+ Mega Support
- "But where does it say you can kill me?" - Starch This line grinds my gears. As a former member of HC and Command Representative at that, Starch should know better. If we included every finite detail within SOPs such as stating "you may guard brig AND kill trespassers" then our documents would be miles long. If someone is able to guard a location, I'd say its heavily implied (if not common knowledge) that said individual can kill (or arrest, if within their abilities) any violators of that location's policies (in this instance, Brig, which has a very clear trespassing line which Starch very clearly should know about). Furthermore, Starch as a whole, should know better than to just walk into brig on a CC and should be aware of the consequences of said action. (Also Starch, where does it say that you can force lightning someone? Shouldn't you have just called someone to force Sun Tzu to move?)
- Force Slow deals zero damage, which makes being force slowed not a combative action. For Starch to retaliate with force lightning was him initiating combat, as he was dealt no damage, nor put in harms way in any way by Sun Tzu before this. What did Starch expect after harming someone using a force power? That he was just gonna walk away and continue his minging spree?
- Starch referencing his prior rank, does not strike me as holding his rank over someone's head. However, since resignation, he should know documents could have changed. Furthermore, the words "enforce them as I see it" strike me as him pretty much admitting that he can/could/would enforce them how he personally interpreted them (whichever way suits him best in his situation), rather than how they're meant to be interpreted. I will also tack on that the way Starch speaks and conducts himself in the sit is rather out of line.
- He was banned for MRDM tonight as well. This shows to me that his intentions were not to be constructive, but destructive. It shows a recent HC and Admin no longer caring about the rules once they do not apply. For this reason, I wholeheartedly advocate for the warn to be removed. I do not agree with the above sentiment for a retroactive warn for FailRP and NITRP; rather I would issue one for NITRP and ARDM.
This is what I refer to when I say his tone was out of line.
