Hey! Listen!
Toolboxing For A Cause 2.0
a /tg/Station13 Charity Tournament
Will begin Saturday the 12th at 1pm PST / 4pm EST / 8pm GMT at the Event Hall.
(You've donated r-right?)

Addendum to Rule 4

Ask and discuss policy about game conduct and rules.

Moderator: In-Game Head Admins

User avatar
Istoprocent1
 
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2017 3:14 pm
Byond Username: istoprocent

Addendum to Rule 4

Postby Istoprocent1 » Fri Aug 23, 2019 12:36 am #509350

After seeing another security member get in trouble for permanently removing a player from the round, it became clear that the Rule 4 of the Main Rules needs to be updated in order to remove the guesswork or potential inconsistencies in the future. I have seen numerous non-antags cremate, gib or space valids, yet I have only seen members of security get in trouble for it. I also have been spaced and gibbed on numerous occasions and while I have no problem with that, I would rather see a clear and hard rule to prevent confusion and inconsistencies.

At the moment:


4. Lone antagonists can do whatever they want.
Short of metagaming/comms, bug/exploit abuse, erotic/creepy stuff, OOC in IC or IC in OOC, and spawn-camping arrivals. Team antagonists can do whatever they want as per lone antagonists, as long as it doesn’t harm their team. Non-antagonists can do whatever they want to antagonists as per lone antagonists, but non-antagonists are not allowed to pre-emptively search for, hinder or otherwise seek conflict with antagonists without reasonable prior cause. Non-antags acting like an antag can be treated as an antag.

Rule 4 Precedents.

1. Non-antagonists are allowed to assist antagonists given sufficient IC reasoning but assisting an antagonist doesn't mean you get to act like one . If in doubt, ask an admin if a particular action is okay. Depending on the level of assistance, sufficient IC reasoning could be simply treating everyone who goes into medbay regardless of them being a murderer or not, all the way to being threatened under pain of death by an antagonist to do something.
2. The relationship between xeno queen and xeno is treated the same as malf AI and borg, and are considered team antagonists for the purpose of main rule 4. Xenos should prioritize following the directions of their queen where possible.

Updated:

4. Lone antagonists can do whatever they want.
Short of metagaming/comms, bug/exploit abuse, erotic/creepy stuff, OOC in IC or IC in OOC, and spawn-camping arrivals. Team antagonists can do whatever they want as per lone antagonists, as long as it doesn’t harm their team. Non-antagonists can do whatever they want to antagonists as per lone antagonists, but non-antagonists are not allowed to pre-emptively search for, hinder or otherwise seek conflict with antagonists without reasonable prior cause. Non-antags are not allowed to remove players semi-permanently (by spacing) or permanently (by making cloning impossible) from the round. Non-antags acting like an antag can be treated as an antag.

Rule 4 Precedents.

1. Non-antagonists are allowed to assist antagonists given sufficient IC reasoning but assisting an antagonist doesn't mean you get to act like one . If in doubt, ask an admin if a particular action is okay. Depending on the level of assistance, sufficient IC reasoning could be simply treating everyone who goes into medbay regardless of them being a murderer or not, all the way to being threatened under pain of death by an antagonist to do something.
2. The relationship between xeno queen and xeno is treated the same as malf AI and borg, and are considered team antagonists for the purpose of main rule 4. Xenos should prioritize following the directions of their queen where possible.
3. Non-antags are allowed to remove players semi-permanently or permanently from the round once they have evidence of them being an antag, who is able to reoccur without the use of cloning (such as, but not limited to a changeling, a cultist or a nightmare).

This change is close to the ruling of Talking mimes, where non-antags can do anything except spacing/gibbing.
Things that are legal today such as borging or cutting out the brain, implanting it in somebody's chest, rolling them up in a bluespace bodybag and stashing them on station or hiding them on lavaland would still be legal after the change.
Cult was added since a few rounds ago a chaplain cremated a cultist and somebody brought up in the dead chat that cultists are able to teleport dead cultists and revive them, thus making cremation justifiable.

Thoughts?



User avatar
TheMythicGhost
 
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2017 9:26 pm
Byond Username: TheMythicGhost

Re: Addendum to Rule 4

Postby TheMythicGhost » Fri Aug 23, 2019 12:50 am #509353

I'm going to be very honest here, it seems like you're only trying to get this updated so you can rules lawyer your way around killing people (and spacing them) immediately as security for walking into the captain's office.
No offense, of course, but you've got a history of having this exact view on it, and it worries me that you're attempting to change it to accommodate that.
Hi, I play Respii Varenos on Bagil.
everyone when referring to respii wrote:she


deedubya wrote:Posts you don't like aren't illegitimate. Points you don't agree with aren't disproven just because you post a disagreement. Points of view that can negatively affect you(a greyshirt main) aren't automatically negative as a whole.

The sooner you learn things like this, the sooner you can actually participate in fair and open discourse, instead of just screeching like a child when someone wants to take away the toys you use that have been abused constantly.

User avatar
Shadowflame909
 
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2017 10:18 pm
Location: Think about something witty and pretend I put it here
Byond Username: Shadowflame909

Re: Addendum to Rule 4

Postby Shadowflame909 » Fri Aug 23, 2019 12:55 am #509355

The real issue with the rules is escalation. Every headmin ever has said it has a problem. But no one knows how to fix it. Let's just remove it.

Replace it with nothing. dont grief and yell at coderbase for more content you burnt out playerbase
Image
Spoiler:
ThanatosRa wrote:My biggest problem is that I can't fix any of this.


Boris wrote:shadowflame either has a brain the size of a pea or one the size of the moon and he's playing 58D chess.


BeeSting12 wrote:please write an apology to this forums, this community, the host, and the internet as a whole for the data storage space you wasted with this complaint.


BebeYoshi wrote:Saltyflame909


Cobby wrote:The trash bin... have you lost your way home anon?

Skillywatt
 
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2018 7:29 pm
Byond Username: Tiguar

Re: Addendum to Rule 4

Postby Skillywatt » Fri Aug 23, 2019 12:58 am #509356

I'm not sure I agree with your assessment of security getting in trouble for round removal any more than anyone else.

I've seen quite a few ban appeals in the last few months wherein a player was justified in their kill but caught a ban due to round removal.

I agree some tightening up of the round removal verbiage could be warranted- either to the players or the admins.

Current escalation rules, I think, say instigators aren't protected from round removal but I think I've seen a few bans in scenarios that could have been interpreted as the instigator being removed from the round.

Solving that dilemma would probably solve any perceived issues with security.

As an aside, my personal rule with respect to round removal is "when in doubt, don't", and I haven't had any trouble with that yet.

User avatar
Istoprocent1
 
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2017 3:14 pm
Byond Username: istoprocent

Re: Addendum to Rule 4

Postby Istoprocent1 » Fri Aug 23, 2019 12:59 am #509357

TheMythicGhost wrote:I'm going to be very honest here, it seems like you're only trying to get this updated so you can rules lawyer your way around killing people (and spacing them) immediately as security for walking into the captain's office.
No offense, of course, but you've got a history of having this exact view on it, and it worries me that you're attempting to change it to accommodate that.


Get 'em outta here! This is not a place to display your personal (meta)grudges against me, but to discuss policy. There is no history other than you ban baiting by validing yourself and then getting valided, which should probably be brought up in another policy discussion to make clear that players could not claim things like I did not break into the captain's office at the start of the round, I merely took a tour.

Edit: This is about semi-permanent (spacing) or permanent (cremating, gibbing, destroying the brain) round removal, other forms would be unchanged. It would not change escalation rules (although it would apply to escalation in a sense that one could not just cremate somebody for few shoves) nor remove the ability to do anything to antags aside from these specific things. For all intents and purposes killing is considered to be a temporary removal from the round, even if the body is mutilated and/or hidden on the station or lavaland.

User avatar
Cobby
Code Maintainer
 
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2014 7:19 pm
Byond Username: ExcessiveUseOfCobby
Github Username: ExcessiveUseOfCobblestone

Re: Addendum to Rule 4

Postby Cobby » Fri Aug 23, 2019 2:04 am #509376

You will never get banned for cremating an antag with hard evidence, what?

" Non-antags are allowed to remove players semi-permanently or permanently from the round once they have evidence of them being an antag, who is able to reoccur without the use of cloning (such as, but not limited to a changeling, a cultist or a nightmare)." is redundant because antags can do this to players, which makes it acceptable to do unto them.
Voted best trap in /tg/ 2014-current

User avatar
Istoprocent1
 
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2017 3:14 pm
Byond Username: istoprocent

Re: Addendum to Rule 4

Postby Istoprocent1 » Fri Aug 23, 2019 2:30 am #509388

Cobby wrote:You will never get banned for cremating an antag with hard evidence, what?


What would you consider to be hard evidence? Does a traitor need a 20TC loadout in order to qualify? What if they just steal a hand teleporter, which is their only objective other than to make it to the shuttle?

From time to time players have been self-antagging and acting like an antag, which opens them up to be treated like an antag. Yet there have been cases, including the current one with John, where security members get in trouble for doing things to these players such as cremating them. Even though by the rules there should be no question, whether they are allowed to it or not, because antags can do it.

The crux of the matter is that the rules are not being applied consistently and might need some clarification.

Edit: The precedent would clarify the cases where people would be allowed to do it.
Last edited by Istoprocent1 on Fri Aug 23, 2019 2:52 am, edited 1 time in total.

Skillywatt
 
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2018 7:29 pm
Byond Username: Tiguar

Re: Addendum to Rule 4

Postby Skillywatt » Fri Aug 23, 2019 2:43 am #509391

Cremating someone because they have a handteleporter isn't something a regular crew member can do and should net a security ban if that's the justification used.

Sec already enjoys relaxed escalation rules and ooc protection (can't mame security for doing their job); SEC therefore is expected to not be a chumbus with respect to dealing with probable selfantags and act in good faith.

It's hard and you'll lose more than you win. If you play sec to "win", you probably aren't having much fun.

User avatar
Istoprocent1
 
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2017 3:14 pm
Byond Username: istoprocent

Re: Addendum to Rule 4

Postby Istoprocent1 » Fri Aug 23, 2019 3:03 am #509396

Skillywatt wrote:Cremating someone because they have a handteleporter isn't something a regular crew member can do and should net a security ban if that's the justification used.

Sec already enjoys relaxed escalation rules and ooc protection (can't mame security for doing their job); SEC therefore is expected to not be a chumbus with respect to dealing with probable selfantags and act in good faith.

It's hard and you'll lose more than you win. If you play sec to "win", you probably aren't having much fun.


The question is not about cremating people for a hand teleporter, even though at this moment it should be legal by the rules (antags can do almost anything, players acting like an antag can be treated as antags), which can cause confusion. Even though it really isn't, because that one time in the band camp... and now with John. Its why the change is proposed. Like for example the "call shuttle early as a non-antag" rule, which I have failed to find anywhere in the official rules, yet I know because at some point people have discussed it in the deadchat. Keep in mind that we are not just talking about the security in here, but the whole crew.

Playing a sec is a lose-lose, if you do your job poorly people complain, if you do your job perfectly people would still complain.

User avatar
Arianya
In-Game Game Master
 
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2016 10:27 am
Byond Username: Arianya

Re: Addendum to Rule 4

Postby Arianya » Fri Aug 23, 2019 7:08 am #509430

Shadowflame909 wrote:Every headmin ever has said it has a problem.


I actually ran on a platform of "escalation is fine"

But no one knows how to fix it. Let's just remove it.

Replace it with nothing. dont grief and yell at coderbase for more content you burnt out playerbase


Dumbest take in a while shadow
Frequently playing as Aria Bollet on Bagil & Scary Terry

Source of avatar is here: https://i.imgur.com/hEkADo6.jpg

Skillywatt
 
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2018 7:29 pm
Byond Username: Tiguar

Re: Addendum to Rule 4

Postby Skillywatt » Fri Aug 23, 2019 11:44 am #509440

Istoprocent1 wrote:Playing a sec is a lose-lose, if you do your job poorly people complain, if you do your job perfectly people would still complain.


This is true in some sense. I think the root cause of your issue here is when does aggressive grey-tiding turn into "act like an antag" territory and valid the individual in question to the crew?

It's a little fuzzy and I'm not sure it's possible to author a meaningful rule to this end. The rules rely on contextual interpretation paired with game knowledge and admins seem to get it right more often than they get it wrong, albeit they are human, too. In some ways, the situations you encounter are meant to be fuzzy. That's part of the fun of playing security.

Again, I reiterate: concerning permanent round removal, when in doubt, don't. This is the one objective line admins have in escalation so it's going to be scrutinized harder. Borg, permagulag, or permabrig questionable individuals, and you'll be fine. It's not the end of the world if a traitor breaks out and blows up half the.station once in a while. That's SS13. Sometimes, you just lose.

User avatar
teepeepee
 
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2017 3:21 am
Byond Username: Teepeepee

Re: Addendum to Rule 4

Postby teepeepee » Fri Aug 23, 2019 12:34 pm #509448

I agree with this proposal, not because I think it makes the game better, but because it is what admins actually enforce
changing the rules to reflect what the administration actually does instead of getting people banned for following what they are told to read upon connecting is certainly better
ideally the administration would enforce the current rules instead of changing them on the spot to ban someone, but why tell a fish to climb a tree when we can finally get our "how to not get banned" guide?

User avatar
Arianya
In-Game Game Master
 
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2016 10:27 am
Byond Username: Arianya

Re: Addendum to Rule 4

Postby Arianya » Fri Aug 23, 2019 2:41 pm #509458

teepeepee wrote:I agree with this proposal, not because I think it makes the game better, but because it is what admins actually enforce
changing the rules to reflect what the administration actually does instead of getting people banned for following what they are told to read upon connecting is certainly better
ideally the administration would enforce the current rules instead of changing them on the spot to ban someone, but why tell a fish to climb a tree when we can finally get our "how to not get banned" guide?


Your very tired schtick of "I hate the admins" is somewhat undercut by the fact that the reason this is already enforced is because, uh, it's already in the rules?

The Rules wrote:The 'act like an antag, get treated like one' part of Rule 4 of the main rules also apply to security. Stunning an officer repeatedly, using lethal or restricted weapons on them, disrupting the arrests or sentences of dangerous criminals, or damaging the brig, are examples of behaviour that may make you valid for security under Rule 4. Make sure players deserve it when you treat them as an antag, when in doubt, err on the side of caution as poor behaviour on the part of security will not be tolerated.


(Emphasis mine)
Frequently playing as Aria Bollet on Bagil & Scary Terry

Source of avatar is here: https://i.imgur.com/hEkADo6.jpg

User avatar
wesoda25
 
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 9:32 pm
Byond Username: Wesoda25

Re: Addendum to Rule 4

Postby wesoda25 » Fri Aug 23, 2019 3:17 pm #509461

Istoprocent1 wrote:Playing a sec is a lose-lose, if you do your job poorly people complain, if you do your job perfectly people would still complain.


I seem to find a way to play sec with very few complaints. Perhaps you should reconsider your play-style?

Also it’s already in the rules. Antags can cremate you, therefore you can cremate them.
Spoiler:
ImageImageImageImageImage

User avatar
teepeepee
 
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2017 3:21 am
Byond Username: Teepeepee

Re: Addendum to Rule 4

Postby teepeepee » Fri Aug 23, 2019 3:46 pm #509466

Arianya wrote:
teepeepee wrote:I agree with this proposal, not because I think it makes the game better, but because it is what admins actually enforce
changing the rules to reflect what the administration actually does instead of getting people banned for following what they are told to read upon connecting is certainly better
ideally the administration would enforce the current rules instead of changing them on the spot to ban someone, but why tell a fish to climb a tree when we can finally get our "how to not get banned" guide?


Your very tired schtick of "I hate the admins" is somewhat undercut by the fact that the reason this is already enforced is because, uh, it's already in the rules?

The Rules wrote:The 'act like an antag, get treated like one' part of Rule 4 of the main rules also apply to security. Stunning an officer repeatedly, using lethal or restricted weapons on them, disrupting the arrests or sentences of dangerous criminals, or damaging the brig, are examples of behaviour that may make you valid for security under Rule 4. Make sure players deserve it when you treat them as an antag, when in doubt, err on the side of caution as poor behaviour on the part of security will not be tolerated.


(Emphasis mine)

so why are there multiple cases of players getting banned for cremating non antags that act like antags?

User avatar
John_Gobbel
 
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2019 7:55 pm
Byond Username: CAPTTLasky

Re: Addendum to Rule 4

Postby John_Gobbel » Fri Aug 23, 2019 8:50 pm #509524

I also think this feels more like an addendum that both makes it more complicated and introduces more room for rules lawyers.

Act like an antag get treated like an antag is fine. There's a difference between cremating someone that is clearly fucking up things for the shift, breaking the law, etc. and someone who broke into your department once for some medical supplies or beat you in a fight. Some people think the latter is considered acting like an antag when it clearly isn't.

User avatar
Istoprocent1
 
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2017 3:14 pm
Byond Username: istoprocent

Re: Addendum to Rule 4

Postby Istoprocent1 » Sat Aug 24, 2019 4:06 am #509607

John_Gobbel wrote:I also think this feels more like an addendum that both makes it more complicated and introduces more room for rules lawyers.


Rules lawyers or rules lawyering is just a buzzphrase to end conversation, especially in cases where people have a different opinion, which is why well written and defined rules help to avoid any double entendres.

Your point is too strong and I can't defend my differing opinion? STOP RULES LAWYERING!

For example:

Non-antags acting like an antag can be treated as an antag.
Non-antagonists can do whatever they want to antagonists as per lone antagonists, but non-antagonists are not allowed to pre-emptively search for, hinder or otherwise seek conflict with antagonists without reasonable prior cause.

The meaning is clear, unless one tries to rules lawyer by bending it over sideways - if one acts like an antag (stealing high risk items, breaking into high risk areas, assaulting security etc, especially for no reason ie. there is no major threat such as blob, wizard, etc), then they can be treated as an antagonist and anything can be done to antagonists, which includes cremation even if its just for a stolen hand teleporter.

John_Gobbel wrote:Act like an antag get treated like an antag is fine. There's a difference between cremating someone that is clearly fucking up things for the shift, breaking the law, etc. and someone who broke into your department once for some medical supplies or beat you in a fight. Some people think the latter is considered acting like an antag when it clearly isn't.


There is obviously a difference between a single shove and blowing things up with a science bomb, but the main problem is that there is no clear line, which leads to inconsistencies. Does one have to stun security at least twice before getting cremated? Note that the question is not whether security can cremate or not, because they can as per Security Policies, the question becomes when can they do so without being at the whim of the admin who is dealing with the ticket.

Do I think everybody should be cremated? Of course not, which why this addendum is being proposed. Do I think rules need to be updated in order to prevent situations, where people understand the rules differently? Yes.

User avatar
Arianya
In-Game Game Master
 
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2016 10:27 am
Byond Username: Arianya

Re: Addendum to Rule 4

Postby Arianya » Sat Aug 24, 2019 4:02 pm #509694

teepeepee wrote:
Arianya wrote:
teepeepee wrote:I agree with this proposal, not because I think it makes the game better, but because it is what admins actually enforce
changing the rules to reflect what the administration actually does instead of getting people banned for following what they are told to read upon connecting is certainly better
ideally the administration would enforce the current rules instead of changing them on the spot to ban someone, but why tell a fish to climb a tree when we can finally get our "how to not get banned" guide?


Your very tired schtick of "I hate the admins" is somewhat undercut by the fact that the reason this is already enforced is because, uh, it's already in the rules?

The Rules wrote:The 'act like an antag, get treated like one' part of Rule 4 of the main rules also apply to security. Stunning an officer repeatedly, using lethal or restricted weapons on them, disrupting the arrests or sentences of dangerous criminals, or damaging the brig, are examples of behaviour that may make you valid for security under Rule 4. Make sure players deserve it when you treat them as an antag, when in doubt, err on the side of caution as poor behaviour on the part of security will not be tolerated.


(Emphasis mine)

so why are there multiple cases of players getting banned for cremating non antags that act like antags?


Sorry I must have been too subtle let me try again

The Rules wrote:The 'act like an antag, get treated like one' part of Rule 4 of the main rules also apply to security. Stunning an officer repeatedly, using lethal or restricted weapons on them, disrupting the arrests or sentences of dangerous criminals, or damaging the brig, are examples of behaviour that may make you valid for security under Rule 4. Make sure players deserve it when you treat them as an antag, when in doubt, err on the side of caution as poor behaviour on the part of security will not be tolerated.
Frequently playing as Aria Bollet on Bagil & Scary Terry

Source of avatar is here: https://i.imgur.com/hEkADo6.jpg

User avatar
Istoprocent1
 
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2017 3:14 pm
Byond Username: istoprocent

Re: Addendum to Rule 4

Postby Istoprocent1 » Sun Aug 25, 2019 4:27 am #509875

Arianya wrote:
The Rules wrote:The 'act like an antag, get treated like one' part of Rule 4 of the main rules also apply to security. Stunning an officer repeatedly, using lethal or restricted weapons on them, disrupting the arrests or sentences of dangerous criminals, or damaging the brig, are examples of behaviour that may make you valid for security under Rule 4. Make sure players deserve it when you treat them as an antag, when in doubt, err on the side of caution as poor behaviour on the part of security will not be tolerated.


(Emphasis mine)


This comes from the Security Policy & Precedents and sets a yog-level double standard, where non-security doing it - okay, security doing it - banned. This does not promote healthy gameplay and encourages vigilantism as assistantcurities are not bound by the same rules as the security.

User avatar
Arianya
In-Game Game Master
 
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2016 10:27 am
Byond Username: Arianya

Re: Addendum to Rule 4

Postby Arianya » Sun Aug 25, 2019 8:16 am #509938

That "double standard" exists because Security has MASSIVE benefits over random assistants, from their starting gear to their place in a (usually) 100% trusting team that will back them up if they get in trouble.

Anyway, my understanding was that your issue wasn't any kind of double standard, but security people getting punished for being (in the banning admin's view) overzealous so I don't see the relevance.
Frequently playing as Aria Bollet on Bagil & Scary Terry

Source of avatar is here: https://i.imgur.com/hEkADo6.jpg

User avatar
Istoprocent1
 
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2017 3:14 pm
Byond Username: istoprocent

Re: Addendum to Rule 4

Postby Istoprocent1 » Sun Aug 25, 2019 11:41 am #509992

Arianya wrote:That "double standard" exists because Security has MASSIVE benefits over random assistants, from their starting gear to their place in a (usually) 100% trusting team that will back them up if they get in trouble.


I get it, if its a situation, where security pushes somebody, they toolbox back once and then security goes straight for the gibber, however, if its a case where the player chooses to perform an action that makes them clearly appear antagonistic (these actions are undefined other than "stun security multiple times", but its somewhat safe to assume that stealing traitor objectives etc fit the bill), then there should not be any extra ifs or buts when they get caught by the security.

The massive benefits you mention are somewhat questionable in a world, where full security access is just a shove away. Aside from that security has next to no authority, tiders tend to hinder briggings fnr, players zero in on the traitor loot like vultures etc.

The addendum would apply to everybody equally - if the sec cannot do it, then nobody should be doing it.

User avatar
Gigapuddi420
In-Game Admin
 
Joined: Fri May 19, 2017 8:08 am
Location: Dorms
Byond Username: Gigapuddi420

Re: Addendum to Rule 4

Postby Gigapuddi420 » Sun Aug 25, 2019 2:32 pm #510011

I can't say I'm interested in giving security even more freedom to cremate people who steal the hand teleporter. As is security already have rules exceptions made for them and players already dislike those, smart security officers seem to avoid the problems around this by not jumping to the first opportunity to completely remove someone from the round.
Imperfect catgirl playing a imperfect game.

ATHATH
 
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 6:41 am
Byond Username: ATHATH

Re: Addendum to Rule 4

Postby ATHATH » Sun Aug 25, 2019 5:41 pm #510039

Gigapuddi420 wrote:I can't say I'm interested in giving security even more freedom to cremate people who steal the hand teleporter. As is security already have rules exceptions made for them and players already dislike those, smart security officers seem to avoid the problems around this by not jumping to the first opportunity to completely remove someone from the round.

Do you... understand what the proposed change DOES? It STOPS sec from cremating people for just having a hand teleporter. Under this modification, sec could only cremate people if they had evidence of a victim being an antag that can self-rez.

ATHATH
 
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 6:41 am
Byond Username: ATHATH

Re: Addendum to Rule 4

Postby ATHATH » Sun Aug 25, 2019 5:43 pm #510040

Arianya wrote:Sorry I must have been too subtle let me try again

The Rules wrote:The 'act like an antag, get treated like one' part of Rule 4 of the main rules also apply to security. Stunning an officer repeatedly, using lethal or restricted weapons on them, disrupting the arrests or sentences of dangerous criminals, or damaging the brig, are examples of behaviour that may make you valid for security under Rule 4. Make sure players deserve it when you treat them as an antag, when in doubt, err on the side of caution as poor behaviour on the part of security will not be tolerated.

I don't see why we can't further clarify that rule, especially since many people have shown that they are interpreting these cremation rules in a different way than we do.

The cost of this rules change would only be an additional sentence or two in the rules, and would make the resolution of so many ban appeals much, much easier.

Also, Isto, you might want to include a clause or something about corpses that have had multiple rez attempts made on them by other people (like, say. a headrev corpse that revs have repeatedly tried to steal). Hell, headrevs are so dangerous that I wouldn't mind if there was a clause that specifically said that they're valid for cremation too.

User avatar
Cobby
Code Maintainer
 
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2014 7:19 pm
Byond Username: ExcessiveUseOfCobby
Github Username: ExcessiveUseOfCobblestone

Re: Addendum to Rule 4

Postby Cobby » Mon Aug 26, 2019 3:33 am #510226

Istoprocent1 wrote:
Cobby wrote:You will never get banned for cremating an antag with hard evidence, what?


What would you consider to be hard evidence? Does a traitor need a 20TC loadout in order to qualify? What if they just steal a hand teleporter, which is their only objective other than to make it to the shuttle?


Having gear only available to antagonists. Worst case they stole it from another antag but oh well, you accept the risk when taking antag loot.
Voted best trap in /tg/ 2014-current

User avatar
deedubya
 
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2018 2:05 am
Location: shitting up your thread
Byond Username: Ssjdarkwarrior

Re: Addendum to Rule 4

Postby deedubya » Mon Aug 26, 2019 7:32 am #510287

Arianya wrote:That "double standard" exists because Security has MASSIVE benefits over random assistants, from their starting gear to their place in a (usually) 100% trusting team that will back them up if they get in trouble.

You understand that this is one of the reasons why nobody plays security anymore, right? You're much less likely to get bwoinked for "going too far" if you're a validhunting greyshit versus a redshirt just trying to keep shitters out of the round.
collector of salt, hater of the tide
oranges wrote:honestly holy shit deedubs you're a dent head

wesoda25 wrote:deedub is one of the people that makes me wish i could block users on forums

IkeTG wrote:every post from deedubya is worrying behavior

Image

User avatar
teepeepee
 
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2017 3:21 am
Byond Username: Teepeepee

Re: Addendum to Rule 4

Postby teepeepee » Mon Aug 26, 2019 8:48 am #510320

Arianya wrote:
teepeepee wrote:so why are there multiple cases of players getting banned for cremating non antags that act like antags?


Sorry I must have been too subtle let me try again

The Rules wrote:The 'act like an antag, get treated like one' part of Rule 4 of the main rules also apply to security. Stunning an officer repeatedly, using lethal or restricted weapons on them, disrupting the arrests or sentences of dangerous criminals, or damaging the brig, are examples of behaviour that may make you valid for security under Rule 4. Make sure players deserve it when you treat them as an antag, when in doubt, err on the side of caution as poor behaviour on the part of security will not be tolerated.

ok retard, you still haven't answered how cremating a non-antag that acts like an antag is against the rules and gets people banned (bans for cremating non antags that acted like antags: here and here; probably many more but not publicly available or I just forgot about them, anyways, even just one of these marks a shitty precedent)
I'll explain it for you: there's an unwritten limit to what you can do to someone when, despite their antag-like actions, unbeknownst to you, they are not an antag (aka you cannot completely remove them from the round)
beyond my oppinion that this is retarded because it's no one's fault but their own's if they act like an antag and complain about being treated like one, and because rule 10 exists for times when it happens through no fault of their own; is the need for players to know what is expected of them to be able to keep playing the game
the proposed addendum makes it so players that don't have access to all your retarded bans can know this arbitrary limit by making it into an actual part of the rules
the only reason why you wouldn't want this is because you enjoy banning people and causing them grief

User avatar
Arianya
In-Game Game Master
 
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2016 10:27 am
Byond Username: Arianya

Re: Addendum to Rule 4

Postby Arianya » Mon Aug 26, 2019 9:40 am #510332

deedubya wrote:
Arianya wrote:That "double standard" exists because Security has MASSIVE benefits over random assistants, from their starting gear to their place in a (usually) 100% trusting team that will back them up if they get in trouble.

You understand that this is one of the reasons why nobody plays security anymore, right? You're much less likely to get bwoinked for "going too far" if you're a validhunting greyshit versus a redshirt just trying to keep shitters out of the round.


Generally, I've had no issue playing as security with getting more bwoinks, and certainly as an administrator I don't really bwoink people more in security then in other departments. Most of the time you can resolve those kind of ahelps with logs and the complainant's story without bothering the security person, but equally when I do have to bother the person in question it tends to be a pretty quick 1-2-1-2 of question and answer and then "thanks for responding" and they get back to it.

I would argue the shortage of security players has far more to do with player attitudes that security is out to ruin their fun and are just mindless shitcurity who enjoy griefing peopl- oh, hmm.

teepeepee wrote:
Arianya wrote:
teepeepee wrote:so why are there multiple cases of players getting banned for cremating non antags that act like antags?


Sorry I must have been too subtle let me try again

The Rules wrote:The 'act like an antag, get treated like one' part of Rule 4 of the main rules also apply to security. Stunning an officer repeatedly, using lethal or restricted weapons on them, disrupting the arrests or sentences of dangerous criminals, or damaging the brig, are examples of behaviour that may make you valid for security under Rule 4. Make sure players deserve it when you treat them as an antag, when in doubt, err on the side of caution as poor behaviour on the part of security will not be tolerated.

ok retard, you still haven't answered how cremating a non-antag that acts like an antag is against the rules and gets people banned (bans for cremating non antags that acted like antags: here and here; probably many more but not publicly available or I just forgot about them, anyways, even just one of these marks a shitty precedent)
I'll explain it for you: there's an unwritten limit to what you can do to someone when, despite their antag-like actions, unbeknownst to you, they are not an antag (aka you cannot completely remove them from the round)
beyond my oppinion that this is retarded because it's no one's fault but their own's if they act like an antag and complain about being treated like one, and because rule 10 exists for times when it happens through no fault of their own; is the need for players to know what is expected of them to be able to keep playing the game
the proposed addendum makes it so players that don't have access to all your retarded bans can know this arbitrary limit by making it into an actual part of the rules
the only reason why you wouldn't want this is because you enjoy banning people and causing them grief


I don't really care to relegislate entire ban appeals just to disprove your farcical "admins are banbots who get off at bwoinking people!!" viewpoint, but quoting the relevant ban appeals' resolution:

Nervere wrote:The issue is more that you decided to cremate someone for having all access, about 20 minutes after they grabbed it, because it's a capital offense under Space Law.


I think plenty of people would agree that cremating for just having all access is tenuous at best for "acting like an antag"

Hulkamania wrote:In my opinion, all of this is very much an IC issue [...] A temporary note is functionally the same as a warning, as long as the person it is issued to does not get in any further trouble.


So an understandable IC conflict with maybe a touch overescalation which lead to the most non-notable non-punishment in the game, a note which will automatically delete itself after a period of time. Hardly "banning people and causing them grief"

The actual answer to your question is that acting like an antag is by it's nature an imprecise condition and people are sometimes going to jump to conclusions about what is antagonistic behaviour. Creating a "to the letter" description of what is antagonistic behaviour would just enable people to be griefier while avoiding the redlines so that people can't just dunk their ass. If the worst that happens from it is that istoprotecent gets a single day ban and one week sec ban and Gobbels gets an extremely impermanent note, then I would argue the policy is more or less working as intended - it's giving security the broad mandate to remove shitty people from the round without literally giving them a "fuck you, get out of my face" for every person who does a crime.
Frequently playing as Aria Bollet on Bagil & Scary Terry

Source of avatar is here: https://i.imgur.com/hEkADo6.jpg

User avatar
Istoprocent1
 
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2017 3:14 pm
Byond Username: istoprocent

Re: Addendum to Rule 4

Postby Istoprocent1 » Mon Aug 26, 2019 11:56 am #510356

Arianya wrote:The actual answer to your question is that acting like an antag is by it's nature an imprecise condition and people are sometimes going to jump to conclusions about what is antagonistic behaviour. Creating a "to the letter" description of what is antagonistic behaviour would just enable people to be griefier while avoiding the redlines so that people can't just dunk their ass. If the worst that happens from it is that istoprotecent gets a single day ban and one week sec ban and Gobbels gets an extremely impermanent note, then I would argue the policy is more or less working as intended - it's giving security the broad mandate to remove shitty people from the round without literally giving them a "fuck you, get out of my face" for every person who does a crime.


I would disagree. Loose definitions let the chronic ahelpers and griefers bait people into situations, where they can ahelp them and hope that somebody inexperienced makes a ruling in their favor. Maybe I am taking notes and bans too seriously, but then again I would never want to have my ability to play the game restricted, because I was not aware of some unwritten rule or even worse at someone's whim.

Having a red line, which is known to everyone, makes the playing field fairer. For example:

"Hey, you cannot randomly kill somebody."
"Hey, you cannot cremate somebody without XYZ."

Otherwise, if you say that "Hey, you can do anything to a person as if they were an antag (including cremation), should they do XYZ" and then punish the player for doing so is like letting your dog shit on the carpet and then one day when you are tired from work etc just beat the shit out of your dog, because it shat on the carpet.

User avatar
Arianya
In-Game Game Master
 
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2016 10:27 am
Byond Username: Arianya

Re: Addendum to Rule 4

Postby Arianya » Mon Aug 26, 2019 12:15 pm #510358

Istoprocent1 wrote:
Arianya wrote:The actual answer to your question is that acting like an antag is by it's nature an imprecise condition and people are sometimes going to jump to conclusions about what is antagonistic behaviour. Creating a "to the letter" description of what is antagonistic behaviour would just enable people to be griefier while avoiding the redlines so that people can't just dunk their ass. If the worst that happens from it is that istoprotecent gets a single day ban and one week sec ban and Gobbels gets an extremely impermanent note, then I would argue the policy is more or less working as intended - it's giving security the broad mandate to remove shitty people from the round without literally giving them a "fuck you, get out of my face" for every person who does a crime.


I would disagree. Loose definitions let the chronic ahelpers and griefers bait people into situations, where they can ahelp them and hope that somebody inexperienced makes a ruling in their favor. Maybe I am taking notes and bans too seriously, but then again I would never want to have my ability to play the game restricted, because I was not aware of some unwritten rule or even worse at someone's whim.

Having a red line, which is known to everyone, makes the playing field fairer. For example:

"Hey, you cannot randomly kill somebody."
"Hey, you cannot cremate somebody without XYZ."

Otherwise, if you say that "Hey, you can do anything to a person as if they were an antag (including cremation), should they do XYZ" and then punish the player for doing so is like letting your dog shit on the carpet and then one day when you are tired from work etc just beat the shit out of your dog, because it shat on the carpet.


You can hardly claim that someone "inexperienced" made the ruling when it was literally a headmin who reaffirmed the ruling. You can disagree with the ruling, by all means.

You're not going to get strictly delineated redlines on every rule. You are always going to be at the whim of someone, because administrators are by definition not just banbots - they have to act on their own judgement. This is why we have ban appeals and headmin oversight - so that even if it takes a bit longer then desirable, bad rulings or questionable enforcements get overturned and the admin corrected.

Rules lawyering isn't just a buzzword. Anyone who has engaged in any community with a rules enforcement position knows the people who try to push for the letter rather then the spirit in the hopes they will get away with shit for another day. It's not a uniquely SS13 thing. Trying to change the rules to adapt around a scenario that many would say was justified (and only resulted in a relatively minor restriction to ability to play), and a largely IC situation that resulted in no punishment for either party, is purely "ided" levels of overreaction. Just because you bump against a rule once and get punished doesn't mean you have to get the rules changed or you're doomed forevermore.
Frequently playing as Aria Bollet on Bagil & Scary Terry

Source of avatar is here: https://i.imgur.com/hEkADo6.jpg

User avatar
Istoprocent1
 
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2017 3:14 pm
Byond Username: istoprocent

Re: Addendum to Rule 4

Postby Istoprocent1 » Mon Aug 26, 2019 12:45 pm #510366

Arianya wrote:You are always going to be at the whim of someone, because administrators are by definition not just banbots - they have to act on their own judgement. This is why we have ban appeals and headmin oversight - so that even if it takes a bit longer then desirable, bad rulings or questionable enforcements get overturned and the admin corrected.


Thats one of the problems with loose rulings, they can be rules lawyered and then it boils down to the admin's whim, potential biases, current mood and conclusions drawn from imperfect knowledge. On the forums it can boil down to people arguing for the sake of arguing or "trying to win", even though they might not be correct in the first place (admins don't want to be wrong and players don't want to be banned). Its in the human nature and we are all human.

It is really hard to ruleslaywer a solid rule like "Hey, you cannot do X without Y." Using your Talking Mime ruling as an example - if the mime talks, you can do anything you like as long as you don't a) space the mime or b) remove the mime from the round permanently (the wording is gib, but its safe to assume that it applies to cremating and melting or eating the brain as well). It's pretty black and white, which is good and doesn't leave any room for somebody to start arguing that "I got borged as a talking mime, ban he!", since they weren't removed from the round permanently.

Another example against unwritten rules is people getting gassed for "The early shuttle launch as a non-antags without a reason.". I do agree with it, but am I completely out of the loop and unable to use search function or is it a case where its not mentioned anywhere and players are just expected to know it and if they don't they get noted or banned for it.

ATHATH
 
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 6:41 am
Byond Username: ATHATH

Re: Addendum to Rule 4

Postby ATHATH » Mon Aug 26, 2019 5:49 pm #510434

Again, I still don't see why further clarifying what can and can't get you banned (instead of just leaving it as a semi-unwritten rule that's only present in other rules) would be a bad thing. It's just a one or two sentence modification; there doesn't seem to be any reason NOT to do it.

"oh no, the rules lawyers will exploit this"
These proposed rules are HARDER to "exploit" than the current ones, so I really don't know what you're going on about.

User avatar
TheMythicGhost
 
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2017 9:26 pm
Byond Username: TheMythicGhost

Re: Addendum to Rule 4

Postby TheMythicGhost » Mon Aug 26, 2019 5:57 pm #510435

ATHATH wrote:Again, I still don't see why further clarifying what can and can't get you banned (instead of just leaving it as a semi-unwritten rule that's only present in other rules) would be a bad thing. It's just a one or two sentence modification; there doesn't seem to be any reason NOT to do it.

"oh no, the rules lawyers will exploit this"
These proposed rules are HARDER to "exploit" than the current ones, so I really don't know what you're going on about.


Allow me to point out the line that is the highest concern with this, and would enable Istoprocent's shitty/shifty behavior, as well as rules lawyers.

3. Non-antags are allowed to remove players semi-permanently or permanently from the round once they have evidence of them being an antag, who is able to reoccur without the use of cloning (such as, but not limited to a changeling, a cultist or a nightmare).


Combine this with Isto's, or anyone else in the same mindset of him's interpretation of what an "antagonist" is, and you've got a policy enacted that allows people to cremate, space, etc for the most minor offenses due to the 'act like an antag and get treated like an antag' viewpoint. This isn't protecting people from grief, it's actually enabling it.

For that reason, this should be smacked down, and made fun of.

Edit: I'm aware of the comma splice in the sentence, but the wording provided has double meanings, and don't think for a second rules lawyers will not hop to on it.
Hi, I play Respii Varenos on Bagil.
everyone when referring to respii wrote:she


deedubya wrote:Posts you don't like aren't illegitimate. Points you don't agree with aren't disproven just because you post a disagreement. Points of view that can negatively affect you(a greyshirt main) aren't automatically negative as a whole.

The sooner you learn things like this, the sooner you can actually participate in fair and open discourse, instead of just screeching like a child when someone wants to take away the toys you use that have been abused constantly.

User avatar
Istoprocent1
 
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2017 3:14 pm
Byond Username: istoprocent

Re: Addendum to Rule 4

Postby Istoprocent1 » Mon Aug 26, 2019 6:12 pm #510438

TheMythicGhost wrote:Allow me to point out the line that is the highest concern with this, and would enable Istoprocent's shitty/shifty behavior, as well as rules lawyers.

Combine this with Isto's, or anyone else in the same mindset of him's interpretation of what an "antagonist" is, and you've got a policy enacted that allows people to cremate, space, etc for the most minor offenses due to the 'act like an antag and get treated like an antag' viewpoint. This isn't protecting people from grief, it's actually enabling it.


Friend, are you cooking?

What I am proposing is quite the opposite as ATHATH has pointed out. I am saying that we need clearer lines and the proposal is to prevent anyone from cremating people for lesser reasons than them being a cultist, ling, nightmare or any other identified antag, that is able to get back into the game without the use of cloning. At least then people would know what is and what is not legal. There is no way to "skate the line" as there either is proof or there is not proof and you either cremated or you didn't cremate.

TheMythicGhost, you are more than welcome to make fun of this thread, at the end of the day I assume we all want an environment where we know where the lines are and not get randomly punished out of the blue. If you want to change the wording to be better, then feel free to post it either in this thread or make a new one. Becoming an antag should also be defined better than it is - murder someone, become an antag, steal traitor objectives, become an antag, break into the caps office at the start of the round, become an antag, stun sec multiple times or attack them with deadly weapons, become an antag and so on.

User avatar
WarbossLincoln
 
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:14 pm
Byond Username: WarbossLincoln

Re: Addendum to Rule 4

Postby WarbossLincoln » Wed Aug 28, 2019 3:57 pm #511096

I keep seeing "steal traitor objective = act like antag = gibber"... am I the only one who brigs and releases someone for stealing a traitor objective if they have no traitor gear, no other crimes, etc?

"Hey AI open the teleporter room law 2." doesn't need immediate round removal.
--Crocodillo

Image

ATHATH
 
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 6:41 am
Byond Username: ATHATH

Re: Addendum to Rule 4

Postby ATHATH » Fri Aug 30, 2019 5:07 pm #511593

TheMythicGhost wrote:Combine this with Isto's, or anyone else in the same mindset of him's interpretation of what an "antagonist" is, and you've got a policy enacted that allows people to cremate, space, etc for the most minor offenses due to the 'act like an antag and get treated like an antag' viewpoint. This isn't protecting people from grief, it's actually enabling it.

To be quite clear, here: The proposed rule would only allow sec to cremate CONFIRMED (as in, they have been seen using their powers or are in possession of items that ONLY antags of that type can have (well, you can get real cult daggers from Lavaland, but you know what I mean)) cultists, changelings, liches, zombies, and nightmares (and ONLY cultists, changelings, liches, zombies, and nightmares; they wouldn't be able to cremate mere traitors). "He had a traitor objective item", "he had an emag", and even "he killed 25 crewmembers in cold blood" would NOT be a valid excuses to cremate someone for being a cultist, a changeling, a lich, a zombie, or a nightmare, since they are not HARD EVIDENCE that they are one of those antag types (you could certainly still execute someone for the latter two crimes, of course- just not cremate them).

I'd also suggest adding (all) wizards and maaaaaaaaaybe headrevs to that list, since they're so incredibly dangerous (the former also has access to multiple easy-resurrection items (staves and wands of healing, for example) and minions (such as apprentices) who can use said items), but I can understand leaving headrevs off of the list to avoid instances of sec saying "he had a flash, he must be a headrev, hurr durr".

User avatar
Timonk
 
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2018 6:27 pm
Byond Username: Timonk

Re: Addendum to Rule 4

Postby Timonk » Sat Aug 31, 2019 9:27 pm #511872

dont let this drop
Aw man
So we back in the mine

ATHATH
 
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 6:41 am
Byond Username: ATHATH

Re: Addendum to Rule 4

Postby ATHATH » Thu Sep 12, 2019 7:00 pm #514275

Timonk wrote:dont let this drop


Return to Policy Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Gamarr, Qbmax32, TothBrush