[t306206] QQQQQQQQQQQ - Soteria job strike for being dismissive of admin resolution ideas

[wtfmate]

BYOND account and character name: QQQQQQQQQQQ

Striking admin: t306206

Strike type/duration (where you are struck from and for how long): CRO job, 2/3 strikes, 3 months

Strike reason: Added strike after admin chat due to being dismissive of admin resolution ideas, watch for continued bad behaviour or player complaints and reports. ~t306206 [-]

Your side of the story:
We had a discussion in the discord the previous night highlighting that I should handle IC issues with faxes when something is wrong that is outside of my jurisdiction. I could *not* find any information on the wiki about how to deal with this *specific* situation and was rather vulgar and indirect in my ahelp asking what I should do. It's definitely too meta for them to just straight up instruct my character, but it has been my experience previously that that is the way it should go - I was wrong, I am sorry, I did not know.

wtfmate — Yesterday at 10:46 PM
I don't see any grounds to appeal it on. I need to show good behavior before I try to appeal on those grounds.
if I perform investigation and gathering of evidence passively, I present that to an admin, that's fine?
just to be clear - you think stahl genuinely refused browning's instructions by saying 'I will [insert condition here]' instead of no?
Rebel0 — Yesterday at 10:46 PM
As long as you don't harrass players or directly go witch-hunting, or directly go ask a staff member about anything such as 'i think x is biased against me, here are some names i think they might be, if they are i would like to appeal a meta-gaming issue with them'
I will not be handling any of it due to personal bias with the ban placement and the fact you legitimately just accused me of 'setting you up'.
wtfmate — Yesterday at 10:48 PM
sure - I'm just asking you directly if you genuinely believe that stahl refused your character's instructions
like OOCly
Rebel0 — Yesterday at 10:49 PM
Resisted, yes. Refused ultimately, no.
wtfmate — Yesterday at 10:49 PM
I get it, that was enough to swing the vote IC
Rebel0 — Yesterday at 10:49 PM
But actively hampered and attempted to get out of the requested instructions multiple times, hampering any attempts at an investigation that had been on-going with council consent before I arrived.
Yes.
wtfmate — Yesterday at 10:50 PM
actively hampered and attempted to get out of the requested instructions multiple times
dude it was moving too fast
the round end vote forced things
it didn't need to be moving that fast
Rebel0 — Yesterday at 10:51 PM
I will note that I used all that ICly. I did witness before spawning in a refusal to do the interview but not that chat log besides 'nah', the GM brought it up and all my information gathered from that incident I found through IC means of asking the council room to formulate any opinion on it. I did not use that OOC information to formulate the opinion found ICly. I just know simply that it did occur, which I don't think anyone really debated other than the reasoning of why it happened.
wtfmate — Yesterday at 10:51 PM
when I said 'nah' I walked over to the table to read the paper ARGUS put on there
that's why I said 'nah'
if he didn't put a shitload of cherry picked incriminating lines in front of me
which he didn't in the second interview
Rebel0 — Yesterday at 10:52 PM
Yes, but the refusal to interview was highlighted by the GM and you yourself did aknowledge you refused the interview when asked why - out of the reason they were biased.
wtfmate — Yesterday at 10:52 PM
I would have participated
Rebel0 — Yesterday at 10:52 PM
That's because I picked up the paper.
wtfmate — Yesterday at 10:52 PM
dude was just going to ask leading questions involving those incriminating lines and testimony from white/doggo
Rebel0 — Yesterday at 10:53 PM
To note, when we apply a job strike it isn't always because the LC voted to do it. We always check more things, such as coms logs ourselves if we can, or directly ask players if we can.
wtfmate — Yesterday at 10:53 PM
he not only conducted the interview, he offered opinion in the other interviews and lead there too
Rebel0 — Yesterday at 10:53 PM
Because job-strikes are not inherantly an IC thing. They carry OOC concequences. (Such as a job-ban, which, is OOCly enforced)
Leading questions are 100% legal in it. They were asking you questions based on the testimony from the two previous interviews that they had which both named you.
wtfmate — Yesterday at 10:54 PM
OOC context, so you're in the loop. This requires clarification.
[ image of context of conversation with other player ]
Rebel0 — Yesterday at 10:54 PM
I would have asked them myself, as a Marshal player, if I could. Leading questions are 100% legal during an investigation.
wtfmate — Yesterday at 10:55 PM
doggo basically set me up, and I was gonna try to mitigate the sentence, and ICly try to 'hamper the investigation' as you put it, but not to the degree you might think
Rebel0 — Yesterday at 10:55 PM
..I-
Are you telling me you.. did this OOCly to purposefully make that decision or?
wtfmate — Yesterday at 10:55 PM
no, never had any OOC intention for anything to go wrong
I sent this OOC because it was hilarious
he plays hotheaded characters, so he took shit out of context and ran with it
I knew OOC he was gonna do it
ICly stahl had no idea, no intention and no motivation
genuinely just wanted to buy and dismantle the AI
this is the prior context for reference;
[ image of context of conversation with other player ]
Rebel0 — Yesterday at 10:57 PM
..I'm going to be going, honestly. I don't even see how this is relevant since I did, in my attempt, to fully seperate the issue that was had from it.

My issue was not with the murder charge at all, but rather the entire way the council-issue was handled. As even the Guild player stated they they likely would have called me - but only upon reaching a decision to help enforce it due to a belief of violence.

wtfmate — Yesterday at 10:58 PM
so the emegency fax was the wrong choice of fax, and that's ultimately why I'm job striked as a 403, yeah?
(the reason for the 403 has shifted ever so slightly a few times)
Rebel0 — Yesterday at 10:58 PM
You are welcome to appeal it whenever on the forums. When it is I will alert a staff member who is not myself nor Cora to handle it if they reasonable can. Hopefully you have a nice night. To note - the job ban is not from Science nor Medical entirely, but CBO and CRO.
Partially, yes.
You could have handled everything with that GM or Prime, or even the Foreman who I know was actively sitting in the same room during part of the investigation allowing it to go on.
wtfmate — Yesterday at 10:59 PM
they told me to gtfo and flatly refused to give me access to hibiki's testimony
Rebel0 — Yesterday at 10:59 PM
Your A-helping of: "What the fuck does that mean?" to me about a complete IC issue, that is not an admin issue, was completely unwarranted since I saw you didn't even ask for an explanation.
I wouldn't have given you access either.,
wtfmate — Yesterday at 11:00 PM
> What the fuck does that mean?
was this from this morning?
Rebel0 — Today at 11:00 PM
That was from yuor A-help sent to me when someone said in command coms they were busy.
wtfmate — Yesterday at 11:00 PM
it was this round yeah?
Rebel0 — Yesterday at 11:00 PM
Yep.
wtfmate — Yesterday at 11:00 PM
> so now "the council is preoccupied" what the fuck does that mean
that one?
Rebel0 — Yesterday at 11:00 PM
You were 'asking for guidence'
Yes
I don't know what you expected me to tell you besides meta-gaming with you to reply to that.
wtfmate — Yesterday at 11:01 PM
yeah I asked for an explanation - wanted to know what am I expected to do - general guidance
guidance in general
Rebel0 — Yesterday at 11:01 PM
Because I looked to know what was going on, I was not about to meta hold your hand and tell you.
wtfmate — Yesterday at 11:01 PM
so it's just a scenario of 'if you know you know, otherwise get fucked' ... learn by doing I guess
now I know that faxing when someone gets murdered is not an emergency fax for one council member to take upon themselves when they presume the rest of the council is biased; I should wait until after the charges are levied and passed and then appeal, right?
if you hadn't have been there, I wouldn't have had council
I wouldn't have been able to explain my actions or been given the opportunity to
I violated the terms of the testimony ARGUS outlined to explain and break the leading questions
Rebel0 — Yesterday at 11:04 PM
...Buddy
Pal
I wathced you NOT EVEN ASK THEM what that means
You IMMEDIATELY CAME TO AHELPS
To ask ME
I do not know how to make this any more clear to you.
wtfmate — Yesterday at 11:05 PM
[Command] Prime Rehul says, "Once we are done gathering evidence yes."
[Command] Master ARGUS-XII says, "The council is preoccupied, Stahl. You will wait your turn."
yeah I ahelped then when I was told to wait
I should have asked instead of waited
Rebel0 — Yesterday at 11:05 PM
You - could have asked
'Doing what'
wtfmate — Yesterday at 11:05 PM
no they told me they were gathering evidence
Rebel0 — Yesterday at 11:05 PM
You expected me to metagame and tell you: "oh it means they're doing an interview"
So - what were you even ASKING me?
You clearly know what it means then
wtfmate — Yesterday at 11:06 PM
yeah I was panicking - 'chill' would have worked
the question was
to Rebel0: I can't call a vote right?

to Rebel0: and they're allowed to gather evidence but not me? is this how it works?

Rebel0 — Yesterday at 11:07 PM
...A-helps are not here for guidence
They are for OOC issues.
Such as rule-breaks, bugs, exploits.
I asked you to handle it ICly twice
wtfmate — Yesterday at 11:08 PM
alright, so the other times I've asked for guidance on IC issues I got lucky, ok
I thought I could ahelp for stuff I didn't understand or places where the law/sop was absent
Rebel0 — Yesterday at 11:08 PM
I am going to be very, very blunt with you.

If I need to tell you to 'chill', as if I need to baby sit you - you need to learn to do that yourself. That's not on me to make sure you don't melt down. That's on you.
wtfmate — Yesterday at 11:08 PM
> you have a fax machine to get an IC-admin response
that is what triggered my emergency fax
Rebel0 — Yesterday at 11:09 PM
Anyway, I am going to relax.
wtfmate — Yesterday at 11:09 PM
alright
later
Rebel0 — Yesterday at 11:09 PM
You are genuinely unpleasent to interact with, rude, and two-faced.
Enjoy your night.

I would like clarification on what the situation is, how it should have been handled according to SOP/Law but I suck at reading everything. I couldn't find anything about how the investigation was handled, what contempt of council means as referred to by Rebel0, but *I assumed* that even the accused party would be entitled to evidence brought against them.

I wanted to get an unbiased third party in to both perform the IC interview and IC investigation.
The council claimed after the fact that was going to be the intention all along; the GM was to be the unbiased third party.
The person that tainted Stahl's opinion of the interview by presenting a paper with cherry picked evidence removed of context.

If I did not have the independent party *at all* I would not have known that I could have private council / an attourney / request someone to participate in the interview as a third party. (I still don't know where this is in SOP/Law.)

I want to underscore, I asked *the representative of the victim to be my council, they agreed, and voted against the charges levied against me.*

As pointed out in discord, getting "gestapo'd/KGB'd/secret policed" is what happens when you don't get to see the evidence presented against you.

Why you think you the strike should be removed:
I was not aware that I could get a job strike for being dismissive of admin resolution ideas, and with recent events, I still have a very harsh opinion on admin resolution of issues by IC faxes. I will definitely not be doing that any more except through the council directly *if I am ever council again.* I am genuinely sorry for the aggravation I have caused and do not intend to be rude or two-faced.
I felt the process was biased and being rushed. I was suspicious and to some degree still am suspicious of out-of-character motivations behind the relevant actions of some of the council. I will make a concerted effort not to act aggressive openly toward anyone in character or out of character for OOC reasons, personal beliefs or biases. It is difficult when one feels unjustly targeted and I will do my best to get out of that mind set of paranoia.

edit:
> You expected me to metagame and tell you: "oh it means they're doing an interview"
To be clear, I absolutely did not expect this. It was patently 100% clear they were conducting an interview with Hibiki.
I wanted guidance on what my character should consult on the law / SOP. I did not sufficiently clarify that.
I dumbly presumed it was implied. I may have also dumbly presumed that ahelp was the way to get that guidance.
I don't have a defense for that. It was part of the 'my bad, I didn't know.'

[Rebel0]

Hello,

I will not be handling this appeal as I've stated. But I do wish to highlight why I was in favor of allowing this to be placed. During our conversation with you, which lasted roughly 2 hours earlier on the 7th in the AM hours EST, you outright admitted to harassing a player with no evidence on an accusation (..Which Cora proved to be false..) after citing hypotheticals and dismissed most critique issued regarding it.

We do not have logs of this but I'm sure Cora can attest to this as well. The topics brought up were the multiple player complaints placed against you. Which, we did not feel were dismissed. As I only dismissed one of the notable amount that were placed. I did agree with Cora however to not ban you, as we had originally planned to prior to our talk with you (Which would have had a duration of between 1-2 weeks), and give you a chance instead to hopefully improve your behavior. Which that job strike was intended to be a lighter punishment as compared to an outright full server ban, as most complaints were directed at you as a CRO in a position of authority.

Since that exact conversation and less than a full 24 hours after telling you that behavior was unacceptable you did nearly the exact same thing again in the soteria-science Discord channel. You, again, went after a player attempting to brigade / attempt to just be a dick to them with an accusation (that you did not even request staff look at at all as I had directly told you to do) alongside colorful language choices - but deleted it upon my rebuttal. Admins should be able to find this in the bot-log if they need to. Also - to explain my frustration in DMs, this was said before the halfway point roughly including acusations against me rudely in public channels on the Discord.

To note: The strike that you are labeled as contesting is the player complaint strike. You have a separate one for the council one. If you wish to contest that one, you should likely include that as the reasoning. Just for record-keeping.

Hopefully this aids other admins in their investigation and judgement of if this is a valid placement of a job strike or not.

[wtfmate]

which lasted roughly 2 hours earlier on the 7th in the AM hours EST, you outright admitted to harassing a player with no evidence on an accusation after citing hypotheticals and dismissed most critique issued regarding it.

I attempted to disengage multiple times from the discussion we had. It did not need to last that long. Yes, I admitted that accusing players with no evidence and making public accusations against players is wrong and that I should not do it. The player I accused was the wrong player, but the accusation of it being an alt of someone transferring information between their unrelated characters was correct - which you distinctly noted when specifically investigating - Erin Faust was Max that round. The other party should never have been accused, that was my bad. I did not see a valid way to deal with it through staff as previous attempts to deal with similar situations were overly complicated to pursue.

The public accusations were in part due to peer pressure which I will not let affect me going forward in this regard. I thought I was in the right at the time, and I was not.

I did agree with Cora however to not ban you, as we had originally planned to prior to our talk with you (Which would have had a duration of between 1-2 weeks), and give you a chance instead to hopefully improve your behavior. Which that job strike was intended to be a lighter punishment as compared to an outright full server ban, as most complaints were directed at you as a CRO in a position of authority.

The other complaint was from 10/29 which you accused me of being on the same day as the events of 10/14. This was corrected during our conversation. The events are unrelated, and the events of 10/14 were due to a misunderstanding ICly and were all handled ICly without issue. They merely added to my opinion that faxes were not a valid way of dealing with that type of issue.

The complaint on 10/29 was due to a flippant remark about me being 'Acting CBO' and 'investigating' in medical when I *CLEARLY* was not, took *NO ACTION AS CBO* and *DID NOT INVESTIGATE ANYTHING* - I was merely giving someone fuel to their fire because they wanted to complain. I *ONLY* walked through medbay briefly and literally stopped for a second to run to the restroom. I did not interfere with their job, they asked me what I was doing, and I just made shit up. I wasn't doing a single thing but temporarily idling in an empty medbay whilst on my way through it. I had no other interaction with the individual and don't even remember who it was. It was completely inconsequential.

Since that exact conversation less than 24 hours before this job strike was applied, you did this exact issue again in the soteria-science Discord channel - attempting to brigade a player again with an accusation alongside colorful language choices - but deleted it upon my rebuttal. Adimins should be able to find this in the bot-log if they need to.

Yeah - I was angry, it was wrong. I'm taking active measures to curtail my behavior. I do not intend to harass or brigade anyone.

I wanted others to feel my anger - that isn't necessary and I will refrain from that.

[Rebel0]

The other complaint was from 10/29 which you accused me of being on the same day as the events of 10/14. This was corrected during our conversation. The events are unrelated, and the events of 10/14 were due to a misunderstanding ICly and were all handled ICly without issue. They merely added to my opinion that faxes were not a valid way of dealing with that type of issue.

The complaint on 10/29 was due to a flippant remark about me being 'Acting CBO' and 'investigating' in medical when I *CLEARLY* was not, took *NO ACTION AS CBO* and *DID NOT INVESTIGATE ANYTHING* - I was merely giving someone fuel to their fire because they wanted to complain. I *ONLY* walked through medbay briefly and literally stopped for a second to run to the restroom. I did not interfere with their job, they asked me what I was doing, and I just made shit up. I wasn't doing a single thing but temporarily idling in an empty medbay whilst on my way through it.

I highlighted to you that was my experience with you to try and warn you about the validity of the other complaints that were levied. The 29th was the day I got a complaint I did highlight to you was the one I dismissed as I directly stated to you that player had a valid critique but it was not considered due to it not being handled properly at the time - thus given a 'free pass' to lack of better words. That was the date I got the complaint and mixed the day of my interaction with you up to the same day as receiving the complaint.

As for the Faust thing - I did not comment on that. You are mistaking me for Cora.

[wtfmate]

I highlighted to you that was my experience with you to try and warn you about the validity of the other complaints that were levied. The 29th was the day I got a complaint I did highlight to you was the one I dismissed as I directly stated to you that player had a valid critique but it was not considered due to it not being handled properly at the time - thus given a 'free pass' to lack of better words. That was the date I got the complaint and mixed the day of my interaction with you up to the same day as receiving the complaint.

In regards to 'warn you about the validity of the other complaints that were levied'; I may have misunderstood your warning. This was about my IC behavior or the OOC behavior? I believe I addressed both issues but I can't remember entirely what all was said.

I proposed a hypothetical regarding the harassment I received regarding a *RAPE* accusation that *was handled appropriately by staff and resolved.* Such harassment has been something I have to deal with IC and OOC to different degrees and it is incredibly frustrating and angering. The extension of that hypothetical was to try to figure out at what part does harassment pertain to an accusation of rape versus just general harassment. It clearly upset you to pursue the hypothetical as you felt it wasted your time. I *repeatedly* gave breaking points in the conversation and offered to leave the conversation as well as for you to leave. I did not want to waste your time and that was never my intention.

We never genuinely got to the point of the explanation of the hypothetical, you were too frustrated with having to not mentally conflate it with the actual events it was based on. The point was to explain my frustration with how the situation was handled. You understood the initial hypothetical but we couldn't move on toward the point of where it goes from IC or OOC or ceases to be harassment.

Before that conversation, *I HAD NO IDEA THE RAPE ACCUSATION WAS EVER ACTUALLY HANDLED!* I was under the impression it was completely ignored. I never received feedback from staff in that regard.

As for the Faust thing - I did not comment on that. You are mistaking me for Cora.

My bad, yeah, Cora / T3. They discovered the person doing the IC harassment was transferring the knowledge of events between characters. That is the annoying thing - if someone has an alt and they transfer information by some meta-means, it is difficult to impossible to prove, but it devastates actual RP of Stahl's character. It's also *perfectly acceptable with some IC excuses.* The motivation and intent behind the player's opinion are easily justifiable. Even here, far post-hoc, it would not be difficult to excuse. The action here was not harassment, it was an inexperienced RP mistake, even though the accusation had merit that bore evidentiary fruit.

As a player, levying that accusation publicly got a result - that was rewarding - even though it was wrong. I do not know if the same thing would have happened had I brought this up directly as the person accused was actually a friend of staff (Cora / T3) and they admitted they knew instantly '[the accusation] was wrong' and the investigation into the public accusation overlooked the evidence until it was fully discussed. If the private investigation would have had the discussion the same way, it could have been resolved and that would be preferred - that is the way it should have gone. However, the accusation would have had to have been 'ckey X is the alt of character Y' and have been false, immediately dismissed, and would not have lead to the discovery of 'Max was Erin that round, there's no way that character could relate that specific interaction.'

One other topic we discussed was the interaction of IC council decisions with admin staff and the lack of IC feedback. We discussed ways to deal with that. Ultimately you disagreed that any IC feedback was necessary for events concerning rejected changes of Laws/SOP, and that any proposals for change (unanimous or not) should be written and considered in OOC instead of IC. This added to my bitter position on IC faxes.

Ultimately it is very frustrating to be in my position and to actively weight the results of my actions with the results of staff actions and to try to remove IC stuff from consideration.

[wtfmate]

I should also note Stahl never even got to unpack his initial loadout this particular round in which I got two job strikes.

He arrived late, this happened, and things appeared incredibly staged and one sided.

Things were moving *way too fast* for me to unpack mentally ICly as the Stahl character.

[wtfmate]

Some additional context;

Jadyn White says, "They're trying to SELL the core."
[Common] Overseer Stahl says, "Bring it down and let's have a look at it."
Overseer Stahl says, "Bring it down and let's have a look at it."
[HeadAdmin PM] TrilbySpaseClone: You are not required by sop or law to make a fax about that
[Common] AO Twenty-Seven Twenty says, "Mhm."
Overseer Stahl says, "Yeah we just confiscate t I guess."
Jadyn White draws "SST Format Bound" handgun, pointing it at the ground.
Jadyn White remove Soteria "Power-Geyser 1000M" from "SST Format Bound" handgun.
to TrilbySpaseClone: we just dismantle it right?
You add 120 steel sheets to the exosuit fabricator.
You add 120 plastic sheets to the exosuit fabricator.
[Command] Master ARGUS-XII says, "Stahl."
[HeadAdmin PM] TrilbySpaseClone: That is upto you

I was confused on what to do about the AI core.
I was given guidance that it was not required by SOP or law to deal with the AI core.
As far as "Yeah we just confiscate t I guess." This is probably the impetus to Jadyn's actions this round. It did not occur to me until I reviewed the chat log I copied out of chat, all the shit that happened went by too fast.
I did not actively mean 'steal the AI core' I meant confiscate by legal means; "take or seize (someone's property) with authority" specifically through the appropriate means. We didn't have marshals, so we'd have to work through the council vote system if the sale was denied. Stahl never had an intention to commit theft or anything. AO was going to sell it for 2000. Post-hoc when discussing with the Foreman, she threw out 7000 and I figured that was fine.

The idea was just to look at it in robotics. That was somehow the impetus for the 403 charge that was then changed to the emergency fax I submitted and/or because I 'resisted' an interview even though I ultimately gave an perfectly fine interview.
That was incredibly frustrating and feels unfair.

edit: more missing context

[Science] Jadyn White says, "They're here with the core."
[Command] Master ARGUS-XII says, "No. Just a potato."
[Science] Overseer Stahl says, "Take it to robotics."
Overseer Stahl says, "Take it to robotics."
You recycle the reinforced plating in the industrial autolathe.
You add 6 wood planks to the industrial autolathe.
[Common] Elyena Sokolnyova asks, "Soteria, can I buy some chemicals?"
[Common] Redd Herring asks, "What chemicals?"
[Common] Elyena Sokolnyova says, "The Bicaridine and KeloDerm kind."
[Common] Redd Herring says, "Yeah, sure."
[Common] Nadezhda Colony System Announcer states, "Machine Learning Alert: Rampant brand intelligence has been detected within the colony, please stand-by."
to TrilbySpaseClone: does an inactive AI count the same as a rogue AI?
[Science] Jadyn White says, "Core retreived."
to TrilbySpaseClone: laws don't seem to cover that shit very well
[Common] Master ARGUS-XII asks, "What the fuck?"
[Common] Master ARGUS-XII says, "Marshals to soteria."
[Common] Master ARGUS-XII says, "There's a fucking gunfight."

[wtfmate]

[HeadAdmin PM] Rebel0: Appologies -I just returned. In relation to what?
[Common] Chance Ashford asks, "Not a problem! How much of each?"
[Common] Karla Brauer asks, "Half a stack sound good?"
to Rebel0: there was a fucking shootout and I'm confused as to SOP; the GM just questioned Hibiki and she's refusing to cooperate with me
to Rebel0: I can't control medical staff as CRO right?
[Common] Chance Ashford asks, "Yep, want me to drop it off there?"
[HeadAdmin PM] Rebel0: There is no security. Sounds as an IC issue from what I gathered in the past few min, looking into the rest. And no - Medical are a seperate department from Research
[Common] Gana Ro says, "Come let me out, Chance."
to Rebel0: I need to compile a report of what happened
You take the sheet of paper out of the the paper bin.
[HeadAdmin PM] Rebel0: Righto.
Your Admin Ticket has now been resolved.
[Common] Karla Brauer says, "I can pick it up at LS."
to Rebel0: Hibiki shot Jadyn with lethals, that's breaking company shit as well as laws - she *should* be detained and/or removed
to Rebel0: so I'm gonna request special intervention by marshals or whatever by emergency fax
[HeadAdmin PM] Rebel0: Has to be handled ICly currently. Low council has the ability and authority.
[Command] Overseer Stahl says, "Alright, we need to have a vote."
Overseer Stahl says, "Alright, we need to have a vote."
[Command] Prime Rehul says, "Once we are done gathering evidence yes."
[Command] Master ARGUS-XII says, "The council is preoccupied, Stahl. You will wait your turn."
[Common] Elyena Sokolnyova says, "Collapsed the burrows in the library."
to Rebel0: so now "the council is preoccupied" what the fuck does that mean
to Rebel0: I can't call a vote right?
to Rebel0: and they're allowed to gather evidence but not me? is this how it works?

[HeadAdmin PM] Rebel0: I'm going to be real with you real quick - you, last night, complained at me that admins interfere with the round. This is NOT a staff issue. Please, handle it in-round, if LC has issues - you have recourse for it and other methods. If none of them work, you have a fax machine to get an IC-admin response. This is not an OOC-OOC issue.

to Rebel0: this is me asking for guidance
to Rebel0: so I send a fax to HC and we can get a proper investigator right?

[HeadAdmin PM] Rebel0: There is a wiki on the proceedings of LC, tribunals in regards to law, and even explanations of what happens if someone is in conept of council. Please, follow them.

to Rebel0: is it on the SOP page or somewhere else?
to Rebel0: no hits searching for contempt of council
to Rebel0: tribunal also has very limited context

[HeadAdmin PM] Rebel0: "ll heads of staff are required to vote yay or nay during a decision. Any head of staff that refuses to make a decision or abstains is to be demoted on the spot."

to Rebel0: does it say how to call or start a vote anywhere?

[HeadAdmin PM] Rebel0: It says all this on the SOP page, on the law page, and on the guides to playing roles as well. Communicate with your other LC members, handle it that way.

Contempt of council is not a concept expressed on the wiki.

On the SOP page,
> For a vote to be considered valid, at least three members of the council must be present.

Votes were held between the Prime and the GM without the Foreman or the CRO.

> As a head of staff and Council member, you are the most responsible person within your department and as such are expected to handle most situations without having to fax the High Council. Only when it is absolutely necessary or outside of your hands, experience, or capabilities, should you fax the High Council.

Augh. It seemed like an appropriate fax.

On the Laws page,

> Legal Standard Operating Procedure
> Tribunals are the main way major decisions are made aboard the station and the defendant does not have to be involved. There is not specified length for how long a tribunal must be. Basically it's the same as the old trial, but without a jury and slightly streamlined. An AI may fill in for a premier for tribunals and can be trusted to be accurate, however, an AI may not replace a premier for the purpose of voting for execution.

> Purpose: For crimes or decisions that require more than one person, or crimes where there is no set punishment.
> Overview: A minimum of three heads of staff must discuss this issue and vote on the outcome with a premier (or AI substitute) over seeing the tribunal.
> Process: The premier (or stand-in AI) should call the heads of staff for a tribunal with the situation and proposed outcome. This can be done formally in a meeting room, or informally over radio.
> Conviction: The tribunal must vote on the outcome, and the outcome must win by a majority vote (over 50%). If there is a tie, the premier's vote wins. For an execution to take place, the vote must be unanimous.
> Sentencing: If the vote passes, the outcome may be enacted, usually by the marshals. The decision can be appealed once by either the defendant or a volunteer.

The vote for convicting Stahl 403 carried 2 v 2 with the special marshal counting as the tie breaker in favor of the 403.
Two job strikes were issued back to back.

Three heads of staff should have discussed the issue with the premier or a substitute? Or was this just a case where it was exempt?
> The decision can be appealed once by either the defendant or a volunteer.
I'm confused. Should I even attempt this?

I'm not sure if it was even a tribunal.

[wtfmate]

Context snipped here, but the previous statements are just a repeated attempt to call a vote.

[Command] Overseer Stahl says, "The full comms log around the time of the events."
Overseer Stahl says, "The full comms log around the time of the events."
[Command] Master ARGUS-XII says, "Pardon the mess."
Master ARGUS-XII talks into the guild master's headset
Master ARGUS-XII starts breaking and collapsing the burrow with the crowbar
Overseer Stahl asks, "Foreman are you for or against it?"
[Command] Prime Rehul says, "That can be done, but lets jsut wait for the investigator, if they want it they can get it."
Foreman Morgan says, "I'll abstain, for now."
[Command] John Browning says, "Already here."
Foreman Morgan nods.
Overseer Stahl says, "You can't abstain."
Master ARGUS-XII puts a crowbar in the tool belt.
Overseer Stahl asks, "Are you abstaining anyway?"
Foreman Morgan says, "Frankly-."
[Command] Overseer Stahl asks, "Prime, are you abstaining?"
Overseer Stahl asks, "Prime, are you abstaining?"
Foreman Morgan says, "If the investigator wants those logs, he will get them."
[Command] Prime Rehul says, "From what? i already said nay."
Foreman Morgan says, "It's within his legal right."
[Command] Overseer Stahl says, "The foreman has abstained."
Overseer Stahl says, "The foreman has abstained."
[Command] Overseer Stahl says, "Ok, the prime says nay, argus says nay, and the foreman has abstained."
Overseer Stahl says, "Ok, the prime says nay, argus says nay, and the foreman has abstained."
Master ARGUS-XII says, "There are two data disks containing the original questionings, untranscripted."
Overseer Stahl asks, "Abstaining is not allowed, right?"
[Command] Prime Rehul says, "Why are you trying to push your vote so fast that people get fail to vote? your just using SOP as tool."
Prime Rehul talks into the prime's headset
John Browning says, "Alright. WAs - a vote held? I am confused as to why I was requested to come up."
John Browning asks, "Abstaining is not. Was a council vote called?"
[Command] Overseer Stahl says, "I'd love to have an actual vote - we can convene the council."
Overseer Stahl says, "I'd love to have an actual vote - we can convene the council."
Overseer Stahl says, "I called a vote, it was acknowledged twice."
Master ARGUS-XII says, "A council vote was called to summon you, regarding a murder which has relations to the Chief Research Officer."
Prime Rehul says, "Hardly, he called it on comms, didnt give them any options other then, yes copy ALL COMMS LOGS, or NO NO ONE SHOULD SEE LOGS."
John Browning asks, ".,.Vote on?"
Prime Rehul says, "It was a rigged vote."

I wanted to present a formal vote, I tried to. As far as I know, I did it by the book?
It was rushed, and I was fine with the vote being moved to the table. It was ignored.
The round was incredibly chaotic and the proceedings were aggressively pressured.
The prime called my vote a 'rigged vote' even when it did not pass. It was not rigged. The assertion "NO NO ONE SHOULD SEE LOGS" was arbitrary.
I was definitely not trying to get the Foreman ousted from the council - awkwardly, they were the least biased party present in terms of the 403, even though they were the representative of the defendant in the murder case. I wanted to make sure they voted and not abstained. Because they confirmed they abstained, I intentionally did not continue to pressure for that vote.
The assumption was going to be that if we formally convened, all parties would vote nay except for me.
The intention was to buy time for me to process what the fuck was going on and see if the council is *actually biased.*
I wanted to know what the Prime, the GM, Foreman, etc. were saying at the time of the events.


It was annoying to do and I apologize for that, Stahl was panicking, and IMO RP justifiably.

[Risikio]

I really have no business here, but dude, as was told to me about four months ago: Brother in Christ this is just a video game.

I have zero clue any of this context. Whatsoever. I just saw wall of wall of wall of text and you pointing to where it -obviously- shows how you're in the right here. You have written a small criminal defense deposition in response to "don't back-talk the admins".

Take a moment there, because I am currently banned for the exact same problem you're exhibiting. Seriously, take a huge breather, and consider creating a new character that is not essentially you, or at least come to terms that if you're going to play someone who is essentially you, other characters may not like you. I'm sorry a fictionalized version of you is a space dick?

Breathe dude. Take this next event arc off. Say your character is knee deep in his lab and doesn't have time for silly things like stupid surface politics or bullshit like that. When the next arc is announced, ask yourself if you can handle playing this server again, or if it helps ask if you want to deal with the stupid OOC bullshit associated with Sojourn.

Because I've been there writing furiously through the night how obviously I was in control of my faculties as I wrote close to 20,000 words about a video game. You're probably feeling very very passionate right now because you may have been accused of things like not knowing the line in the past. I know the feeling dude, but you need to walk away for a bit, before they ban you for your own mental health.