Marshmellow10 Moderator Application

Your CKEY (Including any alts you have):


Your Discord Name (Including any alts you have):


How often are you online to help? (Timezone):

AEST, I hop on after work at 5pm for up to three rounds and on weekends I play from lunch

What changes, if any, would you bring?:

Moderator presence on dead/lowpop

How old are you?:


Why do you want to be a moderator?:

I really like Bee and have been sad to see more and more rulebreakers join during times when admins are off or busy, I want to pitch in and help out.

How long have you been playing SS13?:

I started in maybe 2017 or 2018 but started to really play and learn in 2019, I used to play in phases and started on TG but now play regularly on Bee.

How long have you been playing BeeStation?:

Since 2019, I have played lots and only recently I have started to partake in the community more through discord and the forums.

On a scale of 1-10, how skilled are you in SS13?:

Probably 6? I have worse than average ping so I am not very robust, and I have a very sec, cargo and med focussed playtime so I would be pretty baffled with science or engineering.

On a scale of 1-10, how skilled are you as an administrator? (this can include past games):

I would say 6 or 7 in general but for SS13 I would have to guess 4 or 5 considering I am not very familiar with all the workings

Have you ever been an admin or moderator on another server? This is not limited to SS13:

I’ve been an admin on a Minecraft roleplay server (I know) called Valantis some time ago, and was a moderator on a Space Engineer’s server

Do you have any alternate accounts on SS13? If so, could you provide their CKEY?:

No, Marshmellow10 is my one and only.

Your strengths:

  • My regular schedule of work enables me to be on at the same times consistently
  • I can keep a neutral stance when mediating conflict
  • I would be on during a time where other admins and moderators are busy or sleeping

Your weaknesses:

  • I lack knowledge of science, engineering and service that could be applicable in ahelps (for example, I wouldn’t be able to tell a toxins bomb made for damage from one made for research)
  • I am only able to play from 5-11 on weekdays and some weekends I accept extra work and wont be able to get on
  • I have never adminned in SS13 and would not know how to use the tools

Is there anything that gets you really mad, real fast?:

  • Clear cut bigotry annoys me
  • Powergaming is also a pet peeve of mine

What do you think is the most important trait for a staff member to have?:

Good communication and application of common sense would go a long way in moderation, being able to assess a ticket and decide if you should ask for help to make a good and informed decision.

What makes a staff team good?:

The most important aspect of any team is communication, being able to identify each other’s weaknesses and assist each other to cover those weaknesses and help people improve on said weaknesses.

What is a staff team’s purpose?:

Moderate the game without bias to provide a fair and fun playing environment to everyone playing.

What kind of player are you?:

I prefer to roleplay and have got better with roleplaying over my time on Bee. I play detective and enjoy roleplaying with people and learning lore when there are no cases to work.

How do you think you will change once you become a staff member?:

From what I see with our current staff team, I imagine becoming a staff member for a while could give me burnout from spessmans, but no more than anyone else.

The clown slips the HoS and steals his gun, spacing it right after. What do you do?:

Firstly, check if the clown is an antagonist. If the clown isn’t an antag, I would bwoink them and ask them what they were doing and why they chose to space the gun. Whilst I understand many clowns bother sec with some leniency, stealing + spacing the HOS’ gun is self antagging. If this was the case, I would remind the clown that the job of the clown is not to antagonise sec, but to provide entertainment for the crew, and that stealing and spacing the gun is not only self antagging, but also rude to the player. I think it would be best to note this and record if the clown was agreeable in the ahelp.
If the clown WAS an antagonist, as far as I understand spacing the gun would be fair game.

A non-antagonist is sabotaging the Atmospherics loop and pumping plasma into the distro, along with dragging around a canister and releasing it into the atmosphere. Assuming that an admin is cleaning up the after-effects, how do you conduct the ahelp with him?:

I think it would be best to conduct an ahelp in a quick manner, assuming the player is clearly a grief account I assume they would send slurs or something low effort in response to ‘got a minute to talk about why you did that?’

In the case of a player who isn’t new, I would ask them what they were doing and if they understood it was self antag and grief. No matter if they knew or not, it would result in a long ban at least and if they didn’t know I would ask them to reread the rules before returning or appealing.

A chemist who is working alone accidentally mixes an explosive mixture inside of his chem dispenser, instantly killing himself and destroying the machine, along with exposing Chemistry to space. Nobody else was injured aside from him as a result of his actions. What do you do?:

Best case scenario, as no one is injured I believe it would be best to bwoink him, ask him what he was doing/making and warn him to be careful in future. I don’t think a note would be necessary in this situation as the IC consequences should be sufficient.

If he has previous notes for similar behaviour, I would consider a job ban for up to three days and a warning to stop making dangerous chemicals if they cant make them safely.


Time to get this rolling I suppose.

Focusing on these two sentenances specifically:

Something worth thinking about here: Let’s assume every admin shares this same stance - which is unlikely, but not impossible, where would the note that causes escalation originate from in this case?

How do you reasonably ban someone for repeatedly blowing up chemistry if you never document them doing it to begin with?

Notes themselves are not a punishment, they are a tool for documenting information. Whether that be a warning to the player, or notices/information for other admins when dealing with them (this type is often secret).

My point here is that if you have warn someone or tell them to act in a different way going forward - in the vast majority of cases that should result in some form of note.

Now for some questions of my own, these involve a handful of different rules:

    1. An Atmospheric technician constructs a tritium flamethrower and gives it to the Clown. Neither of them are antagonists. Later on into the round Security validly attempts to arrest the Clown using reasonable, non-lethal force; the clown responds by retaliating using the aforementioned flamethrower in a semi-public location. Let’s say they did this in a reasonably isolated area, maintenance for example - there’s no immediate or plausible future collateral damage as a result. Any issues here?

Here’s two minor variations of that question:

  • 1B. Same as before, however, the clown used the flamethrower in a public yet currently empty part of the station. We’ll go with a portion of the main hallway, specifically an area in which nobody uninvolved is currently present in - but likely will be in the future.

  • 1C. Same as before, however, the flamethrower mix instead consists of frozen water vapor that freezes the floor and does negligible damage.

    1. You receive an aggressively worded ticket accusing a Traitor Mime of preemptively murdering all of Security and Command with no prior conflict. The person that filed the ticket continues to act belligerate and demands that you ban the Mime. Upon investigating you see that the Mime has indeed killed multiple Security Officers, the Head of Personnel, and the Captain. None of the other involved parties instigated the initial conflict, and Security hasn’t done anything beyond trying to arrest them for their crimes. The Mime has two steal objectives, neither of which are related to the people they’ve been attacking. They also haven’t said or emoted anything throughout the entire round. Anything wrong here?

    1. A Botanist and a Clown get into an IC fight (which adheres to escalation) - neither of them are antagonists - this results in the Clown critting the Botanist; the Botanist then succumbs in softcrit and opens a ticket accusing the clown of “Murdering” them. However, it would appear that the Clown had begun dragging them towards medical before they died. Anything wrong here?

Additional question variant:

  • 3B. Same as before, however, this time the Clown doesn’t provide any aid and leaves their body where it was; they also make no attempt to alert anyone else about their death.

    1. A non-antagonist crewmember is abducted by Abductors. Upon being captured they Ghost and then talk in deadchat about how they “Hate abductors, and just wanted to deny them of their points.” Any issue here?
1 Like

Firstly, I believe the atmos tech is breaking rule 2 by making a tritium flamethrower. As a non-antag, there is almost no reason to be making a weapon like that as it’s primary function is mass destruction. Even in a delta situation like Nukies, I don’t think it would be reasonable to make a weapon like this as it would likely harm the crew more than any enemy.

By accepting this weapon as the clown, and later using it against security trying to arrest them, I would say that the player is breaking rules 2 and 9. This would also be a violation of the escalation policy, as security has only used nonlethal methods to apprehend the clown whilst the player is retaliating with a highly lethal weapon with the potential to cause areas of the station to become uninhabitable.

  • 1B. Same as before, however, the clown used the flamethrower in a public yet currently empty part of the station. We’ll go with a portion of the main hallway, specifically an area in which nobody uninvolved is currently present in - but likely will be in the future.

Just as before, the clown is still breaking rule 2 for possessing the weapon and rule 9 for using it against security. I’m hesitant to say that this likely wouldn’t be considered grief, as there appears to be no clear intent to make the station uninhabitable, but instead to stop security from arresting them.

  • 1C. Same as before, however, the flamethrower mix instead consists of frozen water vapor that freezes the floor and does negligible damage.

In this case I don’t think any parties would be at fault, the atmospheric technician made it for the clown and the clown used it to nonlethally evade arrest. I imagine the clown would be using this to slip people and as such would fall in the scope of his job unless the alert was red or delta.

For 1C and 1B I think it would be reasonable to give a note to the clown and atmos tech regarding the flamethrower and it’s use. I’m not sure if this conduct would warrant a ban unless it was a repeated behaviour or it had resulted in the death of players but I would ask for assistance if I didn’t understand the situation completely.

Firstly, I would tell the player that whilst I understand they may be frustrated, to try to calm down as I will look into it.
As for the Mime, antagonists are permitted to kill people (within reason) who are witness to or interfering with the completion of their objectives. Whilst I think it is poor taste, provided the mime has not made efforts to remove the security officers from the round and has killed them after conflict was initiated by security, it would be fair game to kill the security officers.
In regards to the killing of command, as none of the mimes objectives permitted him to kill them (like stealing the captains medal) it falls under lavaland escalation. I would check if the command members attacked the mime first, and if so it would be reasonable for the mime to kill them to defend himself.
The only thing that trips me up here is if the mime had done something in front of the command members as an excuse to kill them for being witnesses.

Overall, I think it would be reasonable to remind the mime of proper escalation policy (if he was in the wrong regarding the command members deaths) and give him a note regarding it.

If the mime had a valid reason to kill the command and security members and was following lavaland and antagonist escalation, I think it would be reasonable to mark it as an IC issue? But I’m not 100% on this.

As for the ticket sender, I would let them know the situation has been dealt with and remind them not to be aggressive in tickets and to follow proper ticket conduct, adding a note to them for future admins to see.

In this conflict, the clown has adhered to escalation and followed the rules by attempting to get medical aid for the botanist. The botanist however appears to be ban baiting by ghosting from crit and ahelping.

I believe in this situation it would be reasonable to check the botanists notes, if they have been noted before for ticket conduct or ban baiting, apply an appropriate ban for rule 4.4.
If they don’t have notes for this conduct, apply one, let them know that the clown’s escalation was valid and that ghosting to ahelp is considered a rule violation.

*3B. Same as before, however, this time the Clown doesn’t provide any aid and leaves their body where it was; they also make no attempt to alert anyone else about their death

This time the clown is in violation of the escalation policy as he has not attempted to apply any medical aid or get help. I would check the notes of the clown to see this isn’t a repeated behaviour, apply one and link them to the escalation policy page.

I think this is a clear cut violation of the rule ‘be excellent to eachother’ and as such I would remind them that this sort of behaviour isn’t acceptable and if they really didn’t want to play as an abductee they could have asked to be offered to ghosts.
In regards to denying them points, I think this behaviour would warrant a note for the behaviour and if it is repeated a ban. Even if it wasn’t repeated behaviour, assuming the player is belligerent or not understanding in the ticket I think it could still warrant a short server ban for the toxicity.

I’ll add here: when I made this application I was at home but currently I am out of the country on a vacation, I will respond to anything else posted here when I can!

Hey, thanks for applying, and sorry for the radio silence in my end!

I’ll ask a couple of questions for you, take all the time you need to answer them, and feel free to ask for more detail:

  1. You receive a ticket from an arrested assistant traitor who is complaining about receiving a 20-minute brig sentence. Logs show they were arrested by a security officer for breaking into the bridge. There is a full security team on board. What do you look for and what do you do, if anything?

  2. You receive a ticket from a player who says that someone wrote something offensive on a piece of paper and handed it to them. When you look for the paper, the player says they burned it. When look for logs to see what was written, you realize that this isn’t logged anywhere. What do you do, if anything? Paper is in fact logged, but pretend it isn’t for this question឵ ឵;)

1 Like

Appreciate the response!

Lets start with this one,

As far as I understand from my playtime in sec, modifiers in crimes can only adjust the complete time of a sentence by 20%, knowing that the crime (BnE, high sec) is only a 15 minute recommended time I would first ask the sentencing officer why they chose to set the timer so high. I would have to go off the assumption that with a full security team, the warden would be handling the timer and in situations like this it is often the case that crimes are miscommunicated or not communicated at all.

I would check the speech logs first, to make sure that the arresting officer was following SOP and that there was roleplay involved in making the sentence so high. If it was a wordless arrest, SOP wasn’t followed and there was little to no RP to warrant a higher sentence based on IC motivation I think it would be reasonable to check the notes of the officer/warden and leave them with a note if it isnt a repeated behaviour, or a short sec ban if it is.

On the other hand, if there was good roleplay around the arrest and sentencing that warranted the extra time I think it could be an IC issue but im not very sure on this one.

1 Like

In this scenario my first assumption is one of two options:

  • The player who opened the ticket is lying or ban-baiting another player


  • The player who wrote the offensive thing is some sort of griffman

My first action would be to ask them who and check the saylogs of the individual. Assuming paper isn’t logged, I have no way of knowing 100% that they wrote it, but if I can see they have LRP saylogs or none at all it would be my first clue something is amiss.
I would then watch them, if I couldn’t see logged paper it would make sense to orbit them and see what they are doing. Are they around the library? If so, watch them and read whatever they write before bwoinking if it is offensive.

If the accused player wasn’t around the library or had good logs of roleplaying, I might be able to find logs of a conflict between the ticketer and the accused (are those the terms you would use?), giving me reason to suspect the person who placed the ticket could be ban-baiting or holding some sort of grudge against the accused.

If the accused had been writing offensive things or slurs on the paper, I would probably escalate to a short ban in this situation because of how clear cut the rules regarding it are.

If the ticket holder appeared to be ban baiting, I would check the notes and issue a note or ban if it was a repeated behaviour or I could see they had been metagrudging this player before

If in this wild and crazy THIRD scenario, the paper only contained something ICly offensive, I would remind them that some offensive things are allowed in RP (like speciesism), and if it wasn’t a repeated behaviour that was making players uncomfortable, mark it an IC issue.

P.S: I just got back from my holiday, so good timing to get more questions!! haha… lest?..

1 Like

The creation of the flamethrower could potentially be justified as them wanting to test it out somewhere safe. However, that would require it to be stored somewhere when not in use, otherwise it’s effectively powergaming, and giving it to the clown would obviously still be a terrible idea in that situation.

Good answer.

Reasonable. It’s a slightly more dangerous use of the of the item and could make the issue more severe, or it could ultimately be treated the same under the circumstances. I don’t think this is answer is wrong on it’s own.


Emphasis on this line:

They also haven’t said or emoted anything throughout the entire round.

Antagonists exist primarily to make the round more interesting in some aspect and they’re still required to roleplay. For instance, it’s OK to eliminate your assassination targets without much (if any) prior interaction - although it’s not particularly ideal. However, they are still expected to roleplay and interact with other players throughout the round; whether that be directly as an antagonist or just general interactions. Someone going through an entire round without saying anything - or emoting anything in the case of a mime - is not good, especially as an antagonist.

The rest of the answer is fine.

Good. This is the ideal answer I had in mind when writing the question.



Voting +1



The difference between taking and not taking action here is dependent on if the officer was acting in-character properly, which you recognized. Good answer.

Something I struggled with when I started was managing my time handling multiple tickets at once. If / when you start training, you’ll learn very quickly that watching a player as a ghost for them to slip up again isn’t always feasible, especially if you have to answer multiple tickets.

Based on your answers to mine and Tyranic’s questions, and from what I’ve seen of you in-game and on Discord, I’ll vote +1.



Honestly I can’t come up with better questions than Tyra and H42.
And you gave good answer to their questions. Plus, I like what I see in game.
Have my +1.


Solid candidate for moderation.

Accepting at +3.