Chief_Engineer

Sorry for the delay. This complaint has been rejected.
Findings
The admin investigated and contacted every player reported by the complainant during round 46967. Two of the three players reported by the complainant during Lizard 46967 had an admin action taken against them during the round in relation to the report by the complainant. The replay for round 46967 does not load so logs have to be relied on entirely for confirming what happened during the round, which means some context or information may have been missed. While logs do indicate that a weapon and later handcuffs were picked up by the lawyer, it is not clear that any rules were violated by the lawyer when doing this. Chat logs don't support the idea that the lawyer was attempting to interfere in the arrest or detention of a player because they seemed to be continuing to have a conversation with the player after the player was uncuffed. Due to finding 4, the admin cannot be presumed to have responded inappropriately by not treating the situation as a rule violation by the lawyer. Rules, like self antag rules, attempt to draw a line on a spectrum of behavior. It is incredibly difficult to precisely define this line, so admins have some discretion on a case by case basis. While interfering with security is said to be against the rules, not every minor interference is considered a rule violation. Admins should look to the severity of the interference, the frequency, and the reason for it when determining if it is a rule violation. While many rule violations can be responded to IC to some degree, players are free to ahelp anything that they reasonably believe is a rule violation, and are generally not intended to be the sole or primary response to a rule violation. Sphiral may not have communicated ideally in the ahelp. They said that they feel they could have handled the ahelp better. Not enough information could be found to evaluate the appropriateness of the note that was left in relation to the incident. Based on the information that could be gathered, it is presumed to be sufficiently likely to be appropriate that removal or modification of the note is not necessary. This should attempt to be revisited if the the note becomes relevant for a more impactful admin decision, such as an admin application, ban, dewhitelisting, or other admin action with an outcome that is affected by the note. Players should be discouraged from making inappropriate ahelps, but they should not be discouraged from making appropriate ahelps. Admins should err on the side of tolerating inappropriate ahelps to avoid discouraging appropriate ahelps. Ahelps where a player reasonably believed that a rule violation occurred are appropriate ahelps. The complaint could not be fully investigated due to the amount of time that passed between the incident and the handling of the complaint. This is not the fault of or contributed to by the complainant, who made the complaint in a timely manner. This is not the fault of or contributed to by the subject of the complaint, who was not contacted about the complaint soon enough for it to be reasonable for them to remember everything needed to fully investigate the complaint. Resulting Actions
Sphiral was contacted about the complaint, resulting in finding 8.

Sorry for the delay. This complaint has been rejected.
The server you were playing on is a low roleplay server. While we take sexual misconduct seriously, we also aim to keep sexual language, including IC accusations of sexual assault, off of our servers since minors can and do play on them. Space Station 14 is not designed to have sexual aspects to it so certain systems, like the clothing system, do not work in a way that allows them to mirror reality well. In Space Station 14, it is not uncommon to see a security officer take off someone's uniform to put them into a prison uniform, or for a crew member to take off their own uniform to put another on, all in public spaces or in public view. Despite these things being inappropriate in the real world, in Space Station 14, they are typically not considered to be inappropriate or sexual.
Findings
Wizard's Den Lizard is a low RP server. Wizard's Den servers do not allow sexual content, including in chat. While combining it with other actions can easily rise to the level of IC sexual assault, and therefore a rule violation, removing someone's uniform is on its own is not a rule violation. If it were, gameplay would become cumbersome particularly for security. Due to finding 2, simply removing someone's uniform cannot be labeled as sexual assault IC. The admin did not act unprofessionally. The admin did not tell the complainant to pretend that the situation was not a big deal, the admin only instructed the complainant to not label the situation as sexual assault. Resulting Actions
No action was taken due to the complaint being rejected.

The complaint is rejected due to a lack of response from the complainant

This complaint is rejected. Feel free to reopen a complaint once you're able to meet the section requirements

Staff complaints can't be made about active bans or bans which were not successfully appealed. Please use the Ban Appeals section if you'd like to appeal your ban. Feel free to open another complaint if you successfully appeal your ban, but don't feel the situation is fully resolved by the appeal

Thank you for your complaint, it has been accepted.
Findings
Akamaithewolf is a trial admin A trialmin mentor determined that the note was placed on the wrong player Resulting Actions
The complaint was forwarded to trialmin mentors for review, resulting in finding 2 Akamaithewolf was contacted about the complaint The note was removed from the complainant Akamaithewolf asked that you be told that they're sorry this happened.

Thank you for the complaint, it has been accepted.
Findings
An "appeal ban" and "indefinite ban" are the same thing. "Indefinite ban" is the term we've been transitioning to from the term "appeal ban" for around 6 months. While "appeal ban" may imply that all that needs to be done for the ban to be lifted is to make an appeal, even when the old term was used in policies, the admin team had the option and regularly did reject appeals of "appeal bans". An "indefinite ban" is one which does not automatically expire, can be appealed, and does not require a voucher of good behavior to appeal. The ban that the complainant appealed was an "indefinite ban". Using the term "reduced" to describe the ban's change from indefinite to 3 weeks is appropriate. The appeal was put up for a vote at least 24 hours prior to being processed. 5 admins, including the processing admin, participated in the appeal through voting or discussion, with 3, not including the processing admin, unanimously voting to reduce, not remove, the ban. Only one admin indicated a suggestion for the reduction in discussion, and the suggestion was 2 weeks. A reasonable interpretation for reductions when unspecified is to reduce to that time from the time that the vote for the appeal was put up rather than from the time that the ban or appeal was made. Processing admins may vote in appeals. Processing admins who vote in appeals are not required to indicate their vote if it is not for a voucher upgrade. For decisions made off discussion consensus, such as reduction times, processing admins must express their positions in the discussion to be able to consider it in their processing, and they must leave sufficient time after doing so for others to disagree. Due to findings 7, 8, and 11, the admin team's consensus was to reduce the ban to 2 weeks from the time of the appeal. The complaint does not provide specific examples of worse or similar appeals of bans which were for worse or similar offenses that were given more leniency, it only references appeals by offense category and lists so many categories that it likely covers a majority of appeals. With the number of factors to consider in a ban appeal, and the nature of those factors, it is extremely difficult to objectively conclude that an appeal was treated unfairly compared to another appeal if the standard appeal procedure was followed. Resulting Actions
AjexRose was contacted about the complaint. The ban has been modified to end 2 weeks after the appeal vote was started. AjexRose was informed of finding 11.

This complaint is rejected.
Findings
A prior complaint was rejected without being evaluated due to not meeting the requirements to make a complaint.  This complaint is nearly an exact copy of the prior complaint, it is still a complaint about a ban. The complainant has still not met the same requirements to make this complaint, and has not attempted to appeal their ban. The incident that this complaint is about occurred between Leviathan rounds 46311 and 46316. Resulting Actions
Due to the combination of findings 1, 2, and 3, the complainant may not make another complaint about the role bans placed during the incident, or about any other admin action or interaction which occurred during the incident, including ahelps.

This complaint has been rejected.
Findings
During Leviathan 43871, immediately prior to being gibbed, the complainant sent around 80 radio messages over approximately 115 seconds at a rate slightly faster than one message every one and a half seconds. All the messages were identical: "Do you need medical assistance?" The messages would have been disruptive to ghosts, including admin ghosts, both of which can see all radio messages and would have had their chat flooded. Over the past several months, Wizard's Den servers have experienced an increased rate of raiders, some of whom spam chat. Taking into account finding 1, finding 3, and the pressure that may have existed to react quickly, it is plausible that the admin believed the complainant was a raider. The complainant was not a raider, and it is plausible that they did not realize that their disruption affected people other than the nukies. Retequizzle was not playing in the round and did not violate admin policy 2.1 "Do not ever process a case you are/were a part of". No note was left by the admin in relation to the incident. During or soon after the ahelp, Retequizzle notified me that there would likely be a complaint, and provided information about the situation. The information provided included claiming that they had recently dealt with raiders. The round ended approximately 10 minutes after the complainant was gibbed. The conduct of the complainant in the ahelp was appropriate. Two uninvolved admins believe that the response of Retequizzle was appropriate, including both the gibbing of the complainant and his handling of the ahelp. Resulting Actions
Two uninvolved admins were consulted for opinions. This resulted in finding 11. Retequizzle was contacted about the complaint and said that he may have been too blunt in the interaction, and will keep that in mind in the future.

This complaint has been rejected.
Findings
The incident occurred too long ago to be the subject of a complaint of inappropriate staff conduct, and the complainant does not appear to be asserting any staff misconduct. The scope of the complaint appears to be solely in regards to the usability of the IC name "Milk". Current admin team consensus is that "Milk" is not an appropriate full name for a human character on our LRP servers. The appropriateness of other names the complainant has seen players use is not within scope of this complaint. Other players regularly use inappropriate names and need to be contacted about them, sometimes even for extended periods before being noticed. Our naming rules are more flexible for non-human species, which could be an explanation for having seen similar names, but they are not so flexible that "Milk" alone is likely to be allowed even as a non-human. Resulting Actions
A question about the appropriateness of the IC name "Milk" was presented to the admin team, along with the complaint, resulting in finding 2.

These are two separate instances, please make a complaint for each if you'd like to contest them.
This complaint is procedurally rejected. Neither complaint contained within was fully investigated, and each may be brought in their own complaint for investigation.
Some notes for if you do decide to make new complaints for each:
Notes are often used as a record of admin contacts. When used as a record, they are unlikely to be removed unless they are inaccurate or otherwise inappropriate as a record of the contact. The name note implies that the name you were warned for was just "pepe", not "Pepe Cacio"

Thank you for the complaint, it has been accepted.
Findings
The complainant was dewhitelisted from MRP. The complainant was kicked from MRP to enact finding 2. The complainant was not provided any feedback outside of a note left on their account to indicate that finding 2 had occurred, the reason for finding 2, or the reason for finding 3. Unless it is a message note, admins cannot expect players to read notes left on their accounts, even if the notes are public. Due to findings 3 and 4, the complainant was effectively provided no feedback for the admin actions in findings 1 and 2. The admin actions in findings 1 and 2 are actions that are likely to unreasonably escalate a situation if performed together and without feedback to the subject of those actions. At least one other admin was consulted by luckyshotpictures about the dewhitelisting and supported the decision to dewhitelist the complainant. Based on finding 7, the information provided by the subject of the complaint, and the information provided by the admin referenced in finding 7, the dewhitelisting was reasonably justifiable from the perspective of luckyshotpictures. Banning policy explicitly allows deviation from banning guidelines if that deviation can be justified by the admin deviating. This is partially because not every case can be covered by banning guidelines without making use of them excessively cumbersome. Due to finding 9 no part of banning policy or guidelines reference whitelisting or dewhitelisting, but dewhitelisting may still be performed. Resulting Actions
luckyshotpictures was contacted about the complaint. This resulted in findings 7 and contributed to finding 8. The admin referenced in finding 7 was contacted about the incident. This contributed to finding 8. luckyshotpictures was informed to notify players why they're being dewhitelisted instead of just kicking them.

Sorry for the significant delay, the complaint is procedurally rejected.
Findings
At the time of creation, the complaint was about an incident which occurred approximately a month earlier. At the time of creation, the incident was too old to justify any significant action, unless the incident turned out to be unusually significant. Gtheglorious was a trialmin at the time of the complaint. Gtheglorious is not currently on the admin team. This is relevant to the complaint because they are a subject of the complaint. This was not a direct result of the complaint. LordEclipse claimed they were not overseeing Gtheglorious' response, but rather were responding to answer which rule disallows validhunting. This is plausible. Due to finding 1 and 2, along with database migrations which occurred since the posting of this complaint, admin chat logs for the round were not checked. Rule 11 is often used by admins to disallow valid hunting. Disallowing valid hunting through rule 11 is not currently counter to admin consensus. Due to finding 4, no action can result against one subject of the complaint. No note was left in relation to the incident. Due to findings 7 and 8, no determination will be made on if the situation that occurred was valid hunting, and no determination will be made on if a rule was violated. Resulting Actions
The admin team was made aware of the complaint as part of the trial review process. Gtheglorious was contacted about the complaint. LordEclipse was contacted about the complaint, resulting in finding 5. Due to finding 9, this incident may not be used to justify punitive admin decisions, including new notes. LordEclipse requested a message from him be included in the closing of this complaint:
 

Sorry for the delay, I forgot to post the closing. This is all from around new years eve/day:
Thank you for the complaint, it has been accepted
Findings
Sphiral is a trial admin No note was left in connection with the ahelp The text of the ahelp does not imply the complainant intended to do anything The fact that an ahelp message was sent can reasonably lead someone to conclude that they did something wrong Resulting Actions
Due to finding 1, game admins were notified of the complaint as part of the trial review process The complaint was presented to Sphiral, who sufficiently explained the situation and, unprompted, offered an apology which is attached below.

The complaint is accepted, but no investigation was completed to determine if the subject was at fault.
Findings
Gtheglorious was a trialmin at the time of the complaint. By the conclusion of the complaint, and unrelated to it, Gtheglorious was no longer on the admin team. Due to finding 2, the investigation was not completed and so the subject of the complaint cannot be considered at fault in the incident. No note was left in relation to the incident. The name "Firn" is an appropriate name for a Diona on Wizard's Den LRP servers under current rules. Resulting Actions
The admin team was made aware of the complaint as part of the trial review process. Gtheglorious was contacted about the complaint. Finding 3 is relevant.

Pretty much this. Our current requirements are for it to be from "a well-known or decently active SS13/SS14 server" and that it should be "indicative of at least a few months of play".
We set the minimum, but since we aren't the ones giving the vouchers out, it's entirely up to each server what requirements they want to put on top of that. Another server might decide to only give vouchers to players it believes are very high quality or they may decide to not give out any vouchers at all. For those reasons, we can't give you any specific servers. We can't guarantee any specific server will give someone a voucher or tell you their requirements, we can only tell you our requirements.
It's also important to note that the voucher is, at its base, a minimum requirement for a voucher ban appeal to be considered. Game admins are allowed to deny the appeal if they feel its best, even if a voucher is provided. Even though we've accepted almost every, if not every, voucher ban appeal that's presented a voucher so far, this is important to keep in mind because game admins may put a different amount of weight on vouchers from different servers. I'm not currently aware of any servers that do this, but if a server just handed out vouchers freely, it would not be as meaningful as one from a server that was more diligent.

Thank you for your complaint, it has been accepted.
Findings
Repo's first response to notification of the complaint acknowledged that the they went to far in this incident. Repo's first response to notification of the complaint claimed that the justification of doing something "for the funny" is a common response given by players causing issues, particularly self antagging, and that this contributed to his response. Repo made this claim in a way that appeared to simply be providing an explanation for what led to his later actions, not in a way that undermined finding 1. The justification "for the funny" is a common response given by players causing issues, particularly self antagging, but the complainant's handling of the ahelp, including their response about trading clothes "for the funny" was free of any issues. Repo's first response to notification of the complaint claimed that, in his experience over the last week or so, he's seen a group of players tiding to the point that it has approached rule issues, and that you appear to have been in that group. Similar to finding 2, this claim was made in a way that did not appear to undermine finding 1. Repo has previously placed a note on your account for self antagging. The other player involved in the incident has a more significant note history, which Repo said may have contributed to his perception of the situation. Based only on the information provided by the complainant and by Repo, the behavior of the complainant in-game was not problematic for LRP. Repo's first response to notification of the complaint claims the offer to respawn the complainant was made after catching up with things and analyzing the situation more. Repo's offer to respawn the complainant was an attempt to mitigate the negative impact the situation had on the complainant. Resulting Actions
Repo was contacted about the complaint. This resulted in findings 1, 2, 4, and 8. The note related to this situation was removed from the complainant's account. After being contacted, unprompted, Repo offered an apology to be relayed in this complaint. The apology is included below. Due to Repo's response to action 1, and his history, no further action appears to be necessary.

Hopefully this answers your question, sorry it took so long to get you an answer

This complaint has been rejected.
Findings
The name the complainant was asked to change from appears to be a fairly clear violation of the current LRP name rules. The name does not appear to be a plausible real name, and could be considered meta. While I'm not aware of any intention of the complainant to have been impersonating an admin by using the name, and while the reason "you could be mistaken for an admin" may not have been the most ideal explanation, it is true that players will occasionally assume a character with a name that significantly deviates from the rules is an admin. Resulting Actions
luckyshotpictures was informed of the complaint.

Sorry for the delay. Thank you for your complaint, it has been accepted.
Findings
The complaint was made during the first week of spaceylady's trial admin period, resulting in action 1. There doesn't appear to have been an issue with your actions in this round, resulting in action 2. The ahelp didn't make it clear what exactly the issue with your actions was, resulting in action 2. No note was left in connection to the ahelp. Resulting Actions
Since the complaint concerns a trial admin, other admins were asked for their opinions on the ahelp though our normal trial review process. This resulted in findings 2 and 3. spaceylady was contacted by me and given clarification on our expectations of players on LRP. spaceylady explained that the ahelp was vague because they were concerned about sharing current round info. They were informed that being vague about the issue when ahelping someone can be frustrating for the player, and given guidance on how to handle future situations where they feel someone should be contacted but are concerned about revealing current round info.

Sorry for the delay. This complaint has been accepted, though RyanStrudfelt was found to not be at fault.
Findings
"Flame Mingo" and "Flame Mango" are both appropriate names for LRP under the current rules. "Funny Jumper" is not. It is reasonable for an admin to have believed that "Flame Mingo" or "Flame Mango" were not appropriate names for LRP. It is possible that the admin was searching for issues to address, but other name issue ahelps by the admin near the time of this complaint indicate that the admin was likely not specifically seeking to ban anyone. Neither ahelp appears to have been significantly escalated by the admin. In both, the players appear to be causing more significant escalation. Bans in both cases were justified. In the first, a ban can be justified for failing to follow an admin's instructions. The player's 3rd to last and last messages can reasonably be interpreted as an intent to not follow the admin's instructions. In the second, a ban can be justified by the player's last message. The complainant's position about the name rules not being clear enough is moot because the names they claim the rules did not make clear enough are violations of the rules have been found to not be violations of the rules.  
Resulting Actions
Game admins were asked about the appropriateness of the names used, resulting in findings 1 and 2. RyanStrudfelt was contacted about the complaint, leading to finding 3. As a result of finding 1, a note has been made on the complainant's account indicating that they are appropriate under current rules for LRP.

Hopefully these answer all of your questions, please let me know if anything was missed

The server rule "Do not abuse/ignore the admin-help relay" explicitly lists requesting events as something you shouldn't use ahelp for:
At best, it'll be ignored like Whisper said, or at worst you'll receive a warning for misusing ahelp, assuming you've had no earlier warnings.
Acceptable ways to request admin intervention are through prayers, red phones, faxes to centcom, and dead chat, though players should use caution when using any of the in-character methods as admins are generally free to pick options outside of accepting or ignoring the request.

The clarification has been updated to address your question. Based on the passed clarification, I believe your examples numbered 1, 2, and 4 would be permitted. It's not entirely clear to me based on the passed clarification, or based on internal discussion, if your 3rd example would be permitted or not.

In your example, the space ninja would have no obligation to work with revs