/tg/Station 13

Bottom post of the previous page:

Atlanta-Ned wrote:Valid vs. not valid is cancer. Kill the concept with fire.

Having 0 idea of what could get you banned or not and having to memorize the opinions of 40 admins instead would be much much worse.

Mackerel wrote:please don't make 2 separate rule sets for bagil and sybil

please

Why not?

Kor wrote:Why not?

i was going to write this long deal saying it's mostly administration's decision and how you want to ask yourselves if you really want to put that kind of work in, then go ahead and do it, but im gonna say something else.

this is going to sound really fuckin pretentious considering i never moderated ss13, but i'm just throwing my mind out there for a second.
i've moderated a fair amount of games and in my experience, most of the time someone wants to fuck with one whole of it's community, diversion and tension only follows.
However, ss13 is different like every other game and i think /tg/ is a strong enough community to make sure it's voice is heard when they think something ain't right.

now that i kind of picked my own mind about it, i guess i'll change what i said to "Good luck?"

I kind of agree about the annoying valid vs not-vaild descriptions people are used to using. It's true that they're partly necessary.

But I wish that people went after traitors, for example, because they'd murdered people and stolen important equipment, rather than because "they're valid". It's got to the point where people make threads in policy discussion saying things like "are non-crew player characters automatically valid"? I wish the rules had some kind of emphasis on the idea that "valid" is based on what you do, not what you are. Even to the point where it wouldn't be okay to just beat a traitor to death in the hallway if he hadn't actually done anything other than been a syndie agent. I know that's a slightly absurd hypothetical, but I think you understand my point.

Obviously I don't quite know how to fix this. I'm just saying what bothers me, as per the thread.

Kor wrote:

Atlanta-Ned wrote:Valid vs. not valid is cancer. Kill the concept with fire.

Having 0 idea of what could get you banned or not and having to memorize the opinions of 40 admins instead would be much much worse.

Mackerel wrote:please don't make 2 separate rule sets for bagil and sybil

please

Why not?

Because rules are always about context and thus our rules are fine for Bagil. It only muddles things if you really try to re-write the rules when the reality is that its the same damn deal just with a lot more new/hub players who have no idea what they're doing and thus the standard "first time's a warning" type stuff applies.

Also I'd like to reiterate my concern about a lack of escalation policy. Can the captain kill someone for following them into their office? If someone starts a fight by slipping someone, are they permitted to use lethal force if the victim also escalates to lethal force? If so, at what level of "provocation" is someone no longer allowed to retaliate with lethal force against lethal force?

Last week we had an incident, the facts were contested but let's go with the "most difficult" version just to illustrate how hard these decisions can be:

1) Science has combat shotguns in RND
2) Assistant goes through the open doors and sees the combat shotties
3) He grabs one and runs for it
4) Scientist picks up another shotty and starts shooting at the thief, thief has nowhere to run.
5) Scientist misses his shots, assistant shoots back and crits the scientist before escaping

2 other admins were ready to ban the assistant, I disagreed. I felt like you could make a case that if someone wants to immediately escalate to the highest form of retaliation for a modest crime - then the criminal shouldn't be forced to accept death for it if they can avoid it, even if it means using lethal force right back. There are comparisons to stealing the armory but robbing guns from security typically entails a much higher crime than grabbing a spare shotgun from RND. I know I had an incident before I was an admin where I had intruders/thieves/etc. murder me after I crit them (and they got healed, came back for revenge) and was told it was valid. You can rethink this situation in a hundred forms but at what point does an aggression become so small that the aggressor can use lethal force in self-defense? or so large that the aggressor cannot defend themselves with lethal force, even if it means certain death?

>assistants runs into science
>scientist who has been working on R&D all round wants stuff
>assistant steals one of the shotguns he needs to do this (no chance in hell cargo will order more for him)
>assistant knew exactly what he was doing when he stole a shotgun so the scientist tries to kill him
>kills the scientist who was trying to take back what he stole right in front of him

I'd have let the assistant go too but I'd have put a nasty note on him. That's really shitty killbaiting

Other times people take defending their safe spaces too far. Personal example:

>Be me, botanist
>HoP is awesome and gives me cargo access for beakers and exporting
>Enter for some beakers
>Three techs wordlessly swarm me like wasps, disarming and punching me trying to throw me out
>I step out and yell that I have access
>They tell me to fuck off
>Fuck off and ahelp that cargo are being overaggressive dicks
>Shaps replies that it was my fault and that I was "banbaiting" for complaining because "the HoP didn't ask them for permission???"

Someone stealing valuable items like a shotgun from R&D is very shitty and you'd be well within your rights to robust them but a guy walking in through an open door to use the lathe without asking is totally fine unless they're making like a billion dildos or something.

Yeah if they just want to print something from the lathe who cares. Only stuff you can't replace in .00001 seconds matters.

Counterpoint: why not just ask? If someone asks, why not say yes? The trend toward breaking in, silently doing other people's jobs, etc. instead of cooperating with other people and departments is one of the biggest things wrong with player behavior.

Because other players are unreliable at best. See: Getting literally anything from chemistry.

ShadowDimentio wrote: >Enter for some beakers
>Three techs wordlessly swarm me like wasps, disarming and punching me trying to throw me out
>I step out and yell that I have access
>They tell me to fuck off

Maybe next time ask first and then they wouldn't mind letting you in.

Personally I don't mind if people ask to use the lathe, I just prefer them to ask first.

My problem isn't with the rules. It's admins just idling and not answering adminpms. Had a round earlier where a mime broke imto medbay, stole some shit, and literally spent the entire round just harassing people. I ahelped it several times and didn't get a single reply. Kor came on in time to catch my last ahelp like 20 minutes into the round and seemed like even he was wondering what the hell the other admins were even doing. Later got shaded during a cult round which hasn't happened to me in fucking forever and wasn't sure why I couldn't move. I asked multiple times IC and ahelped it I think twice. Finally gave up and just asked in OOC where someone explained to me that someone has to release me from the soul shard. Got an adminpm after that telling me not to IC in OOC.

Pay attention to those fucking ahelps and what's going on in the game. It's getting to the point where I could probably sabotage the engine or murder and space a shit ton of people as a nonantag and get away with it with absolutely no consequences simply because the admins aren't paying attention.

Jacough wrote:My problem isn't with the rules. It's admins just idling and not answering adminpms.

Jacough wrote: Finally gave up and just asked in OOC where someone explained to me that someone has to release me from the soul shard. Got an adminpm after that telling me not to IC in OOC.

Jacough wrote:It's getting to the point where I could probably sabotage the engine or murder and space a shit ton of people as a nonantag and get away with it with absolutely no consequences simply because the admins aren't paying attention.

I've been bitching about this for a good couple of months and still have no answer.
Why don't any of you use "ahelp rejected" anymore? Those who have problems know you can see them considering they get sent straight to adminbus.
I'm honest to god starting to completely ignore ahelps because more or less of the oldmins don't care or just don't wanna bother loading up byond, or all of the trialmins are confused or asleep.

A lot of admins who I won't name have said that they just idle in-game with sound in the window turned off, not caring about anything going on.

The problem is is that admins are held to no standards. So long as you don't super fuck up 100% no denying it AND act like an unapologetic douche afterwards, you're never getting demoted.

Think about it. When's the last time an admin has been demoted? Last time I remember was Bluespace and that was like forever ago.

ShadowDimentio wrote:The problem is is that admins are held to no standards. So long as you don't super fuck up 100% no denying it AND act like an unapologetic douche afterwards, you're never getting demoted.

You make a valid point, but poorly made.
Don't get me wrong, I know what you're saying and I'm sure everyone else does too, because Zilenan91's statement goes well with it.

but i wanna make sure people know that Users within a community or forum alike, rely on evidence that people who are put into such a rank to judge issues and have the situational awareness for whatever the community throws at it.
Right now? I feel like adminbus is a cool hang out for the super privileged kids that feel like it's a chore to deal with anything going on besides themselves.

I think holding the full admins to the same standards as we hold trialmins to would do a lot to oust the oldfags who have been sitting and shitting all over their admin status forever and don't deserve it any more.

Did someone say ban quota?

https://github.com/tgstation/-tg-station/issues/17475

>MY BANS WILL BLOT OUT THE SERVER

I don't even have standards. I'll fuck anyone. Oh other standards. Nevermind

Saegrimr wrote:Did someone say ban quota?

https://github.com/tgstation/-tg-station/issues/17475

>22k rows users banned but can handle a million if needed


TELL ME I READ THAT WRONG

When the screaming stopped and the dust settled, not a single BYOND user remained to populate the bloody halls of tg station 13

Mackerel wrote:>22k rows users banned but can handle a million if needed

The connection log table is even longer, 3.6 million rows iirc, but is only ever written to by the game. SQL database size isn't a concern.

Saegrimr wrote:Need a rule about players complaining about their ban in every thread that isn't their ban appeal. :^)

We actually do have a precedence for forum bans for people doing this, actually comes from one of the very few ban requests I've made.
Kavoloosh I think it was.

I thought Kav was mostly just him shitposting wildly everywhere, not so much about specific bans.

No he got banned then every thread he'd post off topic stuff about how this is like his ban and how he wished he wasn't banned so he could see a suggested feature.

It was really pathetic and I requested he got banned to stop the trainwreck, like taking an old dog to the woods and blowing its face off with shotgun.

shadowdimentio is the current "every post is me whining about my ban"

there's also that guy who admitted to trying to evade and then actually went for the "i-it was just a test guys i swear" excuse after we made fun of him for trying to evade

>Every post

Haven't complained about it in non-relevant threads. Also haven't complained about it in ages.

But if you insist on me starting again I can

wait you're banned?

awe leave the dude alone won't ya goof

Saeg banned me from silicons because I disagreed about silicon policy on the forums

ShadowDimentio wrote:Saeg banned me from silicons because I disagreed about silicon policy on the forums

dont listen to him mackerel he openly admitted to shitty silicon practice and when called out on it had multiple chances to back out on it but instead got really hostile and defensive

he's a whiny fag basically

Haha yeah man totally 100% my fault, especially the part where this is the second time Saeg tried this shit and lied in both bans to make it sound worse than they were

Oldman Robustin wrote:You can rethink this situation in a hundred forms but at what point does an aggression become so small that the aggressor can use lethal force in self-defense? or so large that the aggressor cannot defend themselves with lethal force, even if it means certain death?

This exact example is the REASON both servers need different rulesets.

I would rather nobody in that situation get banned on sybil, whereas in ba(g)sil I'd prefer that the admins were a lot harsher on the thief that caused problems in the first place.

Maybe separate rulesets isn't specifically the problem here, but without separate rulesets, we can't really trust admins to treat basil like the different/roleplay heavier server that most people want it to be. We can't expect admins to handle these situations differently based on the server unless there are specifically different rulesets for both moderated by the head(s) of each server's administration.

Yeah yeah, it seems like over-complicated bullshit, but frankly I'm tired of basil being a dead server that's only barely-populated because it's "/tg/ code on the hub". It used to have a population that rivaled sybil when it catered towards a more relaxed and roleplay-friendly environment (before the metafriend scourge, which is simply a symptom of roleplay sometimes that needs to be kept in check). In fact the only reason server 2 ended up dying (before the server host switching drama and all that shit) was because there was barely any admins to keep this stuff in check and when ban requests went to the forums they had these 10 page arguments. Server 2's bans often have WAY more context behind them and a different ruleset/administration style there would do it some good, especially if the rumors I heard about LongBowMan wanting to make it a more roleplay-focused server are true.

Just my thoughts, tho. I'm too autistic about dunking shitters to play anywhere but Sybil these days.

paprika wrote:

Oldman Robustin wrote:You can rethink this situation in a hundred forms but at what point does an aggression become so small that the aggressor can use lethal force in self-defense? or so large that the aggressor cannot defend themselves with lethal force, even if it means certain death?

This exact example is the REASON both servers need different rulesets.

I would rather nobody in that situation get banned on sybil, whereas in ba(g)sil I'd prefer that the admins were a lot harsher on the thief that caused problems in the first place.

Maybe separate rulesets isn't specifically the problem here, but without separate rulesets, we can't really trust admins to treat basil like the different/roleplay heavier server that most people want it to be. We can't expect admins to handle these situations differently based on the server unless there are specifically different rulesets for both moderated by the head(s) of each server's administration.

Yeah yeah, it seems like over-complicated bullshit, but frankly I'm tired of basil being a dead server that's only barely-populated because it's "/tg/ code on the hub". It used to have a population that rivaled sybil when it catered towards a more relaxed and roleplay-friendly environment (before the metafriend scourge, which is simply a symptom of roleplay sometimes that needs to be kept in check). In fact the only reason server 2 ended up dying (before the server host switching drama and all that shit) was because there was barely any admins to keep this stuff in check and when ban requests went to the forums they had these 10 page arguments. Server 2's bans often have WAY more context behind them and a different ruleset/administration style there would do it some good, especially if the rumors I heard about LongBowMan wanting to make it a more roleplay-focused server are true.

Just my thoughts, tho. I'm too autistic about dunking shitters to play anywhere but Sybil these days.

Personally, I am actually in favour of this idea. Being a fulltime basil admin, I believe a more specified ruleset tailored to the playerbase and what we strive it to be on basil would be one thing that would really help its population. Though, I'd also like to see it removed from the hub, but thats just me.

If you don't mind, can I ask if being on the hub has caused any major issues in terms of the playerbase quality on basil? Besides just new players I mean.

We have taken a bit of a hit in that regard, but as we have weeded out the shitters it is getting better. Okand was actually a hub player, but they turned out so good that they made admin.

Well the hub has also visibly improved the actual population counts on basil too, at least during prime hours, so there's something to be said about the decision to stick it up on there when it was next to dead before

Personally, I believe this as only a temporary thing; removing it for a short time to raise the standard of our current players. Then put it back on the hub so we can introduce new players to an existing medium roleplay standard, opposed to trying to move it to that with new players constantly coming in.

different rules will wreck this community by dividing into two servers and eventually leading to a code fork due to pressure about balance

the only time the servers had equal pop, before hubbies, was when they were completely the same with a single transient playerbase that flittered between them.

Then they became separate entities.

why the fuck do people want basil to be the higher rp server its on the hub

Because it generally has always been the higher RP server and the majority on sybil does not seem to want higher RP. We have been doing a pretty good job of hammering the pubbies into shape despite what some certain citrus fruits seem to think about it

It was higher RP until it lost all its players, then it was a bandsaw accident handful of old basil players with the numbers made of pubbies.

No idea whats its like now though.

I know that people love to discuss contested / controversial changes a lot, but what tends to happen is that the more obvious, less controversial proposals and feedback gets lost, so I'll just repost my suggestion from page 1:

Merge rules 0 and 6:
0: "Enforcement of these rules is at the discretion of admins."
6: "In-game administration rulings are final."

Rule 7 becomes a part of rule 1 (the content of rule 7 should be in the non-bold part of the merged rule, hence why it's omitted in the reordered list at the end)
1: "Don't be a dick."
7: "If you regularly come close to breaking the rules without actually breaking them, it will be treated as the rules being broken."

Shorten bold part of rule 5 to:
"Players in a head of staff, AI or team antagonist role require at least a minimum amount of effort" The rest of the rule:
"generally considered to be not logging out at or near roundstart." should not be bold as it's a clarification.

Merge rules 8 and 9: (Both of these are bookkeeping rules)
Rule 8: "Erotic/creepy stuff is not allowed."
Rule 9: "Players need to be above the age of 18."


Reorder rules in this way:
1: Don't be a dick.
2: Losing is part of the game.
3: Do not use information gained outside of in character means.
4: Do not say in character (IC) things in the out of character (OOC) chat channel.
5: Lone antagonists can do whatever they want.
6: Players in a head of staff, AI or team antagonist role require at least a minimum amount of effort.
7: Players need to be above the age of 18, however eroric/creepy stuff is not allowed.
8: Enforcement of these rules is at the discretion of admins, whose ingame decision is final.

Admin rule should remain rule 0, in keeping with the old GM Rule Zero tradition.

I disagree, I don't think having the first listed rule say "ADMINS DECISION IS LAW" sets the correct tone for new players. I think it should be the last rule, a sort of "If problems arise that aren't covered by these rules, admins can act at their own discretion, subject to later evaluation. ". I don't mind it being labelled as rule 0, I'd just prefer to have it at the end.

yeah i love dictatorships

Yeah... but later evaluation never happened.

The reason rules exist is because the situation they try to create doesn't exist without them:

So, for example:
- We don't want any players to be dicks;
- Some players are dicks;
- We created the rule "Don't be a dick";

Of course this doesn't mean that no player will ever be a dick, nor does it mean that all dicks will be identified, nor does it mean that no non-dick will ever be misidentified as a dick.

So even if the "later evaluation" thing sometimes doesn't happen, it still ~should~ happen. That's why you put it in the rules.

There's been alot of discussion in this about problems with escalation and RP, but I'd like to refer you all to Basil as it stands right now. It doesn't need different rules, it's perfectly fine using the same rules as Sybil, however rules on Sybil are enforced more black and white. Basil is higher RP as it stands, but not in the regard of like Bay where it's like "how do i turn on esword as non trator", but more a social difference. Just a little bit ago I was in a fun Basil round where there was like a civil war between different groups of command in disagreement, with firefights going on and people being captured and interrogated then recruited. The roundtype was extended. Nobody complained because of some arbitrary "he wasn't antag ban him for fighting me", everyone had some fun in the whole process, because there was a form of escalation, and RP reason for fighting, not just deathmatch of nukeops and the station. The culture of both servers should stay the same as they are right now, Sybil being focused on mechanics and gameplay, Basil being more RP-based but still wacky and enjoyable. If you're sick of the routine on Sybil, maybe try and come over and actually come play on Basil.

(also minor necro)