I think this complaint is very daft & this would be better suited for policy discussion about whether security can attack their superiors because they disagree with them. Personally I think Jack was totally fine to stun baton you once considering a Captain patrolling maint on their own during a cult shift is very very dangerous & irresponsible, Captain isn't even a member of Security.
Considering through organising with security we'd already caught and killed multiple cultists, my "daft" behaviour was effective in stopping the cult. I think that's a dumb metric to judge by, but even if you did want to use that bad metric, it'd still be unjustified.
It's bizarre that your argument comes down to "You were acting in a risky way, therefore the stun was justified" when the only risk to me the entire round was being literally killed by the officer criticizing me for being risky.
I think we can both agree that the emagged recycler was not expected & an accident. He didn't physically throw you in either, or intend to as well considering he immediately took you to medbay for revival. He batoned you once & then either you got pushed in or the confusion from the stun baton hit led to you running into the crusher accidentally. This just screams accident & I'm not gonna ban or note someone for such an obvious accident, I don't know what pocket you pulled "I don't want to ban people because they'll appeal and that's too much drama" from but that's a shit thing to say, I'd like some examples because I don't shy away from answering ban appeals & ban people where it's necessary - I don't think it was necessary in this case.
I never disagreed it was an accident, that's not the point of the appeal. Again, if you do something shit out of habit and it only occasionally results in actual harm, it's still a shitty thing to do and you can't just go "oops an accident!" when you're putting people at risk for no reason. I didn't personally accuse you of that, I'm saying there are two things contributing to crap behaviour on Terry and that is one of them.
Why I don't think admin intervention is necessary here? Other than it being a mistake on Jack's part, it wasn't a random stun either. You seem to assert that he makes a habit of randomly stunning people. Not only is this something that I've never seen ahelped about him before, it also doesn't fit into the timeline of what happened - you were stunbatoned once for being a maintenance captain that isn't random that's a consequence of you being daft and being mildly bullied for it.
Again, extremely dumb for you to justify the stun given that the only danger I was in for the entire round was from Jack himself.
If I did ban or note him for it, what would the note look like? Like "Warned for accident - batoned captain because they were solo patrolling in maint during a cult shift which lead to Captain running into a recycler be more careful in the future"? That is deranged, dare I say a terrible note, I'd go so far to say that it is banbot behaviour akin to unlovedrock's trash "crit a greytiding hulk who succumbed" note.
It's not just about the recycler.
The two of us were alone in maint with a potential cultist and he stunned me next to an unrestrained, potential cultist, over a disagreement about whether I should be looking for cult bases. What if that was actually a cultist, who stunned Jack and then killed us both? It was a terribly dumb situation to stun one of the two proven non-cultists in. The note shouild be something like "Warned to be more cautious when stunning people without reason - batoned the captain due to a disagreement which resulted in them dying in an emagged crusher"
How is that a bad note? You've asked them to be more careful, and they should be. By your refusing to talk to them, they've learned nothing, other than that they can get away with being shitty because even if it goes wrong and the person dies welp it was an accident lmao can't be helped.
That is deranged, dare I say a terrible note, I'd go so far to say that it is banbot behaviour akin to unlovedrock's trash "crit a greytiding hulk who succumbed" note.
Invoking a totally irrelevant complaint about someone attacking a threatening greytider in a situation where an officer killed a captain in a completely different way and circumstance makes no sense.
If I believed Jack Breeg had a habitual shitler attitude as security I'd intervene but his note history says otherwise. In other a year of playing regularly he has accumulated 8 notes, only 1 note for assisting in the execution of 2 bridge trespassers (one of which stole spare), & 1 ban from over a year ago that totalled to a 2 hour length for a banbait related note.
If people are toeing the line and then admins go "well they have no notes so I'm not going to note them" how many notes are they gonna have showing this history? It's exactly why this warrants a note. A note may be considered a punishment but most importantly it's a log of times they've been talked to by admins. Which you didn't bother to do.
I don't believe this complaint has any merit at all, it's an unfortunate accident that was caused by a traitor emagging a recycler prior which led to you running into a recycler, because you were being very reckless as the most important job on the station.
Again, calling my successful cultstomping reckless in comparison to an officer that stunned me as a joke and got me instantly and permanently removed from the round is nonsense. I wasn't reckless in the slightest, and it doesn't justify stunning or killing me.