An Appeal for Role Play

AdinahMizrahi · Post by **AdinahMizrahi** » 21 Oct 2018, 03:57

Your Byond ID: Adzolaria

Character Name: Adinah Mizrahi

Type Of Ban (Job-ban (include the job), Timed Ban, Permaban): Timed Ban

Admin who banned you (if known): Takethegun56

Total Ban Duration: 10,080 minutes

Remaining Duration: 10,000 minutes

What other servers do you play on? Baystation

Are you now or have you been banned on any servers? Which ones? No, none.

Reason for ban (If you have a Permaban, it should be the EXACT MESSAGE YOU GET WHEN YOU LOGIN with the Error code that looks like this: X##XXX##. If you do not provide this EXACTLY you can't be unbanned): Upon being arrested she was freed by her fellow doctors as CMO. Before dragging the MP to the mourge and forcefeeding him Quickclot to "Silence him." Take the week and shape up. Next offense is perma. .

Link to previous appeals for the same ban (if applicable): N/A

Your appeal, including evidence (screenshots, etc):

I take my role play seriously. I don't consider it griefing for her to kill someone who could potentially lead to her being imprisoned. He was a liability. She had every reason to get rid of him, considering she had just escaped him. If he gets loose and says something, she's fucked. Of course she would kill him, why not? She feels threatened by the Commander and his men. She was /shot/ by a /marine/. Her best bet at escaping was to kill the marine, to take out the liability. All done with the aid of her doctors. This was something great; the medbay coming together to save their CMO from an oppressive Commander. The situation was tense, as her life was at risk.

All in all, I feel like the OOC rules are being too strictly enforced, to the point that they are misinterpreting interesting role play for meddlesome griefing.

x31stOverlord · Post by **x31stOverlord** » 21 Oct 2018, 04:13

Notes:

► Show Spoiler

waswar · Post by **waswar** » 21 Oct 2018, 04:26

I was Arella Aharon, the researcher and primary CMO supporter that around.

There's an in-character and out-of-character aspect to this.

Throughout the round, Adinah Mizrahi was having a personal dispute with the Commander. I was sycophantically supporting the CMO. Early in the round, a medic came by and shot up Adinah, who shot back. They were both adminslept and I tended to Adinah, but it set a sort of mood, that the medical bay was afraid of being purged or tightly controlled by command for the round.

The Commander threatened to have my character arrested for sedition, and said that she would be arrested. Whilst I was hiding in research, the CMO was confronted in her office by the Commander. The Commander openly stated in medical chat along the lines of "I told her she'd best cut it out before I blow her away." At this point we must take the point, the Commander is threatening her life.

The MP's then arrested the CMO. Apparently, the Doctors freed her, as I encountered her in the morgue. Another Doctor was stuffing the MP who they knocked out into a tomb, but Adinah was paranoid and wanted them to get done with. She did proceed to utilize quick-clot against my judgement. But that aside, I think that when the Commander not only had a power struggle with MED and threatened to have multiple people arrested, only to threaten to kill the CMO and having the MP's make off with her, there's a clear motivation to sustain her life by disposing the MP's that could rat her out to the Commander. Later on, the Commander threatened my character's life.

This is good roleplay. I like that the Commander was ballzy and wouldn't shy away from threats or even BE'ing. What I find ridiculous is that a clearly life-threatened personnel is not able to do the same?

The out-of-character side is different. I believe that the administrators are inadvertently breaking rule number 0, the rule that asserts that rules are to be interpreted in a simplistic manner to prevent lawyering out of situations by players. The problem is that it's been reversed; it feels that administrators are lawyering the rules around to get Adzolaria in trouble.

Really, I think this happened twice. Adzolaria getting punished for griefing by shooting back at someone shooting at her, is honestly ridiculous. First of all, how is someone supposed to know that they are griefing in the first place, and thus know to instinctively not act so that the admins don't punish them. I mean, this is the same server where UPP and USCM can be told specifically not to fight, but one side shoots anyway, and even if the recipient didn't fight back and they ahelp they get a "tough luck", but now self-defense which the other side doesn't know is out-of-character is considered "griefing"?

The situation with the MP's was clearly justified at an in-character level. It was the medical bay as an institution coming into collision with command as an institution. And though the whole in-game lawyering was shoddy and probably could have gone both ways, the MP's were at first and throughout the round, on the Commander's side, and when the Commander is threatening to blow away the CMO, I don't think it's "griefing" of all things for the CMO to want to get rid of the MP's. I think the Admin who did this needs to learn to look at the situation as a whole, especially since I wanted to and ended up saving the Marine. In-character conflicts driven by justified but extreme reactions are good things, and banning people willy nilly and then having the gall to say "the next offense is perma" is really beyond all boundaries. This person needs to shape up as an administrator, and stop road-blocking roleplay.

That's really what this is about. Either we can roleplay and interaction is fine, or only the Commander is allowed to roleplay and the rest of us are going to get banned if we do anything meaningful. That's the only way about it. The griefing rule is put into place to stop people from killing and slaying for no reason. But this had in-character justification, and it looks like the admin in question is milking just to go through with a punishment.

Survivor · Post by **Survivor** » 21 Oct 2018, 04:56

I was the CO during the round. As said above, I was being considered "Oppressive" because I couldn't waste my limited marine manpower on bringing back corpses and plants for research. The reason I started to threaten medical was when they flat out accused me of being UPP, and constantly undermining my authority. Eventually, I went down to medbay to shape it up, when the CMO started claiming I was trying to assault them, so I had the MPs arrest her for sedition. Instances include undermining my authority, accusing me of being UPP, then lying to turn everyone against me by saying I was attacking them in medbay.

I noticed shortly after that Perma brig was empty, and that the MP had no ID on, according to the Crew monitor, so I went and interrogated medbay, until I found him. He said he was ambushed, and the other doctors say they found him inside of a morgue tray, dying. In my opinion, I feel the time could be reduced a bit, but they still violated the rules of not killing MPs, and somewhat griefing.

x31stOverlord · Post by **x31stOverlord** » 21 Oct 2018, 10:59

Right, I think, considering your notes about over-escalation in the past. Your prime response to any situation is to murder the other party. I think you got off lightly with a week ban and if I was the one who was handling it I would have thrown a medical role ban ontop.

If you are being griefed you -Ahelp- it so that we can deal with it, you don't just try to execute anything that comes near you and call it RP.

-1 Against the ban being lifted or reduced.

waswar · Post by **waswar** » 21 Oct 2018, 13:30

What a silly thing to say. You know full well that it’s unlikely that the offended party will even know it’s griefing until after the fact. If someone had secretly sent the medic to kill the CMO and succeeded, it would have played out the exact same way, and you would have said “tough luck” in ahelp to the CMO.

In that case, you would need to revive characters that are killed by non-griefers that appear to be griefers. If no one knows how to respond to something because the admins are inconsistent, then it’s just a matter of arbitrarity and the rules don’t matter because the admins can just stretch them wherever they want, in which case they’re useless.

Remember, you guys allow battlefield executions over silly comments. Why is a CMO defending their freedom, life, and the medical bay institution from clear and present threats completely unacceptable, but blowing someone’s head off in briefing over muttering soyboy is allowed? I’m legitimately curious. Is this an example of bias or arbitrarity on the part of the admins?

Furthermore, from an in-character perspective, the CMO was acting in self defense.

As a witness, the two primary notes that are very justified are the ones about space drugs and retaliating against the marine. But the latest two notes are punishment over in-character self defense, in which case dumb rules are getting into the way of role play, regardless as to the breaking of them as technicalities.

What you have here are bad rules being too liberally and technically enforced, primarily the self defense against griefers one, that’s just silly and leaves no room for people to respond, because they I’ll either get screwed over by apathetic admins saying it’s in-character in one situation and they purposefully did not fight back for nothing, or the opposite as we see above.

AdinahMizrahi · Post by **AdinahMizrahi** » 21 Oct 2018, 14:10

Okay, so my past is not quite so unrealistically violent as you say. The beheading truly was an accident. I was new to surgery then.
Also, shooting the commander should not be punishable as he was literally only seconds from death and it was a reasonable thing to shoot him, for he had doomed the CMO and the entire ship with this arrogance.
The incident with space drugs occured when I came on once and was drunk, for that I am truly sorry.
The situation on the dropship; some woman is firing a shotgun, how am I supposed to know it's a misfire? I do admit however, that it was excessive for me to fire into her head for so long, and I have not repeated this offence since its occurence.
Furthermore, I did not realize that griefer was a griefer, for he had stated his intent to kill me before, in medical chat. I viewed him as an RPer, because I was looking at the situation from an in-character stance. So it was not actually griefing a griefer.
I do not see why I was banned for my last offense, and banned for a whole week. I had LEGITIMATE CAUSE to poison that man. Are we suddenly suspending role play altogether? Is everyone who does anything remotely hostile going to be banned for "griefing?" What is this server coming to? That RP was interesting and exciting. I believe another warning would have been sufficient, and the man could have been ahealed so that RP would be allowed to continue. But really, a ban for an entire week? That's too excessive. And my next ban is permanent? Why? I don't cause much trouble, and not with much frequency. If you look, most of them are months apart, and I am always compliant with the administrators. What have I done to deserve a permanent ban?

waswar · Post by **waswar** » 21 Oct 2018, 14:20

I remember that, you were freaking out because you accidentally chopped off a Marine's head, I think when you needed to cut into the skull. That was my first time as Doctor and strangely enough, the only time I remember the med bay being absolutely SWARMED with patients. Combine that with my inability to properly do surgery(the wiki doesn't say to use bone gel twice if they have a fracture and you need to cut open the rib-cage and skull), and it was a fiasco on multiple levels.

I was very pleasantly surprised when Atax Kadel went after you. I think I saw his siding with the CO, so I was rather intrigued at the possibility of a fight and purging. It's very unfortunate that he's another roleplayer punished by bad rules that frankly should be amended.

x31stOverlord wrote: ↑
21 Oct 2018, 10:59
Right, I think, considering your notes about over-escalation in the past. Your prime response to any situation is to murder the other party. I think you got off lightly with a week ban and if I was the one who was handling it I would have thrown a medical role ban ontop.

If you are being griefed you -Ahelp- it so that we can deal with it, you don't just try to execute anything that comes near you and call it RP.

-1 Against the ban being lifted or reduced.

Adinah has two notes about over-escalation. Once when she was shot at on the Alamo, and the one from last night with the MP, that she was banned over.

If you think that two instances a month apart is their "prime response to any situation", you frankly don't know what you're talking about. You evidently do not observe their roleplay, or even did the basic modicum of investigation to prove your point. Adinah has been playing many rounds over the past several weeks, that have gone without issue. If you think two wishy-washy situations constitutes as "prime response to any situation", I think you need to reconsider your tenure as administrator for it seems you want to give the maximal punishment with minimal investigation, or even no investigation at all by jumping to grandiose conclusions without even a tiny modicum of reasoning or investigation.

x31stOverlord · Post by **x31stOverlord** » 21 Oct 2018, 15:26

I'm not going to try to even converse this point with the two meta-friends. At the end of the day, the rules stand, if you are being griefed, you are meant to Ahelp, not go and murder other players because "I can RP it". As it stands, Taketheshot did the right thing by banning Adinah.

waswar · Post by **waswar** » 21 Oct 2018, 15:38

x31stOverlord wrote: ↑
21 Oct 2018, 15:26
I'm not going to try to even converse this point with the two meta-friends.

That's not an argument, so no comment.

x31stOverlord wrote: ↑
21 Oct 2018, 15:26
At the end of the day, the rules stand, if you are being griefed

She didn't know she was being griefed. The person threatened her in medical chat. It was not out of nowhere, it was in-character.

On the other hand, this is an example of being overly technical. The perpetrator griefer inserts themselves into other players. Punishing players for defending themselves(especially when they don't know the person is griefing) is just silly and counter-productive.

x31stOverlord wrote: ↑
21 Oct 2018, 15:26
you are meant to Ahelp, not go and murder other players because "I can RP it".

At the end of the day, in the exact same situations, a player will not defend themselves and get killed, and you'll say "tough luck it's in-character". Scroll up and read the situation in event rounds where UPP and USCM are told specifically to not shoot at eachother and they do it anyway, and how cold, crass, and apathetic the admins are to the soldiers who were shot. Unlike Adinah's case, the situation is not self defense against someone who specifically threatened her in medical chat.

Either it's allowed, or it's not allowed. Either players are meant to ahelp, or they're not meant to ahelp. If you continue this wishy-washy nonsense of allowing players to do the same thing and get different rulings, you can't expect players to follow the rules to a T because the administrators give different impressions on what is and isn't allowed. You say "ignorance is not an excuse", and yet you utilize different rulings in different situations where players are eventually going to get banned just because the rules can be interpreted by administrators 50 different ways.

Interestingly, rule 0 asserts that the rules are stated as intended. This is an example of administrators lawyering rules when there's literally a specific clause meant to prohibit the players doing this exact thing.

x31stOverlord wrote: ↑
21 Oct 2018, 15:26
As it stands, Taketheshot did the right thing by banning Adinah.

So one wishy-washy situation warrants a banning and maximal punishment? You didn't even justify anything you've stated yet. You've made an assertion on her roleplay based on two wishy-washy situations that are justified at an in-character level and muddy at an OOC level to say "she predominantly kills", when both situations were resulting in self defense.

And finally, I ask: Are these(self defense) situations really so egregious that they warrant a permanent ban from the game, because they just detract oh-so-much from the other players?

GenericUsername · Post by **GenericUsername** » 21 Oct 2018, 15:41

I've had some prior interactions as CL with Arella and the accused player, both Researcher and CMO respectively, every time both of them came asking to join W-Y and such, blah blah. I find it quite obvious they have some connection outside the server and it's also quite clear they go out of their way to help each other complete their research RP, which probably resulted in this MP situation and others in their notes.

waswar · Post by **waswar** » 21 Oct 2018, 15:51

GenericUsername wrote: ↑
21 Oct 2018, 15:41
I've had some prior interactions as CL with Arella and the accused player, both Researcher and CMO respectively, every time both of them came asking to join W-Y and such, blah blah. I find it quite obvious they have some connection outside the server and it's also quite clear they go out of their way to help each other complete their research RP, which probably resulted in this MP situation and others in their notes.

In the assertion that we are OOC friends, this is quite correct. I'm not going to shy away from it due to the silly stigma.

In our first real weeks of playing, what you say was more correct. I have notes corresponding with this, I believe from early April. None since then.

Our characters cooperate as friends, fellow Jews, and usually Corporate Loyalists. We tend to align when we play, as we both provide eachother roleplay. I'm a bit more standard, and Adinah tries to make the rounds more interesting. This is quite helpful since I've been wanting more shipside roleplay but the developers have made it known that they do not wish to add more shipside roles or variety to them.

That cooperation ends there, however. Adinah has no notes corresponding with this whatsoever. I was a sort of witness in some of them, but in all of them but the most recent one where I was actually going against the CMO and trying to keep her from killing the MP, who I saved after Adinah was banned, I was otherwise present elsewhere from the occurrence. Simply put, there's no correlation between the friendship of our characters and Adinah getting these wishy-washy notes.

If you want to say I'm a bad person because I got an OOC friend into SS13, I mean, go ahead. You can say whatever you want.

x31stOverlord · Post by **x31stOverlord** » 21 Oct 2018, 15:54

Alright, we're now bordering on Rule 2 breaches now. The best course of action is to let the higher ups decide what course of action to take here. Considering that you are not the person who raised the appeal, unless you are providing any evidence that they did not deserve the ban (Not opinions) then the posts should cease and if you like, open a new forum topic to discuss potential faults with our current rule systems and how you would change them and how they would be enforced. Refrain from posting non-evidence based posts here from this point out.

Grimreaperx15 · Post by **Grimreaperx15** » 21 Oct 2018, 16:34

I'd like to post as a character witness, in my interactions with this AdinahMizrahi and waswar, AdinahMizrahi threatened to murder me when I called her incompetent as CMO, and shortly later in the same round, waswar did murder me using water and potassium pills. For whatever my opinion is worth, I believe that these players both use RP as an excuse to ruin the rounds of people they dislike.

taketheshot56 · Post by **taketheshot56** » 21 Oct 2018, 16:43

I stand by my actions and do not believe the ban should be lifted. Your claim of rp reasons does not exscuse griefing.

ThesoldierLLJK · Post by **ThesoldierLLJK** » 21 Oct 2018, 18:01

I’ve said this multiple times in all my dealings with situations similar to this in the past.

Vigilantism and taking matters into your own hands will not be tolerated no matter how much you claim it was roleplay.

If someone is griefing you or violating rules you ahelp it. If you’re murdered or injuried, our staff has the ability to fix it

-1

Sir Lordington · Post by **Sir Lordington** » 21 Oct 2018, 19:37

Your entire point is that they could've put you in prison ergo you murdered them in cold blood. There was no escalation, no in-the-moment fit of violence. If you have an issue with how a staff member applies the rules, make a staff report.

You went way past what is allowed for non-antagonists. There is no justification for murdering an MP because they might put you in prison after you escape. You have a history of griefing and seem to have a serious issue not killing other people over every IC conflict. Stop it, or you'll land a perma.

Resolved - Denied

An Appeal for Role Play

An Appeal for Role Play

Re: An Appeal for Role Play

Re: An Appeal for Role Play

Re: An Appeal for Role Play

Re: An Appeal for Role Play

Re: An Appeal for Role Play

Re: An Appeal for Role Play

Re: An Appeal for Role Play

Re: An Appeal for Role Play

Re: An Appeal for Role Play

Re: An Appeal for Role Play

Re: An Appeal for Role Play

Re: An Appeal for Role Play

Re: An Appeal for Role Play

Re: An Appeal for Role Play

Re: An Appeal for Role Play

Re: An Appeal for Role Play