Admin complaint : Meow19

[Storyteller]

Admin(s) Key: Meow19
Your ckey (Byond username): Stortyteller36
Your Discord name (if applicable): StoryTeller

Date(s) of incident (GMT preferred):Tuesday may third 2022

ROUND ID:31177

Nature of complaint: In character punishment regarding Decisions
(Select all that apply: EG - misconduct, other)
Links to all relevant ban appeals for any bans related to this complaint: None

Brief description (tl;dr here. Just the critical elements): My first round as Magistrate I was confronted with a weird issue. a skrell by the name of Cameron had been caught with S class equipment. the issue came up when he explained what happened. After passing Judgement and preparing a fax report to CC I was demoted for what I feel is doing my job.

Full description of events: As said before I was confronted with an odd situation, Cameron had been caught with S class contraband. He had however gained it by stealing from an EOC in a fit of vigilantism, I'm not here about that specifically. He had stolen a  piece of mission critical equipment, a kit regarding plutonium cores from nukes. Even then he handed it over willingly, along with a syndicate encryption key. seeing as after a full interrogation of which I sent a transcript back with I saw no reason he would genuinely be affiliated with the syndicate. I couldn't however let him be unmonitored and set him to parole and had him implanted in case my judgment was wrong. As I went to fax CC about this with a  report I noticed I had received a fax from an Alaire wright. It asked me to explain myself about this and that there had better be a good reason. I did indeed fax them back transcript attached and explained to them why I made this ruling. They even said the parole was warranted but because I did not fax them First i was still to be demoted. There in all I read over beforehand was nothing about not faxing first regardless. I was under the impression Magistrates are there to handle complicated issues for CC and report afterwards. While I may have missed some aspects I do believe that this ruling and their response was handled well. Attached is a screenshot of their response. They even agreed it was warranted which was what felt... off color.

[Landerlow]

First of all: Let me clarify that I am posting on behalf of @necaladun, with his permission.

Now, to business.

As a magistrate, you do have the authority to make the decision to parole someone, as defined in the Legal Standard Operating Procedures. I will quote it here, for reference:

Spoiler

Eligibility for parole:

If someone is an EOC, OR has committed a capital crime, then parole is only allowed if authorized by the Magistrate or Captain. They should not authorize this unless it is a serious emergency and the parolee is expected to help deal with the emergency. For example, a non-violent syndicate engineer may be paroled to help fight a blob.

For all other prisoners, Magi/Captain/HoS/Warden may authorize parole at their discretion. They are advised to consider how severe the prisoner's crimes are, how co-operative they have been with security, and whether or not they are expected to commit any further crimes.

Process for paroling a prisoner:

Parolee must be given a tracking implant, set to "parole" status in sec records, and informed that they are on parole (along with the charge), before they are released on parole.

Parolees who are EOC or who committed a capital crime, must additionally be stripped of all belongings prior to release. They may be issued a new basic jumpsuit, shoes, radio, and civilian-access ID.

After release, parolee is to be kept under supervision, and watched for any sign of further criminal acts. This can be done by co-workers, and/or security.

If the parolee commits a crime while on parole:

If the new crime is a capital crime, or they are an EOC, they are to be immediately executed on capture.

Otherwise, for any lesser crime, they're to be re-sentenced for BOTH the original crime they were paroled for, AND the new crime, with times stacking. They're also disqualified from any further parole for the rest of the shift.

The thing is: When authorizing a parole, whether it be in your role as Captain or Magistrate, you have to consider if the circumstances justify it. As you can read above here, you are only allowed to parole someone in case of a station emergency. And the parolee is expected to help the station fight the emergency (for example, a blob).

In this case, there was no imminent threat to the station that justified the parole. And while you are right in saying that you do not have to fax to authorize a parole, it is expected of players who play a role such as Captain or Magistrate, to know the SOP('s) affecting their role/department. And if you then would like to make a decision that is not in line with said SOP, (especially something like paroling someone who should rightfully be perma'd) it is expected that you send a fax to CC for permission to 'break/make a decision not in line with' SOP. If CC, after the fax, gives you the green light, go for it.

Now, as for the confusion on the decision: While we do have certain expectations from players as explained above, it would have made things clearer if the fax from CC had contained a line explaining what exactly was done wrong to warrant a demotion. This because it isn't just because you did not fax (as you rightfully said, there is no requirement for it), it is because you paroled someone in a non-emergency situation (and thereby breaking SOP) without asking CC for permission first (which is expected with situations like these, as explained above).

When it comes to the punishment itself: The mistake was not nearly severe enough to warrant a bwoink, so Meow19 decided to demote you IC'ly and leave it at that, which is their decision.

It basically boils down to this:
- There was a busy shift.
- You decided you wanted to parole someone, not completely in line with SOP when it comes to justifiable circumstances to grant the parole. You also did not send a fax to CC, which is something to be expected to be done if you want to make decisions like these not in line with SOP.
- A fax was sent by CC, ordering your demotion. The fax could have been clearer.

All in all, I would say that:

- The IC punishment is warranted
- The confusion on your part is understandable

I have spoken with Meow19 about this for future situations.

The complaint is not entirely without merit, though it is based on confusion regarding an IC decision. The decision itself is not incorrect, and justified.

I consider this complaint resolved. I will leave it open for a short time to allow for a reply if you have any additional questions or things you would like to add.

[Storyteller]

I completely understand, thank you for clarifying. many of the fine details are still quite difficult to grasp due to multiple SOP lines that are let's say less than common to see in practice. I appreciate the response and explanation. It helps greatly knowing what I did wrong. in truth it was their agreement that was the most confusing. Had they mentioned said rule regarding SOP I would have understood. The fax and it's wording was concerning was the major concern due to their agreement with my decision and still going forward with the demotion. Once again thank you for the clarification. 

[Landerlow]

You're welcome :)


I will be closing this complaint and filing it as resolved.