[Nabski] Unjustified Ban

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

Bottom post of the previous page:

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.

/tg/Station 13

[Nabski] Unjustified Ban

Re: [Nabski] Unjustified Ban

Re: [Nabski] Unjustified Ban

Re: [Nabski] Unjustified Ban

Re: [Nabski] Unjustified Ban

Who is online