/tg/Station 13

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 6:45 pm**

Bottom post of the previous page:

Sandshark808 wrote:
Jimmius wrote:
Sandshark808 wrote:
Jimmius wrote:at this point i'm genuinely unsure who you're referring to- are the pepetually offended guys the one complaining about this rule in the thread, or the ones the people complaining in this thread don't like
The person who tried to cop one of our discord users a discord permaban for posting wrongthink in politics.
who was that, don't be coy i need to know
Cynic

Wasn't the "Report it to discord" thing about what someone thought was a bug, and then it got blown out of proportion out of misinterpretation?
Also, that sort of stuff isn't on topic, there's been a LOT of hostility in deadchat and ooc, just so you know. This is a serious issue and should not have people bringing up other issues here.

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 6:46 pm**

lmao if you think my ruling was controversial - it wasn't, and if you think that attacking someone just because you dislike them personally with suicide statistics is acceptable then I suggest you re-evaluate yourself as a person - you would be considered a dick in the vast majority of society, both online and offline.

TheMythicGhost wrote:
A) You refute your own point in C.
B and D) Nowhere in this post does Nervere ask for a poll to be made, he suggested to speak to the community before making rule changes, and you're putting words in his mouth and trying to make him out to be a hypocrite for something he never said.
E) Cool.

I don't refute my own point - you just don't know what a forum mod is - PKP is a forum mod, MisterPerson is a forum mod, I am not a forum mod.

He specifically mentioned "consulting the community" which generally I take to mean a poll, but even conceding that he didn't say those words specifically, he also didn't "consult with the community" on every rule or policy change, and hasn't specified why this one in particular is relevant to needing community consulting - headmins are elected representatives specifically so we shouldn't have to have a poll/community meeting/etc over every single policy issue - not to mention the points others have raised about simultaneously thinking it's unnecessary/not a new addition while also claiming it'll be used by "sensitive retards".

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 6:50 pm**

Reyn wrote:Wasn't the "Report it to discord" thing about what someone thought was a bug, and then it got blown out of proportion out of misinterpretation?
Also, that sort of stuff isn't on topic, there's been a LOT of hostility in deadchat and ooc, just so you know. This is a serious issue and should not have people bringing up other issues here.

Morto admitted that Cynic is one reason we have this rule. So far he's also the only reason.

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 7:00 pm**

is any one surprised that the worst dregs of the community no one would be sorry to see fuck off permanently are the guys who hate this change

i mean, look at nervere

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 7:02 pm**

Sandshark808 wrote:
Reyn wrote:Wasn't the "Report it to discord" thing about what someone thought was a bug, and then it got blown out of proportion out of misinterpretation?
Also, that sort of stuff isn't on topic, there's been a LOT of hostility in deadchat and ooc, just so you know. This is a serious issue and should not have people bringing up other issues here.
Morto admitted that Cynic is one reason we have this rule. So far he's also the only reason.

Good job ignoring the part where I said around 6 players have reported issues regarding harassment, with one of them being focused frequently by other players. You win a gold star.

Dr. Aura wrote:I disagree with the sentiments of the change and the form with which you are taking them. Rule 1 as stipulated prior was more than enough to handle almost all interactions because the text of the numbered rule itself is based on virtue of consensus and discretion. All you're doing by tacking on the seven words is caving to the endless victim complex of certain members (and I use that word loosely) of this community who feel every interaction they have outside their own terms as a personal sleight, which has been proven to continue regardless of who they choose to antagonize, be it successfully or abortively.

I by no means want anyone to feel as though they aren't welcome, nor do I want to imply that the community at large is needlessly hostile, but the fact of the matter is that the thinly veiled group of complainants has a history of attempting to utilize administration as a means of retribution against parties they do not approve of, which is something I will not ever abide. If you want to be here, be here. If you want to interact with the community at large, do so. If you want to complain that you are as much a subject of banter as is the namesake of this server would suggest, I strongly suggest you reconsider your role in the community, because no one will ever become beholden to anyone else for any reason and I will assure my effort goes towards making certain such things never come to pass.

As I said, this will be up to admin discretion. If it gets abused by an admin, they will be accountable for their actions and overruled by the head admins so there should be no worries there.

This is just a clarification of how we're handling things now.

High Impact Dolphin wrote:
MortoSasye wrote:However, I do recognize my fault in not asking for input first perhaps via vote ...
Awesome news! When can we expect a poll to be up?

When enough players (around 10-15) express a desire for a poll to me.

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 7:03 pm**

you can say fuck niggers but god forbid you say fuck trannies because we have a transexual headmin and players.
who cares say what you want, there's multiple ways to block people

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 7:09 pm**

MortoSasye wrote: When enough players (around 10-15) express a desire for a poll to me.

I want a poll, thanks.

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 7:11 pm**

MortoSasye wrote:
Sandshark808 wrote:
Reyn wrote:Wasn't the "Report it to discord" thing about what someone thought was a bug, and then it got blown out of proportion out of misinterpretation?
Also, that sort of stuff isn't on topic, there's been a LOT of hostility in deadchat and ooc, just so you know. This is a serious issue and should not have people bringing up other issues here.
Morto admitted that Cynic is one reason we have this rule. So far he's also the only reason.
Good job ignoring the part where I said around 6 players have reported issues regarding harassment, with one of them being focused frequently by other players. You win a gold star.

The only one you could actually provide a ruling for is pretty much the worst one you could have mentioned at all. Surely you can provide a more sympathetic case to ease our fears that this change is being made in bad faith.

Also count this as 3 recorded for a poll. You've had enough negative or concerned comments in this thread alone that you should put one up, but I think we'll hit that 10-request goal by the end of the day.

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 7:16 pm**

Bluespace wrote:you can say fuck niggers but god forbid you say fuck trannies because we have a transexual headmin and players.
who cares say what you want, there's multiple ways to block people

Who's the transexual headmin?

Also, I'm not censoring freedom of speech, I'm forbidding harassment which is different.

Sandshark808 wrote: The only one you could actually provide a ruling for is pretty much the worst one you could have mentioned at all. Surely you can provide a more sympathetic case to ease our fears that this change is being made in bad faith.

Also count this as 3 recorded for a poll. You've had enough negative or concerned comments in this thread alone that you should put one up, but I think we'll hit that 10-request goal by the end of the day.

I don't remember any similar appeals that are related to this, and revealing a certain ban that was applied due to harassment would be a leak without the approval of either party.

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 7:17 pm**

Sandshark808 wrote:
Jimmius wrote:
Sandshark808 wrote:
Jimmius wrote:at this point i'm genuinely unsure who you're referring to- are the pepetually offended guys the one complaining about this rule in the thread, or the ones the people complaining in this thread don't like
The person who tried to cop one of our discord users a discord permaban for posting wrongthink in politics.
who was that, don't be coy i need to know
Cynic

This mention highlights Cynic as the one who is pinged.
Where'd you get this leak?

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 7:29 pm**

Nervere wrote:This mention highlights Cynic as the one who is pinged.
Where'd you get this leak?

Deep Scrote

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 7:32 pm**

Sandshark808 wrote:
Nervere wrote:This mention highlights Cynic as the one who is pinged.
Where'd you get this leak?
Deep Scrote

What?

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 7:32 pm**

The only way this change will be acceptable in any way shape or form is if it's also codified with two stipulations:

The target of harassment must ask the offender to stop and/or report it, otherwise it will be assumed as regular banter.
The admin handling the case must warn the offender to stop before taking action. If the player refuses, then it's open season.

The way this proposed change currently stands, it only serves to act as a weapon for the chronically triggered folk to use against the vast majority of the community, who find offensive bantz to be more than acceptable. People acting in obvious bad faith were already covered under the previous rule as written, as you showed in your example with monkey slide man. I'm not sure why you thought that example would support your case.

MortoSasye wrote:When enough players (around 10-15) express a desire for a poll to me.

I would like to see a poll.

Spoiler:

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 7:34 pm**

MortoSasye wrote:When enough players (around 10-15) express a desire for a poll to me.

Meh I'm curious to see the results so poll it.

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 7:52 pm**

1. Don’t be a dick.
We're all here to have a good time, supposedly. Going out of your way to seriously negatively impact or end the round for someone with little IC justification is against the rules, this also includes harassing a player OOC (Out of character). Legitimate conflicts where people get upset do happen however, as detailed in the escalation section of the rules.

this is worded horribly, replace the comma with a period.

oh yeah, poll it

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 7:57 pm**

Stickymayhem wrote:is any one surprised that the worst dregs of the community no one would be sorry to see fuck off permanently are the guys who hate this change

i mean, look at nervere

It's funny that I am also being called a dreg for voicing my opposition to how this is being implemented, despite giving legitimate concerns and reasoning why it can and will be abused, and why it's a redundant thing to tack on as well.
I love this too because I am actually one of the people on this community that, though some may not agree with everything I say (and that's completely okay), I have made a lot of effort to help the community to eliminate instances of grief and other extreme rule-breaking that negatively affected the rounds of players while an admin was offline by logging and subsequently reporting it to the admin that made this ruling. If anything, they cannot state that my character is confrontational for the sake of being confrontational because of my work behind the scenes that does actually show I give a care. It's a slap in the face to see them stonewall, but it's been such a prominent effect of the current culture of the server that it's really no surprise at the end of the day.

TL;DR Saying that I'm only here because I want to argue in bad faith against this rule change is incredibly disingenuous, and the headmin in question has a fair deal of experience in the past with me personally (both in server and DMs on discord) to know I'm not.

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 8:14 pm**

To be honest a poll for determining community opinion would be a good idea if just one person wanted it. Obviously you shouldn’t just do whatever the people want, our player base is too stupid for a direct democracy. Just factor in what people vote into whatever you decide.

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 8:16 pm**

Yeah no that shit about me wanting to ban someone over pins is just false 100% lol

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 8:18 pm**

Mixed opionion so...

+people being dicks to others in OOC and deadchat constantly, without proper reason for people to be yelling at them, Is pretty stressful. Especially if it gets personal.
+Even though this might be redundant, it IS important to bring up that "Don't be a dick" applies to deadchat and OOC as well
- A bit redundant, however, is still a bit redundant. Which is redundant in of itself to say, but I might as well say it.
-Vague about Circumstances. Some people yell at people in deadchat or ooc because of their ingame behaviour. Other times it may be playful. Other times they really don't mean it at the moment and are just venting, Like me. Don't take things I say personally most of the time, I tend to be a salty boi.
+May actually help me stop being so salty
+I've had some experience with people harassing me in deadchat over complaining about certain behaviour. Probably not under this rule, but a bit relieving.
-This takes up time and priority which should be dedicated to clarifying and enforcing certain other rules.
+Does specify that it's for repeat offenders, though.
-Might be misinterpreted or misused to supress criticism, or when there's a rare, but not impossible, civilized debate.
-Once again, there's other rules and situations which are MUCH more pressing than this.

Honestly, I want a poll so others can factor in. Not a definitive binding one, just one to see what people think of this and to decide, instead of just having it shoved up their ass. It's already to be assumed, but having something specifically stated may make things different, even to an extreme.

Also, cynic is right they didnt want to ban over pins.

Also, Take my opinion with a grain of salt, Because I've got plenty of salt to go around Because I tend to be a bit... odd when it comes to how strict rules should be. apparently.

-Your resident rules lawyer. Feel free to yell about this.

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 8:38 pm**

What exactly is the hypothetical poll going to be about if the centerpiece argument against this is that harassment was already covered by the rules and adding it to rule 1 is totally redundant?

people: >this doesn't change anything and it was already precedent
also people: >this will destroy TG and everyone will be banned

Not sure how these arguments can be true concurrently, but whatevs guys, I don't have much of a dog in this fight.
I usually find ooc/dchat/discord shittalking about myself hilarious, and easy to ignore when it's not, but it'd also be nice if ooc and dchat especially weren't 75% retarded arguments and namecalling 24/7.

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 8:46 pm**

annoyinggreencatgirl wrote:What exactly is the hypothetical poll going to be about if the centerpiece argument against this is that harassment was already covered by the rules and adding it to rule 1 is totally redundant?

people: >this doesn't change anything and it was already precedent
also people: >this will destroy TG and everyone will be banned

Not sure how these arguments can be true concurrently, but whatevs guys, I don't have much of a dog in this fight.
I usually find ooc/dchat/discord shittalking about myself hilarious, and easy to ignore when it's not, but it'd also be nice if ooc and dchat especially weren't 75% retarded arguments and namecalling 24/7.

The argument is being mischaracterized to frame opponents of the change as crazy people.

The rules before: malicious harassment is covered, but general saltposting and insults in OOC aren't.
The rules now: harassment is made open-ended with no real definition so salt and insults we normally accept can be harassment if the admins want them to be, or if someone complains enough. The precedent given is for a controversial ban for something that isn't actually harassment, even though it was mean-spirited.

The saddest part about this is that the admins, headmins especially, are showing an immense amount of contempt for the opinions of players and forumgoers. Not just in their responses here, but in conversations on discord.

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 8:50 pm**

MortoSasye wrote:When enough players (around 10-15) express a desire for a poll to me.

I want a poll, please and thanks. For transparency and all that shit.
Plus most of my deep concerns have already been said by other people in this thread. The change to the rule seems completely unnecessary and seemingly only allows for a way to use rule 0 without outright citing rule 0 nor having to use the antecedent admin framework stuff of having other admins sign off on it. Plus this ignores that deadchat/OOC is usually salty as hell and that's a perfectly okay method of letting off steam. It's better to have some guy cuss up a storm for 5 minutes in deadchat or in post-round OOC rather than have him bottle up all that sentiment and carry it into the next round. It's completely counter-productive to the stated aim of the changes.

Part of the issue at hand is that the really fine-grained ban appeals and admin complaints ultimately end up citing rules heavily and taking them as the final deciding factor. This change has, at least, a subtext that allows any given admin to essentially decree a rule 0 ban without having to involve other admins in the process or dragging them into the matter. Not to mention there are other, easier ways to solve the problem the change addresses, as has been stated before, which involve using already-existing in-client tools: ahelping or OOC-ignores. If a person is harassing someone outside of the game then just cite rule 0 with precedent 1.

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 8:56 pm**

Sandshark808 wrote:The rules before: malicious harassment is covered, but general saltposting and insults in OOC aren't.
The rules now: harassment is made open-ended with no real definition so salt and insults we normally accept can be harassment if the admins want them to be, or if someone complains enough. The precedent given is for a controversial ban for something that isn't actually harassment, even though it was mean-spirited.

I must have missed where our previous rules defined "malicious harassment", otherwise I guess the entire issue seems to have just gotten defined more concretely?

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 9:11 pm**

Clarifications tend to make making and defending bans much easier. Rather than arguing rule interpretation of Rule 1 you can just point harassers to this specific section of the rules. "Starting a fight in OOC/Dead chat" could use some more clarification in my opinion though, its obviously intended to refer to situations in which the fight is targeted against a specific person and goes beyond just banter but alot of people seem confused by it. A clarification like, "this does not mean every single salty argument will result in admin intervention" would be nice. A situation in which this section would be applicable is moreso a person knowing a topic the person is sensitive about and using that to try to hurt them. Good example of this: https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic ... 54&t=18740 .This is not intended to be a rule where admins regularly intervene in, "Billy murderboned the crew, FUCK YOU BILLY".

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 9:14 pm**

What is the fucking problem here? You talk shit about someone for a round? No problem, dick. Do it over 5 consecutive rounds? Get fucking bent. Easy as that.

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 9:36 pm**

imagine suggesting just ignoring people who are being dicks
rule 1 literally says don't be a dick but instead we're saying that people are responsible for blocking people themselves instead of just,, maybe,, getting rid of assholes, but when you say this, some will just assume you're saying "waaawaa someone was being a meanie to me once!!! adminws bwan them!!!" instead of just "we have a rule against being a dick and we shouldn't make the players responsible for dealing with the harassment themselves"
this update is just a clarification because we have dumbasses like dootdoom who sees a trans person online and makes jokes about transgender people committing suicide to annoy them, which first of all is pretty fucked up, and secondly it's just outright being a dick!!! but still some might insist that "he didn't break any rule" well guess what rules lawyers if "don't be a dick" wasn't enough now you get the clarification that you should stop trying to be a massive asshole in each opportunity you get
"sensitive people will abuse it!" the rule is the same, if it hasn't happened until now -unless you think telling a trans people that 40% of trans people commit suicide to their face is not being an asshole- then it won't happen. no one cares about your hot take about transgender people not being real or being mentally ill but if you go out of your way to target trans people who're just trying to have fun in the game then don't cry when you get kicked out
i'm tired and i beg of you that you read this multiple times before you quote me saying "just ignore people who say meanie words!" "tg is a hugbox now!" when this is about harassment and we shouldn't be condoning it to begin with

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 10:06 pm**

Poll it or not I don't care to be honest. We could ask players: Hey, do you guys mind if we add 7 extra words reminding you we can ban you for being super shitty in OOC? We can already do that but now we'll make it extra clear we can before we do? So how about it? Want those extra 7 words?

You can still be a salty baby in dead-chat and call that guy who killed you a cunt. Seems most of you guys are worried that more and more of that salt will be rolled into 'harassment' but keep in mind we can already ban for harassment and you can appeal your ban. The extra words here won't change the culture behind that appeal process, if anything it serves as a reminder that maybe you shouldn't start quoting trans suicide stats at the person who clearly identifies as trans as a way to get under their skin. In other words: don't be a dick.

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 10:13 pm**

One can only wonder how this happened but I guess we're all stuck in the dark. Darn.

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 10:22 pm**

Dootdoom wrote:One can only wonder how this happened but I guess we're all stuck in the dark. Darn.

clown world lol

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 10:23 pm**

why are literally any of you mad about the rule being changed to reflect how it was already enforced

literally nothing is changing except the rule is more accurate to reality

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 10:23 pm**

Dootdoom wrote:One can only wonder how this happened but I guess we're all stuck in the dark. Darn.

[youtube]mmkAfS8-yA8[/youtube]

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 10:24 pm**

Ok but actually seriously tho this rule 1 thing really does nothing for smart players that know the rules (clearly not me because I got banned over it) but as for the more... special players yeah I guess it was needed I just don't understand why this is such a hot topic.

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 10:25 pm**

Close the thread then Im done here I have no argument time to fucking vanish because TG sucks and all of you can suck my dick

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 10:38 pm**

Close the thread then Im done here I have no argument time to fucking vanish because TG sucks and all of you can suck my dick

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 10:42 pm**

StickyMayhem wrote:is any one surprised that the worst dregs of the community no one would be sorry to see fuck off permanently are the guys who hate this change

This guy is harassing me and starting a fight, can we please ban him?

Also, don't close the thread until we hit the "I want a poll" count, which you can add me to

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 10:48 pm**

The thing that most people are really being ignorant to here is the fact that the way you set in stone a law allows it to be manipulated by the content of that law, this is common law 101. The previous version of it covered the thing this is seeking to update, whether it had been reflected in its precedents or general use knowledge (i.e. Common sense), and tools have already existed for a while to enforce both player to player side, player to admin, and admin to player side of this, making it extremely redundant but able to be manipulated by those both in and out of power (diminishing the ability of the actual harassment victims to be seen as credible due to potential future parties acting in bad faith with this rule update). There is a clear reason to why some rules are clear on some points and vague on others, and that's to diminish the ability of the rule to be manipulated maliciously, while allowing room for reasonable interpretation.

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 10:52 pm**

Stickymayhem wrote:is any one surprised that the worst dregs of the community no one would be sorry to see fuck off permanently are the guys who hate this change

i mean, look at nervere

tfw make this point every time something like this happens

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 10:58 pm**

Atlanta-Ned wrote:
Stickymayhem wrote:is any one surprised that the worst dregs of the community no one would be sorry to see fuck off permanently are the guys who hate this change

i mean, look at nervere
tfw make this point every time something like this happens

You've unironically said you want to execute said people

you'd kill nervere

but that was in the ntr hut

Fucking fuck fuck you NTR hut I can't use any evidence their in good faith

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 11:06 pm**

TheMythicGhost wrote:The thing that most people are really being ignorant to here is the fact that the way you set in stone a law allows it to be manipulated by the content of that law, this is common law 101. The previous version of it covered the thing this is seeking to update, whether it had been reflected in its precedents or general use knowledge (i.e. Common sense), and tools have already existed for a while to enforce both player to player side, player to admin, and admin to player side of this, making it extremely redundant but able to be manipulated by those both in and out of power (diminishing the ability of the actual harassment victims to be seen as credible due to potential future parties acting in bad faith with this rule update). There is a clear reason to why some rules are clear on some points and vague on others, and that's to diminish the ability of the rule to be manipulated maliciously, while allowing room for reasonable interpretation.

A great post, which is why no admin will respond or it'll be brushed away without actually being considered

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 11:23 pm**

TheMythicGhost wrote:The thing that most people are really being ignorant to here is the fact that the way you set in stone a law allows it to be manipulated by the content of that law, this is common law 101.

being vague also makes it easy to manipulate because after all you're saying it's admin discretion but then when it doesn't go people's ways they'll say there's no rule against it

TheMythicGhost wrote:(diminishing the ability of the actual harassment victims to be seen as credible due to potential future parties acting in bad faith with this rule update).

it hasn't happened but i'm more than willing to admit i'm wrong if it ever is manipulated

TheMythicGhost wrote:There is a clear reason to why some rules are clear on some points and vague on others, and that's to diminish the ability of the rule to be manipulated maliciously, while allowing room for reasonable interpretation.

it just won't happen. rule 0 comes before everything so it's always up to admin discretion. the change in the rules is not for us, it's for people who might claim what they're doing isn't against the rules

this all seems like arguing for the sake of arguing. the update barely changes anything but to make it clear for people that clearly did not get it before. the moment it's used wrongly or it fails then we can come back to revisit it, otherwise i honestly don't know what's the problem with it just be n ice!!!! it ain't that hard!!!!

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 11:29 pm**

can the people bitching decide whether this is a huge drastic change made without community input or basically the same rule we've always had and thus a pointless rewrite, because it can't be both

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 11:32 pm**

TheMythicGhost wrote:The thing that most people are really being ignorant to here is the fact that the way you set in stone a law allows it to be manipulated by the content of that law, this is common law 101. The previous version of it covered the thing this is seeking to update, whether it had been reflected in its precedents or general use knowledge (i.e. Common sense), and tools have already existed for a while to enforce both player to player side, player to admin, and admin to player side of this, making it extremely redundant but able to be manipulated by those both in and out of power (diminishing the ability of the actual harassment victims to be seen as credible due to potential future parties acting in bad faith with this rule update). There is a clear reason to why some rules are clear on some points and vague on others, and that's to diminish the ability of the rule to be manipulated maliciously, while allowing room for reasonable interpretation.

The previous version of the rules people keep alluding to here not only didn't define harassment, the word harassment wasn't anywhere to be found in them, at all, and 100% relied on admins to make judgement calls on what constituted it.

And the server is somehow still running, wowzers.

We have an enormous amount of precedents and supplementary text for escalation and silicon policy and other things because clearly "Don't be a dick." does not cover it, I don't see how OOC harassment is any different and it's more amazing things went this long without any.

You can argue that leaving it at "a fight" is insufficient clarification, sure, but I dunno why you'd be shocked people aren't taking your sounding alarm bells over MORE context and specification being added to the rules as an epic disaster in the making.

In addition, Morto already said this here, which can be further cited as precedent for bans and appeals.

MortoSasye wrote:A verbal fight that has become too heated (Insults are being thrown, people are being told to suicide and personal hostile remarks are being told to the other party). Admins will first ask the participants to cease and go cool down, so there should be no worries for unexpected bans.

So...

8. Starting a [insert your own personal definition of how you want "a fight" elaborated here] in OOC/Dead chat or harassing someone across multiple rounds after being informed to stop by an admin may end in a server ban. Conflicts are something that happen, but going out of your way to repeatedly do this will not be tolerated.

Specify your objections to this and how it's rampant for future abuse, elaborate on what you think the line is, or quit being a vague doomsayer.
I wouldn't be surprised if a month, two months, even half a year from now this rule even as is, is scarcely cited in any bans.

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 11:47 pm**

annoyinggreencatgirl wrote:8. Starting a [insert your own personal definition of how you want "a fight" elaborated here] in OOC/Dead chat or harassing someone across multiple rounds after being informed to stop by an admin may end in a server ban. Conflicts are something that happen, but going out of your way to repeatedly do this will not be tolerated.

"Starting" anything is too vague. If someone is actually being bullied round after round then sure, do something, but as far as I can tell this is a kneejerk policy change set in motion by the hurt feelings of a trial admin.

Other than that, I like this proposal.

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 11:50 pm**

annoyinggreencatgirl wrote:Specify your objections to this and how it's rampant for future abuse, elaborate on what you think the line is, or quit being a vague doomsayer.
I wouldn't be surprised if a month, two months, even half a year from now this rule even as is, is scarcely cited in any bans.

Because the star case promoted as evidence for why this needs to be added involves a manic tranny admin, who is both a serial shitposter, and lets everything right-wing get under his skin, helping someone to a gameban over a couple lines of trollposting at his expense.

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 11:54 pm**

guys what if we got rid of ‘ironic’ trollposting oh nnnnnnnnnooooooooo

Posted: **Wed Oct 02, 2019 12:48 am**

Sandshark808 wrote:
annoyinggreencatgirl wrote:Specify your objections to this and how it's rampant for future abuse, elaborate on what you think the line is, or quit being a vague doomsayer.
I wouldn't be surprised if a month, two months, even half a year from now this rule even as is, is scarcely cited in any bans.
Because the star case promoted as evidence for why this needs to be added involves a manic tranny admin, who is both a serial shitposter, and lets everything right-wing get under his skin, helping someone to a gameban over a couple lines of trollposting at his expense.

This is not a word policing debate, and you can replace "tranny" with "autist" or "gay" or "sec main" or "furry" or "Trumpkin" or "leftard" or "people who misgender" here and nothing really changes. Saying something in OOC specifically to target somebody with a thing you already know will piss them off, literally saying that's why you're doing it, then copping a ban over it, doesn't really make you much of a victim of policy gone awry, and it was also just a week ban. If you see somebody online and feel compelled to clog up OOC poking them with a stick, who the fuck's fault are the ensuing consequences really? Do you feel the ban should be overturned or what? What valuable, amazing discourse are we losing by not allowing people to use OOC to piss individuals off without recourse? There are a lot of members in this community that I'm far from fond of, but unless I feel they've done something ahelp worthy, I usually just keep their name out of my mouth. Wow, that sure was hard.

I'd like if people of all persuasions were compelled more often to STFU completely about politics and other's personal dirty laundry in OOC, but the more compelling part of this change to me is that this could curb incessant dchat salt and idiocy, which is super tiresome to read. At most it's sometimes moderately amusing.

Posted: **Wed Oct 02, 2019 12:50 am**

their recourse is the ignore button

Posted: **Wed Oct 02, 2019 12:57 am**

I vote we remove from OOC the spam and IC in OOC rules because individual users can simply ignore the offender after witnessing it, and I am tired of shit admins unduly restraining my ability to communicate in a meaningful manner.

Posted: **Wed Oct 02, 2019 1:27 am**

And as Morto said, while you don't see the messages, everyone else does. What the fuck do you do when the entire server thinks you are gay? Can you click the ignore button on that?

Posted: **Wed Oct 02, 2019 1:34 am**

Socializing online is a mistake. Just play the fucking game.

Updating server rules, from my POV, has usually been a drastic action following a shitshow in the policy / FNR subforums, which this situation really is not. An admin with a strong position would just put their foot down and their judgement would build precedence. Rule lawyers have always been around but they have never been given ground unless they have an actual point. What's so special now?

Posted: **Wed Oct 02, 2019 2:51 am**

TheMythicGhost wrote:
IkeTG wrote:If bans are going to be handed out for shitty OOC conduct, why wouldn't you want this to be clarified or outlined in the rules? If it's merely a clarification of already-existing precedence, it wouldn't change how the rule is enforced, right?
Here's the thing you dumb pup, and everyone else with the same sentence worded in many different flavors.

This
We're all here to have a good time supposedly. Going out of your way to seriously negatively impact or end the round for someone with little IC justification is against the rules. Legitimate conflicts where people get upset do happen however, as detailed in the escalation section of the rules.
Was like this because OOC and Deadchat can be ignored via the OOC -> Ignore option. You can ignore both OOC messages, and deadchat messages (as they actually are OOC communication) via this method. Any player being harassed IC without prior provocation over a multitude of rounds usually is punished by the rule stated above too, but the precedent of it regarding metagrudging.

We're all here to have a good time, supposedly. Going out of your way to seriously negatively impact or end the round for someone with little IC justification is against the rules, this also includes harassing a player OOC (Out of character). Legitimate conflicts where people get upset do happen however, as detailed in the escalation section of the rules.
All this allows is effectively allowing targeted bans towards people you dislike the opinion of, or inconvenienced you in some way because you can now label it as "harassment". I don't even think Morto put a single shred of thought into this at all and didn't think to gauge the community feedback on the suggested changes, and that's completely odd coming from one of the most player friendly admins that investigates instances of grief regardless of round if reported to her.

In short, it's a redundant ruling that has a high potential to be misused in the same way the word filter has a high chance of being misused by a sensitive individual (though luckily there's no player control over that, so the select people that can abuse it can be addressed).

This is a complete non-response to what I said. This doesn't allow anything if bans were already being handed out for OOC conduct, it just clarifies that you can be banned for being an ass too much in OOC. I'm not seeing how this opens up some can of worms to enable abusive admins if they could've banned you for acting awful too much in OOC already.

/tg/Station 13

Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.

Re: Update to rule 1.