Clarification wanted on reasoning for ban from ItsMarmite

[Callan0]

CKEY: Callan123 
Round 36030
ADMIN BYOND KEY: itsmarmite 
Nature of complaint: Clarification Required, Unjust Application of Ban, and Inconsistent Enforcement of Rules.

Brief description of events: 
I recently got permanently banned for validhunting. I then made an appeal, where I stated that I didn't believe it was fairly applied. The appeal was unfortunately declined by ItsMarmite. 
I would like to hear the reasoning from ItsMarmite as to what made him apply the ban, and later decline my appeal as I don't believe the ban captured the full nature of the incident, and when he declined the appeal he did not go into depth as to what his reasoning was.

Full description of events:
This will firstly be the description of events as to why I was banned. I want clarification on how it would have qualified as validhunting.
I was in the science department where it happened. I walked out of a room within the science department to go get a chemical I couldn't synthesize in the chem dispenser, and that is where I saw someone in a gas mask attacking not only a security guard but another scientist as well. Because anyone who is attacking a downed security guard wouldn't be up to any good regardless of if they're an antag or not, and because they had also attacked another scientist, I decided to help both of them and I stabbed the vampire once, with a kitchen knife I had to gib monkeys so that I would be able to make non-hostile life in chemistry. They ran into a corridor in the science department, so I opened the door, where the vampire flashed me which is unarguably antag behavior. 

The security guard got up, and importantly, I was not the first to start chasing the vampire, I followed the other scientist and security guard because they were already wounded and I did not want the vampire to be able to kill them, and we chased the vampire together. The vampire teleported a short distance, and since they seemed to already be wounded from attacking the security guard and scientist I was able to put the vampire in crit which was around where I got frozen and admin PMed. I did not do it alone. And when I put the vampire into crit, the other scientist and security guard were also there. I could be wrong on some details, but generally, it did unfold organically over the course of a couple of minutes and I was not going out of my way to hunt the vampire.

As anyone who needs to be reading this might know, validhunting is listed in the rules as going out of your way to hunt antagonists and acting in an anti-antagonist way with no evidence as to them being antagonists. It is also part of the rule to not murderbone an antag with no reasoning of self-defense.
With my description of events, I not only didn't go out of my way to hunt this vampire as I was already in the science department doing my job, but there was clear evidence of them being a vampire by attacking a security guard and another scientist, then flashing me. My motivation to go after the vampire wasn't to kill for the sake of killing, but so that they would not be killed by the vampire as they were already wounded, and I wasn't. 

So the only places I could possibly see where I was breaking the rules was when I chased the vampire and put him into crit as it could possibly be seen as not being in self-defence, and it could classify as self-antagging if they were a non-antag as putting someone into crit is against the rules EXCEPT for in instances where the person you're killing or injuring is an antag. Which they were in this situation. And, as I said, I did not do it alone and it was a relatively short distance in the timespan of a couple of minutes, so it was not like we were chasing the vampire throughout maintenance to murderbone. Security also did not have the situation under control, as there was only one wounded security officer there, and when the other scientist had also chased after the vampire they could have been downed along with the security officer and the vampire would have been able to return. So if that qualified as breaking the rules, then the other scientist would have also been breaking the rules as well.

The situation organically unfolded, going after an obvious antagonist in a group shortly after they tried attacking a security guard and another scientist within your department does not, at least to me, seem like a validhunting situation, and definitely not one which justifies a permaban. The logs from this round will back up my general line of events. 
It makes me wonder when ItsMarmite started observing these events and how much of the combat log he took in as evidence for banning me as if he had been watching the whole time I do not believe he would have banned me, however, I could be wrong about this. To me at least, it seems that he made a decision without the full context. So I would like some clarification from ItsMarmite on when he started watching the events.

After I had already downed the vampire, ItsMarmite PM'ed me, he said to explain myself so I asked what I did wrong. He told me I was validhunting, to which I said I didn't think it was, but if it was I wanted a second chance. He brought up my past bans and notes, the last of which happened over a year and a half ago and essentially told me to find a different server. I do not have the logs so I do not exactly know what was said. But it was still unpleasant to get PM'ed with something like that from an admin when my last incidents were a long time ago.

I also read previous ban appeals with a similar situation to see if maybe a validhunting ban was applied in a similar situation regardless of my interpretation of the rules. Sorry if this breaks any forum rules, but I tried looking for a rule against citing other ban appeals in admin complaints and I could not find one. I believe it is important in this situation.

The first example https://www.paradisestation.org/forum/topic/23591-banned-by-admin-nerfection-ban-appeal-for-sahlokhviir/#comment-170492
In this ban appeal, someone working in cargo, along with another crewmember, went into disposals with the intention of looking for an antagonist to attack. They found someone, who they then cornered and threatened. The vampire tried running away multiple times, and they also lied to the admin and were very evasive in PMs. 
Importantly, validhunting was a problem they have had a record of and they had clear intent of validhunting, which I did not. This ban appeal was made in February.

The second example https://www.paradisestation.org/forum/topic/23464-banned-by-itsmarmite-ban-appeal-for-uncannyass/#comment-170051
In this ban appeal someone followed the HoS into disposals, where they then jawed open the door, and upon seeing that the HoS had been downed and dropped his baton, decided to attack the antagonist with an oxygen tank. They had a history of validhunting, and they were not involved in the situation beforehand. However, ItsMarmite, who had applied this ban, ended up accepting the appeal. The differences here between my situation and this person's was that the person had no reason to go after the antag. 
This appeal was made in January.

 The third example https://www.paradisestation.org/forum/topic/22098-banned-by-mcramon-ban-appeal-for-thedarkieangel/#comment-163511
This ban appeal matches up most closely with my situation. What happened here was a traitor with adrenal implants came out of maintenance in front of the engineering department where this person was working and started beating up members of security, where the traitor managed to down someone. He then decided to help, so he started beating the antag to death with a telescopic baton which would go beyond self-defense as stated in the rules. Some differences between this case and mine are that this person went out of their way to attack this antag despite security somewhat having it under control. They also had a history of validhunting, and despite all that, their appeal was accepted. Mine was not. This appeal was made in January 2022.

 

Because of this, I do not agree with the decision to decline my ban appeal as well. As seen in the previous ban appeals listed in similar situations to mine, a decision like this is not common and would be the first time in the past year at least where a ban was made with this kind of reasoning.

ItsMarmite said that the incident in that round showed that I have not learned since my last permaban. While I recognize that I do have a bit of a long record of bans and incidents, ever since I have been unbanned last month I have not gotten into any trouble despite playing regularly. It had been banned for over a year, so my last incidents were a long time ago. 
I have been wanting to get back into this server as it is the highest population "regular" SS13 server, and it has roleplay which makes this game more dynamic than just a murderbone simulator like lowrp is. 
So it is also unfortunate that ItsMarmite essentially told me to find another server because of a long record of bans and incidents that last happened a year and a half ago despite being on good behavior while regularly playing recently. For these reasons, I also feel like a permaban is a disproportionate response even if this is a situation where I broke the rules.

I think that not only was the original ban unfair as I don't think what I did would qualify as validhunting, but that the reason for declining my ban was unjust, and even if I were to break the rules, permanently banning me for this kind of situation is something that has not happened to other people so it would also represent an inconsistent application of the rules. If I am in reality wrong about the whole situation, I would still like some clarification from ItsMarmite about his reasoning for banning me, when he started observing the events, and why he declined my appeal on the basis of my supposedly not learning from my last permaban. Thanks in advance.
 

[Sirryan2002]

Hello and thank you for making this admin complaint, the reasons for this complaint is as follows: Clarification Required, Unjust Application of Ban, and Inconsistent Enforcement of Rules

Clarification Required

Ban appeals are intended to create dialogue between the banning admin and the banned player where any discrepancies in the ban are worked out and both the player/admin gain a better understanding of the rules involved and whether or not they were broken. In 99% of appeals it is this case where the banned player needs to learn our server rules better b/c admins like Marm generally have a significant amount of experience applying them to a large variety of situations. You went into the appeal process trying to dispute the ban, Marm felt as if the ban was completely justified which meant that there really was nothing else to talk about in the appeal so it was denied. I don't think this was inappropriate as you never went into the process (like you're doing now) of stating which rules you felt like you may have broken and then asking the admin how they thought you broke them as you were confused. You also have a decently long history of other bans which generally indicates to staff members that you've had to go through the rules multiple times at this point and according to 3+ other GAs you broke them which is quite damnning.

Unjust Application of Ban

I can provide clarification as to why your ban was placed. From the GA team side of things and your recount of the story, this still reads as a clear rule break in regards to our valid-hunting rule. As evidenced by all three appeals you linked, each player had at some point chased down the antagonist and beat them into crit or to death when a) security had already controlled the scene or b) the antag was actively trying to leave and not do additional damage. In this case, the antagonist was attempting to leave the scene and you followed them into maintenance and stabbed them into crit. Here is a good explanation of why this is rule break:

Quote

A good rule of thumb is that you can defend yourself and co-workers, but if the antag runs away, you shouldn’t be chasing them down - once they run you've succeeded in defending them. If you're not security, you should be more concerned with the victim than the antag - don't give chase to them after they've been saved. If someone is kidnapped, chasing them should be with a goal of rescue. Once you've rescued the person, security can apprehend the criminal, not a vigilante.

Applying this interpretation (like Marm did), seems like the correct course of action to me.

Inconsistent Enforcement of Rules

Funny enough, one of the linked ban appeals is one that I investigated and resolved myself. In all 3 of these cases, the valid-hunting rules were properly applied, the context in which they were all applied is different but the spirit of the rule being enforced was quite consistent. Your ban appeal was denied where their three were accepted because they admitted fault to breaking rules they identified which you did not do.

 

I'll leave this admin complaint open for one more week for responses and if you have additional evidence to put forward I welcome it. But overall from what I've found, Marm is not guilty of either of the concerns you listed on your complaint and clarification of this entire process has been provided.

[Callan0]

Thank you for the quick response, the ban reason definitely makes sense now and the reasons for declining the appeal do as well. It seems the problem was that I made a misinterpretation in the rules for validhunting, as I was not supposed to chase the vampire in that situation, and because of that, I thought that I was in the right. I had believed validhunting only applied to situations where I was going out of my way to kill antags, not in situations where the antag was running away. However I do still think a permaban was an inordinate response, I feel like the only reason I received a permaban instead of a warning or temporary ban was because of my much older notes, without taking into account the fact that I have been playing regularly and haven't gotten into any trouble. Should I make another ban appeal where I took responsibility or would it be too soon?

[Sirryan2002]

Perhaps the perfect response to this would be to let you off with a warning with the stipulation that you read the rules, however, most GAs during rounds really don't have the time to investigate your recent hours in relation to large break periods in your playing; They will generally check your note/ban history and act accordingly based on that. We have no idea what you've been up to in the year(s) you've be gone or how your behavior has changed so we will base it off what we know. Part of returning to the server with an improved non-rule-breaking playstyle is establishing good behavior over a long period of time at which I'd say 40 hours after being gone for a year and a half is not long enough to establish that based on your previous warnings.

You're free to make another ban appeal, if you take responsibility for your actions and identify the broken rules then you have a much better chance of having your appeal accepted.

[Callan0]

Thank you for the opportunity to get back into this server and the full explanation of the reasoning behind the ban!