Player complaint : Kuniora

[SPCR]

Im complaining about this player because they admitted to lowering the RP standards and to quote shooting people because they were being called out on the radio.
This player , proceeded to help a Vagabond Lynch Mob(Formed of 3 antags, herself being the only non-antag) in their quest to kill the IH LT because they started screaming on common that he is an carrion. (Which was swiftly debunked 10 minutes after the initial firefight)
Attached are the 2 photos where they even show their clear intent of just randomly shooting people , and their disregard for RP standards.
Either IH needs to go back to not giving vagabonds respect , or vagabonds need the same level of enforcement, holding IH to a higher RP standards is dumb if vagabonds get to go away with random shootouts cause someone said so.
The best part is that she joined the gang of wordlessly shooting up the IH LT , instead of atleast acting sane and asking first for a scan or a blood test (or even asking if they did any kind of test)
Same issues could apply for John Bell (which i had witnessed in a round and recorded) that decided to help a gang attack IH because they arrested a acolyte which murdered a preacher , but not on the same level as Kunoira.(And yes this is a vent because holy shit i am tired of metagrudge gangs going to kill IH for so little , and then me being constantly threatened with perma bans over some notes i can't even see because i apparently keep the standards low)

[Jakub29]

I was Richard Gern in this scenario and here's my two cents. As far as my knowledge goes the whole vaga mob was not a meta-organised or influenced move.
The main gang comrpised of Me, Richard Gern, Vik and Grug. Grug was the one to insinuate Sheets as a carrion, i was invited to join the initiative ICly by Vik, the whole thing seemed like an organic happenstance. That main group of three was what spearheaded the movement initially.

I will say however that to the best of my knowledge at no point did Kuniora's character directly interact with any of the main three, made herself an ally or otherwise rp her way into the conflict.
What i did do see was her joining in on our first assault among many others. It was more of a jump on the opportunity as opposed to a cold and calculated meta-grudge.

The way i see it is that a conflict happened, people picked their sides, and shot shit out on the hallways of Eris. After the debuckle a bluespace jump has been called and the round concluded.
SPCR and Kuniora seem to be about equal as far as "le rp" goes. I've witnessed Ruth Sheets gaming grab-fu on anyone who happened to have a red flicker on their screen many a times. I do dislike Kuniora's character personally, however imo they and SPCR are about the same in terms of quality.
.

[SPCR]

I was Richard Gern in this scenario and here's my two cents. As far as my knowledge goes the whole vaga mob was not a meta-organised or influenced move.
The main gang comrpised of Me, Richard Gern, Vik and Grug. Grug was the one to insinuate Sheets as a carrion, i was invited to join the initiative ICly by Vik, the whole thing seemed like an organic happenstance. That main group of three was what spearheaded the movement initially.

I will say however that to the best of my knowledge at no point did Kuniora's character directly interact with any of the main three, made herself an ally or otherwise rp her way into the conflict.
What i did do see was her joining in on our first assault among many others. It was more of a jump on the opportunity as opposed to a cold and calculated meta-grudge.

The way i see it is that a conflict happened, people picked their sides, and shot shit out on the hallways of Eris. After the debuckle a bluespace jump has been called and the round concluded.
SPCR and Kuniora seem to be about equal as far as "le rp" goes. I've witnessed Ruth Sheets gaming grab-fu on anyone who happened to have a red flicker on their screen many a times. I do dislike Kuniora's character personally, however imo they and SPCR are about the same in terms of quality.
.

If youre going to reply to a player complaint atleast have the decency to not lie. I have not grabbed anyone for having a red flicker at all, during my whole time on eris.
The metagrudge accusation is more directed towards Kuniora and John bell , which always join the fight to fuck over IH over very little IC reason and which makes it impossible for IH to enact the so-called RP standards when they come in PB-range and decide to start spraying without a word.

[Jakub29]

I'll give you John Bell, he's a troublemaker alright. However as a former IH main i've personally very rarely ran into trouble with Kuniora ever. So i stand by my point that they probably weren't meta-organising the action and just jumped into an occasion, as one does. There could be some grudge there given that you were playing Ruth Sheets and a lot of people don't like that character for various reasons but i do think it was all overall within the blanket of an IC interaction.

Also that mention of "red light" was a catch all term for an overtly punitive IH plays. You do have an habit of being very robust when it comes to detecting and disposing of antags but i rarely do see you do much else besides that. Hence the mention of a more or less equal RP standards between you and Kuniora.
I should've been more precise though, sorry.

[Valo]

this opinion doesn't represent entire admin staff opinion. but from my perspective I don't really see much of an issue as it seems like an IC conflict, since the debunking happened after the shootout, there is reason to still be hostilities due to that shootout and it was all instigated by antags anyway this seems like an IC issue.

nothing in the screenshot screams metagrude to me. Kuniora also has a spotless record of 0 notes, bans or bwoinks as a long time player so its not like they are a known shitter or line toe-er that we should be doubtful of.

in conclusion this seems like an IC issue and i dont see a reason why it was dragged to the forums. this is just my perspective on it, maybe another admin has a different take or i missed something

[SPCR]

I accidentally attached the same photo twice instead of putting the second part , oops. (Its fixed now)

[SPCR]

this opinion doesn't represent entire admin staff opinion. but from my perspective I don't really see much of an issue as it seems like an IC conflict, since the debunking happened after the shootout, there is reason to still be hostilities due to that shootout and it was all instigated by antags anyway this seems like an IC issue.

nothing in the screenshot screams metagrude to me. Kuniora also has a spotless record of 0 notes, bans or bwoinks as a long time player so its not like they are a known shitter or line toe-er that we should be doubtful of.

in conclusion this seems like an IC issue and i dont see a reason why it was dragged to the forums. this is just my perspective on it, maybe another admin has a different take or i missed something

Why should this be considered an IC issue, is it fine for non-antagonists to instantly involve themselves into antagonist behaviour because someone lied on public comms ? Does Moebius saying NT is crusading , without any visible evidence , justify all the vagabonds to go ahead and shoot all NT on sight, which could as well be not even wearing crusader armor or gear to confirm in any form or shape those claims.
Players should be held liable for instantly aligning themselves with antagonists without any IC reason, justification or payment as its either a meta-grudge or borderline LRP behaviour, especially when they can't justify their alignment without any events in the current round.

[Valo]

I accidentally attached the same photo twice instead of putting the second part , oops. (Its fixed now)

To my knowledge, there was no change making vagabonds be held to a higher RP standard like Heads of Staff or Security. Why you gotta be spreading misinformation bro

[Valo]

this opinion doesn't represent entire admin staff opinion. but from my perspective I don't really see much of an issue as it seems like an IC conflict, since the debunking happened after the shootout, there is reason to still be hostilities due to that shootout and it was all instigated by antags anyway this seems like an IC issue.

nothing in the screenshot screams metagrude to me. Kuniora also has a spotless record of 0 notes, bans or bwoinks as a long time player so its not like they are a known shitter or line toe-er that we should be doubtful of.

in conclusion this seems like an IC issue and i dont see a reason why it was dragged to the forums. this is just my perspective on it, maybe another admin has a different take or i missed something

Why should this be considered an IC issue, is it fine for non-antagonists to instantly involve themselves into antagonist behaviour because someone lied on public comms ? Does Moebius saying NT is crusading , without any visible evidence , justify all the vagabonds to go ahead and shoot all NT on sight, which could as well be not even wearing crusader armor or gear to confirm in any form or shape those claims.
Players should be held liable for instantly aligning themselves with antagonists without any IC reason, justification or payment as its either a meta-grudge or borderline LRP behaviour, especially when they can't justify their alignment without any events in the current round.

with how eris rules are structured, if a moebius guy lies saying NT Is crusading when they are doing a group prayer or something the blame for the conflict gets put on the shoulders of the player who made the rumor the random security officer or vagabond who joined the shootout in progress

[SPCR]

this opinion doesn't represent entire admin staff opinion. but from my perspective I don't really see much of an issue as it seems like an IC conflict, since the debunking happened after the shootout, there is reason to still be hostilities due to that shootout and it was all instigated by antags anyway this seems like an IC issue.

nothing in the screenshot screams metagrude to me. Kuniora also has a spotless record of 0 notes, bans or bwoinks as a long time player so its not like they are a known shitter or line toe-er that we should be doubtful of.

in conclusion this seems like an IC issue and i dont see a reason why it was dragged to the forums. this is just my perspective on it, maybe another admin has a different take or i missed something

Why should this be considered an IC issue, is it fine for non-antagonists to instantly involve themselves into antagonist behaviour because someone lied on public comms ? Does Moebius saying NT is crusading , without any visible evidence , justify all the vagabonds to go ahead and shoot all NT on sight, which could as well be not even wearing crusader armor or gear to confirm in any form or shape those claims.
Players should be held liable for instantly aligning themselves with antagonists without any IC reason, justification or payment as its either a meta-grudge or borderline LRP behaviour, especially when they can't justify their alignment without any events in the current round.

with how eris rules are structured, if a moebius guy lies saying NT Is crusading when they are doing a group prayer or something the blame for the conflict gets put on the shoulders of the player who made the rumor the random security officer or vagabond who joined the shootout in progress

Well the situation here is vagabond who joined the shootout in progress then , as she was not part of the original gang either.
Also, for the "RP standards" , Gray mentioned that they were meant for IH to treat vagabonds better , so vagabonds can't find justifications to join any random raid in any shift, so it goes both ways.