Gwyn Kurik Ban Appeal.

[SubdigitalGJ]

Your Byond ID:Subdigital

Character Name: Gwyn Kurik

Admin who banned you: secretstamos (head spriter) however I was also spoken to at the same time by MatchaFrappe (trial mod) making it rather confusing who I was speaking with.

Total Ban Duration: 2 days

Remaining Duration: 1.5 days

What other servers do you play on? None consistently

Are you banned on any them? Nope

Reason for ban (Exactly what the WHOLE text says, if there's a Code (X##XXX##) and you don't give it, you can't be unbanned): Reason: Executed the XO during a mutiny when the XO was applying first aid to a wounded Bridge Officer. Excessive force, 2 day ban..
This is a temporary ban, it will be removed in 2880 minutes.
To try to resolve this matter head to viewforum.php?f=76

Link to previous appeals for the same ban: Negatory

Your appeal, including evidence (screenshots, etc): I was involved in a mutiny against the Commanding officer after being approached about the situation from Kalen Ophart. The commander had called for the arrest of an entire squad as well as being unfit for leadership as no real orders had been coming from the bridge since we arrived on the planet. Our mutineers consited of the Bridge officer in charge of Alpha Squad, I was the squad leader. I had just been in medical getting a leg replaced after there was a botched retreat from the planet and a variety of people had growing discontent with the CO (Larry Roberts). The entirety of Alpha and the bridge officer moved into the bridge to relieve the CO and XO of command. Larry at the time was SSD and as such we ordered the XO to come in peacefully. He walked into the bridge, saw an large group of armed marines and legged it out of there. Eventually returning with a rifle, Bravo Squad Leader(Jason 'Conan' Cook) and a second bridge officer(Charlie Bennet).
I pointed my rifle at him and requested he come in quietly as the rest of the mutineers stood around us giving us room. The bridge officer at this point attempts to disarm me, shoves me to the ground and takes my rifle. He takes a step back and aims the rifle at myself. A fight ensues in which I hit him a few times with my knife and he fires back. My armor reflecting much of the bullets. At this point the XO, Bravo leader and Bridge officer are on the left side of the bridge behind the glass and the mutineers on the right. Ophart locks down the bridge at this point and a multitude of yelling is exchanged as we continue to ask them to come in quietly. The XO refuses to comply and two marines break down the bottom glass doors and we move in. The xo moves over next to a knocked out bridge officer at this point with a stun baton to his side, a rifle behind him and a side arm on the floor. Once again we ask him to step away from the body and weapons so the MP who was on our side could take him in. He refused once again and having already been shot at I decided to end the stand off by unloading my sidearm.

The situation was roleplayed. There was plenty of interaction.
The command staff was given plenty of time to stand down.
We had plenty of marines and a bridge officer onboard with the mutiny.
The only people harmed where those directly involved in assisting the commander and XO when he took charge.
Those wishing to stay uninvolved could have stayed uninvolved and not gotten in the way. The bridge was not locked down till after a bit of fighting had already happened.
I did not fire a single shot until I had already been fired upon.

This, combined with the fact it was rather confusing being messaged by a trialmod and HeadSpriter at the time who both either failed to respon back to me after I explained my side of the story, it was also rather confusing having two people messaging me about the same thing. I would assume that a trial mod would be who I should be speaking with once they message me no? Not wondering who I should be speaking with as I have two admin PM's coming in. We all waited outside the bridge in LOOC waiting till we got an okay as Ophart Ahelped for confirmation. We waited till we were good to go and went in after that.











I had a few more gyazo pictures showing the logs but they decided not to save.

[F_sphere]

Been meaning to make a forum account, now seems like a good time to do that. I'll throw in my two cents here.

I was playing Kalen Ophart during this whole thing. The mutiny was my idea, because the CO was incompetent and the XO was never around. I told Subdigital's character, Gwyn Kurik, about the idea, as I was assigned to his squad on Overwatch. He agreed and recruited the rest of the squad while I adminhelped for permission. The trial moderator who was on told me I could if I had read the rules, which I did, as well as informed Subdigital via Skype of the rules and procedure. We arrived at the bridge and I was informed that the CO, Larry (Roberts?) was SSD, and so I asked for the XO. He emerged with a rifle, which he should not have had because were not being boarded, which I had also seen previously in his office when I went to make an ID change. We told the XO to stand down and give us control, but he refused, and instead one of the men with him (who I assumed was a BO but I think was actually a squad leader) shot Subdigital's character and a firefight ensued. When this had ended the CO returned, and I gave him the chance to stand down. He refused, however because of the auto-fire mechanic on the targetting system, when he moved my gun accidentally fired once into his chest. He then proceeded to unload an entire clip into me, and then an Alpha member shot him down, and then Subdigital's ban ensued.

tl;dr mutiny went to hell

I'm not trying to say that someone else is to blame, however I do believe that Subdigital's ban is unfair. I know it's not too long but I have plenty of admin experience and I know that when things go wrong admins tend to check on someone's record, and sometimes hold bias accordingly. Therefore I would like to see that Subdigital's ban be cleared because I believe that the situation was misjudged on the admin side. After leaving SS13 for a long period of time I and Sub were really happy when we found Colonial Marines and will continue to play here, however I do not want misjudgment of previous actions to ruin Subdigital's time on the server.

Thanks for reading if ya did.

[MrImATool]

Hate to be that guy...... but isn't it a conflict of interests to handle things related to your own IC actions.. especially as a developer and not a moderator...?

[MrImATool]

Just saying.

[TR-BlackDragon]

Ok I have found a few things. And im ganna post them here.

Code: Select all

 [22:17:10]SAY: Joshuu 'Josh' Joshua/secretstamos : For...
[22:17:10]SAY: Gwyn Kurik/Subdigital : On the ground
[22:17:10]SAY: Unknown (as Lemmy Caution)/EndlessMike : P-Please hurry
[22:17:10]EMOTE: Unknown (as Lemmy Caution)/EndlessMike : <B>Unknown (as Lemmy Caution)</B> 's body becomes limp.
[22:17:11]ATTACK: Erick Styles (destroyer2100) injected Katelyn Tuserve (Kylejen) with syringe. Reagents: Spaceacillin (INTENT: HELP) (<A HREF='?_src_=holder;adminplayerobservecoodjump=1;X=106;Y=171;Z=3'>JMP</a>)
[22:17:11]SAY: Graham Maclagan/Egorkor : HE'S NOT THE FOOL WE'RE LOOKCING FOR.
[22:17:12]SAY: Woah Jacobs/Veradox : OI.
[22:17:12]OOC: (LOCAL) Praetorian (879)/Azmodan412 : That shot though.
[22:17:12]EMOTE: Runner (342)/Golfer45 : <B>The Runner (342)</B> dances around!
[22:17:13]SAY: Woah Jacobs/Veradox : CO.
[22:17:13]ATTACK: Erick Styles (destroyer2100) injected Katelyn Tuserve (Kylejen) with syringe. Reagents: Spaceacillin (INTENT: HELP) (<A HREF='?_src_=holder;adminplayerobservecoodjump=1;X=106;Y=171;Z=3'>JMP</a>)
[22:17:15]SAY: Gwyn Kurik/Subdigital : 3
[22:17:15]SAY: Joshuu 'Josh' Joshua/secretstamos : FUCKS SAKE
[22:17:15]SAY: Unknown (as Lemmy Caution)/EndlessMike : I-I-I can't wait m-much longer.
[22:17:16]SAY: Woah Jacobs/Veradox : YOU'RE A FUCKING MAN, RIGHT?
[22:17:16]SAY: Gwyn Kurik/Subdigital : 2
[22:17:17]SAY: Larry Roberts/Slayer_Dusty : What
[22:17:17]EMOTE: Crusher (169)/MrImATool : <B>Crusher (169)</B> bows his head
[22:17:17]SAY: Mike Barrett/Travinsky : Mhm?
[22:17:17]SAY: Gwyn Kurik/Subdigital : 1
[22:17:18]SAY: Woah Jacobs/Veradox : NOT A BITCH?
[22:17:18]SAY: Runner (729)/Whiteblood17 : I will come with you spitter.
[22:17:20]SAY: Crusher (169)/MrImATool : You are the alpha
[22:17:21]OOC: (LOCAL) Crusher (380)/Darkcypher : crusher goes full speed gets flung away Lol
[22:17:21]ATTACK: Gwyn Kurik (subdigital) shot Joshuu 'Josh' Joshua (secretstamos) with a the pistol bullet (<A HREF='?_src_=holder;adminplayerobservecoodjump=1;X=88;Y=157;Z=3'>JMP</a>)
[22:17:21]OOC: (LOCAL) Charlie Bennett/LimoDish : MP are you dumb
[22:17:21]SAY: Joshuu 'Josh' Joshua/secretstamos : STOP AIMING GUNS AT ME RETARDS
[22:17:21]ATTACK: Gwyn Kurik (subdigital) shot Joshuu 'Josh' Joshua (secretstamos) with a the pistol bullet (<A HREF='?_src_=holder;adminplayerobservecoodjump=1;X=88;Y=157;Z=3'>JMP</a>)
[22:17:21]SAY: Jason 'Conan' Cook/CrabLeg : Everyone calm down!!
[22:17:22]ATTACK: Gwyn Kurik (subdigital) shot Joshuu 'Josh' Joshua (secretstamos) with a the pistol bullet (<A HREF='?_src_=holder;adminplayerobservecoodjump=1;X=88;Y=157;Z=3'>JMP</a>)
[22:17:22]OOC: (LOCAL) Ryan Shephard/ThatOneEngie : That was 10/10
[22:17:22]ATTACK: Gwyn Kurik (subdigital) shot Joshuu 'Josh' Joshua (secretstamos) with a the pistol bullet (<A HREF='?_src_=holder;adminplayerobservecoodjump=1;X=88;Y=157;Z=3'>JMP</a>)
[22:17:22]EMOTE: Joshuu 'Josh' Joshua/secretstamos : <B>Joshuu 'Josh' Joshua</B> screams!
[22:17:23]EMOTE: Joshuu 'Josh' Joshua/secretstamos : <B>Joshuu 'Josh' Joshua</B> coughs up blood!
[22:17:23]ATTACK: Gwyn Kurik (subdigital) shot Joshuu 'Josh' Joshua (secretstamos) with a the pistol bullet (<A HREF='?_src_=holder;adminplayerobservecoodjump=1;X=88;Y=157;Z=3'>JMP</a>)
[22:17:23]ATTACK: Gwyn Kurik (subdigital) shot Joshuu 'Josh' Joshua (secretstamos) with a the pistol bullet (<A HREF='?_src_=holder;adminplayerobservecoodjump=1;X=88;Y=157;Z=3'>JMP</a>)
[22:17:24]ATTACK: Gwyn Kurik (subdigital) shot Joshuu 'Josh' Joshua (secretstamos) with a the pistol bullet (<A HREF='?_src_=holder;adminplayerobservecoodjump=1;X=88;Y=157;Z=3'>JMP</a>)
[22:17:24]ATTACK: Gwyn Kurik (subdigital) shot Joshuu 'Josh' Joshua (secretstamos) with a the pistol bullet (<A HREF='?_src_=holder;adminplayerobservecoodjump=1;X=88;Y=157;Z=3'>JMP</a>)
[22:17:24]EMOTE: Joshuu 'Josh' Joshua/secretstamos : <B>Joshuu 'Josh' Joshua</B> screams!
[22:17:25]EMOTE: Joshuu 'Josh' Joshua/secretstamos : <B>Joshuu 'Josh' Joshua</B> screams!

[22:17:32]ADMIN: PM: SecretStamos/(Joshuu 'Josh' Joshua)->Subdigital/(Gwyn Kurik): What are you doing?
[22:17:42]ADMIN: PM: Subdigital/(Gwyn Kurik)->SecretStamos/(Joshuu 'Josh' Joshua): We are mutinying and the XO refused to stand down
[22:17:52]ADMIN: PM: SecretStamos/(Joshuu 'Josh' Joshua)->Subdigital/(Gwyn Kurik): So you shoot him?
[22:18:00]ADMIN: PM: Subdigital/(Gwyn Kurik)->SecretStamos/(Joshuu 'Josh' Joshua): He shot us
[22:18:28]ADMIN: PM: SecretStamos/(Joshuu 'Josh' Joshua)->Subdigital/(Gwyn Kurik): He did now, did he? 

Alright so. This is what i have pulled out of the logs. You stated that Joshuu Shot at you first. I have searched the logs. He never fired a single shot during that entire mutiny. As your firend pointed out to me in game just not. One person shooting on the loyalist side does not allow the mutineers to shoot anyone on the loyalist side. If they havnt fired a gun at you then you dont shoot at them. There are always Non-combatants when it comes to human to human fighting. (unless its a deathsquad or Russians but thats different anyway) The Ban length may have been a bit high but, I see this issue as being a legit ban. Just a friendly reminder. When Mutiniying. Always Tread carefully. Its the most confusing aspect of this game as its not done on a constant basis (and for good reasons) Only ever fire your weapon at someone if your part of the mutineers if you are shot at first. Meaning, Only at those that are shooting at you.

[Therorek]

Non senior admins dont post here,
this appeal will be brought to vipers attention.

[Feweh]

Non senior admins dont post here,
this appeal will be brought to vipers attention.

When appealing dont tell people what to do, youre in no position to make demands especially in ban appeals. Any staff member is free to judge a appeal, sometimes it's good to get a outside opinion on the issue.
However, there's something really odd about the way this whole appeal and your friends are going about it.
Also, having you guys admit you're all friends with each other outside of this game and then come and vouch for each other doesn't sound too great either.

As the logs say and your own evidence, you did follow mutiny procedures properly but it however went to shit and you lost control of the situation. In that confusion a few rules were broken which resulted in your ban(s).

[F_sphere]

When appealing dont tell people what to do, youre in no position to make demands especially in ban appeals. Any staff member is free to judge a appeal, sometimes it's good to get a outside opinion on the issue.
However, there's something really odd about the way this whole appeal and your friends are going about it.
Also, having you guys admit you're all friends with each other outside of this game and then come and vouch for each other doesn't sound too great either.

As the logs say and your own evidence, you did follow mutiny procedures properly but it however went to shit and you lost control of the situation. In that confusion a few rules were broken which resulted in your ban(s).

I don't see what's so odd about us jumping in here. I don't like to see anyone's game experience, especially one of my friends', ruined because someone can't handle a little bit of violence.

The "admin" who banned Subdigital was a spriter, as well as the player who was killed. If anything is odd, it is that he was handling the situation and not the moderator that was on.

Also whoever said that viper thing, I have no idea who that is.

[Feweh]

I don't see what's so odd about us jumping in here. I don't like to see anyone's game experience, especially one of my friends', ruined because someone can't handle a little bit of violence.

The "admin" who banned Subdigital was a spriter, as well as the player who was killed. If anything is odd, it is that he was handling the situation and not the moderator that was on.

Also whoever said that viper thing, I have no idea who that is.

There's nothing wrong with you responding, except to "vouch" for a friend or take concern is their matters or ban is a conflict of issue yourself. Point being, your friend was quick to point out TR- for having a conflicting issue in dealing with his own ahelps, however he has friends in his ban appeal "vouching" and defending him which is the definition of irony. (you're friends.)

Josh/Stamos is essentially a Admin/Spriter, he's been around longer than most people on the staff team. Often times admins/mods will respond to their own Ahelps because they know EXACTLY what happened in the events that transpired. Furthermore, being a trial mod dealing with a mutiny situation like this is VERY difficult to grasp. Often times its easier for a staff member with direct involvement to deal with the issue hands on. If you feel they abused their position or didn't handle it properly you can make a admin report so it's investigated properly rather than complain about it in a ban appeal.

All my point was is that this Ban Appeal is very odd. You have direct logs provided that your friend broke server rules and yet you guys seem to be more upset that staff member handled his own ahelp? Then you're all signing up on the forums to defend your friends action which unfortunately vouching for a "friend" isn't very logical as it's expected that "friends" would obviously stick up for each other. So your complaint about a staff member having conflict of interest in his own affairs is the same issue where having here with you guys being friends, conflict of issue.

Anyways, in my opinion I'd let this ban stick given everything that has been stated.
-1

[F_sphere]

Thanks, I understand a bit better now what your issue is with this appeal. I guess having a bunch of friends jump in for you does seem a bit suspicious, I only meant good because I feel a bit responsible, having started the mutiny. I'm just glad that someone finally came around and gave a real vote on the matter, and even if the vote doesn't help the ban get lifted, it makes me feel better knowing you guys are paying attention here.

[SecretStamos (Joshuu)]

Hi there,

Sure. I responded to an incident involving myself. And sure I banned you for killing me.

But it was very clear cut. And I wouldn't have bothered if it wasn't.

At the time you shot me, I was tending to a critically wounded bridge officer with medical supplies. I wasn't hostile, nor was I even facing you. So I think resorting to lethal force was pretty unjustified.

Hope that helps.

[MrImATool]

Yo, sub wasn't talking about TR. I was the one who mentioned TR, the reason being to prove a point(that staying impartial is important when administrating) . Basically my point isn't that Sub did nothing wrong clearly killing the XO wasn't exactly the plan nor was it executed well either. it was a mistake a mistake that really wasn't the worst thing that happened, not only this but Sub was never told about the first aid, he just didn't notice the help text going on which is understandable when people are hyped up.

The reason I'm 'vouching' isn't because he's my friend(which honestly he is, no point being dishonest) and it's not to prove he did nothing wrong all I think is it's a bit of a shame and slightly unfair for him to receive the ban he did, a warning would have sufficed as he wasn't purposefully breaking the rules, the rules aren't super cut and dry. I spent a good amount of time talking to TR about this last night, he told me lethal force is allowed ONLY on the person that did so to you, which is great but the rules aren't clear about that and that's my issue. When the rules aren't clear, and you're saying they followed procedure up until it went wrong(at this point the rules aren't super clear as previously stated) and the person he murdered is the person who banned him and he cares enough about playing the server to make an appeal, and has had no other issues with the staff then why oh why is it so crazy that his ban couldn't be reduced or he couldn't have been warned for the things he did, or hell even given an opportunity to apologise. I get that you guys deal with a lot of people all the time but being abrasive and brash hardly helps keep good players who are trying to follow the rules and have fun around,

And ok hell lets try a different angle as well, you could say the killing was awful, but he roleplayed everything to the best of his ability and you could say the killing ruined poor Joshuu's round but it really didn't. The round didn't go on for too much longer because the aliens were already boarding the Sulaco when this went down. And hell if you think we should ban everyone that somehow fucks up and ends someone's round a bit earlier than expected on accident then shouldn't I be reporting people who misfire and kill me as a fellow marine?

All I'm asking is that you guys think about it, a fairly competent roleplayer is really enjoying your server, made a mistake and then was BANNED for two days, two days which could have had good rounds in them all because you think it was all 'very clear cut' are second chances not a thing? Do warnings not exist? Are you guys not admins because you're humans and you can see things in more depth than a machine that could auto-ban?

Anyway to end, you guys are going to leave him banned for another six hours just because that's standard procedure right? Aren't accidents and non-clear bans the reason ban appeals exist? Just don't be the kind of people that ban someone because it's their job or because you can, you'll find giving people a chance can really help to improve the way players see the admin staff.

[SecretStamos (Joshuu)]

The rules are pretty clear about this. Here's the rules for mutinies. I've bolded the relevant lines. There's not much room for interpretation if you ask me.

Mutiny - Mutiny is not allowed unless an Adminhelp is made giving the reason before you start. Also, you must follow these rules:

The situation MUST be role-played.

• The commander MUST be given a chance to stand-down peacefully
  You MUST have the support of SEVERAL other marines (at least 5, no single man mutinies)
  You must not kill ANY innocent marines (Any marine is "innocent" if they are not the target of the mutiny (commander and whoever helped him do whatever angered everyone))
  Uninvolved marines should be given the chance to remain uninvolved. They *might* shoot if they see you firing on the commander without a reason. Try to subdue them, WITHOUT lethal force or explain the situation.
  Minimize Losses (use either non-lethal force ONLY, or give all marines who oppose you a chance to stand-down)
  Do not start firing until you have been fired upon

I hate to say it, but he's entirely at fault. You are welcome to create an admin complaint about me if you feel as if I had any personal bias in your friend's ban, but the rules are pretty binary. I would have done the same exact thing if anyone else was XO.

Since I wasn't wearing armor, I dropped after the first couple shots. He continued to fire on me when I was on the ground to ensure I was dead. I talked with him about it and he stated this:

Code: Select all

[22:22:32]ADMIN: PM: Subdigital/(Gwyn Kurik)->SecretStamos/(Joshuu 'Josh' Joshua): What else are we going to do? It was a mutiny, mutinys usualy result in the commanders being shot or the muntiners executed no?

At that point, I determined it was clearly deliberate and issued proper punishment.

[SubdigitalGJ]

Honestly, I understand the problem. I killed someone that hadn't actually attacked or shot at me. Fair enough, I understand that and am willing to take a warning about that but when I read the rules there wasn't much on about that at all and as the person who I shot wasn't following my orders or the orders of the rest of the mutineers I saw it as a proper way to get our point across. If thats not right, understandable and I'm sorry. I just find it unfair of how it all went down. I was messaged by multiple people and knowing that the one who banned me was also the person directly involved in the incident makes it hard to believe everything that happened was completely impartial.
Seeing as we already had an admin say that mutiny's are the most confusing part of the game I find it hard to believe it was so clear cut. I understand the problem with what I did and I respect that. Yet however I do feel its odd that the admin involved handled his own ban when there was a moderator on at the time.
I could understand if this was a problem of randoming, or griefing but the situation was fully role played. We had interaction and I just feel it was an unfair ban in that sense seeing as I had never had a problem before and the rules stated nothing about the specifics of Mutiny's and I followed all mutiny rules. That is my only grip. Other than that I DO understand what is wrong and will make sure to not do so in the future.

[SecretStamos (Joshuu)]

Honestly, I understand the problem. I killed someone that hadn't actually attacked or shot at me. Fair enough, I understand that and am willing to take a warning about that but when I read the rules there wasn't much on about that at all and as the person who I shot wasn't following my orders or the orders of the rest of the mutineers I saw it as a proper way to get our point across. If thats not right, understandable and I'm sorry. I just find it unfair of how it all went down. I was messaged by multiple people and knowing that the one who banned me was also the person directly involved in the incident makes it hard to believe everything that happened was completely impartial.
Seeing as we already had an admin say that mutiny's are the most confusing part of the game I find it hard to believe it was so clear cut. I understand the problem with what I did and I respect that. Yet however I do feel its odd that the admin involved handled his own ban when there was a moderator on at the time.
I could understand if this was a problem of randoming, or griefing but the situation was fully role played. We had interaction and I just feel it was an unfair ban in that sense seeing as I had never had a problem before and the rules stated nothing about the specifics of Mutiny's and I followed all mutiny rules. That is my only grip. Other than that I DO understand what is wrong and will make sure to not do so in the future.

Mutinies certainly are confusing. But you need to understand that you did not follow the rules.

Code: Select all

Do not start firing until you have been fired upon

You were not fired on or provoked, and ignorance isn't an excuse. Sorry, but hopefully you'll learn how to better operate in the future.

[SecretStamos (Joshuu)]

And ok hell lets try a different angle as well, you could say the killing was awful, but he roleplayed everything to the best of his ability and you could say the killing ruined poor Joshuu's round but it really didn't. The round didn't go on for too much longer because the aliens were already boarding the Sulaco when this went down. And hell if you think we should ban everyone that somehow fucks up and ends someone's round a bit earlier than expected on accident then shouldn't I be reporting people who misfire and kill me as a fellow marine?

I wish you were right, but I live and breathe for Sulaco sieges. They're probably my favorite part of the game. So to say that my death was of little consequence to me simply isn't true. And his decision to kill me certainly was no accident; his actions coupled with his messages afterwords proved that he fully intended to kill me.

That being said, the situation technically permitted a use of a revive on me due to the illegal circumstances of my death, but I refrained. Please take note of that before you accuse me of any abuse.

[MrImATool]

Right so, literally reading the rules there. I don't see which one he broke, the mutineers asked you to stand down didn't they? And yes he DID mean to kill you as he was shot at by another loyalist, lethally. And the rules aren't clear on that part which is what I've said a million times

Do not start firing until you have been fired upon

which he was by the man Charlie Bennet...



And as such he figured lethal force was ok, and ok yeah maybe the rules actually are supposed to be "You may only fire on the PERSON" that fired on you, but they're not all it said was " Do not start firing until you have been fired upon" I'm not seeing a reason for a two day ban here, and fine fine lets say the first aid thing is the reason which is ok that's legitimately a better reason. BUT you didn't explain that when you banned him, you just banned him. But as soon as he saw the first aid thing looking through the logs he realised why he was banned and understood but you didn't explain this did you? You just said he killed you... I'm not opposed to a ban I'm opposed to the way it was handled and the reasoning and the completely childish way it was handled.

If I'm wrong please continue to patronise me or y'know show me a real quote of the rules he broke yeah?

[SecretStamos (Joshuu)]

Right so, literally reading the rules there. I don't see which one he broke, the mutineers asked you to stand down didn't they? And yes he DID mean to kill you as he was shot at by another loyalist, lethally. And the rules aren't clear on that part which is what I've said a million times which he was by the man Charlie Bennet...


And as such he figured lethal force was ok, and ok yeah maybe the rules actually are supposed to be "You may only fire on the PERSON" that fired on you, but they're not all it said was " Do not start firing until you have been fired upon" I'm not seeing a reason for a two day ban here, and fine fine lets say the first aid thing is the reason which is ok that's legitimately a better reason. BUT you didn't explain that when you banned him, you just banned him. But as soon as he saw the first aid thing looking through the logs he realised why he was banned and understood but you didn't explain this did you? You just said he killed you... I'm not opposed to a ban I'm opposed to the way it was handled and the reasoning and the completely childish way it was handled.

If I'm wrong please continue to patronise me or y'know show me a real quote of the rules he broke yeah?

I'd please ask you to refrain from being so disrespectful.


Charlie Bennet, the Bridge Officer, was critically wounded and on the verge of death. By the time Gwyn decided to open fire on me, the combat had subsided and there were no active threats. I didn't pose a threat (I was non-hostile and providing medical aid to Charlie), and Charlie did not pose a threat because he was unconscious, bleeding out, and had been that way for a while.

There were no threats. Therefore, why do you believe it was acceptable to use lethal force against a non-hostile target?


Also, I'd like to add that I didn't just ban Gwyn outright. I talked to him about it. Once I realized that he had gone into the mutiny with the intent to kill, I told him that I was issuing a ban. I spoke with him further about it, and then issued the ban.

Code: Select all

[22:22:32]ADMIN: PM: Subdigital/(Gwyn Kurik)->SecretStamos/(Joshuu 'Josh' Joshua): What else are we going to do? It was a mutiny, mutinys usualy result in the commanders being shot or the muntiners executed no?

It seemed pretty clear to be that he had fully intended to use lethal force as a resolving force.

[MrImATool]

That's pretty silly don't you think? Just because he was willing to use lethal force doesn't mean he planned to use it. Still waiting for the rules he broke, no Charlie didn't pose a threat anymore but as previously stated the rules only say do not fire until you are fired upon, which he was by Charlie Bennet earlier on in the bridge. It doesn't say "Only fire on the person who fired upon you" or "You can only fire until they're a threat" or "If the XO is ignoring your requests to stand down and instead patching up his guys don't shoot him" if he really broke the rules show me the ones he broke please, if it's so cut and dry you can do that right? Funny how looking at the logs this " What else are we going to do? It was a mutiny, Mutinys usually result in the commanders being shot or the mutineers executed no?" message came AFTER you told him he was getting a two day ban it's pretty funny right? And how you said "mutiny's are exclusively non-lethal" when the rules don't say that, the rules give a few exceptions like being fired upon by Charlie Bennet the loyalist... and since you refused to stand down.....

And I don't see how debating my point is being disrespectful, I didn't insult you, I said it was childishly handled you didn't properly listen to his story considering two staff members were messaging him at once and he was still trying to play at the same time.... and how when he tried defending himself by showing you the rules and telling you he was fired upon by loyalists, you didn't ask about this instead you just went straight to banning him, not even giving the courtesy of a reply because you ASSUME that you know best because you were involved, see I also find it funny how this could have been avoided had you let another staff member handle it so you had full impartiality... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bW7Op86ox9g

[SecretStamos (Joshuu)]

That's pretty silly don't you think? Just because he was willing to use lethal force doesn't mean he planned to use it. Still waiting for the rules he broke, no Charlie didn't pose a threat anymore but as previously stated the rules only say do not fire until you are fired upon, which he was by Charlie Bennet earlier on in the bridge. It doesn't say "Only fire on the person who fired upon you" or "You can only fire until they're a threat" or "If the XO is ignoring your requests to stand down and instead patching up his guys don't shoot him" if he really broke the rules show me the ones he broke please, if it's so cut and dry you can do that right? Funny how looking at the logs this " What else are we going to do? It was a mutiny, Mutinys usually result in the commanders being shot or the mutineers executed no?" message came AFTER you told him he was getting a two day ban it's pretty funny right? And how you said "mutiny's are exclusively non-lethal" when the rules don't say that, the rules give a few exceptions like being fired upon by Charlie Bennet the loyalist... and since you refused to stand down.....

And I don't see how debating my point is being disrespectful, I didn't insult you, I said it was childishly handled you didn't properly listen to his story considering two staff members were messaging him at once and he was still trying to play at the same time.... and how when he tried defending himself by showing you the rules and telling you he was fired upon by loyalists, you didn't ask about this instead you just went straight to banning him, not even giving the courtesy of a reply because you ASSUME that you know best because you were involved, see I also find it funny how this could have been avoided had you let another staff member handle it so you had full impartiality... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bW7Op86ox9g

Code: Select all

Minimize Losses (use either non-lethal force ONLY, or give all marines who oppose you a chance to stand-down)
Do not start firing until you have been fired upon

Just because Charlie opened fire earlier, doesn't give you a blank check to kill indiscriminately later. Marines should, during the mutiny, be focused on minimizing losses.

To be entirely honest, I didn't even notice Gwyn. I was focused on stabilizing Charlie Bennet since he had clearly been dealt lethal wounds and nobody was helping him. Everyone was pulling at me, yelling at me, and pulling guns on me. Gwyn was one of many tugging at my pant leg, and frankly I have no idea why he thought it was necessary to open fire.

It's clear to me he wasn't minimizing losses. His actions directly led to my death, and indirectly led to Charlie Bennet's death, both of which were very avoidable..

[MrImATool]

Minimize losses, they tried to do so, and they didn't try to kill indiscriminately they only killed you and wounded Charlie. Charlie was a hostile, proven by his attempt at killing Gywn. And you were the XO asked to stand down and you didn't.. that was your chance to stand-down(which is the only rule you've tried to use as a shield, and yet once again it's come down because you DID NOT stand down).

Why does you not paying attention not matter? Sub didn't pay attention to you providing first-aid and he shot you and you criticised him for it? Yet you're infallible right so you paying attention is irrelevant, ignorance of the situation is not innocence. And just to prove that let me take a little quote from my old friend Joshuu

[SecretStamos (Joshuu)]

Minimize losses, they tried to do so, and they didn't try to kill indiscriminately they only killed you and wounded Charlie. Charlie was a hostile, proven by his attempt at killing Gywn. And you were the XO asked to stand down and you didn't.. that was your chance to stand-down(which is the only rule you've tried to use as a shield, and yet once again it's come down because you DID NOT stand down).

Why does you not paying attention not matter? Sub didn't pay attention to you providing first-aid and he shot you and you criticised him for it? Yet you're infallible right so you paying attention is irrelevant, ignorance of the situation is not innocence. And just to prove that let me take a little quote from my old friend Joshuu

I really don't want to ask you again. You're being extremely rude. Drop the attitude.


Minimizing losses means ensuring as few people die as possible. If I had opened fire, it would have made logical sense to kill me because I am putting more lives at risk. This is why I didn't intervene when Gwyn critically wounded Charlie. That was perfectly valid.
But I was stabilizing Charlie to keep him from dying. I was not a threat because I was providing medical aid and was not aggressive. Charlie was no longer a threat because he was unconscious and bleeding to death.


Gwyn's decision to kill me clearly violated this rule. My death wasn't necessary, nor was I a valid threat. Nor was Charlie once he had been neutralized. He clearly wasn't trying to minimize losses when he decided to kill me on the spot.

[F_sphere]

It seems to me that this all stems from an inability for players (not just one specific person) to deal with dying. It's just a game, it isn't permanent.

[Feweh]

Enough, anything further will come from the banned player.

Youve posted your "witness" side enough, youre just rambling on now.

[SubdigitalGJ]

Very well.

Did you stand down? No?

As a mutiny victim you were given the option to A. Stand down, or B. you refuse and face the consquences(in this case you were met with lethal force. If I was shot at while trying to peacefully mutiny in real life I imagine I would be pretty pissed) you chose to ignore him or as you put "Not pay attention" this led to your death and eventually Charlie's is not this your own fault? if perhaps you had of stood down Charlie would have been seen to and you would have been allowed to live. Sounds like minimising losses to me but you didn't choose you chose to ignore him.

Is that not your own fault? Am I really to blame for your actions? I don't think so as he didn't break the rules, it says 'minimise losses' not "DON'T KILL ANYBODY" minimising losses means trying to save as many lives as possible, and he did try it was only your decision that caused the deaths.

Now I ask you again what rules were broken?

((P.S, I'm not being rude If he is presenting you with reasonable arguments and you're recycling old ones in the hopes to save yourself from the embarrassment of maybe just being wrong once? Is that the worst thing in the world? And lets be honest this isn't some place where political correctness is the most important thing, you literally play a game where aliens burst out of people's chests and violate defenceless scientist's faces. If you can't handle a lively debate and your decisions being questioned why are you banning people? P.S.S being rude would be "Fuck you admins fuck you server" being a passionate debater isn't being 'extremely rude'))