/tg/Station 13

Bottom post of the previous page:

Malkraz wrote:all these dumb arguments over exploits would be great if they were about a ban that wasn't completely retarded

Cobby wrote:There is no hard line drawn but I am personally of the opinion that if you abuse and can’t link to the issue/convo/any metric that shows you’re aware it’s already reported and can’t make it yourself that’s when it goes to “whoops I found an issue with the game” to being malicious. Emphasis on abuse aka actively using it to get some sort of advantage. This can be anything from maybe a quicker way to do your job to making yourself permanently unable to be seen.

Armhulen wrote:officially: when it's a bug that gives you an in game advantage and you're purposefully triggering it to get that advantage

unofficially: you do it once and tell admins, you're fineeee and heck it may make for a funny or interesting round if you can do some swanky shit. but doing the exploit beyond that and someone will probs ban you

sinfulbliss wrote: This is very surprising, so to be clear then under these definitions, the people who abused the atmos temperature pump bug should have been banned?

sinfulbliss wrote: Or I should have been banned for washing a sec jumpsuit as assistant every round to hide the name?

sinfulbliss wrote: And many other such bugs used for small advantages which have been and continue to be used without a second thought?

sinfulbliss wrote: I don't say this to be antagonizing or anything, it just seems like these definitions are not the actual opinion of admins at scale or else people would be getting banned right and left.

sinfulbliss wrote: In practice it seems to be exploits and bugs don't matter at all from an administrative perspective except when they seriously harm the round.

sinfulbliss wrote: Usually little bugs used to give yourself small advantages don't matter enough to ahelp over. They're just accepted as part of the game and used by anyone who knows about them until they're patched.

sinfulbliss wrote: If you play long enough you probably end up finding plenty of things which you don't even remember as a bug anymore but turned out to be a bug. Like you can use a PDA with insuls if you open it beforehand and then put the insuls on with the tab still up.

I am at fault for not wanting someone to hop onto the servers, in the middle of the night, where there would likely be no staff, and he would be able to share whatever the hell he wanted with nothing to impede him. In my time on staff, exploiting the code has been among the most serious issues.

Malkraz wrote:

I am at fault for not wanting someone to hop onto the servers, in the middle of the night, where there would likely be no staff, and he would be able to share whatever the hell he wanted with nothing to impede him. In my time on staff, exploiting the code has been among the most serious issues.

what is this dopey line of reasoning lmao
athath should've been banned ages ago for knowing about exploits, imagine what he could've said when we weren't looking
ILLEGAL INFORMATION

sinfulbliss wrote:meow

Cobby wrote: For example let’s say there’s a bug that lets you change the name of labels or remove them and it’s not intended. Let’s say the warden decides to label his armory guns and you steal one. You then proceed to remove the label via the bug. Later you get caught, the warden finds the gun but notices it isn’t labeled, so he assumes it was found at cargo since he’s not expecting the labels to come off. They search cargo and find that someone left traitor gear in one of the crates and end up bagging them.

You have effectively ruined someone’s round through the use of a what you deemed to be minor bug. This is why I don’t like people trying to justify their use of bugs because they personally feel like the impact will be minimal, and then when it finally does have some relevance they just go “well it’s just one round it’s ok”.

Cobby wrote:You have effectively ruined someone’s round through the use of a what you deemed to be minor bug. This is why I don’t like people trying to justify their use of bugs because they personally feel like the impact will be minimal, and then when it finally does have some relevance they just go “well it’s just one round it’s ok”.

Omega_DarkPotato wrote:'course I'm a nobody lol but hopefully my words have some sort of effect here

Armhulen wrote:

Cobby wrote:

sinfulbliss wrote:

Armhulen wrote:

Kryson wrote:Jannies are frothing at the mouth to ban people who provide free bug testing of our code.

To be fair, it's in the rules they enforce. So like if you want people to stop being banned for exploiting why don't you start the discussion in policy discussion or become a headmin and remove it yourself

What exactly is a bannable exploit as opposed to a fair-to-use bug though? When temp pumps were added you could heat plasma indefinitely without making a burn mix - that was patched out soon with a temp limit. But no one was banned for it of course. Where's the line drawn?

There is no hard line drawn but I am personally of the opinion that if you abuse and can’t link to the issue/convo/any metric that shows you’re aware it’s already reported and can’t make it yourself that’s when it goes to “whoops I found an issue with the game” to being malicious. Emphasis on abuse aka actively using it to get some sort of advantage. This can be anything from maybe a quicker way to do your job to making yourself permanently unable to be seen.

If you know it’s not intended then don’t use it, that’s the fool-proof way to avoid finding yourself in a bug abuse ban.

Or ahelp if you're unsure

Not-Dorsidarf wrote:

Armhulen wrote:

Cobby wrote:

sinfulbliss wrote:

Armhulen wrote:

Kryson wrote:Jannies are frothing at the mouth to ban people who provide free bug testing of our code.

To be fair, it's in the rules they enforce. So like if you want people to stop being banned for exploiting why don't you start the discussion in policy discussion or become a headmin and remove it yourself

What exactly is a bannable exploit as opposed to a fair-to-use bug though? When temp pumps were added you could heat plasma indefinitely without making a burn mix - that was patched out soon with a temp limit. But no one was banned for it of course. Where's the line drawn?

There is no hard line drawn but I am personally of the opinion that if you abuse and can’t link to the issue/convo/any metric that shows you’re aware it’s already reported and can’t make it yourself that’s when it goes to “whoops I found an issue with the game” to being malicious. Emphasis on abuse aka actively using it to get some sort of advantage. This can be anything from maybe a quicker way to do your job to making yourself permanently unable to be seen.

If you know it’s not intended then don’t use it, that’s the fool-proof way to avoid finding yourself in a bug abuse ban.

Or ahelp if you're unsure

actually as this ban proves you'll be rage-banned anyway if someone with more seniority disagrees, and then in the morning after they cool off and abort they'll straight up lie in the admincomplaint and pretend that it was a temporary "stop them from messing up the event" ban when it's literally worded as a "You've failed us for the last time, banned forever" forever-perma.

Because really, who reads that ban reason and then buys alphonso's furious backtracking ?

"T-there are plenty of instances where a ban of indeterminate length is applied while the facts are straightened out. There is precedent!"

Armhulen wrote:

Not-Dorsidarf wrote:

Armhulen wrote:

Cobby wrote:

sinfulbliss wrote:

Armhulen wrote:

Kryson wrote:Jannies are frothing at the mouth to ban people who provide free bug testing of our code.

To be fair, it's in the rules they enforce. So like if you want people to stop being banned for exploiting why don't you start the discussion in policy discussion or become a headmin and remove it yourself

What exactly is a bannable exploit as opposed to a fair-to-use bug though? When temp pumps were added you could heat plasma indefinitely without making a burn mix - that was patched out soon with a temp limit. But no one was banned for it of course. Where's the line drawn?

There is no hard line drawn but I am personally of the opinion that if you abuse and can’t link to the issue/convo/any metric that shows you’re aware it’s already reported and can’t make it yourself that’s when it goes to “whoops I found an issue with the game” to being malicious. Emphasis on abuse aka actively using it to get some sort of advantage. This can be anything from maybe a quicker way to do your job to making yourself permanently unable to be seen.

If you know it’s not intended then don’t use it, that’s the fool-proof way to avoid finding yourself in a bug abuse ban.

Or ahelp if you're unsure

actually as this ban proves you'll be rage-banned anyway if someone with more seniority disagrees, and then in the morning after they cool off and abort they'll straight up lie in the admincomplaint and pretend that it was a temporary "stop them from messing up the event" ban when it's literally worded as a "You've failed us for the last time, banned forever" forever-perma.

Because really, who reads that ban reason and then buys alphonso's furious backtracking ?

"T-there are plenty of instances where a ban of indeterminate length is applied while the facts are straightened out. There is precedent!"

any ban that doesn't stick don't mean shit, and pretty much everyone agreed that guns were jumped and ATHATH would most likely have ended up entirely unbanned if it was just talked out instead of someone going on and ending the discussion with their admin tools

I mean, would you fault admins for placing shitty bans if someone went rogue and tried to ban as many people before getting deadminned? Is that really setting precedent, or is that an admin yarting their yorts?

Whoneedspacee wrote:people who play this game for fun are not welcome anymore

make way for the balance andys and rules lawyers

Whoneedspacee wrote:people who play this game for fun are not welcome anymore

make way for the balance andys and rules lawyers

MooCow12 wrote:Isn`t the "No exploit abuse" rule more about protecting the integrity of a round / server itself? Special events obviously have their own set of rules and if admins are going to conflict with that then maybe only the people who are coordinating and running the event should be in control while admins either help them or deadmin themselves instead of making a special act of them abusing their admin powers on a player they don`t like.

Cobby wrote:hence why I think its also dumb for admins to actively encourage exploit abusing as well as players. Doubly so when admins get mad when players do it but the admin doesnt ever clarify when they abuse bugs themselves where that line is drawn, or if they do it's in channels specifically obscured to everyone but other admins.

Super Aggro Crag wrote:Pretty sure the ATF would get ticked off if you went on America's got talent and showed everyone step by step how to make pipebombs and Luty SMGs from the comfort of their home

Armhulen wrote:

saprasam wrote:why is it that mralphonzo is always the admin that makes shit bans

Farquaar wrote:I thought alphonzo got deadminned ages ago

must... resist... replying...

Rohen_Tahir wrote:Is #60463 an exploit?

Pandarsenic wrote:Will I get banned for using https://github.com/tgstation/tgstation/issues/59951 to carry extra sheets of metal and glass

chesse20 wrote:damn athath got unbanned agian its too bad i can't use a picture of my second life avatar to express how disapointing that is

Super Aggro Crag wrote:Pretty sure the ATF would get ticked off if you went on America's got talent and showed everyone step by step how to make pipebombs and Luty SMGs from the comfort of their home

Tlaltecuhtli wrote:

Super Aggro Crag wrote:Pretty sure the ATF would get ticked off if you went on America's got talent and showed everyone step by step how to make pipebombs and Luty SMGs from the comfort of their home

sometimes you need pipe bombs to dig a basement under your house, just cause someone wants to be eco friendly and anti corporation by not buying at walmart doesnt mean you are a criminal

Fishimun wrote:

Tlaltecuhtli wrote:

Super Aggro Crag wrote:Pretty sure the ATF would get ticked off if you went on America's got talent and showed everyone step by step how to make pipebombs and Luty SMGs from the comfort of their home

sometimes you need pipe bombs to dig a basement under your house, just cause someone wants to be eco friendly and anti corporation by not buying at walmart doesnt mean you are a criminal

wait they sell pipe bombs at walmart? which aisle?

oranges wrote:as tgstation continues to grow in operational size, miscommunication within growing depts like admins and coders will continue to increase.

More structured processes will eventually become necessary.

Not-Dorsidarf wrote:So looking at the associated admincomplaint to this affair and I'm wondering if the peanut rules changed again and totally unrelated people are allowed to show up in the complaint to give their 2 bits on whether a complaint is valid because there are theoretical hypothetical scenarios where the complained actions might potentially have been right.

Agux909 wrote:

Not-Dorsidarf wrote:So looking at the associated admincomplaint to this affair and I'm wondering if the peanut rules changed again and totally unrelated people are allowed to show up in the complaint to give their 2 bits on whether a complaint is valid because there are theoretical hypothetical scenarios where the complained actions might potentially have been right.

Spit a name or bust.