[SCP-RP UK] Metagaming warn

[Lester Green]

Your in-game name?: Lester "Beetlejuice" Green

Your SteamID?: STEAM_0:0:68504929

Which server are you making a complaint for?: SCP UK

Are you complaining because of someone or because of server content?: A warn

Name of players/staff/VIPs involved?: Steve Dumb, J. Stradins

STEAM ID's involved (if possible):

What is the details/summary of your complaint (provide as much detail as possible)?: So, I was an IA agent and an officer came up to me and claimed a GENSEC Cadet with a quite clear description of a tophat, red glowing glasses and something else had used 914. We called this out on comms and went to look for him, and found a cadet that looked like this. We brought him to interrogation, and he claimed he didn't do it and that he had a twin that looked exactly the same. I walked outside interrogation and see a cadet whom I assumed had the same identifying features.

I stopped him and intel proceeded to cuff him, and he then called a sit. I do not have PAC on, so yes, I did look at the name and he had the same name as the guy we had just arrested with those identifying features. I figured that, as I know the cadets with this name would have those identifying features, I could act as if I had PAC on. I learned in the sit that this cadet had taken the PAC off, and didn't actually look like this. I understand that it was wrong to use the name, but I figured that I could behave as if I had PAC on without it being metagaming.

Evidence (Screenshots or video):

 

[ThunderCloud]

Hey!

I hope that the following points can clarify my decision to warn you;
1) The Cadet that went to SCP-914 was a different person from whom you arrested, though he said he had a twin that looked the same as him was a different person with a similar name to Steve "Dumb" and I believe it was Stephen "Dumber", so I understand if that caused confusion but it still doesn't mean you go off by their name.
2) The person that was arrested was the wrong person, though you have PAC3 off you wouldn't have known who was his 'twin' without taking the other identifying factor being his name, you saying Steve "Dumb" having the same identifying features is wrong because you wouldn't have known if he had a top hat and glasses on either way.
3) You admitted in the sit and here that you used his name to identify the person that you thought was the one breaking CoC, not only that you just assumed.
4) You already had the person that fit the description as said through comms, and I don't see why you would believe his twin and go off to find the person who's name was said.

Here is evidence of the arrest of Steve "Dumb" after he had his PAC3 off, the only identifying factor here was his name and the night vision goggles. This clearly shows that you arrested a person based on their name without having known their identifying factors.

You having PAC3 off doesn't mean you can just use their names to identify the person because if everyone claimed they had PAC3 turned off could just use the same excuse you did and it would just be a loop around the rule of metagaming. Furthermore, Steve "Dumb" had died previously so he had turned his PAC3 off after meaning that you would have been able to identify him anyway if he still had his PAC3 model on.

It was an odd situation in my opinion, but based on the evidence and reasoning above I feel that it was appropriate to have given you the metagaming warning.

Thanks,

 

[Lester Green]

Hey!

I hope that the following points can clarify my decision to warn you;
1) The Cadet that went to SCP-914 was a different person from whom you arrested, though he said he had a twin that looked the same as him was a different person with a similar name to Steve "Dumb" and I believe it was Stephen "Dumber", so I understand if that caused confusion but it still doesn't mean you go off by their name.
2) The person that was arrested was the wrong person, though you have PAC3 off you wouldn't have known who was his 'twin' without taking the other identifying factor being his name, you saying Steve "Dumb" having the same identifying features is wrong because you wouldn't have known if he had a top hat and glasses on either way.
3) You admitted in the sit and here that you used his name to identify the person that you thought was the one breaking CoC, not only that you just assumed.
4) You already had the person that fit the description as said through comms, and I don't see why you would believe his twin and go off to find the person who's name was said.

Here is evidence of the arrest of Steve "Dumb" after he had his PAC3 off, the only identifying factor here was his name and the night vision goggles. This clearly shows that you arrested a person based on their name without having known their identifying factors.

You having PAC3 off doesn't mean you can just use their names to identify the person because if everyone claimed they had PAC3 turned off could just use the same excuse you did and it would just be a loop around the rule of metagaming. Furthermore, Steve "Dumb" had died previously so he had turned his PAC3 off after meaning that you would have been able to identify him anyway if he still had his PAC3 model on.

It was an odd situation in my opinion, but based on the evidence and reasoning above I feel that it was appropriate to have given you the metagaming warning.

Thanks,

With PAC off, what I see isn’t what I would see in character, I do for example not call out 8854 or 323 despite seeing them roaming during events. Similarly, I thought I could act as if I had PAC on as it would be information I had IC.

From what I knew, the person we had in interrogation room had the correct identifying features (as per what I was told), and he claimed he had a twin dressed exactly like him. When I walked outside to look for an ambassador, I saw Steve Dumb, and at the time I was convinced he or the one in interro was disguised as the other, due to the similar names (Steve Dumb and Steve Dumber). Believing that I had IC information of him having the same identifying features (Steve Dumbers claim he had a twin and him having the same name), I decided to arrest him. While I did use his name, it was only under the belief that I had actual reason to arrest him.

I had no clue what the actual name of the Cadet we were looking for was, and so the only reason I could even use his name was that I equated it to the identifying features I assumed everyone with that name had.

I personally think this was more of a mistake than metagaming as I falsely believed I wasn’t acting on information OOC, but acting on IC information. Sure, I couldn’t see this information on my screen, and this caused the mistake, but I was at the time certain I had the correct information.

 

[ThunderCloud]

With PAC off, what I see isn’t what I would see in character, I do for example not call out 8854 or 323 despite seeing them roaming during events. Similarly, I thought I could act as if I had PAC on as it would be information I had IC.

From what I knew, the person we had in interrogation room had the correct identifying features (as per what I was told), and he claimed he had a twin dressed exactly like him. When I walked outside to look for an ambassador, I saw Steve Dumb, and at the time I was convinced he or the one in interro was disguised as the other, due to the similar names (Steve Dumb and Steve Dumber). Believing that I had IC information of him having the same identifying features (Steve Dumbers claim he had a twin and him having the same name), I decided to arrest him. While I did use his name, it was only under the belief that I had actual reason to arrest him.

I had no clue what the actual name of the Cadet we were looking for was, and so the only reason I could even use his name was that I equated it to the identifying features I assumed everyone with that name had.

I personally think this was more of a mistake than metagaming as I falsely believed I wasn’t acting on information OOC, but acting on IC information. Sure, I couldn’t see this information on my screen, and this caused the mistake, but I was at the time certain I had the correct information.

You can’t act if you have PAC3 on whenever you don’t because as I said before that excuse will get abused by others.

The other Cadet you arrested did not fit the description that was given but instead just had the night vision goggles and the same name.

As you may already know, a warning is just to show that you made a mistake or that you did something intentional, it won’t greatly effect anything else.

 

[Lester Green]

You can’t act if you have PAC3 on whenever you don’t because as I said before that excuse will get abused by others.

The other Cadet you arrested did not fit the description that was given but instead just had the night vision goggles and the same name.

As you may already know, a warning is just to show that you made a mistake or that you did something intentional, it won’t greatly effect anything else.

Looking at the video for the first time now, I’d like to note that you claimed I said “you look oddly familiar”, this wasn’t me. By the time I was brought to the sit, I accepted that it made sense that I could’ve said this as I forgot what actually happened.

As per the video, I realize that: I saw the name, assumed he had the PAC and went up to him. Someone then said “You look oddly familiar”, which made me certain this was correct. I did not actually attempt to arrest him until I heard that he looked familiar.

 

[ThunderCloud]

Looking at the video for the first time now, I’d like to note that you claimed I said “you look oddly familiar”, this wasn’t me. By the time I was brought to the sit, I accepted that it made sense that I could’ve said this as I forgot what actually happened.

As per the video, I realize that: I saw the name, assumed he had the PAC and went up to him. Someone then said “You look oddly familiar”, which made me certain this was correct. I did not actually attempt to arrest him until I heard that he looked familiar.

Understandable, but it still doesn’t remove the fact that you used OOC information IC. No matter how you describe the situation again I believe it’s a clear violation of the rules.

 

[Luft]

Complaint Response

---

Hi @Lester Green !
I have decided, after speaking with another Member of SL that this warning was somewhat unjustified. This is due to the reason of the aforementioned PAC3 User having PAC3 Abused, and or otherwise "powergamed" in order to get himself out of a sticky situation by removing his accessories. However, you yourself admitted that you used the person's name and not PAC3 in order to ascertain that you were looking at the right person in character. Due to this, I will be closing this complaint and the warning is justified.

Thanks for taking the time to make a complaint.​