Blackmarks Defined / Appeal to Unjustified Punishments

[Man Blue Trousers]

​

So, this is kinda suggestion / Complaint combo.

So, what you have above is the current up to date regulation on Blackmarks and the criteria of their use. I'm making this complaint because of the ability for this system to be abused because of the lack of up to date examples and criteria on when a Permanent hit to a CP character and their player can be made. Due to the implied severity of this punishment this should be a severe demerit to a Unit and CP.

I'm saying this because I was outright told that Rank Leaders and i1s can issue blackmarks for some of the most inane in inconsequential reasons.


Then upon asking for clarification on how they are removed and wiped from a record I was told something completely different to what is written down in the Regs. Where it is outright stated:
"Are permanently restricted from DUTY RETIREMENT and ACTIVE-DUTY WORKFORCE EMANCIPATION rewards"
plus the permanent IC tattoo across the face

The fact that something with so much in character and likely out of character sway should be expanded to include criteria of issuance and how to work for its removal even if you do get a Black Mark. We only have 3 (maybe 4) sentences to describe blackmarks with none of the outlining when and where they can be issued besides a very vague "Is the second


I say add extra room for clarification. What constitutes a Black Marking event and what doesn't. Since its implied to be heinous, I'd outline a few examples which a blackmark /might/ be issued and which /might/ not.

Deservicement:
- Killing a Rank Leader or Fellow Unit
- Direct insubordination to a Captain or Rank Leader
- Fucking up an entire large scale operation, being the direct cause of massed CP losses or the massed deaths of Citizens.
- Rogue
- Infiltrator or Rebel mole

Blackmark Issued
- CP is a direct cause of CCA deaths and damages
- CP shot a high value target and killed or wounded them
- Insubordination to a Rank Leader
- Failure to stop a Severe Resistance incursion (Such as leaving a CA alone to be killed)
- Consistent incompetence (Such as multiple 99 Reckless Operations in a short time span)
- (Maybe) Corruption


99 Reckless Operation Issued or STC Reduction
- Failure to adhere to radio protocol
- Operation leading to the minor injures of fellow units
- Causing a Civilian to die as a result of a Re-Education
- Knowingly re-educating a CA or Tier 6 severely enough to hospitalize them
- Accidently nudging a fellow CP on a APC

What should not be a blackmark:
- Stopping a Rebel incursion before any lasting damage could occur
- Leading a PT in a sweep with zero casualties
- Saving the life of a Captaincy asset
- Greeting a i1 or RL
- Tripping In front of a i1 or RL


I'm not complaining of anything here more besides the lack of information regarding blackmarks, and the addition of criteria which warrants and doesn't warrant a blackmark for extra transparency.

 

[ClapTrap]

The Command Unit Guide, which you have access to, goes into more detail as to what justifies a blackmark. Just like our way of charging citizens with certain violations, the reasons for charging are intentionally kept broad, and we don't have a list of examples as to what violations would apply to each infraction. We try to be exceedingly cautious about who we induct into Intention One+ positions, as we need to trust them to make reasonable punishments/rewards given whatever situation they face. Additionally, Command Units are expected to conduct themselves particularly carefully, as their behavior represents the high command branch of Civil Protection, which might be why you were treated with a bit more scrutiny on your unit.

Essentially, depending on the Rank Leader or Command Unit, what warrants a punishment/reward may vary slightly, and we want to keep that freedom of choice open to those players. It's also to reduce units 'rules-lawyering' and pointing to the examples as written law, when that's not what we want at all.

 

[Kamilisha Haijulikani]

"CP is a direct cause of CCA deaths and damages"
srry, if, ur responsible for a city minister or higher demise, you should be deserviced.

 

[Man Blue Trousers]

I’m tracking the Command Unit unit guide now that I’ve located in the pin on the discord.

(I didn’t know it existed before writing this)

But now that I gave it a once over I’m not sure the bill fits the crime. It’s very broad and covers all aspects. It’s generally a discretionary guideline that’s broad to the extreme. I don’t see how a contained rebel incursion where there were no casualties or even a sociostability change qualifies as a Blackmark.

The job was to prevent that sort of disruption. And in the case they were even contained outside, the same result would have happened. Both rebs dead with no casualties. But the door was guarded and when they stepped through the guarded front door they only got a few sentences in before being contained.

13 had zero context besides a single radio message, and seems hung up on the fact that they walked through the door, not that they were contained within seconds of them entering and speaking a few sentences. Since I was posted up on lobby guard.

It seems that this was made on a whim with zero consultation on the general guidelines, and I’m citing your own words here

Major violations examples being
- Will be a mistake where multiple units suffer (Presumably killed wounded, or worse)
- Refusing Commands on Blue
- Disrespecting a Rank Leader to their face

Since the only two punishments above a blackmark plus stc fine is a demotion or deservicement
that could have been given out implying that there was even a radical failure that cost the city sociostability. Which there wasn’t as the sociostability remained unchanged from blue post the “event”.

The only thing that happened was a unit was distracted and two throwaways walked through the door who were promptly contained. It can be argued that the unit who walked off is at fault, but fortunately I was there as the second contingency which stopped the threat in its tracks.
The third being the Unit at the podium and the fourth if all else failed. The two Citizen volunteers in charge of ejecting and retaining people.

It’s standard operating procedure for me to make all my plans multi layered with contingencies. If one part fails this is what will happen etc. It’s what I was thought as apart of my irl profession.

Hiros legitimately chose the latter most combination of THE most damaging punishments while skimping out on the charge, which should have been a 99. And a STC deduction. As a conveiniece. Since the charge wasn’t written down in my record other than the punishment board. No consideration was made to the guide and it was done as a easy hand waive able act.

 

[ClapTrap]

Is this an appeal for your blackmark, or a thread requesting clarity for what warrants blackmarks?

 

[Man Blue Trousers]

Is this an appeal for your blackmark, or a thread requesting clarity for what warrants blackmarks?

It’s sort of both.
(A appeal to a situation that did not warrant a blackmark)
(And further defined guaranteed punishment scenarios or violations)

I’ve read your blackmark/punishment guide and it’s extremely broad and vague. I understand that for civvies the crimes have four tiers typically with ascending priority and severity. I can cite an instance, like a 14 Verbal indiscretion gets you typically a warning and 19 a SC deduction.

I’m not sure if it’s meant to be that way or if it’s worded poorly. But a hard defined example that would guarantee a 99, a Blackmark, Demotion, and deservicement would go far in ensuring a proper generalized guide on what hypothetical situation warrants what. With leeway so that something near to or just as severe falls under the broadness you are trying to push for.

- So you don’t have i1s and RLs blackmarking units for greeting them informally, looking at them, or accidentally stepping on their shoes.
Example
(Disrespecting a Rank Leader) What warrants a blackmark from disrespect. A light joke, or a full insult battle.

 

[Devistral]

It’s sort of both.
(A appeal to a situation that did not warrant a blackmark)

Going to intrude.

You are not going to be OOCly appealed. Hoki already informed you that the blackmark you received is an IC issue and must be resolved through the MCP. The scenario you experienced is fully in-character and must be dealt with in-character. Blackmarks are tattoos, yes, but they can be either covered up or removed entirely; they're a punishment for units who truly fucked up as a permanent reminder.

If you fear that there was any OOC intentions in the blackmark; continue to treat it ICly but also inform the MCP OOCly during your report, they, alongside CP Leads, will look into it.

 

[Knight]

If you can roundhouse kick a citizen and suplex them into a wall then deduct massive amounts of LP for similarly minor infractions I think it's reasonable that CPs can get blackmarks for talking back to superiors.

Generally its kind of awesome you can lose everything for nothing. Having blackmarks be giant tattoos on your face is badass as well, kind of makes me want to get one.

 

[Zebra]

The ONLY reason im taking a side here is because the incident that earned you that blackmark was not player driven at all and was useless gaslight.
If it was an actual rebel that ran in and airbursted a nade into a crowd and sent 10 ppl to the ICU, then yeah you should be tarred and feathered and given 40 lashes.

But like, it was just admin characters that did literally nothing.
I think you should take that to someone and explain that admin gaslight characters should not be a permanent mark on your record.
If those were real rebel characters then lol SKILL ISSUE GET TAT'D

 

[Man Blue Trousers]

The ONLY reason im taking a side here is because the incident that earned you that blackmark was not player driven at all and was useless gaslight.
If it was an actual rebel that ran in and airbursted a nade into a crowd and sent 10 ppl to the ICU, then yeah you should be tarred and feathered and given 40 lashes.

But like, it was just admin characters that did literally nothing.
I think you should take that to someone and explain that admin gaslight characters should not be a permanent mark on your record.
If those were real rebel characters then lol SKILL ISSUE GET TAT'D

Its this what led to 24 being pk’ed
Arguably worse than a blackmark but that was overturned. Its overreach and overreaction about doors is what led to the Blackmark first, then the pk (Which was overturned)

 

[Zebra]

Its this what led to 24 being pk’ed
Arguably worse than a blackmark but that was overturned. Its overreach and overreaction about doors is what led to the Blackmark first, then the pk (Which was overturned)

Wait they PK'D YOU??

Uhm WHAT LOL?

 

[Man Blue Trousers]

ye
Because I got angy and was 100% honest
Bro had a mental break when he realized his life was over, and 13 said he was “Too unstable to live”
Then that means he was looking for a PK there and was PK hungry as well.

It’s also said in the command guide that all Deservicements must have a majority RL approval before it can be carried out.

And that was casually not done. Hiros was looking for a reason to screw me over a miniscule incident and then pks me.

It was only overturned since Claptrap revised the Insurance benefit to include mental issues as well.


Come to think of it, Hiros also fucked up by casually disregarding the guide on Deservicements and the Insurance Policy. I don’t know if there was OOC malice here or just plain ignorance. But I can’t rule it out.

 

[Zebra]

ye
Because I got angy and was 100% honest
Bro had a mental break when he realized his life was over, and 13 said he was “Too unstable to live”
Then that means he was looking for a PK there and was PK hungry as well.

It’s also said in the command guide that all Deservicements must have a majority RL approval before it can be carried out.

And that was casually not done. Hiros was looking for a reason to screw me over a miniscule incident and then pks me.

It was only overturned since Claptrap revised the Insurance benefit to include mental issues as well.

officer's getting mad = / = mental breakdown 10-103m amputation

 

[Man Blue Trousers]

Yeah, but he was insured and Hiros was going to pk me anyways regardless, and did.

He also screwed up the slay and ended up killing all the currently active CPs on

 

[Neonity]

I think you should take that to someone and explain that admin gaslight characters should not be a permanent mark on your record.
If those were real rebel characters then lol SKILL ISSUE GET TAT'D

I disagree. Event character or not, every character should be treated as if they are the same, and punishments given should be the same as well. You shouldn't take OOC factors into account for stuff like this, and the characters should judge each other entirely in character, because as far as the character is concerned, those are people just like every other player character is. Doing otherwise comes awfully close to setting a precedent of metagame, and brings us another step further towards treating everything that happens to people as OOC issues rather than just staying IC.

We already have issues with people taking everything negative that happens to them OOC (see: this thread), this would only make it worse.

 

[Man Blue Trousers]

Its a bad precedent. Because what’s stopping a eventer from creating a throwaway character purely to cause mass havoc with zero consequences .
Because event “characters” will die a eventer can just create another one and spawn them scripts.

Its an underlying issue of poor conduct by the GMs that allowed them to radically change the roleplay environment for the worse and with zero concequence. Not even considering the “Player first” viewpoint thats been implied before.

I have nothing wrong if an event character like the Ajutant were to exist. He was there to further the storyline in a tangible way whether he lived or died.

These two throwaways were created just to cause havoc with zero consequences. Besides the screwing of one player character when it was forced on me by two admin played throwaways.

 

[ClapTrap]

ye
Because I got angy and was 100% honest
Bro had a mental break when he realized his life was over, and 13 said he was “Too unstable to live”
Then that means he was looking for a PK there and was PK hungry as well.

It’s also said in the command guide that all Deservicements must have a majority RL approval before it can be carried out.

And that was casually not done. Hiros was looking for a reason to screw me over a miniscule incident and then pks me.

It was only overturned since Claptrap revised the Insurance benefit to include mental issues as well.


Come to think of it, Hiros also fucked up by casually disregarding the guide on Deservicements and the Insurance Policy. I don’t know if there was OOC malice here or just plain ignorance. But I can’t rule it out.

You're intentionally leaving out some crucial details. You were initially PK'd for talking crazy, and the Rank Leader was threatened by what you were saying. Genuinely, with what I was reading, my Captain would have thrown you into the de-materializer. You just don't say that type of shit, even if your character is loyal and expressing honesty. Regardless of intent, you should always be mindful as to what you're saying around high command, because they could very well just plant a bullet in you for sneezing wrong. That's the point. We're not the good guys, and life is cheap to the Combine.

Obviously, we try to avoid doing that sort of stuff in order to heighten the roleplay environment and allow character growth, but the threat should always be present. I wasn't around when that whole scenario went down, and I corrected it as I saw fit. Given what you were saying to the Rank Leader, I feel a blackmark is more than justified after the fact. Had you just taken it on the chin and let it happen, I guarantee things would've gone differently. You said it yourself, you're playing a mentally damaged character, which I admire and encourage. You've hit a breaking point, and it's starting to crack.

That being said... You also bear the consequences of what happens when you act that way. It's part of roleplay, and I personally think it's fun to be punished for what happens due to my actions, and build off my character because of it. My Captain endured a lot of bullshit, both IC and OOC, when he was a ground unit. Yet, I built off of it to create stronger grounds for the who he is today. He's almost unidentical from what he was when he was an intention five, with hints of what he used to be scattered in mannerisms and scant opinions.

That's why roleplay is fun—sometimes, you can't control what happens to you. So, you bounce off of it, and try to turn it into something else.

 

[Man Blue Trousers]

You're intentionally leaving out some crucial details. You were initially PK'd for talking crazy, and the Rank Leader was threatened by what you were saying. Genuinely, with what I was reading, my Captain would have thrown you into the de-materializer. You just don't say that type of shit, even if your character is loyal and expressing honesty. Regardless of intent, you should always be mindful as to what you're saying around high command, because they could very well just plant a bullet in you for sneezing wrong. That's the point. We're not the good guys, and life is cheap to the Combine.

Obviously, we try to avoid doing that sort of stuff in order to heighten the roleplay environment and allow character growth, but the threat should always be present. I wasn't around when that whole scenario went down, and I corrected it as I saw fit. Given what you were saying to the Rank Leader, I feel a blackmark is more than justified after the fact. Had you just taken it on the chin and let it happen, I guarantee things would've gone differently. You said it yourself, you're playing a mentally damaged character, which I admire and encourage. You've hit a breaking point, and it's starting to crack.

That being said... You also bear the consequences of what happens when you act that way. It's part of roleplay, and I personally think it's fun to be punished for what happens due to my actions, and build off my character because of it. My Captain endured a lot of bullshit, both IC and OOC, when he was a ground unit. Yet, I built off of it to create stronger grounds for the who he is today. He's almost unidentical from what he was when he was an intention five, with hints of what he used to be scattered in mannerisms and scant opinions.

That's why roleplay is fun—sometimes, you can't control what happens to you. So, you bounce off of it, and try to turn it into something else.

I 100% agree with you.
I’ve done some more reading on the topic I’ve discovered that blackmarks are temporary demerits. Since they can be removed . The mark off the record, and the tattoo through cosmetic surgery, makeup, and even the good old flaying the face.

It’s the circumstances that started the snowball of the blackmark being added (Not considering what was said to the RL.)
The BM being issued over a door and two admin throwaways who were promptly comped a few seconds after opening the door and being seen by my unit which is BS to me. Shortly followed by the speaking of honesty which resulted in a summary pk. Since the event team made the conscious decision to great those two throwaways to fuck around and negatively affect both normal city rp and Rebel rp.


You did the right thing to revise the insurance to also include severe mental breaks. Since that’s the whole Schtick about Insurance. Letting otherwise incapable of crippled cops keep living.

Hiros was a bit too quick to issue out summary pks to 24 legitimately asking for help because he was having these thoughts following his mental break for getting blackmarked for a completely unjust reason as he believes he did his job correctly in that circumstance.

Hiros allegedly has a track record of doing these sorts of maximum punishments for the minimal crime. Such as threatening to pk a RL over a book and damn near doing it without the consultation of the rest of the Captaincy or Overseers back then. Its guidelines that define the criterion that I am asking for since a four letter blurb that can radically be taken to the extreme isn’t a proper guide.

Cite: Major Violation: Disrespecting a Rank Leader
Fix: Major Violation: Disrespecting a ranking officer in an excessive extent outside of banter.

That is just an idea I have for a potential addition, it’s not perfect since it was thought up in 30 seconds.. It gives the reader something to base issuing a blackmark or other demerits with an idea of what fits the criteria of the punishment fitting the crime.

Like a Rank Leader or i1 shouldn’t blackmark somebody for breaking radio cohesion by speaking informally. Sub the serious needless blackmark with a stc comp or malcompliance citation.

 

[Astro]

Its a bad precedent. Because what’s stopping a eventer from creating a throwaway character purely to cause mass havoc with zero consequences .
Because event “characters” will die a eventer can just create another one and spawn them scripts.

Its an underlying issue of poor conduct by the GMs that allowed them to radically change the roleplay environment for the worse and with zero concequence. Not even considering the “Player first” viewpoint thats been implied before.

I have nothing wrong if an event character like the Ajutant were to exist. He was there to further the storyline in a tangible way whether he lived or died.

These two throwaways were created just to cause havoc with zero consequences. Besides the screwing of one player character when it was forced on me by two admin played throwaways.

I'd just like to add as the CT Coordinator that, these characters are a byproduct of the Krah's event in Spain. It's a continuation of that event line, as well as the Adjucator's death. I'd also like to add that we aren't responsible to how a player reacts to our events.

But sure, continue to blow us off as "throwaways" because we give a damn about providing cops something to do once in a while.

 

[Zebra]

I disagree. Event character or not, every character should be treated as if they are the same, and punishments given should be the same as well. You shouldn't take OOC factors into account for stuff like this, and the characters should judge each other entirely in character, because as far as the character is concerned, those are people just like every other player character is. Doing otherwise comes awfully close to setting a precedent of metagame, and brings us another step further towards treating everything that happens to people as OOC issues rather than just staying IC.

We already have issues with people taking everything negative that happens to them OOC (see: this thread), this would only make it worse.

Shouldn't the rule that a character must be a week old blanket all types of situations like these?
I mean I'm all for ic consequences, but like if it's due to the actions of actual characters.
Idk it just seems really scummy to get someone in trouble icly for the actions of what is essentially a staff-character