Hi Drakyry and all,
I apologize for the delay in this report. The round this event occurred was actually 24208, and after scouring the logs I think I have a good handled on the situation. First, let’s cover the baseline rules we’re interacting within.
Nuclear Protocol
In the event of nuclear ordnance being deployed in the AO all personnel are authorized to deploy to the FOB to protect it during countdown, overriding departmental SOPs preventing deployments.
- The Commander may order personnel to remain aboard the ship at their discretion during Nuclear Protocols.
- This does not allow prisoners to be deployed.
It is important to note that “Nuclear Protocol” is found in CM’s “Standard Operating Procedures,” not the rules. Maintenance technicians have no OOC requirements to adhere to SOP whatsoever; that obligation is reserved solely for those with mandatory obedience (because to break SOP is to break marine law), and for COs, XOs, and aCOs when it comes to the Non-Modifiable Standard Operating Proceedure. So, in short, we can throw out “Nuclear Protocol” as a basis for this discussion.
Onto the rules in which this incident may revolve around:
Clause within Rule 2: Roleplay
- Shipside Crew, where authorised to deploy, must remain in secure areas, and must fulfil their role: -Maintenance Technicians should be aiding in FOB construction, or securing areas close to the FOB. -Doctors are not to be combat medics running into danger to pull wounded or dead marines out of combat. -The Combat Correspondent should be documenting the fighting, and should disengage if attacked by hostiles.
Clause within Rule 8: Use your Slot
- You are expected to use your slot, and act appropriately as your role. Every role has a function, and the player taking the role is expected to fulfill it. If you have work to do that your job is expected to do, ignoring it to engage in other tasks violates this rule. Furthermore, wasting your slot - such as by suicide or logging out inappropriately - is punishable as you are removing a slot another player could be playing as correctly.
This incident is not one-dimensional, so let’s cover each aspect of it briefly. You were not following the above Rule 2: Roleplay clause: you ran all the way to the opposing LZ from the FOB. The distant comms outpost is not an area close to the FOB.
You were not breaking Rule 8: Use your Slot. I don’t know how this discussion got reduced to arguing over carried equipment, since that’s relatively immaterial, but it does indicate that you were not attempting to be a rifleman. This kind of report can easily get lost in the weeds, and while I understand details are important, they’re not that important here. The damage he did take, he took from marines, so I don’t necessarily see how his lack of combat equipment can be paralleled to Rule 8’s suicide rule. While it’s important to not be “result oriented,” that is, focused solely on the outcome of an event in judging its merits, it seems a stretch to suggest his actions were paramount to suicide.
You were not in violation of Rule 3: Community Expectations. You disagreed with thespy’s assessment of the situation and commented on the delay of the round. I don’t believe you were rude in private messages or anything like that. Delaying rounds to address tickets often creates tension that players may not fully understand, but that lack of understanding is not the players’ fault.
To summarize:
-
Objectively Rule 2 was broken. The language of the rule was not followed.
-
Subjectively Rule 8 was not broken. It doesn’t appear as though you were neglecting your role or otherwise not trying to act as your role. You had the tools and equipment expected of your role, and it appeared as though you were trying to engage in the mechanical tasks expected of the position, if not in the rule-appropriate locations.
-
Subjectively Rule 3 was not broken. I do not think that you were being rude to any degree which transgresses Rule 3.
This staff report is approved. While the ban is long since expired, I will be removing the ban for Rule 3 and 8, and replacing it with a note for Rule 2. As with all accepted staff reports, I will also bring this up with the staff member in question.