Part of Admin/Mentor Conduct Broken (if relevant): I was basically suggested to intentionally violate rule 12 and 12.3 concerning command conduct, but this is only for a small part of the total issue, the rest I’m not sure on.
Incident Description:
Agreed with my reasoning for blowing borgs in ticket, further eventually agreed after about twenty minutes of questioning that I had done nothing wrong with blowing borgs in ticket, still listed blowing borgs in ban reason.
Asked me to violate rules 12 (You are expected to be a competent person) and 12.3 (The Captain’s goal is to ensure the safety of their crew and the success of the station as a whole) in ticket and in forums.
They don’t know or they disagree with the captain having knowledge of antagonist abilities, for example, that a captain would know that a malf AI can restore cams, or use X-ray cams, or detonate machinery, or unlock borgs. About twenty? minutes in ticket was spent on this.
Further mentioned rules lawyering despite mainly asking a series of questions that would have to be answered with justification, i.e “Why did you do [A]” I did A because [A reason].
Additional Information:
It’s worth noting that I don’t have access to the ahelp logs so this is from my memory alone, which is fuzzy and imperfect at best, and likely prone to bias.
Rushing to fight a malf AI and pushing them by blowing all their borgs, actually endangers the entire crew, as you’ve now cornered the machine which is easily capable of exterminating the entire crew without the use of borgs, because without borgs their only option is to kill with a lot of collateral damage.
A scientist or RD would be reasonable to know these things, and even under SOP the captain really should not be doing anything with the AI to begin with, so as a captain you should not be seeing an upgraded camera and immediately rushing to the conclusion that the AI is malf (not even mentioning some chuckle fuck could have just upgraded all the cameras knowing someone would attempt to meta a malf AI).
You do realize APCs sometimes just end up being BSOD right, like it doesn’t always mean the AI is malf. I don’t think you quite understand what the issue is here, orherwise you wouldn’t have just said you meta’d a malf AI based on one APC.
You can also Emag an apc to make it blue as well, so it’s not a sure fire thing that the AI is malf, hell someone could have very well teleported in and emagged the apc to have you remove the AI from the round for them.
Do you remember the exact wording of the announcement? I looked through all the code that makes a priority announcement and couldn’t find one that would announce a midround malf AI with the words ‘malfunctioning’ in it. Best I could find was this, which mimics the Ion storm announcement.
Once again we have a report for what should be an appeal.
Realy starting to get a bit grating those, not gonna lie.
In this case, it WAS infact an appeal. An appeal which was denied - meaning that the seniormin that handled the appeal agreed with the judgement that was doled out.
Though the wording was adjusted to be extremely long and overly detailed - that does not make for a violation of staff conduct. There was no malicous and deliberate mis-interpetation of rules, personal grudges, shitty adminbus or anything else that would be worth being concerned about.
We’re all just humans, and volunteers at that. Getting a judgement or a wording wrong once in a while is not an issue that warants punishment by us heads.
The joke here being that the judgement was, infact, deemed to have been acurate.
