Complaint Admin Cal: unreasonable behavior i'd never expect of an admin

[Violetsaber]

I did not ban you because of your attitude in PMs. Your ban was not "subjective." I wrote "tremendously shitty" because you have a prior note where you attempted to argue with an administrator, and it was meant to convey that you have a history of doing this, for future reference.

I apologize for writing "tremendously shitty" when "rude and snippy" would have sufficed.


I banned you for your aggressive in-game behavior and abusive Security play, and then you continued to argue after the fact, carrying the same attitude. You were griefing another (new) player. Security assistants are there to learn, not to be pummeled into compliance because they're not used to using proper judgement in a position of power yet. As someone with hundreds of rounds played, you should know this.

"I've seen other people do it before" is not a valid excuse for doing it yourself.  You need to be adminhelping in these situations so they STOP happening.

The demotion was warranted and completely fine. It should have been your first instinct, but it was someone else's. Beating them while mockingly asking how they liked the same treatment was not.

Let's take this one step at a time. "I did not ban you because of your attitude in PMs", then why list that as the first thing on the ban reason, if at all? If that was not a reason for the ban, then following it up with my "history of arguing" (for the record, my closing attitude in that past PM exchange was not okay. im not defending that event, despite it being my only other item of said history) shouldn't be of importance. This goes into the apparent fact that i shouldn't have argued with you ("-then you continued to argue after the fact, carrying the same attitude.) If you ask me questions and i answer them, is that arguing? If you present false accusations("-yanked off all their clothes and demoted them?") and i answer with accurate informations ("if you count a sec backpack, a helmet and sunglasses as the entirety of their clothes. then i suppose i did strip them of "all their clothes". also i did not do any demotion. thats the HoPs doing. i only brought them there and took sec equipment.-"), is that arguing? Probably.

So any kind of arguing, even if the admin is clearly wrong, is forbidden? How is that fair? You showed you were able to pull up logs to show exactly what i did and said, so you should be able to pull up the logs of the HoP saying i should demote them and the logs of me removing the exact items. Both of which you have chosen not to do. 

But okay, let's ignore the first half of the ban reason since, as you said, it wasn't the actual reason for my ban. Let's look at the second (listed) half, "general toxicity in-game". Or rather "aggressive in-game behavior and abusive Security play". 
You're making this part easier for me since you posted the relevant log, but chose not to point the specific part out that tipped me off to the new player acting in bad faith. I give newbies a lot of slack and try my best to teach sec assistants, but they opened with a clear, actually toxic attitude. 



Said player decided to open the round with calling an officer sitting down and eating a donut "hardworking fella." This is no way a security assistant should talk to a SECOF, which i pointed out. At this point, a good faith player, somebody who would aim to play a believable character, would agree and say it was only a joke. Then both parties laugh and that's the end of it. Instead they decide to double down, upon which i tell them to watch themselves, since this behavior will only lead to trouble with other officers. 
Yet they carry on. Later i run into them again and they continue their spiel. I tell them once more to drop the act, pointing out how it is condescending. They continue still, so i simply tell them to "cut it out". They were given multiple warnings, told what is wrong with their behavior. Yet they continue. Does this paint a picture of a good faith player? A new player trying to learn? No. This looks, at least to me, like a troll. But i leave them be and go about my day. 

Then the rancher incident happens. Them threatening to punch the rancher senseless, then actually hitting them and then refusing to aknowledge that punching is wrong was more than enough evidence that i was dealing with a bad faith player, a troll, not a newbie just trying to learn. Stunning, cuffing and kicking the sec assistant may have been seen as too much, but by no means griefing. It was fully logical consequence of RP, was over in less than 20 seconds and after a short stay in the brig would have been over. But the HoP came along and told me to instead demote them. Which i agreed to and then was done by the HoP, not myself. Yet you multiple times use the term "forcibly demoting". As if a) there is something like non-forcible demotion. Any form of demotion is forcibly b) was something i, myself the SECOF, was doing. not the HoP c) is something wrong, despite you 'now' saying was the correct option. 

If i did this to some poor newbie who just didn't know that punching an inmate was wrong, then my following actions would be unjust and wrong. But this isn't a good faith player. And if it wasn't apparent enough, they also clearly broke rule 4 by saying they enjoyed being beaten, since by their words, they were a masochist. I didn't bring this up yet, but can be confirmed by your logs, that they later called me a "filthy bitch" (misogynistic insult against a female character) and other insults that also clearly break rule 4. 

To recap: This player started the round with toxic behavior, refused to change or listen, didn't attempt to learn or do their job, clearly did not read any sec job guide or space law, clearly did not read the rules, clearly broke the rules and me refusing to give said player any more second chances, tossing around a bit and following the HoPs orders qualifies as "general toxicity in-game" or "aggressive in-game behavior and abusive Security play"? Clearly not. 

I stand by my original point. This was unreasonable behavior of an admin and a ban over answering questions and correcting false information, which was percieved as a "Tremendously shitty attitude over admin PMs". The playerbase is well aware that a lot of admins react extremely harshly to being told they're wrong, even when they truly are in the wrong. I didn't write all of this to say that i was falsely banned and want it lifted, though the ban was unjust. If i wanted an appeal i would go to the appeal forum and apologize, because you do not get unbanned for saying an admin is wrong, you get it by apologizing regardless of anything. This complaint thread is to say, not just to Cal but to all admins: You demand being treated like a human person, with respect and politeness. Then also aknowledge that you as a human person make mistakes instead of getting angry over being told you are wrong about something. But most importantly, to treat the players as human beings who deserve respect instead of treating them, as many players feel, as simply "non-admins."

I'm looking forward to return to the station in a few days.