Page 1 of 1

Double standard for newer players? Where do we stand on this?

PostPosted: Fri Aug 14, 2020 2:52 am
by Agux909
I just want to discuss about policy regarding the current leisure admins give to players who are new to a certain role.
Are newer players supposed to be given some leeway for their fuckups? If a player makes a mistake and can't grasp what they did wrong because they were new to the specific role, do they still have to be punished? Yes? No?

Well... we certainly can't have both:

https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=27292

. This first thread is a ban appeal: a borg whose lawset was modified so they could assist the crew on killing cultists (cultists aren't human). Maybe their first round as borg (from what I could find in their history, so presumably 0 hours of silicon playtime), the station was in chaos and they were trying to eliminate cult before they were able to summon Nar-sie. Player decided to release and light some plasma by opening cans in places where they saw cultist/s pass by and pressumed, would be hiding. Allegedly "broke laws" and therefore rules, because there was a "chance" they harmed humans with their plasma release. Presumably, there was no human harm in the end.

Ruling result: Week job ban (I think), with a now reduced server ban of 1 day

https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=27276

. This second thread is a complaint about a player that received no punishment as AI, and was excused by multiple admins of their fuckups: AI player with around 2 hours of total AI playtime (so inevitably more than 0 hours as silicon). They didn't obey the freeform onehuman lawset given to them by a BB even if it was indeed specified in their chat log as the new lawset to follow, and then after the fact mocked the onehuman subverter and alerted the entire crew of their doings, later on working towards the general direction of them being caught/lynched by the crew because they were "bad".

Ruling result: Nothing

I'm trying to be as objective as possible in this thread, so I will abstain from showing bias to either side. I just want some clarification for this situation and how it can be that such a double standard for this leisure given to "newer players" can co-exist. Both players are relatively new to what they are playing. One had potentially never played silicon, the other one didn't have that much experience with AI, which isn't the easiest role. Yet both players got completely different rulings, and I want to know where we all truly stand on this.

I'd really want know the take of our Headmins here, so I will pray to the Honkmother that the thread won't be a year old before any of you can chime in and say something regarding this.
Thank you for taking the time to read.

Re: Double standard for newer players? Where do we stand on this?

PostPosted: Fri Aug 14, 2020 3:00 am
by oranges
you highlighted the text of one item more, revealing your bias, thread discarded.

Re: Double standard for newer players? Where do we stand on this?

PostPosted: Fri Aug 14, 2020 7:51 am
by cacogen
We should triple the standard

Re: Double standard for newer players? Where do we stand on this?

PostPosted: Fri Aug 14, 2020 4:41 pm
by Cobby
The difference here and why i'm personally not thrilled with the ruling in the complaint is that the AI situation is not new. You are REQUIRED bar admin exception to play 15 hours of cyborg before you can be roundstart AI, that should be (else theres no point to even having the restriction) enough time for you to gather an understanding on how laws work. This is NOT 15 rounds or 1 hour cyborg + 14 hours ghost, this is 15 hours cyborg.

The cyborg incident he is literally new.

We could also assume the fact no one was hurt (vs. a traitor had their round ruined) was taken into consideration.

If you're saying the double standard is that the AI in the complaint didnt even get off with a note, i dont see the point of making the thread before the complaint gets answered because he might actually have deserved more punishment per the headmins view (certainly mine).

Re: Double standard for newer players? Where do we stand on this?

PostPosted: Fri Aug 14, 2020 4:57 pm
by Stickymayhem
Acknowledging those two examples: One is intentional plasmaflooding, the other is killing one person. Both misunderstood silicon, but one had greater consequences.

I totally agree newer players to a role should be given leeway. No one really learned all that much by getting banned for accidentally fucking up the singulo back when we did that. If you're understanding, admit the fuck up and don't try to justify dumb shit, then you've learned your lesson and there's no point throwing them in the dumpster unless it happens again.

Re: Double standard for newer players? Where do we stand on this?

PostPosted: Mon Aug 17, 2020 2:11 am
by Agux909
Cobby wrote:The difference here and why i'm personally not thrilled with the ruling in the complaint is that the AI situation is not new. You are REQUIRED bar admin exception to play 15 hours of cyborg before you can be roundstart AI, that should be (else theres no point to even having the restriction) enough time for you to gather an understanding on how laws work. This is NOT 15 rounds or 1 hour cyborg + 14 hours ghost, this is 15 hours cyborg.

The cyborg incident he is literally new.

We could also assume the fact no one was hurt (vs. a traitor had their round ruined) was taken into consideration.

If you're saying the double standard is that the AI in the complaint didnt even get off with a note, i dont see the point of making the thread before the complaint gets answered because he might actually have deserved more punishment per the headmins view (certainly mine).


First of all I want to reiterate that this thread isn't supposed to show bias to either side, but is taking these 2 similar but oppositely ruled cases (both players having around 300-400 rounds played from what I checked, one being new to silicon and the other relatively new to AI, with around 2 hours of playtime) as an example, so I can get opinions and thoughts from everyone who's interested in contributing to the discussion, and with any luck, the headmins and other admins.

I decided to start this policy discussion the moment this little clash of reasonings hit me, and because the doubt came to my mind specifically in that moment.

And even if the headmins would've overruled the second ruling as you say, consider there is currently 3 admins on the thread supporting it. Something not to be taken lightly, since admins, for better or for worse, are being trialed and trained for the position, and I think some semblance of consensus regarding these situations should be shared amongst them.

Stickymayhem wrote:Acknowledging those two examples: One is intentional plasmaflooding, the other is killing one person. Both misunderstood silicon, but one had greater consequences.

I totally agree newer players to a role should be given leeway. No one really learned all that much by getting banned for accidentally fucking up the singulo back when we did that. If you're understanding, admit the fuck up and don't try to justify dumb shit, then you've learned your lesson and there's no point throwing them in the dumpster unless it happens again.


Please don't reduce neither of the cases as if you were observing them in a vacuum, both need context. One was a silicon player trying to stop the impending doom of the station and its crew by means that virtually break its laws and therefore rules, the other one, about another silicon player that out of negligence or clumsiness, failed to realize it was working against it's own laws and made rulebreaking moves against the only human in the station.

Take into account noone in the game is omniscient and able to know everything going on 100% of the time. Sometimes admitting a mistake can be what's needed, and some other times, the player might think they were doing the best thing they could possibly do with the tools and limited knowledge at their disposal, and it's not so obvious to them why the things they did were considered bad or rulebreaking, which is also part of the game.

I agree appeals have to be made with honesty, good attitude and intention, but this won't always include or need an admission of guilt by the appealer's part. If an admin concludes that the player, given the current tools and knowledge at the time didn't act in bad faith, and there's nothing left for them to admit guilt for, then a conclusion to lift or reduce the ban may be reached.



With these 2 rulings about "newer players" existing at the same time, I decided to take the opportunity to create this thread for us to examine them, discuss and reach a consensus by ourselves, which may or may not serve as precedent for future reference. I want to think this is one of the reasons why "Policy discussion" exists.

For the actual crux of the discussion, re-read my OP.

PD: if you feel the need to shitpost in my thread please try your hardest to abstain from doing it, and go make a thread in general chat or off-topic, thank you.

edit: it wasnt 300-400 hours of playtime but rounds, oops

Re: Double standard for newer players? Where do we stand on this?

PostPosted: Mon Aug 17, 2020 9:11 am
by kopoba
We all make mistakes new players make them more often so punishment required but soft on or not just talk to them and make them understand mistakes they made. its just a game we having fun and they also want fun

Re: Double standard for newer players? Where do we stand on this?

PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2020 4:30 am
by Coconutwarrior97
We believe the ban placed was harsh and would have better served as a note. This is less of double standard and more of a case of a single improper ruling, which happens from time to time.
We once again state that leniency should be given to newer players in regard to certain situations.

Headmin Votes:
Coconutwarrior97: Yes, new players are what keeps the game alive, and there should be degree of leniency allotted for new players who just haven't had the time to familiarize themselves with certain mechanics/policies.
Domitius: Yes.
Naloac: Yes.