[Orchidfox] Ateryk - Incorrect characterization of note

[ateryk]

BYOND account: Ateryk

Ban/note type (Server Ban/Discord Ban/Forum Ban/Note): Note

Ban/note duration: Perm
Ban/note reason: Warned - Emagging the shuttle as a non-antag to try and keep a traitor from getting on. This is considered shuttle grief, you need a very good reason to do this and this does not qualify.
Time ban was placed: 2025-06-01 21:57:46
Server you were playing on when banned:
Round ID in which ban was placed: 252804

Why are you making this appeal? (Put an x in the boxes):
() - The ban/note is factually incorrect
() - The ban/note is not against the rules
(x) - The ban/note needs modification
() - The ban was unjustifiably harsh
() - I was permabanned and I want another chance

Why should this appeal be accepted?: Traitor chemist syringed me and someone next to me with some sleep drug. I multivered both myself and the other person I was with and ended up killing the chemist because he was doing hit and runs and wouldn't leave me alone. I took his emag here and didn't round remove him because medical was beginning to interfere and I didn't want to get round removed myself because I dared threatened the medical clique. Soon after this we were hit with ED's killing people, plasmafires in the hallways, and SENTIENT spiders. On top of that there were claims security/heads were dead and the chemist traitor himself told me he had syringe'd the captain and security. I fled to a pod as the shuttle was coming then ran to the shuttle itself. Claims that the AI was "on some esc law set" were said but IIRC no one confirmed if the AI was reset. On my way to the shuttle I saw some spiders and there were lingering plasmafires still and atmos in the hallways were on fire. I noticed the chemist wasn't on the shuttle and emagged it. From my view we had: dead security, dead captain, malf AI/borgs, spiders, and active uncontested traitors with the chemist messaging me pissed off that I killed him. I thought it'd be safer if I had emagged the shuttle and left with the decent amount of people we had. Even with the people we had there was chaos as multiple hot potatoes were unleashed.

I got a ping from Orchidfox asking why I emagged the shuttle. My haha funni clown response was "It was funny" then said it was so that the chemist didn't get on the ship to kill me. These weren't "thought out" responses and as it was obvious I had to actually justify my actions I took a step back and viewed things holistically and we had a back and forth so I could see what exactly needs to happen so I could see if what I did was justified or not. I was told in under no circumstances can I ever emag a shuttle unless a nuke was about to go off or there was an ascended heretic. They didn't want a back and forth so he ended the ticket and gave me this note. If he thinks it was unfair of me to have emagged the shuttle given the specific circumstances of that round, fine, but it's incredibly unfair and improper to characterize my actions as shuttle grief because I wanted the traitor to "redtext" as he accused me of doing. We had confirmed malf AI/borgs and spiders. We had confirmed traitors running around with no recourse. Tcomms were down for a while so I/we were in the dark. We had basically no command staff as the captain/sec were killed or at least claimed to have died (I hadn't seen them since half the shift.) There was a literal ED uprising that took out so many people followed by a plasmafire. I'm not asking for a removal, I'm just saying that note is a gross mischaracterization of what actually happened and purposely cuts content to paint me in a bad light. I already have one note saying I murderboned during a "lowpop" round despite that round having 30+ people, I don't want another note that mischaracterizes my actions.

[MatrixOne]

edit: my part in the shift is not as relevant to the appeal as I thought, so I'm removing this post, my apologies

[James566]

Hi chemical lizzard here, I'm pretty sure I only said I injected the captain and security in DCHAT though I may be wrong, also you were going to round remove me? what reason warrented a round removal after you had allready killed me and taken my syringe gun,

best regards - mixes-the-reagents

[dendydoom]

hello, i am going to leave the above posts where they are because we currently don't have public access to logs (and thus the claims can't be substantiated with them until an admin hands them over) and they are from people directly involved in the situation. but please be very careful about peanut policy in appeals and only offer what you personally did, saw or heard as someone directly involved - conjecture or opinion does not help, it just makes things take longer and distracts from the point.

many thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[orchidfox]

At the time from my point of view and what you told me initially I felt that your motivation for emagging the shuttle was primarily to keep the traitor chemist off of it. I did cut the ticket a bit short because I felt that I was talking in circles with you and I didn't want to delay the reboot further with everyone waiting on me.

I understand in retrospect that your motivation was about keeping your own character safe rather than trying to screw over a particular antag. The point I was trying to get across about this was that emagging a shuttle is generally not okay as a non antag and the only reason why it would be okay is if there was a strong, immediate threat to the shuttle. That doesn't mean "I know there are antags around" or "I think Security is dead" it means "I have a strong, immediate reason to believe that unless I emag the shuttle now great harm WILL come to everyone on it". I don't believe that what was happening in the round or on the shuttle justified that.

I could change the wording to "Warned - Emagging the shuttle as a non-antag without an immediate and obvious threat to the shuttle as a whole. This is considered shuttle grief, you need a very good reason to do this." if that would work for you.

[Timberpoes]

Just for reference for all interested parties, the most recent ruling/guidance on early launching shuttles was last year. It can be found here:
viewtopic.php?p=733802#p733802

We think that timber made a good post here;

"Existential threat to the station, or
Existential threat to the shuttle or its occupants, or
It just makes IC sense based on the unique factors of the shift."

but we would also like to add that; it should be based on what the current command who are early calling believe, sometimes threats can feel huge and you're panicking in the moment so you early launch it, and this should be understood.
The goal is not to kill people launching in good faith- but blatant antag rollers.

In particular the post of mine Kieth4 referenced had a section of early shuttle call notes from our database from the preceding 12 months (July '23-July '24) to give some real-world examples of how early shuttle launch notes have historically been worded.

Spoiler:

[...] early launched the shuttle using an emag as a non-antag. Please don't do this unless you have a very good reason to do so (the crew is in imminent danger). If you did have a good reason, please appeal this note on the forums.

Asked to only early launch the shuttle (as non antag) if there is an imminent serious threat to the safety of the shuttle.

Spoken to about early launching the shuttle without much of a reason.

Advised not to early launch without an imminent threat to the shuttle/occupants ; and should not simply be a mindless auto approval of another persons request.

Early launched the shuttle without any pre-emptive threat, claiming that they did so because the other heads were authorizing early launching. Warned to exercise their own autonomy when playing head and to not authorize early shuttle launches unless there's an immediate threat to the shuttle.

Banned from the server for 3 hours - As a non-antag engineer with two command ID, early launched the shuttle with 2:40 left, reason being "i don't want to stay five minutes on shuttle." Has been talked to about early shuttles and their reasons.

Early launched shuttle because of heretic running rampant somewhere on the station and direct orders of captain. Explained that you need a direct and immediate threat, for example a wave of zombies approaching to early launch the shuttle.

Early launched the shuttle, partial citing people telling them to (use your own autonomy here, immediate threat to the shuttle or dont early launch), eventually went on about how the station was on fire and people had died. Great, but still not a reason for you to leave more people behind just because you are ready to.

As a security officer, emagged the escape shuttle to early launch it. Warned for this behaviour.

Early launched shuttle despite there being no active threats towards the shuttle. Claimed that there was a bomber and that they didn't want the shuttle to be detonated, but all antagonists were dead (by the point the launch was authorized), and the hypothetical situation of the shuttle being bombed isn't a good enough reason to launch the shuttle. There needs to be an active threat, like a singularity, nukies or even a group of murderboning traitors, for an early launch to be valid.

Warned not to early launch the shuttle for no reason/when the shuttle is not in immediate danger.

Was warned about early launching the shuttle without an immediate danger.

As non antag cook, triple authed shuttle early launch as a non antag after revs (failed) and other mess because "cant take this round any fucking longer". This isn't good enough, feel free to suicide out in most cases but early launch should only be done if there is an imminent threat to the shuttle, for the sake of the rest of the players.

Has been warned not to early launch the shuttle without a valid reason.

[...] early launched the shuttle FNR. They fessed up to their ignorance about the rule and was very apologetic in ahelps. Thank you for your understanding, don't let it happen again.

A wording selection of interest that could resolve this appeal mayhaps be found in either of these two examples from our note database:

Early launched shuttle despite there being no active threats towards the shuttle. Claimed that there was a bomber and that they didn't want the shuttle to be detonated, but all antagonists were dead (by the point the launch was authorized), and the hypothetical situation of the shuttle being bombed isn't a good enough reason to launch the shuttle. There needs to be an active threat, like a singularity, nukies or even a group of murderboning traitors, for an early launch to be valid.

Early launched shuttle because of heretic running rampant somewhere on the station and direct orders of captain. Explained that you need a direct and immediate threat, for example a wave of zombies approaching to early launch the shuttle.

One suspects that one such example may be a more palatable template to the person appealing, as my reading of their appeal could be summarised as:
1. player believes the note wording is flawed by the admin over-summarising the context/reasoning/mitigation the player put forward to the admin in the ticket, to the point the player feels the conciseness paints them in a worse light than they otherwise would have been with a more complete picture of their reasoning put forward in their ticket and in this appeal; plus
2. player dislikes/disputes/finds in some way disagreeable the wording choice of "shuttle grief" being included in the note

[ateryk]

I would much rather something akin to what Timber posted on my note than what I have since my intention wasn't to shuttle grief but to avoid a spider invasion onto the shuttle, malf borg bringing in a canister, or a traitor in gamer gear going ham in the main hallway because, as far as I knew, we have active traitors running around with little to no checks and both the captain and security were MIA. Especially since right after it was launched someone was launching hot potatoes on the ship and killed a few people (and almost myself.)