/tg/Station 13

BYOND account: Laughingxp
Character name: Seth Hawker
Ban type: 7 day ban and 30 day job ban
Ban length: 7 days / 30 days

Ban reason:
Time ban was placed: 2021/07/15
Server you were playing on when banned: Sybil
Round ID in which ban was placed: Round ID, should be present in ban reason from server. Can be excluded if it cannot be found. Example: 101235
Your side of the story: I'll be making references to this appeal as a lot of the wrongful information that I need to refute stems from it : https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic ... 34&t=29477

In a shift that was characterized as a "greytide" themed round, with most high access areas being overridden after a traitor distributed 3 airlock overrides, I saw the clown with the captain's spare. I arrested them and confiscated the ID as per standard procedure, listening to an excuse that the captain gave it to them (which is nearly always the same false story) but I still announced on security which the captain could hear and respond to in order to let them if they wished to to verify their story (they didn't) and I immediately uncuffed them and let them go after confiscating it, as I didn't believe in an overt punishment since they hadn't abused it or had any other contraband. Some time later I was bolad and explosive speared by the clown and instantly killed. A short time before I was killed the captain had asked me if I indeed had the spare and that someone had taken it from the clown, and this was the only time that I saw any indication from the captain that the clown was legitimately given the spare but still they did not outright admit that they had given it to them personally, I indeed chose to withhold the fact that I kept it confiscated as the fact that the greytide was especially strong and all high access areas were unsecure including the bridge from the fact that it's doors were overridden beforehand and thus it made me dubious of returning it to the clown. In hindsight I probably should've just chastised the captain then for not informing anyone that he had given away the spare and caused this issue and returned it, but I chose to say I didn't have it and be sarcastic about it and did not return the spare immediately, though I was going to give it back after finishing the patrol I was on at that moment. A few minutes later, I was killed by the clown.


Why you think you should be unbanned:
I did ahelp my death for the foremost reason that it was improper escalation as at the time of me confiscating the captain's spare from the clown I did not know that they were given the spare, I was never informed. I did exactly as I was supposed to at that moment and announced the confiscation on security comms. Moocow in the time of his escelation had no idea that I was asked about the spare by the captain a couple minutes previously, and if he had not asked me I would have died thinking that I was murdered for confiscating a stolen ID, instead of being murdered for confiscating what I THOUGHT was a stolen ID at the time of arrest. I even stated that in my ahelp, showing that I knew at the time of my death that it was not stolen but that I thought so at the time of confiscation:


And yet the reasoning behind my own ban is that I was somehow ban baiting. How could that be so when;

1 - It was improper escalation since at the time of confiscation I legitimately did not know nor was informed that the most important item on the station now belonged to the clown.
2 - I made it clear in my ahelp that I had THOUGHT it was stolen when I confiscated it, thereby pointing at that at the time of the ahelp I now knew it wasn't. What the clown did was still based upon the first arrest, and they themselves did not know the captain even asked me about the spare much later until they combed through the logs, so it was entirely fair for me to ahelp them on those grounds.

Here's an example comparable to my position, which some minor details altered in order to not present an entirely identical case:

Security Officer attacks/brigs someone for having an esword. Confiscates the sword.

They are informed much after the event that the esword was in fact given to them legitimately by the captain after they had killed a traitor together.

The person whom the esword was confiscated from later kills the officer as they had "stolen" their item from them. This is their first interaction together since the confiscation.

Would the security officer not be completely in the right to ahelp their situation? That is exactly what I did and had a comparable timeline of being aware of the item was legitimately given or not.

Here is some other "evidence" that I'm having to refute that was presented against me in Moocow's appeal.

• This is the video they present that they said shows me looking at the bridge: The appeal states that I am looking at the clown being in the bridge so therefore this should have made me assume that the clown having the spare was legitimate. The problem is that I clearly am not looking or even seeing the clown there, I was looking at the fact that all of the bridge doors were emagged/airlock overridden. The clown isn't even visible, he's hiding in a plant and even later when I leave they are lying on the floor in which case the same insinuation can be made that I SHOULD have known that the captain batoned or pushed the clown on the ground or something. Either way, I don't see the clown, and to try and insinuate that them being inside a bridge that is already open to the public from the fact that the doors are bolted open should not make me think that they are the legitimate holders of the spare.

• What also confused me about the ban was a sentence at the end from MrStonedOne stating that I was "explicitely told by an admin that theft disguised as "confiscation" invalidates your sec ooc protections", which I did not know was referring to until I realized it was referring to a note from about half a year ago from a gimick round, where security decided to be lighthearted and instead of brigging people we dressed up as pirates to fine them for credits but in one case a chef murdered me for it so I ahelped it stating that it was overkill for what was clearly a lighthearted joke and we were roleplaying, but I accepted it when the admin told me that it was still technically legal for them to kill me. I don't understand how this note corresponds to this at all, as this was not "theft in the guise of confiscation" neither was that case from half a year ago and should not be some sort of basis to give me a penalty or a larger penalty.

• The other thing that keeps getting repeated in Moocow's appeal is that I "tided" the spare as a seccie. After 600 hours of playtime do you honestly believe I'm gonna care about AA as a sec, in a round that has it's brig and bridge bolted open by an airlock override? What am I gonna do, use it to access our already open armory or the already open bridge? I could care two shits about AA, we literally have near AA anyway and I didn't have any intentions of even using the thing, nor did I do so. My confiscation was entirely based upon standard procedure and doing my role as it always is, after hundreds of hours doing that I'm not going to suddenly do a 180 and shit on the rules that I followed to the best of my abilities so attempting to portray an action that was entirely within my role as somehow supposed to being for my personal enjoyment to tide is quite frankly the most disappointing and disheartening thing in this entire experience, as it puts a stain on my character and attempts to wrongly portray my honesty. It's already tough taking the IC and OOC backlash of playing as security but also being wrongfully accused of acting within the role to skirt the rules in order to something as simple and dull as to "tide" has affected me more than the ban to be honest.

I admit that the lying to the captain when he asked me much later if I had the spare and saying "no" was improper, again in hindsight I probably shoulda just sighed and immediately given it back as a result of it being a mistake of a breakdown of communication between security and command, instead of contemplating for a few more minutes whether it would be wise of giving a clown in an already disastrously tided round the spare would be a smart decision, but it was my only mistake and it did not warrant all of this. It did not excuse the escalation that was perpetrated on me and it did not warrant a ban and job ban this long for making an ahelp of said escelation. Hell if we're gonna be that technical about it I don't even think lying to him is a rule break or a dereliction of duty, especially since he didn't exactly order me to return it but just asked if I had it and that the clown had lost it to someone, which also made me think at that moment from the vagueness surrounding it all if this was a ploy by the captain to have gotten the clown in trouble in the first place.

In summary I think because of all of these reasons it was improper for me to be punished this harshly when I did everything as correctly as I thought I should and that the reasons put against me create a scenario to purposefully portray me in a bad light in order to win an appeal. I'm sorry that I answered "no" to a captain that had not told me or confirmed that he had given the spare to the clown, but that is the only thing that I am sorry about as I made my ahelp based upon reasoning that I thought was legitimate based upon my first interaction with the clown and should not have been banned and job banned for a month according to a perception that I'm somehow a vile corrupt shitsec who banbaited to further my own amusement just for a useless captains spare as security of all things.

References of good conduct: I think I have a decent record in conjunction with my playtime on the server, I have made a couple of slip ups that resulted in a warning or day ban mostly during my new time on tg but nothing actually serious.

Anything else we should know: None

Laughing wrote:The clown isn't even visible, he's hiding in a plant and even later when I leave they are lying on the floor in which case the same insinuation can be made that I SHOULD have known that the captain batoned or pushed the clown on the ground or something.

As I noted in the peanut thread, the sechud present on your screen due to your security sunglasses still displays job plates even when the player is hiding behind a plant by holding it. Furthermore, it's impossible to hold onto a plant when you're stunned from a baton or pushed as this causes you to drop it from your hands. This is occurring only a few tiles from you, and you even *clap in response to the captain's clapping, so the idea you weren't looking at them is extremely dubious.

[2021-07-14 23:52:07.681] EMOTE: 23:52:07.681] EMOTE: Eronymun/(Fujiwara Mokou) claps. (Bridge (165,139,2))
[2021-07-14 23:52:09.123] EMOTE: 23:52:09.123] EMOTE: Laughingxp/(Seth Hawker) claps. (Fore Central Primary Hallway (169,138,2))

What's dubious is that your video is supposed to be a one-in-all defense when its based on the flimsiest foundation of "Well he was in the bolted open bridge at one point so he MUST have had permission to have the captains spare!". I'm being dead serious in that I didn't see the clown, I don't remember if I saw their hud when hidden in the plant or not but I have no recollection of registering them. I looked at the fact that the bridge doors were emagged. Not sure how clapping in response to the captain clapping is supposed to be a "gotcha" moment here. Heck I'm not even sure if it was response to their clap or a clap that coincided to my own as I use the emote exclusively and pretty much as a response to everything Again especially as it's not a reason at all for them to have the spare later on when literally the entire crew has been in and out of there from the fact that the doors, again, are bolted open.

The insinuation that I should somehow put together that by being being in the bridge next to the captain the clown at one point was legitimately given the spare is just based on conjuncture, assumption. Even if I had seen the clown in the plant, seeing any plant hidden crew member inside a bridge that is already compromised being next to the captain is not some catch-all defense for having contraband afterwards. Should I assume that anyone inside a high access areas with its doors disabled should be later excused for their crimes, or having contraband or other items they normally aren't supposed to have? What would've happened if I let some traitor go and when ahelped about it had said "Oh well I saw the captain with them in the bridge the one time, so they must've been good!". I'd get ripped into. It's these kinds of stretching of the truth that presented such a dishonest case against me, especially as I didn't even see him.

The security ban has a different reason, posted here for completeness:

"(Seth Hawker) [Security] "Its as if, it was wrong to give it to them in the first place!"" Abused their security position to steal the spare id from somebody they knew was supposed to have it and hadn't yet abused it, lied to the captain about its location. Admins have had to repeatedly talk to you about appropriate security behavior, and it is starting to become clear that your tendency to do short, rash, and harsh actions as well as your tendency to accumulate loot through dubious "confiscation", might not be a good fit for somebody in the security officer role.

(short rash and harsh actions refers to some of the notes you have this year for security conduct)

From my prospective, It's really hard to believe you were acting in good faith purely based off of that quote i quoted in the ban reason. It doesn't come off as the response of somebody who just found out the captain did in fact authorize the clown to have the space, but as somebody who already knew and already had opinions about it.

I legitimately did not know nor was informed that the most important item on the station now belonged to the clown.

[2021-07-14 23:47:28.178] SAY: Eronymun/(Fujiwara Mokou) (priority announcement) "First person who sends me a picture of Mario's feet gets the spare" (Captain's Office (161,130,2))

Now, you could argue that either 1: you didn't see it, or 2: you didn't know it was serious and thought they were joking and never planned to hand it out.

But both points still begs the same question, once you took the spare, why didn't you return it to who you thought was its rightful owner? (or the warden/hos for safe keeping until they could pick it up)

Somebody stealing an item that neither they, nor security, have authority to have, doesn't give security the authority to have said item just because they took it from somebody who stole it. If you had stolen the spare from bridge as security without cause (cause being something like no heads of staff at all and you being the only security) we can both agree that that would be theft and maybe even abuse of the security role to tide. Confiscated on station items still belong to their original department. Even more so for a command restricted item like the spare. Even more so if the confiscation was done under the assumption that the item was stolen. The fact you still had it 20 minutes later doesn't help your case.

And when you think about it, the moment you didn't tell the captain where it was when they asked in security radio, you were stealing the spare from the captain.

I even stated that in my ahelp, showing that I knew at the time of my death that it was not stolen but that I thought so at the time of confiscation

So, do you think the fact that the captain had asked about who took the spare from the clown and you lied might have been relevant information?

Moocow in the time of his escelation had no idea that I was asked about the spare by the captain a couple minutes previously

But that goes both ways thou? in the moment you ahelped, you don't know that the clown didn't know. They could have been standing next to the captain when he asked and the captain could have said that you said you didn't have it.

though I was going to give it back after finishing the patrol I was on at that moment. A few minutes later, I was killed by the clown.

But, like, why didn't you give it back to them when they asked you for it, about halfway between the captain asking you, and them killing you?

[2021-07-15 00:05:53.327] TCOMMS: Eronymun/(Fujiwara Mokou) [Security] (spans: command_headset ) "You got the spare?" (language: Galactic Common) (Bridge (154,141,2))
[2021-07-15 00:05:56.662] TCOMMS: Laughingxp/(Seth Hawker) [Security] (spans: ) "No" (language: Galactic Common) (Starboard Primary Hallway (190,130,2))

-snip-

[2021-07-15 00:07:39.948] SAY: MooCow12/(Buzz Saw) "where is my id" (Fore Central Primary Hallway (170,137,2))
-snip-
[2021-07-15 00:07:40.540] SAY: Laughingxp/(Seth Hawker) "the entire crew is tiding" (Bridge (168,139,2))
-snip-
[2021-07-15 00:07:42.195] SAY: Laughingxp/(Seth Hawker) "with you heads" (Bridge (167,139,2))

-snip-

[2021-07-15 00:09:00.542] EMOTE: Laughingxp/(Seth Hawker) seizes up and falls limp, his eyes dead and lifeless... (Aft Central Primary Hallway (134,113,2))

You two were four tiles near each other AFTER the captain asked you.

I'm gonna give you some time to look this over and respond to it, before we proceed further, my closing thoughts is that yes, the clown didn't know, and normally their behavior could be bannable, but we can look at a situation and decide that the bad faith actions that created that situation override the bad ways it was handled by the victims in the situation.

"(Seth Hawker) [Security] "Its as if, it was wrong to give it to them in the first place!"" Abused their security position to steal the spare id from somebody they knew was supposed to have it and hadn't yet abused it, lied to the captain about its location. Admins have had to repeatedly talk to you about appropriate security behavior, and it is starting to become clear that your tendency to do short, rash, and harsh actions as well as your tendency to accumulate loot through dubious "confiscation", might not be a good fit for somebody in the security officer role.


(short rash and harsh actions refers to some of the notes you have this year for security conduct)

From my prospective, It's really hard to believe you were acting in good faith purely based off of that quote i quoted in the ban reason. It doesn't come off as the response of somebody who just found out the captain did in fact authorize the clown to have the space, but as somebody who already knew and already had opinions about it.

I'm having trouble understanding how you would think that response needs to necessarily stem from prior knowledge? It's always clear to captains that if you're going to do something that puts the security of the station at risk, you clearly tell security about it first. Not only that, but even though the clown was yelling in public comms for the captain to confirm he was given the disk and I announcing what I was doing in security comms, the captain didn't reply to either of us or confirm in either comm channels. I'm being completely honest when I replied "it was wrong to give it to them in the first place" when the cap contacted me for the first time much after the confiscation, as that is the moment that made me think "oh, so the captain really may have given it to them, pretty shitty that they told me so much later after the fact instead of confirming it before or at least during the arrest". Why is telling them my opinion at that moment supposed to show that I held that opinion beforehand instead of formulating it when they spoke to me? It was entirely normal for me to tell them that what they did was not a well thought out decision, as it led to me having to waste the clowns time along with me having to pick up the spare off all things when I'm already picking up random airlock overrides from the ground like Cheetos that was given out by a traitor.

And I don't have a tendency of rash harsh decisions? I've been going security most of the shifts I've played this year. How many admin notes do I have related to security in my supposedly long rapsheet? 3? Compared to what, hundreds of shifts? Obviously it's an awkward situation for a player to discuss their record in a public thread but I'm pretty sure that I don't have something that warrants you to put a label like that on me. And for every one of the notes I usually always had a legitimate issue to my side to voice, hence why I'm pretty sure (I may be wrong) I only have a single ban on record and that was (ironically) not as security, but as an assistant for critting someone who I perceived to be a heavy-handed shitsec. And none of those notes was about "confiscating" items besides as I explained, deciding to do a gimick one time of taking a fine of credits as pirate sec which we returned a minute later (and that was an ahelp from my end, not ON me, which had an admin clarify that I could indeed be killed if I took items). Fuck am I gonna do with "loot" as sec anyway, that's for crew that actually need the gear. Anyone that's played sec with me knows that I don't even keep most of the "gamer" gear and just leave it in the lockers for someone else to use.

I legitimately did not know nor was informed that the most important item on the station now belonged to the clown.



[2021-07-14 23:47:28.178] SAY: Eronymun/(Fujiwara Mokou) (priority announcement) "First person who sends me a picture of Mario's feet gets the spare" (Captain's Office (161,130,2))



Now, you could argue that either 1: you didn't see it, or 2: you didn't know it was serious and thought they were joking and never planned to hand it out.

You're correct in that the "someone give me feet pics for id" message isn't something I saw, and I wouldn't have taken it seriously if I did. Honestly a joke of a line like that can't be used as a proper confirmation of the captain giving the spare to the clown. And again, he didn't even confirm it after the clown repeatedly yelled for him in public comms, I even waited for him to say something in security when I said that the clown had the spare and I was taking it. But the captain didn't respond. So how exactly could I know (As you say) at the time of my sarcastic reply to the captain, that the clown was in fact given the spare legitimately? No order voiced, no confirmation about it voiced and it wasn't done in front of me, it all points to how I legitimately didn't know it was officially given to them until that message. If you still don't believe me at that point and say "Well, I honestly still have doubts" what exactly am I supposed to do but throw my hands up in resignation?

But both points still begs the same question, once you took the spare, why didn't you return it to who you thought was its rightful owner? (or the warden/hos for safe keeping until they could pick it up)

Somebody stealing an item that neither they, nor security, have authority to have, doesn't give security the authority to have said item just because they took it from somebody who stole it. If you had stolen the spare from bridge as security without cause (cause being something like no heads of staff at all and you being the only security) we can both agree that that would be theft and maybe even abuse of the security role to tide. Confiscated on station items still belong to their original department. Even more so for a command restricted item like the spare. Even more so if the confiscation was done under the assumption that the item was stolen. The fact you still had it 20 minutes later doesn't help your case.

Right, so I stole the spare by confiscating it from who I thought stole the spare? I literally have a bag load of things I need to do as security in an average round and that was especially the case in a shift where near everyone was tiding in some form, even being assisted by our captain. This includes the fact that I was investigating who was using all the airlock overrides around the station, analyzing prints and asking people like Sunshine if they had info on any more overrides so I could stop an already chaotic situation turn less so. So in short, I had bigger priorities than giving the captain his spare ID which I probably half-forgot about as you kinda get sidetracked when you need to deal with every little issue. But honestly it's incredibly arbitrary to somehow point at me and say that I myself am I thief because I didn't immediately rush back and give the captain his ID. Are we going to have a timer set for security now for how long they can hold onto stolen items they retrieve from thieves before turning it in? Whats too long, 5 minutes? 10? 20? What if they're in the middle of a patrol, a fight. an investigation? I'm blunt when I say that I used my personal judgement as a seccie and thought that the issue of the ID had less importance than the issue of tracking down who was overriding the doors leading to high trespass areas first, so it's mind boggling to me that as a sec officer you think I don't deserve a medium of trust in holding onto the spare until the more major issues that I'm trying to handle are resolved.


You could say "fine, but why didn't you return the ID when it was clear that they HAD given the id to the clown" and I'd say what I already mentioned that I was planning to. Specifically, I was finishing up what I was doing at the moment and was going to see if the situation was cooled down enough that it'd be safe for everyone to give the spare back. But again I'm expected to keep the station secure too, so I also need to be able to make intelligent decisions in judging what is better for the station without outright disobeying heads. With all the shifts I've and others have seen, it's not a lie when I say that some captains do sometimes do things that directly contrast with what I'm supposed to do as security, sometimes blatantly helping traitors or self antags, and at that point it becomes a murky grey line in where do I follow the captains orders or follow standard procedure/space law/the rules/or the hos. I lied to the captain, I never disobeyed him, if he had said "Seth, give the clown the ID" I would just give it back but by just asking me if I had the ID and showing that they were doing something dangerous for the crew, they put me on that grey territory and I lied of having it and thought it'd be better for the station to give it back in a few minutes instead once things were more in order. As I said in my first post, in hindsight I made the wrong decision and should've cut out that autonomous part of my brain, but it can't be falsely attributed to some sort of selfish desire in me to tide with a spare.

Lastly, I'm doing my job, the procedures and guidelines for which are clearly outlined for anyone to see.


I'm a security officer who confiscates an item on the assumption that it was stolen, an item whose possession by crew constitutes a CAPITAL CRIME, the worst crime that you can commit and that I'm supposed to watch out for, and when I do so and do not get confirmation that they're allowed to have said item I'm either a tiding loot seeking thief or a clown abuser? Really?

I even stated that in my ahelp, showing that I knew at the time of my death that it was not stolen but that I thought so at the time of confiscation


So, do you think the fact that the captain had asked about who took the spare from the clown and you lied might have been relevant information?

Moocow in the time of his escelation had no idea that I was asked about the spare by the captain a couple minutes previously


But that goes both ways thou? in the moment you ahelped, you don't know that the clown didn't know. They could have been standing next to the captain when he asked and the captain could have said that you said you didn't have it.

You're right, I didn't know what the clown knew or didn't know just as I don't know what any other player knows at all times. and there might have been a chance as you say that they heard it from the captain if they were next to them when the captain spoke to me. That is the point of an ahelp isn't it, so the admin investigates the matter and then returns and says "sorry dude, but at the time of the escalation they DID know and have cause because they heard it from the cap" or "yeah they didn't know so they were unjustified". I guessed that the bigger possibility was that the clown didn't know and killed me based on our first interaction and so that was what I based my ahelp on, but I have no way of confirming that without metaing so we players ahelp things for clarification of the situation. I can't exactly be blamed for not investigating the details of what another player that killed me knew or didn't know, that's in the hands of the admin looking into my matter. That also directly corresponds into what you first asked about whether it would've been relevant information to include my dishonestly with the captain in my ahelp; because I guessed that it was based on our first interaction (which it was, as Moocow learns LATER of my conversation with the captain as they admit to repeatedly on their posts) I didn't deem it relevant to the actual situation that led to my death, which is true, I didn't think something that wasn't part of the false valid reason the clown had on me was relevant enough to add.

though I was going to give it back after finishing the patrol I was on at that moment. A few minutes later, I was killed by the clown.


But, like, why didn't you give it back to them when they asked you for it, about halfway between the captain asking you, and them killing you?

[2021-07-15 00:05:53.327] TCOMMS: Eronymun/(Fujiwara Mokou) [Security] (spans: command_headset ) "You got the spare?" (language: Galactic Common) (Bridge (154,141,2))
[2021-07-15 00:05:56.662] TCOMMS: Laughingxp/(Seth Hawker) [Security] (spans: ) "No" (language: Galactic Common) (Starboard Primary Hallway (190,130,2))

-snip-

[2021-07-15 00:07:39.948] SAY: MooCow12/(Buzz Saw) "where is my id" (Fore Central Primary Hallway (170,137,2))
-snip-
[2021-07-15 00:07:40.540] SAY: Laughingxp/(Seth Hawker) "the entire crew is tiding" (Bridge (168,139,2))
-snip-
[2021-07-15 00:07:42.195] SAY: Laughingxp/(Seth Hawker) "with you heads" (Bridge (167,139,2))

-snip-

[2021-07-15 00:09:00.542] EMOTE: Laughingxp/(Seth Hawker) seizes up and falls limp, his eyes dead and lifeless... (Aft Central Primary Hallway (134,113,2))


You two were four tiles near each other AFTER the captain asked you.

Honestly I probably never even noticed them and just passed them by probably before resuming my patrol. Sometimes there isn't really a complex reason, you type and move on.

All in all this has been a very frustrating experience, to have to ahelp my own death after being insta killed, limbs and ears damaged and ID/gear lost and effectively round ended because I wasn't told a clown was given one of the items I'm supposed to guard, and then being banned for 30 days because apparently confiscating said item is somehow an abuse of sec or that not giving enough information on my own ahelp when everything that was relevant to the original reason Moocow escalated on me was honestly given is quite frankly ludicrous, especially since it was as a result of a bunch of false information, assumptions and general OOC goading of each other that stems from anti-sec sentiment after Moocow was given a day-ban for their improper escalation, all of which resulted not just in a ban for me but a pretty damning and public shit on my reputation as a player with no justification. I understand shitsec bad talk and honestly that's fine, it comes with the game and its culture and it's not the end of the world, but the entire effort to construct a ban for me which is so baseless, has no proper justification and is personally damaging to me just makes me feel like I have nothing else to say.

It's important to note the distinction between

rules wrote:You can't kill or maim security for trying to arrest you for legitimate reasons.

and

not the rules wrote:You can't kill or maim security for trying to arrest you for what security perceives to be legitimate reasons.

If security is in the wrong for arresting you, then you are free to treat them like any other person per the rules. The onus is on security to make sure theyre arresting someone for legitimate reasons if they want that protection. The going-to-be-arrested should NOT have to "willingly" forfeit your round (like you pointed out this was a capital offense had he actually did the thing, which would likely result in perma and/or killing) because security is not optimal or is failing to look into the issue much.

To wrap that into this scenario specifically, I think the ban or at least part of it is actually knowing the clown had reason to be upset because you attempted to arrest them illegitimately (again, whether you believed it or not at the time doesnt really matter for the purpose of escalation, it was either legitimate or not to arrest which in this case falls under being illegitimate), proceeded to hold onto it when at this point you know you've continued to hold onto it unjustifiably, making you no better than a player withholding an item from another player, then still decided to ahelp with the pretense that because you were sec you were ok to act that way.

an item whose possession by crew constitutes a CAPITAL CRIME,

Spess law clearly states that theft of the items constitutes capital crime, not mere possession.

Right, so I stole the spare by confiscating it from who I thought stole the spare? I literally have a bag load of things I need to do as security.

An item that was confiscated because it was stolen from somebody else still belongs to the person it was presumed stolen from. Do you dispute this?

Possessing an item you do not own, and do not have authorization to have, is theft, do you dispute this?

Hindering the owner from trying to ascertain its whereabouts brings it from "maybe they haven't gotten to returning it yet" to "oh ya, they weren't trying to return it to its rightful owner", do you dispute this?

Intent here isn't as important, the captain did not give you the id, your authorization to have it extended only from your assumption it was stolen, and the moment you decided to confiscate it, yes, your job became to return it to its owner, not lie to the owner (or even previous owner whos also your bosses bosses boss) about its whereabouts, and your job definitely wasn't to take into consideration rather or not "the situation was cooled enough that it'd be safe for everyone to give the spare back". If you had more important things to do than return the spare, then you had more important things to do than to confiscate the spare.

By not trying to return it, you committed a capital crime, as security, by your own posting of spesslaw, and by trying to hide the fact you had it from the captain, you killed your only defense "I hadn't gotten to it yet" as you actively prevented the person who you thought owned the item from ascertaining its whereabouts.

From an IC stand point, you should have been permabrigged or executed. And rather or not your actions as security make sense from an ic stand point is relevant when evaluating them from an ooc standpoint.

---

Going back to the rest of your appeal, by your own admissions, there were two incidences where you missed things in chat relevant to how you proceeded with the confiscation of the spare id and the aftermath. (one before, one after) You seeing either one would have prevented this situation from resolving as badly as it did. (yes, you wouldn't have taken the captains announcement seriously, but it would have played in your mind if you later saw the clown with the spare, or rather, we'd be here instead arguing that you should have taken that announcement into consideration when deciding to make the assumption that it was stolen)

If the captain had said on radio or announcement that they had given the clown the spare, would you have even seen it?

I think we both know the answer is "only if it was on sec radio".

Just like how the captain likely missed all the clown's messages, and your message, because they weren't on command radio and the captain wasn't actively talking on common or security radio to have cause to pay attention to it... (If only there was a way to personally send a d)

It has become clear that regardless of this appeal, assuming that somebody who is not command with the spare could only have it because they stole it, can not be SoP anymore. The fact of the matter is its is unlikely the captain can ever hand it out under that system because even if they told sec, over sec radio, and everybody in sec actually saw it, some random sec officer who late joined isn't going to see that and they're gonna just arrest the holder of the spare anyways, and when choiced between allowing sec to min/max and hyper optimize the security of the station by making assumptions over allowing the captain to run their station freely in ways that create an imperfectly ran station, the latter is gonna win. It is not good enough to just mention it in sec radio and see if anyone speaks up that its not stolen, you need confirmation from the rightful owner(s) that its use is unauthorized or that its missing.

---

Going back to intent, because in a lot of ways, this ban depends on it, I'll concede that you not seeing those messages is plausible enough to be mitigating, and this does a lot to the likelihood you were intentionally "ban baiting" (this isn't actually a good fit term, abuse of admin helps in bad faith is more correctly characterizing to how i read the situation). I still think you undersold your interaction with the clown and knowledge of why they killed you in the admin helps.

For the server ban, i'm willing to lower it to 3 days.

In regards to the security job ban. Since this has entered the public limelight, I've heard players and admins characterize you as being somebody who tries to find any excuse to confiscate items and collect loot. You are in fact correct that you had no notes and no bans relating to this type of conduct, this was a mitigating factor that I took into account when I was initially thinking of a perma sec ban.

I'm telling you this because I want to make sure you understand, that when you say this:

all of which resulted not just in a ban for me but a pretty damning and public shit on my reputation as a player with no justification.

You are wrong. This ban, and this situation, did not create the reputation you have as secshit who collects loot with excessive confiscations, you already had it.

Because you admitted that it was wrong to lie to the captain, apologized for doing so, and bring up a good point about round count vs note count, I'm willing to knock a week off of your sec job ban.

I'll also adjust the notes slightly to reflect more of what can be confirmed.

For my final word, I'm gonna leave you with this:

All in all this has been a very frustrating experience

Imagine how the clown felt.

Spess law clearly states that theft of the items constitutes capital crime, not mere possession.

This is a very misleading and double-think way of looking at this, how else do you categorize the theft of something other than that someone is in the possession of something that does not belong to them? If someone is not caught in the act of theft, but instead caught afterwards when they are already in possession of the stolen item, does that mean they are innocent? When I see someone with something that doesn't belong to them, it's an exaggeration for me to assume they stole it?

Possessing an item you do not own, and do not have authorization to have, is theft, do you dispute this?

Of course I do not dispute it, that's exactly the point I made and in direct contrast with what you just said here

Spess law clearly states that theft of the items constitutes capital crime, not mere possession.

Or is the point you're trying to make that by possessing said item that I was also a thief? You seem to leave out two very important distinctions;

1- IC as a security officer I am the agent of the space law that actually outlines the laws and the details regarding individual laws such as those concerned with theft, contraband etcetera, so as an agent of the law who enforces said law you cannot say "oh by responding to the breaking of law you also broke the law yourself", that is what an agent is, I have the capacity to act within the framework as the response to the original action of law-breaking. It's the same reason why a cop that batons a murderer trying to knife a pedastrian doesn't get charged with assault, or one that confiscates the drugs a drug dealer is selling isn't charged with possession of drugs themselves, they are acting in the capacity of the law they enforce.

2- This is the more important reason I announced my actions to the entirety of security and the captain in the midst of doing it, so every organ related to space law IC (including the lawyers) clearly heard what I said and thus any doubt that it was outside the parameters of what we're supposed to do is erased at that point. The moment a sec officer announces the confiscation of an illegal item in security comms, the collective organ that concerns itself with law is informed about the officer's actions. The only thing that could've allowed for a deviation from the standard procedure of following the law would have been the captains word, and he did not respond to my announcement in security comms so the only veto that could really arise to my both legal and publicly announced action never came. This is what directly marks a distinction between an unknown member of the public possessing an illegal item, to an agent possessing an illegal item that was acquired through the confiscation and announced as such to all other agents/command that decide what the nature of legality can even be.

Hindering the owner from trying to ascertain its whereabouts brings it from "maybe they haven't gotten to returning it yet" to "oh ya, they weren't trying to return it to its rightful owner", do you dispute this?

Intent here isn't as important, the captain did not give you the id, your authorization to have it extended only from your assumption it was stolen, and the moment you decided to confiscate it, yes, your job became to return it to its owner, not lie to the owner (or even previous owner whos also your bosses bosses boss) about its whereabouts, and your job definitely wasn't to take into consideration rather or not "the situation was cooled enough that it'd be safe for everyone to give the spare back". If you had more important things to do than return the spare, then you had more important things to do than to confiscate the spare.

By not trying to return it, you committed a capital crime, as security, by your own posting of spesslaw, and by trying to hide the fact you had it from the captain, you killed your only defense "I hadn't gotten to it yet" as you actively prevented the person who you thought owned the item from ascertaining its whereabouts.

From an IC stand point, you should have been permabrigged or executed. And rather or not your actions as security make sense from an ic stand point is relevant when evaluating them from an ooc standpoint.

This correlates back into what I said about acting within the parameters of the law and also taking into account what I was already busy with and attempting to avoid more hazards to security happening in the station. For the majority of the time I was unaware that the spare was given to the clown and and immediately went back to resuming my original goal of investigating the door overrides after I confiscated it, by your logic not showing immediacy in returning the ID makes me guilty of the same capital crime, when it is both common sense and practice to understand that an agent of a lawset being enforced also has a necessary medium of leeway when enforcing law as following everything to the letter and going from Point A to Point B without any deviation is impossible for humans, we aren't robots for a reason. Even when the captain asked me if I had the ID, which I replied negatively to (and was also 2 minutes before I was murdered) I exercises a degree of leeway that is even stated by /tg to be permitted

The rules and regulations herein are not absolutes, instead they exist to serve mainly as guidelines for the law and order of the dynamic situations that exist for stations on the frontiers of space, as such some leeway is permitted

and this law, also applies to the captain himself

Space Law is a collection of rules and regulations enacted by Nanotrasen which has oversight through CentCom and is enforced by the Sec Officers on the station. Space Law applies to all ranks and positions on station, from the lowliest Assistant to the highest Captain, all are equal under the eyes of the Law and ultimately answer to her

The leeway that I acted with was relatively minor (saying I didn't have the ID so I could return it in a few minutes instead of immediately during which a bunch of people were tresspassing in an out) in response to what was a relatively minor space law infringement on the captain's part (allowing and encouraging mass tiding/tresspassing etc by crew). This is called acting proportionate, and you are incorrect in assuming that just because I'm a sec officer I should follow the captain to the letter when it infringes on the law. Just as we are expected to resist something that infringes on space law and the rules such as the baseless killing of crew by a captain, it is also entirely reasonable to expect the most minor of passive resistance to relatively minor acts that infringe on the law or make the station more dangerous, which is exactly what I did in not immediately rushing to the captain in returning the id. To characterize what I did as being completely the same as the theft of the captains spare is a gross exaggeration and oversimplification with no regard to the details of the ongoing round.

Going back to the rest of your appeal, by your own admissions, there were two incidences where you missed things in chat relevant to how you proceeded with the confiscation of the spare id and the aftermath. (one before, one after) You seeing either one would have prevented this situation from resolving as badly as it did. (yes, you wouldn't have taken the captains announcement seriously, but it would have played in your mind if you later saw the clown with the spare, or rather, we'd be here instead arguing that you should have taken that announcement into consideration when deciding to make the assumption that it was stolen)

If the captain had said on radio or announcement that they had given the clown the spare, would you have even seen it?

I think we both know the answer is "only if it was on sec radio".

Just like how the captain likely missed all the clown's messages, and your message, because they weren't on command radio and the captain wasn't actively talking on common or security radio to have cause to pay attention to it... (If only there was a way to personally send a d)

You're basing your entire argument on assumptions, and what I "would" have done or "would have said "if" the captain had actually confirmed giving the clown the spare. The only "incidence" that is relevant would be one that is before the confiscation and my announcement that it's confiscated, and that "incidence" was the captain saying "give for feet pics for the id". That is not the same as a confirmation of giving the spare and no, it wouldn't have "played in my mind" if I had seen the clown having the ID, I would do the same thing; confiscate the ID and say so in comms in order to verify if the clown was given the ID which. is. exactly. what. I. did. Therefore I didn't miss a message that was directly relevant to the confiscation, the captain did. Theirs was a statement that is an absolute joke and gives no indication of who the spare will actually go to and gives me nothing to change the rules of procedure around for a specific person, mine was a concrete statement on which stated role (the Clown) doing what (having the spare) and my response (taking it). I have no responsibility in following up with a statement that has no indication of being serious, is not addressed to me or does not even contain a subject person, while the captain should have addressed my announcement in security comms if he truly wished to avoid this situation. Ignoring all of that and saying "you not taking into account the captain say feet pics for id is the same as them not hearing your clear announcement that you're arresting the clown for having the captain's spare" is incredibly disingenuous.

It has become clear that regardless of this appeal, assuming that somebody who is not command with the spare could only have it because they stole it, can not be SoP anymore. The fact of the matter is its is unlikely the captain can ever hand it out under that system because even if they told sec, over sec radio, and everybody in sec actually saw it, some random sec officer who late joined isn't going to see that and they're gonna just arrest the holder of the spare anyways, and when choiced between allowing sec to min/max and hyper optimize the security of the station by making assumptions over allowing the captain to run their station freely in ways that create an imperfectly ran station, the latter is gonna win. It is not good enough to just mention it in sec radio and see if anyone speaks up that its not stolen, you need confirmation from the rightful owner(s) that its use is unauthorized or that its missing.

This is another problem with your approach to this, that is NOT the SoP. The SoP is NOT arresting or assuming anyone not command with the spare stole it, it's that anyone that wasn't confirmed as being authorized as having the spare is not regarded as getting it legitimately from the get-go This is literally why we have (albeit not used that much) approval stamps for heads to use, to confirm something on paper or just them telling us that they authorize this person or that person as being allowed to keep the spare. That is a good thing. We will literally PROTECT a person's right to have something that is authorized as having things like the spare or contraband gear if the captain clearly okays it until they abuse it somehow overtly against crew. This is what is also frustrating because I do not know why you keep refusing to acknowledge your own servers rules of security procedure and how they operate, you quite clearly refuse to see the nuances that it's concerned about in the other thread with your statements;

sinfulbliss wrote:
It is SoP to confiscate the spare from a non-head or non-command.



What I want to know, is that under your "its SoP" defense, under that world, how exactly IS the captain suppose to grant somebody access to the spare if who ever they give it to will just get it confiscated by security? Especially when said security officer won't even give it back to command for UP TO 20 MINUTES afterwards?

Intended to hand it out to who is the question.



no its not, the moment security knew the captain planned to hand it out, they no longer had reason to assume it was stolen the moment they saw it in the hands of non-command.

And just like in that thread I would point it this is a needlessly limited and quite incorrect way of looking at the SoP, one cannot assume that just seeing the intention of the captain maybe giving it to someone in the future is the same as designating who he's giving it to, as that would mean I would have to ignore ANYONE who has or is carrying contraband that the captain referred to as being things he may give away. If this WERE actual procedure, then I would have my hands tied if someone robbed the captain of his gear, spaced his ass somewhere and ran around with his ID because I would "Have to no longer assume it was stolen because you know the captain planned to hand it out!", that is just so incredibly illogical and also gives credence to why I think this is just an incorrect way of handling my ticket.

It has become clear that regardless of this appeal, assuming that somebody who is not command with the spare could only have it because they stole it, can not be SoP anymore.

Then change it, good go make it clear on what can or can't be confiscated, streamline it and make the process easier AWESOME, but don't try and convince me that it's somehow fair to punish me for acting in accordance to what the SoP already is. Which again is not "ah that man not department head, better beat him with boomstick", it's "that guy was not confirmed as being allowed that captain's ID/sword/gear/sec armor/sec ID to us by the captain/hos/acting cap". I'm sorry but at the risk of seeming like an asshole, you should already know or understand that difference as the host.

Going back to intent, because in a lot of ways, this ban depends on it, I'll concede that you not seeing those messages is plausible enough to be mitigating, and this does a lot to the likelihood you were intentionally "ban baiting" (this isn't actually a good fit term, abuse of admin helps in bad faith is more correctly characterizing to how i read the situation). I still think you undersold your interaction with the clown and knowledge of why they killed you in the admin helps

Undersold? Hah, how? It's literally all in the logs, my entire interaction with the clown was "exactly" as I wrote in my ahelp, I saw the spare, arrested him and confiscated it and let him go immediately afterwards, it lasted less than 40 seconds. What part of that did I not include? After all of those points how can you say that I 'undersold" or "lied" about my interaction with the clown when that was literally my entire interaction with him until he came up to kill me twenty minutes later. The fact that a minute before I was killed that the captain asked me about the spare and me not including those two sentences shared with the captain is somehow being dishonest in my ahelp? It had no correlation to why the clown incorrectly escalated. The captain could've called and said "Oh hey seth, clowns suck right" "Yeah cap they sure do, they're assholes" and it would've been the same thing, it wouldn't have had a CORRELATION to the reason as to why the clown killed me. This is literally said so by the admin that first looked into the case;




Then why am I being punished for not including something that has no relevance to why he wrongly escalated, how does that make sense when it wouldn't have made a difference? Goddamn I was asked what happened and I gave the reason of why I thought I was killed, which was the reason. How is it banbaiting or anything else you're trying to pin on me just because I didn't add "oh yeah by the way a minute before he killed me the captain did ask me about the spare so at that moment I learned he was allowed to have it, but I had no such knowledge at the time of his arrest" at the end of that ahelp?

In regards to the security job ban. Since this has entered the public limelight, I've heard players and admins characterize you as being somebody who tries to find any excuse to confiscate items and collect loot. You are in fact correct that you had no notes and no bans relating to this type of conduct, this was a mitigating factor that I took into account when I was initially thinking of a perma sec ban.

I'm telling you this because I want to make sure you understand, that when you say this:

all of which resulted not just in a ban for me but a pretty damning and public shit on my reputation as a player with no justification.



You are wrong. This ban, and this situation, did not create the reputation you have as secshit who collects loot with excessive confiscations, you already had it.

You are what's wrong. Your entire way of approaching this appeal. There is a difference between perception and truth. You admit that I have no notes, no warnings no bans nothing related to this, absolutely no proof that I "make up reasons to loot items" because I don't. Yet you somehow think it's appropriate to still say "yeah you're shitsec anyway because I heard from people that you do that, even though I don't exactly have proof of it" and judge my punishment on an already baseless ban and make it harsher based on rumors that you can't even substantiate? Here is an example of what "perception" means; a couple weeks ago we had a cult round, it was announced through the AI that the cult was in science, so in that round deep into the cult round I arrested a scientist and found a cult blade in his bag. He was one of the THREE people I arrested and searched that day, the others being someone who was called out as being cult or being near the runes. You know what happened? The entire ooc chat after that round was filled with people, led by most loudly people that were caught, saying that I was "making up reasons to search and confiscate". I had to talk with an admin, who I gave my reason to and who cleared it up, and had access to the logs if he wanted anymore proof, thanked me for my time and left. Because I didn't do anything wrong, but that doesn't change the perception. This game's player-base is mostly comprised of teenagers and young adults, people get frustrated when they get caught, they take out that frustration by insulting or blaming the people that caught them. Imagine how that works when the person that catches you is a regularly active sec officer that tends to know what he's doing. You sometimes get shitty perceptions about you that turn louder and louder.

You're basically saying that it doesn't matter if a player doesn't have any admin notes or bans on record, the things that make up the truth that archive what they do and are known to do. What you're telling me is what matters is the "perception" of what I do and who I am, not what I really am, and that is exactly what an administration is supposed to NOT do. You're supposed to look at the facts and judge me on my actual actions with your own competence and due diligence and you're actually trying to tell me that you don't care about that and instead care about the fact that "some people" think I confiscate and loot things without cause, which somehow has never been recorded or noted about me in any way (Because hey, It Isn't true!). Man, you nearly permanently job banned me on nothing more than "I heard you confiscate stuff". It's for that reason and for the entire way you've conducted this 30 day ban is why I think I'm wasting my breath.

For my final word, I'm gonna leave you with this:

Imagine how the clown felt.

I am. I imagine how he must've felt for getting a day ban after getting mad that he had to kill a big bad seccie who took his all access away and let him go immediately, and I compare that to me being banned for 30 times that amount for ahelping him for it. Guess who has a right to feel worse.

You can keep your original ban timer, I have no wish to come back to a server on principal whose administration so openly disregards fact and bases its punishments on personal views on already established rules and procedure, giving credence to hearsay and disregarding actual proof or evidence. I'd rather know that I'm right than accept your discount.

And that's my final word.

1. stop using my video as evidence, its edited and has large jumps in time, a few frames of Seth on screen with me entering the bridge with the captain shouldn`t even be relevant when this all started over escalation, Seth can have ALL the benefit of doubt for the initial arrest and confiscation. But the main issue is the escalation over the 20 minutes of me bitchin on radio + him avoiding me when I asked where it was + him keeping it for himself. + me espearing him as a means to get it back after giving him plenty of time to come to his senses. (If youre a sec officer and you took something important such as the Spare AA from someone it should be one of your priorities to figure out WHY or HOW they had it because it implies the captain was either endangered or compromised/etc.)

2. This is its own point because its important, Seth saw me leaving bridge with captain without the ID in my PDA yet, stop using my video as evidence.

3. When the captain gave me permission to cuff seth it implied to me that 1. The captain still did not have the ID back (therefore seth still most likely has it) and 2. That the ID was still mine to fight for, and 3. The captain (and Shaps) need to learn how clumsy works.

This is a very misleading and double-think way of looking at this, how else do you categorize the theft of something other than that someone is in the possession of something that does not belong to them?

but thats not what you said, you said "possession by the crew" you never mentioned theft

no, you can not fucking assume.

Or is the point you're trying to make that by possessing said item that I was also a thief? You seem to leave out two very important distinctions;

1- IC as a security officer I am the agent of the space law that actually outlines the laws and the details regarding individual laws such as those concerned with theft, contraband etcetera, so as an agent of the law who enforces said law you cannot say "oh by responding to the breaking of law you also broke the law yourself", that is what an agent is, I have the capacity to act within the framework as the response to the original action of law-breaking. It's the same reason why a cop that batons a murderer trying to knife a pedastrian doesn't get charged with assault, or one that confiscates the drugs a drug dealer is selling isn't charged with possession of drugs themselves, they are acting in the capacity of the law they enforce.

and im pointing out that not making an attempt to return it to its original owner (the message about the spare on security channel doesn't count), AND FUCKING LYING ABOUT ITS LOCATION TO THE ORIGINAL OWNER. turns it from you being an agent of the law to you fucking stealing it.

when it is both common sense and practice to understand that an agent of a lawset being enforced also has a necessary medium of leeway when enforcing law as following everything to the letter and going from Point A to Point B without any deviation is impossible for humans, we aren't robots for a reason.

That leeway doesn't give you the authority to FUCKING STEAL THE SPARE BY NOT TRYING TO RETURN IT TO ITS ORIGINAL OWNER AND FUCKING LYING TO THEM ABOUT ITS LOCATION.

Even when the captain asked me if I had the ID, which I replied negatively to (and was also 2 minutes before I was murdered) I exercises a degree of leeway that is even stated by /tg to be permitted

No, you thought you could steal the spare from the captain and clown because you didn't want the clown to have it and you didn't want the captain to give it to the clown.

THAT IS STILL FUCKING THEFT.

You're basing your entire argument on assumptions, and what I "would" have done or "would have said "if" the captain had actually confirmed giving the clown the spare. The only "incidence" that is relevant would be one that is before the confiscation and my announcement that it's confiscated, and that "incidence" was the captain saying "give for feet pics for the id". That is not the same as a confirmation of giving the spare and no, it wouldn't have "played in my mind" if I had seen the clown having the ID, I would do the same thing; confiscate the ID and say so in comms in order to verify if the clown was given the ID which. is. exactly. what. I. did.

1: YOU BASED THE ENTIRE FUCKING ARREST OF THE CLOWN ON AN ASSUMPTION. YOU HAVE NO FUCKING RIGHT TO GET MAD AT ME FOR DOING IT WHILE YOU ARE STILL DEFENDING YOUR OWN ASSUMPTIONS

2: 'i would do the same thing'. thank you for removing all doubt i had in my mind as to rather or not you should be security job banned. HOW THE FUCK CAN YOU GO ABOUT ASSUMING ITS STOLEN IF YOU 1: KNOW IT COULD BE HANDED OUT BY ITS OWNER and 2: DON'T KNOW WHO THAT WAS HANDED OUT TO.

This is another problem with your approach to this, that is NOT the SoP. The SoP is NOT arresting or assuming anyone not command with the spare stole it, it's that anyone that wasn't confirmed as being authorized as having the spare is not regarded as getting it legitimately from the get-go

This is powergaming, minmaxing, and not allowed. if they didn't report it to you stolen, you can't assume they stole it, you can't send a blip into sec chat and assume if they were suppose to have it somebody would correct you after the fact, the most you could do is arrest the clown and pda/comms the owner, and if the owner doesn't respond, LET THE FUCKING CLOWN GO.

And just like in that thread I would point it this is a needlessly limited and quite incorrect way of looking at the SoP, one cannot assume that just seeing the intention of the captain maybe giving it to someone in the future is the same as designating who he's giving it to, as that would mean I would have to ignore ANYONE who has or is carrying contraband that the captain referred to as being things he may give away. If this WERE actual procedure, then I would have my hands tied if someone robbed the captain of his gear, spaced his ass somewhere and ran around with his ID because I would "Have to no longer assume it was stolen because you know the captain planned to hand it out!", that is just so incredibly illogical and also gives credence to why I think this is just an incorrect way of handling my ticket.

ie, powergaming.

It has become clear that regardless of this appeal, assuming that somebody who is not command with the spare could only have it because they stole it, can not be SoP anymore.

Then change it,

Where's it written down? how exactly do you propose i go about changing a bunch of powergaming habits and unwritten rules? Oh, thats right, with bans.

How is it banbaiting or anything else you're trying to pin on me just because I didn't add "oh yeah by the way a minute before he killed me the captain did ask me about the spare so at that moment I learned he was allowed to have it, but I had no such knowledge at the time of his arrest" at the end of that ahelp?

"i confiscated the spare wrongfully from the clown then lied about having it to the captain when the clown attempted to resolve it via the chain of command removing the only path the clown had to resolving it non-violently"

would have been nice, and was something you intentionally omitted because you knew the clown would have been treated differently.

...You're basically saying that it doesn't matter if a player doesn't have any admin notes or bans on record

Yes.

We once banned somebody from the entire community, forums, irc, game, github, and all, not for doing anything wrong, but for pissing off a large enough part of the playerbase that the community was better off if it could take a break from them.

Do you deny that you once arrested a miner for being in an emagged bridge then went thru their backpack while bragging about how much loot you were about to gain? Do you think the ghosts that saw you do that might have started remembering you as a dick? Don't answer that, i don't actually care anymore.

I thought we were on our final words?

I'm only responding as a respect to Johnny Westside, who's post containing a clear timeline including all of the logs pertaining to me and the clown along with how long I even had the spare on me during my investigation (11 minutes) was for some reason deleted, when players who were also not related to the incident at all were allowed to post on my appeal and whose posts were kept. Biasism towards a specific viewpoint is my only answer as to why I was forced to have to argue against not just admin of my case but also third parties unrelated to the affair on my own appeal while the post of a long time player giving evidence of how everything I said holds up and who backs up my reputation as treating them decently is deleted and deemed more fit for the peanut instead when it contained more information and time taken to search for logs than all of the other players' posts combined.

and im pointing out that not making an attempt to return it to its original owner (the message about the spare on security channel doesn't count), AND FUCKING LYING ABOUT ITS LOCATION TO THE ORIGINAL OWNER. turns it from you being an agent of the law to you fucking stealing it.

I had the ID for 11 minutes, during which as I repeatedly said already I was after a traitor distributing traitor items to the crew and opening dangerous areas like the armory. The last minute of all of this I finally given an inclination by the captain that the clown may have had it legally after all during their phase of saying that everyone was "Free to tide but security can still arrest you". If you still think that me at that point, saying "no cap I dont have it" so I could return it when I wasn't busy doing my job or at a time when people aren't tiding all over in the vicinity of the captain makes me completely the same as a thief that pickpockets the Captain is your opinion that I still find flawed and not considerate of any of the details of the shift as to why I might have done it. I argued that it's within the leeway I'm granted to based upon space law for me to have done that and you say it isn't, but I'm the only one that can back it up with the precedence that the space law sets, while you say that's not enough but there is nothing written anywhere that can be used as a counterpoint to tell me that leeway went too far. I myself still regret I lied to the cap to return it at a smoother time and in hindsight probably should've and would've returned it immediately if not for the factors of ongoing sanctioned mass tide and the stress I was in at that moment but it still doesn't make my points moot.

No, you thought you could steal the spare from the captain and clown because you didn't want the clown to have it and you didn't want the captain to give it to the clown.

Again, false and completely based on your assumptions. I repeatedly said that the spare was useless to me, did not use the item and was only aware of the clown having it at the same of the confiscation based on literally all of the evidence presented to you and your own logs that show no confirmation that the clown took it. I stated quite clearly that the spare would not even be "mhmm sWeEt L00t" for a sec officer whose only areas where he doesn't have direct access to are literally already bolted open with overrides, nor would it be any other time either. AA might be useful to an average assistant or a traitor that needs to break into the vault or hos' office, but what am I supposed to do with it? Steal the nuke core from the vault? Steal secret documents? I'm a sec officer, it was literally useless to me or any other officer that round and it was a confiscated item meant to be returned hence in my bag instead of even being in use.

1: YOU BASED THE ENTIRE FUCKING ARREST OF THE CLOWN ON AN ASSUMPTION. YOU HAVE NO FUCKING RIGHT TO GET MAD AT ME FOR DOING IT WHILE YOU ARE STILL DEFENDING YOUR OWN ASSUMPTIONS

2: 'i would do the same thing'. thank you for removing all doubt i had in my mind as to rather or not you should be security job banned. HOW THE FUCK CAN YOU GO ABOUT ASSUMING ITS STOLEN IF YOU 1: KNOW IT COULD BE HANDED OUT BY ITS OWNER and 2: DON'T KNOW WHO THAT WAS HANDED OUT TO.

First you should learn to calm down, you're supposed to be approaching my appeal with competence and attempt to understand my side, not explode worse than anyone even involved. As an answer to your statements;

1 - I did not base my arrest of the clown on an "assumption", seeing someone with the captain's ID which. we. were. not. told. was. given out. and whose theft of which is a capital crime is not an assumption, it is literally doing my job. You telling me "Uh yeah Seth but if the captain clearly confirmed that he gave the clown you STILL WOULDA NOT HEARD/IGNORED it wouldn't you!" is an assumption and a pretend scenario. Me arresting someone literally standing in front of me with something they aren't supposed to have in the first place and never authorized by anyone in charge to have it is not assumption.

2- Are you mental? How can you with a straight face tell me that I should take a single message of "Give me feet pics for the ID" as being a complete authorization of the clown having the captains spare and should not make me investigate it at all? There was no person pointed at in that message, it would've been an assumption against doing my job to LET someone like the clown continue with the ID as I'm supposed to confirm they have actual freaking permission when I have no reason to think they were given it. If the captain had said "I'm giving the clown the ID because he gave me feet pics" or even just "Clown gets the ID' or ANYTHING that specifies who gets the item in question, you would be correct. The reason we're arguing is because they said no such thing.

You can't throw out vague statements that don't specify anyone and than later claim that those should've been taken as full confirmations of unrelated persons whose names were never specified. If I'm an assistant that says "I'm gonna kill a traitor" in public comms and 7 minutes later a paramedic passes me by beating up some random person, is the paramedic supposed to go "Oh well I should definitely correlate this with their previous statement that they were gonna kill an unspecified traitor, this must be the traitor!". The reality would've been that the paramedic would attack me, take the guy being killed away and the assistant would have to explain why he didn't say say "Oh yeah John Whatshisname is a traitor" instead of saying nothing specific. If the paramedic had fought off and in the process killed the assistant attacking that random, would you have bwoinked the para and said "Well they did say one time on comms a few minutes ago that they were gonna kill "a traitor", you shoulda put 2 and 2 together!" ?

This is powergaming, minmaxing, and not allowed. if they didn't report it to you stolen, you can't assume they stole it, you can't send a blip into sec chat and assume if they were suppose to have it somebody would correct you after the fact, the most you could do is arrest the clown and pda/comms the owner, and if the owner doesn't respond, LET THE FUCKING CLOWN GO.

This is not powergaming, it's literally doing my job. It's clearly outlined in /tg that powergaming is the "use of OOC information or knowledge that your character would not reasonably be aware of just to give yourself an advantage". I didn't use OOC or any other knowledge to give myself an advantage, I saw someone who was literally breaking a law infront of me, who was never confirmed beforehand as having the right to be able to do so. That is not "powergaming". That is literally reasonable suspicion, in-fact it's even more concrete than reasonable suspicion it's just simply doing my role when they're caught RED HANDED with a normally HIGHLY ILLEGAL ITEM.

> be sec
> be told your job iz "keep station secure, enforce space law"
> space law says "dont let high access items be taken, if anyone does its very bad!"
> see clown with high access item they have no business having
> take item from clown, let clown go
> "YOU ARE POWERGAMING!"







"You are the enforcer of Space Law, not The Law" - Enforces space law based upon Capital Crime - 408 i.e "Grand Theft" which lists Captain's ID as being subject to this law.

"Detain any criminals that you come across in the act" - Detains criminal that he came across for having illegal item

Law in question provided above -again-. None of this is powergaming, I literally followed my role to the letter. With the absence of any confirmation that the clown was given the spare to ANYONE on the station besides the clown, I literally did what the server says I'm supposed to do.


Also how is it even relevant to bring up powergaming in a low rp server. This happened in Sybil, roleplay rules don't even apply.

And just like in that thread I would point it this is a needlessly limited and quite incorrect way of looking at the SoP, one cannot assume that just seeing the intention of the captain maybe giving it to someone in the future is the same as designating who he's giving it to, as that would mean I would have to ignore ANYONE who has or is carrying contraband that the captain referred to as being things he may give away. If this WERE actual procedure, then I would have my hands tied if someone robbed the captain of his gear, spaced his ass somewhere and ran around with his ID because I would "Have to no longer assume it was stolen because you know the captain planned to hand it out!", that is just so incredibly illogical and also gives credence to why I think this is just an incorrect way of handling my ticket.


ie, powergaming.

Again, not powergaming but acting in your role. Also again, irrelevant for the fact that this kind of powergaming is not a rule pertaining to the lrp server. If it is (which would be odd as it isn't listed in the official rules), then are we going to start banning everyone who makes themselves a baseball bat, constructs a stunprod, orders guns, make lethal or sleepy chems "in case" they're attacked now? Now that is straight-up powergaming, and it's also always done by basically everyone in the LRP servers, or is there now a sudden double standard I should be aware of? Just curious as again, it doesn't even matter to me as what I did wasn't even powergaming.

"i confiscated the spare wrongfully from the clown then lied about having it to the captain when the clown attempted to resolve it via the chain of command removing the only path the clown had to resolving it non-violently"

would have been nice, and was something you intentionally omitted because you knew the clown would have been treated differently.

Why would I say "I confiscated the spare wrongfully from the clown" when at the time of the confiscation I was, with the entire information available to me, in the right to confiscate it? I wasn't made aware that he held it legitimately until shortly before my death. We've literally gone over this and evidence was presented that at the time of the clown being arrest no one but him knew that he was given the spare. I was doing what I thought was right, and killed for that specific interaction. I wasn't Niccolo Machiavelli preening my goatee and thinking, "Haha! I shall omit this irrelevant conversation I had with a third party (the captain) when telling the admin that the clown killed me!. That'll show em!". Why the fuck would it even make it look better, as again, those two events aren't related to eachother and the clowns actions were not based upon the captain's conversation with me.

Do you deny that you once arrested a miner for being in an emagged bridge then went thru their backpack while bragging about how much loot you were about to gain? Do you think the ghosts that saw you do that might have started remembering you as a dick? Don't answer that,

You mean when I dragged an already arrested and wanted miner to a brig cell and then while searching them in their cell as I'm supposed to do cracked a joke because I'm human that they " mhm! sure have some irresistible loot!" which I promptly put in their locker, then smalltalked about their mining that day before setting their timer? Who I stood next to for 4 minutes making conversation about them and the angry ED near em so they aren't bored while they wait for their timer to end? Here's the logs, go do yourself a favor and see if I stole anything from a player I've played with nearly a year now: https://tgstation13.org/parsed-logs/syb ... nd-165834/ or continue trying to get your needle in a haystack moment in an effort to try and make me look bad.

Or is this a different round where instead of double checking your facts you're just take the word of two guys on discord who "saw me do something bad that one time" and thought putting that on my appeal to make your punishment look better was somehow a better idea than seeing if that's what actually happened. Do you dispute this?

i don't actually care anymore.

Gee I sure am sorry that I'm defending myself in my ban appeal as best as I can, which is what I'm supposed to do, and that made you so tired and impatient. This is the problem that makes a lot of players despise having to make these appeals, because they feel as if even if they make one they won't be judged fairly based upon an impartial investigation assisted by already existing rules and precedents, but instead find themselves arguing with the case admins, who at best find it a chore and at worst do the best they can to not have to backtrack from their decision, even if that means ignoring details and sound evidence from the other side. How do you think it looks or makes me feel as someone posting an appeal when the host himself either explodes in caps and cusses every two sentences from a lack of basic decency to the other side or writes statements oozing with lethargy like that?

As I said before, I've already made up my mind so it truly doesn't matter on my end, but even aside from the punishment or the event in question, the entire way this appeal was conducted was appalling.

Have a good rest of your weekend.