Admin Complain: leanfrog

[PlasticLust]

Admin(s) Key: leanfrog
Your ckey (Byond username): PlasticLust
Your Discord name (if applicable):JD6m

Date(s) of incident (GMT preferred):25/1/2025

ROUND ID: 43478

Nature of complaint: misapplication of rules, misconduct, abuse of powers

Brief description (tl;dr here. Just the critical elements): after explaining and being fully transparent on the reasons why I threw the tomato at the vox, admin keeps shifting the topic and ultimately applies a ban with a completely injustified reason

Full description of events: I joined as a botanist after a long time of not touching the role, I put the same chemicals found in a deathnettle in a tomato and threw them around, seeing how the acid only affected the tile I thought it wouldn't hurt poeple as long as they weren't on the specific tile (I threw one at beepsky and didn't seem to affect it). While coming back I see a vox trying to break into botany and told them "Hey try this" and threw the tomato at them, in exchange they threw me around the room a bit and that was it, I didn't consider that more than a friendly banter. 
Admin bwoinks me asking why I threw the tomato and I responded as above. I would like to point out they assumed bad faith from the start, telling me "everyone knows botany plants has shit in them". I was fully transparent as I genuinely didn't know the tomato applied the chemicals as toxin damage of sorts too, neither I knew voxes take more damage from acid.

Point is, while I was trying to be civil and explained that the incident wasn't supposed to be more than a funny exchange (funny being relative, but the idea is it wasn't supposed to be more harmful than let's say vendoring someone that is tresspassing) admin kept being highly confrontational about it, making bad examples like asking me if I would throw a mysterious liquid beaker at someone. Thing is they assumed I was playing the dumb card, which I wasn't, specially because I told them I knew what the tomato contained (they assumed I didn't or was trying to show I didn't know). The shift in topic went from "why did you try to kill a vox that just pushed you" to "you're failing to understand why throwing harmful chemicals at people is bad", the whole conversation degenerated in a ban, with a very passive aggressive reason: "as non-antagonist botanist threw an acid tomato at a vox as a "prank", this nearly killed the vox. When contacted completely failed to see why doing so was an issue. Appeal on the forums when you're ready to think about why throwing dangerous chemicals at people is a problem"

This reason is completely false, and comes with false pretenses, I didn't "failed to see why doing so was an issue" I just didn't know the extent of the damage, but again they kept changing the core issue once I explained my point of view.

"So you knowingly threw acid at someone, and yet still don't understand why this is an issue? I'll give you one more chance here" also sounds like a threat and is shifting the topic, I understand it would be an issue if I did it knowing well it would kill them, but once again I assumed not to (the vox didn't rush to medbay either, it threw me around and on tables, which I figured was the sign that the damage wasn't that bad). 

Even if this was a rule 0 break, it being so relative and vague could had just ended up in a warning, specially because apart from my ban last summer I never had a similar problem before, so assuming bad faith didn't have any grounds. I would also like to point out the accusatory tone didn't help, I wasn't being an ass and I was honest about the whole thing, it really feels like they already made their decision before the PM and the conversation was just to try and make me accuse myself of something. This is space station, there are lots of roles and mechanics, assuming bad faith from someone immediately, not listening to their reasoning or taking into account their past behaviour is not really a good way to deal with those kind of things. Applying a straight ban to this would force me to make an appeal and admitting I did it on purpose (which I didn't and I won't appeal, I'm the same guy that waited and admin bwoink to kill a highjacker because I was in doubt).

 

[Tourte]

Heya sorry for the delay! I will handle your admin complaint. My answer to your complaint will share the consensus of the majority of the Head of Staff.

Before we get into the conversation bewteen you and Leanfrog, I will explain how much damage your tomato with Liquid Contents and Hypodermic Prickles and filled with 25 unit of fluorosulphuric acid and 25 unit sulphuric acid dealt to the player you threw them on.

The relevant attack logs:
Line 16562: [2025-01-26T00:43:38] ATTACK: PlasticLust/(Michele Carre) (131,111,2) against *REDACTED*/(Viskikil)(129,111,2): Hit with thrown the tomato
Line 16563: [2025-01-26T00:43:38] ATTACK: PlasticLust/(Michele Carre) (131,111,2) against *REDACTED*/(Viskikil)(129,111,2): Thrown the tomato at (facid (25u) and sacid (25u) | Liquid Contents and Hypodermic Prickles)

With a test from roughly the same vox and tomato you have produced with the irrelevant plant and health stats stripped 
Tomato:
Plant Traits: Liquid Contents Perennial Growth Hypodermic Prickles
Fluorosulfuric Acid: 25
Sulphuric acid: 25
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Right after throwing the plant at the vox:

Analyzing Results for Jeb Johnson:
Overall Status: 37% Healthy
Key: Suffocation/Toxin/Burns/Brute
Damage Specifics: 0 - 11 - 47 - 5
Localized Damage, Brute/Burn:
Upper body: 5-13.36
Lower body: 0-3.37
Head: 0-3.38
Left arm: 0-3.37
Right arm: 0-3.35
Left leg: 0-3.36
Right leg: 0-3.36
Left hand: 0-3.36
Right hand: 0-3.37
Left foot: 0-3.36
Right foot: 0-3.36
Subject contains the following reagents:
9.6u of Fluorosulfuric Acid.
9.6u of Sulphuric acid.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the reagents ran out + mask melted from fluorosulphuric acid:

Analyzing Results for Jeb Johnson:
Overall Status: -74% Healthy
Key: Suffocation/Toxin/Burns/Brute
Damage Specifics: 19 - 55 - 95 - 5
Localized Damage, Brute/Burn:
Upper body: 5-17.73
Lower body: 0-7.69
Head: 0-7.74
Left arm: 0-7.7
Right arm: 0-7.71
Left leg: 0-7.8
Right leg: 0-7.71
Left hand: 0-7.71
Right hand: 0-7.74
Left foot: 0-7.71
Right foot: 0-7.76
Subject contains no reagents.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The above result will vary depending on the server ticks and mob cycles on how fast it will kill the vox, however the damage from the tomato is always the same, the above result is not taking account the suffocation damage from the mask melting with the acid as a note.

Now with the damage you roughly did to the vox (without taking account the various factors like ticks, cycle, local environement you and the vox were in that make impratical to get a proper situational awareness from a logs point of view)

Throwing that kind of tomato as you did as per the logs mentioned is not something we allow in the rules at all, Leanfrog was right to contact you about it.

The Head of Staff agree with you throwing that kind of tomato does nothing to a bot unless they walk over the acid pool created by the tomato, the reason is because they don't have "organs" unlike carbon mobs such as vox, human, lesser form like monkey, neara, etc, the code for acid requires organ for the acid to do its effects.

In the future when you test something against a mob, you will need to be sure it is the same type of mob and not a different one, off the top of my head there is silicon (AI and cyborgs), simple mob (animals, bots) and carbon (humans, xenomorph, monkey, etc.) to prevent that kind of misunderstanding to happen. As a tip, botany can easily create monkey cubes with the bio-generator.

Now concerning how the conversation went bewteen you and Leanfrog, The Head of Staff opinion is that the conversation could've been handled better from both you and Leanfrog.

You pointed out what you believed the tomato did (which were true on the bot but not against a vox), Leanfrog told you about the tomato's liquid contents applying the chemical content to the mob (which is untrue, only the Hypodermic Prickles gene does it as a note, though it is irrelevant for your context with Leanfrog.), the conversation should've ended up at this point with a warning or ban depending on if you apologized for almost killing a vox, instead the conversation went way longer than needed, one of the main reason is for the conversation to be that long is because Leanfrog wanted you to clearly apologize for almost killing the vox, which you did not properly apologize for it from the look of the conversation and you ended up getting banned for it. Banning a players that break the rules and the player not apologizing about their action is a within what we deems reasonable for Leanfrog here.

However what we deems unreasonable for Leanfrog is how they continued the conversation with you, and how they assumed it is common knowledges what acid do, some of the acids in Paradise code act way differently depending on how the player interact with them.
Especially when you clearly told Leanfrog it did no damage to the bot beyond the pool of acid on the floor. While ignorance isn't an excuse to kill someone, it is not common knowledge that a plant may or may not kill someone without proper testing and Leanfrog should've been less aggressive and assuming on their approach about your situation.

Leanfrog will be talked about your situation and will be reminded to not be as assuming and aggressive in the way they approach player even if the logs can tell a different side of the story from their perspective.

Complaint has been deemed with some merit, however the ban itself is deemed reasonable.

I will move this complaint to resolved in 7 days unless you have more concerns about this complaint.

[PlasticLust]

I'm not entirely sure how was I supposed to know they wanted an apology since the question was on why I threw the tomato, in hindsight it's obvious it was a mistake and it was my fault but I was not asked to apologize to the admin or the player (which I wouldn't had had a problem to do in either case I guess) but to explain why (which I did). 
I just don't understand why the "ultimatum" in the PMs didn't specify what was expected from me since I answered the few questions and the rest of the vague senteces about the good/bad faith of my actions.

[Tourte]

Leanfrog has been talked to about this as mentioned in the previous reply, they were too aggressive and assuming near the end of the conversation. Usually when someone makes a mistake, we expect at the very least a clear apology; for context with your conversation, you told Leanfrog you made a mistake and that you wouldn't do it if you knew what would happen, however you did not apologize for almost killing a vox as a non antagonist as far as the Heads of Staff can see in your conversation with Leanfrog which ended up in you being banned.
 

[PlasticLust]

Aight I got nothing else to say, thanks

[Tourte]

Moving this admin complaint to resolved.