Ahana - Staff Report: Enforcement Action Taken - Lagomorphica
What’s your BYOND key:
Ahana
Round ID:
25997
Your character name:
Laurencia Beck
Their BYOND key:
Lagomorphica
What are you reporting?:
Enforcement Action Taken
Description of the incident:
Some context regarding what happened.
Kato ‘Christmas’ Evelyn was arrested and brought into brig (I was not the arresting or processing officer). Initially all was fine, aside from the fact the arresting/processing officer did not give summaries in JAS, had trouble making comments in the records, etc. I think frustration initially arose because of the complexity of the appeal forms and the MP who was doing it was struggling. She ended up getting upset regarding her appeal status (and I was doing my best to get that handled as quickly as I could). Eventually she repeatedly came out of her cell and told me to ‘kiss her pink shiny ass’, a ‘hag’, etc, which will be important later. After speaking with them after, they just seemed upset at the situation as a whole and were venting on me (although that was after round-end, and not how I could’ve interpreted that in the moment).
But going forward, I’d like to address this in two separate pieces. First, “Player, as the CMP, interpreted Marine Law as such that the Warden violating it did not have to be demoted due to not attempting to appeal nor pursuing a pardon. I believe this violates the intended principle of the rule.”
Imgur: The magic of the Internet - Written ML at this time that’s relevant.
Context for this: Warden accidentally hit a prisoner who repeatedly shuffled them and was moving them around. It looked like the warden tried to pull them or move up and pressed E and unholstered trying to move up.
Here, marine law specifically states they must either be denied a pardon, or have an appeal denied, which results in their removal from law enforcement. Lagomorphica argues here that I should have demoted the Warden, despite the clear verbiage that notes it is only applied on a failed appeal/pardon request. Lagomorphica also notes in our ticket that I followed the law as written, stating: “it is the direct 1:1 of what is on the page, I also believe you can understand the intent behind it more than what is directly written.” I don’t think it’s fair to enforce verbiage that contradicts what’s written here; I would understand if it didn’t specifically note something e.g. black market is contraband, but ML writes out specifically had written out that it was a failed appeal or pardon that would require it.
Malicious Compliance is also a really bad fit here and I don’t think I broke the rules. The Malicious Compliance rule reads: “Malicious Compliance is using IC Military Law to impose excessive punishments, make an arrest on a technicality of someone non-disruptive who is acting in good faith, or causing intentional delays in the jailing and appealing process.” Lagomorphia is claiming I apparently violated this, although I did my best to act in good faith here. The Warden accidentally hit someone in brig (and without intent, I am uncertain why Lagomorphia demanded they be demoted), unintentionally, and was compliant with the entirety of the process. I don’t believe it would have been in good faith to read between the lines to impose a punishment past what is written in the law, on something that contradicts what is outlined within the law.
I don’t think I imposed any excessive punishment, or made any arrest/action on a technicality here. I do not believe I was maliciously complying because the Warden acted in good faith, and when Lagomorphica issued a ruling that it is to be carried out anyways in the ticket, I complied faithfully and informed the Warden to appeal or receive a pardon (as sanctioned by Lagomorphica). The Warden eventually received a pardon by the Lieutenant colonel, and returned to his position. There were previous issues of enforcing the law too harshly in the past, but to be punished for enforcing the law here (as written) on someone acting in good faith in the effect of a jobban is kind of egregious.
For the second part: “Additionally, player informed the confined player that they were being held for multiple (stacked) charges of Sexual Harrassment and DaSO, although they did not apply these charges, I still believe it is improper to tell somebody they are being confined for these reasons.” - I corrected myself. I initially informed them that they received charges of DASO and one of sexual harassment. Before they ever received the sexual harassment charge, I dropped it and let them know. In the past it was the culture to enforce it as such for some of the things they said towards me, but I decided that would be inappropriate to charge at this point in CM and stopped it from going through. The staff member never received the harassment charge, only the DASO charge. I also opted to only charge them with a single set of DASO. I did not pursue each instance of it. I was lenient with her, but I do think it’s worthy to mention that they had displayed antagonistic behavior towards me. I ensured they knew they were not being charged with sexual harassment, and in the cell (when charges are stated officially), I notified them that it was just DASO/DCIC.
tdlr; I think it’s unfair to apply a jobban for malicious compliance when I followed the law in good faith and chose the more lenient punishment when acting 1:1 in marine law, over the harsher one in a scenario where the inmate was acting in good faith that contradicts what is written. I spoke with Evelyn (cyberdie) as well (the original detainee) in DMs and I believe she agrees with my stance as well. But I do not want to put any words in her mouth, so I will let them choose to comment if they wish, and what they wish.
Evidence:
Rule 11 - Ban: Player, as the CMP, interpreted Marine Law as such that the Warden violating it did not have to be demoted due to not attempting to appeal nor pursuing a pardon. I believe this violates the intended principle of the rule. Additionally, player informed the confined player that they were being held for multiple (stacked) charges of Sexual Harrassment and DaSO, although they did not apply these charges, I still believe it is improper to tell somebody they are being confined for these reasons.