Why does IC revenge mitigate Admin intervention?

[Oldman Robustin]

This is such a poor part of our policy.

Warnings are (and should be) the chief mechanic for guiding player behavior.

Retreating from a ban or a warning because someone got their shit stuffed in makes very little sense for guiding rule compliance. Getting killed by someone seeking revenge doesn't inform you whether or not your initial interaction (i.e. what you did to deserve getting killed) was valid. As long as we maintain the idea that there is "purely valid" escalation where non-antags can murder each other without violating the rules, settling Ahelps with "Resolved IC" just means you're kicking the can down the road for players who broke the rules and got killed for it - so some other admin can sort it out when the player starts the same shit but cosmic karma doesn't get them killed AND the victims ahelp with a coherent story.

Of course it also skews IC behavior in a far broader and unhealthier way too - with playing accounting for which admins are logged on and the likelihood of getting the other person banned - when deciding how to escalate against someone griefing them. I say if someone has done something to make themselves valid to you, you should be able to act out revenge without fear of foreclosing a proper ruling on their behavior from Admins. And for the griefer it's better for them to know that their behavior crossed a line so they can distinguish between behavior that can result in them becoming "valid" versus behavior that could get them banned.

This should mostly apply to warnings (See Line #2), if someone crossed a line, admins need to let them know and not hold back because they got killed in the process of breaking the rules. The outcome is still the same but everyone benefits from clearer guidance. If there's a ban on the table then it seems ludicrous that we actually PUNISH people for role-playing and acting on their IC-motivations.

"Hi it looks like you acted appropriately on your IC motivations, therefore we've decided to punish you by removing the Griefer's dayban and instead letting your revenge - partially removing them from the game, not even accounting for cloning/ghost roles - suffice instead. If you would like to see rule-breakers actually punished for rule-breaking, next time consider just standing still and getting beat to death while you shout into the heavens for our intervention - thats how we like to see conflict play out on SS13."

Sounds pretty silly huh? It might make sense if we dropped shorter bans on people, but as it stands its just a sloppy way to reduce admin workload at the cost of murkier policy and skewing IC behavior.

[WarbossLincoln]

I dunno, if you feel the need to look at what admins are online constantly to decide if what you want to do is kosher, you should maybe rethink how you're playing.

I do see your overall point though, if X behavior deserves a warning from admins they should get it regardless of how it was handled IC>

[iamgoofball]

a vast majority of our funny ss13 stories rely on people not getting banned for IC shit

[Atlanta-Ned]

Warnings are (and should be) the chief mechanic for guiding player behavior.

I should read and respond to the rest of your points but honestly I just hate this statement so much. Admins are already getting blasted for being jackbooted thugs*, the last thing we (or anyone else) wants is for us to double down on that. No one has a good time issuing a warning or a ban.

*At least this week

I dunno, if you feel the need to look at what admins are online constantly to decide if what you want to do is kosher, you should maybe rethink how you're playing.

This is 100% factually correct.

[WarbossLincoln]

Right, which is why admins have the right to waive the rules if something is funny. But there's a trend that Oldman points out that if someone does something shitty to you, if you decide to get revenge then they are immune to OOC repercussions, generally speaking.

This is probably too situational to create a policy over, but maybe reflects an admin attitude that could shift a little.

[Dr_bee]

I kinda get what Oldman is talking about here. There are perfectly legitimate reasons to have a fight with normal escalation, for example fighting over resources, however if a person is griefing 4noraisen and gets dunked for it, they shouldnt magically be immune from OOC consequences.

Still is mostly a case-by-case thing, maybe come up with a more concrete example? hypothetical or actual documented?

[feem]

This is always going to be case by case. I've definitely banned a bunch of people or at least noted them even though they got dunked for what they did.

But when it's generated good play and the person they did stupid shit to was okay with it or if the circumstances allowed it or mitigated it, I've also let it slide when, if those circumstances had been different, I would have banned or noted them.

Surprise surprise: circumstances matter.

If you feel like there's been an error in handling something please file an admin complaint. It's the only way we can get better.

[oranges]

This smells like an admin complaint disguised as a policy thread

[Lazengann]

If an admin tells you to release a guy from the permabrig and the guy starts throwing soap at you to kill you then it'd be shitty if you got banned for leaving him in there

[BeeSting12]

Why does IC revenge mitigate admin intervention?

It doesn't. Please give specifics of the situation so we know exactly which admin didn't ban him.

[Cobby]

If you choose to handle it IC you don’t get to double down on the guy via admins (this is especially true when you lose).

We shouldn’t encourage people to Weaponize admins. If you want admin action for something, F1 it. When you call admins, you forfeit dealing with the issue unless told by said admin.

This assumes you understand admins exists for OOC problems (breaking of the rules) and not for bad or unfavorable IC ones.

Our escalation policy has been recently amended so I’d like to see how that plays out before this thread continues tbh.

[MrStonedOne]

This smells like an admin complaint disguised as a policy thread

Literally every thread in this forum is an admin complaint disguised as a policy thread, or a ban appeal disguised as a policy thread

It's just that its more productive to have admin complaints disguised as policy threads, than it is to have policy threads disguised as admin complaints.

[iamgoofball]

Or it's me trying to figure out what feature I have to remove because admins are banning over it

[cedarbridge]

Usually this is the case because players should not be looking for admin intervention as a second bite at the apple. If Urist McGrey is a dick to you and you dunk him for it, then you already handled the issue for yourself. If you did not believe this was handling it for yourself you wouldn't have done it. Dunking the dude and then ringing up the admins to layer it onto the guy over something that was probably simple and petty (it is in 90% of cases) is frankly not something that should be encouraged. There's already enough "Yeah well I'm telling mom" about how players interact when they get into fights and IC arguments over petty shit. Also, the other reason is admins are a tool for conflict resolution. If you call up an admin you're accepting that you will abide by the admin's ruling and guidance for resolution. That includes allowing space for investigation and then not proceeding to reantagonize whatever situation there was that you felt you needed admin intervention for in the first place.

[Oldman Robustin]

This smells like an admin complaint disguised as a policy thread

Negative. Just seen this card used twice in-game and forums this week and it always strikes me as silly. One of those was a ticket I had handled but it's what I expected, someone griefed me without provocation, crit me and left me in the hall where I fell, but someone else saved me and I eventually got revenge. I don't even remember the admin nor do I think they broke with our policy (which is one reason to make a complaint), I just think the policy itself is dumb.

Also lol @ certain people assuming that my hypothetical player adjusting their IC-behavior around the admin list means thats what -I- do. I generally just kill people if they are making a special effort to annoy me and I don't like ahelping anymore than I liked banning people as an admin. Maybe its subconscious. Its certainly not a stretch to say if someone ahelps being harassed and the same admin keeps telling them "valid", that person is probably more likely to take matters into their own hands than if a more ban-happy admin is on and the person thinks they can get quick and direct results with an ahelp.

@Cobby but your distinction is illogical.

Admins would (and should) only handle bad or unfavorable IC interactions if they break the rules. Also calling it "doubling down" is a pretty gross mischaracterization. Like I said in my post, this typically applies to warning. Admins leaving a note versus not leaving a note because some griefer got killed makes no sense and if you tell a griefer "Hey that's against the rules, im leaving a note, if you do it again you might get banned" is hardly doubling down. Alternatively taking someone (partly) out of the round for what, 10-30m?, barely compares to the effect of completely removing people from the server for at least 24hrs. Even "doubling down" makes it sound like the person who got IC revenge somehow got a much better deal - if someone gets banned for breaking the rules then the IC revenge was moot, there's no practical difference between a corpse and a catatonic. All it means is that players wouldn't be discouraged from reacting appropriately IC.

Saying that people who break the rules should have to deal with admins doesn't mean admins are being "weaponized".

@Cedar

Stuff like "2nd bite at the apple" misinterprets what I'm getting at. If someone does something invalid (rule-breaking griff), then you go after them with a chainsaw, but you lose the fight and get killed. Obviously that ahelp is going to be handled different than someone doing something invalid (rule-breaking griff) then killing you anyway (enjoy your ban!). I'm saying the first part (rule-breaking griff) should be handled the same regardless of what happens next. "2nd bite at the apple" sounds like someone who ended up in the 1st situation wanting to get the same results as the 2nd situation (murder would be considered invalid). But the argument is that admins are absolving the whole thing in the first situation, not just the escalation and murder.

This approach has at least some sanity in escalation policy since it that policy is responsible for drawing the line between invalid and valid interactions so it only makes sense to say you can't escalate a (valid) fight and then cry when you lose. My example is clearer: The conflict is begun by one player carrying out an invalid act, without any prior escalation, and then the victim gets revenge IC.

The answer should be equally clear: If the initial invalid act merits a warning, give the warning regardless of the IC-resolution because admins should counsel against rule-breaking and the perpetrator should/needs to know the difference between behavior that gets them killed and behavior that gets them killed and could get them banned if they do it again. If the initial invalid act merits a ban, give the ban regardless of IC-resolution because there is a gross imbalance between the penalty for dying versus the penalty for being removing from the server for 24hrs+ - especially since the ban will typically kick in immediately anyway so that person is effectively dead for the rest of the round, regardless.

[Dax Dupont]

Perhaps if you didn't wordlessly chase people with a flash after stating that you'll spear them to death earlier in the round(because they stole your spear) you wouldn't end up in soft crit next to two security officers who prevented that person from being able to drag you to medbay, they however did.

Shit got stolen, things escalated, one side got crit and instantly healed and was down for 1 minute, the other got killed. Ahelping for losing a IC fight is silly, especially if you kill them anyways.
I'm not sure how stealing a common weapon is griefing though. I get people stealing my bats and spears all the time.

If you really can't let IC things from previous rounds go, you might want to take a break.
https://tgstation13.download/dip/discordimageproxy.php/attachments/ ... amnjam.png

[Iatots]

Ah yes, that old chestnut:

If you choose to handle it IC you don’t get to double down on the guy via admins (this is especially true when you lose).
We shouldn’t encourage people to Weaponize admins. If you want admin action for something, F1 it. When you call admins, you forfeit dealing with the issue unless told by said admin.

Usually this is the case because players should not be looking for admin intervention as a second bite at the apple. If Urist McGrey is a dick to you and you dunk him for it, then you already handled the issue for yourself. If you did not believe this was handling it for yourself you wouldn't have done it. Dunking the dude and then ringing up the admins to layer it onto the guy over something that was probably simple and petty (it is in 90% of cases) is frankly not something that should be encouraged.

Rules on "griefing", "sabotage" and other IC annoyances are applied differently to players based on whether they are an antag or not. If someone steals my ID they might need the access to kill someone or they might just be a cunt. If someone's "epic prank bro" is slashing me with a scalpel in the hallway and running away is it a traitor roleplaying a cookie cutter shark or just someone being an asshole? I have no way of knowing because you sure as fuck aren't telling me who is or isn't a designated crew antagonizer (TM). So what now? Do I ahelp everytime someone uses harm intent on me? Nope, most of this kind of shit is "IC confict". Do I escalate to security? If I don't hold any high ranking in the station my word is worth jack and they have designated crew antagonizers (TM) to look for, not some random thief of non-risk items. My only options are to let it go, which sends the message of "it's ok to be shit to people, they will take it", or to try and get my valids (TM) by escalating which leads to either me getting dunked - with NO appeal - and reinforcing the "might makes right" mentality of "I can be as shit as I want as long as I am stronger", or me dunking them and again reinforcing "might makes right" because I got justice not by law but by force. The fetishization this community has for "robustness" cannot be understated!

There's already enough "Yeah well I'm telling mom" about how players interact when they get into fights and IC arguments over petty shit.
Also, the other reason is admins are a tool for conflict resolution. If you call up an admin you're accepting that you will abide by the admin's ruling and guidance for resolution. That includes allowing space for investigation and then not proceeding to reantagonize whatever situation there was that you felt you needed admin intervention for in the first place.

Plenty of shitters think they are entitled to start fights for being denied what they what thanks to the robustness argument I made above. If some cunt wants my gloves and starts beating me after being denied, do you expect me to ahelp his shit behavior? No, that's calling mommy. You expect me to outdunk him because might makes right and if I am being wronged clearly I can just pull out the righteousness stick I keep up my ass and beat him with it. You don't fix inane violence with more violence jesus christ this is literally a kindergarden lesson and yet expecting deadweight to be removed from the server is forbidden whenever you beat them at their own game.

[kevinz000]

Or it's me trying to figure out what feature I have to remove because admins are banning over it

No one asked you to, get out.

[Karp]

This smells like an admin complaint disguised as a policy thread

Negative. Just seen this card used twice in-game and forums this week and it always strikes me as silly. One of those was a ticket I had handled but it's what I expected, someone griefed me without provocation, crit me and left me in the hall where I fell, but someone else saved me and I eventually got revenge. I don't even remember the admin nor do I think they broke with our policy (which is one reason to make a complaint), I just think the policy itself is dumb.

Also lol @ certain people assuming that my hypothetical player adjusting their IC-behavior around the admin list means thats what -I- do. I generally just kill people if they are making a special effort to annoy me and I don't like ahelping anymore than I liked banning people as an admin. Maybe its subconscious. Its certainly not a stretch to say if someone ahelps being harassed and the same admin keeps telling them "valid", that person is probably more likely to take matters into their own hands than if a more ban-happy admin is on and the person thinks they can get quick and direct results with an ahelp.

@Cobby but your distinction is illogical.

Admins would (and should) only handle bad or unfavorable IC interactions if they break the rules. Also calling it "doubling down" is a pretty gross mischaracterization. Like I said in my post, this typically applies to warning. Admins leaving a note versus not leaving a note because some griefer got killed makes no sense and if you tell a griefer "Hey that's against the rules, im leaving a note, if you do it again you might get banned" is hardly doubling down. Alternatively taking someone (partly) out of the round for what, 10-30m?, barely compares to the effect of completely removing people from the server for at least 24hrs. Even "doubling down" makes it sound like the person who got IC revenge somehow got a much better deal - if someone gets banned for breaking the rules then the IC revenge was moot, there's no practical difference between a corpse and a catatonic. All it means is that players wouldn't be discouraged from reacting appropriately IC.

Saying that people who break the rules should have to deal with admins doesn't mean admins are being "weaponized".

@Cedar

Stuff like "2nd bite at the apple" misinterprets what I'm getting at. If someone does something invalid (rule-breaking griff), then you go after them with a chainsaw, but you lose the fight and get killed. Obviously that ahelp is going to be handled different than someone doing something invalid (rule-breaking griff) then killing you anyway (enjoy your ban!). I'm saying the first part (rule-breaking griff) should be handled the same regardless of what happens next. "2nd bite at the apple" sounds like someone who ended up in the 1st situation wanting to get the same results as the 2nd situation (murder would be considered invalid). But the argument is that admins are absolving the whole thing in the first situation, not just the escalation and murder.

This approach has at least some sanity in escalation policy since it that policy is responsible for drawing the line between invalid and valid interactions so it only makes sense to say you can't escalate a (valid) fight and then cry when you lose. My example is clearer: The conflict is begun by one player carrying out an invalid act, without any prior escalation, and then the victim gets revenge IC.

The answer should be equally clear: If the initial invalid act merits a warning, give the warning regardless of the IC-resolution because admins should counsel against rule-breaking and the perpetrator should/needs to know the difference between behavior that gets them killed and behavior that gets them killed and could get them banned if they do it again. If the initial invalid act merits a ban, give the ban regardless of IC-resolution because there is a gross imbalance between the penalty for dying versus the penalty for being removing from the server for 24hrs+ - especially since the ban will typically kick in immediately anyway so that person is effectively dead for the rest of the round, regardless.

[Wyzack]

I miss low rules rounds can we do those again

[Armhulen]

I miss low rules rounds can we do those again

As soon as you become an admin and run it as an event.

we're waiting

[cedarbridge]

Rules on "griefing", "sabotage" and other IC annoyances are applied differently to players based on whether they are an antag or not. If someone steals my ID they might need the access to kill someone or they might just be a cunt. If someone's "epic prank bro" is slashing me with a scalpel in the hallway and running away is it a traitor roleplaying a cookie cutter shark or just someone being an asshole? I have no way of knowing because you sure as fuck aren't telling me who is or isn't a designated crew antagonizer (TM). So what now? Do I ahelp everytime someone uses harm intent on me? Nope, most of this kind of shit is "IC confict". Do I escalate to security? If I don't hold any high ranking in the station my word is worth jack and they have designated crew antagonizers (TM) to look for, not some random thief of non-risk items. My only options are to let it go, which sends the message of "it's ok to be shit to people, they will take it", or to try and get my valids (TM) by escalating which leads to either me getting dunked - with NO appeal - and reinforcing the "might makes right" mentality of "I can be as shit as I want as long as I am stronger", or me dunking them and again reinforcing "might makes right" because I got justice not by law but by force. The fetishization this community has for "robustness" cannot be understated!

Perhaps, but you've certainly overstated it here. Minor crimes like simple theft and assault are generally IC issues reserved to IC resolution. Unsurprisingly, security exists for more than chasing the designated antagonists. Were it not the case, there would be no purpose for the holding cells as anyone sec arrested would just be execution fodder. If a guy runs up and hits you with a scalpel, he attacked you. You're allowed to defend yourself from something minor like that. What we're trying to get across is 1) Player A does some shitty minor griff 2) Player 2 dunks Player 1 3) Player 2 does not feel sufficiently vindicated so they also call the admins to exacerbate a minor issue to something bigger than it is is not an ideal course of action and makes mountains of molehills. This is not a fetishization of "robustness." Its a choice on the wronged player's part to resolve an IC issue in a violent way of their choosing. Admins should not be plan B when that revenge for a minor slight fails.

There's already enough "Yeah well I'm telling mom" about how players interact when they get into fights and IC arguments over petty shit.
Also, the other reason is admins are a tool for conflict resolution. If you call up an admin you're accepting that you will abide by the admin's ruling and guidance for resolution. That includes allowing space for investigation and then not proceeding to reantagonize whatever situation there was that you felt you needed admin intervention for in the first place.

Plenty of shitters think they are entitled to start fights for being denied what they what thanks to the robustness argument I made above. If some cunt wants my gloves and starts beating me after being denied, do you expect me to ahelp his shit behavior? No, that's calling mommy. You expect me to outdunk him because might makes right and if I am being wronged clearly I can just pull out the righteousness stick I keep up my ass and beat him with it. You don't fix inane violence with more violence jesus christ this is literally a kindergarden lesson and yet expecting deadweight to be removed from the server is forbidden whenever you beat them at their own game.[/quote]

It wasn't the admins clamoring and demanding soft enforcement against "low IC crimes." That was the players. If you don't want or can't handle people committing simple thefts and such and can't figure out how to resolve it without violence (your choice) or admin intervention (which is probably going to have the admin slam an "IC issue" button on your ticket) then its really baffling that you'd attempt to lecture anyone about kindergarten behavior. Look at it this way, if I'm standing in line at the bank and somebody steals my wallet I can, 1) pursue the guy that took it 2) pray to God that a lightning bolt strikes the guy from the heavens or 3) I can tell the police officer right there on the corner to do his job and catch the guy with my wallet. Literally the only result of what you're asking for is the ability to respond to a minor IC slight with attempted violent reprisal and then get said IC thief banned when you fail to get your thing back. This isn't an admin issue until it becomes a generalized problem that disrupts more of the round than something that has long been considered so minor that player resolution is preferable.

[XDTM]

What we're trying to get across is 1) Player A does some shitty minor griff 2) Player 2 dunks Player 1 3) Player 2 does not feel sufficiently vindicated so they also call the admins to exacerbate a minor issue to something bigger than it is is not an ideal course of action and makes mountains of molehills. This is not a fetishization of "robustness." Its a choice on the wronged player's part to resolve an IC issue in a violent way of their choosing. Admins should not be plan B when that revenge for a minor slight fails.

1) Player A does some shitty minor griff
2) Player A should not be doing shitty minor griff

While i'm sure there are people who get their rocks off by seeing other people punished, i think the normal thought process here is "Hey, that griff didn't ruin my day this time around, how nice! Now why did i have to deal with griff in the first place?" and from there on you try to prevent griefing from happening in future games by reporting it to the admins.

[Not-Dorsidarf]

What we're trying to get across is 1) Player A does some shitty minor griff 2) Player 2 dunks Player 1 3) Player 2 does not feel sufficiently vindicated so they also call the admins to exacerbate a minor issue to something bigger than it is is not an ideal course of action and makes mountains of molehills. This is not a fetishization of "robustness." Its a choice on the wronged player's part to resolve an IC issue in a violent way of their choosing. Admins should not be plan B when that revenge for a minor slight fails.

1) Player A does some shitty minor griff
2) Player A should not be doing shitty minor griff

While i'm sure there are people who get their rocks off by seeing other people punished, i think the normal thought process here is "Hey, that griff didn't ruin my day this time around, how nice! Now why did i have to deal with griff in the first place?" and from there on you try to prevent griefing from happening in future games by reporting it to the admins.

1) player A minorly inconveniences you
2) i want that player banned, and I'm also going to kill them for it what do you mean I'm not the most important person in the world?

edit: also yadda yadda all the times its already been stated that low-level asshattery is specifically tolerated to give sec something to do other than "find antag kill antag"

[feem]

If we crack down on greytiding, admins get yelled at.

If we're lax on greytiding, admins get yelled at.

And y'all wonder why we keep telling you it depends on the situation?

There is literally no hard and fast way to codify 'bad behavior' which will be 100% applicable in all scenarios and a few of the players in this thread need to accept that.

[captain sawrge]

What we're trying to get across is 1) Player A does some shitty minor griff 2) Player 2 dunks Player 1 3) Player 2 does not feel sufficiently vindicated so they also call the admins to exacerbate a minor issue to something bigger than it is is not an ideal course of action and makes mountains of molehills. This is not a fetishization of "robustness." Its a choice on the wronged player's part to resolve an IC issue in a violent way of their choosing. Admins should not be plan B when that revenge for a minor slight fails.

1) Player A does some shitty minor griff
2) Player A should not be doing shitty minor griff

While i'm sure there are people who get their rocks off by seeing other people punished, i think the normal thought process here is "Hey, that griff didn't ruin my day this time around, how nice! Now why did i have to deal with griff in the first place?" and from there on you try to prevent griefing from happening in future games by reporting it to the admins.

If everyone is nice to each other and no one fucked people over for their own benefit/enjoyment there would not be a game

[cedarbridge]

As I said before, players need to but never will make up their minds. Either they want admins to crack down on minor offenses or they don't. Typically the ones who want the crackdown are the ones not doing the offenses and the ones that don't want admins to crack down on it are the ones comitting the minor offenses or the sec chasing them around. There's a few outliers, but that's the general breakdown. The current method exists because the player is given a choice. They can take it into their own hands and sort out the the offending party or they can call an admin in to intervene. The presumption that the player should be able to do both is wrong because it places a secondary presumption onto the matter that the complaining party first to the F1 button is in the right and is owed double justice for whatever offense they feel.

[onleavedontatme]

If someone steals my ID they might need the access to kill someone or they might just be a cunt. If someone's "epic prank bro" is slashing me with a scalpel in the hallway and running away is it a traitor roleplaying a cookie cutter shark or just someone being an asshole? I have no way of knowing because you sure as fuck aren't telling me who is or isn't a designated crew antagonizer (TM).

People debate having random antag items around the map or fake ones or whatever, but letting some grief slide is the real metabreaker. The game won't function if you can instantly tell every thief or guy in a fight is an antag.

[iamgoofball]

Or it's me trying to figure out what feature I have to remove because admins are banning over it

No one asked you to, get out.

>actively ban people for doing specific shit regardless of whether they're an antag or not
>we remove the feature at coderbus because it's literally just going to get you banned
>admins complain about not being able to powertripban people for violating da ruelz

[Iatots]

---

Perhaps, but you've certainly overstated it here. Minor crimes like simple theft and assault are generally IC issues reserved to IC resolution. Unsurprisingly, security exists for more than chasing the designated antagonists. Were it not the case, there would be no purpose for the holding cells as anyone sec arrested would just be execution fodder.

The cells are there for every single criminal that can be obtained with a pulse, something that should be fucking easy given security is the stun system personified. Instead nowadays security is the goddamn fucking gestapo willing to cave your skull in then and there if they catch you with the Obergefreiter's chocolate ration.

If a guy runs up and hits you with a scalpel, he attacked you. You're allowed to defend yourself from something minor like that. What we're trying to get across is 1) Player A does some shitty minor griff 2) Player B dunks Player A 3) Player B does not feel sufficiently vindicated so they also call the admins to exacerbate a minor issue to something bigger than it is is not an ideal course of action and makes mountains of molehills. This is not a fetishization of "robustness." Its a choice on the wronged player's part to resolve an IC issue in a violent way of their choosing. Admins should not be plan B when that revenge for a minor slight fails.

How do you resolve the situation nonviolently? Tell security? If you are not a head or someone of worth chances are they are busy with actual traitors or whoever else annoyed them first. Unless you suggest I abduct them, tie them on a chair and lecture them on the evils of violence, my only "solution" is to escalate violently, and at that point I have lost because I just validated their behavior by doing exactly what the did. No greytider is gonna get cut like ribbons by the chef after trashing the kitchen and think "Damn, me being a fucking cunt isn't working out that great, maybe I should give engineering a try", they will double down for the next round and make sure they carry soap or mace, and might even turn their victim into mince to make sure the escalation stops where it's convenient to them.

----

It wasn't the admins clamoring and demanding soft enforcement against "low IC crimes." That was the players. If you don't want or can't handle people committing simple thefts and such and can't figure out how to resolve it without violence (your choice) or admin intervention (which is probably going to have the admin slam an "IC issue" button on your ticket) then its really baffling that you'd attempt to lecture anyone about kindergarten behavior. Look at it this way, if I'm standing in line at the bank and somebody steals my wallet I can, 1) pursue the guy that took it 2) pray to God that a lightning bolt strikes the guy from the heavens or 3) I can tell the police officer right there on the corner to do his job and catch the guy with my wallet.

Don't try to drag IRL into this, if my wallet gets stolen the police has more than 40 minutes to dedicate to the case and while even IRL I may never get my wallet back it's not an item of limited instances, the money I'm missing won't dent the rest of my entire existance and insurance is also a thing. Security is a finite resource in the game and in my experience as a non-head player their time is better spent on someone else's problems, usually someone above me in the station's totem pole.

Literally the only result of what you're asking for is the ability to respond to a minor IC slight with attempted violent reprisal and then get said IC thief banned when you fail to get your thing back. This isn't an admin issue until it becomes a generalized problem that disrupts more of the round than something that has long been considered so minor that player resolution is preferable

There is no viable response other than a violent one for a lot of people on the station, and it starts a self-feeding loop of escalation until the victim gets killed off for good or the aggressor gets bored. You can't convert a violent person to non-violence using violence, and it's what this thread is about:

"Hi it looks like you acted appropriately on your IC motivations, therefore we've decided to punish you by removing the Griefer's dayban and instead letting your revenge - partially removing them from the game, not even accounting for cloning/ghost roles - suffice instead. If you would like to see rule-breakers actually punished for rule-breaking, next time consider just standing still and getting beat to death while you shout into the heavens for our intervention - thats how we like to see conflict play out on SS13."

Just because the griffer got a beatdown doesn't mean they will become a better person. If someone tries to ruin my round for fun, and I choose to fight back immediately instead of "calling mommy", the asshole should still get a talk, or a warning, or a note if their behavior was undoubtly that of a shitmonger whether they get their IC comeuppance or not, because that's how you change a player's behavior.

[Iatots]

Sorry for doublepost but the other one was getting too long

If someone steals my ID they might need the access to kill someone or they might just be a cunt. If someone's "epic prank bro" is slashing me with a scalpel in the hallway and running away is it a traitor roleplaying a cookie cutter shark or just someone being an asshole? I have no way of knowing because you sure as fuck aren't telling me who is or isn't a designated crew antagonizer (TM).

People debate having random antag items around the map or fake ones or whatever, but letting some grief slide is the real metabreaker. The game won't function if you can instantly tell every thief or guy in a fight is an antag.

If antagonists and the crew and indistinguishable, are there really any good people?
But more on the point: do you think any and all IC conflict could be attributed to an antagonist? I don't think so. There are some low hanging fruits that only someone with no investment whatsoever in their character and in the current round will pick, petty bullshit that normal people just don't have time for but that they will jump on, because they WISH they were an actual antag with all the sweet toys, but fate did not reward them and they are just a background character with nothing to do.

[cedarbridge]

The cells are there for every single criminal that can be obtained with a pulse, something that should be fucking easy given security is the stun system personified. Instead nowadays security is the goddamn fucking gestapo willing to cave your skull in then and there if they catch you with the Obergefreiter's chocolate ration.

You're right. That's part of the purpose of the holding cells. If sec isn't doing their job then you should complain about sec not doing their job. Admins should not be a replacement for security.

How do you resolve the situation nonviolently? Tell security?

Yes. See above. If sec isn't doing their job then consider that if whatever you've experienced is so minor that sec can't be bothered to look into it at all its probably not severe enough to merit the heartburn over it. Also consider that sec being bad is not an obligation for admins to step in and play security for your stolen sweetroll. As stated above, low level crimes are permitted because security exists and minor conflicts between players make the game more interesting and provide certain amounts of cover for real antagonists. Admins will and do step in for cases of actual severe grief that merit and require out of character intervention. This is done on a case by case basis but if its something that can and should be resolved IC then there's no reason for OOC punishments to be administered.

Don't try to drag IRL into this, if my wallet gets stolen the police has more than 40 minutes to dedicate to the case and while even IRL I may never get my wallet back it's not an item of limited instances, the money I'm missing won't dent the rest of my entire existance and insurance is also a thing. Security is a finite resource in the game and in my experience as a non-head player their time is better spent on someone else's problems, usually someone above me in the station's totem pole.

You're over-focusing on the fact that my example is based IRL and ignoring the substance. The point is that you have the same options in each case and in each case there are actually limited policing resources. The same way IRL police are not going to indefinitely divert resources to track down your wallet, sec is not going to indefinitely divert resources from a primary station threat to tracking down your ID. The point is that if the ability to contact sec/detective/etc is there, you can and reasonably could do so. If sec is deficient or incompetent then maybe consider being the change you would like to see instead of complaining about its lack.

[Cobby]

Im on mobile so WoTs are hard to read but Iatots admins don’t exist to be a fallback for bad/ a lack of sec either.

Sometimes, you just lose.*

*to a nonantag in this case

Be the change you want to see and go sec.

[Cobby]

Or it's me trying to figure out what feature I have to remove because admins are banning over it

No one asked you to, get out.

>actively ban people for doing specific shit regardless of whether they're an antag or not
>we remove the feature at coderbus because it's literally just going to get you banned
>admins complain about not being able to powertripban people for violating da ruelz

We’re banning over the attack proc allowing you to hit mobs with ckeys inside.

Probably an oversight on whoever made attack code but it’s a genuine mistake.

[BeeSting12]

its crazy how people can write five paragraphs or more on admins not banning the guy that inconvenienced them in a 2d spessmen game and then theres 39 posts of that in a thread.

[Rustledjimm]

its crazy how people can write five paragraphs or more on admins not banning the guy that inconvenienced them in a 2d spessmen game and then theres 39 posts of that in a thread.

I was thinking of writing a response on this but to be honest it's way too long to just go through now that I've arrived so late. Can someone confirm this is the tl;dr so I don't have to waste the better part of a day trying to piece this thread together.

[Iatots]

Read the thread.

[feem]

The big question asked in this thread is literally a big part of why we have admins: to answer the question of whether it was an IC or OOC issue.

If you feel like something was handled incorrectly then file a complaint.

[Rustledjimm]

Read the thread.

I read it.

Case by case issue.

[Oldman Robustin]

I mean it shouldn't be a hard principle.

Rule breaking is rule breaking. Apply the punishment for the offense because as I've already written a small novel about, there's really no reason to ever hold back a warning or ban because someone got partially removed from a single round.

You just have to understand im talking about someone breaking the rules and THEN getting killed for it, not an escalation issue or something where you get into a rule-compliant fight, escalate, lose, then ahelp.

[SpaceInaba]

>handle issue ic
>want ooc solution anyways
unless they were so bad and obnoxious that they literally fucked your mom IRL (lol get owned) I don't see why anything needs to be done

[yorii]

The intent is to provide players with a sense of pride and accomplishment for dealing with these issues themselves.

[MrStonedOne]

To be honest, one of my most memorable rounds was when the entire station rose up to kill the ai who was trying to claim law 1 as a reason to deny the qm access to eva foyer for the glass thats in there when there was no admins on.

"those supplies could be needed in the case of an emergency", the shitter would say, "die" the assistant with an rcd replied.

[Atlanta-Ned]

I mean it shouldn't be a hard principle.

Rule breaking is rule breaking. Apply the punishment for the offense because as I've already written a small novel about, there's really no reason to ever hold back a warning or ban because someone got partially removed from a single round.

I strongly encourage you to play on a different server if this is how you want everything to be handled.

[yorii]

I mean honestly I think it varies with the scale of the issue... at one point when I was observing a round on omegastation there was a nonantag who ran around and planted kudzu all over the station. Nobody in the round ever knew who had done it and while the person responsible did manage to get himself stuck in the vines first of anyone affected, I still felt like that was probably their plan all along so I sent an adminhelp in the hopes to get him banned. (And he was.)

But for the cases where some grayshit disregards the rules of escalation and starts trying to murder you over an argument about trespassing or something similar I feel like it's fine if they're just straight-up murdered and spaced IC with no admin intervention, as they were in fact doing antagonistic things and should be treated as a traitor from that point. And there should be no need to get the spoilers from an admin telling if they actually were a traitor or not. However _IF_ an admin was present it would be neat if they could add a note saying what they did for future reference, as repeated offenses of the same kind should probably require some form of input from an admin to at bare minimum set the player straight and inform them there are in fact rules to abide by.

[Oldman Robustin]

>handle issue ic
>want ooc solution anyways
unless they were so bad and obnoxious that they literally fucked your mom IRL (lol get owned) I don't see why anything needs to be done

Because the issue wasn't "handled" in IC just because they ended up getting killed while breaking the rules. The standard punishment for an "invalid kill" is typically a dayban if they've been warned before. I see rule-breaking grief every day that either severely diminishes or ruins the round of MULTIPLE others. Turning the griefer sideways after they've done the damage does not mean the issue has been "handled IC".

I mean it shouldn't be a hard principle.

Rule breaking is rule breaking. Apply the punishment for the offense because as I've already written a small novel about, there's really no reason to ever hold back a warning or ban because someone got partially removed from a single round.

I strongly encourage you to play on a different server if this is how you want everything to be handled.

I've survived more bans than anyone else posting here, many of them downright laughable, I'm hardly a fan of bans. But like I've said multiple times I think warnings are an incredibly important tool for guiding unhealthy behavior and when those warnings go unspoken because "well he got lynched anyway" then all you're doing is reinforcing for that individual that their behavior was valid and that they can lube the shuttle any old time with the understanding that the inevitable lynching makes everything whole again. All you're doing is sending a mixed message about how our rules are enforced and it not only perpetuates rule-breaking behavior it even can be unfair for the rule-breaker when someone has an admin let them off the hook the first time but when a different admin sees them do it they get the hammer dropped.

What do you have against warnings and notes Atlanta?

[BeeSting12]

Rule breaking is rule breaking.

This is a terrible way to admin and I'm disappointed to hear this coming from you. There are cases when rule breaking can make the round interesting and we only have these rules in place so that one guy doesn't have fun at the expense of everyone else's enjoyment of the round. (unless he wins the grief lottery in which case all that goes out the window)

[SpaceInaba]

what even is grief
is every time you get annoyed grief
why do we even have clowns if being annoying is grief
do you ahelp every time you slip on lube because it upset you for the 5 seconds you were on the floor

[Iatots]

I understand you got your big boy pants recently spaceInaba, but don't go shitting policy up just yet.
If you feel like contributing meaningfully you could start by telling me if you think players dealing with OOC problems ICly is the same as an admin bwoinking the perpetrator.

[Dax Dupont]

Rule breaking is rule breaking.

This is a terrible way to admin and I'm disappointed to hear this coming from you. There are cases when rule breaking can make the round interesting and we only have these rules in place so that one guy doesn't have fun at the expense of everyone else's enjoyment of the round. (unless he wins the grief lottery in which case all that goes out the window)

The funfact is that there were no rules broken in this case in the first place but the admins stopped investigating as soon as he murdered the person.