Completed Report against Sticky Bandit and PixeL

Name of Staff/Player:

Report against Sticky Bandit and PixeL​

Steam ID of Staff/Player:

Both staff​

Your Steam ID:

Not needed​

Which Server:

Vanilla​

Which Map:

nuketown​

Which Round:

Don't remember​

Time of Occurence:

A couple days ago.​

Reason For Report:

This report is in reference to this incident: Denied neutral's Appeal

Sticky Bandit banned me for RDM and Leave for a kill that was not RDM for the reason mentioned in the appeal. There are multiple problems with this.

1) Sticky Bandit claims that the player heard sniper shots, and avoided IDing the body because this was not clear. TTT is an incredibly fast pace game. As Sticky Bandit mentioned, he waited nearly 4-5 seconds. This is an incredibly long time to determine if 'the coast is clear'.

2) There were not active shots towards the body except for the shots that killed it. There is gunshots going on all the time in nearly every TTT map- yet, as the death scene clearly shows, the only shots that existed were mine that actually killed the body previously. If no one was actively shooting at this instance in that direction, I'm not sure why this would even be used as a valid defense.

3) Bullet point three is not even referring to gunfire. Gunfire has never been included in that portion of the rule. If it were, people would literally never be required to ID bodies since there is nearly always a risk of being shot. If you search through the staff team logs, you could find multiple instances of me stating this when the rule was put in place, but furthermore, you can see this in Lordy's response in a report against Glyph a few months ago: https://www.seriousgmod.com/threads/report-against-glyph.51154/#post-539660

Rather, the purpose of this rule is to apply to bodies when they are incens, sitting over traitor traps, etc.


Sticky Bandit should have never banned me for that instance, and PixeL should have never approved it.


Furthermore, this is incredibly minor and I wasn't going to bring it up, but since we are already here-- Sticky Bandit apparently has not been trained on when not to open chats while dealing with reports. When handling this report, Sticky Bandit opened the report right at round end. The transition between rounds is very short causing the player that made the initial report to be killed during the round:


In the past, I've trained my moderators that this chat isn't even necessary to use since most players respond just fine to PMs. Regardless, I do realize it's a tool that moderators tend to use often, and in turn, they are normally supposed to be trained to only open the chat when the players are able to respond without affecting their rounds.

Thank you.​

Evidence And/Or Witnesses:

I can add my perspective once I get home.

​

 

Tagging @Sticky Bandit @PixeL and @Teroxa

 

im sure you understand but due to the attention these reports have been attracting recently and the amount of warnings handed out due to them, I am pre-emptively locking this with admin permission until the correct people can respond, helix let staff know if you have more to add

 

Heya,

I’d like to add @Temar to this report for the previous response. There are several issues with the way this report was handled on the side of @Sticky Bandit .

1) I mentioned I was going to provide additional evidence, and Temar replied before I was able to finally add this evidence. Although this is understandable from his reply.

2) While I do see the purpose of lifting some of the blame from Sticky Bandit since he went to an admin, this was a mistake made by BOTH Sticky Bandit, and PixeL- not PixeL alone, so both should bare responsibility. Since Sticky Bandit issued an improper punishment, while I would not expect Sticky Bandit to serve a ban as a staff member, I would expect him to be slayed similar to how it was in Glyph’s case. This is how this has ALWAYS been handled in the past. The fact that Sticky Bandit even found this suspicious means that there is a critical flaw in rule knowledge that needs to be addressed. Not just PixeL.

3) Temar didn’t even address the full report. I mentioned an entire separate incident about the chat that was brought up that affected a round and Temar acted as if he didn’t even read it. Why wasn’t my full report addressed? Was it read?

4) Sticky Bandit was not given a chance to respond to the points given in the report. I brought up several points that were not covered in the appeal that should have been addressed by the moderator. I’m not sure why Temar completed his side of the report without giving Sticky a chance to reply.

Please excuse my brevity - I’m typing from mobile at the moment.

 

I'm home now so I can provide the videos.

First the kill:
https://streamable.com/tn6ps

As you can see, there was no additional firing going on as he was standing there making that portion of the players response ridiculous, even if gunfire was considered part of the rule (which it is not). Yet, he still hesitated to identify the body after a VERY extended period of time. (6 seconds to be exact-- thank you @Temar for providing the additional evidence against Sticky Bandit). This goes in to what I was saying about this needs to be a shared responsibility between PixeL and Sticky Bandit. This isn't even an incident that requires double checking with an admin-- and it came down to some flawed rule knowledge on Sticky Bandit's side. For reference, I just searched TTT reports for "asked an admin" and this was one of the first reports to come up where the admin acknowledged that this is a shared responsibility between the moderator and the admin: https://www.seriousgmod.com/threads/report-against-chris.39781/ . I am concerned with your response that the corrective measures that Sticky Bandit requires are not being put in to place since you have decided to dismiss all blame from Sticky Bandit despite the mistake.

I thought I had a recording based on exactly when the video was opened- however I was mistaken here. Regardless, Sticky mentioned in my screenshot exactly when he did open it- which is true. He opened it right as the round ended. I'm sure you've played the game before Temar, so I hope that you do realize that round start is a critical part of the round where players are finding their weapons and ammunition to begin the round. Furthermore, newer players (such as this one) do not know intuitively how to close the window so suggesting that they can close the chat before round start is pretty assumptive. You know as well as I that this is very bad moderating practice and that these chats should only be utilized when there isn't a likely chance to interfere with the players round. This was not done here.

Furthermore, I am deeply concerned if you have even read the original report. I don't understand how this part of the report was overlooked when it was literally nearly half of the report, plus the only portion of the report that even included an image.... it kind of stood out dude, come on.

 

HelixSpiral,

First, let's clear up the report about the chat.
Here's the video. I was tabbed out, and opened chat with both players as soon as I was able, which was still during the End of Round phase. I prefer to open chat over PMing when I see players who are not regulars, as it has an obvious way to respond and puts up my questions directly in front of their face for them to answer. He got killed because of it, which does seem incredibly unfair to him. For this, as I did in game when it happened, I apologize. When one of the 2 players involved with the report are still alive until the end of the round, it's quite difficult to open chat with them without influencing their round, seeing as they're still playing. So, we often have to resort to opening chat during the end round phase to make sure we can ask our questions and resolve the reports, or there may not be a time to do so. Had I waited until both you were dead, perhaps in the coming rounds (assuming you didn't survive until the end, again.) you might have already ran out of time for the night and had to hop off. We aim to resolve reports quickly for that exact reason.

Spoiler: Video of the entire chat session

Now, to address the main issue at hand: Your denied Ban Appeal.

1. I did not know about the ruling from Lordyhgm. I followed the extended rules, and it seemed quite obvious to me how an active sniper in the area would create a zone where players can take damage, thus being exempt from identifying bodies.
2. Even being quite certain there was an act of RDM here, I still went to an administrator before making any verdicts. The administrator approved of my verdict. I was partially unsure if this specific situation would have fallen under that 3rd bullet in "Not Identifying Bodies". If you've read my case, I think it can be clear what I was thinking, and how this RDM report could be covered under that bullet. However, seems I was wrong as there was a previous ruling on it I was unaware of.
3. I would also like to address the fact the victim (Mulvihill) IDENTIFIED the body before you killed him. I addressed this in the Ban Appeal. If he was making an active attempt to identify the body, and only stopped for a few seconds to make sure he wouldn't be shot by the same sniper that killed Top 10 Anime Deaths (the owner of that unidentified body), it only makes sense to say he was actively identifying the body. Or, so I thought. Again, I was unaware of the ruling given by Lordyhgm.

I believe I've addressed all points brought up by you, Helix. It all comes down to not knowing about this one ruling from Lordyhgm, instead acting on the extended rules. There was also the additional point of saying there was an entire second between when he identified the body, and when you shot him, thus making him "actively" identifying the body. I addressed my concerns with an administrator before carrying any punishment forward as I was unsure if this was actually RDM or not.

~Sticky Bandit

NOTE: This thread will remain locked until the involved people are ready. If you are involved with this report, and not a staff member, and would like to add to this report, please DM a staff member to have the thread unlocked.

 

Hey Sticky,

Could you expand on your last point? I’m concerned on why you would think that would matter or why it would make a difference if it was one second after he ID’d it or even how it would make a difference if it were 5 minutes after he ID’d it. You keep bringing that up but I’m unaware of what the relevance is.

 

HelixSpiral,

I am aware traitorous acts do not expire. Once again, the point of even bringing that up was to kind of tie it all together and show that Mulvihill was just waiting out an active shooter before identifying the body. Now I know "theoretical" bullets don't apply the bullet point 3. I know it seems weird since I said something about waiting a full second before shooting him -- that doesn't really have anything to do here. That was just extraneous information on my end to give the complete and total picture of what happened.

Does this answer your question?

 

Yes. I do agree that it as extraneous and unnecessary, thanks.

Seeing as I think we’re agreed that a mistake was made here, can we deal with my appeal as well or am I going to have to wait for a resolution for my invalid ban to be removed/expired? Also, do you plan to serve a slay for improperly issuing the ban?

 

Heyo,

So, Sticky Bandit brought up to me that he needed an opinion on the death scene and the overall scenario.
Upon reviewing the evidence, your response was "Wasn't ID'ing a body".
Watching the death scene over, it appeared that the player was peaking around for a sniper, then ID'd the body, then you killed him.
At this point in time, I wasn't aware of any ruling that "can ID the body without being in danger" didn't extend to gun fire and what not since the rulings haven't stated that anywhere.

I'll leave @Teroxa to finish this up.

 

Unlocked for Helix.

 

Heya,

I just want to add to this report that both staff members have acknowledged that this is a false ban-- which makes this pretty easy. It seems like we all agree here now. However... I am still banned. Both Sticky Bandit and PixeL have the authority to lift the ban, that they realize was made in mistake and I am STILL banned. I don't mind being patient to wait for the resolution of the report, but I am confused on why staff would keep a ban on a player that they realize did not break any rules? Given the context of the report why has the appeal not been modified yet?

 

Heya, I'll conclude this in a minute.
Once I've delivered my verdict, I'll gladly alter the ban if necessary.

 

It expired. :|

 

Hey there again.
So without much talking, let's get right into it.
I'll try to keep my response rather short here.

There are 4 parts to this report.
#1: Report against @Sticky Bandit for the false slay / ban.
#2: Report against @PixeL for giving his interpretation of the unID'ed rule and advising sticky to issue a ban.
#3: Report against @Sticky Bandit for opening the chat window.
#4: Report against @Temar for his response to this report.

Spoiler: Report #1

First of all let me state that I believe that @Sticky Bandit should not face the full blame for this.
While he was the one to issue the slay, he did the right thing by approaching an admin.
If a mod asks an admin for help with a situation, it is usually out of their hands to a certain degree.
The mod is still involved of course, but in most cases the decisions are made by the admin from that point onward.

In this specific case, Sticky put in a request for help when the situation occurred ingame.
Since nobody was available at that particular time, it took a while for someone to answer that request.
The original request was at 8 am UTC. It was answered at 12:3o pm. Sticky had already left the server about 15 minutes after the original request.
I talked to Sticky. He confirmed that in all this time, he put the report aside until someone was available to assist him and took no action until then.
It was only after he spoke to Pixel that he issued the ban.

While he did misinterpret our rules, instead of putting that interpretation into practice, he recognized that he had doubts himself and opted for a 2nd opinion.
He asked for help as soon as he felt the need to, he did not take any action until then, and only after speaking to an admin continued to handle the report under their discretion.
Everything went by the book here.

This part of the report is invalid.

I see where you're coming from here, but as explained above I believe sticky took the right course of action.
I am however willing to make a compromise and apply one slay to sticky bandit. Though I want to make it clear that this is supposed to serve as a reminder to our rules and for the misinterpretation of them, not for any misconduct on a staff level.

Spoiler: Report #2

@PixeL was the admin Sticky spoke to and that approved the slay/ban.
There's not really that much to say here if I'm honest. Pixel misinterpreted the rules.


The ban was placed specifically for point #3.
"Player must be able to ID the body without taking damage".
What we usually mean by that is that people don't have to identify bodies in spots where they could get themselves damaged or killed.
For example if a body is in the middle of a fire caused by an incendiary grenade, a pool of lava, or generally in an unsafe spot that can't be reached without taking damage.
'Potential damage', such as damage that might be caused by a sniper isn't covered by this rule. According to that players would never have to ID bodies unless they can be absolutely sure there's nobody aiming at them. Which is obviously almost never the case.
If you look at this video by @neutral again, you can see that the player clearly hesitated a lot.
One could maybe argue that the shot was a bit hasty, but it wasn't against the rules. It was a valid kill.

Report valid.

Spoiler: Report #3

When investigating the report, @Sticky Bandit opened a chat window in-game.
You're right that when we train staff, we make sure they don't open chat windows mid-round or at a time when it would impact a players round.
In this particular instance, Sticky opened the chat window between two rounds. That's a perfectly fine time to do that since no actual gameplay takes place at that time.
He took about 8 seconds after the previous round had ended to open the chat. Yea, he could have tried to shave off a few seconds there, but I don't want to start arguing about seconds here.
If he hadn't opened the chat between the rounds, the only alternative would have been to wait for a round where both players involved die early and there's still some time left before the round ends.
That's unrealistic and I don't expect mods to wait for a round where that's the case. It's not even guaranteed it'll happen at all before the map changes.

The chat was opened between two rounds. It did not stop anyone from participating in the next round or negatively impact their round.
It was a logical time to start the chat and there was still enough time left before the next round started.

Report invalid.

Spoiler: Report #4

Last but not least, @Temar was reported for the following response to this thread:

Yes, Temar jumped the gun with his response.
We always require all parties to respond to a report. Before that happens, no verdict can be delivered.
Temar should have waited for sticky to respond before finishing up the part against him.

It appears Temar did indeed miss the part about opening chats at first. He also neglected to see that you mentioned in your OP that you intended to add more evidence later.
I'll be sure to pass on that he needs to be more careful to cover all points brought up when giving a verdict on a report.

Report valid.

In conclusion, I'll mark this report as completed.
I'll be having a talk with the staff involved and I'll go over everything that was brought up in this report.
I hope we can all treat this as a learning experience.

The ban placed by Sticky Bandit on 04/23/19 has been voided. In addition to that, both Pixel and Sticky Bandit will be serving a slay for reasons explained above.
I apologize for the inconvenience this has caused.

Furthermore, to clarify the rules more and prevent similar situations from happening in the future, the following note has been added to the rules:

I hope this helps to avoid any confusion from now on.

If you have any further questions, feel free to message me here or on discord.
Thank you and have a pleasant day.

~ Teroxa