/tg/Station 13

Mimes talking already counts as valid, but the ruling doesn't say anything about if they're using emotes. We already slap mimes who are doing this but should we make them valid as well, since it's basically doing the exact same thing? I'm talking about mimes that go "*me uses sign language to say 'stop killing Ian'".

mimes doing this should be valid to players and admins

sign language actually exists in game

No. Let admins be the judge of whats past the line of acceptable emoting, players can continue to ahelp retarded mimes.

Breaking the vow and choosing to speak is a dramatic IC action.

Using *me to speak is breaking the actual rules of what's acceptable. If other crew using *me for things like getting around being muted is a rule infraction that warrants admin intervention, mimes doing the same thing for less should be punished similarly. We shouldn't be normalizing mimes using *me to talk, which is what marking something as valid inevitably does.

No, it shouldn't make mimes valid.

It is, however, against the rules and should be ahelped and dealt with by admins the same way any other rule breaking behaviour is.

This nu-/tg/ thing of talking mimes being valid is stupid

cacogen wrote:This nu-/tg/ thing of talking mimes being valid is stupid

talking mimes have literally always been valid, zoomer

"sign language" or similar to get around w/ me is stupid and shouldn't be allowed, and i've been told it isn't. we have things like deafness for design reasons, they shouldn't be allowed to be skirted so easily.

They should be valid, not everything needs to be handled by admins.

Being valid is not a universal deterrent, since there's plenty of people who enjoy the challenge of being hunted or attempt to exploit it as an escalation excuse.

If it's a behaviour that we don't want to see at all then it should be handled by admins like any other rule, otherwise it should be allowed and validness would be handled by regular escalation rules. Using 'valid' as a special punishment is either ineffective or outright counterproductive.

iamgoofball wrote:

cacogen wrote:This nu-/tg/ thing of talking mimes being valid is stupid

talking mimes have literally always been valid, zoomer

They have not, nu-player.

Last I checked admins handled cheating or unfair exploitation of game mechanics, which using /me to talk without losing your mime powers probably falls under.

as a general rule of thumb if you're being an annoying retard i'll kill you and just eat the ban if an admin decides to dish one out, but most of the time being an annoying retard makes you valid in the first place.
but mimes using sign language, like an annoying retard, should absolutely be valid, unironically why play mime if you're just going to take the easy way out. it's like playing borg and not following your laws at all or wizard and being friendly, why even opt into the role if you're not gonna do anything with it? also fuck shoeless clowns.

Talking mimes have been valid for as long as I remember, there's no reason it should be different just because they're using *me to do it.

Granted, there's a valid argument for un-validifying talking mimes but that's for another thread.

killing over this when its already against the rules for all players is dumb. It shouldnt be treated differently because mimes happen to have a clause where if they talk as in actually speak in game they're a freekill.

Making the choice to emote your speech instead of breaking your vow to do it has the exact same end result: you spoke. We all understand what's coming to us for doing so and take it with grace when we speak, right? Its usually pretty clear when someone is emoting in good faith, or emoting "clown killed me". When in doubt, ahelp it, yeah?

Should mimes REALLY be allowed to do this and have it not be valid while speaking any other way would be? Why would speaking be allowed in a particular context as killable and not in others?

Mimes should either be valid for speaking, or not valid for speaking. Doesn't really matter which to me, or how they go about doing it.

Plenty of things will make you valid and get slapped for being against the rules at the same time. Are we sure 'OOC consequences make up for IC consequences' is really the right argument against this here?

Misdoubtful wrote:Making the choice to emote your speech instead of breaking your vow to do it has the exact same end result: you spoke. We all understand what's coming to us for doing so and take it with grace when we speak, right? Its usually pretty clear when someone is emoting in good faith, or emoting "clown killed me". When in doubt, ahelp it, yeah?

Should mimes REALLY be allowed to do this and have it not be valid while speaking any other way would be? Why would speaking be allowed in a particular context as killable and not in others?

Mimes should either be valid for speaking, or not valid for speaking. Doesn't really matter which to me, or how they go about doing it.

Plenty of things will make you valid and get slapped for being against the rules at the same time. Are we sure 'OOC consequences make up for IC consequences' is really the right argument against this here?

I think the main distinction is that mimes speaking makes them valid to kill but is not against the rules. Speaking regularly with emotes is straight up against the rules. Letting players kill mimes for speaking on emotes while fair can create admin headache for something the admin could have just dealt with easily in the first place if the player had just ahepled instead.

Seems to me the good middleground would be to ahelp the incident and ask if you can kill them for "speaking." Most admins will probably give you the go ahead AND it will be dealt with administratively.

iamgoofball wrote:

cacogen wrote:This nu-/tg/ thing of talking mimes being valid is stupid

talking mimes have literally always been valid, zoomer

No, they haven't and you should remember that if I remember you ruining chemistry the first time chemistry was ruined. Usually takes a crane to get it out.

Misdoubtful wrote:Should mimes REALLY be allowed to do this and have it not be valid while speaking any other way would be? Why would speaking be allowed in a particular context as killable and not in others?

Breaking the rules does not mean someone is valid. It means they broke the rules and should be ahelped. It is purely an administrative matter.

The player should be ahelped, the matter and logs investigated and noted/role banned if necessary.

Timberpoes wrote:

Misdoubtful wrote:Should mimes REALLY be allowed to do this and have it not be valid while speaking any other way would be? Why would speaking be allowed in a particular context as killable and not in others?

Breaking the rules does not mean someone is valid. It means they broke the rules and should be ahelped. It is purely an administrative matter.

The player should be ahelped, the matter and logs investigated and noted/role banned if necessary.

See: The green light for lynching people for copy pasta spam, WGW, smut etc on comms, which can also fall under spam rulings.

Under your definition it would fit the bill, and that means its purely an administrative issue. It is not.

There are plenty of things that can end up be handled both IC and OOC.

Misdoubtful wrote: See: The green light for lynching people for copy pasta spam, WGW, smut etc on comms, which can also fall under spam rulings.

Under your definition it would fit the bill, and that means its purely an administrative issue. It is not.

There are plenty of things that can end up be handled both IC and OOC.

Either the behaviour is breaking the rules and it's suitable for administrative action or it's not breaking the rules and is not suitable for administrative action.

Multi-year old headmin rulings on mime talking validity and WGW/smut/etc. validity may be ha-ha funny, but I argue that they serve more harm than good when it comes to actively enforcing server rules. They should not be used as the gold standard for future policies because it sends the message that rule breaking is okay as long as you can be killed for it IC.

Players who regularly break rules could be subject to no OOC consequences because of headmin rulings like that, perhaps not even getting the chance to understand their behaviour goes against the rules when players handle it through IC killings.

Timberpoes wrote:

Misdoubtful wrote: See: The green light for lynching people for copy pasta spam, WGW, smut etc on comms, which can also fall under spam rulings.

Under your definition it would fit the bill, and that means its purely an administrative issue. It is not.

There are plenty of things that can end up be handled both IC and OOC.

Either the behaviour is breaking the rules and it's suitable for administrative action or it's not breaking the rules and is not suitable for administrative action.

Multi-year old headmin rulings on mime talking validity and WGW/smut/etc. validity may be ha-ha funny, but I argue that they serve more harm than good when it comes to actively enforcing server rules. They should not be used as the gold standard for future policies because it sends the message that rule breaking is okay as long as you can be killed for it IC.

Players who regularly break rules could be subject to no OOC consequences because of headmin rulings like that, perhaps not even getting the chance to understand their behaviour goes against the rules when players handle it through IC killings.

This isn't the point. Obviously if its breaking the rules its breaking the rules.

The discussion is should it also be valid, NOT just rule breaking. You aren't understanding what I'm saying when I say that something can have both IC and OOC consequences. You shouldn't expect that spamming won't get you lynched IC, and shouldn't expect that it won't get you banned either.

That is the exact same thing for mimes using emotes to speak. Its still speaking as a mime regardless of being done through a cheap tactic, expect you might just get dunked on for it IC, and expect you may just get bonked in a ticket for it too.

It's just the same train of thought.

Misdoubtful wrote: The discussion is should it also be valid, NOT just rule breaking. You aren't understanding what I'm saying when I say that something can have both IC and OOC consequences. You shouldn't expect that spamming won't get you lynched IC, and shouldn't expect that it won't get you banned either.

Timberpoes wrote:Players who regularly break rules could be subject to no OOC consequences because of headmin rulings like that, perhaps not even getting the chance to understand their behaviour goes against the rules when players handle it through IC killings.

Players will often opt for killing IC over ahelping when given the opportunity. That a player has a choice between ahelping or killing the valid, in my experience usually results in a dead valid and no record of the player's rule breaking behaviour ever reaching the admins.

Wow God forbid a server polices itself and resolves things icly, what a terrible thought.

Anyways I thought it was just one of those unspoken rules that you can dick on people breaking the rules. Catch me in the right mood and I’ll remove the tongue of people who keep using netspeak icly and stuff.

Back in the good old days when SOS would pay you every time the server lagged (which was often) me and the fellas would get our jollies using internet acronyms such as tbh and doing ironic smiley faces :^) IC and not a single admin did a damn thing they were too busy cybersexing each other in virology (known then as ERP fortress)

Timberpoes wrote:

Misdoubtful wrote: The discussion is should it also be valid, NOT just rule breaking. You aren't understanding what I'm saying when I say that something can have both IC and OOC consequences. You shouldn't expect that spamming won't get you lynched IC, and shouldn't expect that it won't get you banned either.

Timberpoes wrote:Players who regularly break rules could be subject to no OOC consequences because of headmin rulings like that, perhaps not even getting the chance to understand their behaviour goes against the rules when players handle it through IC killings.

Players will often opt for killing IC over ahelping when given the opportunity. That a player has a choice between ahelping or killing the valid, in my experience usually results in a dead valid and no record of the player's rule breaking behaviour ever reaching the admins.

Alright. Yeah, I am officially not sure what you are trying to get at anymore with your responses to me.

I provided a statement that there are plenty of times where plenty of things that get handled OOC also get their IC smacking's.
You directly replied and told me this was incorrect and that rule breaks do not result in validity.

I provided a precedence where a rule break does in fact result in validity with the example of spam/WGW lynching.
You responded by telling me the precedence was old, "ha-ha funny" and that precedent shouldn't set a standard.
(Literally the purpose of precedents as defined, "an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances.")

I provided as close a connection I could by linking this issue and the precedence logically on why it may be of use here for setting the standard.
You responded with a jaded generalization that the community would rather act in bad faith.

If you just don't like the idea that's totally completely okay, but just say so, because I'm really not interested in playing ping pong anymore.

@wesoda my take on it is you can police rules IC as well in a way that makes sense (netspeaking gets mental checkups and such) but you need to also report it since the IC handling is purely for keeping the round smooth and not actually acting as an Ic admin.

I would be completely fine with Ic solutions if we had a policy where handling situations like these required you to also ahelp. The reality is doing IC means most forgo OOC because of some notion it’s comparable, which means we have to be constantly watching to otherwise catch it.

Cobby said in 2 sentences what I have been trying to hammer home in paragraphs.

I do not believe rule breaks should accompany validity, because it's the players dishing out punishment for breaking the rules. Validity in this context implies by its very nature that players can punish other players for what they percieve as breaking the rules so no admin ever needs to step in.

I don't give a damn if Johnny Greytide is erect with a raging murderboner despite being a non-antag and can only climax by bathing it in the blood of valids (Heh, classic hyperbole). If a player breaks the rules, I want the administrative team to be told about it so we can make sure the rules do not get broken again. When players can handle the matter IC by special exceptions to the rules that turn players valid, it is actively increasing the chance that this does not happen.

I don't say this because I'm a crazy power-fanaticist banbot, I say it despite being a crazy power-fanaticist banbot uwu. Anyone who has EVER dealt with me in ahelps knows I speak with players about their rule breaking behaviour, link them to the relevant rules or precedents if they don't understand what they did wrong, explain the rules to them if they don't understand the breadth or scope, etc.. None of this can happen IC. This has to be handled OOC. All I want is for everyone to play together in the sandbox, follow the rules and extract the maximum amount of fun for any given stretch of time they play. I can't do that if players are running around lynching eachother instead of reporting rule breaks - And it's fucking annoying when players lynch eachother alongside reporting rule breaks, because I have to double-investigate to make sure the validhunting idiot was actually in the right to kill someone in the first place. It universally lowers the quality of everyone's experiences.

You can't force people to ahelp things. That's unrealistic.

The same people that wouldn't ahelp if it was valid, probably wouldn't it wasn't either.

Misdoubtful wrote:You can't force people to ahelp things. That's unrealistic.

The same people that wouldn't ahelp if it was valid, probably wouldn't it wasn't either.

The fact that some players can't be bothered to ahelp doesn't really have anything to do with whether making rule-breaking mimes valid is a good idea or whether admins should enforce rules.

Farquaar wrote:

Misdoubtful wrote:You can't force people to ahelp things. That's unrealistic.

The same people that wouldn't ahelp if it was valid, probably wouldn't it wasn't either.

The fact that some players can't be bothered to ahelp doesn't really have anything to do with whether making rule-breaking mimes valid is a good idea or whether admins should enforce rules.

No, it doesn't. So why was it brought up in the first place? The thread is about mimes emoting being valid, not about people not ahelping. Policy won't change that.

Talking as a mime isn't something 'against the rules'.

It's taboo to the point if as a mime you're going to break the vow it had better be for a dramatic reason. Making mimes valid for speaking means it's up to the other players to decide if breaking the silence is a "bruh really?" or a "huh cool enough I guess". You also get mechanically punished with losing mime powers and getting your mood thrown into the toilet.

"Noir bro how ya doing I'm just using the emote to speak" is almost certainly 'against the rules' because you're cheating the mechanic/powergaming.

That's the difference.

XivilaiAnaxes wrote:"Noir bro how ya doing I'm just using the emote to speak" is almost certainly 'against the rules' because you're cheating the mechanic/powergaming.

That's the difference.

Misdoubtful, please read the above for what the difference between mimes talking = valid and mimes abusing the emote system to bypass intended game mechanics to talk = valid is in reality. One is not against the server rules, the other is.

Cobby wrote:I would be completely fine with Ic solutions if we had a policy where handling situations like these required you to also ahelp. The reality is doing IC means most forgo OOC because of some notion it’s comparable, which means we have to be constantly watching to otherwise catch it.

Misdoubtful, please consider the possibility that policies that set a course of action that could lead to players who break the rules being less likely to be brought to the attention of admins than if that policy was not in place is a negative that may not outweigh the benefits(?) of players being able to bypass escalation rules to immediately kill another player.

I, personally, do not want to see the concept that players can handle OOC rulebreaks through IC means as a normalised behaviour. By making mimes who break the rules in a very specific way valid, players may well see the validity as the punishment and themselves as judge, jury and executioner. Cobby outlined this way better than I could ever hope to.

Since I'm obviously not being clear enough: Making mimes that emote to talk valid would, in my opinion, mean that this behaviour is less likely to see administrative action. This behaviour is breaking the server rules. It should ALWAYS be dealt with by admins. Thus because it would decrease the chance that rule breaking behaviour even gets to an admin, I am arguing that mimes that emote talking should not be considered valid and should instead be ahelped for breaking the rules.

I'm not a headmin, so the best I can do is argue my position and hope to weigh in on the discussion as a whole.

Timberpoes wrote:Cobby said in 2 sentences what I have been trying to hammer home in paragraphs.

I do not believe rule breaks should accompany validity, because it's the players dishing out punishment for breaking the rules. Validity in this context implies by its very nature that players can punish other players for what they percieve as breaking the rules so no admin ever needs to step in.

Seems to me like the best solution to me is not to make it automatically valid, but make it standard for an admin to give someone permission to kill them for doing so.

Valids acquired.
Admins are informed.

Timberpoes wrote:words

This post is incredibly tacky, adding my name to it and running under the assumption I'm not caught up on things and don't know what's going on makes it even worse.

Misdoubtful wrote:Making the choice to emote your speech instead of breaking your vow to do it has the exact same end result: you spoke.

Mimes should either be valid for speaking, or not valid for speaking. Doesn't really matter which to me, or how they go about doing it.

I know the difference and have a completely different concern than you do. But instead you opted to say things like, 'rule breaks aren't valid anywhere', and when confronted with a precedent where it actually is valid you say the precedent is bad, old and shouldn't be used, trying as hard you can to devalue it and shut it down.

I don't care if its valid or not, I care that it is consistent.

That being considered this whole pushed agenda of players not being able to touch rule breakers or having the ability to deal with them isn't just bizarre, it feels like quicksand. Why go for more than just talking about mimes who emote being valid or not anymore, and instead talk about every rule break, its insanely out of the scope of this thread.

I, personally, do not want to see the concept that players can handle OOC rulebreaks through IC means as a normalised behaviour. By making mimes who break the rules in a very specific way valid, players may well see the validity as the punishment and themselves as judge, jury and executioner. Cobby outlined this way better than I could ever hope to.

There is nothing wrong with players having the ability to handle rule breaks IC because even though it may get handled OOC it still damaged (is damaging) the round IC and might just require some IC resolution.
Otherwise that'd be like saying:

'That guy that got an unjust kill? Sorry, you can't touch them they have to go ajail and not receive their IC lickings'.
'That random guy breaking all the windows to space? Can't touch them leave it be, its OOC since its a rule break'.
'The AI plasma flooding? Sorry they are Asimov you can't touch it, its breaking silicon policy — but have fun dying'.
'The captain dc'd right at round start? Sorry that needs to be handled OOC you can't loot them'.
'The guy spamming flashbangs on the escape shuttle? Sorry, can't bonk them to make it stop IC'.

Someone can take their IC lickings and get ticketed at the same time. Its not some groundbreaking concept. Its already reality and happens every day. Not even every rule break gets acted on OOC if its healthy for the round.

There is nothing else I can say, I'd just be repeating myself at this point.

Mimes should experience the same response IC that any other crew member should for using emotes to talk.

Mimes using emotes to talk should not be seen as an extension of them breaking their vow.

Not all rulebreaks have an IC response of "valid"

Misdoubtful wrote:You can't force people to ahelp things. That's unrealistic.

The same people that wouldn't ahelp if it was valid, probably wouldn't it wasn't either.

A tad untrue since it’s like saying you can’t force people to not just go around and toolbox people. As an admin you can “force” people to do things or not be able to play the game.

Not ahelping would be fine but they’d be out of handling it IC too or be in trouble to a degree as well. The rule gets less tyrannical as people change their mindset about IC being a replacement for OOC admin actions.

I think there’s also some notion here that admins are catching chat messages when they all look the same and if you have ghost ears on your chat is going fast, if you don’t you’re probably missing it, and the elephant in the room is that you’re assuming the admin is tabbed in to begin with.

It’s much easier for a third party player to report the incident when they see it versus an admin who is watching a traitor across the map checking to see if player 1/50+ is using the emote system right.

Cobby wrote:

Misdoubtful wrote:You can't force people to ahelp things. That's unrealistic.

The same people that wouldn't ahelp if it was valid, probably wouldn't it wasn't either.

A tad untrue since it’s like saying you can’t force people to not just go around and toolbox people. As an admin you can “force” people to do things or not be able to play the game.

Not ahelping would be fine but they’d be out of handling it IC too or be in trouble to a degree as well. The rule gets less tyrannical as people change their mindset about IC being a replacement for OOC admin actions.

I'm just considering that whole schtick of every documented office coffee war ever, where managers force a requirement like 'ALWAYS PUT ON A FRESH CUP OF COFFEE' (or those nightmare rulings that get tossed out about the washrooms) and it ends with the manager angry and defeated and less people doing the thing than ever.

Stuff like that always ends up gets resolved to the maximum when its presented as an option, a duty, and having a clear benefit for doing it. A choice to refill the coffee, a duty to refill it, and the reward being of course, fresh coffee.

Certainly it can be forced, but its not everyone's cup of tea, but the duty is there for people that want to. The choice to handle it IC could be there but expect it might not work out well for you if you overstep and you might get yourself into trouble too (or just the option to ahelp or not), and of course ahelping it means you get it dealt with.

But I might have jumped a bit too much on that requirement bit on this one, ptsd inducing.

For escalation im fine with handling it ICly in lieu of admins.

For blatant rulebreak though it should be OOC or OOC followed by IC to keep the round going

Players should not be trying to ICly punish OOC offenses.


WGW is an exception strictly because its been lynchable for longer than its been an offense, and nobody wanted to deprive the classic lynch squad of its fun.

As one of the former headmins who made (along with my co-headmins) the talking mimes rule

No, talking through emote is an admin/rule breaking matter, not one for valid/salad determinations.

If you kill someone for speaking through emote in general I'm probably going to warn you to not handle OOC matters IC - in the same way that I would if you took metacomming or other as reason to "handle it yourself".

Mimes talking with emotes are not valid, just ahelp it as its an OOC rule break. Let admins deal with it.

Headmin Votes:
Coconutwarrior97: Yes.
Domitius: Yes.
Naloac: Yes.