/tg/Station 13

Byond account and character name: Repukan - Donatello Versus

Banning admin: Gouty

Ban type (What are you banned from?): 1 Day server ban and security roles.

Ban reason and length: As warden arrested soemone for stealing the CE suit, then took them to be executed, the detective didn't like this so restrained them after they had put the person in crit. Detective had a chat with them, told them they didn't like their behaviour and healed the guy up that they put in crit, detective told them that they were going to uncuff the warden and walk away. As soon as the warden was uncuffed they executed the detective.

Time ban was placed (including time zone): 10:20 AM EST

Your side of the story: I join in and load up in my office when I see someone deconstructing and breaking into the brig. I am greeted by an assistant with the CE hardsuit and boots, who upon seeing me rebuilds the grille and window. I arrest them and confiscate the hardsuit, magboots, and PDA, headset and pen before letting them go without any brig time, and warning them I don't want to see them in the brig again. They loiter around the brig and pout about us stealing his hardsuit, and I warn them again that if they don't leave then I will make them serve their real sentence. They continue to pester around in brig so I gladly oblige them and give them their true sentence for the crimes they racked up (Major B&E, Trespass, break in of the brig, et all.)

I take them to the execution room with the detective trailing us before unloading on them. At this, the detective stunlocks me and cuffs me before stripping me and cuffing me to a chair. I tell them to stop breaking the chain of command, and they refuse. Since at this point they are, for lack of a better word, rogue, I ahelp explaining the situation and Gouty plain tells me it's an IC Issue, and he's not going to take action. I accept this and continue asking for release from the detective, whom releases me whilst suffering from hallucinations. I then proceed to put down the rogue detective and the assistant since he was slated for an execution anyways.

Why you think you should be unbanned: The assistant had committed enough crimes to warrant execution and was given a chance to leave without further incident which they decided not to take. There's a clear line of authority in sec, just like in command roles, and it is respected or heavy consequences can be expected. As I explained to Gouty, I have been on the end where officers would rebel against my orders as HoS, Captain or Warden that also warranted execution due to aiding and abetting or assault on command staff in order to release a prisoner.

The detective overstepped their boundaries and they clearly knew this. You should not attack a superior in your own department (even less security while they're processing an execution) if you know that the person being executed is liable and deserving of the sentence.

Furthermore, Gouty claimed this was an IC issue. What is the point of IC issuing something if you're going to intervene when the situation keeps escalating? Is it an IC issue until you're not comfortable with the results?

If you IC issue someone you're basically telling them "Not our problem to meddle in this, solve it yourself." Which I did, and I abided by the rules and Space Law, which guideline as it is, it's at least a baseline on how to operate as sec.

I was the detective, and asked by Gouty to give my two cents on what happened.

I was not rogue, you let them walk away after committing grand theft.
You killed him for standing outside the brig and talking to someone else. Not pestering around in the brig. They were standing OUTSIDE the brig.
I cuffed you and restrained you to save his life and ideally see about an appropriate jail term. You then killed me for letting everyone go instead of chloral hydrating you, if I was rogue I would've murdered you on the spot.
You executed someone for talking to a detective with jail cells between the two and then killed the detective for trying to stop a bodycount from being piled up.

I executed someone for stealing the CE Harduit and boots, breaking into engineering, breaking into the brig (which you were not witness to.)

I let them go and firmly warned them that if they didn't leave without a hitch they would serve their real sentence (Which they were about to, before you stepped in.)

You were rogue. You went against the chain of command, and aided and abetted someone who had already racked up a huge number of charges (one of which you hadn't even witnessed.)

A curious insight into the mind of someone with at least 16 notes of over-escalation and being too quick to jump to valids, averaging essentially one note related to excessive validing per month since you came to /tg/. The common factor in those 16 notes is not your victims but you.

I had no issue with you executing someone for grand theft (as I told the guy that helped it) as there was no captain, HoS and security was understaffed.

I thought (given the information I had) that it was over the top, and a bit of a dick move, but within the rules, all fine, and an IC issue to that point.

The detective took issue with you putting someone that was restrained into crit by shooting them point blank with a shotgun, when the person could have been just as easily incarcerated.

So the detective stunned you, did not harm you, cuffed you (still an IC issue), healed the guy (left them in the execution/transfer room still cuffed), told you what they thought, told you that they were going to peacefully walk away and they wanted no part of it, and then uncuffed you, you responded with a taser to stun and repeated shotgun to kill them both. They only stunned you, they de-escalated the situation, you had the ability to stun and restrain them but instead chose a summary execution.

If you want to keep pulling out space law (remember it's just a guideline) insubordination only carries a 2 minute sentence, assault of an officer 5 mins and 411 "Enemy of the Corporation" "is one of the few crimes where you may summarily execute someone", but yeah, just a guideline.

imblyings wrote:A curious insight into the mind of someone with at least 16 notes of over-escalation and being too quick to jump to valids, averaging essentially one note related to excessive validing per month since you came to /tg/. The common factor in those 16 notes is not your victims but you.

Me having a high number of notes doesn't make my appeal invalid.

If all the notes were the same cookie cutting modus operandi then that would be a fair assessment, but suddenly an admin exercising administrative action after they said they wouldn't it's ok because well fuck this guy, he's got a lot of notes already so why bother?

I let them go and firmly warned them that if they didn't leave without a hitch they would serve their real sentence

They did leave. You still killed them.

Gouty wrote:I had no issue with you executing someone for grand theft (as I told the guy that helped it) as there was no captain, HoS and security was understaffed.

I thought (given the information I had) that it was over the top, and a bit of a dick move, but within the rules, all fine, and an IC issue to that point.

The detective took issue with you putting someone that was restrained into crit by shooting them point blank with a shotgun, when the person could have been just as easily incarcerated.

So the detective stunned you, did not harm you, cuffed you (still an IC issue), healed the guy (left them in the execution/transfer room still cuffed), told you what they thought, told you that they were going to peacefully walk away and they wanted no part of it, and then uncuffed you, you responded with a taser to stun and repeated shotgun to kill them. They only stunned you, they de-escalated the situation, you had the ability to stun and restrain them but instead chose a summary execution.

If you want to keep pulling out space law (remember it's just a guideline) insubordination only carries a 2 minute sentence, assault of an officer 5 mins and 411 "Enemy of the Corporation" "is one of the few crimes where you may summarily execute someone", but yeah, just a guideline.

Aiding and abetting carries the same sentence as the person you're aiding and abetting. They exclaimed clear desire and intent to free the prisoner post situation.

HeatherK wrote:

Code: Select all

I let them go and firmly warned them that if they didn't leave without a hitch they would serve their real sentence

They did leave. You still killed them.

They stayed in front of the brig after I told them to leave, claiming the stolen hardsuit was theirs and that we had no right to take it away. I gave them ample time and even a count down to leave our presence and they refused.

We're not debating whether you were entitled to kill the guy that stole the CE hardsuit. That is just in the ban for exposition.

Aiding and abbeting would have been releasing them, as I already stated they left them cuffed in the execution chamber.

D&B wrote:They stayed in front of the brig after I told them to leave, claiming the stolen hardsuit was theirs and that we had no right to take it away. I gave them ample time and even a count down to leave our presence and they refused.

under no circumstances was that enough to warrant execution.

Gouty wrote:We're not debating whether you were entitled to kill the guy that stole the CE hardsuit. That is just in the ban for exposition.

Aiding and abbeting would have been releasing them, as I already stated they left them cuffed in the execution chamber.

Knowingly assisting a criminal is a crime. This includes but is not limited to: Interfering with an arrest, stealing a prisoner in transit, breaking a prisoner out of the brig/prison, hiding a fugitive, providing medical care (unless paired with a large dose of sleep toxins).

D&B wrote:Knowingly assisting a criminal is a crime. This includes but is not limited to: Interfering with an arrest, stealing a prisoner in transit, breaking a prisoner out of the brig/prison, hiding a fugitive, providing medical care (unless paired with a large dose of sleep toxins).

once again, not grounds for execution.

HeatherK wrote:

D&B wrote:They stayed in front of the brig after I told them to leave, claiming the stolen hardsuit was theirs and that we had no right to take it away. I gave them ample time and even a count down to leave our presence and they refused.

under no circumstances was that enough to warrant execution.

Their full sentence had not been carried out, and if they had followed orders, they would have gotten scot free.

They weren't executed for standing outside of the brig, they were executed because, after a good faith attempt on letting them walk, they chose to refuse orders and their full charges were applied and punished.

>Me having a high number of notes doesn't make my appeal invalid.
>bunch of notes about similar behaviour
>they shouldn't affect my appeal

anyway
?????????

HeatherK wrote:

D&B wrote:Knowingly assisting a criminal is a crime. This includes but is not limited to: Interfering with an arrest, stealing a prisoner in transit, breaking a prisoner out of the brig/prison, hiding a fugitive, providing medical care (unless paired with a large dose of sleep toxins).

once again, not grounds for execution.

I'll take what I base my sec playstyle around (Space Law) over what you personally subscribe for.

A shame the very wiki page you base your playstyle off also warn readers that it is merely a roleplay suggestion and something not to be quoted at outside of IC.

imblyings wrote:>Me having a high number of notes doesn't make my appeal invalid.
>bunch of notes about similar behaviour
>they shouldn't affect my appeal

anyway

Untitled.png

?????????

Space Law currently serves as a method of having a baseline on how long or short sentences can be without bordering on abuse. If we don't wish to use this as a guideline, aiding and abetting is also covered in the security guidelines, albeit in different wording but encasing this situation nonetheless.

The 'act like an antag, get treated like one' part of Rule 4 of the main rules also apply to security. Stunning an officer repeatedly, using lethal or restricted weapons on them, disrupting the arrests or sentences of dangerous criminals, or damaging the brig, are examples of behaviour that may make you valid for security under Rule 4. Make sure players deserve it when you treat them as an antag, when in doubt, err on the side of caution as poor behaviour on the part of security will not be tolerated.

What I wish to know is if Gouty said in ahelps that this was an IC issue, why did he choose to intervene when things didn't go the way he wished them to go?

Was he, and are we expecting people in higher ranks to bend over and just take it when lower ranked crewmembers wish to strong arm whatever they seem fit? Are we going to blow off captains affected by security power grabs?

I'm more interested on how he IC issued something and whiplashed almost immediately after.

Because of supposed "grief and over escalation," when now in game I would have to deal with a detective undermining whatever decisions I am in charge of (unless we have reached point singularity and now roles and access are merely an accessory and whoever shoots first makes the law.)

Space law is an IC suggestion. The rules state when a timer becomes an issue, not space law as it is eminently abusable to stack timers on if the player feels like it. Do not quote rules you do not understand, act like an antag get treated like one does not apply to a detective who released you and did not release the prisoner.

Do not even dare to present yourself as a victim and imply that gouty made a bad decision or is picking on you or that somehow this is a landmark case for chain of command. You jumped to validing the detective for no good reason.

imblyings wrote:Space law is an IC suggestion. The rules state when a timer becomes an issue, not space law as it is eminently abusable to stack timers on if the player feels like it. Do not quote rules you do not understand, act like an antag get treated like one does not apply to a detective who released you and did not release the prisoner.

Do not even dare to present yourself as a victim and imply that gouty made a bad decision or is picking on you or that somehow this is a landmark case for chain of command. You jumped to validing the detective for no good reason.

It's not an eminent abuse of charge stacking if the person did carry out all the crimes for which they were executed.
Even Gouty agreed that the person deserved it.

The detective was not even close to releasing me save me convincing them that the cuffed prisoner had or would have been a long since they started hallucinating. Furthermore, they failed to understand why the person was being slated for an execution and broke chain of command to exercise their loose cannon spitball and try to assault their superior officer and then attempt to pretend everything would be fine because they said so.

I do oppose Gouty's decision because he expressed no desire to moderate the situation as soon as he said it was an IC issue. I am wary and frankly it makes no sense to wash your hands one second and then dip in back again when the situation keeps escalating after you decided to let it unfold.

An officer under any capacity, and in any round tasing, cuffing and beating and stripping a higher ranked officer would get killed too. I have seen this happen on countless rounds and even been on both sides of the coin to know enough that breaking the chain of command would get me killed if whatever I broke it for didn't come to fruition. I didn't ahelp at those times either because it's an understood risk that if you cuff, beat and strip someone and let them walk I could reasonably expect them to seek retribution.

The detective was aware of the risk they took when they attempted to liberate that prisoner. Ignorance doesn't equal innocence.

>It's not an eminent abuse of charge stacking if the person did carry out all the crimes for which they were executed.
No where did I say an eminent abuse of charges occurred in this round, stop taking things out of context. No one is even contesting the guy who stole the CE gear, this ban is about the detective you valid'd.

>The detective was not even clo-
but they did.

>I do oppose Gouty's decision because he expressed no desire to moderate the situation as soon as he said it was an IC issue. I am wary and frankly it makes no sense to wash your hands one second and then dip in back again when the situation keeps escalating after you decided to let it unfold.
>players are currently following rules
>cool
>you break a rule
>wtf WHY is an admin intervening now??

>because it's an understood risk that if you cuff, beat and strip someone and let them walk I could reasonably expect them to seek retribution.
>The detective was aware of the risk they took when they attempted to liberate that prisoner. Ignorance doesn't equal innocence.

That risk you keep on referring to exists in your head, the same head responsible for making you very notorious for ending the rounds of other players for flimsy reasons.
[14:09:54]SAY: Tessa Wise/Odhisius : tell you what boss (82,183,2)
[14:09:56]SAY: Isaac Riker/Frontline03 : IN TOOL STORAGE (81,183,2)
[14:09:59]SAY: Tessa Wise/Odhisius : I'll un cuff you, you deal with him (82,183,2)
[14:10:05]SAY: Tessa Wise/Odhisius : and I'll walk away and not question your orders (82,183,2)
[14:10:13]SAY: Isaac Riker/Frontline03 : Hypocrite (81,183,2)
[14:10:13]SAY: Unknown/Repukan : waiting (81,184,2)
[14:10:39]SAY: Tessa Wise/Odhisius : I'm just gonna walk away (84,183,2)
[14:10:49]SAY: Tessa Wise/Odhisius : oh come on (82,184,2)

They're not even flagrantly trying to griff you, they're being fairly reasonable about it.

This is in fact horrible, I don't understand why we tolerate this. Your actions from here should not be, how can I continue to argue this ban but how can I drastically change my behaviour before Ausops just stops caring about being fair due to the election and puts a rule 0 on me.

we don't tolerate it, if a previous perma by okand and krusvik didn't change your behaviour maybe this one will.

A separate rule 0 was placed.

repukan
2017-08-26 19:28:35
ausops
Server
Permanent (MANUAL BAN) Extensive history despite a previous perma and several months to think about changing their behaviour. Active

He is free to appeal this with the next set of headmins.