Tobias_reaper - Whitelist Report: Patton moore, BE policy

[Clockworks]

Tobias_reaper - Whitelist Report: Patton moore, BE policy

What’s your BYOND key?

Tobias_reaper

Round ID:

24298

Your character name:

Jakob “Carver” Coldsmith

Accused BYOND key:

unknown

Accused character name:

Patton moore

What rule(s) were broken?:

BE policy

Whitelist in question:

Commanding Officer

Description of the incident:

Hi. Sorry to bother, i really debated reporting this but people, including WL holders have said it should be.

As a basic recap of events I was BE as CMO for joking id brainwashed the CL and removed their fear. There are chat records to such effect, and anything else i might of said. The CL agreed to the drugs, and i was in actuality in CIC to report for duty, and asked the CL to follow as a joke.

The CO then BE me, with the cmp in the room, and broadcast it was for crimes against humanity- iv consulted ML and CO CoC and believe he is likely using the following clause.

“Someone has committed a capital crime and is fleeing from custody. Acts that warrant execution by default, such as murder, jailbreak, and sedition, are eligible for Battlefield Execution if they are not in MP custody.”

i suspect this is his argument. But that clause is a bit difficult to understand- i wasn’t fleeing custody, i was not even told i had committed a crime if that was his opinion, but the second point makes it seem the first point doesn’t actually mean anything. If you can BE for capital crimes then fleeing is always irrelevant.

The overall clause of BE is “Commanding Officers (and their superiors) reserve the exclusive right to issue a summary execution of anyone who poses a threat to life or limb to the ship, to the operation at large, or to personnel, and are an active threat”. I think the Active threat clause is vital here. I was a single unarmored doctor in a room full of officers, talking. I was not a active threat.

He did not particularly investigate the issue, past my initial joking comment, and given the cmp was in the room, i was in cic, and no arrest attempts had been made- i really ought to of atleast been told to surrender to the mp which i would of done.

I , and a fair few others, do not think this BE was justified, and was extreme

Honestly i think the outcome for this i think would be most reasonable if nothing else would be clarification of the mentioned clauses.
Perhaps adding a note to the effect of “if at all possible, a arrest by MP should be preferred before a BE when the target is not a active threat.” and a clarification on the capital crime clause.

As a player thats heard people complain about BE, i do especially think that last note about a arrest being the strongly preferred course of action before BE would greatly cut down on player base complaints. There is RP and fun to be had if brigged, round removal is removing two hours of what may be a very limited amount of time a player has to engage in the game. I do not think all CO’s appreciate you aren’t just killing a marine, you are round removing a human being from what may be limited leisure time.

Evidence:

i do not have any, but i assume the chat logs can be pulled, and a the end of round chat contains mention of the incident.

[Taketheshot56]

Hi, Yes I BEd you.

Honestly I dont feel it was unwarranted. We are in the middle of a large scale combat operation and you roll up in the CIC with the CL claiming you’ve experimented or brainwashed the CL or something to not feel fear and do anything you say, the exact wording can be pulled from logs. The CL is standing next to you there twitching like a madman.

Whether you were joking or not you came up into the CIC making claims about what your experimentations have done, It was through this and the fact that this is the first id seen of you when you came in with the CL claiming you experimented on him. I decided to BE you.

It was not for the clause of a capital crime, the exact reasoning which maybe I could have been clearer about in the announcement is:

*threat to persons. Credibly threatening and attempting to do harm to the Commanding Officer or to someone while in the Commanding Officer’s presence."

In this case you had done harm to the corporate liason who you say did it willingly but you also said he was brainwashed so the CL cant really vouch at that time. And I believed you would do further harm either to the CL or another member of the crew.

“A threat to the ship or operation. Credibly threatening or attempting to do damage to the ship, the USCM, or operation while in the Commanding Officer’s presence.”

In this instance the corporate liaison who is our corporate representative aboard whos physical harm would bring about a grave issue with Weyland Yutani was in danger and this represented a threat to the operation as well as the potential for continued human experimentation/brainwashing based on what you had told me.

I do understand where you are coming from, I certainly did not decide to just willy nilly execute you for the fun of it, you walked into the CIC as a high ranking officer and chief of the medical department and started making claims of brainwashing/experimentation and I dealt with what was infront of me.

If you wanna talk as well my DMs are open and we can chat simply because forums can sometimes be well forum’y.

[Clockworks]

Good evening, i appreciate the polite response: it is my opinion and some others consulted that threatening and attempting to do harm , does not include harm that has already been done: if that is your opinion that harm has been done before hand, but no one is under immediate threat, it is a ML matter. The BE is reserved for, per the commanding officers code of conduct active threats.

“A threat to the ship or operation. Credibly threatening or attempting to do damage to the ship, the USCM, or operation while in the Commanding Officer’s presence.”

Attempting to is obsolete in this situation, as i was stationary, unarmed, and merely talking.

there is a loose argument to be made i was a threat to the operation as the CL was the persons involved, and relations to the company might suffer, and depending on your stance this is a threat to the operation incase they retaliate. I do believe in this situation there was a responsibility to confirm the danger first, and again, the action had already happened, so no threatening or attempting. Again, in this situation, i do believe it was a ML matter as there was no active threat.

Continued human experimentation risk: again, this should of been discussed. i was within my power as CMO to authorize any experiments i wished, unless overruled by the commander. You did not inform me you was over ruling me and i was to discontinue, you BEd on the spot.

Your logic while it has some validity does stray into murky waters of technically most crimes could be considered a threat to the operation, but BE should not not be used on a MT that has been found to of smashed a window. That is clearly a ML matter, as I’m sure we can both agree. (as a side note, i think significant damage ought to be added to that clause. smacking a window is clearly damage, doesn’t deserve a BE.)

I think this was a case of you BE as the immediate solution when it is not intended for that: it is a last resort for extreme non compliance or a active threat. if the CMP gunned down anyone that admitted they had committed assault with a deadly weapon, in CIC, unarmed, it would be a issue just the same, even though they may have the right to do so if the same person was actively shooting a marine in their presence.

[naut]

The Council had a look at the logs and found out that, from the CO’s point of view, the CMO essentially walked up to him and said that he (the CMO) brainwashed the CL using mindbreaker toxin. Technically speaking this falls under justified use as being a BE for a capital crime, being Crimes Against Humanity in Marine Law, and is ultimately valid in justification. The Council was generally in agreement that if they were also told by someone “I just brainwashed someone with drugs on your ship”, the gun would certainly be an option on the table.

However, “option” is just that. While we will say the execution was valid, it was unnecessary especially given the presence of MPs and the lack of imminent danger the CMO presented to the CO. The Council believes a better, less violent option would be to have the CMO instead arrested and tried for the charges that made the BE considered valid in the first place.

Because the execution was unnecessary, the Council will issue a warning to the reported CO. This report is resolved.