Admin Complaint-MattTheFicus

[Aligote]

Admin(s) Key: MattTheFicus
Your ckey (Byond username): Aligote
Your Discord name (if applicable): Aligote

Date(s) of incident (GMT preferred): 7/31/23

ROUND ID: #36751

Nature of complaint: Clarification required, misapplication of rules

Links to all relevant ban appeals for any bans related to this complaint:N/A

Brief description (tl;dr here. Just the critical elements):

I and a QM spotted a contractor emagging into the bridge with a vulnerable captain with no sec around. We ran into the Bridge and tried to save the captain and in doing so, I hit the contractor once with a butcher's cleaver while the contractor attacked the QM and aided the QM while the contractor was beating him up.  Later in the round, MattTheFicus admin messaged on why I chased an antag with a butcher cleaver as assistant. I explained that I was trying to save a coworker, the captain, from a visibly dangerous contractor who in the past, had abducted me a little beforehand. He then told me to explain how that wasn't the literal definition of validhunting. I elaborated that I only hit the contractor once, spent most of the time trying to save the QM afterward, and I apologized. Finally, he warned me to never do "it" again and to sign up for security if I want to fight antagonists.

I thought attempting to save a coworker from an antagonist isn't validhunting. I don't wish to rules lawyer because doing that would be to ignore the essence of the rules in favor of a minuscule technicality. But I thought the essence of validhunting is that it actively intrudes and obstructs antagonist's and security's abilities to function, where here, the antagonist was going loud on the captain in Bridge and security wasn't there. I acted with restraint and still got warned to not do "it" again. I would like some clarification on these warnings and perhaps about their potential misapplication.

Full description of events:

I was doing a shift as an assistant and had made connections to the cargo mafia. Later into the round, I was attacked and abducted by a contractor in the library. Shortly after being returned, another batoning assailant attacked coworkers in the secless library and I tried and failed to stop them with a cleaver. Later, comms said a contractor was in cargo with urgency. I went over to cargo angrily waving my cleaver, roleplaying my hatred of the contractor, and roleplaying my concern for the Don's(QM's) safety. I don't know if MattTheFicus took these into account or just the interaction at the bridge. Either way, I spent most of the time at the bar trying to set up a conveyor table of string instruments and music books I had cataloged. The fight at the bridge happened spontaneously as I was conversing with the Don(QM).

Now, in my notes there is an old note by MattTheFicus for another validhunting affair. It was due to me attacking an antag already being handled by security. I do not know if this had any affect on the admin's decision but it is something to consider. I don't consider these two circumstances to be the same and would like clarification and evaluation of this new warning's application of the rules.

[Sirryan2002]

Hello and thank you for taking the time to write an admin complaint. The nature of this complaint is misapplication of the rules.

I've gone ahead and reviewed the logs for this situation, unfortunately the logs do not give great info on second-to-second location data or round context so I did my best reviewing the situation. I have no idea what your intentions were in this situation so I'm not going to try and guess. If the Game Admin who applied the note believes that you went beyond the self-defense aspect of protecting your coworkers then I believe them. Going after antagonists with a cleaver goes a step too far and would justify a light warning which seems to be what happened here since the antag didn't actually attack you first in this situation; At most, shoving or trying to drag the captain away probably would have been most appropriate.

I'm going to uphold the warning here. I will leave this complaint open for another week if additional discussion is needed.

[Aligote]

I see, but I just want to add again that I did spend most of my time trying to help the captain or QM up or drag them to safety. I only hit the contractor when he was attacking the QM that I knew and was friends with. I'm sure something in the logs can confirm that the QM was being attacked when I hit them and that I mostly helped people up while they were on the ground and dragging the QM to medbay, if this is anything to consider. Also, if using weapons is too much and defending coworkers is only regulated to shoving or dragging, perhaps that could be clarified in the advanced rules to avoid confusion.

Edited August 4, 2023 by Aligote

[Aligote]

I found written precedent for shoving and not getting involved in other departments when defending coworkers. However, it's in the Modifiers & Special Situations section of space law. If the position presented was the one held by MattTheFicus, I don't know if I should've been warned the way I was. Although I don't expect perfect customer service, I wasn't informed on why what I did was valid hunting after I explained myself. I'm still unsure if it is.

[Aligote]

To better articulate myself. I'd still like further clarification if there may have been a misapplication of rules or perhaps something less serious. I know that admins have freedom in what they can do in the better interest of the server, but I still have concerns about the entire interaction. The entire interaction seemed like a banworthy offense if I hadn't explained myself further from what I thought to be an understandable first response. I stated that I thought I was defending someone, and instead of clarifying how it wasn't, I had to explain how it wasn't valid hunting. That's a hard question to answer if you think you just answered how it wasn't, more confusing when you're just warned to not do it again after you explained yourself further. The fact that the rule break also seems to center around a clause of space law just compounds that uncertainty.

Edited October 12, 2023 by Aligote

[DoctorDrugs]

I wish to apologize on how long this took to getting around to, we as heads have been incredibly busy as of late so much so that sirryan had to step down and focus on real life because of this we've let this and a few other appeals sit for far far longer than they should've. Sirryan was originally handling this but as he's stepped down I'm gonna do my best here to answer your questions and resolve this complaint. 

So getting into it, Matt's warning about the situation is valid in context with the entire situation that happened during that round. I'll apologize if things aren't 100% right as logs can only show so much here as I was not on the server observing everything happening and have to take the general context the logs show me with a grain of salt. I don't want to open this up from the beginning again but I want to state a few things so we're on the same page on everything, the contractor that attacked the Captain was the same one that kidnapped you earlier in the shift and sent you to be "interrogated" via the contractor extraction as a target. After that you got a cleaver, later on you were in the bar while the contractor was spotted in cargo and called out which you rushed towards cargo only to find the antag no longer there. The final part I want to mention when the contractor was attacking the captain they were on the bridge while you were out to the east outside of the bridge. 

Considering all of the logs from the interaction it heavily leans towards looking like valid hunting or wanting to get yourself involved with the contractor, considering the things you said and did in game also line up with the interpretation matt had of the situation. Looking at these logs and considering it all, Matt did the correct thing. It appeared less like you were defending yourself and more like you were attempting to get into a fight with the contractor. You made comments in game regarding how you'd kill them if you got your hands on them, at which responding to the call out of bridge attack from the AI assumes you were intending to do just that. The point of the self defense clause in the rules is being able to defend yourself and others nearby with a reasonable level of force, attacking a contractor with a cleaver you got earlier in the round is not needed considering it was you, the QM and the most likely soon to be arriving security considering it was called out by the AI. I don't know if this answers all your questions with this, if not I'd be happy to continue the dialogue from here.

[Aligote]

I appreciate the response. In regard to the complaint, I'd still like clarification on the AI callout, how Mattheficus did his warning, and the clause on space law that seemed to be used in the past ruling. If this is a new ruling, I don't know if it was more about defending myself rather than defending the captain as a coworker. During the altercation, I hit the attacker once and spent most of the time trying to get the Captain/QM up or taking the QM to Medbay. When I told Mattheficus about these details, I wasn't informed of what I did wrong, not that I expected that, but even now I'm confused. I saw the contractor directly begin breaking into Bridge and didn't know the AI made a callout for Sec, I'd like specifics on that along with the previous ruling seemingly based on Space law.

Edited November 20, 2023 by Aligote

[DoctorDrugs]

Sorry for the lack of response till the end of the week, US holiday had me a little busy. The main thing is you witnessed the antag rush onto the bridge and decided to follow them, you earlier said in game in that round you wanted to get your hands on them/kill them and had a weapon, it's not without reason to believe your reasons for following the antag was either to get revenge for earlier in the round or have justification to get involved with the antag. You could've just as easily have called for security and said what they were doing instead of getting involved yourself directly but I'm not directly saying you were in the wrong for following, the problem lies with having gotten a weapon earlier, attempted to run into the contractor at cargo when they were called out, make statements about how you wanted to get your hands on them in game and follow that up by following the antag onto the bridge and striking them with a cleaver. All of that is reasonable for an admin to believe you were less interested in self defense and more so interested in getting revenge. Matt's initial call of a warning is correct and he was justified by everything he would've had access to via logs and other means in game when the warning was issued.

[Aligote]

I see, what concerns me is if this is the final ruling, that what I did was valid hunting because it seemed like a premeditated attack, I'd still like clarification on the initial admin interaction and the previous ruling which both mainly focused on following the antag into Bridge. If it's not directly because I followed them into Bridge, I believe the self-defense clause of Space Law's Modifiers & Special Situations should be discussed and what its role in valid hunting judgments are.

In regards to trying to get involved with the antag, I had a strong connection to cargo and wanting their safety when I approached them. Besides that, getting involved instead of calling security can be because that was the better option to defend the captain during that situation. The antagonist had proved to be very successful and quick, while during the altercation, I still mainly regulated myself to helping the captain and QM. I believed my intentions were to defend a coworker, if the final ruling is because of my intention to valid hunt, I'd like clarification on the initial admin interaction, the previous ruling, and whether the warning/note I was given is appropriate.

 

Edited November 25, 2023 by Aligote

[DoctorDrugs]

I am going to quote directly from Space Law this one time, "Persons intentionally getting involved in fights which occur in a department that isn't theirs is an act of vigilantism, not self-defence." however this isn't also the end all be all as the Rules will always trump SoP or Space Law and are what admins are directly referenceing when handing out warnings/bans. The end result here is that you shouldn't have attacked him with a cleaver and I'd argue you shouldn't have been running to a department when he was spotted in cargo nor having followed him onto the bridge, Matt gave you a warning to not do so again and that's all it is at this time. Again the judgement stands as Matt made the correct and valid call of warning you.

[Aligote]

My main concern is just that it seems the Space Law clause is the main reference to the other rulings. Using a meat cleaver instead of disarming is mentioned in it and following into the Bridge seems to be what the quote is referring to. Not to rules lawyer but if this ruling is final, I think there is a discrepancy between stating that this ruling is based on the Rules and not Space Law. I believe you should deeply reconsider and clarify the visibility of that self-defense clause in Space Law because I did not know of it before or after I was warned.

Edited November 26, 2023 by Aligote

[DoctorDrugs]

We're going to be adding some examples of what is considered self-defense and what is not considered self-defense within the rules at a future date, sooner the better in this case, specifically to help people understand the difference between self-defense and vigilantism. Especially where self-defense ends and where vigilantism begins. Now saying that I quoted directly from space law, and that quote is in the notes section of Space Law directly adjacent to what you're attempting to reference. Self defense ends the moment you have the upper hand and/or giving chase after an antag long after the antag has fled from the area they were in. Matt's ruling will be upheld that is not going to be changing.

[Aligote]

I appreciate and hope this action is followed through on. I hope the examples will address and clarify the precedents seemingly set by Space Law's self-defense notes. Although I know admins have freedom in judging valid hunting, players shouldn't be given misconceptions that are only adjusted after a warning or several. I thought I practiced self-defense as the contractor was running toward the Captain and putting him in danger, mainly focusing on the Captain/ QM as well. This situation has many implications that still confuse me and I look forward to the changes. This will be an appropriate time to clarify what sizards are as well.

[DoctorDrugs]

We're not changing the wording or intent of validhunting rules, it is clarification based on them and what is considered self-defense and what is considered validhunting/vigilantism. What you did was considered vigilantism when we consider everything that happened that round from running over to cargo upon hearing about the contractor being spotted at cargo, saying how you wanted to get your hands on them and then chasing after them when they broke into the bridge and smacked them with a cleaver. Matt's ruling is correct on this warning, unless you have anything we need to address directly related to this incident then I'm going to mark this as resolved and the ruling held as is.

[Aligote]

I think it's important that before you consider this resolved, one of the natures of this complaint is clarification. Clarification based on what is considered self-defense or valid hunting/vigilantism is exactly what I want as well. One last thing to address for this complaint is the extent to which you will clarify the valid hunting rules. Will the notes mentioned in Space Law's Self-Defense modifier and used here, be addressed in the valid hunting examples added in the future? Because these precedents are directly related to this incident and how Matt addressed it at the time.

Edited December 4, 2023 by Aligote

[DoctorDrugs]

I have clarified the ruling, I will do so once again and in more depth then to make you understand. Self defense in space law is there to help people understand where the point of self defense ends in a general sense, 

Quote

"Acting to protect one's self, coworkers, or workplace."

you were an assistant that round and the events took place around the station. You weren't protecting yourself so we can discount that part, coworkers we can call it a stretch to claim it was a coworker since the people in question were the captain and the QM while you were a assistant, however that doesn't prevent people from defending those nearby while witnessing someone being attacked.

So we'll look at the Notes section of space law specifically the Self-Defense clause which is directly right of the above quote,

Quote

Persons intentionally getting involved in fights which occur in a department that isn't theirs is an act of vigilantism, not self-defence. Self-defence typically involves attempts to disarm or disengage, beating someone while they're down should be considered Assault unless the defender's life was in danger.

Now there is leeway with all rules as well as with things in game like SOP or Space Law, so we'll exercise some leeway and say the Captain was considered nearby. We'll focus specifically for Matt's decision based on what you said regarding Space Law and the Self-Defense clause, Self-Defense directly correlates to reasonable levels of force. That was a three on one situation, hitting the contractor with a cleaver wasn't needed and Matt felt it went beyond the reasonable expectation of self-defense. I agree in that situation that he made the correct call. Many other things could've be done differently that would've resulted in not a warning being placed, not using the cleaver and only disarming, calling security instead of following the contractor, or a combination of the both/other methods.

Now when we consider the entire round in context with what happened on the bridge his call is more than justified as ok and within his rights as an admin. Running from the bar to cargo when the contractor was called out only to miss the antag being there and proclaiming how you wanted to get your hands on the contractor paints your actions as vigilantism/validhunting here. Using the cleaver on the bridge only further cements that idea that this was less self-defense and looks heavily like it's a case of wanting to get your revenge on the contractor. This was considered worthy of warning you against using a cleaver against the contractor on the bridge, both space law and more importantly the rules say to me that you shouldn't have used that cleaver in the first place. At the end of the day this is a warning regarding it, it is not a ban and the only way this can lead to more issues in relation to the note is if you continued to run around the station attacking antags with weapons, or continued to attack antags long after people got away from a fight or could've escaped.

I am considering this as resolved and without merit, I will not be explaining exactly what examples we are going to put forward as they will be reinforcing what already exists in both space law and more importantly within the rules specifically under the valid hunting section.