/tg/Station 13

BYOND account: zybwivcz
Character name:August Pratt
Ban type: Server
Ban length: 1440 minutes
Ban reason: As a security officer, attempted to detain a chemist with a contractor baton leading to a scuffle where the chemsit threw ice grenades to evade the officer. They then esscalated to lethals however after critting the chemist failed to verify if the chemist was even an antag and told the CMO they were bad, leading to that player being removed from the round. In the future please make sure your kills are valid.
Time ban was placed: 2021-08-28 01:06:31
Server you were playing on when banned: Sybil
Round ID in which ban was placed: 168572

Your side of the story: There had been several explosions made by chemical grenades across the station. As the ban reason states, when I attempted to arrest a doctor who was in the chemistry bay they responded by trying to shoot me with a syringe gun and throwing ice grenades. Given that a)a floor covered in ice makes it vastly more difficult to disable and cuff someone and b)I wasn't going to assume the medbay personnel throwing currently non-lethal grenades at me and trying to shoot me with unknown syringes must obviously be different that the medbay personnel who had been bombing the station I shot them into crit. The CMO had come in by this point and was yelling at me. With the grenade-thrower disabled but the floor still iced and having to deal with other ongoing threats to the station I left the doctor to the CMO telling him "He's bad" on the way out to explain to the annoyed CMO why I was shooting one of his people.

Why you think you should be unbanned: As far as I can tell spookiboogi conceded it was an acceptable initial use of lethals given the situation. But apparently the CMO then leaving him to die, which I had zero knowledge of at the time and zero indicators from the CMO that that's what he would do, makes it bannable. I didn't tell the CMO to leave him to die, nothing gave me the impression that the CMO would leave him to die, telling the CMO "he's bad" as both an explanation as a warning about the person who was throwing grenades and firing a syringe gun at me seems an absolutely sensible and acceptable thing to do. It wasn't dragging someone into crit into maint or even just leaving them in the hall, it was leaving them with the CMO. "He's bad" can't reasonably be interpreted to obviously mean "He's definitely an antag so make sure he dies" especially as the CMO gave no indication that that's what he was going to do, it means "he's bad" in reference to someone who had resisted arrest and had been armed with grenades.

First off, thanks for taking the time to make an appeal. Hopefully we can both come out of this with a better understanding of how and why things happened in this situation.

As you have stated I do agree with your use of force given how difficult it was to detain the chemist, however that is not why I placed the ban. The main reason was that after having successfully disabled them, you made no attempt to verify if you had even shot the right chemist and told the CMO that he was possibly the bomber as well as "He's bad". Telling the CMO the person you, a security officer, just killed was possibly the one behind bombing the station as well as stating they're bad (with no proof) is in my eyes a very clear indication that said person is an antagonist that should not receive treatment. When you kill someone that isn't outright valid it's on you to make an attempt to have them taken care of. Had you been clear and told the CMO you had no proof, or just simply told them to treat the chemist, then it would be the CMO's responsibility and not yours.

Unfortunately I am going to have to deny this appeal given that I believe you did not make an attempt to have the person you killed taken care of and instead left it up to the CMO to gather that "possible bomber" and "He's bad" only meant he was someone who had resisted arrest and had been armed with grenades and that they should be treated.

Of course if you are not satisfied with my reasoning or still think the ban is incorrect or invalid you can ask for the head admins to review this appeal.

SpookiBoogie wrote: Telling the CMO the person you, a security officer, just killed was possibly the one behind bombing the station as well as stating they're bad (with no proof) is in my eyes a very clear indication that said person is an antagonist that should not receive treatment. When you kill someone that isn't outright valid it's on you to make an attempt to have them taken care of. Had you been clear and told the CMO you had no proof, or just simply told them to treat the chemist, then it would be the CMO's responsibility and not yours.

Saying they are the "possible bomber" indicates there is a possibility that they are the bomber. A possibility is a thing that may be the case but also may not be.

He was in crit when I left. The CMO, who was standing in the room with us, said among other things even after I had told him that the chemist was possibly the bomber:

12:31:52 SAY HiKewne/(Jose 'Pepe' Argento) "YOU CANNOT JUST KILL SOMEONE"

I can not see any remotely plausible way I was supposed to think telling that CMO "possible bomber" and "he's bad" would clearly have been interpreted as 'leave him to die'. Much less being banned for failing to anticipate it.

Leaving him in crit in the same room as the CMO who is busy protesting me for shooting him is not by any reasonable standard foreseeably removing someone for the round, even if that would have been unjustified.

He was valid when I shot him. You admit as much. Act like an antag and get treated like an antag, there's plenty of precedent for that rule. A valid use of force does not retroactively become non-valid at the end of the round because it turns out to have been a non-antag acting like an antag.

This ban would have been a stretch on Manuel. On Sybil it's nonsensical.

The reason I said your use of force was valid was because of how difficult it would have been to detain them given that they made to room into an ice rink with their grenades, not that they were acting like an antag. When wordlessly whacked by a contractor baton, the chemist resisted with non-lethal means thinking that they were being abducted. If you still wish to use "act like an antag get treated like one" as an excuse let me remind you of the ending of that rule, " Make sure players deserve it when you treat them as an antag, when in doubt, err on the side of caution as poor behaviour on the part of security will not be tolerated."

Additionally you still fail to see how incriminating the person you just killed as a security officer then leaving the scene before checking if your claims are true is an issue. This is the main problem in this situation.

Again, if you still see this ban as incorrect or unwarranted you are more than welcome to ask the head admins to review it.

SpookiBoogie wrote:The reason I said your use of force was valid was because of how difficult it would have been to detain them given that they made to room into an ice rink with their grenades, not that they were acting like an antag. When wordlessly whacked by a contractor baton, the chemist resisted with non-lethal means thinking that they were being abducted.

When he shouted about abductors on the radio I spoke specifically to make clear that I wasn't an abductor. He kept trying to avoid arrest.

If you still wish to use "act like an antag get treated like one" as an excuse let me remind you of the ending of that rule, " Make sure players deserve it when you treat them as an antag, when in doubt, err on the side of caution as poor behaviour on the part of security will not be tolerated."

The problem is that you seem to think 'make sure players deserve it' is the equivalent of 'make sure the person acting like an antag really has antag status and isn't just self-antagging' which is unreasonable and impossible. There is no way to be absolutely certain of who is and is not an antag until the end of the round. Putting aside for a moment the difficulty imposed by the ice, searching someone and not turning up obvious traitor gear doesn't mean they're not an antagonist. Was I just supposed to take his word for it? Am I supposed to wait around for all of this to happen while the station is filling up with holes?

Additionally you still fail to see how incriminating the person you just killed as a security officer then leaving the scene before checking if your claims are true is an issue. This is the main problem in this situation.

My claim that he was possibly the bomber was true, because he was clearly possibly the bomber. And once again, I left him in crit. With the CMO standing in the same room telling me not to kill him.

It is ridiculous to ban someone for expressing obviously reasonable suspicions about someone acting like an antag. Doubly so when you've conceded the use of lethal force was valid. By your standard walking away without saying anything would have been more acceptable because it would not have 'incriminated' the chemist which I think is self-evidently absurd.

It is ridiculous to suggest saying "possible bomber" and "he's bad" to a clearly skeptical CMO should reasonably be read as "let him die and don't revive him as he is 100% definitely the bomber"

In the spirit of generosity I will suggest that this ruling might possibly be in line with the different standards on Manuel, it is egregiously inconsistent with established precedent on Sybil.

Coming back to this after getting some sleep, my reasoning was very unclear and the points given, as you say, do fall in line with more of an MRP mindset. I didn't clearly convey what I took issue with and was focusing more on the aftermath making this a bit of a mess. What made this an LRP ban in my mind was more of the fact that you ran up to the chemist and tried to detain them with an antagonist baton, which in turn prompted them to defend themselves, which in turn gave you a reason to lethal them. If we look at it that way does it not seem a bit like a kill bait? Acting like an antag isn't role specific, and someone rushing you with a contractor baton can very easily prompt a needless fight, especially when you already have plenty of sec items meant to detain suspects that are not outright valid.

Considering I failed to even convey this in the appeal I will lift the ban and edit the note to more clearly reflect what the issue was.

My apologies for making you put up with my poor communication.

SpookiBoogie wrote:Coming back to this after getting some sleep, my reasoning was very unclear and the points given, as you say, do fall in line with more of an MRP mindset. I didn't clearly convey what I took issue with and was focusing more on the aftermath making this a bit of a mess. What made this an LRP ban in my mind was more of the fact that you ran up to the chemist and tried to detain them with an antagonist baton, which in turn prompted them to defend themselves,

I used the baton because it was the first one in my belt and got brought out by the hotkey. I switched to using a stun baton immediately after that first use and didn't use the contractor baton again, which can hardly be interpreted as antag behavior. He yelled about 'abductors' not contractors. I spoke and had my face uncovered so it was clear I wasn't just someone with a stolen id or an alien. And SEC(and everybody else) using recovered antag gear is absolutely common behavior. I don't think he could have plausibly claimed that he acted as he did because he thought I was a contractor, if that was his claim rather than just your supposition.

Zybwivcz wrote:after that first use and didn't use the contractor baton again, which can hardly be interpreted as antag behavior.

I'm not sure how you would respond to being wordlessly stunned by a contractor baton, but I firmly believe a player could easily come to the conclusion that they are being targeted by a contractor, and attempt to defend themselves as such.

Zybwivcz wrote:I spoke and had my face uncovered

You only spoke after using the baton, and by that time the victim was already attempting to fight back as well as screaming about being abducted. They could have looked down at their chat and noticed it wasn't someone just wearing your gear, however I could easily understand someone paying more attention to the fight they have already committed to instead of double checking the chat box. Also even if they checked, contractor kits come with a chameleon mask that has a built in voice changer and can be changed to something tiny like a cigarette.

Zybwivcz wrote:SEC(and everybody else) using recovered antag gear is absolutely common behavior.

That's true, and there is normally no problem with that, but sometimes using antag gear without saying anything on people you're not sure are valid can result in a situation that can be taken as kill baiting. I'm not claiming you went into this situation with the intent of kill baiting, but to err on the side of caution I placed the ban. Seeing as how it wasn't nearly as clear cut as I though it was at the time I have reduced it from a ban to a medium severity note to warn you to be more careful with how you carry yourself as a security officer.

Zybwivcz wrote:I don't think he could have plausibly claimed that he acted as he did because he thought I was a contractor, if that was his claim rather than just your supposition.

This is more of a minor thing but I wanted to clear it up so you didn't think I was assuming the thoughts of a player and using that to punish you. The following is a snippet from the ahelp sent by the victim, "Since it was a contractor baton, I heard the sound and assumed it was an abductor so I froze myself with impure Cryostylane in panic and asked for help." The logs of which can be found at https://atlantaned.space/tgdb/ticket/168572/5 although I'm not sure players can see ticket logs, so unless the player makes it public themselves I might need another admin to verify it.

SpookiBoogie wrote:I'm not sure how you would respond to being wordlessly stunned by a contractor baton, but I firmly believe a player could easily come to the conclusion that they are being targeted by a contractor, and attempt to defend themselves as such.

If a SEC officer stunned me with a contractor baton(and then again with a normal stun baton) I would assume they were a SEC officer using a contractor baton.

You only spoke after using the baton, and by that time the victim was already attempting to fight back as well as screaming about being abducted.

You can see I tell him why I'm detaining him. I shouldn't need to explain why, in approaching someone I suspected might have(and did have) grenades I stunned them first and then told them what I was doing.

And he kept fighting back by tossing grenades and shooting syringes after I spoke and switched to the stun baton.

Here's some actual context:

12:30:05 SAY Zybwivcz/(August Pratt) "bag check"
12:30:06 SAY Redrover1760/(Watches-The-Moon) "ABDUCTOR" (103, 94, 2) Chemistry
12:30:13 SAY Zybwivcz/(August Pratt) "i'm talking genius"
12:30:18 SAY Redrover1760/(Watches-The-Moon) "OK NERD" (103, 94, 2) Chemistry
12:30:20 SAY Redrover1760/(Watches-The-Moon) "YOU ATTACK ME" (103, 94, 2) Chemistry
12:30:26 GAME Redrover1760/(Watches-The-Moon) primed a chemical grenade at Chemistry (96,88,2) containing: (large beaker 1 : Stable Plasma, 50 | Ice, 50); (beaker 2 : Nitrogen, 50);. (96, 88, 2) Chemistry
12:30:29 GAME Redrover1760/(Watches-The-Moon) primed a chemical grenade at Chemistry (102,85,2) containing: (large beaker 1 : Stable Plasma, 56.4 | Ice, 43.6); (beaker 2 : Nitrogen, 50);. (102, 85,

Note also he shouts "ABDUCTOR". An abductor is an antagonist, and one that is very different from a contractor. Hence my reason for speaking to disabuse him of that nation.

Note he continues to yell at me in a way that clearly doesn't express a continued belief that I'm either an abductor or a contractor but that he's just someone pissed off at being arrested. At which point he continues to toss grenades. He continues to whine in chat even after the CMO has entered the room, note the lack of him screaming to the CMO that he's being abducted by a contractor disguised as SEC:

12:31:12 SAY Redrover1760/(Watches-The-Moon) "WHat the fuck is wrong with you" (101, 87, 2) Chemistry
12:31:17 SAY Redrover1760/(Watches-The-Moon) "throw all my nades" (101, 87, 2) Chemistry
12:31:19 SAY Redrover1760/(Watches-The-Moon) "sure" (101, 87, 2) Chemistry
12:31:23 SAY Redrover1760/(Watches-The-Moon) "they literally just do ice" (101, 87, 2) Chemistry
12:31:34 SAY Redrover1760/(Watches-The-Moon) "I'm trying to fucking" (101, 87, 2) Chemistry
12:31:37 SAY Redrover1760/(Watches-The-Moon) "help your friend over there" (101, 87, 2) Chemistry

Furthermore, looking at the logs it appears that he gets revived later. So I'm not sure where any of this is coming from now. Did you look at the logs before banning me with a reason that included the claim I "removed from the round" someone who was revived a few minutes later?

12:37:43 GAME *no key*/(Watches-The-Moon) *no key*/(Watches-The-Moon) is no longer owning mob Watches-The-Moon(/mob/dead/observer) (97, 91, 2) Chemistry
12:37:43 ACCESS Mob Login: Redrover1760/(Watches-The-Moon) was assigned to a /mob/living/carbon/human
12:37:43 GAME Redrover1760/(Watches-The-Moon) Client Redrover1760/(Watches-The-Moon) has taken ownership of mob Watches-The-Moon(/mob/living/carbon/human) (72, 99, 2) Surgery
12:37:48 EMOTE Redrover1760/(Watches-The-Moon) gasps! (72, 99, 2) Surgery
12:39:46 SAY Redrover1760/(Watches-The-Moon) "thanks" (73, 99, 2) Surgery
12:39:58 SAY Redrover1760/(Watches-The-Moon) "where did my bag go?" (74, 99, 2) Surgery

Zybwivcz wrote:You can see I tell him why I'm detaining him.

The issue being you approached and stunned with a contractor baton before saying anything, completely blindsiding the chemist and putting them on the defensive.

29:54.001] ATTACK: Zybwivcz/(August Pratt) has stun attacked Redrover1760/(Watches-The-Moon) with the contractor baton (NEWHP: 93.4) (Chemistry (102,92,2))
30:05.158] SAY: Zybwivcz/(August Pratt) "bag check" (Chemistry (102,93,2))

I understand wanting to detain a chemist before they have a chance to blow the place sky high, but doing so with an overtly antagonist item without any prior alert and after having already bagged the traitor chemist responsible for the bombing can come across as intended to bait a valid kill.

Enderbran/(Connor Nehling) Enderbran/(Connor Nehling) is being pickpocketed of the contractor baton by Zybwivcz/(August Pratt) (right) (Chemistry (97,86,2))
enderbran \ Connor Nehling \ Chemist \ Traitor \ ROUNDSTART

Zybwivcz wrote:Note also he shouts "ABDUCTOR". An abductor is an antagonist, and one that is very different from a contractor.

Someone shouting abductor while being abducted from their workplace just seems like a case of semantics as to whether they meant the literal definition of someone abducting them or a direct reference to the antagonist. I'm not able to read minds so I went with the literal interpretation. Either way due to your initial actions they clearly saw you as an antagonist and in turn treated you like one.

Additionally by the time Watches realized you where in fact a sec officer, noted by them referring to the officer they were treating as "your friend" you had already beaten them into crit. However after detaining them you unsecure a single grenade and toss it to the side, but fail to even check the bag or pockets of the person you said you thought was responsible for the bombings.

30:48.566] ATTACK: Zybwivcz/(August Pratt) has attacked Redrover1760/(Watches-The-Moon) with fire axe (Wielded) (COMBAT MODE: 1) (DAMTYPE: BRUTE) (NEWHP: -2.6)
31:12.408] SAY: Redrover1760/(Watches-The-Moon) "WHat the fuck is wrong with you" (Chemistry (101,87,2))
31:34.574] SAY: Redrover1760/(Watches-The-Moon) "I'm trying to fucking" (Chemistry (101,87,2))
31:37.216] SAY: Redrover1760/(Watches-The-Moon) "help your friend over there" (Chemistry (101,87,2))

Zybwivcz wrote:Furthermore, looking at the logs it appears that he gets revived later.

This was an error on my part due to me being hasty to write the ban note because I didn't want to further delay the round end. I have since corrected my mistake in the new note and will make sure to either take the proper time to write a more concise ban reason or simply take matters into the next round so I don't punish the other players on the server by holding up the next round.

Since the ban was reduced to a note, and the note edited to more clearly reflect the situation, is there anything about the new note you find to be incorrect or unwarranted?

Logs taken from-
https://tgstation13.org/parsed-logs/syb ... attack.txt
https://tgstation13.org/parsed-logs/syb ... 2/game.txt
https://tgstation13.org/parsed-logs/syb ... nifest.txt

SpookiBoogie wrote: The issue being you approached and stunned with a contractor baton before saying anything, completely blindsiding the chemist and putting them on the defensive.

29:54.001] ATTACK: Zybwivcz/(August Pratt) has stun attacked Redrover1760/(Watches-The-Moon) with the contractor baton (NEWHP: 93.4) (Chemistry (102,92,2))
30:05.158] SAY: Zybwivcz/(August Pratt) "bag check" (Chemistry (102,93,2))

This is ridiculous. Like I've pointed out, I immediately switched back to a stun baton and used it, before he started throwing grenades and shooting syringes. And again, there's nothing suspicious or objectionable to stunning a suspect who you have reason to suspect has(and indeed did have) grenades. There is no plausible argument that a SEC officer with an id and an uncovered face and who speaks using a contractor baton a single time can be considered an antag and treated as valid.

I understand wanting to detain a chemist before they have a chance to blow the place sky high, but doing so with an overtly antagonist item without any prior alert and after having already bagged the traitor chemist responsible for the bombing can come across as intended to bait a valid kill.

The contractor chemist wasn't the bomber. Hence I had reason to suspect the lizard even before he helped to confirm my suspicions by throwing grenades and trying to shoot me with a syringe.

Someone shouting abductor while being abducted from their workplace just seems like a case of semantics as to whether they meant the literal definition of someone abducting them or a direct reference to the antagonist. I'm not able to read minds so I went with the literal interpretation. Either way due to your initial actions they clearly saw you as an antagonist and in turn treated you like one.

If I thought I was being subdued by a contractor you know what I would yell over the radio? "CONTRACTOR".
You know what I would yell if I thought I was being stunned by an abductor disguised as SEC because they looked exactly like SEC? "ABDUCTOR".

He didn't see me as an antagonist, that's pretty obvious given he just continues to bitch about being arrested when the CMO wanders in. He's not yelling to the CMO that the SEC arresting him is a contractor, he's just complaining. Here, again, is some context. Remember that the CMO is standing in the room for the later half of this:

12:30:02 SAY Redrover1760/(Watches-The-Moon) "HELP" (103, 94, 2) Chemistry
12:30:05 SAY Redrover1760/(Watches-The-Moon) "HELP CHEMISTRY" (103, 94, 2) Chemistry
12:30:06 SAY Redrover1760/(Watches-The-Moon) "ABDUCTOR" (103, 94, 2) Chemistry
12:30:18 SAY Redrover1760/(Watches-The-Moon) "OK NERD" (103, 94, 2) Chemistry
12:30:20 SAY Redrover1760/(Watches-The-Moon) "YOU ATTACK ME" (103, 94, 2) Chemistry
12:30:26 GAME Redrover1760/(Watches-The-Moon) primed a chemical grenade at Chemistry (96,88,2) containing: (large beaker 1 : Stable Plasma, 50 | Ice, 50); (beaker 2 : Nitrogen, 50);. (96, 88, 2) Chemistry
12:30:29 GAME Redrover1760/(Watches-The-Moon) primed a chemical grenade at Chemistry (102,85,2) containing: (large beaker 1 : Stable Plasma, 56.4 | Ice, 43.6); (beaker 2 : Nitrogen, 50);. (102, 85, 2) Chemistry
12:30:51 WHISPER Redrover1760/(Watches-The-Moon) "seriously?" (101, 87, 2) Chemistry
12:31:12 SAY Redrover1760/(Watches-The-Moon) "WHat the fuck is wrong with you" (101, 87, 2) Chemistry
12:31:17 SAY Redrover1760/(Watches-The-Moon) "throw all my nades" (101, 87, 2) Chemistry
12:31:19 SAY Redrover1760/(Watches-The-Moon) "sure" (101, 87, 2) Chemistry
12:31:23 SAY Redrover1760/(Watches-The-Moon) "they literally just do ice" (101, 87, 2) Chemistry
12:31:34 SAY Redrover1760/(Watches-The-Moon) "I'm trying to fucking" (101, 87, 2) Chemistry
12:31:37 SAY Redrover1760/(Watches-The-Moon) "help your friend over there" (101, 87, 2) Chemistry
12:32:55 EMOTE Redrover1760/(Watches-The-Moon) seizes up and falls limp, her eyes dead and lifeless... (88, 87, 2) Medbay Central
12:32:56 GAME *no key*/(Watches-The-Moon) *no key*/(Watches-The-Moon) is no longer owning mob Watches-The-Moon(/mob/living/carbon/human) (88, 87, 2) Medbay Central
12:32:56 ACCESS Mob Login: Redrover1760/(Watches-The-Moon) was assigned to a /mob/dead/observer
12:32:56 GAME Redrover1760/(Watches-The-Moon) Client Redrover1760/(Watches-The-Moon) has taken ownership of mob Watches-The-Moon(/mob/dead/observer) (88, 87, 2) Medbay Central
12:33:22 SAY Redrover1760/(Watches-The-Moon) (DEAD) "Dont' you love it when a shitsec ambushes you while you try to treat their dead cousin with a contractor baton" (89, 89, 2) Medbay Central
12:33:37 SAY Redrover1760/(Watches-The-Moon) (DEAD) "and you throw ice grenades to defend yoursefl" (84, 89, 2) Medbay Central
12:33:40 SAY Redrover1760/(Watches-The-Moon) (DEAD) "and they pull out the lethals" (84, 89, 2) Medbay Central

It is painfully obvious Watches knows that he's being arrested by a SEC officer. The most generous possible interpretation is that he thought I was an abductor for a second but realized otherwise when I spoke, which is when he switches to bitching about being arrested and doesn't say a single word about abductors or contractors from that point on, even when the CMO is in the room. He shouts "ABDUCTOR" over the radio but after that it's just normal says. Needless to say none of this is consistent with the idea he thought I was a contractor when he was throwing grenades and shooting syringes.

However after detaining them you unsecure a single grenade and toss it to the side, but fail to even check the bag or pockets of the person you said you thought was responsible for the bombings.

I checked his bag, may have missed his pockets. Saw multiple grenades and a box full of syringes. I didn't get to check more thoroughly because he kept resisting arrest in a way that you concede made him valid and which I've described repeatedly already.

This was an error on my part

The lizard didn't have a legitimate reason to think I was a valid antag, even in theory. Regardless of that, his actions demonstrate he didn't really believe I was an antag. The use of force that put him in crit is one you've admitted was acceptable. He wasn't "removed from the round" he was revived a couple minutes later.

The correct call here would have been to mark it an IC issue. There wasn't grounds for a ban, there isn't grounds for a note.

It seems we're just repeating our thoughts at this point and arguing for the sake of arguing. I agree that this incident was not grounds for a ban and have corrected that. However, given that your most recent note at the time of the incident was a ban for poor security behavior, and how your actions could be mistaken for kill baiting, I think leaving a note is for the best. Additionally from the time this appeal has been open to now you have gotten another note for poor sec play which only reinforces my decision to uphold my note. If you still believe this new note to be incorrect or unwarranted you are welcome to ask for the head admins to review it.

SpookiBoogie wrote:It seems we're just repeating our thoughts at this point and arguing for the sake of arguing. I agree that this incident was not grounds for a ban and have corrected that. However, given that your most recent note at the time of the incident was a ban for poor security behavior, and how your actions could be mistaken for kill baiting, I think leaving a note is for the best. Additionally from the time this appeal has been open to now you have gotten another note for poor sec play which only reinforces my decision to uphold my note. If you still believe this new note to be incorrect or unwarranted you are welcome to ask for the head admins to review it.

The rationale the admin gave for that note was this note. An admin relying on a bad note to place their own note doesn't make the first bad note a good note, it makes both notes bad. And it also demonstrates, I hope, why continuing to dispute the note even after you reversed the ban isn't just pedantry. Admins make decisions based on notes, they should be accurate and correctly decided.

He wasn't removed from the round, he was revived a few minutes later.

The CMO didn't leave him to die on my advice, the CMO revived him.

He didn't fight back because he thought I was an antag, he fought back because he was pissed at being arrested.

He obviously didn't think I was a contractor at the time he started throwing grenades and shooting syringes. Can we agree on that? Should I repost the logs again where he's very clearly bitching in say about being arrested and not saying a single word to indicate he thinks I was an antag? Even with the CMO standing right there? How about him bitching in deadchat about "shitsec" right after he dies, nothing about being killed by a contractor. You even mentioned the bits in the log that demonstrate he does know I'm SEC.


Not having time to go through the logs yourself, you got bullshitted by an ahelper as to what really happened, and you missed the fact he got revived. Fine, mistakes happen, I know admins are under time pressure to deal with tickets. But now the logs have demolished pretty much every element of the original reason given for the ban. The reaction to that should to just admit it and drop the ban, not go back and hunt for reasons to place a note.

The reason for a ban/note keeps shifting. We've got from "The main reason was that after having successfully disabled them, you made no attempt to verify if you had even shot the right chemist and told the CMO that he was possibly the bomber" to "how incriminating the person you just killed as a security officer then leaving the scene before checking if your claims are true is an issue. This is the main problem in this situation." to "you ran up to the chemist and tried to detain them with an antagonist baton, which in turn prompted them to defend themselves".

He didn't get removed from the round, the CMO didn't leave him rotting on the ground, he didn't fight back because he was sure I was an antag. What's left? I'm honestly not clear what the rationale for the note is at this point.

Zybwivcz wrote: The rationale the admin gave for that note was this note.

As the admin who applied said note; no. the application of the note was not because of this or any previous note, I mentioned the previous notes during the ticket because it suggested a worrying trend and I wanted to express to you that you should move away from these kinds of actions, but the note would've been applied regardless. Looking back on the ticket, I could see where the confusion stems from, and I apologize.

I'm not sure if you're arguing against the edited note or the old, admittedly poor, note. If you haven't had the chance to view it it reads as follows

As a security officer, attempted to detain a chemist using a contractor baton without talking to them, leading to the chemist believing they were being attacked by a contractor and defending themsleves, which then lead to the officer using lethal force to detain them. While it isn't against the rules to use antag items as sec, please be aware that using them on people who are not outright valid can lead to a situation that is similar to kill baiting.

My final ruling is to uphold the note. If you disagree ask for headmin review.

SpookiBoogie wrote:

As a security officer, attempted to detain a chemist using a contractor baton without talking to them, leading to the chemist believing they were being attacked by a contractor and defending themsleves, which then lead to the officer using lethal force to detain them. While it isn't against the rules to use antag items as sec, please be aware that using them on people who are not outright valid can lead to a situation that is similar to kill baiting.

My final ruling is to uphold the note. If you disagree ask for headmin review.

Thanks for posting the text of the new note. To be explicit:

1) I disagree that it can be fairly claimed the doctor thought I was a contractor. He yells 'ABDUCTOR' once then never speaks again over the radio despite ample opportunity. He does nothing but trash talk and complain about being arrested, even when the CMO is in the room. It is abundantly clear he didn't think I was a contractor when he started throwing nades and shooting syringes. You admit that by the end of the encounter he demonstrates he knows I'm SEC. This is all utterly at odds with the claim he thought I was a contractor at the moment he attacked me.

2) I used the contractor baton a single time before switching back to using the stun baton, and I told him why I was detaining him the instant I had disabled him. Under no plausible interpretation of existing rules can that make a SEC officer arresting someone valid, even if he honestly believed(as he did not) that I was a contractor.

3) Even if he really thought I was a contractor, which he didn't, and even if that would have been a valid reason to attack me, which it wouldn't have been, it's absolutely absurd to claim that I was intentionally trying to incite him to fight back so I could kill him. That, after all, is what "kill baiting" is and what you seem to be actually applying the note for.

SpookiBoogie wrote:I'm not sure if you're arguing against the edited note or the old, admittedly poor, note. If you haven't had the chance to view it it reads as follows

As a security officer, attempted to detain a chemist using a contractor baton without talking to them, leading to the chemist believing they were being attacked by a contractor and defending themsleves, which then lead to the officer using lethal force to detain them. While it isn't against the rules to use antag items as sec, please be aware that using them on people who are not outright valid can lead to a situation that is similar to kill baiting.

My final ruling is to uphold the note. If you disagree ask for headmin review.

Uh, how do I do that? I thought non-settled appeals just sat in this subforum until a headmin closed them.

You just have to ask for headmin review. It might take a bit of time since we are in the middle of a headmin election, but I'll let them know you want this appeal looked at. Until then I'll leave this open.

Zybwivcz wrote:

SpookiBoogie wrote:

As a security officer, attempted to detain a chemist using a contractor baton without talking to them, leading to the chemist believing they were being attacked by a contractor and defending themsleves, which then lead to the officer using lethal force to detain them. While it isn't against the rules to use antag items as sec, please be aware that using them on people who are not outright valid can lead to a situation that is similar to kill baiting.

My final ruling is to uphold the note. If you disagree ask for headmin review.

Thanks for posting the text of the new note. To be explicit:

1) I disagree that it can be fairly claimed the doctor thought I was a contractor. He yells 'ABDUCTOR' once then never speaks again over the radio despite ample opportunity. He does nothing but trash talk and complain about being arrested, even when the CMO is in the room. It is abundantly clear he didn't think I was a contractor when he started throwing nades and shooting syringes. You admit that by the end of the encounter he demonstrates he knows I'm SEC. This is all utterly at odds with the claim he thought I was a contractor at the moment he attacked me.

2) I used the contractor baton a single time before switching back to using the stun baton, and I told him why I was detaining him the instant I had disabled him. Under no plausible interpretation of existing rules can that make a SEC officer arresting someone valid, even if he honestly believed(as he did not) that I was a contractor.

3) Even if he really thought I was a contractor, which he didn't, and even if that would have been a valid reason to attack me, which it wouldn't have been, it's absolutely absurd to claim that I was intentionally trying to incite him to fight back so I could kill him. That, after all, is what "kill baiting" is and what you seem to be actually applying the note for.

Well, since I got bored and started looking at ban appeals at 9 PM for no reason, I may as well give my two cents as Watches.

First: Due to the contractor baton and the abductor baton making the same sound, I initially assumed you were an abductor or some kind of antag. After all, I did not see you walk in or anything of the sort, as I was busy performing surgery on a dead sec moth on a table in chemistry (For context, main part of medbay was blown, so it was convenient) I was caught completely unaware by the contractor baton.

Second, my only issues were with your conduct here. Ambushing a medical doctor as I was focused doing surgery and healing a dead seccie was what made me angry. Well I don't really fault you for using lethals in hindsight, you declared me bad using your security metaprotections and never bothered to search me or anything to confirm my antaghood or other status, and never bothered changing that claim. Yes, I was revived, but not because of you. It was because CMO ignored you in favor of reviving me instead. I'm willing to understand you are sorta new to security, but security isn't like playing assistant and hunting people. Your metaprotection as a security officer makes your declarations more true as you are unable to be an antag, just like the captain's. Generally, if a Captain says someone is antag, they are signing that person's death warrant by marking him or her kill on sight, and thus has to be responsible for their declaration of antaghood, or so. That's the honest truth of what went down, from my perspective, I suppose, if that changes anything. I this isn't really worthy of a note.

Also, I was a medical doctor, not a chemist, that round, but I spent most of my time making ice grenades and impure cryostylane in chemistry that round.

After looking at the round in question, we have come to the conclusion that while the note was warranted, neither the original nor revised note captured the situation as clearly as we would have liked. We don't think that you were attempting to killbait the doctor, as you made an effort to prove that you were not an abductor. The doctor in question was also not round removed, and was tended to fairly quickly by the CMO.

That being said, we belive that as security your handling of the situation was not ideal and that you should have at least searched the doctor to make sure that they were the suspect you were looking for.

As a security officer, went to arrest a doctor that they suspected was creating chemical grenades. This escalated on both sides leading to the doctor's death. Made no attempt to verify whether their initial suspicions were true, leaving them in medbay saying 'possible bomber' and 'he's bad.' As sec, you should be making an effort to ensure you're detaining the right person after they've been subdued.

Headmin Votes:
RaveRadbury - Edit note.
NamelessFairy - Edit note.
Dragomagol - Edit note.