Why Weak Policies are Bad

Ask and discuss policy about game conduct and rules.

Moderators: In-Game Head Admins, In-Game Game Master

Forum rules
Read these board rules before posting or you'll get reprimanded.
Threads without replies for 30 days will be automatically locked.
User avatar
Neerti
Rarely plays
 
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 5:06 pm
Byond Username: Neerti

Why Weak Policies are Bad

Postby Neerti » Wed May 07, 2014 1:33 pm #4224

This is copypasted from oldforums. http://www.ss13.eu/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=4371

tl;dr : Less policy makes admins' jobs harder for political reasons.

I see several admins and players wanting to have a policy, which consists of no other policies besides 'don't be a dick' and maybe rule zero. The intended result is that action will be more swift, that one entity can make all the big decisions, to make things speedy and efficient. However, the people wanting this, I believe, don't take into account player pressure/politics/etc, or don't care. While it would indeed be fast, admins would actually lose power, because of politics. It would also function on subjective rulings, rather then objective. 'Don't be a dick' is subjective because who defines what a dick is? Is stealing something dickish enough to warrant admin action? Murder? Shitting in OOC? Metafriending? Shitcurity? Greytiding? Fucking with people? Anti-antaging things like atmos? Metagaming? Everyone has their own unique opinion on what constitutes where 'the line' is drawn. 'Don't suicide bomb' used to be objective, as doing it would net a ban as a nonantag. Now is it subjective and causes headaches. 'Don't metagame' is also -very- subjective, and I don't need to explain why.

Policy is more then just rules for players to follow. It is a tool an admin uses to ensure that misguided players are converted to good players, that shitlers are expelled, and to make the players happy by doing the preceding two. Policy allows admins to have an established basis to apply a punishment to a problem player, that most players will, at the minimum, recognize that they broke the rule. Without policy, admins must be much more subjective, which will make players resentful, paranoid, and un-trusting of the administration (much more then right now). It also opens up potential power abuse, when the players' fears are sound.

An admin, in my mind,(forgive me for this dumb analogy) should strive to be Good instead of Lawful. Policy is Law, player happiness, order, and integrity of the server is Good. An admin will find it very hard to be Good over Lawful if there is no policy to back their claims that the person is in fact detrimental to the playerbase. The ban/warning/note/etc will be contested by others who believe the admin is abusing their power, by both player, and admin. Without policy, it is very hard for an admin who means well to be just.

If we do have strong, well written, and clear policies, then all players will know what is expected of them, and most players will accept when another player has rightfully broken the rules and been punished for it. There will always be complainers and such, but I imagine there will be less, as "admin is abusing his powers by banning this guy unfairly" won't show up a lot if the ban is actually justified, because there is a policy backing the admin's decision to remove the player, and that the policy is objective.

For an example, another admin asked me what to do, when a player is knocked out, but not dead, sees another player drag them to maintenance and kill them. The player did not see them at all while conscious. The player is cloned, then outs his murderer/goes to robust him, using knowledge he acquired while he passed out to determine the person. The admin asked me if they should do anything to them. Here is the problem.

There is technically no policy against knowing what happens while knocked out (NOT DEAD).

The following below assumes that the admin assumes that using that information IC is not good. As there is no established policy, it is hard to be Good over Lawful. 'Punish' can range from asking them to stop, adding a note, or banning them.

The admin has limited options, most of which will result in a poor outcome for the admin, and justice won't be served, assuming the admin thinks that using that metaknowledge is bad, which I would agree. The admin could,
  • Punish the metagamer under rule zero, or one - Those are very weak policies and punishments are unlikely to stick if the punished contests the ban publicly.
  • Punish the metagamer under an extension of the 'Don't use dead knowledge IC' - This is very debatable, as you're not technically dead, and the game allows you to see what's going on, with names and all.
  • Punish the metagamer under 'No metagaming' - This is possibly the second weakest policy, as it is very, very subjective, and faces the same problems as rule zero or one.
  • Ask a Headmin to create a policy which disallows knowing what happens while KO'd - More policy is seen as a bad thing to some players and some admins. This also takes a lot of time, assumes the headmins all agree that such a policy is needed, and the metagamer will get away unless he was punished, carrying the above problems, unless they are retroactively punished, which carries it's own problems. The result is slow, and the metagamer is likely to get away at least once, which is not Good.
  • Do nothing - The metagamer harms the server, the admin doesn't 'lose' anything but is unjust, and is a failure in my eyes.

This list is very biased towards the concept that the person using the knowledge is in the wrong, but it was what me, and the admin felt, at the time, and most admins would likely feel the same way. Players are much more divided.

Please note that I don't necessarily want 'more' policy (it's inevitable that some things will need to be added, however, chiefly the unspoken rules). I want 'better' policy. Some rules/policies like no metagaming and AI policy are doomed to be subjective, with the only alternative being a really big lawbook of policy, which helps but is off-putting to some.

Here's a rundown of how I think most of the main policy strength is.
    Admins may disregard any of these rules at their discretion when they feel its in the best interest of the current round/server/playerbase at large.
      Very weak, makes players afraid.
    being a jerk out of character is not welcome at all.
      Very weak, rule is ignored often due to 'acceptable dickery'.
    Being an asshole, who ruins other player’s roleplay experience, just to win, is considered a ‘play-to-win’ style of playing.
      Very weak, what is playing to win? Everyone has their own opinion.
    If you don’t have a solid IC reason for murder, you may be removed.
      Fairly strong, is enforced, some disagreements.
    IC information should be kept out of OOC
      Strong, used to be stronger but still acceptable.
    Don’t metagame.
      Very weak, nobody has the same idea of what metagaming is.
    If you find yourself unable to do this due to real life circumstances, just let an admin know (adminhelp) before you leave, please.
      Strong, ban is quickly lifted, contesting (someone else's ban) is unheard of.
    Speak like a normal person while in character. Don’t spam, either IC or OOC. Don’t use smileys, netspeak, etc. in IC speech.
      Moderate, in decline lately due to LELFANNYALLCAPSNAMES.
    All involved players must consent. Unwelcome ERP will be punished harshly, usually with a permaban.
      Our strongest policy, with good reason.
    Ingame administration has the final say in all ingame matters.
      Fairly weak, admins are still fallable, and players can post on the forums to have it looked at again, contradicting the rule. I consider this just and disagree with the rule.
    It should go without saying, but if you break the rules (or regularly come very close to breaking them i.e. “toeing the line”), you will be warned, muted, banned, or talked about rudely.
      Very weak, where is the line drawn?

(Note: this is probably outdated below, since this post was originally made in April.)

CDB, in his recent jobban thread, argues that he is banned on grounds of subjectivity, IE 'he is a shit player/he's poison to the server/etc', rather then objectivity, such as breaking a policy which is objective, IE 'you broke rule X, you're jobbanned for Y days/forever'. I am neutral on CDB's ban, but he does have a point. There is no strong policy that he can be punished for, only rule zero/one, which is weak and subjective, so it causes strife from players who disagree. This happens every time an admin uses rule one or zero.

Usednapkin, when he was previously appealing his permaban, argued that the administration does not wish to unban him on grounds of subjectivity. His permaban was appealed after a shitstorm. He is now a good player.

Oldman Robustin, when he was banned (a lot) because of alledged metagaming. Metagame policy is a very weak policy, and subjective at that too. Shitstorm after shitstorm until his past was forgiven.

I'm not saying any of these people deserve to be banned or not, but there have been cases of bans I feel were justified being contested due to weak policy. I will not name anyone, but it is a problem. With a strong policy, those bans may or may not have occurred, especially Oldman's, which is good if you believe that those bans were unjust.

I do not think getting rid of policies and replacing them with one will solve anything, rather, it will make much, much more problems ahead. I'd like to hear what you think. Again, I am neutral on those past bans(I'm not even involved for most of them). Having all of our policies strong and clear will both allow admins more power to protect the server, and protect players from abusive admins, as we have policies too (they're weak too!).
ImageImage
- Game Admin -
Feel free to PM me on the forums or IRC with questions, concerns, feedback, or just talk about stuff.
Have I not met my hitler quota this month?



User avatar
Steelpoint
Github User
 
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 6:37 pm
Location: The Armoury
Byond Username: Steelpoint
Github Username: Steelpoint

Re: Why Weak Policies are Bad

Postby Steelpoint » Wed May 07, 2014 1:58 pm #4227

Maybe there needs to be a strong definitive definition of exactly what terms like metagaming, power gaming and similar are?

To be frank, everyone's opinion on the two is wildly different, which goes same for the admins. One admins won't have a problem but another will flip a brick. Everyone metagame's and powergame's, the question is where is the proverbial line drawn?

Being a jerk out of character happens all the time that I don't know why there is a rule against it, everyone from players to admins acts like a jerk occasionally, same for the ass hole rule.
Image

User avatar
Neerti
Rarely plays
 
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 5:06 pm
Byond Username: Neerti

Re: Why Weak Policies are Bad

Postby Neerti » Wed May 07, 2014 2:14 pm #4229

Steelpoint wrote:Maybe there needs to be a strong definitive definition of exactly what terms like metagaming, power gaming and similar are?

Strong definitive definitions of meta/powergaming aren't possible without something like this, due to the dynamic nature of the game. No two rounds are alike.

To be frank, everyone's opinion on the two is wildly different, which goes same for the admins. One admins won't have a problem but another will flip a brick. Everyone metagame's and powergame's, the question is where is the proverbial line drawn?

The question of 'what is meta' isn't possible to answer due to thousands of possibilities that can come up. You're allowed to know how antags work (to an extent) and how to do any role as anyone, but there's unwritten policy, like 'you can't meta the syndie-shuttle location' and such. 'The line' can also shift as time goes on, features get added and removed, new policy is formed, etc.


Being a jerk out of character happens all the time that I don't know why there is a rule against it, everyone from players to admins acts like a jerk occasionally, same for the ass hole rule.

That's what weak policies are. Policies that don't do anything, and just make things worse.
ImageImage
- Game Admin -
Feel free to PM me on the forums or IRC with questions, concerns, feedback, or just talk about stuff.
Have I not met my hitler quota this month?

User avatar
Brotemis
 
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2014 7:45 pm
Byond Username: Brotemis

Re: Why Weak Policies are Bad

Postby Brotemis » Wed May 07, 2014 3:32 pm #4251

You're just putting shackles and chains on admins and players.

There used to be a rule that that admins may follow the spirit of the rule and game. Which I do. If someone adds nothing to the game, but is detrimental not just to the round but to the players around them, you can bet they're going to be removed until such a time they can act accordingly.

User avatar
MisterPerson
Board Moderator
 
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 4:26 pm
Byond Username: MisterPerson

Re: Why Weak Policies are Bad

Postby MisterPerson » Wed May 07, 2014 3:40 pm #4257

There's going to be cases that the rules just don't cover. They can't. Something will change and then there's situations you can't even imagine. Maybe we all move from Asimov to Corporate or Bay or something else entirely, so all the silicon policies need revision. Maybe something new is added to the game and we need policies to cover its usage (gravity gen, IED's). Maybe a new tactic we haven't thought up opens up and we need to decide if it's metagaming or not (forcing everyone to drink holy water in a cult round, visiting the AI sat just in case, etc). These are the cases that rules 0 and 1 are designed to cover. Do you, as an admin, feel something is unacceptable? Feel free to disallow the behavior. The guy who appeals the ban? Sure, maybe he gets unbanned, but then a specific policy gets written up.

Whenever I talk about how "the rules should be don't be a dick and nothing else", I'm not being serious. I'm simply bemoaning that that simple, obvious rules aren't enough because of shitlers. But then you are right about things like powergaming and metagaming that are just too subjective, which ironically aren't written down what exactly is meant by them.

Maybe it would be wiser to write down the intent of the rules rather than try to detail what exactly constitutes "metagaming" in all cases. Like "As much as possible, we want players to act in a plausibly realistic yet interesting way that doesn't require information available only to you, the player, because of limitations or kinks of the game that make no sense outside of the game setting."
I code for the code project and moderate the code sections of the forums.

Feedback is dumb and it doesn't matter

User avatar
Neerti
Rarely plays
 
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 5:06 pm
Byond Username: Neerti

Re: Why Weak Policies are Bad

Postby Neerti » Wed May 07, 2014 3:57 pm #4263

MisterPerson wrote:These are the cases that rules 0 and 1 are designed to cover. Do you, as an admin, feel something is unacceptable? Feel free to disallow the behavior.

I cannot actually do this, without putting myself at great risk.
ImageImage
- Game Admin -
Feel free to PM me on the forums or IRC with questions, concerns, feedback, or just talk about stuff.
Have I not met my hitler quota this month?

Aurx
 
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 4:24 pm
Byond Username: Aurx

Re: Why Weak Policies are Bad

Postby Aurx » Wed May 07, 2014 4:36 pm #4267

Neerti wrote:
Being a jerk out of character happens all the time that I don't know why there is a rule against it, everyone from players to admins acts like a jerk occasionally, same for the ass hole rule.

That's what weak policies are. Policies that don't do anything, and just make things worse.

The issue there is that it's another subjective policy.
Take me, on /vg/. Am I abrasive at times? Yeah. Do I make fun of people, or pull pranks at others expense? Yeah. Do I insult or berate people? Yeah.
But from my point of view, it's all things that fall well within the norm for a 4chan derived server. Nobody'd bat an eye if it were happening on 4chan proper.

Neerti wrote:
MisterPerson wrote:These are the cases that rules 0 and 1 are designed to cover. Do you, as an admin, feel something is unacceptable? Feel free to disallow the behavior.

I cannot actually do this, without putting myself at great risk.

That's an issue with the players rather than with the state of policy. I've heard /tg/mins telling me /tg/station is really whiny compared to /vg/station, and it mirrors my experiences.
Head admin, /vg/station
Game admin, /tg/station
POMF FOR HEADMIN

User avatar
Stephie
 
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 5:40 pm

Re: Why Weak Policies are Bad

Postby Stephie » Wed May 07, 2014 4:51 pm #4268

Brotemis wrote:You're just putting shackles and chains on admins and players.

There used to be a rule that that admins may follow the spirit of the rule and game. Which I do. If someone adds nothing to the game, but is detrimental not just to the round but to the players around them, you can bet they're going to be removed until such a time they can act accordingly.

That rule actually needs to be back, since rule zero in its current form needlessly paints any admin who uses it as a Hitler. And it's written that way for no good reason except to pretend to be professional (which seems to be the direction these forums are heading as well).

User avatar
MisterPerson
Board Moderator
 
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 4:26 pm
Byond Username: MisterPerson

Re: Why Weak Policies are Bad

Postby MisterPerson » Wed May 07, 2014 6:07 pm #4283

Neerti wrote:
MisterPerson wrote:These are the cases that rules 0 and 1 are designed to cover. Do you, as an admin, feel something is unacceptable? Feel free to disallow the behavior.

I cannot actually do this, without putting myself at great risk.


Then I think that's a major issue, possibly suited for another thread. I think the rule's intent was to allow badmins to badmin, but it really should be used to give admins leeway when they admin. But w/e.

The rules could def serve to be more clear on specific points, which you should probably point out very clearly and explicitly which points need to be stronger. And maybe ideas on how to make those policies stronger.
I code for the code project and moderate the code sections of the forums.

Feedback is dumb and it doesn't matter

User avatar
Pandarsenic
 
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 11:56 pm
Location: AI Upload
Byond Username: Pandarsenic

Re: Why Weak Policies are Bad

Postby Pandarsenic » Wed May 07, 2014 6:34 pm #4290

Every attempt to define how much powergaming and metagaming is too much has been met with "go back to Bay, hugbox" shitflinging retardation.
(2:53:35 AM) scaredofshadows: how about head of robutts
The latest /tg/station13 Silicon Policy reference document can be found at http://pastebin.com/bduT7pFf
If you need something handled that involves silicons, lawsets, etc., forum message me or find me on IRC.
ImageImage
I take Rule 1 of the servers very seriously. If you do too, we shouldn't have a problem.
Spoiler:
Image Image
Image Image

User avatar
Psyentific
 
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 7:44 am
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Byond Username: Psyentific

Re: Why Weak Policies are Bad

Postby Psyentific » Wed May 07, 2014 7:04 pm #4293

Pandarsenic wrote:Every attempt to define how much powergaming and metagaming is too much has been met with "go back to Bay, hugbox" shitflinging retardation.

Maybe we can have that now, since this entire section of the forums is moderated and professional.

Personally, I think the "stealthy" traitor items, such as no-slip shoes, AI detector multitool, Parapens (When they aren't sitting in your pack/pocket like a fucking scrub), Agent IDs, voice-changer gasmasks...
All those items that are purposely disguised as another item ought to be mostly indistinguishable - That's the entire point of the item. I mean, if he's got an obvious traitor item (E-Sword, Emag, E-bow, etc), then they count as further evidence, but...Eh. Calling someone a traitor because he bought no-slips is really shitty.

Let's say you brig an assistant for an arbitrary reason - In the standard search and brig, he's got a multitool in his pocket, a gas mask in his backpack, and he's wearing brown shoes. Outside of the traitor meta, none of these are really suspicious or contraband, so it irks me when I see the HoS taking that multitool and telling the AI to track him, or stripping the completely-ordinary shoes and examining them.

Edit:

What I'd like to see is a clear-cut list of traitor items - What is and isn't kosher to meta. Tiers of obviousness.
I haven't logged into SS13 in at least a year.

User avatar
CreationPro
 
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2014 11:11 am
Location: Commiefornia
Byond Username: Solar Marine

Re: Why Weak Policies are Bad

Postby CreationPro » Wed May 07, 2014 7:56 pm #4303

I'm going to pretty much agree with Psyentific on this one.

Stealthy traitor items should remain stealthy, and trying to purposely distinguish them from regular items for no reason is excessive powergaming.
terranaut wrote:Scared? My stand 「CLOWN WORLD」 and it's 「FUNNY COMPANY」will defeat your weak stand in moments.

Terry the Moth, Melody Jean the roboticist and S.O.L. the cyborg.
I will not change my avatar but if I did I'd have this good KVADRATNIY boy.
Spoiler:
Image

IkeTG wrote:love is okay
CreationPro wrote:i love you
IkeTG wrote:love is no longer okay


Old quotes and stuff
Spoiler:
obscolene wrote:I super glued my PC case shut please don't ask why.

<Pretendo> well Ia ksed in banbus
<AurxSS13> IA KSED! IA KSED! THE BLACK TYPO WITH A THOUSAND ERRORS!

<scaredofshadows> I randomly take buttons away from people
<scaredofshadows> because I am now rogue
<hornygranny> host is rouge
<Ikarrus> blow the admins

trytryagain66 wrote: I accidently axed a guy said I was sorry to him, then he punched me so I axed his head off.

Hibbles wrote:Man, I love CP. I wish we had more CP on the server.

Antonkr wrote:<antonkr> tfw you will never lick hg|works delicious sexy mustache
<antonkr> ;_;

User avatar
KingLouisXIV
 
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2014 1:30 am
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Byond Username: KingLouisXIV

Re: Why Weak Policies are Bad

Postby KingLouisXIV » Wed May 07, 2014 10:37 pm #4318

Unfortunately while I agree with the above, it's always been the rule that as an antag, the rules don't apply (except IC rape/glitching the game out) but at the same time, you automatically lose all protection they would have gotten you, as well.

One round I played as traitor clown, there was a birthday party for Dalta in the showroom. I kept leaving and coming back with a new outfit, to where I'd really just hide in the maintenance shaft and use a chameleon jumpsuit to fuck around. Somebody caught on to me, and despite having done literally nothing else out of the ordinary I got tripped, stripped, and my PDA tossed out an airlock. Everyone absolutely refused to give me a new ID, as well.

This is the kind of powergaming that gets really shitty sometimes, when people do things out of the blue or prepare really esoteric bullshit just to take down an antag. It's a measure of justification that's hard to isolate out of the shades of gray it encompasses; it's not black and white. If there's a wizard who's MM+Fireball spamming the halls, grab the armory, grab the syringe gun+chloral, grab the spray bottle filled with water. If there's a wizard who's disguised as a clown and doing nothing antagonistic, when is it unacceptable to dunk him for noticing he's a second clown and has the name "Magicpants the Honknificent"? What sort of 'compensation' can occur for the player, who despite being an antag has yet to do anything antagonistic or play out their round, is actually taken out of the round and exposed?

In a recent round, we were preparing to pack into the escape shuttle when I noticed a glaringly obvious "Darth (whoever)" standing around in the chaplain robes and with TK in their head. I knew, from the standpoint of the meta, that they were a traitor who got the Sith Lord bundle. I also knew that they hadn't done absolutely anything to warrant me shooting them right there with my energy gun and tossing them out the airlock. They later went on to murder me and five other people in the shuttle, including a second traitor and the third traitors target all at the same time. Did I by proxy, by not following the 'meta' deny this second traitor their greentext? Did I, by proxy, get full greentext for a traitor who did literally nothing except escape during the round?

There's a huge problem where there's no line to draw simply due to emergent gameplay and the choices we collectively make during any given round. I'm a jerk in this given situation for letting the obvious traitor live, but I'd be a jerk to that traitor and potentially anybody else judging the situation, including those that traitor might've killed, were I to kill/arrest them on the spot.


We aren't Baystation, we've never been Baystation. But a lot of people will say there's a problem, and nobody seems to want to agree on what it is. So where does the line get drawn? Where do we say "You can do this, but you can't do this"? How much subjective power do we give to the administration, and how much do we tell the playerbase to suck it up on this case by case basis? So many appeals I see get sucked into one side 'lawyering their way out of trouble' simply because they can. I've literally never seen so much of that behavior than I have in this community, and I just have to wonder... Why here?

Apsis
 
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 2:26 pm

Re: Why Weak Policies are Bad

Postby Apsis » Thu May 08, 2014 1:08 am #4358

First of all if you want weak policies to stop you need to get rid of rule 0 and 1 for good. Any policy is automatically weak if it can be bypassed like that. But, fuck you if you do that because those two rules are very much needed. If you only have policy then it's easy to toe it. CDB's play style was terrible, and he was banned under rule 0 and 1 because they brought nothing good to the server. Also good luck trying to get people to change their play style at this point using policy.

Brotemis wrote:There used to be a rule that that admins may follow the spirit of the rule and game. Which I do. If someone adds nothing to the game, but is detrimental not just to the round but to the players around them, you can bet they're going to be removed until such a time they can act accordingly.

Agreed.

User avatar
Neerti
Rarely plays
 
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 5:06 pm
Byond Username: Neerti

Re: Why Weak Policies are Bad

Postby Neerti » Thu May 08, 2014 2:01 am #4369

Rules 0 and 1 have their place, but they're really flawed, and shouldn't be relied upon to remove a problem player.
ImageImage
- Game Admin -
Feel free to PM me on the forums or IRC with questions, concerns, feedback, or just talk about stuff.
Have I not met my hitler quota this month?

User avatar
Psyentific
 
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 7:44 am
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Byond Username: Psyentific

Re: Why Weak Policies are Bad

Postby Psyentific » Thu May 08, 2014 5:58 am #4423

Neerti wrote:Rules 0 and 1 have their place, but they're really flawed, and shouldn't be relied upon to remove a problem player.

The only other thing we have to that effect is line-toeing, which is very hard to make stick.
I haven't logged into SS13 in at least a year.

User avatar
Deuryn
 
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 4:54 am

Re: Why Weak Policies are Bad

Postby Deuryn » Thu May 08, 2014 12:38 pm #4480

Brotemis wrote:You're just putting shackles and chains on admins and players.

There used to be a rule that that admins may follow the spirit of the rule and game. Which I do. If someone adds nothing to the game, but is detrimental not just to the round but to the players around them, you can bet they're going to be removed until such a time they can act accordingly.


As long as I'm a headmin, this will always be a rule.
[23:16] <Pandarsenic> Admin talking to person who adminhelps. Conspiracy, or secret society? More at 11.
ImageImage

User avatar
Neerti
Rarely plays
 
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 5:06 pm
Byond Username: Neerti

Re: Why Weak Policies are Bad

Postby Neerti » Fri May 09, 2014 2:31 am #4625

There’s a lot here, but the gist of the rules is roleplay takes priority. Don’t murder just for fun if you’re not antag. Don’t metagame. Don’t play to win. Don’t be a jerk OOCly. If you don’t understand what those words mean or you need more detail, read on! "
Everything I've underlined/bolded is not/is barely enforced, and when it is, shitstorm happens. Anytime someone mentions 'Roleplay', you can hear 'go back to bay', if you mention 'unacceptable' metagaming, you will be asked to draw the line somewhere, which isn't possible without a 500 page book detailing what is and isn't acceptable, P2W has the same problem. Being a jerk OOCly doesn't work because, honestly, when was the last time you heard of someone getting banned for being an asshole to someone?

Why have rules that do nothing? Why not change them to actually work, and, I know this is a novel thought, but bear with me.

Actually enforce it?

For example, here are some of the main policies. Underlined parts are parts that don't work. Bolded statements explain why the underlined parts don't work.

3. This is a roleplaying game. The purpose of the game is to have fun roleplaying. Being an asshole, who ruins other player’s roleplay experience, just to win, is considered a ‘play-to-win’ style of playing. You can and will be banned for this playstyle. Be considerate of other players’ experience.
Try to define what is acceptable roleplay. Even if you do, you will be drowned out by GO BACK TO BAY.
3.1 (Suggested rewording) Randomly murdering people is generally considered to be ruining someone’s fun and poor form in roleplay. If you don’t have a solid IC reason for murder, you may be removed. Trying to justify it with ‘My character is so random/insane’ is not tolerated.
Why is the suggested rewording a completely different policy? It's just an addon to a policy. This is more nitpicking but still.
7. Speak like a normal person while in character. Don’t spam, either IC or OOC. Don’t use smileys, netspeak, etc. in IC speech.
Barely see this enforced, and I see people say 'lol', 'gg', 'get wekt', ':(', and such in IC speak.
9. Ingame administration has the final say in all ingame matters. If problems arise, you can report offending or abusive admins on the forums. If an admin says something was valid, it means it was valid. This is the admin’s way of saying it’s been investigated and found to not breaking any rules; The admin will not reveal ingame information.
Those two statements contradict each other. If someone has the final say, being allowed to contest that say on the forums means the admin doesn't have the final say. While it should be like this, the policy's poorly written if it has contradictions.
10. It should go without saying, but if you break the rules (or regularly come very close to breaking them i.e. “toeing the line”), you will be warned, muted, banned, or talked about rudely.
Good luck with that.

I'm making a revision draft of the policy, which I'll post later when complete.
ImageImage
- Game Admin -
Feel free to PM me on the forums or IRC with questions, concerns, feedback, or just talk about stuff.
Have I not met my hitler quota this month?

Aurx
 
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 4:24 pm
Byond Username: Aurx

Re: Why Weak Policies are Bad

Postby Aurx » Fri May 09, 2014 2:50 am #4630

Neerti wrote:9. Ingame administration has the final say in all ingame matters. If problems arise, you can report offending or abusive admins on the forums. If an admin says something was valid, it means it was valid. This is the admin’s way of saying it’s been investigated and found to not breaking any rules; The admin will not reveal ingame information.
Those two statements contradict each other. If someone has the final say, being allowed to contest that say on the forums means the admin doesn't have the final say. While it should be like this, the policy's poorly written if it has contradictions.

You're mis-reading that. It's not "ADMINS ARE FINAL SAY", it's "ADMINS ARE FINAL SAY IN GAME". Forums aren't in game.
As an example, John Doe got his shoes stolen by the clown. He ahelps to ask if he can kill the clown for it. Admin says no. John Doe doesn't like this, but admin has said no so if he kills the clown for it, DING DONG. If John Doe really feels strongly enough, they can complain about it after the fact on the forums. Complaining on the forums in no way changes the original in-round no.
Head admin, /vg/station
Game admin, /tg/station
POMF FOR HEADMIN

User avatar
Neerti
Rarely plays
 
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 5:06 pm
Byond Username: Neerti

Re: Why Weak Policies are Bad

Postby Neerti » Fri May 09, 2014 8:10 am #4664

Here's a very rough draft of a revision for the policies. I added some things but I believe it will lead to a better server. I know it's 12 pages long, but this adds lots of unspoken policies and expands on rules.

THE FOLLOWING BELOW IS ONLY A DRAFT

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jnO ... sp=sharing

Commenting is enabled, so please chew this up and give opinions.

If I miss any unspoken policies, please let me know.
ImageImage
- Game Admin -
Feel free to PM me on the forums or IRC with questions, concerns, feedback, or just talk about stuff.
Have I not met my hitler quota this month?

kosmos
 
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2014 2:59 pm
Byond Username: Kingofkosmos

Re: Why Weak Policies are Bad

Postby kosmos » Fri May 09, 2014 11:55 am #4683

Neerti wrote:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jnO3MAkgmH8sbmf2-VrigjlF95Voozn1gv16svgJd-s/edit?usp=sharing

This is so fucking good. Excellent work.

Apsis
 
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 2:26 pm

Re: Why Weak Policies are Bad

Postby Apsis » Fri May 09, 2014 12:25 pm #4687

You're going to have a hard time getting people to accept your definition of powergaming. Our community is odd and has a multiple playstyle divide. Same goes with roleplay, and some metagaming.

To me, that rewrite doesn't accurately represent that game, and it can even restrict players. It's not part of the draft but that comment in powergaming with the tool grabbing is never going to be taken seriously.

User avatar
MisterPerson
Board Moderator
 
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 4:26 pm
Byond Username: MisterPerson

Re: Why Weak Policies are Bad

Postby MisterPerson » Fri May 09, 2014 1:19 pm #4700

Player perception can change, so don't worry about disagreement too much.
I code for the code project and moderate the code sections of the forums.

Feedback is dumb and it doesn't matter

User avatar
Brotemis
 
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2014 7:45 pm
Byond Username: Brotemis

Re: Why Weak Policies are Bad

Postby Brotemis » Fri May 09, 2014 1:44 pm #4702

Neerti, I would honestly stop trying to push the "more policirs/rules." It would do nothing but choke the server and I'd rather wipe my ass with the giant list of rules and follow the spirit of the game.

kosmos
 
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2014 2:59 pm
Byond Username: Kingofkosmos

Re: Why Weak Policies are Bad

Postby kosmos » Fri May 09, 2014 2:00 pm #4706

Brotemis wrote:Neerti, I would honestly stop trying to push the "more policirs/rules." It would do nothing but choke the server and I'd rather wipe my ass with the giant list of rules and follow the spirit of the game.

I'm not sure what you're saying, but if you're saying that you don't want more rules, here's one of the few reasonable things errorage said:
errorage wrote:Here's what happens with few rules: Nobody understands what they are not supposed to do.
Here's what happens with many rules: Nobody bothers to read them, so nobody understands what they are not supposed to do.

This sounds true to me and the only logical solution to our situation would be to write all that shit down because when shit does go down, players/admins can actually look it up instead of going back to filling FNR with silly philosophy about what "being a dick" means to them.

Aurx
 
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 4:24 pm
Byond Username: Aurx

Re: Why Weak Policies are Bad

Postby Aurx » Fri May 09, 2014 4:36 pm #4728

Neerti wrote:Here's a very rough draft of a revision for the policies. I added some things but I believe it will lead to a better server. I know it's 12 pages long, but this adds lots of unspoken policies and expands on rules.

THE FOLLOWING BELOW IS ONLY A DRAFT

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jnO ... sp=sharing

Commenting is enabled, so please chew this up and give opinions.

If I miss any unspoken policies, please let me know.

RIGHT then, here we go.
First: If this isn't official yet, which I'm pretty sure it's not, PLEASE add a "THIS IS ONLY A PROPOSAL" in huge page-filling font. Also do the same to your post.

1.1: Do NOT concretely define this without something along the lines of /vg/'s primary policy 7. That's just asking for trouble.
1.1a: I'd remove the "repeatedly". Metagrudging is metagrudging, even if only done once.
1.2: This ABSOLUTELY needs expanding on and examples. Right now it's so vague it's worthless.

2.NOTE: You REALLY need to clarify that that note means antags can do whatever the fuck they want, not that all IC conflict involving an antag, known or unknown, is immune to the rules.
2.2.a.i: This NEEDs a "for no good reason" added.
2.3: Needs a subclause about valid/invalid escalation. Jumping straight to KILL because Willy stole your shoes isn't permitted.

3.1.b.ii: Replace "traitor" with "antagonist".
3.1.c.i: For the sake of all of us admins, reword this so the ahelping isn't optional if you intend to help them kill. Helping with theft is who gives a fuck it ain't hurting anybody.

4.NOTE: Antagonists are NOT exempt from the rules on metagaming, damnit. Remove that post-haste. They're allowed to know things like how their tator items work, or to test that second pen that assistant had, but they sure as fuck can't do things like remember what happened when they were dead.
4.METAGAMING.1.b.i: Suggest rewording this to "alive and conscious".
4.METAGAMING.1.e.i.1: Or if you follow a nuke-op back there.
4.POWERGAMING.1.b: Unless you have good reason to suspect they're up to no good.

5.3: Needs a mention of how the chain of command behaves when the captain is dead/gone/yet to arrive.

6.4: Needs a mention that IC in OOC can be a no warning ban, even if fake or a joke.

7.2: Add the "sexually creepy" clause in there somewhere.

9.1.a: I thought you weren't allowed to make ban requests for things that got handled by an admin, unless the admin directly told you to make the ban request. Is that getting changed?

SECURITY: Recommend a line clarifying that a security borg follows their laws, not space law or security guidelines.
SECURITY.2: Recommend clarifying this to "executing prisoners", as opposed to "executing that fucking changeling you just tased".
SECURITY.5.c: Unless they're the acting captain, of course. Also recommend expanding that to ANYBODY who got access from the HoP instead of just the HoP.
Head admin, /vg/station
Game admin, /tg/station
POMF FOR HEADMIN

Apsis
 
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 2:26 pm

Re: Why Weak Policies are Bad

Postby Apsis » Sat May 10, 2014 2:20 am #4832

MisterPerson wrote:Player perception can change, so don't worry about disagreement too much.

It's a little delusional to think that the majority of current players will welcome enforced roleplay, and a tighter leash on 'P2W'. For example, do you really think you can stop people from arming up to hunt antags? Especially wizards/nuke ops?

Most of the most valued P2W, meta, and roleplay is subtle anyway.

User avatar
Neerti
Rarely plays
 
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 5:06 pm
Byond Username: Neerti

Re: Why Weak Policies are Bad

Postby Neerti » Sat May 10, 2014 4:04 am #4852

Did you even read the thing?
ImageImage
- Game Admin -
Feel free to PM me on the forums or IRC with questions, concerns, feedback, or just talk about stuff.
Have I not met my hitler quota this month?

User avatar
MisterPerson
Board Moderator
 
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 4:26 pm
Byond Username: MisterPerson

Re: Why Weak Policies are Bad

Postby MisterPerson » Sat May 10, 2014 8:11 am #4898

Apsis wrote:
MisterPerson wrote:Player perception can change, so don't worry about disagreement too much.

It's a little delusional to think that the majority of current players will welcome enforced roleplay, and a tighter leash on 'P2W'. For example, do you really think you can stop people from arming up to hunt antags? Especially wizards/nuke ops?

Most of the most valued P2W, meta, and roleplay is subtle anyway.


I didn't say they'd welcome change, I said they'd tolerate it.
I code for the code project and moderate the code sections of the forums.

Feedback is dumb and it doesn't matter

User avatar
Hornygranny
Rarely plays
 
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 4:54 pm
Byond Username: Hornygranny

Re: Why Weak Policies are Bad

Postby Hornygranny » Sat May 10, 2014 8:16 am #4900

Stop reading after the section about dealing with workplace break-ins. You're complaining about weak policy, but you draft one that includes a line that allows murdering trespassers by RAW?

edit: Kept reading, this is completely shit. Sorry Neerti. This is not strong policy, this is explicit policy. It has exactly the same problems as our current ruleset.
Image

Lo6a4evskiy
 
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 6:40 pm
Byond Username: Lo6a4evskiy

Re: Why Weak Policies are Bad

Postby Lo6a4evskiy » Sat May 10, 2014 11:59 am #4917

You may not ‘test’ traitor items.
An example would be if you arrested someone for an unrelated crime, saw a pen in their bag, then stabbed the person you arrested with it to see if it was a parapen.

Lolwut? Do we have to pretend that we don't know that this guys is an obvious traitor now?

This is completely retarded. Per this policy, you cannot pop encryption keys out of headsets, you cannot try to use their ID to check access, you cannot slip them, you cannot take off their gas masks, THAT IS ABSOLUTE AND TOTAL BULLSHIT

And apparently syndie soap is totally okay to have. So is balloon. Yeah, no.

Also some stupid shit like flashes making you instantly valid (apparently THAT is not common enough item) and BSOD APCs somehow instantly indicating rogue AI and couldn't be emagged.

User avatar
imblyings
 
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 5:42 pm
Location: >using suit sensors
Byond Username: Ausops

Re: Why Weak Policies are Bad

Postby imblyings » Sat May 10, 2014 1:50 pm #4935

>For Revolutionaries and Cultists, you may know how they work to an extent,

what extent is that? because when it is rev or cult, the gloves are off for both sides.

>Do not facehug yourself intentionally.

jesus christ good luck enforcing that.

>Killing someone because they happened to get up after a stun is poor form (did you know chemicals can do that too?).

Anyone getting up quickly after a stun regardless of ling status or not should be valid for on the spot lethal force til death. The only possible non-antag exception for a situation would be someone with access to synaptizine and that still implies someone has gone to the trouble of getting synaptizine to prepare for evading security.

>You may not ‘test’ traitor items.

lolno. Don't look at this from a 'stopping greentext' view. The viewpoint I'm using is, 'do I value the fun of an antag with a traitor item over the fun of the person being fucked over by those items, who might be me?'

>You are -not- allowed to treat a person with a ‘stealthy’ item like an antagonist

No that's just enforced naiveness/dumbness.
The patched, dusty, trimmed, feathered mantle of evil +13.

kosmos
 
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2014 2:59 pm
Byond Username: Kingofkosmos

Re: Why Weak Policies are Bad

Postby kosmos » Mon May 12, 2014 5:09 am #5358

Wow. Instead of people shitting down on the work done, you guys could... I dunno, this might sound crazy... work on it together? Commenting on what should be made differently AND actually suggesting a new solution/compromise to the thing? If you guys are saying this is shit, at least I automatically assume that you also mean it's worse than the current rules, and imho the current rules are outdated, more vague and weak than this.

No wonder the rules haven't been updated if the ones who finally decide to do it get just blatantly shat on instead of constructive criticism.

User avatar
bandit
In-Game Admin
 
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 7:35 pm
Byond Username: Bgobandit

Re: Why Weak Policies are Bad

Postby bandit » Mon May 12, 2014 12:18 pm #5424

Most of this isn't additional policy, it's just putting into writing policies that we already have and enforce. I don't see the problem with that.

I'll take a more detailed look later.
"I don't see any difference between ERP and rape." -- erro

admin feedback pls

Lo6a4evskiy
 
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 6:40 pm
Byond Username: Lo6a4evskiy

Re: Why Weak Policies are Bad

Postby Lo6a4evskiy » Mon May 12, 2014 3:05 pm #5452

kosmos wrote:actually suggesting a new solution/compromise to the thing?

May be there isn't a problem to solve. May be the solution is just to not add the thing that's been claimed shit.

User avatar
Zelacks
 
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 5:05 pm
Location: Australia WA
Byond Username: Zelacks

Re: Why Weak Policies are Bad

Postby Zelacks » Mon May 12, 2014 4:40 pm #5462

Holy shit its finally happening, someone is actually trying to define metagaming. That being actually saying what the player/character knows about the universe.

thank you neerti, thank you so much, I can sleep sound tonight
Image
"A game about running around and getting in fights. Then you complain to the admins to get the other guy banned. There's also a space station or something"

User avatar
imblyings
 
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 5:42 pm
Location: >using suit sensors
Byond Username: Ausops

Re: Why Weak Policies are Bad

Postby imblyings » Mon May 12, 2014 6:27 pm #5483

As it is, metagaming is actually strictly defined on /tg/ already, it just gets dirtied up by personal opinions.

The roleplay definition of metagaming is, 'using information available to the player but not the character'.

We don't have any established canon saying characters are selectively mindwiped. Characters are free to remember anything that has happened to them in past rounds. It then follows that characters are allowed to know everything about anything.

It's also important to note the difference between what a player is allowed to do and what a character is supposed to know. A character may fully know about syndicate shuttles and their exact locations after decades of living through syndicate attacks- he just can't act on this knowledge, even if this knowledge has some brilliant IC justifications for it.

tldr, you'll need official canon if you ever want to change what is in fact a really clear definition of what metagaming is.

edit-

You'll also need to remove the license that lets antags do anything they want.
The patched, dusty, trimmed, feathered mantle of evil +13.

AseaHeru
Rarely plays
 
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 12:26 pm

Re: Why Weak Policies are Bad

Postby AseaHeru » Wed May 14, 2014 2:33 pm #5826

Lo6a4evskiy wrote:-Snipped for space-

Mind if I point out how much bullshit this bit is?
Cuz I am gonna to.

-The parapen looks like a pen. Besides taking it appart it looks like a pen. I even bileve it acts like a pen and can write. PEN.
-Why would you pop out encryption keys? Trying IDs wouldent be affected, as seeing if they actually have access is something that should be done. Where the fuck did you get the "no slipping" from? If they are silly enough not to try to look normal then they get what they get. Taking off gasmasks when arresting is something that should be done to prevent escape.
-Its soap, and a baloon with an S on it. For all we know its a frigging Security promo item or some sutch.
-Flashes make you valid? Lolwut. BSOD APCs mean call the engie, its the engie's job to mess with those things.

Sorry if I seem a tad aggravating, I am a tad aggravated.
I am located here, lurking in your posts, leaving piles of transparent wordings and being confused. Oh, I also try to map...

This, this is an example of what I leave for you.
Also, these days I mostly play Ursit McStation, mostly because I like roleplay.

User avatar
Neerti
Rarely plays
 
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 5:06 pm
Byond Username: Neerti

Re: Why Weak Policies are Bad

Postby Neerti » Wed May 14, 2014 2:35 pm #5829

Most of that part was made with the current meta in mind. It's unrealistic to expect everyone to follow the new rules if they're radically different from the current norms.
ImageImage
- Game Admin -
Feel free to PM me on the forums or IRC with questions, concerns, feedback, or just talk about stuff.
Have I not met my hitler quota this month?

User avatar
Steelpoint
Github User
 
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 6:37 pm
Location: The Armoury
Byond Username: Steelpoint
Github Username: Steelpoint

Re: Why Weak Policies are Bad

Postby Steelpoint » Wed May 14, 2014 2:37 pm #5830

On Baystation the only people on board that are allowed intricate knowledge of the Syndicate and their items/whatever are the Captain and Head of Security. Though certain personnel can know certain "disguised" traitor items are not as what they seem upon inspection.

I would argue at the very least the Captain and senior Security personnel (HoS and maybe Warden) know what Traitor items are, how they can be disguised, and what they look like.

However, we don't have any set rules on the extent characters know of antag items.

EDIT! Also for the No Slip shoes example given, if you examine the shoes it clearly states they have an "extra grip". Take that for what you will.
Last edited by Steelpoint on Wed May 14, 2014 2:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image

AseaHeru
Rarely plays
 
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 12:26 pm

Re: Why Weak Policies are Bad

Postby AseaHeru » Wed May 14, 2014 2:38 pm #5831

Bay also has some items everyone knows are bad, mostly C4.
I am located here, lurking in your posts, leaving piles of transparent wordings and being confused. Oh, I also try to map...

This, this is an example of what I leave for you.
Also, these days I mostly play Ursit McStation, mostly because I like roleplay.

User avatar
Steelpoint
Github User
 
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 6:37 pm
Location: The Armoury
Byond Username: Steelpoint
Github Username: Steelpoint

Re: Why Weak Policies are Bad

Postby Steelpoint » Wed May 14, 2014 2:40 pm #5832

Their rules are more that stealthy antag items can only be identified by either the Captain or HoS and/or they have to be "examined" by a relevant specialist.

For example only Engineers would know what a Emag actually does when used, to everyone else its just a ID Card with stuff stuck to it.
Image

AseaHeru
Rarely plays
 
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 12:26 pm

Re: Why Weak Policies are Bad

Postby AseaHeru » Wed May 14, 2014 2:44 pm #5834

Which everyone can tell is illegal.
Another example might be the hacked AI boards, which roboticists and RDs know what they do, but everyone knows should not be outside science/the upload.
Somethings, like the balloon, soap and shoes are ignored, because afterall, its a balloon, soap and a pair of shoes with an extra tread.
I am located here, lurking in your posts, leaving piles of transparent wordings and being confused. Oh, I also try to map...

This, this is an example of what I leave for you.
Also, these days I mostly play Ursit McStation, mostly because I like roleplay.

User avatar
Neerti
Rarely plays
 
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 5:06 pm
Byond Username: Neerti

Re: Why Weak Policies are Bad

Postby Neerti » Wed May 14, 2014 2:46 pm #5835

While that system would be neat, it's unrealistic in terms of having /tg/ adopt them.
ImageImage
- Game Admin -
Feel free to PM me on the forums or IRC with questions, concerns, feedback, or just talk about stuff.
Have I not met my hitler quota this month?

User avatar
imblyings
 
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 5:42 pm
Location: >using suit sensors
Byond Username: Ausops

Re: Why Weak Policies are Bad

Postby imblyings » Wed May 14, 2014 5:55 pm #5871

>nothing at all said so far about antags still being allowed to powergame objectives or being allowed to murderboner

and bay only works because they have an explicit understanding to put roleplaying a character who makes sense today first, regardless of antag/non-antag status.
The patched, dusty, trimmed, feathered mantle of evil +13.

User avatar
Kelenius
 
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2014 10:53 am
Byond Username: Kelenius

Re: Why Weak Policies are Bad

Postby Kelenius » Wed May 14, 2014 9:07 pm #5899

Yup. Bay has rules for antags.

Which is also absolutely unrealistic for /tg/.

User avatar
MisterPerson
Board Moderator
 
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 4:26 pm
Byond Username: MisterPerson

Re: Why Weak Policies are Bad

Postby MisterPerson » Wed May 14, 2014 11:58 pm #5932

No, it's really not. And an issue for another thread.
I code for the code project and moderate the code sections of the forums.

Feedback is dumb and it doesn't matter

User avatar
imblyings
 
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 5:42 pm
Location: >using suit sensors
Byond Username: Ausops

Re: Why Weak Policies are Bad

Postby imblyings » Thu May 15, 2014 8:54 am #6015

well the point I'm getting at here is if it is unrealistic for us to ever shackle antags then don't shackle non-antags either.

With what must be the sole two exceptions regarding nuke ops, non-antags should be free to know anything or everything about antags.

Which is pretty much the way it has been, instead of the suggested and really vague, 'know about x to an extent' in the suggested policy.
The patched, dusty, trimmed, feathered mantle of evil +13.

User avatar
Kelenius
 
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2014 10:53 am
Byond Username: Kelenius

Re: Why Weak Policies are Bad

Postby Kelenius » Thu May 15, 2014 9:07 am #6018

imblyings wrote:With what must be the sole two exceptions regarding nuke ops, non-antags should be free to know anything or everything about antags.

Two? Location of ship and?..

User avatar
paprika
Rarely plays
 
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 10:20 pm
Location: in down bad
Byond Username: Paprka

Re: Why Weak Policies are Bad

Postby paprika » Thu May 15, 2014 11:26 am #6067

I put fucking turrets on the nuke op shuttle because I'm fucking sick of the retarded argument about that. If someone finds the nuke op shuttle and kills the 60 brute firing, var-edited 350 health turrets on the side of the nuke op shuttle on artyom they fucking deserve to board it, meat knowledge or not.
Oldman Robustin wrote:It's an established meme that coders don't play this game.

Next

Return to Policy Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Timberpoes