/tg/Station 13

While I don't think people who just wander off or are incompetent should be punished, I don't like it when someone treats a job as an upgraded assistant role. It doesn't bother me if people powergame or break into places, but if they don't do their job and just use the equipment to tide I think they...

Yeah, this will probably get ignored but wow, I hadn't seen that thread before. That is really how this should have gone.

Given 1.5 is a precedent for rule 1, using rule 1 wouldn't really get around the allowed by rules part. If the headmins had changed the rules before the escalation and 1.5 bans, I wouldn't have a problem with them.

The rule clearly states that people who break in at roundstart are valid to be killed by security, no overescalation about it. This was 100% allowed by the rules. Probably not ideal play, but definitely not bannable. I don't believe that you genuinely think that "breaking into cap's office at ...

The point is, it was long after that event took place. They were detained, and they were the detective. It is not the detective's duty to execute antagonists nor should they do it out of circumstances that aren't self-defense. It's why they get a weak little essentially lame stun-gun and not a tase...

Shadowflame909 wrote:the spirit of the rule not the rule reeeee

What Cobby said is completely in line with the spirit of the rule.

I'm imagining admins forgetting rule 10 exists when citing rule 1. Like in this case. >its a "policy thread about a specific case" episode nevermind im leaving this thread This thread isn't about just one case, I mention 4 different cases including one in which I think the headmins took t...

The wording of the rule states that the break in must occur at or near roundstart. It does not give a limitation as to when the punishment can occur. That is what I meant when I wrote that sentence and I apologize for not being clearer. treating the wording of the rules as more important than the s...

Rule 1.5 reads: "Players who attempt to break into the captain's office, head of personnel's office, or the bridge at or near roundstart for no legitimate reason put themselves at risk for being legitimately killed by the captain, heads of staff, or security." As the rule is very specific...

That also would have worked, if not for the better. Cremating people for doing non lethal and non hostile acts isnt right. Would you execute a thief after detaining them? The issue is that the actions of the banned players in all these cases were specifically allowed by the rules. When the headmins...

I did not add all those weird exceptions to the rules, they all represent failures of the administration to resist the stupidity of trying to write a fixed and rigid ruleset for a game that changes every day and a community that changes every day. The rules are 100% subjective and always applied su...

If you knew the ligger's history you'd see why that ban is a really bad example. Since I'm not an admin, I can't see his notes, but according to posts on the ban appeal, he didn't have a history. Playing sec when he was detective, he did seem more valid focused than I would like, but not to a rule ...

I just thought of something to add on here. I'm not arguing this to create a pointlessly obstructive legal system. I'm arguing this because power needs to have limits. Admins have the ability to ban people and change the round, but they are expected to follow headmin decisions, not use the powers to...

the rules are guidelines, and are free to be interpreted by admins and headadmins at any time, trying to encase them in rigidity is stupid and frankly is just going to cause more grief than a few people getting done in because they couldn't not act like a dick. First, thanks for replying to my post...

iksyp wrote:

headmin ruling wrote:Sure, the criminal is still open to full punishment - the factor of time does not change this. However,

this part bothered me, literally okaying the act just to immediately backpedal

I didn't think to mention this, but yeah, that does bother me too.

Just realized I should clarify that the 1.5 ruling I mention several times refers to https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic ... 34&t=20969.

I've noticed that recently admins seem to be making major changes to rule interpretation and policy in the middle of a ban appeal, then banning based on the new policy. Basing what's bannable based on an interpretation that hasn't already been put into rules is harmful to the server and gets in the ...