Defining proper escalation and removing people from the game

DrPillzRedux · Sat Dec 31, 2016 1:45 am

So I'm getting really tired of admins talking about proper escalation, and how you should pretty much never remove people from the round. This isn't in retaliation to the admin I spoke with, please don't take offense, this shit just needs to get properly defined to a REASONABLE level. Like I said, you are pretty much never allowed to remove people from the round anymore.

>be detective
>lizard cargo tech running around slipping security with peels
>does this for a long fucking time
>I shoot them one time with a .38 once to get them to fuck off
>kill a ling and convert my gun to .357 after
>lizard comes back
>shoot them 1 time with a .357 every time they do it and they run away each time
>they get arrested and when they get out keep doing it
>break into my office
>sec is doing who the fuck knows what after I call for them multiple times
>takes my gun and spaces it
>I catch them in escape and laser them to crit
>two other sec officers happen to come by and they beat them with their batons
>I say I'm gonna space them for being a shitter because they can't learn when to stop
>no one stops me
>space them
>BWOINK

If someone is going to continuously grief people, after many times being told to stop, after being FORCED to stop, why are they being protected? If being arrested and being warned many, many times does not stop them, why can they not be removed from the round and be told "maybe you should have stopped what you were doing"?

If you're being shot and arrested, it's time to take the hint and learn to stop. Breaking into the office of the guy who has been shooting you to get you to fuck off is going to end with you dead, yeah. Not getting that means you're fucking stupid. Then there's the whole thing of CALL SECURITY! Yeah, that doesn't work all the time. If security doesn't answer or refuses to answer, why can we not deal with it ourselves? Last I checked this isn't bay. If someone is being a shithead you can dunk them. If they're repeatedly being a shithead to you and others you can remove them.

When did this change to hugbox?

[youtube]2k0SmqbBIpQ[/youtube]

Post by **Owegno** » Sat Dec 31, 2016 1:57 am #239749

The issue is different admins have different opinions on what is and isn't proper escalation. However are you sure you were not just bwoinked to get your side of the story since you don't have any note or ban from the incident you just described. Anyway I personally see no issue with what you described, someone repeatedly fucking with security FNR deserves to get their shit kicked in.

DrPillzRedux · Sat Dec 31, 2016 2:09 am

I was told that what I did was not proper escalation and that spacing was not warranted. I think a roundtable discussion is needed on the issue to at least somewhat define when it's alright.

Saegrimr · Post by **Saegrimr** » Sat Dec 31, 2016 2:14 am #239752

Yes. Let's have an entire roundtable discussion about Pillz' round.

DrPillzRedux · Sat Dec 31, 2016 2:18 am

Saegrimr wrote:Yes. Let's have an entire roundtable discussion about the subject.

Okand37 · Post by **Okand37** » Sat Dec 31, 2016 2:23 am #239756

Owegno wrote:The issue is different admins have different opinions on what is and isn't proper escalation. However are you sure you were not just bwoinked to get your side of the story since you don't have any note or ban from the incident you just described. Anyway I personally see no issue with what you described, someone repeatedly fucking with security FNR deserves to get their shit kicked in.

No one argued that it wasn't acceptable to get punched, but spacing them/stashing their body after beating them was the issue.

As for the poster, no one was protected. You brought up ban baiting and policy when I asked if you could please agree to tone it down. No one said you couldn't deal with it yourself, no one argued that what you did was unrealistic, no one even said you were necessarily in the wrong-except for spacing them. There's a step between beating them and stashing or spacing their body that you ignored. You mentioned repeatedly being a donk to other individuals can be warrant to remove them, and it most certainly can-but as mentioned above, there's proper escalation steps to take and you neglected to do so. Should I also mention that you were the person who adminhelped and weren't even bwoinked first?

Stop making a mountain out of a mole hill, please.

TheColdTurtle · Sat Dec 31, 2016 2:35 am

When exactly did he ahelp? As in what happened before the ahelp. Was it before spacing, after, or during.

Okand37 · Post by **Okand37** » Sat Dec 31, 2016 2:36 am #239763

TheColdTurtle wrote:When exactly did he ahelp? As in what happened before the ahelp. Was it before spacing, after, or during.

They adminhelped saying they were going to space them, then proceeded to space them.

DrPillzRedux · Sat Dec 31, 2016 2:36 am

you were the person who adminhelped and weren't even bwoinked first?

I do this to let admins know my story ahead of time or to see if they object and to give guidance on what to do, because when I don't this happens. This is a habit from goon where if you want to kill someone as non-antag you'd ahelp it stating why.

no one even said you were necessarily in the wrong-except for spacing them.

There's a step between beating them and stashing or spacing their body that you ignored. ... there's proper escalation steps to take and you neglected to do so.

That's contradicting yourself.

Okand37 · Post by **Okand37** » Sat Dec 31, 2016 2:39 am #239765

DrPillzRedux wrote:
you were the person who adminhelped and weren't even bwoinked first?
I do this to let admins know my story ahead of time or to see if they object and to give guidance on what to do, because when I don't this happens. This is a habit from goon where if you want to kill someone as non-antag you'd ahelp it stating why.

no one even said you were necessarily in the wrong-except for spacing them.

There's a step between beating them and stashing or spacing their body that you ignored. ... there's proper escalation steps to take and you neglected to do so.
That's contradicting yourself.

No, its not. I'll try to repeat it in a way you can understand; no one said you were necessarily in the wrong in the situation except for spacing them because you neglected the step inbetween. The former sentence is being elaborated on by the latter in the two sentences you quoted.
Stop making a mountain out of a mole hill.

DrPillzRedux · Sat Dec 31, 2016 2:40 am

Define that step since several already happened beforehand.

I'm not trying to be an ass, I am literally trying to get an answer that defines the proper steps.

>verbally warned
>warned with force
>warned by security
>detained by security and told to stop
>still does it

TheColdTurtle · Sat Dec 31, 2016 2:50 am

The best way to avoid all of this hassle is to just ahelp that he is being a shitter so you can find out if you can space him or not. But an issue like this needs to be discussed, since the answers from different admins may vary.

Okand37 · Post by **Okand37** » Sat Dec 31, 2016 2:53 am #239768

DrPillzRedux wrote:Define that step since several already happened beforehand.

>verbally warned
>warned with force
>warned by security
>detained by security and told to stop
>still does it

As said, it could be easy to determine the missing step from the conversation we had and you agreed to, this is only showing that when you agreed you did not infact understand what you agreed too.
If you'd like a full rebrief. You adminhelped:
[01:05:23]ADMIN: HELP: DrPillzRedux/(Flows-Through-Waves): This ligger kept fucking with me and spaced my revolver so heads up I'm spacing them. - heard by 2 non-AFK admins who have +BAN.
Shortly around the time, the other player adminhelped and I began questioning them. Due to this, kevinz replied to you:
[01:05:41]ADMIN: PM: Kevinz000/(Mekhi Anderson)->DrPillzRedux/(Flows-Through-Waves): ...um
[01:05:57]ADMIN: PM: Kevinz000/(Mekhi Anderson)->DrPillzRedux/(Flows-Through-Waves): yeah okand seems to have the situation under control then.
This was to imply that it was being looked into, but it is understandable if there was some verbal communication errors here.
After beating them, I mentioned in the conversation-much as I've done now-the proper steps which you agreed that you understood. Evidently, you do not.

Spoiler:

Before you say, but wait, what if they come back and kill me? do I just have to suck it up? I'd be more than happy to give an answer to such a good question. If they over-escalate and try to kill you for an issue they instigated, you can most certainly count that it'll be on their head.

DrPillzRedux · Sat Dec 31, 2016 2:58 am

So you're going to completely ignore saying what the proper step I missed is here. I said I understood not to do it again, and now I'm asking what step I missed to not do it again.

And you still cannot say the proper step or define the proper steps up to removing someone.

So can you like, just define it here or not instead of dancing around the subject and pulling logs to try and invalidate my question?

Okand37 · Post by **Okand37** » Sat Dec 31, 2016 2:59 am #239770

DrPillzRedux wrote:So you're going to completely ignore saying what the proper step I missed is here. I said I understood not to do it again, and now I'm asking what step I missed to not do it again.

And you still cannot say the proper step or define the proper steps up to removing someone.

So can you like, just define it here or not instead of dancing around the subject and pulling logs to try and invalidate my question?

I very clearly bolded the answer to your question as I said I would in the logs presented when I mentioned that I would re-inform you. To shorten it:
[01:19:55]ADMIN: PM: Okand37/(Vreya Knox)->DrPillzRedux/(Flows-Through-Waves): Its not a matter of ban-bait nor policy when its rather clear cut. There are proper escalation steps to take, and nothing regarding banning was mentioned. While I did say beating them was allowed and understandable, spacing them was improper escalation. If they were to return after being beaten and cloned and continued, then spacing or perma'ing may be more acceptable. Regardless, can you agree to try to tone it down on permanently removing people from the round in the future before the aforementioned escalation step?

DrPillzRedux · Sat Dec 31, 2016 3:02 am

So basically you're saying that you must always clone someone and then wait for them to fuck you in the ass with a stun before you remove them? Because that's always what happens.

If they didn't stop after several encounters, which they made on their own behalf, nor after sec dealt with them, I think it's safe to assume they are not going to stop ever, okand.

Okand37 · Post by **Okand37** » Sat Dec 31, 2016 3:04 am #239772

DrPillzRedux wrote:So basically you're saying that you must always clone someone and then wait for them to fuck you in the ass with a stun before you remove them? Because that's always what happens.

If they didn't stop after several encounters, which they made on their own behalf, nor after sec dealt with them, I think it's safe to assume they are not going to stop ever, okand.

We already covered this conversation in the aforementioned admin conversation.
[01:24:34]ADMIN: PM: Okand37/(Vreya Knox)->DrPillzRedux/(Flows-Through-Waves): Just like how you can't use a previous round to determine your escalation towards an individual, previous round actions aren't an excuse to skip escalation steps in the future in the case they may backfire. Often when they do, if the other individual or player goes and over-escalates, that will be on them-not on yourself. Can you agree to try to tone it down on hiding or hindering corpses from being cloned in the future over situations asimilar to this?
I would however, like to re-alliterate the reasoning behind why-although you are allowed to deal with things ingame yourself-escalation ingame is enforced to be a gradual escalation. As you said it yourself, it may be unlikely they are not going to stop. The problem with this is that this may extend beyond them being dealt with ICly, a player can continue to cause trouble and get dunked for it, but it doesn't always mean they're going to learn to stop being a donk and they may continue to cause issues-in the event of this, while it is good for players to be able to resolve their own problems ICly, sometimes it is better that the opposing player who is committing these actions are given the resolvement issued by an admin opposed to another player, as this may result in a longer and more powerfully impacting effect.

DrPillzRedux · Sat Dec 31, 2016 3:07 am

Yes, we already did cover how awful the current steps are, or at least how some admins are saying YOU MUST FOLLOW EVERY STEP. There are exceptions to these steps, see:

DrPillzRedux wrote:If they didn't stop after several encounters, which they made on their own behalf, nor after sec dealt with them, I think it's safe to assume they are not going to stop ever, okand.

If you can't see that as an exception then I question your thought process as an admin.

Post by **oranges** » Sat Dec 31, 2016 3:08 am #239775

Banishing pillz from our forum would be good for the station.

DrPillzRedux · Sat Dec 31, 2016 3:09 am

oranges wrote:Banishing pillz from our forum would be good for the station.

You're posting in the wrong thread.

https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=55&t=9080

Okand37 · Post by **Okand37** » Sat Dec 31, 2016 3:12 am #239778

DrPillzRedux wrote:Yes, we already did cover how awful the current steps are, or at least how some admins are saying YOU MUST FOLLOW EVERY STEP. There are exceptions to these steps, see:

DrPillzRedux wrote:If they didn't stop after several encounters, which they made on their own behalf, nor after sec dealt with them, I think it's safe to assume they are not going to stop ever, okand.
If you can't see that as an exception then I question your thought process as an admin.

I did think that you might ask this question, and re-iterated my reasoning in an addition to my post. For convenience sake, I'll repost it here:

Okand37 wrote:
DrPillzRedux wrote:So basically you're saying that you must always clone someone and then wait for them to fuck you in the ass with a stun before you remove them? Because that's always what happens.

If they didn't stop after several encounters, which they made on their own behalf, nor after sec dealt with them, I think it's safe to assume they are not going to stop ever, okand.
I would however, like to re-alliterate the reasoning behind why-although you are allowed to deal with things ingame yourself-escalation ingame is enforced to be a gradual escalation. As you said it yourself, it may be unlikely they are not going to stop. The problem with this is that this may extend beyond them being dealt with ICly, a player can continue to cause trouble and get dunked for it, but it doesn't always mean they're going to learn to stop being a donk and they may continue to cause issues-in the event of this, while it is good for players to be able to resolve their own problems ICly, sometimes it is better that the opposing player who is committing these actions are given the resolvement issued by an admin opposed to another player, as this may result in a longer and more powerfully impacting effect.

DrPillzRedux · Sat Dec 31, 2016 3:16 am

Thank you, that's a good answer and what I was looking for. I understand what you mean now. I apologize if I've offended you, if I did it wasn't intended.

Okand37 · Post by **Okand37** » Sat Dec 31, 2016 3:17 am #239781

DrPillzRedux wrote:Thank you, that's a good answer and what I was looking for. I understand what you mean now.

Glad we could get this resolved, then, and hopefully people will be able to note this in the future for asimilar cases. Have a nice day!

Screemonster · Sat Dec 31, 2016 3:20 am

I always understood the rule as being "if you go out of your way to provoke a reaction out of people, you don't get to complain if the reaction you get isn't the reaction you want". Rules have been rewritten a few times since that was explicitly stated though.

Strictly speaking the offical policy is thus:

You may defend your workplace from trespassers who damage or steal property within that space with significantly greater force than elsewhere. If someone is severely disruptive and returns after ejected, this opens them up to "fun" of the creative workplace death variety.

There's nothing here about "clone them the first time, then you can hide them or space them permanently if they come back to continue fucking with you after being cloned". Strictly speaking this is the workplace-defence thing but if someone's going out of their way to be a shitter to a department and has been sent packing more than once, then when the guy comes back to keep fucking with them there's no reason why they should be expected to put up with them.
At that point I'd be more inclined to dropping the hammer on the tiding nonantag shitter who's bringing nothing to the game but pissing people off though.

Okand37 · Post by **Okand37** » Sat Dec 31, 2016 3:26 am #239789

As it very well says in the rule quoted, it opens them up the opportunity to be beat, forcefully ejected or even killed-however, if you'd like to try to argue one way you must also note its kept vague for the sole reasoning that you can't possibly cover ever single plausible clause and case that a situation may bring. As it says

Acceptable escalation is defined as not using an excessive amount of force to control a situation. Proportionate retribution is defined as a relatively equal amount of force applied to someone in revenge for an earlier attack. Multiple factors are considered here, including but not limited to methods of force available to the involved players, who instigated the conflict and why, the state/general situation of the station, how the players involved end up. Excessive escalation or retribution, depending on the situation, may result in admin intervention, to warnings, to bans.

While as said, there's not a definite clause for every plausible case and scenario in existence, the official policy was just decided and discussed above. That's why policy discussions exist. You can read over the discussion, and it should in turn answer most plausible questions you may have about it. If you have one that remains unanswered after reading through the discussion, you're more than welcome to send Krusvik, Tehsteveo, or myself a question and we'd be more than happy to answer it!

TehSteveo · Post by **TehSteveo** » Sat Dec 31, 2016 3:31 am #239790

Firstly; I welcome anyone to write a book detailing every possible scenario that maybe encountered for what should be proper escalation rules.

As far as OP goes it feels more like a passive aggressive admin complaint over the decision being asked to tone down jumping to spacing; especially when as security and having options available.

In fact; I'd argue it is, as the explanation of the rule seemed to resolved whatever issue. It kinda defeats the purpose of discussion of policy when it's just an admin complaint thrown into policy discussion.

/tg/Station 13

Defining proper escalation and removing people from the game

Defining proper escalation and removing people from the game

Re: Defining proper escalation and removing people from the

Re: Defining proper escalation and removing people from the

Re: Defining proper escalation and removing people from the

Re: Defining proper escalation and removing people from the

Re: Defining proper escalation and removing people from the

Re: Defining proper escalation and removing people from the

Re: Defining proper escalation and removing people from the

Re: Defining proper escalation and removing people from the

Re: Defining proper escalation and removing people from the

Re: Defining proper escalation and removing people from the

Re: Defining proper escalation and removing people from the

Re: Defining proper escalation and removing people from the

Re: Defining proper escalation and removing people from the

Re: Defining proper escalation and removing people from the

Re: Defining proper escalation and removing people from the

Re: Defining proper escalation and removing people from the

Re: Defining proper escalation and removing people from the

Re: Defining proper escalation and removing people from the

Re: Defining proper escalation and removing people from the

Re: Defining proper escalation and removing people from the

Re: Defining proper escalation and removing people from the

Re: Defining proper escalation and removing people from the

Re: Defining proper escalation and removing people from the

Re: Defining proper escalation and removing people from the

Re: Defining proper escalation and removing people from the

Who is online