/tg/Station 13

Bottom post of the previous page:

Basically, Saegrimir or however you spell it made an OOC announcement that "Entertaining the idea of a lynchmob" is now bannable. I wans't sure totally what that meant, so I sought clarity.



/discuss.

Edit: I later mentioned there should be a thread made about this new rule, so at the very least people know who were not on or weren't paying attention when that rule was made.

Saegrimr wrote:

bandit wrote:I can see a lot of banbaiting coming out of this.

So stop screaming about various rioting and you won't catch shit for it.

I generally don't scream about various rioting, I am just deeply uncomfortable with anyone being punished for griefing besides the griefers themselves. Believe it or not, you can take the opinion "Activity X shouldn't be banned" without actually personally participating in Activity X.

I don't understand how this isn't clear-cut. Dumb radio shit exists in every round, and "RACE WAR RACE WAR KILL ALL LIZARDS" is not the same thing, fundamentally, as "AI ROGUE" or "HELP BEING KILLED." If someone decides to "use" that dumb radio shit as a "reason" for grief they were going to commit anyway, that is entirely on them. This isn't just about lizards, either -- I don't think shouting "GRAYTIDE" over radio should be bannable, but I think graytiding should, and in my view either the punishment for this generally happens backward (the radio guy gets banned, the actual graytiders get mostly ignored) or it's a moot point because the radio guy proceeds on to actual grief anyway (which probably happens in at least half of the lizard cases, making this discussion kind of pointless.)

bandit wrote:

Saegrimr wrote:

bandit wrote:I can see a lot of banbaiting coming out of this.

So stop screaming about various rioting and you won't catch shit for it.

I generally don't scream about various rioting, I am just deeply uncomfortable with anyone being punished for griefing besides the griefers themselves. Believe it or not, you can take the opinion "Activity X shouldn't be banned" without actually personally participating in Activity X.

I don't understand how this isn't clear-cut. Dumb radio shit exists in every round, and "RACE WAR RACE WAR KILL ALL LIZARDS" is not the same thing, fundamentally, as "AI ROGUE" or "HELP BEING KILLED." If someone decides to "use" that dumb radio shit as a "reason" for grief they were going to commit anyway, that is entirely on them. This isn't just about lizards, either -- I don't think shouting "GRAYTIDE" over radio should be bannable, but I think graytiding should, and in my view either the punishment for this generally happens backward (the radio guy gets banned, the actual graytiders get mostly ignored) or it's a moot point because the radio guy proceeds on to actual grief anyway (which probably happens in at least half of the lizard cases, making this discussion kind of pointless.)

By the same token, you do understand that people who, alone, wouldn't participate in greytiding or race rioting or whatever activity but are inclined to do so when its more social would go along. There's a social element to it. Greytiding alone isn't really "greytiding" its just being a faggot. The reason greytiding in the correct sense even happens/happened is because of a sense of numbers or moral support beyond oneself. That's why we keep emphasizing that its not some sort of mindcontrol thing or whatever. You're right, people that are going to do shitty things are going to look for every excuse to do them. That does not automatically mean that they were going to do them without encouragement. If a guy who is inclined to do shitty things, but won't do them alone hears "hurr durr greytide woo" and sees people wandering around screaming and yelling and breaking shit (or not even breaking things, just stirring up shit) they now have that personal excuse they needed to start actively being a shit. This is the reason we bwoink people for starting up this sort of thing. Its not that they're automatically some sort of ringleader, but instead they're encouraging (even unintentionally) shitty behavior which can then later be pointed at by the actual shitlers who will say "I was just going along with X, Y, Z."

cedarbridge wrote: By the same token, you do understand that people who, alone, wouldn't participate in greytiding or race rioting or whatever activity but are inclined to do so when its more social would go along. There's a social element to it.

Your right, following a lynchmob around and watching them do their thing should also be against the rules since it gives people the perception that the mob is bigger than it really is and thus peer pressures them and other players into murdering other players and joining the mob.

chesquatt wrote:

cedarbridge wrote: By the same token, you do understand that people who, alone, wouldn't participate in greytiding or race rioting or whatever activity but are inclined to do so when its more social would go along. There's a social element to it.

Your right, following a lynchmob around and watching them do their thing should also be against the rules since it gives people the perception that the mob is bigger than it really is and thus peer pressures them and other players into murdering other players and joining the mob.

You understand that instigating a crime is a crime in itself by responsability?

Forming a mob with the clear intention of being, at the barest minimum, rude to the lizardmen players is already shitty. Those are players minding their own bussiness, or traitors trying to fix some plan to oppose the crew, and then half a dozen or more bored players come to ruin your day, and that feels awful (this thread: https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=68 has too many stories that go with "And then some random greysuit pushed me and took my things")
IF the mob ends up with people dead, then you're guilty by proxy, because if you had spent the round minding your own bussiness, that other player wouldn't have died.

Forming a mob then blaming others because they lynch the ones YOU goaded them into lynching sound like baiting others into getting banned IMO. Double the fun, isn't it? someone gets dunked, another gets banned, and you laugh a bit about it.

chesquatt wrote:

cedarbridge wrote: By the same token, you do understand that people who, alone, wouldn't participate in greytiding or race rioting or whatever activity but are inclined to do so when its more social would go along. There's a social element to it.

Your right, following a lynchmob around and watching them do their thing should also be against the rules since it gives people the perception that the mob is bigger than it really is and thus peer pressures them and other players into murdering other players and joining the mob.

Unsurprisingly, people get arrested all the time for "just following around" a mob. Yeah, I'm blown away too why anyone would be surprised.

cedarbridge wrote:

chesquatt wrote:

cedarbridge wrote: By the same token, you do understand that people who, alone, wouldn't participate in greytiding or race rioting or whatever activity but are inclined to do so when its more social would go along. There's a social element to it.

Your right, following a lynchmob around and watching them do their thing should also be against the rules since it gives people the perception that the mob is bigger than it really is and thus peer pressures them and other players into murdering other players and joining the mob.

Unsurprisingly, people get arrested all the time for "just following around" a mob. Yeah, I'm blown away too why anyone would be surprised.

Being arrested is an IC issue.

realtalk

people should only be banned if something comes out of their lynchmob entertaining. thats just as big of an incentive not to try and start one, without banning people who maybe were just minorly fucking around or some shit. idk i cant think of a specific incident where someone could be unfairly banned from this but im sure there is one cause it seems a bit too over protective.

chesquatt wrote:

cedarbridge wrote:

chesquatt wrote:

cedarbridge wrote: By the same token, you do understand that people who, alone, wouldn't participate in greytiding or race rioting or whatever activity but are inclined to do so when its more social would go along. There's a social element to it.

Your right, following a lynchmob around and watching them do their thing should also be against the rules since it gives people the perception that the mob is bigger than it really is and thus peer pressures them and other players into murdering other players and joining the mob.

Unsurprisingly, people get arrested all the time for "just following around" a mob. Yeah, I'm blown away too why anyone would be surprised.

Being arrested is an IC issue.

I wasn't talking about IC mobs. Being a shit to other players for the sake of being a shit to other players is also, not an IC issue.

The way I see it, it's not starting or talking about rioting that's frustrating. It's dealing with the greytide and everyone involved in it that's a pain in the ass to deal with, so it's easier to ban those who want to start these headache clusters is and scare off any provocateurs before it happens.

I remember joking about that in-game when the Captain said something about not breaking shit and to be orderly and I said "Break shit" to be ironically defiant, and Saegrimr thought I was actually trying to start a riot and I just closed the client out of frustration.

Still, those who participate in it should get a heavier ban. Also, this should have a grey area. Not because it's okay but because having a double standard for what's allowed as a normal player and an antag will just make it easier to meta antagonist status and that's not fun for anyone.

Saegrimr wrote:

chesquatt wrote:The difference is that it is plausible that blowing the borgs is a rational action
It's never rational to lynch all the lizards.
Therefore saying "LYNCH EVERY LIZARD" is either an empty threat, said in jest, or obviously to be ignored.
where as "BORGS ARE ROGUE, AI IS ROGUE, SHIIIT" people start reaching for the console because that DOES happen and that IS part of the solution.

So this is a purely meta circumstance?

Amazing.

I'm actually not sure what confusion Saegrimr has on this that leads him to believe it's meta. The idea of a 'race war' is a comedic joke to be carried on the backs of a couple greytiders. The idea of a rogue AI/rogue borg requires you to know that law upload consoles exist, or emags exist, and we're allowed to know traitor items exist - this is tg. AKA everyone knows the second is possible if they think about it, most people think of the former as a running joke based off a few racists and there's no way to hive-mind every lizard into a feral anti-human flesh eater. Black jokes are a thing in modern America despite the fact that somewhere in some back country you're gonna find someone who thinks of them as monkeys.

All the silicons being rogue requires one law change by one person, or perhaps the AI started of rogue or malf. This is IC knowledge just as all knowledge of antags is.
On the otherhand, there is no rational reason IC or OOC why all the lizards are rogue.

Therefore shouting 'AI rogue" is plausible, while shouting 'the lizards are rogue' is not.
This ain't meta, it's logic.