Ash Walkers

[Archie700]

Yeah, this has been bugging me for a while, but the ban appeal brought it to boiling point.

https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=9110

So for a long time, ash walkers were essentially the ghost antagonists of mining. Essentially they have a free pass to kill the miners and possibly kill the station. They CAN cooperate with miners.

However, apparently while they're allowed to immediately attack miners, ash walkers who make peace have to find out non-violent ways to communicate with them instead of escalating to valids, even though the ash walker who attacked was hostile to miners.

So essentially, the peaceful ash walker must try to stop the one stabbing a person to crit through non-harmful means but can't attack him.

It goes to the point that even admins are on different sides on what exactly is policy.

Is there even policy on them? Why can't ash walkers kill other ash walkers for trying to harm relations?

There's also the disturbing trend of ash walkers invading the station in the name for no other reason other than "kill everyone".

[Whoisthere]

The idea behind the ashwalkers was to give players an opportunity to kill more lizards. It doesn't really matter if the lizards that are dying are ashwalkers or station lizards, or if they die by a human or lizard hand. So ash walkers are not only allowed, they are encouraged to kill each other, and are encouraged to invade the station to kill lizards there.

[DemonFiren]

Lavaland was a mistake.

[D&B]

Changing the rules section of lavaland from RoN to that disgusting and bloated paragraph was a mistake.

[Wyzack]

STP is a hero and a cool dude and rescinded his call after reading the thread. The best admins are the ones willing to admin when they make a mistake

[Okand37]

Yeah, this has been bugging me for a while, but the ban appeal brought it to boiling point.

https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=9110

So for a long time, ash walkers were essentially the ghost antagonists of mining. Essentially they have a free pass to kill the miners and possibly kill the station. They CAN cooperate with miners.

However, apparently while they're allowed to immediately attack miners, ash walkers who make peace have to find out non-violent ways to communicate with them instead of escalating to valids, even though the ash walker who attacked was hostile to miners.

So essentially, the peaceful ash walker must try to stop the one stabbing a person to crit through non-harmful means but can't attack him.

It goes to the point that even admins are on different sides on what exactly is policy.

Is there even policy on them? Why can't ash walkers kill other ash walkers for trying to harm relations?

There's also the disturbing trend of ash walkers invading the station in the name for no other reason other than "kill everyone".

Your first problem is trying to associate what is and what isn't allowed with 'valid or salad' rules. As clearly put in the scarce rules regarding lavaland on the wiki page:

Follow the flavour text you receive upon spawning to the best of your abilities. Unlike the rest of the rules, these roles are very much defined and guided by roleplay rather than a system of "valid" or "not valid." Your life is cheap though, and escalation rules are greatly relaxed both for you and any crewmembers interacting with you.

Regarding the ban you're very clearly referencing, the banning admin had already rescinded the ban but some valid points were made in the thread that you should have read, as it would've answered a majority of your questions. Ash walkers, golems, and other sorties are loosely considered 'team antagonists' in the most basic of senses, but as defined, their rules are more defined and guided by roleplay rather than a basic, hard-ruled system, although escalation and rule 1 are still in effect, they may be more lenient in gradual procession. It was clearly stated in the post assumed to have sparked this discussion that in the particular case, ash walkers are allowed to harm other ash walkers for relations, but there's still basic escalation to understand regarding all situations of similar caliber. Primarily the issue with the aforementioned case was that the ash walker did not even try to converse, inform, stop or talk to the other ash walkers verbally in any way shape or form, but instantly started attacking them in retaliation.

Ash walkers are, in themselves, an antagonist role and are allowed to act as such, that hasn't changed.

[bandit]

My opinion is the same as it was before. If you want to go against the general idea of a role for RP purposes, more power to you. It opens up interesting stories, after all. But you have to actually RP it. You can't just get your valids on and then claim RP later.

The general idea of ashwalkers is that they are hostile to humans and friendly to their own. The flavor text doesn't outright say "KILL THEM ALL" but it implies you are not friendly: "You have seen lights in the distance... they foreshadow the arrival of outsiders that seek to tear apart the Necropolis and its domain. Fresh sacrifices for your nest." So if you want to RP an ashwalker who learns to love the humans or whatever, that's great and more power to you. But you have to actually RP it. Five minutes talking with a human is not enough for you to wordlessly beat the shit out of a fellow ashwalker who spawns.

Or think about it this way: It's like, say, willingly being converted to a gang. (I know gangs aren't in rotation, bear with me, it's a metaphor.) It's possible to RP willingly being converted to a gang -- indeed, most of the high-RP servers require doing it. But you have to actually put in the effort. If you run up to someone you know/suspect is a gangster and go "PEN ME" then the admins will slap your shit. But the admins hopefully will not slap your shit if you, say, have a conversation with them first and RP your character being persuaded.

Yes, it's way more difficult to do this kind of RP on servers where the validhunting playstyle is so prevalent. But that's kind of the risk you take.

[TehSteveo]

I'd argue the nature of the game causes roleplay to falter; that being when typing you are vulnerable to being just easily killed. It almost seems like both parties in that ban appeal claimed trying deescalate only for the other to still be in robust mode.

As far as ash walkers go I really don't want to force them into being another team antagonist type deal as we got enough of that. Biggest thing is having a good reason to act against your tribe and not just randomly murdering your own kind.

[Archie700]

You argue that the ash walker should RP making peace between the human and his fellow ash walker.

Then I ask, why did the ash walker who attacked first not even try to hear the conversation between them?

From the perspective of the ash walker who made peace, it is like you meeting your "enemy", realise he didn't mean any harm and try to make peace, only for an idiot to try and ruin it for everyone.

Even looking at the logs, it was clear that sweaterkittens attacked other the miners, so he had clear intent to kill, even if Deesh didn't see it.

Hell, if what DrBee said was right, he and the miner actually tried to make a trade. And the other ash walker probably convinced Deesh to spare the miner, since he was apparently alive during both of DrBee's ashwalkers.

What's even better? Killing miners for ash walkers requires NO RP whatsoever, due to the very flavor text ash walkers follow. You essentially give them free valids to kill the miners, which other lavaland roles (except syndicate, but they are isolated and cannot leave the base) DO NOT HAVE.

Treating ash walkers the same as other lavaland roles is not a good idea.

[Bombadil]

my policy is to commit ashwalker exterminatus

[TheNightingale]

It's like if you're doing a gimmick as flucops, then one of your ops starts shooting at the Captain, so you attack them to protect the Captain. Is that valid?

[oranges]

The point here is that Ash Walkers exist to hunt and kill. You're playing a predator.

Are the admins making up their own lore now?

[Okand37]

The point here is that Ash Walkers exist to hunt and kill. You're playing a predator.

Are the admins making up their own lore now?

That's been their theme and flavour text in variation since they were made.

[Okand37]

It's like if you're doing a gimmick as flucops, then one of your ops starts shooting at the Captain, so you attack them to protect the Captain. Is that valid?

No, and it isn't a good comparison because they're both running on two sets of rules, and ashwalker's have already been explained both in this post and the ban appeal. There hasn't ever been an issue until the few here decided to start complaining on a policy that's largely been set and in motion since ashwalker's have been a thing, to my knowledge.

[Archie700]

No, and it isn't a good comparison because they're both running on two sets of rules, and ashwalker's have already been explained both in this post and the ban appeal. There hasn't ever been an issue until the few here decided to start complaining on a policy that's largely been set and in motion since ashwalker's have been a thing, to my knowledge.

Do you consider why this has been not an issue?

Ash walkers have free reign to kill anyone.

Let's not beat around the bush here. TGstation is a low RP server and a substantial group, if not the majority, are the type to immediately try to take out each other if they see that they are valid. Ash walker is a dream role for them since they essentially have free reign to do what they want except harm other ash walkers without reason. I have even seen ash walkers invade the station proper and not be punished because that is what they are. In fact, from Dr_bee's appeal, it seems that happened the same round, by the same attacker even.

And yet, an ash walker who actually tried to help humans and tried to protect them from a hostile ashwalker was punished (ban was overturned but that doesn't change the fact that he was punished in the first place). That actually seems like more RP than other ashwalkers would do. But apparently, policy is that ash walkers see everyone as invaders and should hunt and kill. And yet you told him to do more RP or deescalate the situation nonharmfully.

Do you think that we should be peaceful towards people who acted with clear lethal intent to attack people we are having good relations with? Or that if we are already cooperative, we should do more cooperation to justify attacking the person harming the one who we are cooperating with?

The main reason why this thread is here is because not even admins can agree on what exactly ash walkers ARE.

Are they a team antag? If so, why is there no clear goal but "hunt and kill"? Why is it so vague?

Is it an RP role? If so, how much RP is needed to fight with each other? Why do they have free valids to kill miners?

Using flavor text to define policy for a role that not even headmins can agree on is NOT a good idea.

[Sweaterkittens]

Archie, the ban you're talking about has been discussed at length in the appeal thread, every side said their peace, and it was handled. Some of the exact questions you're bringing up were already discussed in length in the ban appeal, but it's clear you enjoy selectively reading whatever suits your side the most. If you want to have a policy discussion about Ash Walkers in general, that's great, but don't go around crying "Someone got banned for roleplaying!" and acting like they're some sort of martyr, because that's bullshit.

I also highly doubt you actually care to have a policy discussion, and here's why: You had absolutely nothing to do with the specific incident that incited the ban. You also do not ever play Ash Walkers. I know this because every time they're brought up in deadchat you start complaining about how bad of a role they are, how much you hate them, and how much you'd like them to get removed. "Wow so they can just kill the miners???" as though the concept of Ash Walkers is so confusing, despite no one else ever having any issues with it. You may have started this thread under the pretense of a policy discussion but it's pretty obvious that it's a thinly-veiled attempt to shitstir about a role that you don't like.

[peoplearestrange]

Again to reiterate what Sweaterkittens has said; This is not a ban appeal forum. Please keep such content to there defined areas.
Thank you.

[Archie700]

Archie, the ban you're talking about has been discussed at length in the appeal thread, every side said their peace, and it was handled. Some of the exact questions you're bringing up were already discussed in length in the ban appeal, but it's clear you enjoy selectively reading whatever suits your side the most. If you want to have a policy discussion about Ash Walkers in general, that's great, but don't go around crying "Someone got banned for roleplaying!" and acting like they're some sort of martyr, because that's bullshit.

I really wasn't in the best of moods when I typed this out, so I really am sorry if it came off this way.

Regardless, the ash walker did try to roleplay with the miner. And you were the one who tried to jump the miner, and that got a reaction from the ash walker.

I recognize that you can try to deescalate the situation nonlethally, but at that point, both you and he were antags. I saw the thread and no one was sure on what was the correct action. Kor, the person who made lavaland stated that he planned the ash walkers to make decisions regarding whether to help the humans in a mutually beneficial situation or just kill them and take everything. Indeed, TehSteveo pointed out the nature of the game makes trying to deescalate in this situation difficult since you're vulnerable to being killed. Or ignored.

I slightly agree that the ash walker could have stopped as soon as you tried to make peace. But really, no one can predict the future and you just tried to ruin relations. The ash walker was probably angry at you for attacking and people tend to lose their focus on the text box when something is happening in the game itself.

I'm using the ban as an example on how there is confusion when it comes to ash walkers. If there's an example of a ban where there's no escalation, just grief, there's this https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic ... 43#p232959

I also highly doubt you actually care to have a policy discussion, and here's why: You had absolutely nothing to do with the specific incident that incited the ban. You also do not ever play Ash Walkers. I know this because every time they're brought up in deadchat you start complaining about how bad of a role they are, how much you hate them, and how much you'd like them to get removed. "Wow so they can just kill the miners???" as though the concept of Ash Walkers is so confusing, despite no one else ever having any issues with it. You may have started this thread under the pretense of a policy discussion but it's pretty obvious that it's a thinly-veiled attempt to shitstir about a role that you don't like.

...I admit it. I DON'T like ash walkers and how they have free valids to kill. I don't like how they're essentially a grief lottery to ghosts or suicides, because ash walker nests appear every three rounds. I admit that I even would like it if they were removed, but I know that's the nuclear option.

However, I really DO want discussion on how to manage ash walker policy and have people reach a consensus on what is it. I really don't like fucking shitstiring on the forums on removing them. Just because I HATE ash walkers does not mean that I wasn't serious about a policy discussion. on how they could work. Hell, even if I hate how they can invade the station with no penalty, I have to accept that they have the freedom to do it.

[D&B]

One solution would be forced democracy by other ashwalkers.

I remember one round I had as a traitor miner where I found a walker nest. I subdued two of them and force armed them into a deal: I'll help them kill station crew, and they get to keep the corpses. Of course, they agreed after I sacrificed another miner in front of them, and followed through in their promise.

As we dragged the corpses and the eggs bloomed, one of the killed ghosts spawned and immediately tried to stab my shit in. The other ash walkers put him down and sacrificed him since even the ones that spawned by now understood that, at least, keeping me alive was more productive than killing me. We received an admin pm from the killed ashwalker ahelps g being killed by the other ashwalkers, but it was thrown away because it was just a salty person.

In short, unless the human being protected is highly productive for the tribe, other ashwalkers shouldn't surrender their hostilities. Think Indians and the English.

[oranges]

some bullshit I didn't read...

You're very quick to get upset with people who comment on things you're involved in for an admin

[D&B]

If you had read it you'd realize they weren't mad.