[23:57:02] readthisnameplz -> scheveningen: Hi, can you tell me what just happened between you and the antag?
[23:57:37] scheveningen -> readthisnameplz: Yep. It was an initial back-and-forth bout and the moment I entered, I saw they had ejected shells from beanbags in front of the autolathe. So I already assumed they were loaded with lethal shells with a shotgun.
[23:58:19] readthisnameplz -> scheveningen: You assumed but didn't have proof?
[23:58:48] scheveningen -> readthisnameplz: Stealing a shotgun and then lathing out highly lethal munitions meant equivalent force was needed to bring her down without risk to my person, since HOS armor doesn't protect from shrapnel. I do have proof, why would you eject beanbag shells in front of a lathe? To trade them out for different shells. The lathe is hacked, even.
[23:59:03] scheveningen -> readthisnameplz: She was seen having stolen from the armory. Is this suddenly a small offense now?
[23:59:22] readthisnameplz -> scheveningen: I'm being told you went in and started shooting immediately though, without any words, that's the issue here. Is this true?
[00:00:20] scheveningen -> readthisnameplz: No, I first initially targeted her, typed to tell her to stop but then she pulled a weapon out. I hit escape and then repositioned to make myself safer. I didn't have time to press T since she already had her weapon out. Do you think she was gonna offer me the same benefit of the doubt?
[00:02:06] readthisnameplz -> scheveningen: Okay, that's all I needed ^-^ You're not in trouble, as long as you made the attempt to talk, they pulled the gun and you reacted before being able to speak, right?
[00:02:15] readthisnameplz -> scheveningen: Just want to make sure I have it all sorted out.
[00:02:19] scheveningen -> readthisnameplz: Yeah.
[00:02:38] scheveningen -> readthisnameplz: I was more worried about not getting hit by slugs than I was about ensuring I got the first word in.
[00:02:54] readthisnameplz -> scheveningen: Perfect, thank you. Can you cryo the Engineering apprentice in Engineering? You're not in any trouble, I'd do the same thing, and the build up is there since they broke into the armory and such.
[00:03:08] scheveningen -> readthisnameplz: Yeah, I got her.
[00:04:28] scheveningen -> readthisnameplz: Where is the cryo for engineering?
[00:05:28] readthisnameplz -> scheveningen: Use the main level cryo, please
[00:05:42] scheveningen -> readthisnameplz: ...uhh. I can't atm since I need to respond to a robot with a chainsaw
[00:05:50] readthisnameplz -> scheveningen: Take your time
[00:07:54] readthisnameplz -> scheveningen: One more thing, were you alone in engineering or were other officers there?
[00:08:07] scheveningen -> readthisnameplz: It was just myself. Laser rifle advantage vs. a ballistic.
[00:08:45] readthisnameplz -> scheveningen: Where were the other officers? There is a full manifest, save for the one who was blown up.
[00:09:15] scheveningen -> readthisnameplz: Couldn't say exactly, but I was the one who directly witnessed the engineer walk out. Since they had EVA access I figured I had to respond fast or risk them escaping.
[00:09:29] scheveningen -> readthisnameplz: I had an exact bead on them and I didn't have a ton of time to relay to my officers where they were.
[00:11:45] readthisnameplz -> scheveningen: Okay, thank you. That'll be all, in the future try to get a word out before engaging, even if it's like "Drop your g-". And try to avoid frontlining as an HoS, in this case I don't mind it but in other cases it is looked down upon/not generally allowed.
[00:12:16] scheveningen -> readthisnameplz: I tend to do a mixture of frontlining or backline support. IT depends on what's needed, and frankly I think this is the only head of staff where such things is actually acceptable.
[00:12:45] scheveningen -> readthisnameplz: If I don't feel confident my officers can respond to something but I can, I'm usually taking the latter. But I don't tend to take stupid risks.
[00:14:04] readthisnameplz -> scheveningen: Alright, thank you. Enjoy your round.

---

Messages for ticket #10:
[00:21:58] thedococt -> scheveningen: Hi, have anoter moment to talk?
[00:22:04] scheveningen -> thedococt: One second.
[00:22:38] scheveningen -> thedococt: Alright, I do.
[00:23:25] thedococt -> scheveningen: In an earlier ticket, about your confrontation with Natalie Pershing. Could you briefly go back over what led up to you firing on them?
[00:23:43] scheveningen -> thedococt: Is there anything specific not covered in the ticket? I felt it was comprehensive.
[00:24:11] thedococt -> scheveningen: You claim they drew their weapon on you before you fired, do you still claim this?
[00:25:45] scheveningen -> thedococt: That's correct, yes. They had a shotgun on their back and I targeted them, attempted to type out 'stop and drop' but they pulled out a weapon before I was able to finish the sentence and hit enter. Since I had a very good hunch they already loaded up with lethal munitions due to the presence of the autolathe and the beanbag shells in front of it (which only would've been there as evidence that they ejected it from the shotgun).
[00:26:43] scheveningen -> thedococt: So once they pulled their weapon out, they tried to target me back. I tried to fire at them inside the room at that point and tagged them enough times to not overkill them, which was what my attempt was.
[00:27:19] scheveningen -> thedococt: While normal trigger discipline is, I know, to click until I see a death gasp, they hit the floor before they did that, so I administered first aid to try to save them.
[00:28:34] scheveningen -> thedococt: But to clarify the main point; I did not shoot them as soon as I saw them. Not being able to finish "please stop" was unfortunate but I was more worried about not being filled with shells or slugs, since my armor does not protect well against bullets.
[00:30:18] thedococt -> scheveningen: So to clarify, you began firing when they pulled out their gun and aimed at you?
[00:30:30] scheveningen -> thedococt: Right. That's when I knew it was either myself or them.
[00:33:16] thedococt -> scheveningen: This complicates matters considering logs explicitly show you aiming and firing at Pershing before /she/ returned fire.
[00:34:02] scheveningen -> thedococt: There aren't logs for pulling your gun off your shoulder, I'm aware of that. Do you have any context within the logs that shows that I fired as soon as I saw them?
[00:34:26] thedococt -> scheveningen: You claimed that you opened fire after they aimed at you, which logs directly prove false.
[00:35:12] scheveningen -> thedococt: So I'm lying all of a sudden?
[00:35:26] thedococt -> scheveningen: You... are, though.
[00:35:32] scheveningen -> thedococt: I am not.
[00:35:53] scheveningen -> thedococt: You're trying to twist it and spin it on me as if I am lying. It's the only reason you're looking into this after another admin said this was okay.
[00:36:14] scheveningen -> thedococt: I stand by what I said. I am not lying, I know exactly what I saw and what I responded to.
[00:37:01] thedococt -> scheveningen: The claim was missed during the initial investigation. You both made conflicting statements. It's being looked into now; that is what this conversation is. You are claiming that you were aimed at before you opened fire, but logs show this did not occur. Do you have any other explanation for this?
[00:41:18] scheveningen -> thedococt: They pulled their weapon out after I already had good inference they had a lethal weapon, and since I was within the line of fire to get hit by shotgun fire. I aimed at them and then they moved, which caused the shot to fire reflexively according to my logs, during which I tried to use say function to tell them to stop, but my firing already triggered reflexively before I could do anything and they started advancing on me. They then targeted onto me, while advancing, to get a shot off. I moved out of range and then repositioned to re-engage. What is their claim, exactly, that I shot them on sight and didn't try to talk to them?
[00:41:42] scheveningen -> thedococt: I keep my chat bubble on all the time too so that other people see when I'm trying to speak to them.
[00:51:29] thedococt -> scheveningen: That is a different story to what you have been claiming up until now, which is that you did not fire at all until you had already been targetted. Incorrectly using mechanics does not excuse their use; in this situation, the aiming however does appear to be justified if they were advancing on you, but were it many other situations it would not be. So I will leave it at that.
[00:54:58] scheveningen -> thedococt: This seems extremely nitpicky, not to mention using up both of our time /especially while I still have responsibilities in this round to be active and helping my department out/ to determine whether or not that gunfight was justified. Sure, I either got something wrong or evaluated the situation only slightly incorrectly, but it doesn't change 1. the dude robbed the armory while exploiting the rad storm going on and I saw them rush out of the armory with a shotgun, causing us to crack out guns for the first time in the round 2. they dumped their non-lethal ammo to load up slugs, which are highly capable of ending somebody else's round with. 3. They didn't stop what they were doing just because they had somebody chasing after them to try and engage them. Why do I have to be held to that standard if they don't?
[00:56:07] thedococt -> scheveningen: It is nit-picky because you explicitly left out information from the ticket that had a bearing on the situation, and in a sense effectively lied in the process. In the end, you were technically correct, yes, but during the previous ticket you made a claim that was false, to your benefit. This ticket was to handle and confirm that claim.
[00:56:46] scheveningen -> thedococt: I like how you equate 'lie' with 'got something incorrect', but yeah. I'm glad you're an admin who can magically determine if I'm intentionally lying to you instead of being incorrect about a detail.
[00:57:38] thedococt -> scheveningen: I specifically asked you for this information and what you provided was not what occurred. That is a lie; I can't reach into your brain and tell if you were doing it to manipulate the verdict or not, but in the end that is what occurred.
[00:58:25] thedococt -> scheveningen: This would not be so much an issue if it were not the basis of your entire defense in the previous ticket.
[00:58:31] scheveningen -> thedococt: You can't reach into my brain and tell me if I was doing something to manipulate the truth, which is in itself a lie, but you're going to accuse me of being manipulative and a liar anyway. Okay, I guess I'm not human then. Are we done?
[00:58:56] thedococt -> scheveningen: Now you are simply claiming I am doing things which I have not. We are done, one are or another.