Is OOTS even trying anymore?

[Emperor Demonking]

This is starting to sound an awful lot like "Andi was actually temporarily violently insane and therefore cant be held accountable for her actions. Bandana should also have known that Andi was temporarily violently insane and not interacted with her at all."

That's not really a good argument.

No Bandanna made her tenmporarily violently insane by screaming untruths in her face after Andi had seen three people die. She should therefore not screamed untruths violently in her face, and instead calmly gave orders. Any claim that Bandanna did not have time to do that is shown to be false by 1) the fact that she had time to yell truths in her face 2) the fact that she had repeated time to justify her actions.

I would also go on to claim that Andi not showing enough initiative is not justification for Bandanna screaming in her face. And thus regardless of Andi's state Bandanna still acted morally wrong in a way that simple insults are not.

[eggynack]

Imagine a homeless man. His son has died for lack of home. He complains about this a couple of times. That person gets annoyed he screams - getting in the face of - "if you moaned half as much you'd have ten homes". Yes its obviously hyperbole. But there's a scale. On one hand is the truth on the other is hyperbole. Somewhere in the middle is how true it would have to be to solve the problem.

This is just ridiculously different from the actual situation, a lot of the difference lying in what you haven't said. Like, who is this person the homeless guy is complaining to? Half as much as he did what? Because, in this context, a close but not identical version would have the person being complained to as his employer, and the homeless guy as someone who never comes into work and instead keeps complaining to his employer about how he doesn't have enough money. And the son who died is, I guess, also the employer's son? Because the son presumably has the same relationship to both people? Oh, and the homeless guy and the employer's other children are being endangered by the homeless guy's lack of work. And the employer isn't actually all that much more powerful relative to the situation as a whole. So maybe they're homeless too?

So, yeah, super insanely different.

By using hyperbole to exagerate Andi's ability to affect the situation - exagerating it to pass the point where she can solve it - is not reasonable.

Andi is literally the person whose job it is to fix this stuff. Bandanna can't realistically do anything about it. Andi is thus complaining to Bandanna about something that is in Andi's power, and only in Andi's power, and within her sphere of responsibility, to fix. And she's not actually fixing the stuff. This, and only this, is what Bandanna was expressing. That she was spending a whole hell of a lot of time not fixing stuff. The hyperbole, if anything, is tied into the amount of time spent not fixing things, not the amount that Andi can fix things. After all, Bandanna never, at any point, in I think the entire comic, tells Bandanna off about her skill or speed at fixing things. She only took issue with Andi just not fixing things.

I also don't think we can assume that her fear - which 'returns' after becoming captain - can be assumed to have dissipated while she and Bandanna were arguing, even if she is not obviously showing it.

It's certainly not the major thing she's focused on in that moment.

[Cazero]

No Bandanna made her tenmporarily violently insane by screaming untruths in her face after Andi had seen three people die. She should therefore not screamed untruths violently in her face, and instead calmly gave orders.

I'll point that the "seeing three people die" and "being told untruth about capabilities" defenses also apply to justify Bandana screaming.

[hamishspence]

Bandana was calmly giving orders, to the other crew, and giving calm responses to Andi's complaints. Her stress was rising though.


"I ain't got time for that now!" was as close to a "Stop bothering me" order as it got. When Andi continued in the face of this - she opened herself to a well-deserved yelling-at.

[Emperor Demonking]

Cazero: I think claiming that Andi could save she ship if she stopped moaning - even if hyperbole - is vicious when it is untrue.

In what way is 'Do your job and start fixing things" not a command?

She gave that concurrently with the screaming. Andi did not possibly have time to do that before listening - and thus reflexively reacting - to the next part. Indeed by forcing Andi to lean back, Bandanna did not give her the ability to leave after the order.

eggynack:
So simplifying examples don't help with you (how does Bandanna being the employer change anything in the situation I gave? etc.)

If Andi's job is to fix all the damage that a tribe of frost giants can inflict then just by that, Bandanna is being unreasonable. And Andi is utterly in her rights to request more doable or feasible a task. But as I said not showing off enough agency is not justification for verbal assault. Engaging with your commander as she engages you and she can at anytime dismiss you, is certainly not justification for verbal assault. If Andi has been annoying Bandanna for a while then Bandanna had a while to stop the situation before screaming. Andi on the other hand reacted immediately, emotionally to Bandanna's escalation of the situation.

[Emperor Demonking]

Bandana was calmly giving orders, to the other crew, and giving calm responses to Andi's complaints. Her stress was rising though.


"I ain't got time for that now!" was as close to a "Stop bothering me" order as it got. When Andi continued in the face of this - she opened herself to a well-deserved yelling-at.

"As it got" is right but compared to "go", fix something", "go fix something" it isn't much. Which is sort of demonstrated by the fact that what she first screams is "then fix something", which then by continuing to speak and being in her face she refuses to let Andi immediately go forth and do it.

[eggynack]

eggynack:
So simplifying examples don't help with you (how does Bandanna being the employer change anything in the situation I gave? etc.)

The changes matter because they mean that the homeless person has incredibly direct actions, relative to the employer, that would help alleviate their situation, and that this isn't just someone talking down to someone far beneath them, and that the homeless person is directly shirking their responsibilities.

If Andi's job is to fix all the damage that a tribe of frost giants can inflict then just by that, Bandanna is being unreasonable.

Bandanna never expresses that Andi needs to fix all the damage. Ever. Her hyperbole was explicitly directed towards the time Andi was spending not fixing. Andi's job is to fix as much stuff as she can, within reason. She, obviously wasn't doing that job. Or any job.

And Andi is utterly in her rights to request more doable or feasible a task.

She didn't request a more doable or feasible task. That's a thing that literally never happened.

But as I said not showing off enough agency is not justification for verbal assault.

She wasn't not showing agency. She was actively not doing her job. The non-agency move would be just neutrally doing your job. Andi was showing agency, towards not doing her job. That was the problem.

Engaging with your commander as she engages you and she can at anytime dismiss you, is certainly not justification for verbal assault.

So, the attack was Bandanna's fault for answering Andi's directly stated concerns in a calm and rational manner, and then getting angry when Andi directly insulted her.

If Andi has been annoying Bandanna for a while then Bandanna had a while to stop the situation before screaming. Andi on the other hand reacted immediately, emotionally to Bandanna's escalation of the situation.

Again, Andi directly insulted Bandanna's leadership capacity. For something Andi wasn't doing. And Bandanna just kinda yelled normal stuff at her.

[Kish]

It's also goofy to describe Bandana yelling back, sarcastically, at someone who had been yelling at her constantly, with insults like "stubborn little brat" and "Little Miss Junior Captain," as "escalating the situation." Andi couldn't deal with the fact that the captain expected her to obey orders, rather then showing her deference. It "escalated the situation" in that it took the situation from "Andi screams abuse and Bandana stands there and takes it" to "Andi screams abuse and Bandana doesn't stand there and take it," but it's a truly warped perspective that would call that an inappropriate escalation on Bandana's part.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

This is possibly the most hilarious case of both-siderism I've seen in a while, with a decent bit of loaded language thrown in for fun. Just to be clear, conflating Bandana's shouting at Andi with Andi knocking her unconscious with a wrench is nothing short of ludicrous, even if we pretend that Bandana was somehow completely unjustified in telling Andi to lay off her.

Also, IANAL, but verbal assault usually involves some kind of actual threat or implication of harm, or some manner of hate speech (possibly?). As far as I know, raising your voice at someone is unlikely to be considered assault unless Andi had a legitimate reason to fear harm. I guess you could potentially make the argument that's the case, but it's far from indisputable, unlike the case of physical assault from Andi.

[Emperor Demonking]

"The changes matter because they mean that the homeless person has incredibly direct actions, relative to the employer, that would help alleviate their situation, and that this isn't just someone talking down to someone far beneath them, and that the homeless person is directly shirking their responsibilities. "

The homeless man could have been given the deeds to a house, lost them in drunken stupor and getting in his face and yelling at him after a handful of comments would still be unreasonable. That is even more true when the employer could simply command him to leave.

"She wasn't not showing agency. She was actively not doing her job. The non-agency move would be just neutrally doing your job. Andi was showing agency, towards not doing her job. That was the problem."

She was with her employer. Her employer yelling at her for having been with her employer is like a bad joke from The Office. If Bandanna did not want her there then she had plenty of time to actually say so. Its not like you can claim that Bandanna was unaware stuff needed fixing. That was the first thing Andi told her.

It's also goofy to describe Bandana yelling back, sarcastically, at someone who had been yelling at her constantly, with insults like "stubborn little brat" and "Little Miss Junior Captain," as "escalating the situation." Andi couldn't deal with the fact that the captain expected her to obey orders, rather then showing her deference.

Nothing Andi did up to that point was anything near to the level of what Bandana did when it comes to yelling. Also, you mention insults like '"stubborn little brat" and "Little Miss Junior Captain,"' could you please give an which is like (but isn't one one of) those, please?

Bandanna made it a physical confrontation when she forced Andi to lean physically back. That's escalation. Andi certainly escalated far further in reflexive reaction, but any claim that Bandi's hand raised, leaning forward screaming is not an escalation is farcical.

[Alcore]

Much like sex, stories are a race, and ATrueFan intends to be the winner.

I feel your analogy is flawed, but that might be on purpose.


Sex tends to need both to finish at the same time or it's often bad sex. However some want to hurry to end and end it badly (for others, at least). As tired as i am of the airship it does have a purpose. Of course, the Giant has his own purpose for the whole thing.


And stories are not races (unless your a professional in which case it's not the story but the need for something marketable) but works of art. Some are fast some are slow but they are a marathon that is heedless to the pace of the audience. I could pick a random book and read it and want book two when done but nothing says it will be done and on shelves when i finish book one.


A webcomic breaks this a bit being able to read it as it comes. But a webcomic is more like a book than it is sex....

[Vinyadan]

People, you are so worked up on this thing, and can't even spell the nickname right. It's Bandana, not Bandanna!

[eggynack]

The homeless man could have been given the deeds to a house, lost them in drunken stupor and getting in his face and yelling at him after a handful of comments would still be unreasonable. That is even more true when the employer could simply command him to leave.

Andi wasn't in a drunken stupor. She was continuously and actively making the decision to not do her job.

She was with her employer. Her employer yelling at her for having been with her employer is like a bad joke from The Office. If Bandanna did not want her there then she had plenty of time to actually say so. Its not like you can claim that Bandanna was unaware stuff needed fixing. That was the first thing Andi told her.

Her employer was yelling at her primarily because she was insulting said employer on the basis of things she herself wasn't doing. "My job isn't being done, you big dummy," in other words.

[Emperor Demonking]

Andi wasn't in a drunken stupor. She was continuously and actively making the decision to not do her job.

The homeless man could have been given the deeds to a house, lost them in continuously and actively making the decision to not do his job and getting in his face and yelling at him after a handful of comments would still be unreasonable. That is even more true when the employer could simply command him to leave.

Her employer was yelling at her primarily because she was insulting said employer on the basis of things she herself wasn't doing. "My job isn't being done, you big dummy," in other words.

Which is still not a justifiable reason for getting in Andi's face and screaming at her. It also isn't accurate. Andi can not reasonably fix the "damage all over the ship" problem - unless you're suggesting taking a meter square and just focusing on that. Imagine if a doctor said "if you keep smoking it is likely that you will die from lung cancer", if the patient then - during the reflex test - got into the doctor's face and screamed "THEN DO YOUR JOB AND CURE ME. If you spent half the time you spent moaning as you did on helping people then all your patients would have four healthy lungs" would you really have no sympathy if the doctor reflexively struck the patient with the reflex hammer.

(Yes obviously its not the same situation, the patient is not the doctor's employer, the doctor is not in a life or death situation, insults, the doctor wasn't in a mental state based on seeing people die, doctor's pledge 'do no harm' Andi didn't, society needs more trust in the non-violence of doctors than in engineers. etc. But essentially all those differences are in your favour so can you comment on the situation where we abrast from brave Bandi and awful Andi.)

[Alcore]

People, you are so worked up on this thing, and can't even spell the nickname right. It's Bandana, not Bandanna!

Hey!


It's miles better than my "hey you!" Or "that captain person"


I think i once read captain banana a while back

[eggynack]

People, you are so worked up on this thing, and can't even spell the nickname right. It's Bandana, not Bandanna!

Really? Weird. Just looked up the word itself, and it looks like both are valid spellings. Obviously wouldn't apply to the name though.

The homeless man could have been given the deeds to a house, lost them in continuously and actively making the decision to not do his job and getting in his face and yelling at him after a handful of comments would still be unreasonable. That is even more true when the employer could simply command him to leave.

A handful of comments about how the employer is implicitly at fault for the loss of the deed. When the employer is also, presumably, homeless. And with all those other things I said, if some are left out. After other insulting and diminishing comments were made in the past. At some point, getting angry becomes rather justifiable. Hitting someone with a wrench, notably, does not become justifiable at any of these steps. Not even when it was just a random person yelling at a homeless person for no reason about how they don't have a house.

Which is still not a justifiable reason for getting in Andi's face and screaming at her.

Kinda is.

It also isn't accurate. Andi can not reasonably fix the "damage all over the ship" problem - unless you're suggesting taking a meter square and just focusing on that.

She never told Andi to fix damage all over the ship. She literally only told her to fix something, in those exact words. You're making things up.

Imagine if a doctor said "if you keep smoking it is likely that you will die from lung cancer", if the patient then - during the reflex test - got into the doctor's face and screamed "THEN DO YOUR JOB AND CURE ME. If you spent half the time you spent moaning as you did on helping people then all your patients would have four healthy lungs" would you really have no sympathy if the doctor reflexively struck the patient with the reflex hammer.

(Yes obviously its not the same situation, the patient is not the doctor's employer, the doctor is not in a life or death situation, insults, the doctor wasn't in a mental state based on seeing people die, doctor's pledge 'do no harm' Andi didn't, society needs more trust in the non-violence of doctors than in engineers. etc. But essentially all those differences are in your favour so can you comment on the situation where we abrast from brave Bandi and awful Andi.)

I've already explained all the reasons your other posited analog is super flawed. I'm not going to spend extra time explaining the ridiculous number of ways this situation is also completely different, many not in "my favor" at all. There's no utility to it, from a basic rhetorical standpoint. What's so complex about the basic situation that we need all these ridiculous analogs, anyway?

[Kish]

We need ridiculous analogies because of the one thing both silly analogies have in common: They replace Andi with someone who did nothing wrong prior to or following the assault, just a completely blameless person who got screamed at for no reason, and they replace Bandana with a completely awful person who is wrong about everything.

So, you know, all the differences are "in your favor," where "in your favor" is defined as "shifting nearly all the guilt from Andi to Bandana preemptively."

[Draconi Redfir]

No Bandanna made her tenmporarily violently insane by screaming untruths in her face after Andi had seen three people die. She should therefore not screamed untruths violently in her face, and instead calmly gave orders. Any claim that Bandanna did not have time to do that is shown to be false by 1) the fact that she had time to yell truths in her face 2) the fact that she had repeated time to justify her actions.

I would also go on to claim that Andi not showing enough initiative is not justification for Bandanna screaming in her face. And thus regardless of Andi's state Bandanna still acted morally wrong in a way that simple insults are not.

all i can say is this:

if your main job description is "Fixes machines"

And you are aware of multiple BROKEN machines

And you are aware as to how those BROKEN machines are PREVENTING you from being alive

Your first instinct SHOULD be "Fix the damn machines" not "Complain about the broken machines and the people who died because they are currently broken"

[Emperor Demonking]

We need ridiculous analogies because of the one thing both silly analogies have in common: They replace Andi with someone who did nothing wrong prior to or following the assault, just a completely blameless person who got screamed at for no reason, and they replace Bandana with a completely awful person who is wrong about everything.

How do they possibly do that. The most recent homeless one has a guy letting his son die by virtie of having lost something in continuously and actively making the decision to not do his job.

In any situation where someone other than Bandi screams in somebody's face after that person has made a few comments makes the bandi-character come out as the bad-guy, then perhaps invading someone's space in order to scream at them is wrong?

"She never told Andi to fix damage all over the ship. She literally only told her to fix something, in those exact words. You're making things up. "

Your quote was " "My job isn't being done, you big dummy," in other words. " You were clearly refering to Andi's comments and Andi explicitly states that the problem is "we've got damage all over the ship". Pretending that you were talking about Bandana's comment is utterly unjustifiable.

And of course Bandi never suggested, hinted or said "told her to fix something" until she started screaming at her. And upon screaming at her to 'then fix something' she then continued doing her little rant thus not letting her to immediately actually go to fix the machines.

"I've already explained all the reasons your other posited analog is super flawed. I'm not going to spend extra time explaining the ridiculous number of ways this situation is also completely different, many not in "my favor" at all. There's no utility to it, from a basic rhetorical standpoint. What's so complex about the basic situation that we need all these ridiculous analogs, anyway? "

If the number of relevant ways that my four sentence situation is different from the actual situation is 'ridiculous' does that not suggest that you think the relevant details in the comic is ridiculous (minus up to four sentences worth). That seems super-detailed to me.

all i can say is this:

if your main job description is "Fixes machines"

And you are aware of multiple BROKEN machines

And you are aware as to how those BROKEN machines are PREVENTING you from being alive

Your first instinct SHOULD be "Fix the damn machines" not "Complain about the broken machines and the people who died because they are currently broken"

If you were in a situation where there were many broken machines. Too many broken machines to fix them all. Indeed in your professional opinion too many necessary broken machines to save the day, unless your captain has a good plan. You would simply down with the machines fixing random - or even best judgment - machines rather than going up and telling your captain the situation and discussing/getting orders of what to do? Bearing in mind that in your professional judgment staying down and fixing the most obvious equals death for everybody?

[eggynack]

How do they possibly do that. The most recent homeless one has a guy letting his son die by virtie of having lost something in continuously and actively making the decision to not do his job.

The only possible point is that. If the new situation weren't different in some way that makes it seem worse for the person in Andi's role, what would be the point of it? It's not really simplifying anything in a meaningful way.

In any situation where someone other than Bandi screams in somebody's face after that person has made a few comments makes the bandi-character come out as the bad-guy, then perhaps invading someone's space in order to scream at them is wrong?

If you start removing a bunch of stuff and changing a bunch of stuff, and then people think the person yelling is wrong, then maybe some of that stuff you removed was relevant to why the person being yelled at was in the wrong.

"She never told Andi to fix damage all over the ship. She literally only told her to fix something, in those exact words. You're making things up. "

Your quote was " "My job isn't being done, you big dummy," in other words. " You were clearly refering to Andi's comments and Andi explicitly states that the problem is "we've got damage all over the ship". Pretending that you were talking about Bandana's comment is utterly unjustifiable.

Andi's problem was a bunch of specific stuff going wrong. Bandana's problem was that Andi wasn't working on any of it, not that she wasn't working on all of it. Andi set the universe of discourse really broadly, and Andi told her to do anything in that set of things, and then gave a specific order.

And of course Bandi never suggested, hinted or said "told her to fix something" until she started screaming at her. And upon screaming at her to 'then fix something' she then continued doing her little rant thus not letting her to immediately actually go to fix the machines.

She really shouldn't need to be told to do her basic job. This continuation of her little rant you speak of is the exact thing you're saying you wanted, specific instructions about what to do.

If the number of relevant ways that my four sentence situation is different from the actual situation is 'ridiculous' does that not suggest that you think the relevant details in the comic is ridiculous (minus up to four sentences worth). That seems super-detailed to me.

No? There's a large quantity of relevant strips here, and a lot of things implicit to their roles on the ship. And a lot of the differences are from your additions. For example, Andi is neither homeless nor sick. She's not being externally impaired in the way you're implying, and to whatever extent she is, Bandana is being equally impaired.

If you were in a situation where there were many broken machines. Too many broken machines to fix them all. Indeed in your professional opinion too many necessary broken machines to save the day, unless your captain has a good plan. You would simply down with the machines fixing random - or even best judgment - machines rather than going up and telling your captain the situation and discussing/getting orders of what to do? Bearing in mind that in your professional judgment staying down and fixing the most obvious equals death for everybody?

If I were in that situation, I would either fix machines based on my judgement, or I would ask Bandana for orders regarding what I should fix. Andi did neither of those. She never, ever, in the entire comic, asked for this kind of guidance, even implicitly.

[Kish]

Seriously? You know in Star Wars, when Tarkin blows up Alderaan? Imagine if, following it, Leia had been able to get close to Tarkin and screamed at him, "YOU'RE A MONSTER!"

Would you say she was wrong? Would you say Tarkin was justified in hitting her on the back of her head with a wrench as soon as she turned away (or should be declared to have done so "by reflex," "in fear," having been driven insane by Leia screaming in his face, and otherwise excused)? If yes, you're consistent and horrifying. If no, then it's really quite goofy to equate your two cherry-picked scenarios in which the person who stands in for the character you've been trying to declare wrong from the start has the deck stacked against them, with "any situation where someone other than Bandi(whoever this is) screams in someone's face." You could easily come up with a scenario in which Bandana is clearly in the right (I mean, other than the one in the comic). You aren't choosing to do so. Your original "homeless person" scenario had a blameless homeless person being scolded by an uninvolved sadist; that you accepted some of eggynack's proposed changes, while complaining that they weren't necessary and completely ignoring others, neither makes it a valid analogy nor changes what you attempted to pass off as an analogy to begin with (though, I note, it does apparently ruin the analogy enough for you that you tried to switch to a different analogy which, like your original one, has Bandana's analogue being awful and solely responsible for the situation and Andi's analogue being blameless).

[goodpeople25]

All Bandana's decisions happen to be wrong and other options are right by default and that opinion in no way has anything to do with Bandana totally being the same brat as when she was 8.

Just the professional opinion of the chief engineer folks!

Or is that one of thise vicious untruths I keep hearing about that justify assault? (but not a vicious one because walking around and talking with a weapon in your dominant hand clears you of that) Oh well if the other characters were reasonable Andi should of been stabbed anyway (or is that only when they turn around?) so unprofessionals all around.

[Emperor Demonking]

The only possible point is that. If the new situation weren't different in some way that makes it seem worse for the person in Andi's role, what would be the point of it? It's not really simplifying anything in a meaningful way.

If you start removing a bunch of stuff and changing a bunch of stuff, and then people think the person yelling is wrong, then maybe some of that stuff you removed was relevant to why the person being yelled at was in teh wrong.

And that is the pointy of a simplified analogy. To find out where the disagreeement actually lies. But you object to that.

Andi's problem was a bunch of specific stuff going wrong. Bandana's problem was that Andi wasn't working on any of it, not that she wasn't working on all of it.

If that was her problem, then why not tell her to work on something (without screaming at her?) What was preventing her from giving the order to go fix stuff, rather than chosing to argue her plan with andi, when Bandi held the trump card of simply giving the order to go.

She really shouldn't need to be told to do her basic job. This continuation of her little rant you speak of is the exact thing you're saying you wanted, specific instructions about what to do.

That's utterly untrue. "That's your dang job around here ain't it. If you spent half the time patching that you spend complaining, we'd have two whole ships by the end of the pass."

No? There's a large quantity of relevant strips here, and a lot of things implicit to their roles on the ship. And a lot of the differences are from your additions. For example, Andi is neither homeless nor sick. She's not being externally impaired in the way you're implying, and to whatever extent she is, Bandana is being equally impaired.

Leaning over somebody with your face in their face is not the same impairment as being leant over with somebody's face and hand in your face.

If I were in that situation, I would either fix machines based on my judgement, or I would ask Bandana for orders regarding what I should fix. Andi did neither of those. She never, ever, in the entire comic, asked for this kind of guidance, even implicitly.

So an underling cannot be expected to be given orders. But a captain should assume that unless explicitly asked she is not to give orders? Is not fixing something and instead staying on deck after giving her assesment not implicit. Is not "if you have an issue with what I am doing and would rather I be doing something else" always implicit simply based on their respective roles?

Do you think that Bandana not giving calm orders was a good thing? Or simply that Andi not correctly deducing the corrrect thing to do (in the stressful and unusual situation) - even with the captain right there to correct her - is such an unjustifiable thing that it gives Bandana a moral pass to do as she wishes? That getting in somebody's face and screaming at someone is not a bad thing? A good thing?

[Lacuna Caster]

Do you think that Bandana not giving calm orders was a good thing? Or simply that Andi not correctly deducing the corrrect thing to do (in the stressful and unusual situation) - even with the captain right there to correct her - is such an unjustifiable thing that it gives Bandana a moral pass to do as she wishes? That getting in somebody's face and screaming at someone is not a bad thing? A good thing?

I don't know anything about these people, but I'm pretty sure this is entering 'morally justified' territory.

[Emperor Demonking]

Seriously? You know in Star Wars, when Tarkin blows up Alderaan? Imagine if, following it, Leia had been able to get close to Tarkin and screamed at him, "YOU'RE A MONSTER!"

Would you say she was wrong? Would you say Tarkin was justified in hitting her on the back of her head with a wrench as soon as she turned away? If yes, you're consistent and horrifying. If no, then it's really quite goofy to equate your two cherry-picked scenarios in which the person who stands in for the character you've been trying to declare wrong from the start has the deck stacked against them, with "any situation where someone other than Bandi(whoever this is) screams in someone's face." You could easily come up with a scenario in which Bandana is clearly in the right (I mean, other than the one in the comic). You aren't choosing to do so. Your original "homeless person" scenario had a blameless homeless person being scolded by an uninvolved sadist; that you accepted some of eggynack's proposed changes, while complaining that they weren't necessary and completely ignoring others, neither makes it a valid analogy nor changes what you attempted to pass off as an analogy to begin with (though, I note, it does apparently ruin the analogy enough for you that you tried to switch to a different analogy which, like your original one, has Bandana's analogue being awful and solely responsible for the situation and Andi's analogue being blameless).

Thank you for you analogy. My views are different in this situation. As an honest person I shall now describe the relevant points where I think the differences lie.

1) Tarkin is not in a stressful situation.
2) Leia simply poses no threat to Tarkin and he is not in a dangerous situation.

One difference that I do not think is relevant, is that Leia did not have the power to simply tell Tarkin to use the laser - as Bandi could have calmly ordered Andi - and that even if she had had that power and chose not to use it, then that would not have explained his actions being that the two differences above remained different.

[Douglas]

If that was her problem, then why not tell her to work on something (without screaming at her?) What was preventing her from giving the order to go fix stuff, rather than chosing to argue her plan with andi, when Bandi held the trump card of simply giving the order to go.

That so-called "trump card" would not have worked. Andi had repeatedly demonstrated lack of respect for Bandana's authority in the past, and was in the act of openly questioning Bandana's judgement. If Bandana had tried to just give Andi an order without arguing about it, Andi would have refused or ignored it, and pressed the argument herself.

So Bandana did not, in fact, have a trump card that she could have used and just chose not to.

[Emperor Demonking]

That so-called "trump card" would not have worked. Andi had repeatedly demonstrated lack of respect for Bandana's authority in the past, and was in the act of openly questioning Bandana's judgement. If Bandana had tried to just give Andi an order without arguing about it, Andi would have refused or ignored it, and pressed the argument herself.

So Bandana did not, in fact, have a trump card that she could have used and just chose not to.

Refusing a direct order would be mutiny. We see her put her hand over her mouth immediately after her mouth immediately after her accidental/reflexive mutiny. It is only she (and the rest of the crew) has no choice and Bandana is seen to be unconscious that gets into her role as acting captain.

I agree that her first act would be to be stubborn refusal to do it and mutiny. But what makes you think that her third, fourth acts would be the same - thus turning hesitation into mutiny? After mutinying what do you think andi's actions would be? To openly go after Bandi with the wrench?

[eggynack]

And that is the pointy of a simplified analogy. To find out where the disagreeement actually lies. But you object to that.

And then I listed a ton of the extenuating circumstances which were constituting a lot of difference with your simplified model. And then you just kinda introduced a different model for some reason. A lot of things here actually matters.

If that was her problem, then why not tell her to work on something (without screaming at her?) What was preventing her from giving the order to go fix stuff, rather than chosing to argue her plan with andi, when Bandi held the trump card of simply giving the order to go.

I meant in that specific context, specifically regarding the amount of stuff that should be fixed. A big reason Bandana got mad is because Andi directly insulted her. Again.

That's utterly untrue. "That's your dang job around here ain't it. If you spent half the time patching that you spend complaining, we'd have two whole ships by the end of the pass."

I meant literally the panel right after that. Andi had plenty of capability, after Bandana's one speech bubble, to go do her job.

Leaning over somebody with your face in their face is not the same impairment as being leant over with somebody's face and hand in your face.

That makes zero sense within your analogy. Homelessness was a thing before the yelling. The leaning over and yelling in your analogy wasn't homelessness. The leaning over and yelling was leaning over and yelling. You just kinda added a weird problem external to all of that to just Andi.

So an underling cannot be expected to be given orders. But a captain should assume that unless explicitly asked she is not to give orders? Is not fixing something and instead staying on deck after giving her assesment not implicit. Is not "if you have an issue with what I am doing and would rather I be doing something else" always implicit simply based on their respective roles?

An underling shouldn't expect orders unless they're supposed to do something abnormal. Andi was not expected to do something abnormal. Her job is just to fix things using her best judgement, in a general sense. That's what Bandana wanted. If Andi was confused, she could have asked. The captain can give orders if she wants, but she doesn't have to.

Do you think that Bandana not giving calm orders was a good thing?

No. The ideal would probably be always calm. . But her getting angry wasn't really a bad thing, under the circumstances, either. Certainly didn't justify getting wrenched in any way, shape, or form.

Or simply that Andi not correctly deducing the corrrect thing to do (in the stressful and unusual situation) - even with the captain right there to correct her - is such an unjustifiable thing that it gives Bandana a moral pass to do as she wishes?

Her not "deducing" the correct thing to do, when the correct thing to do is her normal job totally normally, is kinda dumb. Her complaining to the captain about how the job she has isn't getting done is verging towards unjustifiable. Throwing an insult in there? Totally unjustifiable.

That getting in somebody's face and screaming at someone is not a bad thing? A good thing?

Under the circumstances? More or less value neutral.

[Emperor Demonking]

Her normal job is not to chose what part of the ship necessary for running it not to fix. The panel after her rant does show Bandi giving the orders she should have gave before, but it also show Andi trying not to hit Bandi with a wrench (the panel after that is her failing. After that regreting. After that assesing. After that captaining).

"Under the circumstances? More or less value neutral. "

Good that's part of a big difference of opinion. So what part of the circumstances made Bandanas's verbal assault that lead to her getting auto-wrenched value neutral?

[crayzz]

No Bandanna made her tenmporarily violently insane by screaming untruths in her face after Andi had seen three people die. She should therefore not screamed untruths violently in her face, and instead calmly gave orders. Any claim that Bandanna did not have time to do that is shown to be false by 1) the fact that she had time to yell truths in her face 2) the fact that she had repeated time to justify her actions.

I would also go on to claim that Andi not showing enough initiative is not justification for Bandanna screaming in her face. And thus regardless of Andi's state Bandanna still acted morally wrong in a way that simple insults are not.

Double standards are really pernicious.

See, there's this thing people do when, in a conflict, they prefer one side over another. They hold the side they don't like to absolutely perfect standards. They go on and on about every flaw they can, about how this or that was suboptimal, or caustic, or rude, or provocative, or whatever. They make sure you know and are confronted with every single possible flaw they can bring to bear.

But when it comes to the side they like, suddenly flaws can be forgiven. There was extenuating circumstances, or they were only human, or they just didn't understand, or it was an accident, or whatever.

Now, was briefly yelling at Andi the best thing to do? Probably not. It was not especially bad, however, except insofar as Andi can be violently unreasonable, leading to the mutiny. And frankly? That's on Andi.