[DeltaFire] LtHankAnderson - Note Appeal

[LtHankAnderson]

BYOND account and character name: LtHankAnderson - Hank Anderson

Noting admin: DeltaFire

Note reason Rule: 3.5 "Reference characters are only allowed as just that: a reference. Do not attempt to recreate a character from either a real person or a fictional character. Your character may be similar or have allusions to the other person/character, but do not attempt to actually be that person/character in the SS13 setting."

Your side of the story: I was in round 20635 simply walking around as an assistant only to be bwoinked by DeltaFire halfway through the shift being asked why my name was the exact same as a secondary character in the game "Detroit Become Human". I responded clearly agitated that this would even be brought into light despite my character showing no similarities to the character in the game besides name and furthermore to the fact that I have been playing said character for more than a year now without it ever being called into question.

Why you think you should be de-noted: By directly referencing this rule "Do not attempt to recreate a character from either a real person or a fictional character." there can be a clear argument made that there is no reason to require me to change my name from Hank Anderson because I have not directly copied said character. My character has a different appearance, acts differently, and whether or not it's a rule consistency of time should be kept in mind for this. The only grounds for this note is completely off of speculation which in any system is in no way appropriate for punishment or action. As for time, I have even been contacted by multiple admins before this concerning different matters over the year time span of playing this character. In all of those contacts never once has my characters name been called into question. If this note may not be appealed it should at least be appropriate to investigate this rule further as it is clearly a questionably written rule that allows me to be punished for having the same name as a character from a video game and have my character created a few months after said game came out yet people can still be unpunished for ruining immersion by doing something as foolish as naming a character Adalf Hotler or Tonald Pump. Furthermore to promote even more change the conversation in the staff forum on discord clearly caused an uproar about this entire situation at hand.

[NicoDeimos]

My personal opinion: The ruling was needlessly strict over an utterly generic name where only the name shared similarities. I disagree with the method of using the player's ckey name and creation date as an influencing factor over the ruling where such is not even outlined in the rule itself. The context should be on intent here and the two characters from the screenshot and flavortext I read seem to share almost nothing in common.

I would like to say that your rather hostile response in the ahelp did not help your situation and the continued argument in the discord along with everyone else who got involved made the situation muddier than it had to be than if you had just made an appeal to begin with. I would suggest accepting a ruling in the moment and bring future issues here first.

Ultimately the decision to overturn this isn't mine to make, but I would +1 to doing so.

[Nik707]

Yeah honestly I didn't see the need for enforcement but then what happened after made me really not want to argue in favor of your side.

[Cameron Lancaster]

I am in absolute agreement with NicoDeimos; what happened in staff-forum should have no bearing on your opinion of the validity of the original ahelp, and the player's Ckey is completely unrelated to the *reason* we have anti-impersonation rules. The character is not an attempt to parody, impersonate, or recreate a character from a video game, and the character is so unrecognizable that this player went an entire year on the server before it was noticed by one member of the admin team. To enforce the rule this way is to disregard the reason we have rules (to prevent harm) and can only serve to make a member of the community unhappy for no gain whatsoever, which would be the only harm caused by this at all.

[BlackMajor]

No.

You already know why, considering our lengthy conversations.

[HazelBailey]

While I dont think the ruling in this case was needed, i agree with Nico that the response in the ahelp (which was way more hostile than it needed to be), along with the circus in staff forum, didnt help your case at all.

If anything from this situation had been handled in a more levelheaded way, I'd argue in favor of letting this one go, but the ahelp response especially makes me feel this should stay as punishment for the really poor behavior you showed the admin that originally bwoinked you.