free tritium (topic: i cant fit a proper title but should this sort of act really be bannable)

[imsxz]

round 113805 on bagil

tritium vi detonated a bomb to kill a clown car, gibbing 45 people in the process. i cant speak for what ahelps were sent, but i didn't see anyone at all complaining about it in deadchat, just endless praise/lulz.

it was made very evident in deadchat that the "offender" was not an antag and i feel someone would have complained in deadchat. if someone adminhelped dying to it then i will recede this question but i dont have the ability to see that sort of thing.

should admins ban stuff that nobody takes issue with, assuming the affected individuals are aware of who/why it was done?

[wesoda25]

Theres that one rule that says if what you do is against the rules but spices up the round it might be allowed. Still there shouldn’t be anything forcing, or preventing, admins from bwoinking someone in a situation like this if no one ahelps.

[PKPenguin321]

Theres that one rule that says if what you do is against the rules but spices up the round it might be allowed. Still there shouldn’t be anything forcing, or preventing, admins from bwoinking someone in a situation like this if no one ahelps.

that's more of a "rule" and trying to formally apply it like this means nothing
that said if literally nobody complains when a normally bannable thing happens and you still ban for it, that's pretty weak of you (but do make it clear that it shouldn't happen again so you dont have knuckleheads who try to repeat the stunt for attention)

[Dax Dupont]

Theres that one rule that says if what you do is against the rules but spices up the round it might be allowed. Still there shouldn’t be anything forcing, or preventing, admins from bwoinking someone in a situation like this if no one ahelps.

that's more of a "rule" and trying to formally apply it like this means nothing
that said if literally nobody complains when a normally bannable thing happens and you still ban for it, that's pretty weak of you (but do make it clear that it shouldn't happen again so you dont have knuckleheads who try to repeat the stunt for attention)

This. It's an extension of rule 0.

[Malkraz]

Didn't seem like anybody ahelped it, dchat was filled with people laughing about it after being stuck in that car for 20 fucking minutes

[deedubya]

I was told during a similar incident I was involved in that collateral damage(read: non-valids dying because of you) was allowed so long as you killed the intended traitor/threat/valid target along with them. It's supposed to be an IC issue, and at worst you'd get a bwoinking and warning note.(so you can get banned if the behavior repeats)

tl;dr precedent on my end says that if you kill half the crew but also kill a wizard, you get lynched, not banned

[Malkraz]

The policy you're thinking of only applies if the round is immediately ended by your crew deleting bomb killing an antag too. The question of this thread is if some form of the rule of mayhem should be applied when presumably nobody who died to Tritium's bomb had a problem with it. Seems like total banbotting to punish him with more than a warning if nobody ahelped while dchat is full of people laughing about it.

[Cobby]

Rule enforcement is a secondary objective that is used to roughly complete the primary objective which is to foster a fun experience on the server.

Hell, even if someone who died ahelped it I probably wouldn't do anything about it. Yeah it sucks but most people had a blast (tee hee) so lighten up.

[deedubya]

The policy you're thinking of only applies if the round is immediately ended by your crew deleting bomb killing an antag too.

The antag in question during my incident wasn't a "round ends when killed" antag, so I would think the precedent applies to any antag.

More to the point, the "rule of mayhem" isn't necessarily a proper rule to begin with, and should never be used as an argument point for policy discussion or admin appeals. Hence why I went to previous admin precedent rather than trying to invoke a "rule" that says specifically "if you have to invoke this rule, you probably fucked up"

[WarbossLincoln]

The policy you're thinking of only applies if the round is immediately ended by your crew deleting bomb killing an antag too.

The antag in question during my incident wasn't a "round ends when killed" antag, so I would think the precedent applies to any antag.

More to the point, the "rule of mayhem" isn't necessarily a proper rule to begin with, and should never be used as an argument point for policy discussion or admin appeals. Hence why I went to previous admin precedent rather than trying to invoke a "rule" that says specifically "if you have to invoke this rule, you probably fucked up"

Nah, it only applies to round ending antags. They'll ban for blowing giant holes in the station to kill an antag if it doesn't end the round. That was added after like the 20th time Oldman Robustin got banned for maxcapping a wizard and failing to end the round.

[bandit]

can you not see how 45 people gibbed is extremely excessive

[Malkraz]

That number changes every time it's brought up
Dont forget the 87

[SkeletalElite]

That number changes every time it's brought up
Dont forget the 87

you can count if you want to know the number

[Malkraz]

42 not counting traitor clown, Trit himself, or Oil's 2nd death. There was also another antag or two in the car with us but splitting hairs at that point

[Mickyan]

This thread hinges on a very big if, which is to say not everyone that adminhelps is going to simultaneously go on a salty tirade in deadchat

[Gigapuddi420]

not really seeing a whole lot of policy discussion going on in this one to be honest, just a lot of complaining about a single ban.

should admins ban stuff that nobody takes issue with, assuming the affected individuals are aware of who/why it was done?

It's already common for admins to deal with issues that no one ahelps, usually small stuff few people bother with like IC/OOC issues. I don't think it is helpful to require there be some kind of complaint in order for a admin to act on clear cut rule violations. Granted, when affected parties want me to be a softer touch I'll usually listen to that request, but a lot of these things still require some kind of warning in order to discourage repeats.

I was told during a similar incident I was involved in that collateral damage(read: non-valids dying because of you) was allowed so long as you killed the intended traitor/threat/valid target along with them. It's supposed to be an IC issue, and at worst you'd get a bwoinking and warning note.(so you can get banned if the behavior repeats)

Either the admin got it wrong or the incident happened when it was allowed. Current policy is that non-antag's causing collateral to kill valids is only allowed when it ends the round (such as wizard or the final operative in nuke ops). Granted this is regarding weapons of mass destruction like bombs and BoH.

[Stickymayhem]

As the writer of the Rule of Mayhem this is the literal exact kind of situation it was made to cover. Ostensibly a rule was broken but the result was a unique and entertaining story.

Killing 40 people in one fucking exploding clown car is undeniably hilarious from any angle