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): 7/31/23-12/6/23

ROUND ID:#36751

Nature of complaint: clarification required, misapplication of rules
Links to all relevant ban appeals for any bans related to this complaint: Admin Complaint-MattTheFicus

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 wanted some clarification on these warnings and perhaps about their potential misapplication.

I made an admin complaint that handled the case's specifics and brought up the role of Space Law's Self-Defence notes in valid hunting judgments. A final ruling was made but important details were left out.

Full description of events:

The final ruling stated that the warning by Matt was regarding the use of a cleaver, how it was an unneeded use of force, and that the warning was justified. The ruling elaborated that my actions running from the bar to check on cargo solidified an intention for validhunting rather than the defense of a coworker. A major factor that wasn't addressed in the final judgment, was that I hit the contractor in an attempt to break up a lethal altercation they were having with the QM, who I was acquainted with. After which I spent I spent the rest of the altercation helping the captain/QM up. I don't believe how I handled the altercation itself was properly addressed in the resolution. It was a major point when interacting with Matt and throughout the complaint. It's also a major indicator of what my intentions really were rather than just the fact that I smacked the contractor with a cleaver.

Another major point of the resolution stated that the Self Defense notes in Space Law are to differentiate self-defense and vigilantism generally. A major concern throughout the complaint was the visibility of this seemingly important "clause", it is located at the bottom of the Space Law page in the Modifiers section, I didn't know of it until months after I made the complaint.

Quote

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.

I hope this statement from the resolution is addressing that concern.

Anyway, I want this to be resolved as quickly as possible as well. I don't want this to take up any unnecessary time. I understand a resolution was made but there were important factors that I believe should be addressed before doing so.

Edited December 10, 2023 by Aligote

[Qwertytoforty]

Hi, apologies for the delay.

 

We resolved the last complaint, however I’ll go over your new points.

 

 

Quote

Another major point of the resolution stated that the Self Defense notes in Space Law are to differentiate self-defense and vigilantism generally. A major concern throughout the complaint was the visibility of this seemingly important "clause", it is located at the bottom of the Space Law page in the Modifiers section, I didn't know of it until months after I made the complaint.

 

We find it helps if people read space law in full, rather than just reading the parts near the top. The placement has no difference.

 

As for space law, space law does mention that:

Quote

Persons intentionally getting involved in fights which occur in a department that isn't theirs is an act of vigilantism, not self-defence.

The bridge is not your department.

It follows up with:

Quote

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.

That was not disarming and disengaging. That was a cleaver. More importantly, it wasn’t even you in danger, it was the Quartermaster.

Just because security is not at the bridge yet does not mean they will not be there ever. Security can and will show up, especially if they are called on radio.

 

Quote

I don't believe how I handled the altercation itself was properly addressed in the resolution. It was a major point when interacting with Matt and throughout the complaint. It's also a major indicator of what my intentions really were rather than just the fact that I smacked the contractor with a cleaver.

As for your first new point, on intentions, let us see what happens when the contractor was reported at cargo:
 

Quote

 

[2023-08-01T01:51:27] SAY: (Ekss Laess) (91,120,2): (headset) 'contractor cargo'

[2023-08-01T01:51:29] SAY: Aligote/(John Stewert) (138,137,2): 'damn'

[2023-08-01T01:52:14] SAY: Aligote/(John Stewert) (91,119,2): 'WHEWRE'

[2023-08-01T01:52:16] SAY: Aligote/(John Stewert) (91,119,2): 'WHERE ARE THEY'

[2023-08-01T01:52:34] SAY: Aligote/(John Stewert) (86,117,2): they left/'

 

Running to cargo, and asking where the contractor is, from the bar as a civilian. That seems like you are stating your intent is to hunt the contractor.

After running to cargo you then say:

Quote

 

[2023-08-01T01:53:16] SAY: Aligote/(John Stewert) (86,116,2):  'a travesty'

[2023-08-01T01:53:27] SAY: Aligote/(John Stewert) (86,116,2):  'imma killem'

[2023-08-01T01:53:30] SAY: Aligote/(John Stewert) (86,117,2):  'if i could'

[2023-08-01T01:53:33] EMOTE: Aligote/(John Stewert) (86,117,2): shrugs

[2023-08-01T01:54:13] SAY: Aligote/(John Stewert) (86,119,2):  'that bastard took me in'

[2023-08-01T01:54:14] SAY: Aligote/(John Stewert) (86,119,2):  'as well'

[2023-08-01T01:54:30] SAY: Aligote/(John Stewert) (86,119,2):  'if i can jsut get my hands onem'

[2023-08-01T01:54:33] SAY: Aligote/(John Stewert) (86,119,2):  'id killem'

 

 

With this in mind for Matt to look at, your words came out more clearly than your actions.

Based on the logs, Matt was right to give you a warning for validhunting. Your intention showed you wanted to hunt, not to defend, and your actions as per space law, aligned with that.
 

[Aligote]

Hi, I am grateful that despite resolving the previous complaint, you all did take the time to address my new points.

For the placement of that clause in space law, my main concern wasn't just that it was at the bottom of Space Law, it's that it isn't properly addressed in the Rules either. It's fine to want people to read space law as a whole, but in the rules, only Captain and Security are encouraged to read Space Law to do their jobs better. There is a self-defense section in Advanced Rules for all players and it deeply concerns me that the precedents set in Space Law aren't present in that section, a link could even suffice. I think my concern is important because the faults you state I made with that clause is because I didn't know that clause existed and I'm not encouraged to know it.

Another important thing to consider is the final judgment of the previous complaint. I believe it stated that the main issue was because of my valid hunting intentions, that my use of a cleaver wasn't reasonable and that shoving in the bridge would've been acceptable. Defending the Quartermaster was not considered in the last complaint, although I wasn't in danger directly, I had a strong connection to the QM and he was being fatally attacked when I hit the contractor with the cleaver. 

Finally, I understand what I said and the actions I took before the incident. However, during the incident, I believe my actions should align with my understanding of self-defense at the time and should be addressed further. I was talking to the QM outside of Bridge, I ran into the Bridge when I saw the contractor Emaging in, I hit them once when they were fatally attacking the QM, I stayed back and helped the Captain/QM while the contractor was trying to retreat, and I brought the QM to Medbay afterward.

Again, I am grateful for you addressing my new complaint and hope this discussion is resolved.

Edited January 25 by Aligote

[Qwertytoforty]

Sorry for the delay, once again no excuse.

I'll see if we can mention the self deference vs vigilantism in the advanced rules.

As for a strong connection, that doesn't change anything. IC dating people still have to follow the rules for self defense and vigilantism, being acquainted with a coworker in a round does not grant an exception either.

Quote

I believe my actions should align with my understanding of self-defense at the time and should be addressed further.

A misunderstanding of the rules happens, but it doesn't excuse one for not following them. Your actions were validhunting, even if your intention was not at that exact moment.

The note will stand at this time. Do you have any other questions before the complaint is resolved?

[Aligote]

Hey, thanks for replying still.
I only referenced my connection to the QM in response to staff claims of my intentions to valid-hunt rather than save coworkers in need. Since my intentions are now beside the point, correct me if I'm wrong, but I presume the main reason for the current decision is breaking the rules for Self Defense and Vigilantism as described in Space Law's notes.

On 3/16/2024 at 1:21 PM, Qwertytoforty said:

I'll see if we can mention the self deference vs vigilantism in the advanced rules.

So, all I can say is besides my own opinions on Space Law's interpretations of Self-Defense (I don't like it), if it's going to be enforced like it is in my situation, I think it's fairly important to take action so other players don't have to deal with what I had to.

Now for questions, I didn't put feedback as one of the natures of this complaint but is there a chance Matttheficus (and others) can be informed to consider the current situation with Self Defense and Space Law when dealing with situations like mine?

On another note, can my note be edited to better fit with the present understanding of the situation if it's outdated in any way?

[Qwertytoforty]

The note will not be edited. We will be updating space law.

[Aligote]

Alright, and will there be discussion with Matttheficus on how to approach situations like this in the future? 

On 12/8/2023 at 1:38 AM, Aligote said:

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.

Just to make sure, this was how they responded to the situation. Again, I had to find the relevant information by chance, skimming through Space Law because of the confusion this interaction left me. Do you think feedback can be given to improve their approach?

Edited March 21 by Aligote

[Qwertytoforty]

I believe he has learned from this situation to be a little more clear, if someone is not understanding the rules can go into a bit more detail. Will resolve this for now.