/tg/Station 13

Bottom post of the previous page:

According to the roundstart fluff detectives are not supposed to make arrests yada yada.

I've always seen that as a roleplay suggestion much like spesslaw is, especially since promoted detectives don't get to see this text at all.

However it's been used as an argument as part of a ban(valid or not aside and it's only a small part of the whole reasoning) but I'd like a clear guideline from the headmins because I've never enforced the detective can't arrest thing myself since I thought it was roleplay fluff.

An additional note is that anyone can arrest anyone, ye olde citizen arrest. Since it's roleplay fluff it should probably not protect you from sec arresting you for making well, unlawful arrests, if your reasoning is dumb.
Also if we are enforcing this roleplay fluff this would mean detectives don't have the same escalation protection as security which may or may not be the case already.

teepeepee wrote:let's ban this VALID HUNTING lizard so he stops ruining the pinacle ot /tg/ roleplay: breaking into cap office to get dat all access

If they didn't instantly go to round removal, this thread wouldn't exist though.



This will only be a further growing problem, so I think the real Policy Discussion is -


SHOULD ROUND REMOVAL CONTINUE TO BE THE FIRST OPTION TO GO TO? EVEN WHEN SOMEONE HASN'T TAKEN ANY LETHAL ACTIONS YET?

THIS IS NOT HOW HAMMURABI'S CODE WORKS.

teepeepee wrote:let's ban this VALID HUNTING lizard so he stops ruining the pinacle ot /tg/ roleplay: breaking into cap office to get dat all access

Not only that, lets fuck up an entire role that this guy has been setting as high.

Istoprocent1 wrote:

teepeepee wrote:let's ban this VALID HUNTING lizard so he stops ruining the pinacle ot /tg/ roleplay: breaking into cap office to get dat all access

Not only that, lets fuck up an entire role that this guy has been setting as high.

NSFW:

itt: newfags

This is not about a single incident, I was merely reminded of this whole thing I've been meaning to post a thread for half a year now.
This is about baselines, you can still argue that they violated rule 1/0 regardless.
I think anuv was at fault in this ban but I also think iso is a horrible detective, but the two bad players can figure that or in the ban appeal and not here since the ban involves more than just the detective is sec question.

Do we really need to have this discussion about detective fluff when we're really only discussing one particular player?

Istoprocent1 wrote:

Malkraz wrote:Exactly what Floivan said. Even as an esteemed tider, my top priority is keeping people in the game playing the round with me and only resort to removal if things get REALLY bad. Hell I'll even switch to Captain or AI if people from a previous round were being total cunts with their punishments to keep the next round in check. This style of secshittery is only going to breed more of the really disruptive form of tiding and it's mostly going to be targetted at security.
As you can see from his reply though, you're never going to get through to a player like this who's only game plan is to "win" and "punish the shitters". You're playing for a completely different purpose than this dunce and eventually you're going to be forced into his win/lose game. Just revel in his cries of metagrudging/buddying when you inevitably dunk on him as he tries to shoot you for taking insuls.

Obvious bait is obvious.

Why are you tiding in the first place? The game is not meant to be Extended Freeform Tide with no goals.

Also, where is your metabuddy Manley at? Haven't seen him around.

"Everything is bait"
">metabuddy"
Nice bait you got there

Hathkar wrote:Do we really need to have this discussion about detective fluff when we're really only discussing one particular player?

yes because it's NOT ABOUT THIS SPECIFIC PLAYER AS I'VE MENTIONED 32042304204032 times.

One thing I would quickly like to point out to Istoprocent.

Play styles are not some sacred thing that can't be touched. You can't just counter every argument with "this will effect my play style" when we have in the past removed toxic play styles which made the game actively worst via code or policy changes. Imagine how security borg players felt when their favorite borg type was removed, this 100% ruined their favored play style but in the long run it made the game more enjoyable to more people.

If you feel this strongly about the current state of detective then i suggest you create better arguments then just talking about how your play style is sacred or else you might lose it

New policy suggestion: can we ban curators who don't stock the shelves and do their job?

Vaina wrote:New policy suggestion: can we ban curators who don't stock the shelves and do their job?

I got your sarcasm fam, gonna add some of mine as well.

After that lets start banning medics who fail to use epipens, chefs that don't cook X amount of food, bartenders that don't make X amount of drinks, lawyers who don't get prisorners out of their punishment and so on. Heck, lets go full Colonial Marines, if you do anything outside your job, instantly banned, because Scientists don't know how to do surgery!!

The real question is why? Why does the detective need to be in a box, while everybody else is allowed to do the things they like, even if said things have nothing to do with their department? Is it for the RP reasons or for something else? Why are we focusing on the detective, if there are more pressing matters such as assistants or people actually not doing their jobs at all and fucking around. Over regulation is as bad as under regulation.

Istoprocent1 wrote:

Vaina wrote:New policy suggestion: can we ban curators who don't stock the shelves and do their job?

I got your sarcasm fam, gonna add some of mine as well.

After that lets start banning medics who fail to use epipens, chefs that don't cook X amount of food, bartenders that don't make X amount of drinks, lawyers who don't get prisorners out of their punishment and so on. Heck, lets go full Colonial Marines, if you do anything outside your job, instantly banned, because Scientists don't know how to do surgery!!

The real question is why? Why does the detective need to be in a box, while everybody else is allowed to do the things they like, even if said things have nothing to do with their department? Is it for the RP reasons or for something else? Why are we focusing on the detective, if there are more pressing matters such as assistants or people actually not doing their jobs at all and fucking around. Over regulation is as bad as under regulation.

Job Ban* If we do that the majority of the playerbase would be gone, but we'd def be at medium - high RP

Tis a fair point. A detective who spends all round RPing in the bar isn't likely to spawn these kinds of threads. Not really sure what the answer is; hoping isto finds a way to play det/sec without being such a miserable prick would be great but it is such a grey area with policy and rules that it is hard to point at any one thing and say "you can't do this anymore, because of this" So I guess we just see how it goes. I would be quite OK with seeing the rules page on wiki reworked/updated pretty extensively but I suspect that isn't likely (my main beef having some rules that say not to go killing people and other rules saying you can murder people over pretty much anything).

Vaina wrote:New policy suggestion: can we ban curators who don't stock the shelves and do their job?

This but unironically

DrunkenMatey wrote:Tis a fair point. A detective who spends all round RPing in the bar isn't likely to spawn these kinds of threads.

A detective fucking around is a liability to their department and is actually not contributing to the experience. If the game was about extended eRPing in the dorms, then the playerbase would consist of people doing so exclusively.

DrunkenMatey wrote:Not really sure what the answer is; hoping isto finds a way to play det/sec without being such a miserable prick would be great but it is such a grey area with policy and rules that it is hard to point at any one thing and say "you can't do this anymore, because of this" So I guess we just see how it goes.

Dax pointed out that this was not about my playstyle or anything related to me. Just a random policy thread.

DrunkenMatey wrote:I would be quite OK with seeing the rules page on wiki reworked/updated pretty extensively but I suspect that isn't likely (my main beef having some rules that say not to go killing people and other rules saying you can murder people over pretty much anything).

Have to agree with you. The rules need to be clear and consistent. Players need to be able to look at the rules and know in advance whether their actions are going to be okay or not. No hypocrisy or double standards.

Example: Speed limit is 50. If you are doing 100 in the 50 zone, then you are breaking the rules, you know that you are breaking the rules. Your intent doesn't matter (transporting somebody else due to medical emergency [good], testing out your car's engine [neutral], trying to get your truck of peace to the speed in order to plow through a marketplace [evil]). One could start making addendums via exceptions, when it is okay to ignore the rule, could be "in case of X", eventually there will be a list of acceptable behaviour, which will be clear to everybody.

Rules come from Rules & Headmin Policies, everything else is fluff and fluff should never directly dictate how things are done OOC, things that are IC should remain IC and only be actionable, if they go against the OOC.

The rules are already clear and consistent, hell, it even describes what "being a dick" is. Rule 0 exists to get rid of people that consistently ruin other's fun while not technically breaking other rules (violating rule 1 anyway). The main question a person needs to ask themselves before they do something is "does this ruin someone else's fun without a good reason?" There is also already no hypocrisy or double standards. Most people play in good faith and almost never get banned or noted.

The rules do indeed need to be fair and consistent - but that just means they shouldn't be changed.

somerandomguy wrote:The rules are already clear and consistent, hell, it even describes what "being a dick" is. Rule 0 exists to get rid of people that consistently ruin other's fun while not technically breaking other rules (violating rule 1 anyway). The main question a person needs to ask themselves before they do something is "does this ruin someone else's fun without a good reason?" There is also already no hypocrisy or double standards. Most people play in good faith and almost never get banned or noted.

The rules do indeed need to be fair and consistent - but that just means they shouldn't be changed.

If there are enough Rule 0 cases on something, then it should become a part of the main rules (such as repeatedly recalling the shuttle) or reflect in code changes.

Rule 1 even has a Precedent to remove people from the game for Unprovoked Grief (Greytiding), yet you see same names doing the same shit over and over again or even cases where they are able to ban bait people stopping them. There is no good faith in greytiding.

Rules being updated every now and again to reflect the present reality has all to do with fairness and consistency. Archaic rulings lead to situations, where players can get punished for things that are not even relevant anymore or even worse get selectively punished.

A good example is: Fortifying security roundstart - Barriers roundstart are not allowed, flashers are allowed, giving out guns/armor roundstart is allowed. - HornyGranny (2014)

Then it always has to be malice whenever anybody makes a mistake (including admins), because by your logic everything is 100% clear at all times.

We need to remove perma. There isn't any reason to have it at all when someone is set to either a 10 minute sentence or death.

Anuv wrote:We need to remove perma. There isn't any reason to have it at all when someone is set to either a 10 minute sentence or death.

perma should be the first solution instead of death.

Anuv wrote:We need to remove perma. There isn't any reason to have it at all when someone is set to either a 10 minute sentence or death.

Let me drop some hyperbole here as well. There is no reason to have sec at all, if preventing crimes can get you banned. Also why have sec, if greytiding is already bannable offence?

Cobby wrote:perma should be the first solution instead of death.

Perma should first be fixed to be next to unescapable without either a) outside help or b) hidden tools.
Followed by Rule changes (non-antags helping prisorners escape bannable, any non-antag killing for any reason bannable - no exceptions).

And by bannable I mean clear bans like with the OOC in IC (15 minute ban). You do X, you get banned for X amount, if you do X for Y times in Z amount of time, your ban extends to W. Not like some people can do it and its okay, while others get harshly banned.

Why should anybody be restricted to anything, if there are people like Scuff Gerald who mains assistant, does whatever he pleases, if you push them once "lol muh escalation, gonna kill you and drag you in the maintenance for defending your workplace".

Cobby wrote:

Anuv wrote:We need to remove perma. There isn't any reason to have it at all when someone is set to either a 10 minute sentence or death.

perma should be the first solution instead of death.

Acting antagonistic = death, so execute. No need for perma. Start a PR to have it removed.

Anuv wrote:Acting antagonistic = death, so execute. No need for perma.

Sounds like that one case, where a player was being dick supreme, ruining the round for the whole security team and got executed for a completely valid reason, but lets not get into details of that in here.

Anuv wrote:Start a PR to have it removed.

Sounds like some solid advice. If you don't like something, take it to the forums and have a community discussion about it. Until things are changed, they work as they are supposed to work, can't cherry pick the things.

It just makes sense while talking about sec and punishments. Perma is a huge waste of space on the station and has no set purpose in any capacity. Especially since there's a chance that valids can escape. If someone commits enough crime to warrant perma they need to be killed and we can save the space/resources for the z-level.

I'm really tired of playing as sec and having a legitimate emagged door/bomb/locker that needs prints scanned and the detective takes 10 minutes to arrive or just never comes because he's out playing gestapo. Go roll sec if you want to do that shit. The slots are always there. Remove his gun and implant and make him a PI. It's bad enough that some detectives already print tons of extra ammo without any threats and even worse when a select few grab a tazer/riot shotgun as a crutch at the beginning of every single round.

Encourage the Head of Security to nab the spare scanner. Unless you are prepared to enforce roleplay standards on people then there is no way you will ever get a Detective player to conform to a certain playstyle.

The onus is on the Detective or HoS to get a forensics scanner and conduct investigations, if neither of them are willing then there's nothing you can do to force them.

Then the HoS should be the one who starts with scanners. I don't think asking someone to use their tool/mechanic that they are the only one to have and can lead to big breakthroughs is so much a playstyle/RP thing. It's purely mechanical.

Propose a PR to give the HoS the spare scanner then. Slot it in his locker.

we've never enforced any job to 'do their fluff' besides ghost roles, i mean hell cargo techs go off and tide, masturbate, and buy insane amounts of contraband instead of stocking other departments for an example

this thread is pointless, just have it possible to print more scanners so investigations can happen w/o a detective early/midgame

lmwevil wrote:we've never enforced any job to 'do their fluff' besides ghost roles, i mean hell cargo techs go off and tide, masturbate, and buy insane amounts of contraband instead of stocking other departments for an example

this thread is pointless, just have it possible to print more scanners so investigations can happen w/o a detective early/midgame

Can't agree more. That being said there is a way to get more scanners via cargo, if they choose to do their jobs and aren't busy eRPing in the dorms or dying in the maintenance/brig.

https://tgstation13.org/wiki/Supply_crates

Forensics Crate - 2000 (a rather steep price to pay for detective's hat and a white crayon), which contains:

1x detective scanner
1x evidence box
1x camera
1x tape recorder
1x white crayon
1x detective hat

HOS can grab it from the det’s locker but, unlike the detective, he has reason to be busy arresting nonviolent criminals, so you can never rely on him to help with shit. I’ve asked detectives come to a crime scene, them immediately leaving after finding no prints, and then soon after I find the body just in a locker following a blood trail. Detectives hardly detect, the HOS definitely won’t.

Consider this: HoS players are, on average, better than detective players

lmwevil wrote: this thread is pointless, just have it possible to print more scanners so investigations can happen w/o a detective early/midgame

Pretty sure scanners can already be printed at the security protolathe. Not sure if there's a minor tech barrier though.

hey gamers its me metabuddy manley and i have fuck all idea whats going on here because my brain's melting from isto 'calls me a metacommer ith a person i never talk with unless im dead' but im gonna put my 2 cents in here and say isto the kinda guy to call you a metabuddy and then get into an argument that relates to him insulting you over and over
anyways yeah isto noob and has begun making me want to play warden just to disenable fucking detcurity who scream "SECHUSD NOW" and shoot the warden & baton them for not giving them sechuds/not enabling them their rush of dopamine from bashing a tider who doesnt deserve execution (space law or not)'s head in with their baton
also holy shit this is a discussion about det fluff caused by shitty det behavior but it ultimately turned into complaining/thinking of better solutions to deal with detcurity

also heres a fun fact: i once observed isto when they were detcurity and they didnt have their scanner in their backpack hmmmm

this is such a vaguely worded salt thread it's like kazaaaz shazaam my dick is a noodle

Detective acting like normal sec is always going to be a thing as long as the HOS allows it and sec enables it. Bring back traitor detective if you want to clean it up a little bit. HOS and Wardens won't be as cool with arming a detective to the teeth every round at round start if they might be as rogue as any assistant.

This thread is a mess so im just going to address the main point.

It does not matter in terms of the rules if the detective follows their fluff beyond them being a member of security.

They are, of course, open to IC repercussions for ignoring their job (demotion, ridicule etc.) But you generally won't get banned for not following the fluff.

However, like everybody else they are of course still subject to server rules, including rule 1. As such, abusing the role in such a way that it negatively impacts the round for other players can open them to admin intervention.