/tg/Station 13

Posted: **Fri Jan 05, 2024 4:02 am**

Bottom post of the previous page:

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=35552
Ban itself seems bullshit but jeff has hit that time of note critical mass
if Manny loses its most active hos main then someone will have to fill the gap and I really don't want to play hos more

Posted: **Fri Jan 05, 2024 10:57 am**

AsbestosSniffer wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 9:26 am
Sightld2 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 9:22 am It's a good idea. lets do away with notes entirely and administrate based on popularity contests.
Felt really fucking smug typing that out didn't you? And yet it only further reinforces my point that there's a total and complete disconnect between the playerbase and the admins right now, it's no wonder so many players have moved onto Monke recently, because with admins like you, we don't even need shitters.

Ok, it was dumb of me to say it like that. Let me try again.

I don't like that we're effectively arguing against the point of notes existing by satirizing what I've said down to: "Yes they are punishment but they're not that bad." What do you expect notes to actually do then?

If your argument is that "Jeff has grown a lot since those notes were placed", then please, that is a much stronger argument than "He got punished because he had notes grrr."

Maybe we should critically be looking at how long ago those notes were placed, the time in between them, how his gameplay has improved. Maybe that wasn't done here. Maybe it was but was still too harsh. Those are all legitimate and respectable takes compared to "ok now the admins are admitting they ARE a punishment..." Like, that's three steps behind where instead you could be so close to making a good point.

And I sincerely don't like the notion that the ban is automatically invalid because people showed up in this thread to defend him. I think it's really good that he's made this many people feel that way, but Kieth4 is right that that's not an important metric.

CMDR_Gungnir wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 9:32 am Oh don't get me wrong, that's not what I meant and Sight even knows that.

It's true. You oversimplified something I said (twice) and so I oversimplified something you said. Which was petty of me. Sorry.

Posted: **Fri Jan 05, 2024 11:05 am**

I mean, to Jeff's credit, the HoS gets a shotgun now. It's part of his kit. So him having it isn't so much a surprise or something to really be questioning. A HoS shouldn't be put on blast for having on his person the shotgun given to him and he is expected to have, and to then employ it. I don't think that should be the focus of the situation here.

However, what is interesting is, when he opened his inventory in the video, you can see he has several additional weapon options on his person, including the armory's DRAGnet which does equivalent damage to rubbershot and is completely nonlethal.

The additional problem to note here is that the clown also employed a less-than-lethal method to subdue the lawyer by tabling him repeatedly. Tabling does 10 brute and 40 stamina. That's a lot of mixed damage that eventually will end up lethal from overuse.

Less than lethal equipment or attacks are not inherently a problem to utilize up until they are overused to the point they put someone at risk of dying. Due to the nature of less than lethal, you usually don't have to overuse them to subdue someone, because they're weighted in a way that they'll put someone into stamina crit before they ever run the risk of entering actual crit. There in lies the problem if you have several people using less than lethal, and particularly if you're aiming at the body core.

Here is a tip for all you seccies worried about putting someone into crit using rubbershot/beanbags. Aim for the arms and legs. Stamina damage is not limb dependent, and applies body-wide. You literally cannot kill someone by damaging only a single extremity. So if you unload a lot of brute damage into their limbs, you still get the full benefit of your stamina force with these weapons while sinking the lethal force somewhere that won't contribute as heavily towards an accidental death. In addition, this usually means you circumvent a lot of common armor coverage, as well as possibly inflict some joint dislocations to boot.

Edit: Note that the above is not true of the ebow and that also deals a lethal form of damage that is not limb dependent. Don't do this with an ebow unless you are okay with killing your target (this would be most users of the ebow)

Posted: **Fri Jan 05, 2024 11:07 am**

Sightld2 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 9:22 am I don't like that we're effectively arguing against the point of notes existing by satirizing what I've said down to: "Yes they are punishment but they're not that bad." What do you expect notes to actually do then?

If your argument is that "Jeff has grown a lot since those notes were placed", then please, that is a much stronger argument than "He got punished because he had notes grrr."

Maybe we should critically be looking at how long ago those notes were placed, the time in between them, how his gameplay has improved. Maybe that wasn't done here. Maybe it was but was still too harsh. Those are all legitimate and respectable takes compared to "ok now the admins are admitting they ARE a punishment..." Like, that's three steps behind where instead you could be so close to making a good point.

Because that's what notes become due to this lack of analysis, simply a checklist to tick off and go "Yup, ban" without any further contextual hints, surely even you must be asking yourself "Why do they bring this up?" over and over again, it's because this is essentially what we mean, the checklist is used and nothing else, disregard all the other players saying that he's improved or how he's decent, hell, dismiss them as just wanting a "popularity contest".

Being an admin isn't easy, I get it, and I apologise for my prior outburst, but this won't stop happening anytime soon until there's better communication between players and the administration, these snarky comments in this thread are especially unwarranted and make players, like me, think that the admins literally do not care about anything we have to say.

Posted: **Fri Jan 05, 2024 11:16 am**

Sightld2 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 10:57 am [Snip]
Ok, it was dumb of me to say it like that. Let me try again.

I don't like that we're effectively arguing against the point of notes existing by satirizing what I've said down to: "Yes they are punishment but they're not that bad." What do you expect notes to actually do then?

If your argument is that "Jeff has grown a lot since those notes were placed", then please, that is a much stronger argument than "He got punished because he had notes grrr."

Maybe we should critically be looking at how long ago those notes were placed, the time in between them, how his gameplay has improved. Maybe that wasn't done here. Maybe it was but was still too harsh. Those are all legitimate and respectable takes compared to "ok now the admins are admitting they ARE a punishment..." Like, that's three steps behind where instead you could be so close to making a good point.

And I sincerely don't like the notion that the ban is automatically invalid because people showed up in this thread to defend him. I think it's really good that he's made this many people feel that way, but Kieth4 is right that that's not an important metric.

CMDR_Gungnir wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 9:32 am Oh don't get me wrong, that's not what I meant and Sight even knows that.
It's true. You oversimplified something I said (twice) and so I oversimplified something you said. Which was petty of me. Sorry.

The difference is that when I oversimplified what you were saying, I still kept the general sentiment (or my understanding of it). It wasn't done out of malice, but at the end of the day, it's still somewhat relevant of a discussion. If Notes ARE a Punishment, then even noting for this is excessive, because you're punishing him for something that isn't actually that bad in the grand scheme of things. Especially when you factor in stacking punishments. And if Notes AREN'T a punishment, then they were used as one in this (and many other) cases, and in that case handing them out as if they're not punishment is, in fact, a problem, because then they will be used AS punishment.

You say it was satirizing it down, but that's at least to me, how it came across. If Notes are just Recordkeeping, they're handed out like candy. When you have a case like this where it feels like the Notes are the entire reason the situation's where it's at (Security Member uses a piece of their kit, not even maliciously or incorrectly, gets permabanned from Sec and Captain) all of a sudden it becomes a very important conversation, because those candy records are now suddenly having very real, very serious, tangible effects. I apologize, however, if you felt slighted by me shortening what you were saying the way I did. It wasn't my intention, and I had meant for it to simply be a shorter version of what I had interpreted your message.

And for record sake, I don't think the case is that the ban is automatically invalid because people showed up to defend him, but the entire premise of the ban is "your playstyle is stinky and makes Manuel a worse place for everyone to play on" then I think there's at least merit to the massive outpouring of support for him, because these are the people who see him most. These are the people who have to work alongside him, and who have to contend with him. It's very easy to say that someone's a problem from up in the Observe Gang INTERNAL DISCUSSIONS Tower, but if it's about the impact someone has on the server, then surely the opinions of the people who are On The Server carries some weight, no?

Posted: **Fri Jan 05, 2024 11:18 am**

This happens when you give hos player a shotgun in his locker, if she was picking items from armoury roundstart you could argue she was powergaming its manuel after all...

Posted: **Fri Jan 05, 2024 11:22 am**

AsbestosSniffer wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 11:07 am Being an admin isn't easy, I get it, and I apologise for my prior outburst, but this won't stop happening anytime soon until there's better communication between players and the administration, these snarky comments in this thread are especially unwarranted and make players, like me, think that the admins literally do not care about anything we have to say.

Doubleposting, fuck you;

I cannot over-emphasise this. OG Manuel Folk remember that I used to be one of the most diehard Pro-Admin Team people on the server. I was the one constantly parroting the "If you see something, ahelp it, so that the admins can do something" because we were always told "We want to do things but often can't without an ahelp". I was one of the most ride-or-die supporters.

I know I can be a bit of an abrasive dick at times, especially towards admins lately, but it's because I'm passionate. I know we can do better, and it's really frustrating seeing things like this. Seeing what feels like such a dismissive attitude, like the admins often think they're better than the players, just because of the fact that they're admins.

Player/Admin relations and opinions are, it feels like, at an all time low lately, and that isn't just in my opinion, but in what it feels like I see when I observe everyone else, too.

I miss when I liked everyone and had faith in them.

Posted: **Fri Jan 05, 2024 11:30 am**

NecromancerAnne wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 11:05 am However, what is interesting is, when he opened his inventory in the video, you can see he has several additional weapon options on his person, including the armory's DRAGnet which does equivalent damage to rubbershot and is completely nonlethal.

bro could have used his baton which is probably what I would have done as it was very CQC in the courtroom. Hell even if it wasn't CQC as fuck in there he had his XO-1 which can be used as a disabler also on him.

Also, unrelated side note but whoever is saying notes aren't a form of punishment is huffing some major copium. If I as an admin see someone break a rule again that they've already been noted for you bet your ass they'll meet a heavier punishment because it's a sign that they're not learning.

Posted: **Fri Jan 05, 2024 11:31 am**

AsbestosSniffer wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 11:07 am Because that's what notes become due to this lack of analysis, simply a checklist to tick off and go "Yup, ban" without any further contextual hints, surely even you must be asking yourself "Why do they bring this up?" over and over again, it's because this is essentially what we mean, the checklist is used and nothing else, disregard all the other players saying that he's improved or how he's decent, hell, dismiss them as just wanting a "popularity contest".

Being an admin isn't easy, I get it, and I apologise for my prior outburst, but this won't stop happening anytime soon until there's better communication between players and the administration, these snarky comments in this thread are especially unwarranted and make players, like me, think that the admins literally do not care about anything we have to say.

I just don't think it's fair to assume that that's what Lorwp did. I don't think that you, or even I (As another admin who was actually there) understand the entire extent of what went into that decision making or the entire scope of that thought process.

CMDR_Gungnir wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 11:16 am The difference is that when I oversimplified what you were saying, I still kept the general sentiment

I sincerely don't think you did, but I can appreciate that it wasn't done out of malice.

CMDR_Gungnir wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 11:16 am ...-it's still somewhat relevant of a discussion. If Notes ARE a Punishment, then even noting for this is excessive, because you're punishing him for something that isn't actually that bad in the grand scheme of things.

I think that arguing this didn't warrant admin action to begin with, is a much better talking point, and it exists regardless of whether or not you consider notes punishments or not.

CMDR_Gungnir wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 11:16 am Especially when you factor in stacking punishments. And if Notes AREN'T a punishment, then they were used as one in this (and many other) cases, and in that case handing them out as if they're not punishment is, in fact, a problem, because then they will be used AS punishment.

My point is that the difference does not matter, because those who don't view notes as a punishment, will still use them in a way that effectively is. Whether it's just recordkeeping, or otherwise, you still wind up with the ABOVE question and arguement, "did that warrant admin action to begin with"

CMDR_Gungnir wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 11:16 am If Notes are just Recordkeeping, they're handed out like candy...-because those candy records are now suddenly having very real, very serious, tangible effects.

These effects exist whether you view them as recordkeeping, or punishments. In either case, the Admin needs to look at the notes, see if they're relevant, and decide if they need to escalate.

CMDR_Gungnir wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 11:16 am And for record sake, I don't think the case is that the ban is automatically invalid because people showed up to defend him, but the entire premise of the ban is "your playstyle is stinky and makes Manuel a worse place for everyone to play on" then I think there's at least merit to the massive outpouring of support for him, because these are the people who see him most. These are the people who have to work alongside him, and who have to contend with him. It's very easy to say that someone's a problem from up in the Observe Gang INTERNAL DISCUSSIONS Tower, but if it's about the impact someone has on the server, then surely the opinions of the people who are On The Server carries some weight, no?

Yeah I can concede that if part of the ban reason is "we are tired-..." and it's unclear if "we" is supposed players, admins, or both.

Posted: **Fri Jan 05, 2024 11:35 am**

Sightld2 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 11:31 am
AsbestosSniffer wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 11:07 am Because that's what notes become due to this lack of analysis, simply a checklist to tick off and go "Yup, ban" without any further contextual hints, surely even you must be asking yourself "Why do they bring this up?" over and over again, it's because this is essentially what we mean, the checklist is used and nothing else, disregard all the other players saying that he's improved or how he's decent, hell, dismiss them as just wanting a "popularity contest".

Being an admin isn't easy, I get it, and I apologise for my prior outburst, but this won't stop happening anytime soon until there's better communication between players and the administration, these snarky comments in this thread are especially unwarranted and make players, like me, think that the admins literally do not care about anything we have to say.
I just don't think it's fair to assume that that's what Lorwp did. I don't think that you, or even I (As another admin who was actually there) understand the entire extent of what went into that decision making or the entire scope of that thought process.

Is it fair to assume that? No, but it's entirely what it feels like, you're completely ignoring my points about admin-player disconnect.

Posted: **Fri Jan 05, 2024 11:40 am**

Sightld2 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 11:31 am
CMDR_Gungnir wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 11:16 am ...-it's still somewhat relevant of a discussion. If Notes ARE a Punishment, then even noting for this is excessive, because you're punishing him for something that isn't actually that bad in the grand scheme of things.
I think that arguing this didn't warrant admin action to begin with, is a much better talking point, and it exists regardless of whether or not you consider notes punishments or not.

This is going to sound incredibly rude but I don't know how to word it better so please understand the sentiment rather than the un-intended tone; but we can discuss multiple facets of this at once. Having it definitively declared "Notes are Punishment" means the candytrail of Notes for the utter, absolute most minor of offenses, would have to stop, because they wouldn't be worthy of Punishment. It might not help Jeff right now, but it helps make sure nobody else ends up in his position.

Sight wrote:
CMDR_Gungnir wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 11:16 am If Notes are just Recordkeeping, they're handed out like candy...-because those candy records are now suddenly having very real, very serious, tangible effects.
These effects exist whether you view them as recordkeeping, or punishments. In either case, the Admin needs to look at the notes, see if they're relevant, and decide if they need to escalate.

And a lot of the time admins won't. We've seen it before. But, as I mentioned above, if we can have it definitively proven that they're punishments, it means that we can make the recordkeeping candy-trail stop. They can't be given like one and then enforced like the other, otherwise the entire system just doesn't work.

Sight wrote:
CMDR_Gungnir wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 11:16 am And for record sake, I don't think the case is that the ban is automatically invalid because people showed up to defend him, but the entire premise of the ban is "your playstyle is stinky and makes Manuel a worse place for everyone to play on" then I think there's at least merit to the massive outpouring of support for him, because these are the people who see him most. These are the people who have to work alongside him, and who have to contend with him. It's very easy to say that someone's a problem from up in the Observe Gang INTERNAL DISCUSSIONS Tower, but if it's about the impact someone has on the server, then surely the opinions of the people who are On The Server carries some weight, no?
Yeah I can concede that if part of the ban reason is "we are tired-..." and it's unclear if "we" is supposed players, admins, or both.

With all due respect and the kindest way I can say this, I don't think "we" in the case of the admins, matters much here.

I will gladly accept a counter argument as to why, I'd love to talk about it and to hear your perspective on the matter, but to my opinion, if it's about people being fed up with something, then shouldn't the opinion that matters most be the people who it affects, not the people just watching from above going "if i was in his shoes, i would shrimply do XYZ instead" while having more information than them (and that being a known and proven fallacy? I remember reading something once about a bunch of 'if I was a cop I'd just do (blank), it's easy' people being given a training course on exactly that and failing every single time).

Posted: **Fri Jan 05, 2024 11:41 am**

NecromancerAnne wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 11:05 am I mean, to Jeff's credit, the HoS gets a shotgun now. It's part of his kit. So him having it isn't so much a surprise or something to really be questioning. A HoS shouldn't be put on blast for having on his person the shotgun given to him and he is expected to have, and to then employ it. I don't think that should be the focus of the situation here.

However, what is interesting is, when he opened his inventory in the video, you can see he has several additional weapon options on his person, including the armory's DRAGnet which does equivalent damage to rubbershot and is completely nonlethal.

The additional problem to note here is that the clown also employed a less-than-lethal method to subdue the lawyer by tabling him repeatedly. Tabling does 10 brute and 40 stamina. That's a lot of mixed damage that eventually will end up lethal from overuse.

Less than lethal equipment or attacks are not inherently a problem to utilize up until they are overused to the point they put someone at risk of dying. Due to the nature of less than lethal, you usually don't have to overuse them to subdue someone, because they're weighted in a way that they'll put someone into stamina crit before they ever run the risk of entering actual crit. There in lies the problem if you have several people using less than lethal, and particularly if you're aiming at the body core.

Here is a tip for all you seccies worried about putting someone into crit using rubbershot/beanbags. Aim for the arms and legs. Stamina damage is not limb dependent, and applies body-wide. You literally cannot kill someone by damaging only a single extremity. So if you unload a lot of brute damage into their limbs, you still get the full benefit of your stamina force with these weapons while sinking the lethal force somewhere that won't contribute as heavily towards an accidental death. In addition, this usually means you circumvent a lot of common armor coverage, as well as possibly inflict some joint dislocations to boot.

Edit: Note that the above is not true of the ebow and that also deals a lethal form of damage that is not limb dependent. Don't do this with an ebow unless you are okay with killing your target (this would be most users of the ebow)

He wouldn't have been able to hotkey out the dragnet, the shotgun on his back was the quickest to grab. Also it shouldn't matter if it does damage it subdued the guy and he was up in like 000.3s we can surely handle taking a bit of brute after ourselves being agressive...

Posted: **Fri Jan 05, 2024 11:46 am**

AsbestosSniffer wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 11:35 am Is it fair to assume that? No, but it's entirely what it feels like, you're completely ignoring my points about admin-player disconnect.

I'm sorry it feels that way. I don't mean to seem like I'm ignoring it that point, but I'm confused? I didn't think you were addressing me, or the entire team regarding a disconnect. Because this is how that started:

AsbestosSniffer wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 8:53 am I cannot express enough just how piss poor of a ban this is and the disconnect between the banning admin in question and actual players of the MRP server they're invoking.

I have been neutral on this since it happened and I was commenting from ASAY. And I'm not about to speak on the banning admin's behalf by putting words in their mouth.

Posted: **Fri Jan 05, 2024 11:53 am**

Sightld2 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 11:46 am
AsbestosSniffer wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 11:35 am Is it fair to assume that? No, but it's entirely what it feels like, you're completely ignoring my points about admin-player disconnect.
I'm sorry it feels that way. I don't mean to seem like I'm ignoring it that point, but I'm confused? I didn't think you were addressing me, or the entire team regarding a disconnect. Because this is how that started:

AsbestosSniffer wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 8:53 am I cannot express enough just how piss poor of a ban this is and the disconnect between the banning admin in question and actual players of the MRP server they're invoking.
I have been neutral on this since it happened and I was commenting from ASAY. And I'm not about to speak on the banning admin's behalf by putting words in their mouth.

That's how it STARTED, yes, but the thread isn't static. And my issues with overall conduct stem back BEFORE this particular ban, as my admittedly autistically argumentative forum history proves.

Posted: **Fri Jan 05, 2024 11:55 am**

I'm just gonna drop the notes argument 'cause I feel like we're sliding past one another.

CMDR_Gungnir wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 11:16 am With all due respect and the kindest way I can say this, I don't think "we" in the case of the admins, matters much here.

I will gladly accept a counter argument as to why, I'd love to talk about it and to hear your perspective on the matter, but to my opinion, if it's about people being fed up with something, then shouldn't the opinion that matters most be the people who it affects, not the people just watching from above going "if i was in his shoes, i would shrimply do XYZ instead" while having more information than them (and that being a known and proven fallacy? I remember reading something once about a bunch of 'if I was a cop I'd just do (blank), it's easy' people being given a training course on exactly that and failing every single time).

Someone can be a drain on admin resources and popular at the same time.

Posted: **Fri Jan 05, 2024 11:59 am**

It's time to make minor notes (like what this should have been at the most) expire after a month or so so that if the admins deem it they can upgrade them and make them permanent / apply a harsher punishment if it becomes a pattern of behavior.

Posted: **Fri Jan 05, 2024 12:00 pm**

AsbestosSniffer wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 11:53 am That's how it STARTED, yes, but the thread isn't static. And my issues with overall conduct stem back BEFORE this particular ban, as my admittedly autistically argumentative forum history proves.

Ok well the only other time a disconnect was mentioned was you replying to my snarky comment to Gungnir. Which probably fair. Which is why I apologized for it. I dunno your forum history.

Posted: **Fri Jan 05, 2024 12:09 pm**

BonChoi wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 11:59 am It's time to make minor notes (like what this should have been at the most) expire after a month or so so that if the admins deem it they can upgrade them and make them permanent / apply a harsher punishment if it becomes a pattern of behavior.

The issue is that even temporary notes can be dug up by admins on their panel if they care enough to look, so they aren't really "temporary" except in name. You'd have to make them flat out delete themselves or something but I don't think any admin ever wants that because it would make maintaining information harder. That, or they'll simply just start leaving Hidden Notes constantly and stop talking to us but that would probably just make everyone more paranoid and suspicious of the admin team.

Posted: **Fri Jan 05, 2024 12:18 pm**

Yulice wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 12:09 pm That, or they'll simply just start leaving Hidden Notes constantly and stop talking to us but that would probably just make everyone more paranoid and suspicious of the admin team.

That would be sick.

It would be like that George Orwell book

Posted: **Fri Jan 05, 2024 12:22 pm**

kieth4 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 11:41 am He wouldn't have been able to hotkey out the dragnet, the shotgun on his back was the quickest to grab. Also it shouldn't matter if it does damage it subdued the guy and he was up in like 000.3s we can surely handle taking a bit of brute after ourselves being agressive...

Arguing in favour of an overly optimized reaction resulting in a disproportionate response is not doing Jeff any favours when that is the crux of Jeff's ongoing issues. It is optimization forward, roleplay second. It doesn't leave room for nuance, because he cannot allow there to be room for failure. That is the ongoing issue with Jeff, and he knows that.

And look, I'll argue that if he knows what he is doing and that is the reflex he has taught himself, he'd at least have a baton prepared in his belt slot to hotkey into his hand. That's a pretty standard bit of tech most security officers learn fairly soon after joining, and I expect him to also know this as well given how long he has played in sec. I'm pretty confident he had a baton as well, since he used it earlier in the round not too long before the courtroom situation.

The target of this situation that we're talking about is just some dude with a fire extinguisher, not someone with a machine gun ready to blow the clown away in a single trigger pull. This isn't some split-second do or die scenario, this is just kind of overkill given the threat posed. The guy has a horrible threat assessment meter at times that degrades as the round progresses, and I do think he's not really able to be trusted to make sound calls.

And I was worried this was a situation that might have been overblown on the administrative side until I actually looked at the logs. I don't want players feeling uncomfortable using less than lethal weaponry, but this situation in particular is exactly the scenario I wanted to prevent happening by introducing gear labels. A lack of recognition that less than lethal can be the wrong choice to make, and that you shouldn't equate it to nonlethal. That's on him as the one who has loaded himself up with some much equipment, and ultimately failed to employ any of it besides the one which he thought was the biggest sledgehammer at hand.

Posted: **Fri Jan 05, 2024 12:27 pm**

NecromancerAnne wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 12:22 pm
kieth4 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 11:41 am He wouldn't have been able to hotkey out the dragnet, the shotgun on his back was the quickest to grab. Also it shouldn't matter if it does damage it subdued the guy and he was up in like 000.3s we can surely handle taking a bit of brute after ourselves being agressive...
Arguing in favour of an overly optimized reaction resulting in a disproportionate response is not doing Jeff any favours when that is the crux of Jeff's ongoing issues. It is optimization forward, roleplay second. It doesn't leave room for nuance, because he cannot allow there to be room for failure. That is the ongoing issue with Jeff, and he knows that.

And look, I'll argue that if he knows what he is doing and that is the reflex he has taught himself, he'd at least have a baton prepared in his belt slot to hotkey into his hand. That's a pretty standard bit of tech most security officers learn fairly soon after joining, and I expect him to also know this as well given how long he has played in sec. I'm pretty confident he had a baton as well, since he used it earlier in the round not too long before the courtroom situation.

The target of this situation that we're talking about is just some dude with a fire extinguisher, not someone with a machine gun ready to blow the clown away in a single trigger pull. This isn't some split-second do or die scenario, this is just kind of overkill given the threat posed. The guy has a horrible threat assessment meter at times that degrades as the round progresses, and I do think he's not really able to be trusted to make sound calls.

Is using rubbet pellets tantamount to genocide now? What planet are you people even living on? This shouldn't even warrant admin time.

Posted: **Fri Jan 05, 2024 12:30 pm**

NecromancerAnne wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 12:22 pm The target of this situation that we're talking about is just some dude with a fire extinguisher, not someone with a machine gun ready to blow the clown away in a single trigger pull. This isn't some split-second do or die scenario, this is just kind of overkill given the threat posed. The guy has a horrible threat assessment meter at times that degrades as the round progresses, and I do think he's not really able to be trusted to make sound calls.

I don't think 30 damage is as big of a deal as you're making it. Let's say that 30 did put the guy in crit.

That means he had 70 other damage from another source that wasn't Jeff. Isn't that a much bigger issue than Jeff putting a stop to the fight?

Could you tell us what situations DO warrant the shotgun then? Because anything ACTUALLY life-threatening, the shotgun's not going to be good enough against.

Posted: **Fri Jan 05, 2024 1:03 pm**

AsbestosSniffer wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 12:27 pm Is using rubbet pellets tantamount to genocide now? What planet are you people even living on? This shouldn't even warrant admin time.

I feel like you might be drawing this conclusion yourself, friend. I'm wondering if maybe you need to take a step back and re-read what I wrote. You can use them, you just have to be careful because they still have a lethal component. I wouldn't think you have a history of shotgun arrests into lethal crit, do you?

CMDR_Gungnir wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 12:30 pm I don't think 30 damage is as big of a deal as you're making it. Let's say that 30 did put the guy in crit.

That means he had 70 other damage from another source that wasn't Jeff. Isn't that a much bigger issue than Jeff putting a stop to the fight?

Could you tell us what situations DO warrant the shotgun then? Because anything ACTUALLY life-threatening, the shotgun's not going to be good enough against.

I do think it is a big deal in combination with prior damage, which he wasn't treated for and Jeff was conscious of. The clown did clobber the guy right in front of him, and that was part of the plan it would seem to get the gavel back. Most of that seems fine, it seems like just, you know, roughhousing and didn't go further than the lawyer being stamcrit. It was just the choice of weapon after that seems excessive. And Jeff has had these talks before. You're entirely leaving out, or conveniently overlooking that no player is going to be put in this position without at least having spoken to previous admins regularly about these kinds of circumstances. Historic behaviour is relevant in every administrative action.

There is no easy guide to when to use less-than-lethal force. You're just going to have to figure it out based on context, and be willing to accept when you get it wrong (which can also be Jeff's issue; second guessing his actions). If that concerns you, or you don't think you can make this call on your own, talking with admins is always a good way to approach things, even if it is after the fact. Approaching first is always a good indicator that you are at least approaching your decision in good faith.

An easy line to draw is 'stop at stamina crit, don't employ on people close to normal crit'. Not too hard. If you're not sure, always go with nonlethal first. I would say an already injured, unarmored armed lawyer with an improvised weapon is an example of when it is wrong. Particularly when you have alternatives. I wouldn't worry about it if it is the only thing you do have, not much you can do when they're being clearly aggressive, but Jeff was not in this position.

I would say, if the lawyer had pulled out say, a cleaver, sure, I could accept that. Wounds are a lot nastier than just getting bonked by a fire extinguisher, and it does a decent amount of force, and our clown probably doesn't have armor to keep him safe from that. But it has to be rationalized against presented danger and reason to put them down immediately before he, let's say, lacerates the clown. It's all about reasoning, and Jeff's reasoning just didn't seem to hold up.

Posted: **Fri Jan 05, 2024 1:09 pm**

-Redbaronflyer and Typicalrig snip-

I think lorwp is cool as hell but I will say that they also hit me with the very floaty "we've noticed x behavior" in my only note ever and it had me spooked the whole fucking team was eyeing me up like the second coming of Satan. I did leave this as admin feedback, and I can only hope that further interactions will be a bit less vague. Perhaps some policy is in order, as well, but I'm not smart enough to make comments on new policy just yet, or at 5am.

Posted: **Fri Jan 05, 2024 1:11 pm**

NecromancerAnne wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 1:03 pm
AsbestosSniffer wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 12:27 pm Is using rubbet pellets tantamount to genocide now? What planet are you people even living on? This shouldn't even warrant admin time.
I feel like you might be drawing this conclusion yourself, friend. I'm wondering if maybe you need to take a step back and re-read what I wrote. You can use them, you just have to be careful because they still have a lethal component. I wouldn't think you have a history of shotgun arrests into lethal crit, do you?

No, and I wouldn't care if I was on the receiving end of that, because I probably fucked around and found out, just like this lawyer. Are we going to ban bartenders for shotgunning tiders next because said tider was on 10HP before they started shit? Get out of your elephant tusk tower.

Posted: **Fri Jan 05, 2024 1:18 pm**

Well, I can see why you might have trouble with this one, best of luck with that.

Posted: **Fri Jan 05, 2024 1:19 pm**

NecromancerAnne wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 1:18 pm Well, I can see why you might have trouble with this one, best of luck with that.

And yet again, you're only reinforcing players' distrust, well fucking done.

Posted: **Fri Jan 05, 2024 1:20 pm**

Sightld2 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 11:55 am I'm just gonna drop the notes argument 'cause I feel like we're sliding past one another.

CMDR_Gungnir wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 11:16 am Snip
Someone can be a drain on admin resources and popular at the same time.

There is a difference between someone actively trying to burn out admins and a player that is great at their job, being great at your job does lead to stagnant play.

I don't believe this incident is ban or note worthy. IC should have sent a CentCom inspector to inquire information of their usage of shotgun and then IC demote them and give them forced roleban for a moment. At least they would understand why its placed.
Or
Direct method is a firm talk and no note, and every ticket about said player is tracked anyways.

Posted: **Fri Jan 05, 2024 1:27 pm**

iansdoor wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 1:20 pm
Sightld2 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 11:55 am I'm just gonna drop the notes argument 'cause I feel like we're sliding past one another.

CMDR_Gungnir wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 11:16 am Snip
Someone can be a drain on admin resources and popular at the same time.
There is a difference between someone actively trying to burn out admins and a player that is great at their job, being great at your job does lead to stagnant play.

I meant to say that generally, not about this case in particular. I missed the last word where Gungnir wrote: "in the case of admins, matters much here"

Sorry Jeff I don't think u're like those guys

Posted: **Fri Jan 05, 2024 1:33 pm**

iansdoor wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 1:20 pm There is a difference between someone actively trying to burn out admins and a player that is great at their job, being great at your job does lead to stagnant play.

I don't believe this incident is ban or note worthy. IC should have sent a CentCom inspector to inquire information of their usage of shotgun and then IC demote them and give them forced roleban for a moment. At least they would understand why its placed.
Or
Direct method is a firm talk and no note, and every ticket about said player is tracked anyways.

THANK YOU, that is something reasonable and appropriate for this situation.

Posted: **Fri Jan 05, 2024 1:49 pm**

NecromancerAnne wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 1:03 pm
AsbestosSniffer wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 12:27 pm Is using rubbet pellets tantamount to genocide now? What planet are you people even living on? This shouldn't even warrant admin time.
I feel like you might be drawing this conclusion yourself, friend. I'm wondering if maybe you need to take a step back and re-read what I wrote. You can use them, you just have to be careful because they still have a lethal component. I wouldn't think you have a history of shotgun arrests into lethal crit, do you?

CMDR_Gungnir wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 12:30 pm I don't think 30 damage is as big of a deal as you're making it. Let's say that 30 did put the guy in crit.

That means he had 70 other damage from another source that wasn't Jeff. Isn't that a much bigger issue than Jeff putting a stop to the fight?

Could you tell us what situations DO warrant the shotgun then? Because anything ACTUALLY life-threatening, the shotgun's not going to be good enough against.
I do think it is a big deal in combination with prior damage, which he wasn't treated for and Jeff was conscious of. The clown did clobber the guy right in front of him, and that was part of the plan it would seem to get the gavel back. Most of that seems fine, it seems like just, you know, roughhousing and didn't go further than the lawyer being stamcrit. It was just the choice of weapon after that seems excessive. And Jeff has had these talks before. You're entirely leaving out, or conveniently overlooking that no player is going to be put in this position without at least having spoken to previous admins regularly about these kinds of circumstances. Historic behaviour is relevant in every administrative action.

There is no easy guide to when to use less-than-lethal force. You're just going to have to figure it out based on context, and be willing to accept when you get it wrong (which can also be Jeff's issue; second guessing his actions). If that concerns you, or you don't think you can make this call on your own, talking with admins is always a good way to approach things, even if it is after the fact. Approaching first is always a good indicator that you are at least approaching your decision in good faith.

An easy line to draw is 'stop at stamina crit, don't employ on people close to normal crit'. Not too hard. If you're not sure, always go with nonlethal first. I would say an already injured, unarmored armed lawyer with an improvised weapon is an example of when it is wrong. Particularly when you have alternatives. I wouldn't worry about it if it is the only thing you do have, not much you can do when they're being clearly aggressive, but Jeff was not in this position.

I would say, if the lawyer had pulled out say, a cleaver, sure, I could accept that. Wounds are a lot nastier than just getting bonked by a fire extinguisher, and it does a decent amount of force, and our clown probably doesn't have armor to keep him safe from that. But it has to be rationalized against presented danger and reason to put them down immediately before he, let's say, lacerates the clown. It's all about reasoning, and Jeff's reasoning just didn't seem to hold up.

I feel like the big thing is that people are seeing the words "SHOTGUN" and going "HE WENT FOR THE EXCESSIVE THING" and ignoring all of the nuance on it. He stopped at stamina crit, and he didn't know they did *30* now, so that angle's out

And the other one that keeps bringing up is his supposed history of always choosing the strongest thing at all times, but that's also clearly not the case here. A disabler and a baton would've stopped the guy probably just as fast, so it's not really an issue.

Neither I, nor half the people in this thread, understand what it is that's being decreed as so bad about it. But nobody can explain, it's just "his history!" "He went for the biggest sledgehammer he could" (a non-lethal tool generally considered less effective than anything else he had)

Posted: **Fri Jan 05, 2024 1:49 pm**

Yulice wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 12:09 pm
BonChoi wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 11:59 am It's time to make minor notes (like what this should have been at the most) expire after a month or so so that if the admins deem it they can upgrade them and make them permanent / apply a harsher punishment if it becomes a pattern of behavior.
The issue is that even temporary notes can be dug up by admins on their panel if they care enough to look, so they aren't really "temporary" except in name. You'd have to make them flat out delete themselves or something but I don't think any admin ever wants that because it would make maintaining information harder. That, or they'll simply just start leaving Hidden Notes constantly and stop talking to us but that would probably just make everyone more paranoid and suspicious of the admin team.

Admins shouldnt do that, if a note is expired it is no longer relevant

Posted: **Fri Jan 05, 2024 2:14 pm**

Sightld2 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 11:55 am Someone can be a drain on admin resources and popular at the same time.

Anyone serving as a block to someone's antag goals is probably going to naturally rack up more ahelps than the average player, no?
It's part of playing security. You serve as a barrier so the bad guys don't get free wins, sometimes there will be salt when they lose.
Jeff only stands out because he's one of the few who play security consistently.

From an outside perspective, it seems Jeff is generally very lenient towards players who try to RP their way through their objectives, but he comes down hard on those who are more green text oriented. Jeff is fantastic to have around as security, without players like him, the station just tends to be an antag playground (see lowpop).

This ban in particular looks like some members of the admin team were waiting for any reason to get rid of his ass. As far as I know, there is no precedent or policy for differences between non-lethal and less than lethal force. The 'you should have used stun baton instead of 30 brute damage' bullshit shouldn't have a leg to stand on. Shouldn't matter if it's more efficient. it's in his arsenal, they're not lethals, and he didn't leave his department to get it. I see no rules broken other than some delusioned interpretation of powergaming.
This should be lifted and anyone in support of the ban should keep looking for a better reason.

If it's not lifted, well, Jeff, enjoy the badge of honor that is QC ban for being too good at the game.

Posted: **Fri Jan 05, 2024 2:27 pm**

I was not talking about Jeffery gaming in that post

Posted: **Fri Jan 05, 2024 2:36 pm**

He used the shotgun.

Is this notable? Yeah, probably. Is it worth what was originally permanent but has been reduced to a 3 month sec and command ban? I'm not convinced.

Posted: **Fri Jan 05, 2024 2:39 pm**

Vekter wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 2:36 pm He used the shotgun.

Is this notable? Yeah, probably. Is it worth what was originally permanent but has been reduced to a 3 month sec and command ban? I'm not convinced.

how is it notable what

Posted: **Fri Jan 05, 2024 2:45 pm**

iwishforducks wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 2:39 pm
Vekter wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 2:36 pm He used the shotgun.

Is this notable? Yeah, probably. Is it worth what was originally permanent but has been reduced to a 3 month sec and command ban? I'm not convinced.
how is it notable what

I'm not a fan of him handing the shotgun off to someone to kill the lawyer, but an argument could be made that they did roleplay it out properly and just because we hold security and command to a higher standard on MRP does not mean that either of them have to be good people.

Posted: **Fri Jan 05, 2024 2:47 pm**

Sightld2 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 11:55 am Someone can be a drain on admin resources and popular at the same time.

Don't you think it's also possible that someone who plays Security (and AI) is also more likely to get ahelped? They are jobs most likely to get involved with conflict.

I honestly have to commend Jeff for continuing to appeal and play on Manuel, because if an admin said some of the things that they said to Jeff towards me, I would feel so alienated and unwelcome that I wouldn't bother. I'd just leave.

I can't help but find it unbearably sad that there are many shitters that actively ruin peoples rounds that run around scot free, yet someone who actively tries to make peoples rounds better (for both antags and crew members) is constantly scrutinized instead.

I sometimes play security with Jeff, since he's been teaching me how to better defend myself on the station and also the ropes of security as a job. One round that sticks out to me the most was when there were revs and we infiltrated cargo with around 5 revs (cargo techies and shaft miners). Stun cuffing the revs wasn't working out because there were too many of them, and we ended up in a pretty intense fight that lead to their deaths. After the mindshield implants arrived, we implanted all of the revs and dragged them back to medbay. There was only one rookie doctor on staff, so Jeff recruited me and a few others to perform basic surgery, giving instructions and doing a large part of the legwork himself.
Thanks to that, all of the ex-revs were able to be rejoin the round, and didn't have to sit it out because there was only one doctor who was really struggling in the first place.

No one ahelps to leave praises or commendations for people. It's not about a popularity contest - people like Jeff because he is actively doing what he can to make the round better for both antags and crew alike. In fact, this is something rarely seen from most HoS players.

Security/HoS will always have a bad reputation no matter what, even if you play a silly mall cop. Because people relate them to real life police, or people feel upset that they were caught as an antag even if there was valid escalation and a story. And no matter what, there's going to people who sign up for the role because it's a position of power that allows them to powertrip.
Maybe I don't have the clairvoyance of an admin, I haven't dived through all of Jeff's logs, I never saw what he was like when he was a newer player that originally got all the notes he did in the past. But I can say that I have never personally seen Jeff powertripping. I have seen many secoffs/HoS's powertrip, but not Jeff.

Posted: **Fri Jan 05, 2024 2:49 pm**

Chat I wasn't talking about Jeff McGaimin when I said that aaah

Posted: **Fri Jan 05, 2024 2:52 pm**

Sightld2 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 2:49 pm Chat I wasn't talking about Jeff McGaimin when I said that aaah

This is divine punishment, forever doomed to be thought that you were talking about Jefferius

Posted: **Fri Jan 05, 2024 2:53 pm**

NecromancerAnne wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 12:22 pm
kieth4 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 11:41 am He wouldn't have been able to hotkey out the dragnet, the shotgun on his back was the quickest to grab. Also it shouldn't matter if it does damage it subdued the guy and he was up in like 000.3s we can surely handle taking a bit of brute after ourselves being agressive...
Arguing in favour of an overly optimized reaction resulting in a disproportionate response is not doing Jeff any favours when that is the crux of Jeff's ongoing issues. It is optimization forward, roleplay second. It doesn't leave room for nuance, because he cannot allow there to be room for failure. That is the ongoing issue with Jeff, and he knows that.

And look, I'll argue that if he knows what he is doing and that is the reflex he has taught himself, he'd at least have a baton prepared in his belt slot to hotkey into his hand. That's a pretty standard bit of tech most security officers learn fairly soon after joining, and I expect him to also know this as well given how long he has played in sec. I'm pretty confident he had a baton as well, since he used it earlier in the round not too long before the courtroom situation.

The target of this situation that we're talking about is just some dude with a fire extinguisher, not someone with a machine gun ready to blow the clown away in a single trigger pull. This isn't some split-second do or die scenario, this is just kind of overkill given the threat posed. The guy has a horrible threat assessment meter at times that degrades as the round progresses, and I do think he's not really able to be trusted to make sound calls.

And I was worried this was a situation that might have been overblown on the administrative side until I actually looked at the logs. I don't want players feeling uncomfortable using less than lethal weaponry, but this situation in particular is exactly the scenario I wanted to prevent happening by introducing gear labels. A lack of recognition that less than lethal can be the wrong choice to make, and that you shouldn't equate it to nonlethal. That's on him as the one who has loaded himself up with some much equipment, and ultimately failed to employ any of it besides the one which he thought was the biggest sledgehammer at hand.

I mean you someone get jumped and you respond quickly? Surely you yourself can see how although there is room for roleplay he shouldn't just bend over and take it. He responded quickly to subdue someone who was attacking someone else.

The shotgun is just a tool for this, it does a bit of damage but it quickly deals with the situation as opposed to rummaging through his bag or batoning. The damage is minimal, I'm not even sure how the guy died(?) When he still has hp in the logs (?) Unless I'm misreading them. Even if he did as long as he is healed up and fine I'm really really not sure why it matters that there was a bit of damage done.

The shotguns main purpose is still, stunning. I think it's important to look at intent here and it clearly isn't to kill so I'm not sure why the damage matters. He used it for the stam damage which is fine imo. He stopped when the guy was down which is restraint and him not over escalating

Posted: **Fri Jan 05, 2024 2:56 pm**

AsbestosSniffer wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 2:52 pm
Sightld2 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 2:49 pm Chat I wasn't talking about Jeff McGaimin when I said that aaah
This is divine punishment, forever doomed to be thought that you were talking about Jefferius

It's my fault. I said that having read only the text in blue circles, and painfully missing the text in red circles.

Posted: **Fri Jan 05, 2024 2:58 pm**

I also would love to see the relevant admin conversations in asay around this ban- I think it's fully valid to publicise them as they directly relate to the ban being placed (from the ticket.) I think it's silly to even attempt to have said conversations about the ban if we do not know what encouraged the admin to place it because it's clear that it's not by their own devices 100%.

Pretty hard to see what's occurring when a major part of the thought process is obscured.

@Timberpoes be a hero

Posted: **Fri Jan 05, 2024 3:02 pm**

kieth4 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 2:58 pm I also would love to see the relevant admin conversations in asay around this ban- I think it's fully valid to publicise them as they directly relate to the ban being placed (from the ticket.) I think it's silly to even attempt to have said conversations about the ban if we do not know what encouraged the admin to place it because it's clear that it's not by their own devices 100%.

I admit it. I confess.

Spoiler:

Posted: **Fri Jan 05, 2024 3:03 pm**

Sightld2 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 3:02 pm
kieth4 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 2:58 pm I also would love to see the relevant admin conversations in asay around this ban- I think it's fully valid to publicise them as they directly relate to the ban being placed (from the ticket.) I think it's silly to even attempt to have said conversations about the ban if we do not know what encouraged the admin to place it because it's clear that it's not by their own devices 100%.
I admit it. I confess.
Spoiler:
Code: Select all
[2024-01-04 06:09:23.871] GAME-COMPAT: ADMINPRIVATE: ASAY: Sightld2/(Hesperid) (mob_3643) "ok I know its january 4th, buuut" (CentCom Administrative Office (146,92,1))
[2024-01-04 06:09:29.997] GAME-COMPAT: ADMINPRIVATE: ASAY: Sightld2/(Hesperid) (mob_3643) "u guys wanna host a secret Santa event?" (CentCom Administrative Office (146,92,1))
[2024-01-04 06:09:47.497] GAME-COMPAT: ADMINPRIVATE: ASAY: Sightld2/(Hesperid) (mob_3643) "ok come aloooong" (CentCom Transport Shuttle Dock (148,83,1))
[2024-01-04 06:11:03.074] GAME-COMPAT: ADMINPRIVATE: ASAY: Sightld2/(Hesperid) (mob_3643) "secret santa" (CentCom Briefing Room (146,78,1))
[2024-01-04 06:11:06.300] GAME-COMPAT: ADMINPRIVATE: ASAY: Sightld2/(Hesperid) (mob_3643) "pogger" (CentCom Briefing Room (146,77,1))

Oh my god I meant relevant to the ban being placed not your cope that it isn't xmas

Posted: **Fri Jan 05, 2024 3:15 pm**

Seeing takes from admins saying that Jeff detracts from rounds he is in and that he doesn’t allow interesting things to happen really does not inspire confidence in the mrp team. Stuff like this is where the memes about mrp admins wanting the players to be job NPCs comes from. Good roleplay does not mean rolling over for the first tot that comes your way and we need no nonsense heavy handed characters like Jeff to create conflict and stories while providing opposition for the shift’s antags.

Edit: shotgunning a lawyer while you are on trial for excessive use of force is both funny and exactly what I want to see from sec players in that position. Ham it up a bit and play in to the allegations. It’s fun

Posted: **Fri Jan 05, 2024 3:22 pm**

britgrenadier1 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 3:15 pm Seeing takes from admins saying that Jeff detracts from rounds he is in and that he doesn’t allow interesting things to happen really does not inspire confidence in the mrp team. Stuff like this is where the memes about mrp admins wanting the players to be job NPCs comes from. Good roleplay does not mean rolling over for the first tot that comes your way and we need no nonsense heavy handed characters like Jeff to create conflict and stories while providing opposition for the shift’s antags.

Edit: shotgunning a lawyer while you are on trial for excessive use of force is both funny and exactly what I want to see from sec players in that position. Ham it up a bit and play in to the allegations. It’s fun

I don't necessarily agree with the take that MRP admins want players to behave like NPCs, but I do think that we tend to knee-jerk towards wanting people to be the idealized version of whatever job they're playing. I think it's hard to consider that it's okay for some players to be dicks IC as long as they accept the consequences of their actions and we tend to lean towards "the nice option" being "the correct option".

That being said, I don't disagree with the idea that security should ideally be using non-lethal options when available, but I also don't think that Jaeden had a lot of time to make a decision here and just went with his gut. I don't like the idea of us punishing a player for making a quick decision that wasn't the ideal one because they were acting to save another person's life IC.

I'm not personally a huge fan of Jaeden giving the shotgun to another crewmember with the knowledge he would probably use it to kill the lawyer, but it does appear like they roleplayed it out quite well and I don't hate the idea of a HoS that's just generally kind of a dickhead.

Posted: **Fri Jan 05, 2024 3:53 pm**

Imagine playing on a server where admins will audit your bag to double-check whether you correctly went to your least-lethal option in every circumstance and will roleban you for minor indiscretions.

Cops exhibit improper escalation without losing their jobs all the time in the real world (not an exaggerated dystopian space station). They misuse less-lethal equipment without losing their jobs. Why play on a server that holds sec to a higher standard than uh.. anything existing in a real setting? How is this ever more than an IC issue?

Posted: **Fri Jan 05, 2024 3:59 pm**

jeff is one of manny's more competent seccies and we desperately need those to keep the antags in check, like yeah he got overboard from time to time but man got shit done and thats based.

also ic issue not ban worthy tbh.

Posted: **Fri Jan 05, 2024 4:02 pm**

How did this result in a perma jobban? By what was said in the appeal, I gathered the preferential use of a shotgun was a gimmick for that round? Which I agree would be a touch too rough if it was overapplied, but going for the bare minimum shots needed to stamcrit and then stopping doesn't sound like applying too much force. Bottom line a person was in the middle of assaulting a person, so going for the rubbershot doesn't sound too bad even from a standpoint of non-gimmick applications as it's literally the fastest way to separate two people while remaining relatively safe to the party being shot at. I could see taking an issue with handing the shotgun to the person afterwards, but going for a perm job ban is a touch radical. Would see this as a note, maybe like a week job ban if he was currently on a streak of the shotgun gimmick for multiple rounds/ didn't drop it when told to.

I wonder if the mental effect of seeing 12 pellet hits plays a role in here too, because shotgun logs makes every shell seem like the dude is gunning people with an AA12 full auto. Altho lorwp said the number of shots doesn't play a role in this decision, I would say that the proportionality is a factor. IC wise it makes a big difference if you just send in two shots to stam crit - which is clearly signaling that the intent was to break the conflict, or if you shoot excessively, which would celarly be done in order to punish the person. Considering this was done with an intent to break a conflict inside of a court room, I would say this is not that big of a deal. But hey, maybe my LRP oriented brain is just not seeing something.

Bonus meme: We've already done a crackdown on players forcing admins to burn out. Seeing Jeff being stuck in a spiral of perpetually appealing, when will we look into admins forcing players to burnout? :^)

(disclaimer I don't interact with Manny much and have no idea about how Jeff conducts himself ingame, just this ban in a vacuum seems excessive and there would have to be A LOT of toelining for me to opt to perma job ban)

Posted: **Fri Jan 05, 2024 4:19 pm**

LiarGG wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 4:02 pm I wonder if the mental effect of seeing 12 pellet hits plays a role in here too, because shotgun logs makes every shell seem like the dude is gunning people with an AA12 full auto.

It's just seemingly adding a firing log for every pellet that hit when it should only do it once for when the while cloud lands. The best way to view the logs is to just count every second span as a separate shell of pellets. Its messy for sure, but it's still only two shots.

Posted: **Fri Jan 05, 2024 4:23 pm**

NecromancerAnne wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 4:19 pm
LiarGG wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 4:02 pm I wonder if the mental effect of seeing 12 pellet hits plays a role in here too, because shotgun logs makes every shell seem like the dude is gunning people with an AA12 full auto.
It's just seemingly adding a firing log for every pellet that hit when it should only do it once for when the while cloud lands. The best way to view the logs is to just count every second span as a separate shell of pellets. Its messy for sure, but it's still only two shots.

Oh no, I am fully aware of that, but the ahelp chain made it seem like lowrp was not as familiar with this logging and I wonder if seeing potentially 12 shots fired left a more negative impression of Jeff and could be a part of the reason why it escalated as it did. Just a ramble about how presenting data could lead to different conclusions.

/tg/Station 13

Savage Security Speedster Sabotaged by Scheming Shotgun scheme

Savage Security Speedster Sabotaged by Scheming Shotgun scheme

Re: Savage Security Speedster Sabotaged by Scheming Shotgun scheme

Re: Savage Security Speedster Sabotaged by Scheming Shotgun scheme

Re: Savage Security Speedster Sabotaged by Scheming Shotgun scheme

Re: Savage Security Speedster Sabotaged by Scheming Shotgun scheme

Re: Savage Security Speedster Sabotaged by Scheming Shotgun scheme

Re: Savage Security Speedster Sabotaged by Scheming Shotgun scheme

Re: Savage Security Speedster Sabotaged by Scheming Shotgun scheme

Re: Savage Security Speedster Sabotaged by Scheming Shotgun scheme

Re: Savage Security Speedster Sabotaged by Scheming Shotgun scheme

Re: Savage Security Speedster Sabotaged by Scheming Shotgun scheme

Re: Savage Security Speedster Sabotaged by Scheming Shotgun scheme

Re: Savage Security Speedster Sabotaged by Scheming Shotgun scheme

Re: Savage Security Speedster Sabotaged by Scheming Shotgun scheme

Re: Savage Security Speedster Sabotaged by Scheming Shotgun scheme

Re: Savage Security Speedster Sabotaged by Scheming Shotgun scheme

Re: Savage Security Speedster Sabotaged by Scheming Shotgun scheme

Re: Savage Security Speedster Sabotaged by Scheming Shotgun scheme

Re: Savage Security Speedster Sabotaged by Scheming Shotgun scheme

Re: Savage Security Speedster Sabotaged by Scheming Shotgun scheme

Re: Savage Security Speedster Sabotaged by Scheming Shotgun scheme

Re: Savage Security Speedster Sabotaged by Scheming Shotgun scheme

Re: Savage Security Speedster Sabotaged by Scheming Shotgun scheme

Re: Savage Security Speedster Sabotaged by Scheming Shotgun scheme

Re: Savage Security Speedster Sabotaged by Scheming Shotgun scheme

Re: Savage Security Speedster Sabotaged by Scheming Shotgun scheme

Re: Savage Security Speedster Sabotaged by Scheming Shotgun scheme

Re: Savage Security Speedster Sabotaged by Scheming Shotgun scheme

Re: Savage Security Speedster Sabotaged by Scheming Shotgun scheme

Re: Savage Security Speedster Sabotaged by Scheming Shotgun scheme

Re: Savage Security Speedster Sabotaged by Scheming Shotgun scheme

Re: Savage Security Speedster Sabotaged by Scheming Shotgun scheme

Re: Savage Security Speedster Sabotaged by Scheming Shotgun scheme

Re: Savage Security Speedster Sabotaged by Scheming Shotgun scheme

Re: Savage Security Speedster Sabotaged by Scheming Shotgun scheme

Re: Savage Security Speedster Sabotaged by Scheming Shotgun scheme

Re: Savage Security Speedster Sabotaged by Scheming Shotgun scheme

Re: Savage Security Speedster Sabotaged by Scheming Shotgun scheme

Re: Savage Security Speedster Sabotaged by Scheming Shotgun scheme

Re: Savage Security Speedster Sabotaged by Scheming Shotgun scheme

Re: Savage Security Speedster Sabotaged by Scheming Shotgun scheme

Re: Savage Security Speedster Sabotaged by Scheming Shotgun scheme

Re: Savage Security Speedster Sabotaged by Scheming Shotgun scheme

Re: Savage Security Speedster Sabotaged by Scheming Shotgun scheme

Re: Savage Security Speedster Sabotaged by Scheming Shotgun scheme

Re: Savage Security Speedster Sabotaged by Scheming Shotgun scheme

Re: Savage Security Speedster Sabotaged by Scheming Shotgun scheme

Re: Savage Security Speedster Sabotaged by Scheming Shotgun scheme

Re: Savage Security Speedster Sabotaged by Scheming Shotgun scheme

Re: Savage Security Speedster Sabotaged by Scheming Shotgun scheme

Re: Savage Security Speedster Sabotaged by Scheming Shotgun scheme

Re: Savage Security Speedster Sabotaged by Scheming Shotgun scheme