Page 1 of 1

OOC in IC

PostPosted: Tue Jul 11, 2017 11:38 pm
by OhChildflayer
I was reading a thread in the admin complaints (viewtopic.php?f=23&t=12060) where the guy was upset that he was in trouble for "OOC in IC" because he saw someone flashing, and said person was unable to be implanted. He (the Captain) started telling everyone "It's revs" and was told not to OOC in IC, and just because other people do it doesn't make it ok.

Did I miss something? Level seven biohazar-"EVERYONE FIND THE BLOB". People try, succeed, and openly talk on the radio about meta-ing the round type constantly. Am I misunderstanding the rule about OOC in IC or is it just being allowed all the time?

Re: OOC in IC

PostPosted: Tue Jul 11, 2017 11:42 pm
by BeeSting12
Basically their issue is that by saying ITS REVS it sounds like you're saying that's what the gamemode is rather than a proper IC way of saying it such as "There is a revolution" or whatever. It's a very nitpicky thing and I wouldn't be sorry to see this part of the rule go.

Re: OOC in IC

PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2017 12:19 am
by OhChildflayer
BeeSting12 wrote:Basically their issue is that by saying ITS REVS it sounds like you're saying that's what the gamemode is rather than a proper IC way of saying it such as "There is a revolution" or whatever. It's a very nitpicky thing and I wouldn't be sorry to see this part of the rule go.


Yeah, after rereading the original thread, I see they were pretty clear about it being specifically about the exact wording that he used. I get it now, and I have to agree with you that is an extremely nitpicky stipulation.

Re: OOC in IC

PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2017 1:06 am
by bandit
I'm just going to quote ikarrus here

Ikarrus wrote:This was always a rule since I started playing back in 2011. It's only been in question now after any semblance of RP standards have been eroded away

Re: OOC in IC

PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2017 1:22 am
by CPTANT
I seriously hate it when people say "its revs" or "its ops"

How hard is it to say "we got revs" or "we got ops" and not make a blatant OOC remark in chat.

Re: OOC in IC

PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2017 2:25 am
by Lazengann
Don't talk about the game mode in character

Re: OOC in IC

PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2017 3:02 am
by Cobby
OhChildflayer wrote:Did I miss something? Level seven biohazar-"EVERYONE FIND THE BLOB". People try, succeed, and openly talk on the radio about meta-ing the round type constantly. Am I misunderstanding the rule about OOC in IC or is it just being allowed all the time?


You ICly know Level 5 is a blob so saying that is totally in character.

You ICly know how revs function so if you see someone flashing you can say "there's revs!" or "Jack is a headrev!".

You do not ICly know that each round is dictated by a gamemode so saying "IT'S revs!" where "it" is the gamemode or roundtype is OOC in IC.

Just do not refer to the gamemode as a gamemode in IC

Re: OOC in IC

PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2017 12:06 pm
by CPTANT
Even worse are the twats that outright try to meta the roundtype and share their wisdom with us.

Once had someone go "Its been quiet for 20 minutes, so it is either ops or cult"

Re: OOC in IC

PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2017 1:44 pm
by feem
Of the many ways that you can talk about the gamemode as a gamemode ICly (and thereby break the rules), "it's revs" is, you are correct, the least egregious and the most "nitpicky" for us to enforce.

A far easier example to enforce is CPTANT's, above, "it's been x time so it's either y or z gamemode."

But lesser or not, it's still one of the many ways to talk about the gamemode as a gamemode ICly and is therefore still against the rules.

Re: OOC in IC

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 1:12 am
by oranges
make sure your type out your a's

Re: OOC in IC

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 2:17 am
by TheWulfe
Well, our server established policy is that everyone knows about the "game modes" or 'events that can happen' and have knowledge of what antagonists do, as we even have it in our CentComm summary:

Employee unrest has spiked in recent weeks, with several attempted mutinies on heads of staff. Some crew have been observed using flashbulb devices to blind their colleagues, who then follow their orders without question and work towards dethroning departmental leaders. Watch for behavior such as this with caution. If the crew attempts a mutiny, you and your heads of staff are fully authorized to execute them using lethal weaponry - they will be later cloned and interrogated at Central Command.

So yeah, In the meat of it is the phrase "It's rev"...

Yes, we get that forgetting an "A" or "S" would technically carry an implicit "It's rev[olution], the game mode" rather than "It's rev[olutionarieS], the plural" or "It's [A revolution]." This is a video game, not a grammar class so no one cares about the technicalities of the English language.

The players get what's being said. Everyone knows what's being said, which is basically "Revolutionary shit is going down."

And even so, if you're banning for a missing article "A" or plurals "S" in a game full of slang you're probably a massive prick and are trying to get a metagrudge ban in. We've had admins stalking players to get banbaiting in before, how it just so happens to be JMad and how an admin in this case JUMPS on a grammar error for a ban just reeks of it.

I don't want my typing being hung over my head and being Bwoinked in a game that counts on milliseconds because if I were, say, a Captain, and I didn't add an "S" to "It's Nuke Ops!" because my nerves are being shot and the difference between the milliseconds you type out is the difference between warning the crew and eating bullets and the station nuked. Or a head during revolution, where those milliseconds meant I get impaled by a thrown spear and finished off limping by rabid revolutionaries.

No more banning for this, and I don't think it even merits a warning, no one deserves to have grammar hanged over their head in a game about Spessmen.

Re: OOC in IC

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 3:42 am
by Cobby
TheWulfe wrote:Well, our server established policy is that everyone knows about the "game modes" or 'events that can happen' and have knowledge of what antagonists do, as we even have it in our CentComm summary:


No, you're allowed to know how each antagonist functions, hence why
ExcessiveCobblestone wrote:You ICly know Level 5 is a blob so saying that is totally in character.

You ICly know how revs function so if you see someone flashing you can say "there's revs!" or "Jack is a headrev!".

Is true.

Your character is NOT suppose to know that they are a game character and the shift/round is dictated by an overarching gamemode that spawns one of X number antags, hence why "ITS REVS" is bad.

No, we don't ban for this unless you do it several times after being asked to stop, and even then it would probably be only a 15 minute ban or something. Even IC in OOC which is a much more obvious and IMO immersion breaking rule is treated pretty leniently [at least by me and whomever I'm with at the time].

Re: OOC in IC

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 3:58 am
by RandomMarine
TheWulfe wrote:And even so, if you're banning for a missing article "A" or plurals "S" in a game full of slang you're probably a massive prick and are trying to get a metagrudge ban in. We've had admins stalking players to get banbaiting in before, how it just so happens to be JMad and how an admin in this case JUMPS on a grammar error for a ban just reeks of it.

I don't want my typing being hung over my head and being Bwoinked in a game that counts on milliseconds because if I were, say, a Captain, and I didn't add an "S" to "It's Nuke Ops!" because my nerves are being shot and the difference between the milliseconds you type out is the difference between warning the crew and eating bullets and the station nuked. Or a head during revolution, where those milliseconds meant I get impaled by a thrown spear and finished off limping by rabid revolutionaries.

No more banning for this, and I don't think it even merits a warning, no one deserves to have grammar hanged over their head in a game about Spessmen.


Behold, the play to win mentality that's been plaguing the servers for the past years. Where winning is everything and acting as a character in an unfolding story is unimportant.
This is what tgstation needs to push against, not support.

Re: OOC in IC

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 4:05 am
by bandit
TheWulfe wrote:No more banning for this, and I don't think it even merits a warning, no one deserves to have grammar hanged over their head in a game about Spessmen.


you heard the poster

no more banning

when you are in danger of banning, just say NO

Re: OOC in IC

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 4:53 am
by D&B
#NotMyAdmins

Re: OOC in IC

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 6:27 am
by PKPenguin321
Is it really so hard to say "There's a revolution" instead of "It's revs", or "shift" instead of "round"

Smack my head

Re: OOC in IC

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 6:36 am
by TheWulfe
ExcessiveCobblestone wrote:Your character is NOT suppose to know that they are a game character and the shift/round is dictated by an overarching gamemode that spawns one of X number antags, hence why "ITS REVS" is bad.

PKPenguin321 wrote:Is it really so hard to say "There's a revolution" instead of "It's revs", or "shift" instead of "round"


Exactly my point with the Centcomm summary. We are alerted to game modes, but we're not literally calling them game modes, but we do know that 'Revolutions' occur across Nanotrasen based station (Lore text above). Crew have been calling the actions that occur in the described lore as a "Rev" and people partaking in it "Revs" since I've first started playing in 2012. It's practically canon lingo.

The shortened lingo of 'Revs' carries implicit meanings of it's [revolutionary activity], or it's [a revolution] or it's [revolutionaries we have on board], the only time it doesn't become implied is when it's specifically cited under grammatically incorrect term of "It's rev", which carries the meaning of 'It's revolution the game mode'. And since those distinctions are so little, as in the difference between adding an 'A' or 'S', it might as well not be an actionable admin activity.

We've also been calling it shifts for a while now. Even if someone does slip my immersions aren't ruined.

RandomMarine wrote:Behold, the play to win mentality that's been plaguing the servers for the past years. Where winning is everything and acting as a character in an unfolding story is unimportant.
This is what tgstation needs to push against, not support.


Our serverbase is the biggest game-over-roleplay out there. Packed with some of the toughest and annoying munchkins across any other SS13 server, in the midst the most must-winnings-est, lynchiest game mode, and there's a guy about to alert the crew quickly to avoid them getting lynched by the very people you describe. But the guy using that established lingo to be quick (which is what lingo is in the first place) is the guy with the winning characterless mentality?

Re: OOC in IC

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 11:57 am
by feem
    * The issue is not the use of "revs" versus "revolutionaries." While you're correct that using the term "revs" ICly does end up having some connotations which refer to OOC mechanics, generally (and certainly in my interpretation of our extremely loose suspension of IC vs. OOC) nobody cares if you say "revs".

    * They do care if you say "it's revs" because, as has been explained at great length both in this thread and in the several others opened recently on this topic, it is a direct, explicit reference to the gamemode as a gamemode.

    * It's a strawman argument to suggest that this is persecution of a player's attempt to speed up communication, because the thing that you are communicating when you say "it's revs" isn't "I think there's revs" or "there are revs" or "there's revs", but "it is the gamemode revolution." Frequently when we bwoink people for things like "it's revs" it isn't even just for saying the words, it's for the context, e.g. someone's claiming they found a blue APC and someone else says "no, it's revs."

    * The player who was banned in the instance that you're all very upset about was given a five minute ban after repeatedly doing the same thing when given an explicit warning not to in the same round. Typically when players continue to do things that they've been explicitly warned not to do they are given a ban regardless of what specific rule they were breaking, because when you're bwoinked we really prefer you follow our guidance. At least in my case, if I give you a warning about something, it's because I want you to recognize what it is that you did wrong. Contrary to popular belief, I don't want to ban you, I just want you to follow the rules, and if you can't or won't, then you get a ban. So at least from me, warnings come first.

    * I've administrated much, much larger, and much, much more elaborately-ruled roleplaying games than this which contained complex 'game' systems, they just happened to be text-based instead of graphical. Additionally, there are entire servers of major MMOs which either encourage or enforce roleplaying. You're correct that we have unique challenges because of our suspended-rp environment, but we are not the largest.

It's disheartening to see this argument because I think there are some misunderstood items here. You can ICly say the word revs, that's fine. You can ICly know every job and piece of equipment and how it works, that's fine. You can even OOCly know, and act as if, there's only one game mode at a time. Just recognize that your character doesn't know that and shouldn't be communicating it to people ICly, the same way that you shouldn't be communicating to people ICly that the reason you went braindead is that you had to answer the door to get your pizza. And you aren't going to get a ban longer than 5-15 minutes (and you're more likely to get a warning than a ban to begin with, at least if it's me) unless you do this repeatedly after being asked not to, and even then the ban's going to be equally tiny unless you're chronically, intentionally failing to get the point.

Re: OOC in IC

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 2:24 pm
by bandit
The "reeeeeeeeeeeee typing words takes too long" argument is also fucking stupid because no one will bwoink you if you say just "REVS" and that's even shorter. It also has the benefit of being something people might actually shout on a space station.

Re: OOC in IC

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 4:52 pm
by Grazyn
"IT'S REVS" is an established OOC meme that satirizes the low/nonexistent RP we have on the servers, nobody uses it unironically anymore. If they try to argue "oh I guess I'm gettin banned because I said "it's" instead of "there are", wow nazi admins" they're obviously full of bullshit.

Re: OOC in IC

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 5:39 pm
by bandit
Grazyn wrote:"IT'S REVS" is an established OOC meme that satirizes the low/nonexistent RP we have on the servers, nobody uses it unironically anymore.


you would think so and yet I have to bwoink like 1-3 people per round for saying it

Re: OOC in IC

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 6:08 pm
by TrustyGun
I think the biggest issue here is that it seems only now that the admin team are pushing this rule. Ever since I have started playing tg a couple years ago, I have never seen anyone get outright banned for "ITS REVS" or other similar phrases, so why now?

Another source of confusion is the oddly specific circumstances. "ITS REVS" get one banned but "THERE ARE REVS" is a free pass? In the end it carries the same message, that there are revolutionaries aboard the station, and thus the game mode is revolution. It seems so nitpicky, regardless of your intention.

So, irregardless of what happens in the end, I suggest making an announcement; ingame, the forums, the MOTD, whatever vessel needed putting across and clearing up the issue of "ITS REVS!!"

Re: OOC in IC

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 6:10 pm
by Digdugxx
You're totally right for saying it's ooc, but at the same time, banning someone for missing out one word in their sentence is pretty dumb. When you're in the heat of battle, trying to get a message across as fast as humanly possible can be the difference between life and death and shouldn't be punished like this.

Re: OOC in IC

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 6:22 pm
by DemonFiren
irregardless is not a word

that aside feem's post already explains everything

Re: OOC in IC

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 6:39 pm
by feem
I don't personally believe that the specifics of this case or its interpretations will benefit from being explained any further as many permutations of what the actual issue is, reiterations of what actually happened with the ban in question, and descriptions from multiple admins of what behavior we're actually seeking from players have appeared in multiple threads and you're all still posting the same questions and arguments without modification or creativity as if they haven't already been answered or addressed.

The one new-ish piece of information in the most recent posts is "it feels like admins are only just now enforcing it," except that's contradicted in this very thread when bandit references an Ikarrus quote about this having been the case for years.

If you do feel like it's only just now being enforced, I can tell you 1) you're wrong, it's only just now being visible to many players because a player disputed a 5-minute ban in the forums, and we bwoink people on a daily basis for this kind of thing, they just usually stop doing it when we explain why, and 2) you're correct that we ARE trying to crack down on what small amounts of IC/OOC separation we have left, but are incorrect in that the rules haven't changed and that if you've gotten away with this in the past it's more because nobody noticed or there were bigger fish to fry than it is that you weren't breaking the rules.

Re: OOC in IC

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 6:42 pm
by Wyzack
I am stunned that so many people just dont fucking get it. Its not that hard to understand

Re: OOC in IC

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 7:01 pm
by Grazyn
bandit wrote:
Grazyn wrote:"IT'S REVS" is an established OOC meme that satirizes the low/nonexistent RP we have on the servers, nobody uses it unironically anymore.


you would think so and yet I have to bwoink like 1-3 people per round for saying it

I'd say that using it ironically is bwoinkable as well.

To clarify, those people are NOT saying it because it's faster in the heat of the moment (they'd say "REVS" instead), they're saying it specifically for the shout-the-game-mode meme. The're fully aware that it's bwoinkable but they get a kick out of arguing with admins about semantics, as shown in this thread as well.

Re: OOC in IC

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 7:04 pm
by bandit
I will admit to banning more often for this recently, but it also seems to happen more in recent weeks. (I blame the annual summer noob influx.) When you have to bwoink 3 people for the same shit within the first 10 minutes of a round, or if the same person does it OVER AND OVER, it gets very tiring.

To make things fair I usually don't ban for the first offense unless it's REALLY egregious (I have not seen anything that meets that criterion but you can never rule it out), unless they have a notes history of it, or unless it's one of those situations where multiple people are doing the same shit and I announce in OOC that the next person who does it gets a ban. That usually stops it pretty quickly.

Re: OOC in IC

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 8:07 pm
by TheWulfe
feem wrote:-snip-


Maybe my point should have been more clear.

My point wasn't whether something who does make a grammar misstep actually does cross into referring to a round type. But that the distinction between it and proper use is easy enough to mess up that's it's so minor and hinging on articles and letters, when it does happen it's so pointless to be actionable that you're steeping into the in-game Grammar Nazi ghost territory, but instead of eye-rolling a guy on a forum it's warnable each time some poor sap has a typo.

Just to put into the example with the "it's revs is OOC in IC" meme. "It's revs" is grammatically correct for non-OOC instances. For example someone saying "What's wrong/going on" "It's revs", as in, "It's revolutionaries, [that's what's wrong/going on]" which is a variant context of the final "It's revs" in the OP thread. Does "there's revs" work better and cover more ground? Yeah, but the former is still correct. These are just grammar errors, some I see my fellow college students make when I'm comparing papers with them.

Re: OOC in IC

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 8:11 pm
by feem

Re: OOC in IC

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 8:34 pm
by CPTANT
Wyzack wrote:I am stunned that so many people just dont fucking get it. Its not that hard to understand


It seems some people have an extreme difficulty understanding concepts such as "in character" and "out of character".

I suggest giving every new player on the server a Sally and Anne test.

Re: OOC in IC

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 8:55 pm
by Cobby
TheWulfe wrote:
feem wrote:-snip-


Maybe my point should have been more clear.

My point wasn't whether something who does make a grammar misstep actually does cross into referring to a round type. But that the distinction between it and proper use is easy enough to mess up that's it's so minor and hinging on articles and letters, when it does happen it's so pointless to be actionable that you're steeping into the in-game Grammar Nazi ghost territory, but instead of eye-rolling a guy on a forum it's warnable each time some poor sap has a typo.

Just to put into the example with the "it's revs is OOC in IC" meme. "It's revs" is grammatically correct for non-OOC instances. For example someone saying "What's wrong/going on" "It's revs", as in, "It's revolutionaries, [that's what's wrong/going on]" which is a variant context of the final "It's revs" in the OP thread. Does "there's revs" work better and cover more ground? Yeah, but the former is still correct. These are just grammar errors, some I see my fellow college students make when I'm comparing papers with them.


Isn't a blanket ban of just not using "its X" less nazi than "You can't use Its X unless you are specifically responding to the question 'whats going on' or 'whats wrong'"? It would be much easier to the player to have it a blanket "don't say it" than it is to have to go through some huge checklist of when it is ok / not ok to say it and hope you don't say it in the wrong circumstance or you can get a bwoink. Just don't say it at all!

Regardless, JUST DONT SAY "IT IS X" where "it" is a pronoun for the gamemode/round/some other ooc concept. There is no need to make this fairly simple rule extremely extensive.

Re: OOC in IC

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 10:54 pm
by TheWulfe
ExcessiveCobblestone wrote:Isn't a blanket ban of just not using "its X" less nazi than "You can't use Its X unless you are specifically responding to the question 'whats going on' or 'whats wrong'"? It would be much easier to the player to have it a blanket "don't say it" than it is to have to go through some huge checklist of when it is ok / not ok to say it and hope you don't say it in the wrong circumstance or you can get a bwoink. Just don't say it at all!

Regardless, JUST DONT SAY "IT IS X" where "it" is a pronoun for the gamemode/round/some other ooc concept. There is no need to make this fairly simple rule extremely extensive.


You completely jumped right into the point I specifically said I wasn't arguing, you're debating proper usage of a phrase and blanketbanning when my whole point was that the grammar semantics were so dumb it leads straight into that territory. Though unironically calling for a potential blanket ban/monitoring one of the most common contractions in the English language in the same sentence was a bit unsettling.

My point was when a player does flub super easy stuff like missing letters, articles, contractions, that it's so 'eh' - with everyone knowing the context without the proper grammar that would barely slip what they said into technically being OOC in IC you might as well not even bother bwoinking.

Re: OOC in IC

PostPosted: Fri Jul 14, 2017 12:23 am
by NikNakFlak
People already spam "It's [gamemode]" and just because you don't see many bans for it doesn't mean it doesn't happen or maybe they were given a warning.
The problem with the "it's just dumb grammar stop being a nazi" argument is if nothing is done about it, it'll just become more common and more ignored and then what little putter of immersion that /tg/ manages to shit out
is all but dead. But yet, incoming someone going "It's [gamemode] has nothing to do with roleplay, real roleplay is x, y, and z". But really, where is line here? Do people not care if literally in-character speech is suddenly tossed out the window? Does it only matter when someone goes "stupid fucking player I'm gonna adminhelp and you get you banned!"

We also warn and ban for textspeech in IC and that's basically the same level of "grammar nazi"
People saying that this shouldn't be nipped in the bud at all are just honestly, objectively wrong. The minute you toss some standards, you're just adding to the problem that is everyone and their mother not being able to stop OOCing in IC.

It's hard to look up ban/note reasons for "It's gamemode" since there are lots of ways for any number of admins to type in notes and bans but off the top of the database, "It's revs" showed like 2 bans and 8 notes, while OOC in IC showed upwards of hundreds of bans with multiple infractions a day at least. This search also revealed quite a few more "It's [gamemode]" bans/notes. There's also countless countless notes/bans that read "OOC in IC" with no other context given. We'll never really know what was said for the infraction but to say that it shouldn't be enforced because of "grammer nazi" reasons is really dumb.

Re: OOC in IC

PostPosted: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:17 am
by oranges
yes because enforcing missing a's will really bring back the rp that tg used to have

yeah fucking right, maybe actually try to address the issue

Re: OOC in IC

PostPosted: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:18 am
by NikNakFlak
you don't even play

Re: OOC in IC

PostPosted: Fri Jul 14, 2017 7:16 am
by Grazyn
TheWulfe wrote:
ExcessiveCobblestone wrote:Isn't a blanket ban of just not using "its X" less nazi than "You can't use Its X unless you are specifically responding to the question 'whats going on' or 'whats wrong'"? It would be much easier to the player to have it a blanket "don't say it" than it is to have to go through some huge checklist of when it is ok / not ok to say it and hope you don't say it in the wrong circumstance or you can get a bwoink. Just don't say it at all!

Regardless, JUST DONT SAY "IT IS X" where "it" is a pronoun for the gamemode/round/some other ooc concept. There is no need to make this fairly simple rule extremely extensive.


You completely jumped right into the point I specifically said I wasn't arguing, you're debating proper usage of a phrase and blanketbanning when my whole point was that the grammar semantics were so dumb it leads straight into that territory. Though unironically calling for a potential blanket ban/monitoring one of the most common contractions in the English language in the same sentence was a bit unsettling.

My point was when a player does flub super easy stuff like missing letters, articles, contractions, that it's so 'eh' - with everyone knowing the context without the proper grammar that would barely slip what they said into technically being OOC in IC you might as well not even bother bwoinking.

How hard is it to understand

People who use "IT'S *REVS*LINGS*OPS" are aware of the memeish usage and do it to either stir shit with admins ("lel lol you bwoinking me for grammar, I'm gonna destroy you on the forums") or to further push the server into non-RP territory. Those who sincerely want to convey a message in the heat of the moment would just say "*REVS*OPS". Therefore you either blanket bwoink them or we descend once again into "IT'S GAMEMODE" roundstart fest.

oranges wrote:yes because enforcing missing a's will really bring back the rp that tg used to have

yeah fucking right, maybe actually try to address the issue

yes because enforcing missing a's will really bring back the rp that tg used to have
yes because not allowing meme names will really bring back the rp that tg used to have
yes because not allowing chatspeak will really bring back the rp that tg used to have

There isn't a single magic recipe for RP, we're obviously not going back to the good old days (which never actually existed: 5 years ago we had fucking k/d public scoreboard, everyone had stungloves and every round was thermals+cloaker+esword or MM+einath) but ignoring little things like these means you're just giving up.

Re: OOC in IC

PostPosted: Fri Jul 14, 2017 10:34 am
by Not-Dorsidarf
The people who say "but my mlg noscope millisecond-perfect timing will suffer if I cant type "its revs!!"

have you considered just yelling "Revs!!"? Because thats fully IC and even faster to type

Re: OOC in IC

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2017 1:26 am
by CPTANT
oranges wrote:yes because enforcing missing a's will really bring back the rp that tg used to have

yeah fucking right, maybe actually try to address the issue


Holy shit you are thick. Nobody gives a shit about how many letters the difference is, they are two different sentences.

Re: OOC in IC

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2017 5:06 am
by Cobby
oranges wrote:yes because enforcing missing a's will really bring back the rp that tg used to have

yeah fucking right, maybe actually try to address the issue


Isn't discouraging people from doing OOC in IC a step forward in addressing the issue?

Re: OOC in IC

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2017 6:10 am
by DrPillzRedux
It's more like a microaggression.

Re: OOC in IC

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2017 4:00 pm
by feem
If you feel victimized when you willfully break the rules I don't know what to tell you.

This policy has never been about your fantasy "BUT WHAT IF" typo or speed-typing scenario, and it isn't about "it's revs." It's about "don't say things that directly reference ooc mechanics while ic."

It's not a new rule and if you feel that enforcement of rules is a personal slight then this may be something you have to get over on your own.

If you feel that a ban that you've experienced for this or any other reason was a personal attack either of malice or opportunity, I implore you to file a ban appeal or admin complaint about it.

If your intent is to continue hammering away at the invisible admin that is out to get you if you typo, you are of course welcome to, but understand that everyone thinks you're just flailing around because no one can see the horrors you've seen.

Re: OOC in IC

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2017 4:12 pm
by FantasticFwoosh
We should carpet ban talking about meta-strategies too without current purpose to the round because our (?? RP stardards ??) would be jeopardized.

  • Adios Mekhi - Nobody can confer you for knowledge of meta strategies and you and others can't shill your own OOC science cheat sheets.

How does knowing its revolutionaries make it worse than shouting ("ITS A BLOB") after the blob has been declared other than making every assistant run towards the nearest person with a flash and security going apeshit en-mass... (oh, that's why)

Perhaps the outlying problem is how people react and play these rounds when they are aware of them and enforce through code or "arpeeee" a much longer truce before the shitstorm of powergaming that makes up the round that nobody actually likes going through unless you're winning.



So far in the powergaming culture, that screaming out the roundtype through grammatical nuances is forbidden (and sort of sensibly so) and will cause people to immediately act and over-prepare. Meanwhile people talk about RP like its a thing.

Image

Re: OOC in IC

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2017 4:26 pm
by feem
As it has been said repeatedly, nobody cares if you know that it's the game mode, nobody cares if you tell people that there are revs. The problem is extremely specific: referencing the game mode ICly. When we bwoink for this, at least when I do, it's generally when the person who's done it has explicitly meant "it's <the game mode>" while referring to the round, rather than "it's <the situation we're facing>".

Often when this reference is made as described it carries the intentional subtext of implied exclusion as regards either other alternative game modes. I.e, often when I bwoink for this it's because the player is using it to say "no it's not x because it's y" or "there can't be x, it's y".

Re: OOC in IC

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2017 4:38 pm
by FantasticFwoosh
It does adversely change the behaviour of players, which is a valid problem of meta-calling out the 'round' as you say rather than the situation, even if its a lie that adds layers onto your work to keep the roundtype clandestine unspoilt and immersions in check until it comes out naturally.

Hardsuited regular traitors being mistaken for operatives for instance, then shouting out ITS NUKE OPS CHECK SECURE NORTH & SOUTH MAINT! is probably ambigious, but will cause a immediate state of panic, causing the armory to be opened and meta-tactics of barriers etc even though its a false flag.

  • Firstly they shouldn't go to the ship or even mention the existance of the ship, would you agree that is a roundtype violatory ruling?
  • Secondly the disk should be secure anyway and the captain warned IC'ly or OOC'ly
  • They can't debunk the traitor for not being a legitimate operative when they don't explode ("call it off its a traitor") because in turn they are confirming the existance of it being a traitor not a operative mode.

You're probably going to turn around and call me a idiot because i went off at a tangent but is what i outlied agreeable?

Re: OOC in IC

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2017 4:50 pm
by feem
Please read rules 2 and 3.

Re: OOC in IC

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2017 5:04 pm
by FantasticFwoosh
Well of course, but how we use that is up to admin discretion but we don't actively put a cap on the knowledge that IC players have to remaining neutral to a situation because that's usually bypassing rule 2 because they know of it OOC perfectly enough to apply it to the current situation and get around it. And seemingly not enforced.

Mekhi is not a good admin poster child for this for their OOC bragging about being asked to literally help sec on request to enlist as a officer or elective HOS while playing IC'ly is just choosing more efficient players in a out of round capacity to handle things without any IC merit.

And re-checking that page (not that i break the rules or worry about breaking the rules enough to be a regular visitor), its good there's clarification at the top that it can be used a point of reference because there was a time close to when I started at TG where admins basically told us that the wiki was garbage for citing rules. Times have changed a little bit.

  • I realise im hammering on Mekhi a lot, but i spent a good deal of time fighting metagamers as RD leading up to the moonlighting memes, and its kind of a backhanded compliment to see the rules laid out enforcibly now on the wiki when the matter of powergaming has been neglected for such a long time as a cultural issue.

Re: OOC in IC

PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2017 2:01 am
by oranges
NikNakFlak wrote:you don't even play

:roll:

Re: OOC in IC

PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2017 11:17 am
by CPTANT
oranges wrote:
NikNakFlak wrote:you don't even play

:roll:


Don't OOC in IC.

Re: OOC in IC

PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2017 4:55 pm
by kevinz000
PKPenguin321 wrote:Is it really so hard to say "There's a revolution" instead of "It's revs", or "shift" instead of "round"

Smack my head

My message exactly when I catch people doing it and I encourage people to ahelp instances that aren't caught.