay, so I'm sure either they or Nox can provide additional context for the investigations and ruling that I can't wean from the logs. Or maybe I'm just mentally deficient and can't read the ticket breakdown for that shift properly and I've missed it. That's always an option.

Refusing to do your job is one thing where maybe even sec can get some leeway if they're not allowed to crack open the armory to steamroll no-eye cult when sec has 3 officers, a warden and a HoS on the manifest. But even the non-RP rules are clear that Heads of Staff can reasonably dictate the workflow of their department and can validly demote people with similar protections to security validly arresting people. Was it for a formal arrest/brigging or for a demotion (i.e. were the mutinying sec officers told they were being demoted, or would it have just appeared as an arrest for mutiny/dereliction of duty to them?)

Are any of these blanks able to filled in at all?
/tg/station Codebase Maintainer
/tg/station Game Master/Discord Jannie: Feed me back in my thread.
/tg/station Admin Trainer: Service guarantees citizenship. Would you like to know more?
Feb 2022-Sep 2022 Host Vote Headmin
Mar 2023-Sep 2023 Admin Vote Headmin
Sep 2024 Player and Admin Vote Headmin
Top
User avatar
EmpressMaia
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2022 8:22 pm
Byond Username: EmpressMaia

Re: [NoxVS] poor ruling in case of security ignoring job duties

Post by EmpressMaia » #754113

Gonna be away from my PC for a few days so my replies will probably be pretty late. I'm surprised to hear that Nox did not question the officers for their side of the story. And I should add that I should have worded the original post different to make it sound less like a ban request. Im not taking issue with that the players were not banned. I'm taking issue with nox siding with players that clearly broke rules and acted unrealistically
Top
User avatar
NoxVS
In-Game Admin
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2018 7:43 pm
Byond Username: NoxVS

Re: [NoxVS] poor ruling in case of security ignoring job duties

Post by NoxVS » #754117

Timberpoes wrote: ↑Fri Oct 18, 2024 1:27 pm There don't appear to have been any tickets opened that shift to get the sec officers' sides of the story, so I'm not sure how Nox knows what justification the sec officers actually had. DrAmazing was also online during at least part of the ticket and talking in asay, so I'm sure either they or Nox can provide additional context for the investigations and ruling that I can't wean from the logs. Or maybe I'm just mentally deficient and can't read the ticket breakdown for that shift properly and I've missed it. That's always an option.
I was fine with the justification I saw solely from looking at EmpressMaia's side of the story and didn't see a reason to ask the officers to elaborate on it at all. I figured if they look to be justified solely from the POV of the party that's opposed to them (And more likely to be biased against as a result) that all that would come of asking the officers for their side of the story is a stronger justification.
Timberpoes wrote: ↑Fri Oct 18, 2024 1:27 pm Was it for a formal arrest/brigging or for a demotion (i.e. were the mutinying sec officers told they were being demoted, or would it have just appeared as an arrest for mutiny/dereliction of duty to them?)
I showed up 10 minutes after the ahelp went out, at which point everyone had all their things and it didn't seem like the conflict was actively ongoing anymore. The main issue in the ticket seemed to be the striking part, so that's what I focused on. I did look into the whole arrest briefly in logs, and from what I saw it didn't seem to be a standard arrest. Taking the time to more thoroughly look through the logs just further confirms this.

Relevant logs for the strike and resulting conflict (Links only viewable by admins)
https://tgstation13.org/raw-logs/manuel ... 8/game.log
► Show Spoiler
https://tgstation13.org/raw-logs/manuel ... attack.log
► Show Spoiler
Saying you're going to kill them for dereliction and then opening fire on them with lethals is definitely enough for them to resist.
The weak should fear the strong
thehogshotgun wrote:How does having jannies like you, who have more brain tumor than brain benefit the server
Top
User avatar
EmpressMaia
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2022 8:22 pm
Byond Username: EmpressMaia

Re: [NoxVS] poor ruling in case of security ignoring job duties

Post by EmpressMaia » #754122

NoxVS wrote: ↑Fri Oct 18, 2024 5:22 pm
Timberpoes wrote: ↑Fri Oct 18, 2024 1:27 pm There don't appear to have been any tickets opened that shift to get the sec officers' sides of the story, so I'm not sure how Nox knows what justification the sec officers actually had. DrAmazing was also online during at least part of the ticket and talking in asay, so I'm sure either they or Nox can provide additional context for the investigations and ruling that I can't wean from the logs. Or maybe I'm just mentally deficient and can't read the ticket breakdown for that shift properly and I've missed it. That's always an option.
I was fine with the justification I saw solely from looking at EmpressMaia's side of the story and didn't see a reason to ask the officers to elaborate on it at all. I figured if they look to be justified solely from the POV of the party that's opposed to them (And more likely to be biased against as a result) that all that would come of asking the officers for their side of the story is a stronger justification.
Timberpoes wrote: ↑Fri Oct 18, 2024 1:27 pm Was it for a formal arrest/brigging or for a demotion (i.e. were the mutinying sec officers told they were being demoted, or would it have just appeared as an arrest for mutiny/dereliction of duty to them?)
I showed up 10 minutes after the ahelp went out, at which point everyone had all their things and it didn't seem like the conflict was actively ongoing anymore. The main issue in the ticket seemed to be the striking part, so that's what I focused on. I did look into the whole arrest briefly in logs, and from what I saw it didn't seem to be a standard arrest. Taking the time to more thoroughly look through the logs just further confirms this.

Relevant logs for the strike and resulting conflict (Links only viewable by admins)
https://tgstation13.org/raw-logs/manuel ... 8/game.log
► Show Spoiler
https://tgstation13.org/raw-logs/manuel ... attack.log
► Show Spoiler
Saying you're going to kill them for dereliction and then opening fire on them with lethals is definitely enough for them to resist.
The officers were treating the situation like a code red esque situation where armoury gear is required, so I complied by acting as if it was a code red situation, which is firing on them for dereliction duty. I don't really have an efficient way to arrest them non lethally as they have 2 batons and I have 1. Along with the chaplain shaving me
Top
User avatar
Lacran
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2020 3:17 am
Byond Username: Lacran

Re: [NoxVS] poor ruling in case of security ignoring job duties

Post by Lacran » #754168

EmpressMaia wrote: ↑Fri Oct 18, 2024 6:00 pm
The officers were treating the situation like a code red esque situation where armoury gear is required
"Any threat which can cause Code Delta (Blob, Nukies, Cult, Malf AI) de facto constitutes Code Delta."

This is in SOP, Delta is also the level where lethals are expected.

https://tgstation13.org/wiki/Standard_O ... _Procedure
Top
JupiterJaeden
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2022 1:03 am
Byond Username: JupiterJaeden

Re: [NoxVS] poor ruling in case of security ignoring job duties

Post by JupiterJaeden » #754171

Timberpoes wrote: ↑Fri Oct 18, 2024 1:27 pm Actually while I'm here maybe I'm changing pace a bit - as per the ticket they ignored the HoS, the HoS tried to arrest them, the HoS failed and got their ID stolen, the HoS later got their ID back, and the sec officers just refused to do any duties.
Hi timber, I was one of the secoffs in question on this round.

As noxVS has already partially pointed out, this description of events is wildly misleading. First of all, the HOS didn’t try to demote us in the traditional sense, she told us she was going to “kill us” (exact words) and then started firing lethals at us. She was promptly arrested, however, her ID was NOT actually taken until she angrily told us she was going SSD, after which I took it. We did not then refuse to do any duties, me and Mia promptly went out and began hunting down the cult, armed with armory gear. When, to mu surprise, the HOS came back, she asked for her ID back and I obliged with no resistance.
Top
JupiterJaeden
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2022 1:03 am
Byond Username: JupiterJaeden

Re: [NoxVS] poor ruling in case of security ignoring job duties

Post by JupiterJaeden » #754172

EmpressMaia wrote: ↑Fri Oct 18, 2024 4:10 pm Gonna be away from my PC for a few days so my replies will probably be pretty late. I'm surprised to hear that Nox did not question the officers for their side of the story. And I should add that I should have worded the original post different to make it sound less like a ban request. Im not taking issue with that the players were not banned. I'm taking issue with nox siding with players that clearly broke rules and acted unrealistically
We clearly DIDN’T break any rules. We had a very clear IC reason for nonviolently disobeying your original orders, and by trying to lethal us you also gave us a clear IC reason to arrest you in self defense. In both cases, we had the strong IC reason of self-preservation as justification to act out. Our characters would realistically not want to die to a cult or to their superior shooting lasers at them. Security are not required by rules to literally always follow superior orders.
Top
User avatar
TheBibleMelts
In-Game Game Master
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 10:58 pm
Byond Username: TheBibleMelts

Re: [NoxVS] poor ruling in case of security ignoring job duties

Post by TheBibleMelts » #754233

5. Players in vital job roles require a minimum amount of effort.
As a Head of Staff, you should be a reliable worker for your department, and are expected to perform the minimum duties of that role to the best of your ability. As an upside, being THE BOSS allows you to dictate the workflow of your department as you like, so long as you are reasonable - and have the ability to demote staff who do not comply, with similar protections that security is afforded for valid arrests. Notify admins if you must leave near round start for Command or AI roles.
when i drafted this, my intent was in allowing heads to be able to try and demote people safely in the same sense that a security officer could make an arrest. tying it to that, if a security officer began shooting lasers, they are no longer making a valid 'arrest', and i would not expect them to be blamed for a hostile response.
Top
User avatar
GamerAndYeahMick
In-Game Game Master
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2021 10:17 pm
Byond Username: GamerAndYeahMick
Location: Quahog

Re: [NoxVS] poor ruling in case of security ignoring job duties

Post by GamerAndYeahMick » #755141

There are many different things at play in this complaint thread let's break it down:

A quote from Space Law:
Full Deterioration of Order - full blown mutinies, cults, hostile boarding parties, and Space Wizards automatically authorize lethal force against them in order to swiftly quell the chaos and bring the station back to order.
A quote from Roleplay Rule 3 Precedent 3:
You are allowed to disobey a superior's order with appropriate in-character roleplay reasoning. Complete disregard for the chain of command as a member of security is not tolerated.
A quote from Roleplay Rule 7:
Powergaming is using an in-game mechanic or game knowledge to give your own character an advantage at the expense of everyone else. Powergaming can take several forms, but it is generally rooted in playing-to-win or a focus on playing the game instead of roleplay. Playing your character should always be more important than playing the game.
A snippet from Roleplay Rule 9:
This means that you should do the job you signed up for
A quote from a headmin ruling:
MRP players are expected to prioritize the story of the shift over tactical advantages. MRP admins are encouraged to engage sec, antags, and other crew that are going overboard with gear that doesn't fit the current circumstances (especially gear outside the scope of their job (as opposed to job products like plants and slime extracts)) and discuss the importance of pacing and sportsmanship.
There are multiple factors at play here and they overlap significantly, does Cult justify lethals? yes, it would seem so. Is a small amount if cultists a good enough reason to get lethals? maybe yes maybe no, they can end the whole round after all but this is purely a mechanical distinction and not a roleplay one and this was on MRP. Is it a good enough IC reason for mutiny? Probably not, but it's important to make a distinction between a mutiny and a strike, the officers threatened to picket for not getting lethals and the well was poisoned because they were met with lasers and a death threat which meant they definitely did have a good enough IC reason to justify mutiny at that point.

I have to say that I am perturbed by the information about the lasering being left out of the initial complaint and seemingly the ahelps, correct me if i'm wrong on that one. It can be reasonably said that lethals were justified because there was a cult, but it's kind of more lame to just gamer the shit out of the cult right away and more cool to let the story develop, and wanting to let that happen and let roleplay take precedent is a noble thing, in this scenario we'd like to see the security officers in question have the same mindset even though what they did was okay on a technicality.

As for the complainant we would like for you to arrest people properly and not handle the situation how you did and then you'd have more leeway to make an admin complaint and/or an ahelp, it also seems that you got quite temperamental which may have clouded your judgement and how you put across the story in the ahelp, which did not help your case and gave me specifically slight pause because it seems the full story wasn't communicated very well in the ahelp or here.

To Nox specifically it'd be better to investigate the situation more and open tickets with everyone involved and look at the logs more in-depth and then more things would have been picked up on or put across in the ticket that could have better justified your decision, in future feel free to ping for more admins if you're overwhelmed or busy.

The complaint is not upheld.
Image
Top
Locked

Return to “Closed Complaints”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users