/tg/Station 13

Byond account and character name: Amelius / Emily Ranger
Admin: Shadowlight213
Time incident occured: 11:00 ESTish

Detailed summary:

This was midgame in a changeling round. I, and the other changelings had put a crazy amount of work in setting everything up. I myself, even, had our team objective, Fiz Bump's ID and so forth, which I planned on using later in the round (we had a team objective of replacing one guy - Fiz).

While trying to subvert the AI by hacking in through the gravgen, meteors started raining upon the station, and a Centcom report was provided notifying all crew and spectators that the event was occuring. I, during a MAJOR lag spike where OOC was spammed with 'lag', in my haste, I accidentally said 'Mmeteors' in OOC, right before finishing my subversion. As subverting the AI loudly typically does, the HoP, HoS, and RD all beelined into the upload. I downed the HoS, and ran off with his body into southwest maintenance. Banned out of nowhere for five minutes tugging a barely unconscious HoS while braindead for five minutes. Of course, I come back and I'm eaten by a singulo (apparently, I thought I was incinerated), with no end to the round in sight.

Firstly, the sole reason for the no IC in OOC rule is to prevent OOC knowledge from contaminating IC knowledge, i.e. stating something OOCly that even a single person is not aware of, means that the sancticty and fairness of the game is compromised. However, this did not occur here. Everyone, both spectating and ingame receives the Centcom notification that meteors are raining, and, given that the statement was immediately after the update, it's impossible that even a single person, IC or OOC would be notified about meteors without being aware of them in the first place (ignoring the fact they shake the screen and make a crapton of noise).

Secondly, no notification to the player was made, i.e. at no point did Shadowlight attempt to contact me, or ask if it would be possible to find a safe location to wait out my ban, or to even just wait for me to escape my pursuers before applying it, which I find is rather distasteful and, as an antagonist in a situation that is transparent to the entire crew that is actively hunting me (I believe the AI notified the HoP/HoS/RD somehow, and probably a lynch mob elsewhere, and I had *just* ran away from the HoP/RD with the HoS, and had BARELY crit the HoS before being forcefully disconnected). Hell, he could have just teleported me to Centcom prison if that.

Thirdly, he admitted that these two cases are true, but didn't seem to care that he destroyed a central antags round with a ban in poor faith.

This, like every other IC in OOC ban complaint, will be useless. Zero tolerance.

As Pickle said, 0 tolerance.
Also, the singularity was released a bit after you were banned, and the HOS died like half a second after the ban.
Your reasoning for it not being against the IC in OOC rule is flawed. With that interpretation, it would be ok to say something like "gang in robotics" if the dominator message came up.

palpatine213 wrote:As Pickle said, 0 tolerance.
Also, the singularity was released a bit after you were banned, and the HOS died like half a second after the ban.
Your reasoning for it not being against the IC in OOC rule is flawed. With that interpretation, it would be ok to say something like "gang in robotics" if the dominator message came up.

Is that a problem? The core idea is to not communicate things that IC and OOC doesn't know globally. Who is metanotified by the message 'gang in robotics' if everyone IC and OOC, already knows that there is a gang in robotics due to the dominator? It's effectively a redundant and irrelevant message. I could understand if it wasn't immediately after the Centcom update, in which case you're probably indicating something OOCly to someone that just joined, thus breaking the cardinal rule.

>ZERO TOLERANCE

The rules exist to make the game better for everyone, not to be enforced for their own sake.

Yo, quick question memers:

If a message is broadcast globally enough that every connected client can see it including lobby folk and knocked out people, can it be discussed in oh oh cee?

Can we just have "no" instead of "no, except this, and this, and this something, also this"

"No" is much more simple and easy to follow.

But the message is literally broadcast OOC, not IC.

I don't believe the message gets broadcast to the people sitting in the lobby that have not yet chosen their jobs.

The centcom messages are treated as IC messages from centcom. They aren't treated as OOC. The fact that they are broadcast means nothing. The head announcments and the captain's announcments are also broadcast. Are they OOC messages?

newfren wrote:I don't believe the message gets broadcast to the people sitting in the lobby that have not yet chosen their jobs.

How is this relevant when you even get autokicked for being in the lobby, people start in at roundstart? I mean, does ANYONE start up SS13, then sit around on the login screen rather than spectating or playing?

It's extraordinarily unlikely that at that juncture someone was loitering on the login screen, or any other juncture. People spend all of probably 10 seconds, tops on it, sans roundstart, and almost everyone that plays a round is there at roundstart to begin with.

This is why we don't have "but when x happens, and if y happens too, and theres a slim chance for z"

It's just "don't do it"

Why is this so hard?

Amelius, you get auto kicked for being Afk in the lobby, or If the round ends with you in the lobby. You underestimate the amount of people who sit in the lobby and shit post in OOC. Your point is flawed.

In the same way that we temp ban for fake IC in OOC, its a zero tolerance policy. This is to avoid spoiling the game for everyone else. Its such an easy game to spoil with metacomms and using outside info to gain a game advantage that it can quickly become a frustrating and dull game for everyone involved.

However I would say that, personally, I try to just warn or warn before a boot of such bans. However, as is written, their methods were perfectly acceptable and the admin is at fault for their methods.

What I see here is vented/re-directed frustration, having spent a long round setting up for something to ultimately have it denied, and unfortunately that is just part of SS13.


I'll lock the topic for now as most of the input here has only really been relevant in terms of policy discussion. If a headmin wants to round things up or OP wishes to add further info, PM and i'll open it up again.