Key/Name Of Staff: Juxtaposed Your Key/Name: Mogelix Date and Time of Incident(s): 2021-07-25 02:12:52, cdc-aac8 Reason For Complaint: I believe the reason for my security ban, and Jux's handling of my appeals to be spurious. Evidence of Complaint: First Appeal and ContextIn my first appeal, I give a detailed recollection of the event from my perspective; in summary. Kellie Hawker snatches the psionic and takes them, which prompts command to call a manhunt and raise to code red. I stumble upon Kellie Hawker re-entering the Torch from Bridge EVA, having free'd the psionic who is beginning a mini-rampage. I see Basil Berg momentarily before being blinded and psionically thrown across the hallway. Security arrives after I call for backup, arrests Hawkers and manages to restrain the psionic once more. Basil Berg stands outside processing. I remember how I had earlier seen them acting greatly psionically disturbed, how they were there when I first arrived to the scene of the psionics re-entrance. I also say I remember them voicing their indignation over Kellie's arrest and the continued captivity of the psionic, but this may only be voiced after their arrest. I call for Berg to be arrested over security, and with very little elaboration so much as my insistence, the chief of security authorizes their arrest. In response Jux responds 'point by point', in brief: Basil Berg was on the scene, 'staging at a scene of moral ambiguity' as an emergency responder. I'd like to draw attention to these specific quotes: In their larger response: From the ban reason: Basil Berg's psionically disturbed behavior was not suspicious because I also suffered from similar psionic backlash. The fact it was code red mandates Basil Berg to wear a voidsuits, the fact they saw the unknown re-entering from EVA was cause enough to don a voidsuit. I was wrong to arrest Basil Berg for wearing a voidsuit. Basil Berg standing outside the 'peanut gallery' of processing was not cause to arrest them. They then summarize their reasons for denial: Second Appeal and ComplaintIn my second appeal, I extensively respond to the point about Basil Berg being on-scene, bringing up the overall lack of communications during the round. I couldn't have known Berg was medically responding because I (and the rest of security) weren't aware of the situation until I suddenly saw Berg, Kellie and the psionic together, which rapidly escalated before I could assess and ascertain what was fully going on. Even then, I didn't arrest Basil Berg on the spot at the scene, and instead until after I made a faulty assessment working on misinformation from a misdirecting antagonist. I then talk about my interaction with Edwin Keener at length. I correlate his antagonistic IC misdirection with the overall lack of information and communication during the round. I even provide a concessive qualifier to my point, so Jux can know I'm trying to give the whole truth here to the best of my recollection. I continue to go on lengths like about the nature of Keener's misdirection, how it was so effective I didn't realize I was misdirected until after I was told OOCly over discord, which vividly reminds me of my interaction with him and how it affected my decisionmaking. In response to my appeal, Juxtaposed simply slightly amends their summary from the first appeal, and tells me I didn't address all their concerns. This is explicitly false. My point about the fog of war that arose from the lack of communication, information and misdirection by antagonists directly address and tie into the argument that I made a egregious 'jump from proximity to complicity', but Jux ignores that part of the appeal, and then belittles Keener's misdirection as: I struggle to formulate a response because so much of this feels so wrong to me. I'm going to make a broad response and complaint here of the whole handling of this all. Because of the way appeals are structured and tie together, I can't at the same time chronologically complain about the appeals while discussing the events of the round chronologically. They essentially conflate my psionic backlash with Berg's backlash, and tell me that I'm not allowed to make judgements about their backlash as someone who was also afflicted by backlash. This is telling me I can't ICly judge people hypocritically, despite the fact Berg's reactions were from my perspective obviously more severe, different in nature to my own more physical backlash and involved explicitly telling me they were seeking out and looking for the psionic. I'm not going to argue in favor of shitty security-play because "that's just how my character is" but I can't be an impartial robo-cop who always has the absolute best judgement and detests hypocricy in their pursuit of flawless justice. They discuss at length a 'voidsuit discussion' that seems totally forced and obfuscatory. When they put me on the spot in the ticket and I wasn't able to recite a particularity of the Alert Procedure, that emergency responders must wear voidsuits during code red, I didn't see how that was relevant to the issue at hand or part of a 'voidsuit discussion' because I'm not talking about the act of donning a voidsuit. I'm talking about how I didn't know what was actually going on at the scene before it escalated. I never once suggested I arrested Berg just for being on-scene with a voidsuit. The fact Berg was on-scene in a voidsuit didn't prompt me to arrest them. I just remembered that they were on-scene in a voidsuit, and that came to play later. Quizzing me on my immediate recollection of the alert procedures in a way that decontextualizes and obfuscates the actual issue of the arrest and then telling me I have an 'underlying lack of understanding and familiarity here with basic security procedure and Torch procedure as a whole, both in an IC fashion and OOCly.' is so arbitrary, detached and absurd. No, I don't have a perfect recollection of alert procedure. I don't know this for sure, but I have a hunch most of security doesn't know it by heart. But I do know the stuff that immediately concerns code red security procedure, particularly relating to arrests, which I will go into detail later. Except processing isn't a peanut gallery. You can't just stand there and expect total impunity because it's a peanut gallery. That's not its function ICly, that's just something lots of people do to involve themselves in the antagonisms of the round, look into processing. And that's cool and expected OOCly, but you're still effectively standing outside a police station. It's a very basic human fact that when you look at something, you think about it. And Berg walked up to security, being as Juxtaposed themselves says, involved in the incident, and attracted security attention to themselves. That attention by proximity alone isn't what lead to the call for arrest, but it certainly naturally prompted me to think more about Berg, especially combined with the misdirection of Keener. The idea that security, on code red is OOCly not allowed to be misdirected by antagonists in a chaotic round without much communication or information is a totally absurd and unrealistic expectation from security players. To be perfectly manipulated by an antagonist into calling for an arrest and then punished for it is absurd and actually promotes worse, less interesting and engaging security dynamics, if security must be by OOC necessity right 100% of the time. In-fact, just looking at the ban reason, I never 'falsely accused someone of being an antagonist' because I never thought about it in terms of whether they were an antagonist or not. That's not the terms security plays with ICly, nor was it my own IC justification or OOC thought process. Security isn't a judiciary. So much fuss over code red alert procedures regarding voidsuits (or rather, my inabilty to immediately recall them during a stressful ticket), but no regard or mention at all for how on code red arrests are discretionary, and on code red in a non-judiciary setting, security doesn't need to work with 'proven testimony'. Discretionary code red arrests aren't an excuse to shit/gestaposec, I understand, but I simply didn't do that. I reached my conclusions due to misdirections that played into a lack of information and communication. Juxtaposed says it themselves: Berg got themselves 'involved in the incident' by 'staging near a situation of moral ambiguity'. Ambiguity means, it is open to more then one interpretation. There was no and often isn't as security, a 'correct' response here, that of suspicion or not, because I never got to work with the full information of what was going on. From my perspective, alot was ambiguous about what actually happened. I didn't know what was going down. I couldn't know Berg was 'staging' near the situation because I was never told, I couldn't assess the situation in-depth before I was psionically assaulted and the situation escalated. I saw one medical technician, Kellie Hawker, with another MT, Basil Berg (and the free'd psionic) but still didn't arrest Berg until an antagonistic member of medical lied and misdirected me by telling me they were conspiring to free the psionic. Juxtaposed never addressed the 250~ words I wrote about the communications issues during the round and seems to totally reject the idea of security ever making a wrong call with IC misdirection and belittle my perspective on the lack of information and communication not even bothering to respond to them. Consideration for Berg's knowledge and perspective of a situation while also in the same response/sentence ignoring mine. From my perspective ICly and OOCly, I called for Basil Berg to be arrested because I was manipulated by an antagonist in a way that confirmed my isolated suspicions that arose from a lack of information and communication and tied them together, and was hurried by the fact Basil Berg was right there outside the brig 'peanut gallery'. I did not arrest Berg for wearing a voidsuit. I did not arrest Berg for staging near a situation. I did not arrest Berg for 'being near security'. To say I did any of those things disregards my perspective and the hour's worth of context and other reasoning behind it. I think it's actually very apparent that I addressed in both my appeals all three of those points of concern in a comprehensive, if slightly long, tangential and incoherent manner, but instead so much focus is put on the 'voidsuit discussion' and other such issues I saw as secondary to the broader context of the ban. AddendumI might not have been the clearest during the initial tickets but I couldn't get the opportunity to give all of this context and explanation at the time, and the way this has been handled feels so obfuscatory, I feel really like I've been treated as though I'm malicious and in bad faith, even when Jux says I haven't. I get that these kind of staff complaints are never popular and very rarely accepted, since I'm essentially asking senior staff to overrule other staff. Doubly so because this was Juxtaposed's own event. But It really feels like no matter what I said in both appeals, Viim or Jux's ticket, they were going to ban me. And I honest to god from my perspective cannot see any way that I am at fault or that my security play was faulty or particularly egregious OOCly. I've been antagonistically singled out and given the short end of the stick. This has been profoundly stressful and unpleasant for me and I do not like it. It's too late for it to matter in terms of un-secbanning me here but I still feel really tangibly wronged and mistreated here. It feels like if I'm too brief and concise, I'll be misinterpreted. If I'm too long and thorough, I'll just be skimmed over and decontextualized, and be judged on just small discrepancies of my larger complaint. I'm running on some pretty bad sleep deprivation right now and I hope when I wake up next morning/afternoon this is going to read semi-coherently. Please consider my whole complaint and the appeals for context here. I know I'm not the best at communications but I don't intend to antagonize through these complaints, I just cannot understand Jux's handling of these appeals. I know they can't respond to the appeal sentence by sentence but it feels like they have really ignored large portions of the whole appeal. So please, if you have to, explain to me the flaws of my argument, what I'm missing and have done so egregiously wrong. Cheers.