Clarification/Request for Review

[Rurik]

Admin(s) Key: PeakPerformance
Your ckey: Ruriks
Your Discord name: Rurik Varlim #6724

Date(s) of incident: 12 to 1 AM GMT.  7 to 8 PM EST.

ROUND ID: 33600

Nature of complaint: Clarification required, feedback, request for review

Brief description: I was warned for, if I understand correctly, playing antag irresponsibly, not acting like an antag, treating the roll like "greytider+". I am requesting both clarification on the warning, if I understood it correctly, and requesting review on the admin's judgement of my actions.

Full description of events: I will preface this by saying I hold nothing against PeakPerformance. They are a great player and to my knowledge a great admin.

Context:

As a changeling, after unsuccessfully attempting to absorb a fellow changeling and being cuffed/kidnapped by an assistant, an officer set me free. Following punching my kidnapper assistant and being brigged for it, I was called a "Washed up old man" by officer Tokoyokiko. After I said I would beat him for this, (a few minutes later) I beat him for this. I was ultimately caught and put into a cell. After an attempted escape with three uses of Epi OD, I was contacted by PeakPerformance via Admin PM. What follows are both of our logs.

Spoiler

For the record, I do agree with Peak at the end. There is no way he asking me to ruthlessly chase the greentext because he is not that kind of person, hence my confusion. I feel there is a disconnect between what he is asking and what I am understanding.

While I would understand it if I shouldn't have attacked Toko (he was not my target, though I wanted his sec gear) even though I was verbally provoked by him, or that I should have used an obvious cling ability (it can be annoying to deal with someone you know OOCly is a cling but not ICly), it seems I am being warned for neither of those. It feels that I am being punished for being caught too often via intentionally choosing weak methods of murder.

I will be operating under the assumption (until corrected or elaborated on) that me intentionally choosing weak weapons and populated areas to kill is the subject of this warning.

Before moving on I also want to preface that:

1. My intention is never to get caught. While I certainly do get caught often (typically lethalled upon capture), it is never the intention unless I state I am surrendering.
2. I choose weak methods of murder (fists, toolboxes, flyswatter, multitool back when it did damage on hit) in intentionally disadvantageous areas (public halls, bar, populated areas) because I enjoy the challenge, not because I want to "greytide" on sec.
3. I never intentionally play with worse strategies on team antags, or when mindslaved/working with another. I also play with this "challenge" mindset when it doesn't negatively effect a teammate.
4. Most shifts I do this in, I end up beaten to death in cuffs, not caught in brig. I am not sure what Peak meant when he said "that's the kicker, the issue is not that it happens, its that it happens almost every single time, you dig?" Unless he is counting the shifts where I am lethalled on the floor for using stimulants or class S, I don't see how he can arrive at the conclusion that I "greytide+" every single time.

(I would also like to note that, while I have gotten caught in under 20 minutes every vamp shift I've had the last 6 months, I am not intentionally choosing a weak strategy there. I'm actually trying really fucking hard. I just suck with vamp)

The Question:

With that out of the way, I have the following questions:

1. Is my assumption of what Peak is warning me for (intentionally choosing weak weapons and populated areas to kill, leading to often failure) correct? Or am I misunderstanding and my problematic conduct lies elsewhere?
2. Is it fair for an admin to deem your play style to this degree? Since I am neither powergaming to succeed at objectives, nor holding back to the detriment of allies/teammates, it feels like an overeach of power. Should it not be up to the player how cautiously or callously to approach a situation? Should it not be up to the player to decide between using a double-energy-sword that riles all of security, or your fists?
3. I am also operating under the assumption with Peak's comment that "I am not warning you for anything in particular this round" meaning that my actions of targeting an officer with the intent to down/kill for the ID and weapons is *Not* the issue, but rather my playstyle as a whole. If this is wrong, please let me know.
4. Lastly, this playstyle of mine has been the same for the last 3-4 years. Aside from some yawns over going naked with stimulants too often last year, I have never received negative comments or flak from anyone for it, admin or otherwise. Has there been rule change or code of conduct discussion? Of course I'm aware years of doing X cannot be a defense of X, but this adds to the "out of the blue" warning that, if I'm being honest, left me completely shocked. It begs me to ask—Why now?

That is all. Thank you for reading.

[PeakPerformance]

Admin's version of events :

First of all, there was definitely a failure of communication on my part: I like you as a person/player/character, so I came at you in a manner that might've been a little too casual and failed to lay things down clearly enough in fear of clashing with you, and that's definitely a me problem.

For a case like this I should've waited until you were caught/the end of the round to bring it up so we could have a discussion without you feeling that you were being rule lawyered by an admin mid antag-run, which I know can be a total mood-killer, especially when it feels like it's coming out of the blue as you say.  I apologize for that, these are things I will definitely do better keeping in mind in the future, and I thank you for taking the time to bring this up here so other people can give us their opinion on the subjects at hand.

I'd also like to add that not all bwoinks are punishments, or warnings - they also are our avenue to communicate with the playerbase at large in a somewhat official manner within the game, at least that's what I was going for. And a warning really isn't the end of the world or something to be seen as necessarily confrontational, but I know the stigma they carry, and I don't want people feeling like they are walking on eggshells, so I hope this experience does not make you feel that way.

For a bit of added context, this is the ahelp that triggered my thought process and desire to talk to you about it, name redacted for anonymity: https://gyazo.com/e5db92df6be204eeeaabbade8d31b77e 

I think this ahelp reflects some of the crux of the issue I was trying to bring up with you. It's a feeling that's been working in the back of my head for a bit.

-

Admin's reasoning for actions:

And to give my interpretation of the answers to your questions:

 

1. My main issue has to do with, to put it bluntly, that your IC motivations sometimes don't hold up to the standards of roleplay I'd like to see from antagonists, that's what I meant with "greytider+". Although I appreciate you OOCly wanting to not chase the greentext, you are still supposed to have IC reasons to want and be successful in your objectives and doing things like jumping at five officers the moment you get released to try and punch 'em because one of them is your target or you want gear from them, 2-3 times in a row leading you to being brigged for more than half of the first hour, for example, is fairly non-conductive to that, and feels more like fighting for the sake of fighting.

 

2. And we do have rules and antecedents with antagonists drawing too much attention on themselves for the purpose of fighting security. Now, this might not be your intent, but when it's a regular occurrence it can definitely feel that way, whether you use d-swords or toolboxes.

Another type of example I can bring up from recent memory is the day you got that c-mag/telegun/minibomb/esword surplus, went and asked the CMO for their hypo, and, when they didn't immediately comply, gibbed yourself with the minibomb. Because, from what I gathered in what you said in d-chat, there was no security (two no-name officers), and you had objectives that didn't interest you. I know it can be a little boring when there's little opposition but fighting sec shouldn't be the primary objective of antags, making the round interesting for the crew at large is, and now the station lost a primary actor to that endeavor. I was hesitating to talk to you that shift, but it probably would've been a more appropriate time to, especially since had it been anybody else they would've been told that if they didn't want their roll, they should ahelp or cryo rather than kill themselves.

3. Indeed, trying to get stuff from an officer then wasn't an issue as you had another security officer as target, but neither is your playstyle as a WHOLE. I just wanted to touch on a couple of things I feel bring down your roleplay as an antag.

4. Again, complete failure of communication on my part, and I should know better having myself felt similar things when I've had criticisms directed my way seemingly out of the blue. It is a complicated thing to bring up things you feel are problematic when they are long-standing or concern people you regard highly (or both !). To be frank, I do read players being confused or not so happy with those kinds of situations, but it's always responded with "It's just Rurik memeing", and I don't think that's a good way to handle it either, because No-name McBald probably wouldn't be regarded the same way.

And there's a reason people regard you highly, because you're a fun player, a veteran, and you generally do a good job at contributing to the rounds you're in, but I think that this behavior in particular is a misguided opportunity at challenging yourself, I'd love to see you attempt more risky maneuvers like hostage taking, proper ransoming, high profile robberies, holding a lair with your targets or, as a cling, trying to replace a crewmember, like a security officer if you're trying to get closer to another seccie, without killing the person you're trying to replace, instead just locking them somewhere for the inevitable reveal and intrigues it'd bring out, without more-often-than-not devolving into simple punching matches with sec, which people in the long run will start to see as just a desire to fight them. 

-

Acknowledgement of wrongdoing or disputing of:

I definitely could've communicated better what the intent and the object of me reaching out to you was, as well as discussed it within admin channels beforehand, and I'd like to apologize for that once more. I do stand by these opinions that now hopefully clearer, and I look forward to hear more about what you think, as well as what other admins might want to chime in, and heads' conclusion. No matter what the outcome of this discussion will be, thank you again for taking the time to bring it up, and I will make sure to remember it as a learning moment for me. If nobody else sees what I bring up as problematic, I will be happy to re-evaluate my stance on the topic !

[Rurik]

I appreciate the clarification and added context with the shared ahelp. This helps tremendously, and I believe I now understand what you're asking of me. Before moving forward, I'd like to clarify the following:

5 hours ago, PeakPerformance said:

Another type of example I can bring up from recent memory is the day you got that c-mag/telegun/minibomb/esword surplus, went and asked the CMO for their hypo, and, when they didn't immediately comply, gibbed yourself with the minibomb. Because, from what I gathered in what you said in d-chat, there was no security (two no-name officers), and you had objectives that didn't interest you. I know it can be a little boring when there's little opposition but fighting sec shouldn't be the primary objective of antags, making the round interesting for the crew at large is, and now the station lost a primary actor to that endeavor. I was hesitating to talk to you that shift, but it probably would've been a more appropriate time to, especially since had it been anybody else they would've been told that if they didn't want their roll, they should ahelp or cryo rather than kill themselves.

I remember this round clearly.

Last time I had to cryo, prior to this round you mentioned, I was a changeling inside a brig cell in a similar situation to the one you contacted me in yesterday. I ahelped if I should cryo or have a ghost put inside of my body. Peak himself, if I remember correctly, told me to give sec the satisfaction of the kill instead. I did as requested, suiciding into sec. I assumed because of your lack of interest in telling me to cryo or put a ghost inside my body that the admin team did not care if an antag cryo'd or suicided. Thus, when this shift you've described above rolled around, I suicided assuming the admin team did not care if I cryo'd or not.

I see now this was a mistaken assumption and I apologize. Hopefully you'll forgive me since this felt a fair assumption to make with my last cryo ahelp ending with being told to essentially suicide. I also wish you contacted me then so we could have cleared that up immediately, but I'm glad we got to it here, at least. Regardless, this misunderstanding seems to be a different issue than the crux of what was brought up here.

 

Moving on, I don't wish to draw this out in an argument or try and rules lawyer myself. I don't entirely agree with your characterization of my actions, such as my actions lacking "IC reasoning" or "fighting for the sake fighting" (though of course I do enjoy fighting in this game), nor do I agree with your implication that I, somehow, get away with things that "No-name McBald" couldn't, but that is your judgement of what you've seen and I respect that.

However, I would like to bring up one point with you. I will restate the following is not an attempt to argue or rules lawyer.

7 hours ago, PeakPerformance said:

And there's a reason people regard you highly, because you're a fun player, a veteran, and you generally do a good job at contributing to the rounds you're in, but I think that this behavior in particular is a misguided opportunity at challenging yourself, I'd love to see you attempt more risky maneuvers like hostage taking, proper ransoming, high profile robberies, holding a lair with your targets or, as a cling, trying to replace a crewmember, like a security officer if you're trying to get closer to another seccie, without killing the person you're trying to replace, instead just locking them somewhere for the inevitable reveal and intrigues it'd bring out, without more-often-than-not devolving into simple punching matches with sec, which people in the long run will start to see as just a desire to fight them. 

Regardless of the headmin ruling, I do agree, its been to long since I've put some real effort into a gimmick, or trying to actually succeed with a task more nuanced than simple murder. It should be fun to change things up a little.

However, that should be my choice. It should be the players choice to decide on a hostage situation or toolboxing their target to death in the halls. It should be the players choice to use an armblade that'll land them KOS or their fists that land them an aggravated assault charge. It should be players choice if they go for their target or an officer first, as well as their method of doing so. I have not infringed upon an advanced rule that I am aware of. I have not baited sec with intent to kill them for chasing me, I have not premptively taken out sec "just in case," I do not work to keep people out of the round. I have not powergamed to succeed at objectives nor purposefully failed, denying the point of antagonists in the first place.

I, as I always have, try to walk the line between chasing greentext and harmless gimmicks, trying to do so in a way that is entertaining and fun for both target, security, and me. In every measurement I can think of, I have not stepped outside of playing antagonists responsibly.

In my honest opinion, I feel this is an overstep of admin power, reaching into something that should be in the players control. This is not something that should be under admins jurisdiction when you've adhered to all written rules (that I know of) and have acted in good faith.

That is all. I patiently await headmin ruling and will accept whatever conclusion they come to. Thank you for reading.

[necaladun]

Thanks both of you for being super reasonable about all this.

I think I speak for all of the admin team when I say that not chasing greentext is something we really wish more people would do, and you should be commended for it.

The issue I think @PeakPerformancehas here is the LRP-ish nature of some of it, such as self-gibbing with a minibomb when told no about the hypo - that comes off as a bit too silly.

If you want to go after your target in public with a toolbox though, I don't see an issue with that. It's dumb and risky, but there's no obligation to be optimal. Getting in fights with sec is cool, and I encourage it.

[necaladun]

After reviewing over with other admins about what your shennigans have been, I'm of the opinion they should be encouraged. 

SS13 is all about crazy memorable stories, not just antags getting greentext for the 1000th time through whatever meta strategy is the flavour of the week.

My overall clarification is that I applaud you for not being yet another gamer and actually doing things in an interesting and funny way. Please keep it up.
 

On 11/23/2022 at 2:04 PM, Rurik said:

Is my assumption of what Peak is warning me for (intentionally choosing weak weapons and populated areas to kill, leading to often failure) correct? Or am I misunderstanding and my problematic conduct lies elsewhere?

Intentionally weak areas and populated areas are fine. I encourage it.
 

On 11/23/2022 at 2:04 PM, Rurik said:

Is it fair for an admin to deem your play style to this degree? Since I am neither powergaming to succeed at objectives, nor holding back to the detriment of allies/teammates, it feels like an overeach of power. Should it not be up to the player how cautiously or callously to approach a situation? Should it not be up to the player to decide between using a double-energy-sword that riles all of security, or your fists?

If you want to be cautious or callous, that's fine as a solo antag. Giving yourself the challenge of using fists is great - although try not to be too LRP about it by screaming Macho Man memes or something. Give an IC reason behind it like "I was so angry I just wanted to beat him to death" or "my character believes weapons are a sign of weakness" and you're golden. Bonus points if you manage to express it to your target as you're robusting them.
 

On 11/23/2022 at 2:04 PM, Rurik said:

I am also operating under the assumption with Peak's comment that "I am not warning you for anything in particular this round" meaning that my actions of targeting an officer with the intent to down/kill for the ID and weapons is *Not* the issue, but rather my playstyle as a whole. If this is wrong, please let me know.

The general opinion of the staff from what I've discussed is that your overall play style is pretty funny, with a few occasional incidents being a bit LRP but nothing particularly bad or that I see the need for any intervention of.
 

On 11/23/2022 at 2:04 PM, Rurik said:

Lastly, this playstyle of mine has been the same for the last 3-4 years. Aside from some yawns over going naked with stimulants too often last year, I have never received negative comments or flak from anyone for it, admin or otherwise. Has there been rule change or code of conduct discussion? Of course I'm aware years of doing X cannot be a defense of X, but this adds to the "out of the blue" warning that, if I'm being honest, left me completely shocked. It begs me to ask—Why now?

There's been no changes here, although there has been a disheartening trend towards a focus on antag-vs-sec gameplay.

I have had the note about this amended with "After a discussion where he asked for clarification, Neca has ruled this a non-issue and this note is to be ignored. His gimmick styles are entertaining and within the spirit of the game.".

I'll leave this open for now in case there's any more clarification you need. Feel free to just DM me any feedback if you prefer. If you don't have anything to say, just post to say you're happy with it so I can close this.

[Rurik]

I'd like to thank both you and the admin team in general. Although I've said it before, I'd like to say again I hold nothing against PeakPerformance and I hold him in high-esteem. I believe this discussion was a good one to have.

I am satisfied with the conclusion and clarification. Please close at your convenience.

[PeakPerformance]

I take Neca's ruling on this topic to heart. It was my intention to update the note to reflect the final say of the discussion, thank you for having done it already since I've been fairly busy IRL !

Once again, sorry for handling the situation poorly, and I will make sure to keep in mind when forming an opinion on similar situations in the future, as well as discussing it more thoroughly with the rest of the admin body before acting upon them.

Thank you both for your time !