/tg/Station 13

Agree, this ban is idiotic. Why should players care about OOC things like admins investigating and finishing their investigations to act IC? This expectation is beyond stupid. The escalation was valid and there is no rule break here, just an admin getting pissed off because they didn't get to have their say on how things should've played out. I think this is grounds for a complaint tbh.

bros it's a dead body it's not going to walk away while the jannies are using their awkward, clunky tools to check timestamps and logs

where's the ntr hut btw

Honestly I can see where Thunder is coming from and its just a day ban. But at the same time chef was clearly valid there's no way guy gets told "no he was fine to go waste cargos money and blind you with a screwdriver" man's just saving time.

Imagine if this logic was applied to policy discussion.

Example: Headmins haven't made a ruling on if stealing stun batons makes you valid yet so you're getting banned for not waiting for them to make a ruling.

Same logic, just as valid.

chocolate_bickie wrote:Imagine if this logic was applied to policy discussion.

Example: Headmins haven't made a ruling on if stealing stun batons makes you valid yet so you're getting banned for not waiting for them to make a ruling.

Same logic, just as valid.

when you get pulled over for not having a license plate on your noisy death trap of a dump truck you don't get to keep driving while the cop sits there trying to look up the obscure farm vehicle law that lets you get away with it

Speaking from former admin:
It's incredibly annoying to add the steps to fix things if someone was gibbed wrongly.

As a matter of a generalized rule, you should not be gibbing, cremating, etc., (Spacing is actually not so bad for a few reasons) while an investigation is ongoing.

Sure, maybe this is an easy, cut-and-dry investigation, this time, because the chef... invaded his department to stab his eyes out and waste the cargo budget. But "lmao do whatever mid-investigation" is a bad precedent to have floating around, because it makes things get messy easier and faster for no real gain.

Lazengann wrote:when you get pulled over for not having a license plate on your noisy death trap of a dump truck you don't get to keep driving while the cop sits there trying to look up the obscure farm vehicle law that lets you get away with it

Vekter once stated "you don't get a freebie revive if you die while talking to an admin" when I stopped fighting to hide during a bwoink related to me fighting. I died because of it, and in the end, the only form of rectification I got from the situation was "I can somewhat apologize for not having the foresight to assist you in that regard" (It turns out I was in the right, anyways

Why is it that when you do continue when the admins are investigating you get punished, and if you don't continue and something happens to you because you stopped, you also get punished, even if in both cases you did nothing wrong?
Frankly "You gibbed the corpse while I was in the middle of investigating their death." is a shit reason to ban someone unless the gibbing itself was not valid, which it was, so- Thunder bad. Even worst that Thunder had time to think about it when the appeal was placed and he kept his stance.

That's Vekter tho

Pandarsenic wrote:Speaking from former admin:
It's incredibly annoying to add the steps to fix things if someone was gibbed wrongly.

As a matter of a generalized rule, you should not be gibbing, cremating, etc., (Spacing is actually not so bad for a few reasons) while an investigation is ongoing.

Sure, maybe this is an easy, cut-and-dry investigation, this time, because the chef... invaded his department to stab his eyes out and waste the cargo budget. But "lmao do whatever mid-investigation" is a bad precedent to have floating around, because it makes things get messy easier and faster for no real gain.

Speaking as a former admin, I would adjust my investigation to determine whether or not the gibbing was valid, not ban someone for the audacity of not freezing their IC actions if I did not explicitly ask them to. This is stupid.

RESPECT AUTHORITY, BOW DOWN TO YOUR OPRESSORS.

The murder was valid, so the ban was for... Not making sure the admin knew the murder was valid OOC before gibbing IC?

Unless they broke a rule by over-escalating, this ban doesn't make sense. Playing while being ahelped is not against the rules. What's valid doesn't depend on the ongoing ahelp, it depends on IC factors which are independent of the ahelp, so gibbing/murdering during it shouldn't matter so long as it's valid.

if the murder hadnt been valid you are now stuck with a guy you need to take more measures to bring back into the game, cant just adminheal and move on

NoxVS wrote:if the murder hadnt been valid you are now stuck with a guy you need to take more measures to bring back into the game, cant just adminheal and move on

Except the murder was valid. If it wasn't valid and Mitch continued to gib, he'd just be punished more harshly for it afterwards because of the added escalation. I agree if you're in the wrong and continue to break rules while being bwoinked, it makes things messier and more problematic, and should result in a bigger punishment after. But if you didn't break any rules you didn't break any rules.

sinfulbliss wrote:

NoxVS wrote:if the murder hadnt been valid you are now stuck with a guy you need to take more measures to bring back into the game, cant just adminheal and move on

Except the murder was valid. If it wasn't valid and Mitch continued to gib, he'd just be punished more harshly for it afterwards because of the added escalation. I agree if you're in the wrong and continue to break rules while being bwoinked, it makes things messier and more problematic, and should result in a bigger punishment after. But if you didn't break any rules you didn't break any rules.

unless they are intentionally breaking the rules, everyone is going to think they are in the right. if you are allowed to continue doing stuff like this while the issue is being investigated as long as you are in the right then it just encourages all the people who make mistakes to dig the hole deeper
plus it is tedious as fuck to deal with an issue between players as the situation is actively becoming worse

lol

NoxVS wrote:if the murder hadnt been valid you are now stuck with a guy you need to take more measures to bring back into the game, cant just adminheal and move on

... the same situation as if they had gibbed before an investigation. A round does not stop due to an investigation, and neither should the players if they are not explicitly asked to. Depending on who saw or inferred that he killed the chef, medical or sec officers or valid hunters could be not far behind, so there is a definite urgency to these things. Also, lol about banning someone because they made a voluntary action on the admins part (rezzing the person wrongly killed) harder.

NoxVS wrote: unless they are intentionally breaking the rules, everyone is going to think they are in the right. if you are allowed to continue doing stuff like this while the issue is being investigated as long as you are in the right then it just encourages all the people who make mistakes to dig the hole deeper

Most players will stop what they’re doing when bwoinked to resolve it because the bwoink itself often implies what they’re doing could be wrong. But bwoinks aren’t always presumptions of wrongdoing, I’ve had plenty where it starts with “you’re not in trouble,” because it’s simply an investigation on the admin’s side, and I would continue my actions, especially if I’m 100% sure it’s valid.

I’ll give an example. One time I validly round-removed an RD about 20 minutes after they straight jacketed and tortured me for 15 minutes. As I was grabbing the chef’s gibber to gib them I got bwoinked asking why I killed the RD. I was completely certain it was valid, and continued building and eventually gibbing the RD while filling in the admin on what happened. I didn’t get banned for this obviously because the actions were valid and you don’t have to stop valid actions during a bwoink.

If the player chooses to continue what they’re doing mid-bwoink that’s simply a risk they’re taking whether they are right or wrong. Most people won’t take this risk unless the situation is clearly and obviously valid, like it was here.

EDIT: Perhaps it could be made policy that players have to pause their actions if they’re bwoinked, but that should only be done if the bwoinking admin is already under the impression there was a rule violation, IMO. That would throw “investigative” bwoinks out the window, since in many cases the admin doesn’t even think you’re in the wrong but just would like extra info to be positive themselves.

Or here’s a fun idea, why don’t you color-code bwoinks?
You can get a “red” bwoink, an “orange” bwoink, a “yellow” bwoink, or a “green” bwoink. Green bwoinks are just to ask for info about a case you’re tangentially related to. Yellow is for very minor things where the admin just wants to nudge you away from doing something or slap you on the wrist. Orange bwoinks are for normal cases where you might’ve done something wrong and the admin has to determine if you did. Red bwoinks are when the admin is quite certain there was a violation and you’re probably in trouble. Only red bwoinks would force the player to stop what they’re doing IC, regardless of actual validity.

sinfulbliss wrote:Or here’s a fun idea, why don’t you color-code bwoinks?
You can get a “red” bwoink, an “orange” bwoink, a “yellow” bwoink, or a “green” bwoink. Green bwoinks are just to ask for info about a case you’re tangentially related to. Yellow is for very minor things where the admin just wants to nudge you away from doing something or slap you on the wrist. Orange bwoinks are for normal cases where you might’ve done something wrong and the admin has to determine if you did. Red bwoinks are when the admin is quite certain there was a violation and you’re probably in trouble. Only red bwoinks would force the player to stop what they’re doing IC, regardless of actual validity.

Imagine the endorphin rush from talking an admin down from red text to green

No (not to armhulen my beloved)

wesoda25 wrote:No (not to armhulen my beloved)

Also bans/notes already have this sort of system with the “!” “!!” “!!!” pretext, basically the same thing.

wesoda25 wrote:No (not to armhulen my beloved)

MY beloved wesoda, the pride and paragon of my entire bloodline

sinfulbliss wrote:Most players will stop what they’re doing when bwoinked to resolve it because the bwoink itself often implies what they’re doing could be wrong.

most players will stop but not all, as can be seen by the appeal we are currently discussing

sinfulbliss wrote:I’ve had plenty where it starts with “you’re not in trouble,” because it’s simply an investigation on the admin’s side, and I would continue my actions, especially if I’m 100% sure it’s valid.

those tickets do exist yes, but i think it is safe to say this ticket was not one of those

sinfulbliss wrote:EDIT: Perhaps it could be made policy that players have to pause their actions if they’re bwoinked, but that should only be done if the bwoinking admin is already under the impression there was a rule violation, IMO. That would throw “investigative” bwoinks out the window, since in many cases the admin doesn’t even think you’re in the wrong but just would like extra info to be positive themselves.

sounds like a plan, admins that want to just look into things but don't think there is a rules violation can say "you're not in trouble" when they start the ticket
and if your ticket doesn't start with that it is safe to assume the admin probably thinks one of you is breaking some rule

wesoda25 wrote:lol about banning someone because they made a voluntary action on the admins part (rezzing the person wrongly killed) harder.

it is also extremely inconvenient for the player who has to wait on the admin doing what should have just been a press of the adminheal button

how many buttons do you need to press to bring a gibbed person back into the game?

NoxVS wrote: most players will stop but not all, as can be seen by the appeal we are currently discussing

Right, because he was confident his actions were valid (which they were).

NoxVS wrote: it is also extremely inconvenient for the player who has to wait on the admin doing what should have just been a press of the adminheal button

That's why they would be punished more harshly for it if they ended up being wrong.

Agree with everything else you said. The question is whether validity is determined IC, or if it's determined by admins. If it's determined by admins then you should pause before continuing to act. If it's determined IC, and your actions are valid IC, then you shouldn't be banned regardless.

MitchTheSkele wrote:[...] he acted like one so I gibbed him and made him into a steak

That's a fitting end for a chef.


With warm regards
-BONERMASTER

If it really went as the cargo tech described it, why is the cargo tech getting the boot and not the chef for ahelping?

The admin didnt say the cargo tech was wrong they said that the cargo tech shouldnt gib them while they are still "investigating" it. (And to be fair, an admin would know how it went down by now if they cared this much about their investigation)


The chef
1. Broke into cargo.
2. Used cargo`s money. (lasting consequence)
3. Attacked the cargo tech trying to kill them when the cargo tech only dragged them out.
4. Stabbed the cargo tech`s eyes which will hinder him for a pretty large chunk of the round. (lasting consequence)

You reserve the right to escalate harder than normal when someone is breaking into your department and attacking you, especially if they do things that will severely alter your round for the worse.



Also, did the admin actually tell the player to leave the chef`s body alone? Or did they expect the cargo tech who had just went through all of this to stop and think "maybe I should sit still and risk more and more people seeing me look sketchy with chef`s body" instead of disposing of it as fast as possible and moving on with their already hindered round.

Fishimun wrote:how many buttons do you need to press to bring a gibbed person back into the game?

control shift click.

admin can literally turn ghost into a body, select chef clothing and done..... sounds like admin disrespect ban for not knowing the admin took a dump while in middle of ticket and didnt yet check the logs where the chef starts a conflict and crits the tech with a eye screwdriver, came back to body disappearing and ruling it

EDIT: he didnt revive chef after banning the man so he knew it was valid anyway

how very dare you not obtain permission to play the game

also if the chef ahelped getting gibbed for putting someone's eyes out with a screwdriver without provocation then the chef can eat a bag of rusty dicks too

because if there's one thing we all love it's another episode of "someone started shit, got hit, whined, and got the person they started shit with banned"

you can put the corpse in a locker and do other things in the meantime

Gibbing the dude in the middle of an ahelp conversation != gibbing the dude in the middle of an ahelp conversation after the admin specifically tells you not to or asks you to cool your heels until they get things sorted out.

The former is irritating and merits a "c'mon dude" conversation but not much else, as it usually isn't too big of a deal to sort out.

The latter could easily catch you a ban.

Haven't logdived to see which this is yet, but that's where it hinges for me.

technokek wrote:Even if the admin asked the player not to gib this should specifically be outlined in the note. (After telling X to wait with gibbing someone, X just did it anyway)

Yup.

Exactly what rule did MitchTheSkele break in-game to be warranted a ban?

Agux909 wrote:Exactly what rule did MitchTheSkele break in-game to be warranted a ban?

He ignored the janitor and is facing the consequences

the real question is why bother dragging the body to the gibber when on most maps the disposals driver is more accessible from cargo

technokek wrote:

Agux909 wrote:Exactly what rule did MitchTheSkele break in-game to be warranted a ban?

He ignored the janitor and is facing the consequences

Damn they should be blacklisted. That's rule 13 right?

Screemonster wrote:the real question is why bother dragging the body to the gibber when on most maps the disposals driver is more accessible from cargo

Because it's more satisfying, and then you can serve their meat as food.

Agux909 wrote:

Screemonster wrote:the real question is why bother dragging the body to the gibber when on most maps the disposals driver is more accessible from cargo

Because it's more satisfying, and you can serve them as food.

you know what I'll concede that

NoxVS wrote:if the murder hadnt been valid you are now stuck with a guy you need to take more measures to bring back into the game, cant just adminheal and move on

This is a pretty creative way of saying "It takes exactly 1 more button press" ([shift-rc on ghost, select equipment, click job tab, click "chef" ]vs [Shift-rc on corpse, select player panel, press Heal]

If the kill was valid then the ban should not have been placed

Also whether or not the banana peel is ruled valid/invalid that ban note is highly misleading and inaccurate if the chef was the actual instigator, and would need updating.

Not-Dorsidarf wrote:Also whether or not the banana peel is ruled valid/invalid that ban note is highly misleading and inaccurate if the chef was the actual instigator, and would need updating.

lmao yeah, "Killed a chef for doing things in cargo"
what things
I guess "stabbing you in the eyes" is things

It's important to realize that although this looks bad on the part of thunder we are missing the actual ahelp. This is a HUGE part of the situation and without it we cannot make a really informed judgement.

Screemonster wrote:

Not-Dorsidarf wrote:Also whether or not the banana peel is ruled valid/invalid that ban note is highly misleading and inaccurate if the chef was the actual instigator, and would need updating.

lmao yeah, "Killed a chef for doing things in cargo"
what things
I guess "stabbing you in the eyes" is things

fucking lol

Pandarsenic wrote:

Screemonster wrote:

Not-Dorsidarf wrote:Also whether or not the banana peel is ruled valid/invalid that ban note is highly misleading and inaccurate if the chef was the actual instigator, and would need updating.

lmao yeah, "Killed a chef for doing things in cargo"
what things
I guess "stabbing you in the eyes" is things

Im not stabbing people with a screwdriver, Im doing it with a damn knife.

>go out of the way to involve an admin in your ic play

>pay the price

fuck around and find out