/tg/Station 13

Let me kill people for killing my damn pets. This new rule is bullshit. Allowing me to kill peeps for it makes shit more interesting anyway.

MUH VALIDS: The Post.

And shouldn't this be in policy feedback?

This topic has been moved to Policy Discussion.

I'm one of the pet killers, and I agree, do you really want policy to protect me when I'm being a douche for the laugh? I expect to get dunked over it. it's kinda the point.
Now, Killing ian, then "defending myself" with a lazor cannon is obviously my foul, which is why I am careful during my yackety sax not to murder the pet owner, as it is clearly over the line.

I hunt ian, like a caveman with my spear.

Revolutionary concept, have you thought maybe you shouldn't be a douche to people?

If all you want is valids you can still read wgw

Yee, if people are being douches, they obviously are looking for a fight and deserve no mercy

Lord Sexual Waffle wrote:Yee, if people are being douches, they obviously are looking for a fight and deserve no mercy

This was actually about 90% of the people who were killing Ian after we implemented the policy in the first place. It was players who wanted people to come after them so they could kill them in "self defense". Hence why the policy got overturned.

Vekter wrote:

Lord Sexual Waffle wrote:Yee, if people are being douches, they obviously are looking for a fight and deserve no mercy

This was actually about 90% of the people who were killing Ian after we implemented the policy in the first place. It was players who wanted people to come after them so they could kill them in "self defense". Hence why the policy got overturned.

But isn't that killbaiting, which is already bannable / warnable?

Well, like I said, I've never killed anyone in "self defense" But it's fun to derp about, Now instead, I just steal the HoPs flash and run around like a chicken with my head cut off.
Can't explain the appeal, but I'm far from the only one who behaves this way sometimes.

Anyways, my original point, you are only protecting douchebags, such as myself by this rule.
And honestly it's just taking the fun out of it, and it would feel like ban baiting to continue.

So please overturn, so I can wash ian and run about like a mini antag douchewaggon.

realtalk

if killbaiting was the reason this was changed thats fucking retarded.

with making killing pets valid - asshole kills pet and gets killed, if they try to use it to killbait they get banned

without - asshole kills pet and walks off scotch free, if the person tries to kill them they are banned, and the asshole could still kill them in self defense.

the only fucking difference is the actual non shitter is getting banned. whose the retard that came up with this.

This needs to happen

No strong feels one way or the other (as lizard player I am instavalid the moment I touch a human inappropriately), although removing the policy is probably the better idea logically.

Big Faggot wrote:realtalk

if killbaiting was the reason this was changed thats fucking retarded.

with making killing pets valid - asshole kills pet and gets killed, if they try to use it to killbait they get banned

without - asshole kills pet and walks off scotch free, if the person tries to kill them they are banned, and the asshole could still kill them in self defense.

the only fucking difference is the actual non shitter is getting banned. whose the retard that came up with this.

what billy harrington said
youre punishing someone for someone else being a dick to them. KILLING YOUR PET IS A FORM OF ESCALATION
if someone broke into your office and killed your dog, are you just supposed to say "lmao cool" and let them off the hook?
you cant even start a fight with them apparently because if you do someone is going to end up dead and banned. really, what the fuck.

its not even "muh valids" as much as it is "muh dunk killbaiters"
killbaiters will still exist, except instead of just dying or getting banned for "self defense", they have an even better goal: get other people banned
has nobody thought this through?

I was under the impression that this ruling meant that only the pet owner can chose to "kill" the person who murdered their pet.

Falamazeer wrote:So please overturn, so I can wash ian and run about like a mini antag douchewaggon.

Right here is the problem specifically.
People who didn't roll antag but still want to be as big of a douche as possible as the rules will let them.

but the rule doesn't stop you from washing ian

it just prevents the hop from lasering you(?) over it

so nothing really changes.

what changes is people are banned for being killbaited upon

Big Faggot wrote:realtalk

if killbaiting was the reason this was changed thats fucking retarded.

with making killing pets valid - asshole kills pet and gets killed, if they try to use it to killbait they get banned

without - asshole kills pet and walks off scotch free, if the person tries to kill them they are banned, and the asshole could still kill them in self defense.

the only fucking difference is the actual non shitter is getting banned. whose the retard that came up with this.

Big Faggot is the best of us. Big Faggot for headmin 2015.

Steelpoint wrote:I was under the impression that this ruling meant that only the pet owner can chose to "kill" the person who murdered their pet.

This is pretty much how I interpreted it too. Is it wrong? If so, please tell me.

I thought it made more sense that only the owner was allowed to act (to prevent assistant lynchmobs for killing Ian), and if you didn't own the pet the best you could do is call sec to arrest the killer.

This new policy is stupid and discourages RP. To wit:

- It is understandable that a human being would want to exact revenge against someone who hurts their pet. Imagine if someone shot your dog in front of you. How would you respond? Maybe you wouldn't take a toolbox to his head, but you'd at least try to get his ass punished, right?

- It is not understandable that a human being, who is not a sociopath, crazy person or any other category that's called out in the goddamned roleplay policy as "not actually RP," would kill pets for no reason, consistently, every round. I can't think of a round I've been in since this policy was enacted where Ian did not end up dead, gibbed, eaten, or otherwise harmed by someone who wasn't even a traitor. The policy encourages griffons to kill pets solely to piss people off, because they've just been told in giant blinking letters that they'll get away with it.

- It's even less understandable that a human being would just let the pet-killing slide. Know why? Because the only reasoning possible is "because I'll get banned if I retaliate." That's OOC reasoning and the opposite of roleplaying.

Falamazeer wrote:I'm one of the pet killers

Falamazeer wrote:I expect to get dunked over it. it's kinda the point.

Oh look, the policy works exactly as intended.

Problem is, anything short of a permabrigging is a slap on the wrist at best as punishment for what is being a massive douche.

And permabrigging might get you bwoinked.

People are now just climb into my office from window(If I manage to fuck up)/reroute disposals/walk into door left open by captain, Kill Ian and then just stand there with mouse over "ahelp" button. This ban bait is going to get boring soon, I hope, cause i'm tired of dragging them all the way to brig(constantly refreshing stun) while listening to their remarks like "Why so salty?" "You mad bro?". Also, nobody tries to take Ian from me when I'm trying to evacuate him, they just kill him now, every time, instead of that 50/50 chance. Can I at least ahelp them under new greytide policy or should I revive Ian 3 times bofore it's valid complaint?

Honestly, the whole policy is punishing the victim of douchebaggery, Judge me all you want, I occasionally like to be a douche, I don't end rounds for no raisen, I don't A-help when I get wrekt, I don't murder in "self defense" and I don't loot antag objectives.

Why was this even changed? If you're so angry about shitty reasons to kill someone, make WGW free game to say over the radio too. It's the same damn thing as pet hunting for no reason.

if people are repeatedly murdering your pet (like doing it 5 rounds in a row etc) That's griefing. Ahelp that shit.
If someone breaks into your office and murders your pet once, Beat them, call sec, Beat them some more, and then throw them out in cuffs.

There's a lot of shit you can do against FNR pet killers, without resorting to murder.
If I played the HoP I would probably force demote them for being a shitter.
CMO could give them torretts.
RD could implant a remote detonated bomb in their chest and tell them to behave.
Mainly though, let sec do their job, if the person is being a cunt to you, chances are they'll be a cunt to sec, and that's just going to fuck them over more.

lumipharon wrote:if people are repeatedly murdering your pet (like doing it 5 rounds in a row etc) That's griefing. Ahelp that shit.
If someone breaks into your office and murders your pet once, Beat them, call sec, Beat them some more, and then throw them out in cuffs.

There's a lot of shit you can do against FNR pet killers, without resorting to murder.
If I played the HoP I would probably force demote them for being a shitter.
CMO could give them torretts.
RD could implant a remote detonated bomb in their chest and tell them to behave.
Mainly though, let sec do their job, if the person is being a cunt to you, chances are they'll be a cunt to sec, and that's just going to fuck them over more.

and then they beat you back in self defense : ^ )

This rule is pointless and just results in a lot unnecessary bans

lumipharon wrote:if people are repeatedly murdering your pet (like doing it 5 rounds in a row etc) That's griefing. Ahelp that shit.

Nothing will happen. Guaranteed. And that's if you're playing a command role (i.e. a role with pets) several times in a row. The people who do this shit every round do it to different people generally.

If someone breaks into your office and murders your pet once, Beat them, call sec, Beat them some more, and then throw them out in cuffs.

Security won't give a shit. They generally have other things to deal with and do not see pet-killing as crime. The rest will get you BWOINKed.

There's a lot of shit you can do against FNR pet killers, without resorting to murder.
If I played the HoP I would probably force demote them for being a shitter.

"force demote" very funny, how do you propose doing that? With your shitty disabler gun? And then have to dodge them trying to retaliate the rest of the round?

CMO could give them torretts.

How, precisely, are you going to corral them long enough to do that? You don't even have a shitty disabler gun. And that's assuming genetics miraculously has a tourette's block isolated (protip: they don't). Also, you'll get BWOINKed. Also, they'll try to retaliate.

RD could implant a remote detonated bomb in their chest and tell them to behave.

You'll be lucky if you even get a BWOINK before getting banned for non-antag bombing.

Mainly though, let sec do their job, if the person is being a cunt to you, chances are they'll be a cunt to sec, and that's just going to fuck them over more.

Security generally doesn't give a shit about pet killing, as stated above. Oddly enough pet-killers and graytiders don't tend to be the same people in every round. It's like they have to concentrate their shit effort on one or the other.

Sorry this has gone on so long without a headmin response. This is a touchy subject and a lot of us have our own feelings on it still. This may change again soon, maybe as a result of this conversation.

Killing pets is no longer valid to immediately murder someone on the spot for. This was changed in the hopes that people would stop doing it, as it no longer sparks the manhunt and momentary feeling of being an antagonist on the run that people were killing the pet in the first place to achieve. Originally the hope was that people would eventually get tired of doing it and it would peter out. As we can plainly see after years of watching it still happen ever since pets were first added, that's not the case at all. People will continue to do it if it means they get to thumb their nose and run around until they get killed forever and always.

This rule change is meant to eliminate the chase. Killing Ian (or whichever pet) simply becomes kicking over a sprite in a videogame that doesn't mean much. The hope is that in time people will stop caring and then stop doing it, and we can get on with just having a neat little hound to put hats on and get on with life.

Since that doesn't seem to be happening either, I would alternatively suggest we go full off into the other side of the spectrum and make anyone who kills a pet purposely FNR open to admin intervention. We make killing random pets on the station a Rule 1 violation, which could include punishment up to a ban. This could finally put an end to people doing this for stupid reasons, as our ability to gib people for reading WGW has cut that activity way down and our recent ban of ERP has eliminated that stupid spectacle and the distraction it caused to different rounds. The precedent we have shows making this an admin-intervenable offense and potential ban would get people to cut it out.

There's an added benefit to this as well. Since corgi meat is an antagonist objective and it becomes nigh-impossible to achieve when every assistant is already competing with you to be the first person to kill that pet and make a burger out of it or whatever. For the same reason that the CE can't space the blueprints at round start (or anyone metagaming and tossing out a similar objective just to spite antagonists) making pet killing an offense to non-antagonists makes killing pets a lot more viable as an antagonist objective. We add pet murder officially to space law as a major crime, in the same way that murdering any other member of the crew is to be treated, and similarly warn/ban anyone who does either as a non-antagonist.

We do often add ghosts and other players who are observing the round to the game as pets for fun, and it's really stupid that at any given moment any random assistant is going to come spear them to death in the halls just because it's not against the rules to do so. I don't know what kind of sociopath wants to encourage this kind of thing to keep happening, but I think it's time we put this bullshit to rest for good.

Ultimately if you didn't roll antagonist you shouldn't be doing anything on the station that is causing a head of staff or mob of security to chase you around the halls out for your blood. Not without proper escalation, which involves a back and forth between players and typically a few options for either side to bow out and get back to playing the actual game. If you're doing something that causes things to escalate from zero to "you're now valid for a permabrigging/murder" and you're not an antagonist, you're purposely fucking up and distracting others from their jobs and the gameplay the server is setup to provide. It's fun for you, sure, but you never hear a HoP say "Yeah I love it when people murder Ian it's great being able to chase a random person around the station and murder him to death."

Unfortunately this rule change is punishing the victim, in that people can still run up and kill their pet to harass them but now what was their primary reaction is off the table. The person being fucked with is being told to just deal with it, and that's not really right, is it? I think turning the tables and making pet murder a Rule 1 violation will sort this out for good.

When a Big Faggot is posting something that is the complete opposite of a shitpost, a post that actually makes good sense at that, you know the new policy is retarded.

If people are killing Ian for the sake of being bellends the problem is that they are bell ends, them being able to be a douche by killing Ian and then maintaining their admin protection is literally having their cake and eating it.
As proven by people now killing Ian and going "You mad bro?"

When they get bored of it all they're going to do is find some other way to be a douche bag, be that read WGW, slip floors, or fuck with security.
Douche bags will be douche bags, they will always find a way of being a cunt.

What you should be doing is banning people that are repeatedly acting like cunts, being a twat every now and again is fine, but people that are constantly being twats are constantly going to be twats - do we really want that sort of person here? No we don't.

Banning someone for being the victim of grief is FUCKING RETARDED!

lumipharon wrote:if people are repeatedly murdering your pet (like doing it 5 rounds in a row etc) That's griefing. Ahelp that shit.
If someone breaks into your office and murders your pet once, Beat them, call sec, Beat them some more, and then throw them out in cuffs.

There's a lot of shit you can do against FNR pet killers, without resorting to murder.
If I played the HoP I would probably force demote them for being a shitter.
CMO could give them torretts.
RD could implant a remote detonated bomb in their chest and tell them to behave.
Mainly though, let sec do their job, if the person is being a cunt to you, chances are they'll be a cunt to sec, and that's just going to fuck them over more.

The Libtard Agenda wrote:Just let the poor hoodrats rob your store, let the police do their job to arrest them.
Oh? They shot you dead to leave no witnesses?
What a shame the police force is so inept.

Make the pet killer valid to the owner and only the owner. Wanna kill Ian? The HOP can wreck you. Wanna kill Runtime? The CMO can turn you into a genetics monkey. Etc. If people want to be dicks, give it tangible ingame consequences, but please for the love of god don't revert to the old 'assistant manhunt' we used to see because someone killed a fucking corgi. IMHO what I said was a pretty viable middle-ground.

That doesn't work well because a head of staff shouldn't be leaving their department to run off and valid hunt one guy because of their personal vendetta.

Making it so everyone could kill the guy at least gave the HoP (or whoever, but most often the HoP come on now) the satisfaction of being able to call the blood hunt and then get himself a griffinburger later.

Having it so only the head can hunt the guy makes them choose between getting revenge for their pet or doing their job. Nevermind that most people who see the HoP running down the hall lasering a random assistant to death will normally rush in and try to disarm him for his stuff and save the assistant without proper warning over the radio ahead of time that "Hugh Griffin killed my corgi everyone get him!"

Making them valid to just the pet's owner is a logistical clusterfuck. Having it be a Rule 1 violation lets us step in, tell them to stop fucking doing that, and if it becomes a pattern of behavior where they are constantly killing the HoP's pet FOR THE LULZ we ban them.

Currently what lumi said:

lumipharon wrote:if people are repeatedly murdering your pet (like doing it 5 rounds in a row etc) That's griefing. Ahelp that shit.

Is debatable. The current ruling is that no, it's just IC escalation because for some reason this ritual of killing pets is fetishized and cosidered good roleplay.
If you guys want to make it a Rule 1 violation I'm all for it. I would have to talk to the others in charge about it.

How about lets just remove the pets entirely, and instead name a single window pane after Ian.

Cue people smashing the Ian window to be edgy.


Someone killing Ian and the HoP making the announcement "A gold bar to whoever brings me the head of Urist McFutureSerialKiller" should be something that is allowed, and a thing that should be acceptable in slow boring rounds where nothing has happened.

It is a thing that can provide good RP and spice up a boring round, but the problem is that certain people do it constantly and run the joke into the ground.
If someone is doing it constantly they should be told to knock it off, get new material, or fuck off. The same should be applied to reading WGW.

You can call it the "Being an unfunny jerk policy".
And no, clowns shouldn't be exempt from it.

Malkevin wrote:Cue people smashing the Ian window to be edgy.

Yeah but this has been confirmed to make you valid, so we're back at square one here.

An0n3 wrote:
Currently what lumi said:

lumipharon wrote:if people are repeatedly murdering your pet (like doing it 5 rounds in a row etc) That's griefing. Ahelp that shit.

Is debatable. The current ruling is that no, it's just IC escalation because for some reason this ritual of killing pets is fetishized and cosidered good roleplay.
If you guys want to make it a Rule 1 violation I'm all for it. I would have to talk to the others in charge about it.

How is it debatable if they're clearly jsut repeatedly doing it round after round for shits and giggles?
A bar fight is a reasonable IC confronation, but surely if a player was going to the bar EVERY ROUND to start fights with people, that wouldn't be ok?


Also I don't really like the idea of killing a pet an instant dingdongbannu rule one violation, since ultimately it is just a pet. If some shitter kills a pet once, he's just some shitter. If he is doing it repeatedly, ban his ass.

Malkevin wrote:When a Big Faggot is posting something that is the complete opposite of a shitpost, a post that actually makes good sense at that, you know the new policy is retarded.

Pretty much this.

To add I have to say I thought it was always seen that Ian was the stations mascot, so killing him allowed a lynch mob style reaction. However I have noticed a weird shift in non caring recently or just plain violence towards pets FNR. These days if I ever spawn as a pet or spawn someone as a pet they often get killed pretty damn quickly (I'm talking really recently, last few months, even more so since this rule change). Where as before a whole ridiculous scenario was created from the crew refusing to give up/kill Ian for cent comm.

Somethings change in the crews attitude to mobs and I'm not sure what it is. Maybe there needs to be more highlander or "Kill everything" rounds to get the stress out of everyone want to COD the game... Who knows.

An0n3 wrote:That doesn't work well because a head of staff shouldn't be leaving their department to run off and valid hunt one guy because of their personal vendetta.

the only thing is though that 90% of the time the only head actually required to be doing something at all times is the HoS
usually the only time the CMO or CE have to do something is during an emergency, and the RD can have someone else continue research or just pause it for a moment to handle whatever they need to. and the hop has nearly infinite free time after the first 15 minutes.

So if only antags can (presumably) kill the pets and not get banned will they be used as an antag test? Will antags cherish killing them maybe seeking to do so often enough the chase remains common putting us back to square one and the antagonist who actually needs the meat is back to trying to break into fort fox with the small dog appreciation society howling for their blood?

The walking barking forbidden fruit.

That's like saying that someome killing another player without beong banned can be used as an antag test.

Let's just make the damn pets unkillable already.

Why not buff their health so they can survive more than two punches?

Could do that, give them 100 hp rather than 20 which most of them seem to have.

An0n3 wrote:Killing pets is no longer valid to immediately murder someone on the spot for. This was changed in the hopes that people would stop doing it, as it no longer sparks the manhunt and momentary feeling of being an antagonist on the run that people were killing the pet in the first place to achieve. Originally the hope was that people would eventually get tired of doing it and it would peter out. As we can plainly see after years of watching it still happen ever since pets were first added, that's not the case at all. People will continue to do it if it means they get to thumb their nose and run around until they get killed forever and always.

The thing is, I don't think people kill pets for the "manhunt and momentary feeling of being an antagonist on the run". I'm pretty sure most people who do it, do it because they can, because they think it's funny to piss people off. Same goes for WGW, come to think of it.

peoplearestrange wrote:Could do that, give them 100 hp rather than 20 which most of them seem to have.

Also make them fight back.

I think Poly already does. Ian definitely should. And Runtime, well...why the fuck not.

Ikky HG and myself talked briefly about this today. I'm in favor of making it a rule 1 violation to repeatedly kill people's pets or possessed animals roaming the station FNR.
HG would prefer to make it a 5 minute brig sentence.
Ikky approves a both.

Since we're sort of at a stalemate we'll go likely go with the current setup which is what HG suggested. Killing pets doesn't make them valid for murder but it is a crime worth a five minute brig timer.

5 minutes seems FAR too weak to even be a deterrent to something that is effectively greytiding.

(Personally now that killing them is banned I've formed a little plan of locking Ian murderers in that little chunk of main near the HoP office. Strip them, build some windows so I can watch them. Toss in wish soup if they complain about being hungry. If they keep complaining I may toss in a glass of nutriment mixed with Cryptoblin. Every now ant then I'd fire some disabler beams though the glass. Possibly chuck a few glass shards inside to further limit their walking space. Start referring to them as Ian 2. Give them a chocolate bar, add poison beforehand. If they behave well they get to be taken to the shuttle as Ian 2. If not I drag the original Ians corpse and leave them during evac.)