/tg/Station 13

Byond account and character name: Magnnarot - Magnus Memeson

Banning admin: Arianya

Ban type (What are you banned from?): Note

Ban reason and length: Warned - As a Roboticist, declared the AI rogue based on certain events that didn't really add up, then hopped in a mech and breached the core, indirectly leading to the death of several other people trying to investigate the reports. Alleged that he suspected the Captain of foul play relating to the AI. Advised that Captains can not by default become antagonists, and to be more prudent before charging off to hunt AIs.

Time ban was placed (including time zone): 2018-05-07 13:03:28 server time

Round ID: 87579

Server you were playing when banned (Sybil or Bagil): Bagil

Your side of the story:
I only noticed the note some two days after it was applied and only had time to deal with it today. That said:
The round was incredibly weird, it had a lot of people complaining about the AI the whole round and its inability to do its duties properly, being due to lack of experience for the role or malicious lack of compliance had me skeptical.

The fact that we had a plasma flood in science that went unremedied for the entire round and then unless my memory fails me also N2O (really unsure about the N2O) and lamps were blowing up in science randomly without any event warnings had me spooked. I asked command to deal with the issue, but the captain in specific refused to. This let me to deal with things directly, first trying to change AI laws and asking it for its previous lawset. Failure to do so had me legit thinking it was rogue and that there could be foul play from command at hand.

I just got into a firefighter, went to the core, and deconstructed walls, killing 2 turrets in the process in order to card it. The AI's cries for help were heard and command came out in force to deal with it, except that they forgot that the upload is innately hazardous and the breach I had made in it caused the HoP to die as he tried to arrest me in a hazardous environment when I exited the mech to card the AI. I can only think the HoS died to AI turrets (atleast that is what I assume since I found no way to find turret attacks in the logs) set to lethal as he died outside the core proper and was the only other man I saw dead in there. Following the HoP's death, I uncuff myself, card the AI verifying it was indeed not rogue, put it back inside its core and throw the HoP's body outside the core (inside the sat, by the now dead HoS) and ask the AI to send people to retrieve them.

I never directly harmed any nonsilicon crew, the deaths resulting due to incompetence of the command personnel and the AI.

As I came back, some of the crew were still thinking it might be rogue and some person even told me I should've thrown the carded AI out of an airlock.

I did what I did because after the Captain and the RD it is a Roboticist's duties to deal with an AI and silicons in general. Regardless of what HoP players would have you think. The lack of RD and more crew saying it was acting weird, including my fellow roboticist supporting me made me do it, and in any other round I would probably do it all over again.

I ask the admins a question: if I break a window in some maint ditch and this causes 5 people to die, am I going to be noted for it? Because damn, a whole truckload of people deserve notes then.

EDIT: To clarify, the whole exchange in which I started purge-asimoving the AI and asking for its laws into lack of responsiveness begun at [2018-05-07 12:34:06.188] This whole thing goes on for at the very least two minutes. In which it completely disregarded me and answered OTHER PEOPLE. Looking back at the log, it seems someone else was uploading freeform laws which COULD be the cause of the whole issue.

EDIT 2: Some fun exerts from the round and few a examples of what the AI was doing:
[2018-05-07 11:46:56.272] SAY: Finlay3110/(R.I.C.K S.A.N.C.H.E.Z) has made a priority announcement: i SUPPORT THE MUITNY (150,32,2)

[2018-05-07 11:47:42.851] SAY: Finlay3110/(R.I.C.K S.A.N.C.H.E.Z) has made a priority announcement: ATTENTION MAKE FUSION ENGINES ITS FUN AND WONT TOTALLY FUCK UP THE STATION (150,32,2)

Finlay is well known as a shitty AI (and player in general). I'm honestly not surprised Magnarrot went after him thinking he was rogue based on several interactions I've had with Finlay being an AI, both as admin and player. Don't blame him at all for carding him to check.

I did what I did because after the Captain and the RD it is a Roboticist's duties to deal with an AI and silicons in general.

Sounds more like your expectations of what Roboticist is then it's actual duty. The duty seems to be more maintaining and building robots and mechs, you don't even get AI sat access to handle issues that might crop up.

That said, I can see how a bad silicon player not responding to requests might start crew members being paranoid and taking action when no one else will. I imagine you'll need the full story from all sides to know if their concern was justified. The note itself seems more focused on you taking matters into your own hands and ignoring authority above you telling you not to break into AI sat. If we establish command above you were incompetent and the AI was ignoring it's laws then you're probably justified.

Gigapuddi420 wrote:

I did what I did because after the Captain and the RD it is a Roboticist's duties to deal with an AI and silicons in general.

Sounds more like your expectations of what Roboticist is then it's actual duty. The duty seems to be more maintaining and building robots and mechs, you don't even get AI sat access to handle issues that might crop up.

That said, I can see how a bad silicon player not responding to requests might start crew members being paranoid and taking action when no one else will. I imagine you'll need the full story from all sides to know if their concern was justified. The note itself seems more focused on you taking matters into your own hands and ignoring authority above you telling you not to break into AI sat. If we establish command above you were incompetent and the AI was ignoring it's laws then you're probably justified.

Roboticists have access to the exosuit/robotics/AI reconstruction consoles, they just don't have access to the actual RD office that contains those consoles (which is a simple hack away and having access to insulated gloves from tech storage round start makes it trivial to break into). Yeah, I am pretty sure they do deal with them, since you can even go as far as unsynching an unlawful silicon by yourself and telling it to kill a rogue AI.

I honestly have a pretty vague memory of this but I'll run through my side of things:

Ban reason and length: Warned - As a Roboticist, declared the AI rogue based on certain events that didn't really add up, then hopped in a mech and breached the core, indirectly leading to the death of several other people trying to investigate the reports. Alleged that he suspected the Captain of foul play relating to the AI. Advised that Captains can not by default become antagonists, and to be more prudent before charging off to hunt AIs.

To start with, the note, and since earlier today you got antsy about this, I would remind you that notes are not a punishment or meant to impugn on you as a player, but to serve as a record of past behaviour so that other administrators can get a feel for how your time here at /tg/ has been going, and if something becomes a pattern of behaviour, adjust their expectations accordingly.

Magnnarot wrote: The fact that we had a plasma flood in science that went unremedied for the entire round and then unless my memory fails me also N2O (really unsure about the N2O)

The "plasma flood" you're referring to was in fact a plasma fire caused by a traitor scientist messing up with valves. You not knowing this wasn't an issue, but using plasma existing in one part of the station (with no reports from anywhere else) and the perceived non-action of the AI as grounds for "AI ROUGE" bugged me, especially since so far as I could tell you never went out of your way to confirm who or what caused the fire.

lamps were blowing up in science randomly without any event warnings had me spooked

You didn't mention this during our conversation, and it does have other explanations, but conceded that this is one of those signs of AI nastiness, assuming you weren't referring to lights in science which were blown by the earlier plasma fire.

I asked command to deal with the issue, but the captain in specific refused to. This let me to deal with things directly, first trying to change AI laws and asking it for its previous lawset. Failure to do so had me legit thinking it was rogue and that there could be foul play from command at hand.

As we discussed at the time, captain's are exempt from antagonist roles, but regardless the AIs failures to state laws seemed more linked with missing the requests then anything else.

I just got into a firefighter, went to the core, and deconstructed walls, killing 2 turrets in the process in order to card it. The AI's cries for help were heard and command came out in force to deal with it, except that they forgot that the upload is innately hazardous and the breach I had made in it caused the HoP to die as he tried to arrest me in a hazardous environment when I exited the mech to card the AI I can only think the HoS died to AI turrets (atleast that is what I assume since I found no way to find turret attacks in the logs) set to lethal as he died outside the core proper and was the only other man I saw dead in there. Following the HoP's death, I uncuff myself, card the AI verifying it was indeed not rogue, put it back inside its core and throw the HoP's body outside the core (inside the sat, by the now dead HoS) and ask the AI to send people to retrieve them.

This is where you start to go wrong, you break into the core (not really world ending, but worthy of note), kill turrets that were never set to lethal (as the AI wasn't rogue), and leave two heads of staff to rot in the satellite even after confirming that your suspicions were incorrect. Not to mention they're in the satellite, which is difficult for normal crew to access and risky for the AI to let in, especially on this particular station as there was a clear shot from the room they were in to the core.

I never directly harmed any nonsilicon crew, the deaths resulting due to incompetence of the command personnel and the AI.

As I came back, some of the crew were still thinking it might be rogue and some person even told me I should've thrown the carded AI out of an airlock.

To clarify, the AI player does seem to have issues, including previous silicon bans, but nothing that I saw in that round seemed to justify the treatment it got.

I'm also not exactly happy with your view of the "harm" you caused. You left a gaping hole in the core and basically dismiss any responsibility for what might result of that, even in the face of two players doing what their roles are expected to do in this situation, something which you then call for justification for what you did.

I did what I did because after the Captain and the RD it is a Roboticist's duties to deal with an AI and silicons in general. Regardless of what HoP players would have you think. The lack of RD and more crew saying it was acting weird, including my fellow roboticist supporting me made me do it, and in any other round I would probably do it all over again.

Again, checking on the AI isn't really the issue here, but rather the reasoning and the deaths that resulted from it. And in actual fact, the roboticist has no duty to maintain the AI or look over it, but is more concerned with the actual cyborgs/robots (Beepsky, etc) and any mechs that might exist. Not that we really operate by a "duty" system on /tg/, but since you brought it up.

I ask the admins a question: if I break a window in some maint ditch and this causes 5 people to die, am I going to be noted for it? Because damn, a whole truckload of people deserve notes then.

This is what's known as a false equivalence, because the area you broke into was a high security area that by its nature draws people to secure it against (presumed) malicious people, not a random maintenance tunnel. A better equivalence would be: "If I break into the armory as a non-antagonist, and multiple members of security die trying to stop my perceived looting of the armory, am I going to be noted for it?", in which case the answer is still yes.

Based on the above, I felt the note was correct in its view of your actions, and was worth noting based on the discussion we had.

Per the rules regarding notes, I'm denying the appeal on the basis that the note is not "factually or materially incorrect" or "unjustifiably harsh to the player's standing", but if you feel the note could be improved for accuracy in some way I am open to suggestions on how you would change it to better represent the events of the round.

All of the above is of course subject to over-ruling by a headmin, as with all things.

The turrets were indeed set to lethal after I broke in, my mech was damaged at some point.

EDIT: To clarify, THE ONLY PERSON THAT DIED TO THE HOLE I MADE WAS THE HOP, THE OTHER PEOPLE ALL DIED ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE DOOR THAT LEADS TO THE PROPER AI CORE. Station was BoxStation, they either were shot by lethal AI turrets or had bad chems/radiation/whatever. The only hole I ever made was directly in front of the AI itself, only guarded by two turrets.

Arianya wrote:I honestly have a pretty vague memory of this but I'll run through my side of things:

Ban reason and length: Warned - As a Roboticist, declared the AI rogue based on certain events that didn't really add up, then hopped in a mech and breached the core, indirectly leading to the death of several other people trying to investigate the reports. Alleged that he suspected the Captain of foul play relating to the AI. Advised that Captains can not by default become antagonists, and to be more prudent before charging off to hunt AIs.

To start with, the note, and since earlier today you got antsy about this, I would remind you that notes are not a punishment or meant to impugn on you as a player, but to serve as a record of past behaviour so that other administrators can get a feel for how your time here at /tg/ has been going, and if something becomes a pattern of behaviour, adjust their expectations accordingly.

Saying notes aren't a punishment is blatantly untrue when it can and probably will be used to increase future ban lengths.

BeeSting12 wrote:

Arianya wrote:I honestly have a pretty vague memory of this but I'll run through my side of things:

Ban reason and length: Warned - As a Roboticist, declared the AI rogue based on certain events that didn't really add up, then hopped in a mech and breached the core, indirectly leading to the death of several other people trying to investigate the reports. Alleged that he suspected the Captain of foul play relating to the AI. Advised that Captains can not by default become antagonists, and to be more prudent before charging off to hunt AIs.

To start with, the note, and since earlier today you got antsy about this, I would remind you that notes are not a punishment or meant to impugn on you as a player, but to serve as a record of past behaviour so that other administrators can get a feel for how your time here at /tg/ has been going, and if something becomes a pattern of behaviour, adjust their expectations accordingly.

Saying notes aren't a punishment is blatantly untrue when it can and probably will be used to increase future ban lengths.

The note exists specifically so that admins on different timezones who may never cross can have a common understanding of a player. The note fades within a given set of months and is generally disregarded for behaviour not related to that note. The only real exception to this is in the case where a player has accumulated a large number of notes in a short time, and these cases tend to be fleetingly rare. As a former admin yourself you should really know this already.

The alternative is wholesale secret notes (something the players at large disliked) or admins operating on inherently more biased hearsay based off conversation/asking for opinions in adminbus, neither of these are better for the players or the admins. This is also not the place to discuss note policy.

That may be your understanding of notes but most admins only leave notes to record bad behavior, or as warnings in place of a ban, so a note is a de facto punishment if only because of how it will be interpreted by other people.

case where a player has accumulated a large number of notes in a short time

Right so its reasonable to want to appeal and cut down on your number of notes, because "just a record" eventually adds up to too many records, and probation or long bans.

Arianya wrote:

BeeSting12 wrote:

Arianya wrote:I honestly have a pretty vague memory of this but I'll run through my side of things:

Ban reason and length: Warned - As a Roboticist, declared the AI rogue based on certain events that didn't really add up, then hopped in a mech and breached the core, indirectly leading to the death of several other people trying to investigate the reports. Alleged that he suspected the Captain of foul play relating to the AI. Advised that Captains can not by default become antagonists, and to be more prudent before charging off to hunt AIs.

To start with, the note, and since earlier today you got antsy about this, I would remind you that notes are not a punishment or meant to impugn on you as a player, but to serve as a record of past behaviour so that other administrators can get a feel for how your time here at /tg/ has been going, and if something becomes a pattern of behaviour, adjust their expectations accordingly.

Saying notes aren't a punishment is blatantly untrue when it can and probably will be used to increase future ban lengths.

The note exists specifically so that admins on different timezones who may never cross can have a common understanding of a player. The note fades within a given set of months and is generally disregarded for behaviour not related to that note. The only real exception to this is in the case where a player has accumulated a large number of notes in a short time, and these cases tend to be fleetingly rare. As a former admin yourself you should really know this already.

The alternative is wholesale secret notes (something the players at large disliked) or admins operating on inherently more biased hearsay based off conversation/asking for opinions in adminbus, neither of these are better for the players or the admins. This is also not the place to discuss note policy.

I'm trying to make sure *you* understand notes will be used as evidence to punish players in the future. That's why you shouldn't take the view point that it's not a punishment. Basically what kor said.

Massive de ja vu but this time i'm on kor's side.

See https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic ... e5#p344607

I feel like I'm missing something in this argument, because notes are not in and of themselves a punishment, merely a record of past behaviour which exists so that admins don't go into a situation presuming every instance is the first time this has come up with a player. You aren't going to get "banned for having a note" unless you did something repeatedly that showed a pattern of behaviour.

Of course players should appeal notes that are incorrect or unjustifiably harsh, but appealing a note because you don't want notes feels rather like missing the trees for the forest, since notes tend to accumulate as a result of bad behaviour. It's complaining about the effect of the situation rather then the cause.

I understand the player perspective, still being one and having my own share of notes that I feel might be unjustified, but the perception and the reality of how those notes are handled are not the same thing.

Arianya wrote:..which exists so that admins don't go into a situation presuming every instance is the first time this has come up with a player. You aren't going to get "banned for having a note" unless you did something repeatedly that showed a pattern of behaviour.

There's no guideline or rule explicitly stating what notes are to be used for. The impact that past notes have on an admin decision can vary wildly by the handling admin's discretion. While notes to you are simply a record, you can't claim for certain that is how they are perceived by every admin.

Arianya wrote: the perception and the reality of how those notes are handled are not the same thing.

The reality of many notes = misbehaving player has been present for ages.

I know I initially didn't help but I don't think arguing about whether or not notes are punishments, particularly when I linked a thread where you can gather thoughts and bump it if you present anything world-changing, is relevant here **from a general perspective**.

The question should be whether THIS instant is warranting of a note.

To answer your question mr cobblestone,

Not unless it's a repeated issue with the player. Misinformation and dying because of it is a core aspect of the game, whether mods/players like it or not.

While yes, in hindsight it probably doesn't make sense to assume the AI was malf, mistakes are also part of the game. It wasn't malicious, so I don't think there's anything to be gained by recording in his perma-record except for it to be later perceived as malicious or to be used against the player should he make another mistake (again, part of the game).

Cobby wrote:To answer your question mr cobblestone,

Not unless it's a repeated issue with the player. Misinformation and dying because of it is a core aspect of the game, whether mods/players like it or not.

While yes, in hindsight it probably doesn't make sense to assume the AI was malf, mistakes are also part of the game. It wasn't malicious, so I don't think there's anything to be gained by recording in his perma-record except for it to be later perceived as malicious or to be used against the player should he make another mistake (again, part of the game).

A key part of both this appeal and the other one the player opened is a lack of recognition of their actions as a mistake or "wrong". If this should be part of the note then I'm happy to adjust it as such.

There is a difference between IC mistakes/wrong and OOC mistakes/wrong.

We accept, expect, and mechanically encourage the former.

Suspecting and trying to investigate the wrong person is a core part of hidden enemy games.

Magnnarot wrote:Following the HoP's death, I uncuff myself, card the AI verifying it was indeed not rogue, put it back inside its core and throw the HoP's body outside the core (inside the sat, by the now dead HoS) and ask the AI to send people to retrieve them.

Apart from the mistake of thinking the AI was rogue, which above showed that he realized he was wrong, what is he not recognizing?

Magnnarot wrote: I did what I did because after the Captain and the RD it is a Roboticist's duties to deal with an AI and silicons in general. Regardless of what HoP players would have you think. The lack of RD and more crew saying it was acting weird, including my fellow roboticist supporting me made me do it, and in any other round I would probably do it all over again.

I mean if this is what you're referring to, I don't necessarily disagree with him. Getting caught up in the game and seeing your workplace burnt to a crisp, you're probably more apt to make the mistake of thinking the AI is rogue if people have also been stating it was acting weird all shift. This is why I think the note, worded in whatever form, may lead admins astray because, again, mistakes are part of the game.

I don't think he's saying that to mean he would purposefully use the excuse to heck a known non-rogue AI knowing that he got away with it the first time.

____________________________________________________________________________

We as adminsDMs can approach these mistakes in more colorful ways (nudging a medical doctor to check ai sat or vortex anomalying the bodies to somewhere less hazardous) and create an interesting story for all of those involved. Just don't do it to yourself!

While I don't think you're technically wrong for noting the individual, I just think mistakes like these if they are genuinely non-malicious should be handled solely ingame using the variety of tools and storytelling adminsDMs ought to generate. Since some admins view notes as blackmarks (and in practice that's how they're often used), I believe noting should be done under the worst-case assumption that someone will use it for more than just record-keeping purposes.

Unless I have misunderstood the previous post or get btfo'd by headmins I think i'm just going to remove the note. It's crazy the amount of text put into someone making a mistake on a singular round from both sides and certainly not worth all this trouble, especially when it could have easily been ratified in the round without much fuss (but hey that's hindsight so no worries!).

Kor wrote:There is a difference between IC mistakes/wrong and OOC mistakes/wrong.

We accept, expect, and mechanically encourage the former.

Suspecting and trying to investigate the wrong person is a core part of hidden enemy games.

Whenever I write "mistake" please assume that this is shorthand for "IC mistake".

especially when it could have easily been ratified in the round without much fuss

Honestly not even sure it would have required admin intervention to fix. You don't revive people when they get mislynched in mafia. It's just part of the game.

Agree on the rest though.

Cobby wrote: Unless I have misunderstood the previous post or get btfo'd by headmins I think i'm just going to remove the note. It's crazy the amount of text put into someone making a mistake on a singular round from both sides and certainly not worth all this trouble, especially when it could have easily been ratified in the round without much fuss (but hey that's hindsight so no worries!).

I'll restate that this was not just related to a IC mistake, but also to the player's refusal to recognize for why their actions had consequences, but leave it at that.

I do defer to more senior admins in that I should be more mindful of how notes might be interpreted in the future, and of course eagerly await the view of any headmins

Kor wrote:

especially when it could have easily been ratified in the round without much fuss

Honestly not even sure it would have required admin intervention to fix. You don't revive people when they get mislynched in mafia. It's just part of the game.

Agree on the rest though.

My motto is “If the situation isn’t broke, shoehorn your dm powers until it does so you can fix it”

I'm horribly small brained since I burnt myself out with appeal threads today so I'll probably take a look at this appeal thread when I wake up tomorrow.

In the meantime, another headmin is welcome to take a look at this thread.

Arianya wrote:I'll restate that this was not just related to a IC mistake, but also to the player's refusal to recognize for why their actions had consequences, but leave it at that.

I am not really sure what you mean with this sentence. If this is not solely about being wrong regarding the AI being rogue, then what action was taken that was disproportionate under the assumption that the AI was so?

I'm reminded of a similar precedent done by ausops when I was a young game admin where a medical borg gibbed a body with an alien embryo in it.

imblyings wrote: [...] we don't expect players to be hyper competent on mechanics nor make optimal decisions in the same way admins can with the luxury of time and a lot of practice in making calls on policy, we wish players would go for the optimal solution but if that happened we wouldn't need admins

https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic ... 54&t=14563

I never noted the guy, but at the time I didn't really understand why he did something that could have been done in a much better way. That's just a part of the game though.

For the current situation, obviously the question here is where we can draw the line between behavior that is grossly negligent and just negligent. I don't think this is as cut and dry as the posts above make it out to be, if you cause damage to an area in the station and then cause people to die from it: you better have a pretty good reason. Though, I probably would have accepted the reasoning that OP gave in this situation due to the variety of factors that caused them to card the A.I.

Do I think it was wreckless? Yes. Do I think it was grossly negligent to the point where it is borderline malicious? Debatable, but probably no.

In that case, it may be applicable to create a note to record this behavior for the future to see if it becomes a worrisome trend. Obviously there are admins who see notes as black marks that determine their judgement, but it is up to "our robust appeals process" to determine the applicability of those notes. Perhaps I am moving away from the previous trends here, but I do not see a problem with recording behavior that is potentially troublesome if the admins are competent enough to read each note and determine the applicability of the note (atleast that's what I do.)

Admins are not perfect though and many of them have different levels of what they accept. Kor is correct to state that admins don't read them and will haphazardly say "oh he has X amount of notes, so therefore he must be bad." This attitude of noting people doesn't transfer well to admins who rarely will ever note people unless they do particularly bad things. Because of this, we're going to have to make general rules of thumb before we can determine whether or not to note someone for a situation.

Cobby stated a particularly good rule of thumb with:

Cobby wrote: It's crazy the amount of text put into someone making a mistake on a singular round from both sides and certainly not worth all this trouble, especially when it could have easily been ratified in the round without much fuss (but hey that's hindsight so no worries!).

It would not be very helpful to admins if we include a gigantic note that outlines the situation, even if the legitimacy is debatable. As such, I am going to accept this note appeal.