/tg/Station 13

Before I begin, I understand note appeals are frowned upon, but I feel like this note is exceptionally bad and unwarranted. I also attempted to resolve this in #supportbus but didn't get much of a response there. So here's the note:

"2017-02-13 13:41:20 | | sweaterkittens
As a traitor, used genetics powers to impersonate the warden and proceed to be the absolute worst shitcurity imaginable, permabrigging randoms, killing people after randomly searching them with no provocation, all after their objectives were completed. It's not against the rules, but it was incredibly shitty to everyone else playing. Postround, seemed to really enjoy how much they had upset everyone."

This was not lowpop murderboner. I removed around 4-5 people total from the round. I permabrigged a single person and killed I believe 2-3 others while disguised as the warden. Nor did I make any effort to prolong the round or recall the shuttle.

This note was not placed for any rule violation or for the interests of the players, but rather because of Sweaterkittens' personal dislike of an antagonist disguising themselves as a member of security. I had to isolate and assassinate the warden, drag their corpse to genetics undetected and steal an implant from the armory all without getting caught. It was a high risk, high reward plan that paid off. The bit at the end saying I enjoyed upsetting everyone is also false. Sweaterkittens called me out postround on OOC about "abusing" my antagonist status to disguise as security, and I responded by saying I personally had fun and argued that this was the point of antagonists. Not "gloating" in anyway.

Sweaterkittens cannot give someone a note because of their own personal dislikes for something that did not violate server rules nor come anywhere close to dickish behavior that would warrant a rule 0 note.

Unless there is more to this story (which is highly likely) i cannot see why this would be a problem. We make a point of not limiting antagonist actions and this sounds heaps more fucking interesting than >buy desword >go on rampage, and more like the kind of thing we should encourage rather than discourage.

It also highlights a huge fucking issue with noantag security, as if you can impersonate one of those roles you have a huge meta trust advantage.

Bad note, hilarious antag round effort however

All things considered and as far as traitors go, this is more effort than most put into being antagonistic. And isn't that the point?
I don't understand the purpose of this note.

Sorta Anon3 posting

Even if this isn't against the rules now, there'll probably have to be some amendment for it, as even as the HoS/Captain, its very difficult to reasonably suspect an implanted member of sec unless they do something obviously traitorous (attack other security, etc), let alone the difficulty of actually demoting/searching a sec officer with associated gear, and our usual route of dealing with shitsec is administration, which obviously doesn't work if the perpetrator is an antagonist since they're untouchable for most rules violations.

I'd argue you could justify this note under Rule 1, since the antagonist had no reason or benefit to remove the people they did from the round, but its definitely a subjective ruling.

Wait what WHAT WHAT

Maybe this needs a policy discussion thread or something but do people really think that an antagonist putting in a massive amount of effort to do an interesting gimmick like this is bad because it is too hard to out them and valid them?

Isn't mistrust and paranoia of everyone around you the thing that leads to all the interesting stories that bring people to this game in the first place?

Isn't even the most basic mistrust of people in positions of authority the only thing that stops this game from being a good vs evil team deathmatch?

Am i really this out of touch? Does everyone feel this way? I have a lot of questions.

As for removing people from the round we do not ban people who go on dual esword murder sprees, and they did not even kill that many people. How is it an issue in this case?

>tfw voice changers automatically ban you when you use them to impersonate anyone with a loyalty implant in them

This whole thread really makes me feel like we need antag security back this is fucking ridiculous

Arianya wrote:Sorta Anon3 posting

Even if this isn't against the rules now, there'll probably have to be some amendment for it, as even as the HoS/Captain, its very difficult to reasonably suspect an implanted member of sec unless they do something obviously traitorous (attack other security, etc), let alone the difficulty of actually demoting/searching a sec officer with associated gear, and our usual route of dealing with shitsec is administration, which obviously doesn't work if the perpetrator is an antagonist since they're untouchable for most rules violations.

I'd argue you could justify this note under Rule 1, since the antagonist had no reason or benefit to remove the people they did from the round, but its definitely a subjective ruling.

All wrong

Traitorsecurity used to be a thing, the only reason it was removed was because they had access to SO much gear at the start
If someone takes the time to infiltrate security, especially an antag, they have free reign to do ANYTHING (while not breaking some server rules, bug exploits and the like)

This game is supposed to carry some paranoia in it

I've never had a problem, personally, with dealing with bad security. They're still subject to "act like an antag" stuff. If you aren't suspicious of security on the grounds that "oh, they're implanted!" in a game based on paranoia and full of shitkids in the first place, you're kind of putting yourself in a position to get fucked in the first place.

Not that it even matters, because they weren't shitsec. They were an antagonist impersonating shitsec. I don't see what they've done that isn't justified by them being an antagonist.

Infiltrating sec as an antagonist is hard but it's so much fun, I've done it several times to incarcerate my target and then deal with them once they're out of sight.


Honestly I think we might need to have a few rounds with traitor security tbh.

Wyzack wrote:Wait what WHAT WHAT

Maybe this needs a policy discussion thread or something but do people really think that an antagonist putting in a massive amount of effort to do an interesting gimmick like this is bad because it is too hard to out them and valid them?

Isn't mistrust and paranoia of everyone around you the thing that leads to all the interesting stories that bring people to this game in the first place?

Isn't even the most basic mistrust of people in positions of authority the only thing that stops this game from being a good vs evil team deathmatch?

Am i really this out of touch? Does everyone feel this way? I have a lot of questions.

As for removing people from the round we do not ban people who go on dual esword murder sprees, and they did not even kill that many people. How is it an issue in this case?

Except people have been punished in the past for killing sec officers for doing their job, reasonable paranoia or no. I'm simplifying the case, obviously, but this has happened before.

The fact is that the nature of excluding sec/Cap from antag selection is that people will be reluctant to act on paranoia/mistrust of them because of the potential of being bwoinked.

The issue isn't that they were in a position of difficulty to suspect, its that they were imitating a role that has historically had a special exemption from the game's systems in terms of being part of the paranoia.

Part of the point of exempting sec from antag roles was that sec officers could trust each other without freaking out over every minor thing that might hint at them being a traitor.

I agree we don't ban people for desword murder sprees, I was simply noting that subjectively this note could be justified under Rule 1, same as one can justify low-pop murder sprees under it. A headmin might disagree.

But what is the purpose of the note??
"Ahh, they were an antag, but I thought they were also kind of a dick"
It doesn't mean anything or contribute anything to a future decision, it's just a post-it that says "You're an asshole, I think!"

To consider an antag to be a dick because he took great pains to assume another identity and using it to simply be shitcurity... Is it ok to send a message that murderboner is ok, but cunning isn't?

Am I the only one who thought of lings? No one is immune to suspicion, this is not a rule 1 violation.

First of all I'd like to say that the antagonist security discussion is healthy, but better held elsewhere. You may certainly use this case as an example, but let's keep the rest of this on-topic.


I had a very hard time explaining my reasoning for making this note to some of my fellow administrators, because it's difficult to convey properly. In hindsight, I should've just hidden it, as it was meant to be a reminder to myself and the other administrators about your general demeanor as a player. I typically find that you focus very heavily on murderboning and validhunting with a general disregard for your fellow player. This round just spurred me to make a note of it.

You can claim it was some masterful plan to impersonate a security officer, steal their genes, and take their place. That it was "high risk, high reward". It was lowpop. There was all of two officers, one of which was busy running around the station handling everything himself, and the other (who you impersonated) was a BRAND new warden (~50 connections, iirc), who didn't know how to open and close doors properly and spent most of the round trying to arrest the clown. You killed your target within ~2 minutes of roundstart, and spent the rest of the round killing randoms and doing this. The most resistance you faced was when you randomly bumped into the good officer in maint, spurred a 10 second chase, then got away. The reason I felt inspired to note it was because once you had assumed the Warden's role, you seemingly had no motivation behind your actions other than "Who can I make miserable now?". You see someone, and wordlessly tase/strip/cuff them and put them in perma. Then you tell someone you're randomly searching them, then when you get bored you shoot them in the face. People have said "Would you rather he murderboned?" and I want to say, yes, because then at least people would've been able to/tried to stop you rather than just assuming you were the most malicious security player imaginable. Was any of it against the rules? No, antags are rule-free, and I'm not arguing that what you did broke any rules, nor did I warn you or take any punitive action. This along with the many other rounds I've observed you in just solidified in my mind that you're a player who really sees this game as a grief lottery, where making people miserable is the goal. And to me that's worth noting.

Regardless, I'll be lifting this note, as it was poorly written and doesn't even properly serve the purpose that I made it for.

Anonmare wrote:Infiltrating sec as an antagonist is hard but it's so much fun, I've done it several times to incarcerate my target and then deal with them once they're out of sight.

Honestly I think we might need to have a few rounds with traitor security tbh.

Removing traitor security was a mistake and this is a perfect example of why.

I don't really have anything to add on this and Sweaterkittens already lifted the note, I believe we are done here.