Captain gets banned for making a prisoner play Russian Roulette

[ekaterina]

Bottom post of the previous page:

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=34358

A month-long ban for this? That is beyond insane. Unless he's done stuff like this before, all this should result in is "hey, you can't do that, don't round remove people who haven't committed capital crimes" and maybe a standard 1 day ban for 1 kill.

[sinfulbliss]

Because they signed a fuckin' blood contract that stipulated they'd be executed. Maybe just take the 7 minutes if you find it crazy to execute over petty theft. It's like consenting to being killed then making the surprised pikachu face when you actually die and stay dead. Cap just thought staying killed was part of the deal and it's fair to think that, I don't think it was malice. Like I said it's just a communication issue.

You aren't explaining how trying to RR petty prisoner's is anything but malicious though? Roulette is a cool idea but RRing them afterwards is completely overdoing it.

If it wasn't malicious why was round removal on the table in the first place? Why not just do normal ass roulette so both party's have a laugh

You are saying the captain made an innocent mistake but you keep ignoring any motivation around why that mistake occurred.

losers of death games dont usually avoid death!

this is the non-malicious motive

[Lacran]

losers of death games dont usually avoid death!
this is the non-malicious motive

Round removing prisoners over petty crimes is infact a malicious motive.

Ignoring his failure to get informed consent. He is trying to get prisoners to round remove themselves to avoid minor sentences. A Captain or anyone in security that is playing the role with that goal in mind has a malicious motive. They are not trying to improve the round, they are trying to get away with treating people as harshly as possible.

[Boot]

losers of death games dont usually avoid death!
this is the non-malicious motive

informed consent

Just kill me now.

[Not-Dorsidarf]

While the ban is quite silly when you lay it out as "People gambling with their life to get out of a jail sentence have a default expectation of revival", it's much less silly when you lay it out as "Captains shouldn't put petty trespassers with short sentences into death games where they will be irrevocably removed from the round without making it extremely explicit that that will be the outcome"

[oranges]

The instant the prisoner willingly chose to take the deal with the devil, the “security precedent” of handling antags in proportion to their crimes went out the window. It no longer applies — they were offered the bog standard, by-the-book punishment. They denied this. Now there IS no policy, the policy is whatever the god damn deal they themselves accepted was. In this case it was death. This at most was a miscommunication about what death meant, but very clearly was not malice or the fault of the HoS for not realizing “death” actually meant instant revival then freedom after.

This is simply not true lmfao

Powerful argument as usual Conrad

this isn't a zing because you were the first to just make something up

the “security precedent” of handling antags in proportion to their crimes went out the window. It no longer applies

and he's just informing you that it's not true and no amount of you claiming otherwise will change that

[dendydoom]

interjecting with a rebuttal:
on the contrary, the reason the security policy exists is to allow people to play with antags in a way that doesn't immediately screw them over for minor mistakes. the only reason someone would take this deal is because we have IC knowledge of the fact that medical science can stitch us back together from anything with enough time. with revival, the punishment is an offer of a more interesting scenario than occupying a brig cell, but remains a temporary inconvenience that doesn't remove them from the round.

with a refusal to revive it becomes an execution, which is a completely disproportionate response to the crime, and if the detainee sincerely knew that's what the captain intended then they wouldn't have accepted it in the first place. no one would.

The instant the prisoner willingly chose to take the deal with the devil, the “security precedent” of handling antags in proportion to their crimes went out the window. It no longer applies — they were offered the bog standard, by-the-book punishment. They opted instead for the alternative deal. Now there IS no policy, the policy is whatever the god damn deal they themselves accepted was. In this case it was death. This at most was a miscommunication about what death meant, but very clearly was not malice or the fault of the HoS for not realizing “death” actually meant instant revival then freedom after.

I can think of plenty of people who would opt for this deal despite it being RR. 7 minutes in a cell is a long time and pretty sucky, if you’re not particularly wedded to the round it could make sense to risk it.

people accept these gimmicks all the time because it's a fun and enjoyable alternative and because many people like to assume good faith from all parties involved. yes, had the captain made it clear that the punishment for failure was death with no revival, then it would be a different matter - i agree with you on that point. but they didn't. it was open to interpretation, and the rules insinuate that command/security will punish people proportionately to their crimes, so oftentimes manuel players will feel safe enough within those rules to accept wacky ideas like this so that they can participate in interesting rp situations instead of being locked into playing defensively and turning down offers for interesting situations because it might inadvertently be them signing their own death warrant.

i actually said all along that i enjoy the idea of giving out games like this, and i don't think that it's something that deserves to be restricted or punished on its own - just that using it as a way to RR someone because you explained it in a way that left any doubt is something that many manuel players won't expect because we have existing policy that usually protects people from this.

mrp has higher expectations of command and security policy which doesn't allow minor crimes to be punished with things like RR. the fact of the matter is that the captain utilized their authority in such a way that someone ended up RR'd because they committed a relatively minor crime, which is not something we generally accept. manuel players know this, and it factors into their expectations of their gameplay experience. i can appreciate that many people don't like this sort of environment, and prefer things fast and loose with more risks and less rules. in that case, it's a good thing we have servers that don't utilize those rules or expectations so people can play there and enjoy themselves in the environment they prefer. i don't play on those servers, so my experience and judgement with regards to how lrp handles it is limited, and i will take your word on it.

as for my banbotty vibes i'm actually known for noting people less than i should and banning people even less - i generally prefer to talk to them instead and give them the benefit of the doubt if they were acting in good faith, which all parties involved seem to be doing here. it's just that, like you said, it came down to a communication issue which i can understand from the pov of the detainee and the captain, but ultimately it was the captain's call and the captain's responsibility to be clear about what they were offering. it's not my ban so i'm not privy to all of the information that went into considering the length of the ban, but suffice to say it wouldn't have been 30 days if it were me pulling the trigger. i would've just discussed our expectations of command and how security are expected to punish criminals on mrp and let them be on their merry way, content in the fact that they probably won't do something like that again without making sure they're clear about what it means. adding mrp security policy to the appeal wasn't an excuse to show them a rule that they can be banned under to "gotcha" them, it was simply to inform them of the general standards that are expected when you play security or command and find yourself utilizing your authority to punish people.

i have no comment on your imaginary ahelp: this didn't happen anywhere else other than inside your own head.

it could have been resolved by teleporting the player’s body to medbay and giving the HoS a note not to run these types of games anymore, at least not with RR

i do like the idea of turning this into an IC matter, perhaps an investigation over the captain's conduct. it would at least help to turn the situation into something meaningful that can be the catalyst for rp, thank you for sharing.

[Fren256]

I like how sinful wants to treat RRing as some kind of sacred act that should never be questioned. Yes, you sometimes permanently die by the hands of some players, but the circumstances and motives behind round removal should always be questioned if the victim/perpetrator isn't an antag or if the IC motives behind their death aren't soundly logical and clear.

[CMDR_Gungnir]

Most people don’t have this weird doublespeak of death not meaning death, only round removal meaning death,

You're absolutely correct. For most people, Death means Death, and Round Removal means Round Removal. I'm glad you can understand.

[ThanatosRa]

i dunno this sounds like it was fucking funny overall

is only a gaem why you heff to be med

[blackdav123]

yeah what the captain SHOULD have said is "you can either spend 7 minutes in jail or you'll have a 50/50 chance of being ROUND REMOVED by ME because I am a NONANTAG and have to tell you all of this or else you will assume DEATH means NOT ACTUALLY DEATH and you get revived instead of spending any time in jail" yeah that would've made a lot more sense for him to say in character

[kinnebian]

50/50 my ass

[2023-07-02 07:55:39.413] GAME-SAY: S5nt/(Kazcov Korbov) "Pick a number 1 or two" (Brig Overlook (118,171,4))
[2023-07-02 07:55:44.631] GAME-SAY: The Asbestos Sniffer/(Lucy Trelawney) "2." (Holding Cell (118,170,4))
[2023-07-02 07:55:45.717] GAME-EMOTE: Avaster/(Monty Kalashnikov) coughs! (Transfer Centre (112,172,3))
[2023-07-02 07:55:47.622] GAME-SAY: S5nt/(Kazcov Korbov) "Wrong" (Brig Overlook (118,171,4))

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXChdDhVIwQ

[CMDR_Gungnir]

yeah what the captain SHOULD have said is "you can either spend 7 minutes in jail or you'll have a 50/50 chance of being ROUND REMOVED by ME because I am a NONANTAG and have to tell you all of this or else you will assume DEATH means NOT ACTUALLY DEATH and you get revived instead of spending any time in jail" yeah that would've made a lot more sense for him to say in character

You're right. And escalation policy means that you should have to say "Greetings, friend. I don't like the words you're using, and as a result I am telling you that we will fight if you continue, as I am a NON-ANTAG, and you may not expect to be attacked by me. Fortunately for you, ESCALATION POLICY means that I have to take you to medbay after our fight."

No, that's stupid. In your example, you could say something like "If you guess the number wrong, you die and your head will be taken as a trophy", and in mine you can say "Shut the fuck up before I bash your skull in with this toolbox."

[blackdav123]

50/50 my ass

[2023-07-02 07:55:39.413] GAME-SAY: S5nt/(Kazcov Korbov) "Pick a number 1 or two" (Brig Overlook (118,171,4))
[2023-07-02 07:55:44.631] GAME-SAY: The Asbestos Sniffer/(Lucy Trelawney) "2." (Holding Cell (118,170,4))
[2023-07-02 07:55:45.717] GAME-EMOTE: Avaster/(Monty Kalashnikov) coughs! (Transfer Centre (112,172,3))
[2023-07-02 07:55:47.622] GAME-SAY: S5nt/(Kazcov Korbov) "Wrong" (Brig Overlook (118,171,4))

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXChdDhVIwQ

[2023-07-02 07:51:10.825] GAME-SAY: S5nt/(Kazcov Korbov) "you have two optiosn" (Brig Overlook (118,171,4))
[2023-07-02 07:51:16.726] GAME-SAY: S5nt/(Kazcov Korbov) "Either you pick a number 1 or 2" (Brig Overlook (118,171,4))
[2023-07-02 07:51:22.897] GAME-SAY: S5nt/(Kazcov Korbov) "And if you pick the wrong one I kill you right now" (Brig Overlook (118,171,4))
[2023-07-02 07:51:30.020] GAME-SAY: S5nt/(Kazcov Korbov) "And if you pick the right one" (Brig Overlook (118,171,4))
[2023-07-02 07:51:31.508] GAME-SAY: S5nt/(Kazcov Korbov) "You go free" (Brig Overlook (118,171,4))
[2023-07-02 07:51:36.049] GAME-SAY: S5nt/(Kazcov Korbov) "The other option is a 7 minute brig" (Brig Overlook (118,171,4))
[2023-07-02 07:55:32.422] GAME-SAY: The Asbestos Sniffer/(Lucy Trelawney) "Fine, I'll play the game." (Holding Cell (118,170,4))
[2023-07-02 07:55:36.160] GAME-SAY: S5nt/(Kazcov Korbov) "Okay sure" (Brig Overlook (118,171,4))
[2023-07-02 07:55:39.413] GAME-SAY: S5nt/(Kazcov Korbov) "Pick a number 1 or two" (Brig Overlook (118,171,4))
[2023-07-02 07:55:44.631] GAME-SAY: The Asbestos Sniffer/(Lucy Trelawney) "2." (Holding Cell (118,170,4))

Dont pretend like this is an issue with the game, even if it may or may not have been rigged. Both players were in agreement to the rules and that losing meant death.

[kinnebian]

50/50 my ass

[2023-07-02 07:55:39.413] GAME-SAY: S5nt/(Kazcov Korbov) "Pick a number 1 or two" (Brig Overlook (118,171,4))
[2023-07-02 07:55:44.631] GAME-SAY: The Asbestos Sniffer/(Lucy Trelawney) "2." (Holding Cell (118,170,4))
[2023-07-02 07:55:45.717] GAME-EMOTE: Avaster/(Monty Kalashnikov) coughs! (Transfer Centre (112,172,3))
[2023-07-02 07:55:47.622] GAME-SAY: S5nt/(Kazcov Korbov) "Wrong" (Brig Overlook (118,171,4))

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXChdDhVIwQ

[2023-07-02 07:51:10.825] GAME-SAY: S5nt/(Kazcov Korbov) "you have two optiosn" (Brig Overlook (118,171,4))
[2023-07-02 07:51:16.726] GAME-SAY: S5nt/(Kazcov Korbov) "Either you pick a number 1 or 2" (Brig Overlook (118,171,4))
[2023-07-02 07:51:22.897] GAME-SAY: S5nt/(Kazcov Korbov) "And if you pick the wrong one I kill you right now" (Brig Overlook (118,171,4))
[2023-07-02 07:51:30.020] GAME-SAY: S5nt/(Kazcov Korbov) "And if you pick the right one" (Brig Overlook (118,171,4))
[2023-07-02 07:51:31.508] GAME-SAY: S5nt/(Kazcov Korbov) "You go free" (Brig Overlook (118,171,4))
[2023-07-02 07:51:36.049] GAME-SAY: S5nt/(Kazcov Korbov) "The other option is a 7 minute brig" (Brig Overlook (118,171,4))
[2023-07-02 07:55:32.422] GAME-SAY: The Asbestos Sniffer/(Lucy Trelawney) "Fine, I'll play the game." (Holding Cell (118,170,4))
[2023-07-02 07:55:36.160] GAME-SAY: S5nt/(Kazcov Korbov) "Okay sure" (Brig Overlook (118,171,4))
[2023-07-02 07:55:39.413] GAME-SAY: S5nt/(Kazcov Korbov) "Pick a number 1 or two" (Brig Overlook (118,171,4))
[2023-07-02 07:55:44.631] GAME-SAY: The Asbestos Sniffer/(Lucy Trelawney) "2." (Holding Cell (118,170,4))

Dont pretend like this is an issue with the game, even if it may or may not have been rigged. Both players were in agreement to the rules and that losing meant death.

im not pretending anything im saying the game sucked ass

[blackdav123]

No, that's stupid. In your example, you could say something like "If you guess the number wrong, you die and your head will be taken as a trophy", and in mine you can say "Shut the fuck up before I bash your skull in with this toolbox."

players assuming that the only thing that comes after death is revival is the reason we never have hostage situations because the """correct""" way of dealing with a hostage situation is to kill everyone involved and revive the hostages
this is an unhealthy mindset for our game to have and to enforce as policy.

[CMDR_Gungnir]

No, that's stupid. In your example, you could say something like "If you guess the number wrong, you die and your head will be taken as a trophy", and in mine you can say "Shut the fuck up before I bash your skull in with this toolbox."

players assuming that the only thing that comes after death is revival is the reason we never have hostage situations because the """correct""" way of dealing with a hostage situation is to kill everyone involved and revive the hostages
this is an unhealthy mindset for our game to have and to enforce as policy.

There's entirely a middle ground to take where you can have both, in fact. Our game's a setting where death is easily fixed.

That doesn't mean your character wants to die. It's still an unpleasant experience and something they'd generally rather avoid where possible unless they're some insane madman. As a result, you care about the hostage situations. Because you'd really rather not end up dead, and you would really prefer not to have the hostage killed.

The play here isn't "Make RR a more attractive and common occurrence", it's to add policy regarding death but nobody wants to do that because the admins would have to put in work when someone breaks it.

[Lacran]

No, that's stupid. In your example, you could say something like "If you guess the number wrong, you die and your head will be taken as a trophy", and in mine you can say "Shut the fuck up before I bash your skull in with this toolbox."

players assuming that the only thing that comes after death is revival is the reason we never have hostage situations because the """correct""" way of dealing with a hostage situation is to kill everyone involved and revive the hostages
this is an unhealthy mindset for our game to have and to enforce as policy.

This isn't about antags or conflict, this is about sec conduct with a petty prisoner.

No policy here impacts the scenario you described. The prisoner made desicions with metaprotrctions in mind, the captain broke them, the captain got in trouble.

The player expects revive because security are expected to revive minor prisoners held in custody if they die.

[Archie700]

The only way to "fix" the "issue" that people treat death as an "annoyance" is to make normal death non-trivial via code.

This is not a good idea

[Archie700]

mrp has higher expectations of command and security policy which doesn't allow minor crimes to be punished with things like RR. the fact of the matter is that the captain utilized their authority in such a way that someone ended up RR'd because they committed a relatively minor crime, which is not something we generally accept. manuel players know this, and it factors into their expectations of their gameplay experience. i can appreciate that many people don't like this sort of environment, and prefer things fast and loose with more risks and less rules. in that case, it's a good thing we have servers that don't utilize those rules or expectations so people can play there and enjoy themselves in the environment they prefer. i don't play on those servers, so my experience and judgement with regards to how lrp handles it is limited, and i will take your word on it.

I would like to inform you that this wouldn't fly with LRP for about the same reason - RRing a player under flimsy reasoning after misrepresenting what would actually happen if they died.

The crime would not have warranted execution under any circumstances. There were no previous crimes or aggravating factors (revolution or traitor) and the arrest was relatively peaceful.

[BrianBackslide]

Death means death. What more is there to say? Just because death is typically a slap on the wrist and easily reversed doesn't mean you get to automatically assume every death will be the same.

If you're offered death, and you take death, then don't be offended when you keep that death. Accept your death and die gladly. The only thing petty here is complaining that you died for choosing death.

[dendydoom]

I would like to inform you that this wouldn't fly with LRP for about the same reason - RRing a player under flimsy reasoning after misrepresenting what would actually happen if they died.

The crime would not have warranted execution under any circumstances. There were no previous crimes or aggravating factors (revolution or traitor) and the arrest was relatively peaceful.

i appreciate that - thank you.

[blackdav123]

in what world is this not a consentual conflict? captain asks "do you want normal option or unique option?" and player chooses not to do the normal one and is somehow surprised that "I'll kill you" means they die for real.

[CMDR_Gungnir]

The only way to "fix" the "issue" that people treat death as an "annoyance" is to make normal death non-trivial via code.

This is not a good idea

Or policy. Death blackouts making the want to keep someone alive matter. Hell, roleplay alone can easily solve the problem if anyone actually cared to.

In real life, breaking your arm is non-fatal. Do you want to break your arm? Well, maybe not it's pretty inconvenient. You know what's not going to kill you, or cause you longterm inconvenience? A toothache. A migraine.

Do you want either of those to happen? Are you going to go out of your way to do something that gives you either of those options? Of course not, they're unpleasant experiences and you'd rather avoid them. Death (and resuscitation) would be disorienting. They'd be unpleasant. You'd probably still have some lingering pains, maybe.

Congratulations, there's your reason to care not to die. Wacky and wild how easy that be, huh?

[RedBaronFlyer]

By your guys' logic, I could play Russian roulette with someone and toss them into the SM if they lost, or throw them out the airlock if they took "MEGA DEATH AIDS INSTAKILL PILL" after I dared them to take it. After all, saying they could die = being dead for the rest of the round, apparently.

People choose the dumbest hills to die on, I swear. No, they shouldn't have to specify that you would be round removed. YES, round removing someone is generally considered to be a dickhead move without justification.

[Archie700]

In the world of SS13 where you can be revived as long as you have a brain, a body and a soul, death is relative.

There is a difference between "if you do this you die" and "if you do this you die and can never be revived again".

[mstachife]

in what world is this not a consentual conflict? captain asks "do you want normal option or unique option?" and player chooses not to do the normal one and is somehow surprised that "I'll kill you" means they die for real.

probably due to the fact they refused to let them be revived afterwards and RR'd them which is turbocringe?

[RedBaronFlyer]

In the world of SS13 where you can be revived as long as you have a brain, a body and a soul, death is relative.

There is a difference between "if you do this you die" and "if you do this you die and can never be revived again".

uhm ahktually being dead doesn't mean you get revived and being round removed is a form of death and is sacred are you implying that the captain should have ick ooked and stated the guy would be round removed if he took up the offer? muh paranoia!!!1!!



DID YOU SEEE WHAT THE PRISONER WAS wearing DOING? THEY WERE ASKING FOR IT!!!!!

[Lacran]

player chooses not to do the normal one and is somehow surprised that "I'll kill you" means they die for real.

Captains are held to certain standards on MRP, executing petty prisoners is not ok. The player didn't agree to be executed, they agreed to play roulette, which kills you but let's you be revived, which sec is required to do.

Players aren't suddenly valid for round removal because they played a dangerous game to reduce their minor sentence.

If you want a player to consent to that let them know they are getting cremated or not getting treatment after if they lose, it's not difficult to do that.

[sinfulbliss]

Did a seven minute brig timer by your own estimation (this whole incident while they were in your captivity was over 7 minutes, as an aside) seem proportionate to giving them a potential death sentence?

No, it wasn't proportional, nor did it need to be proportional because they AGREED TO IT!!

Death WITHOUT round-removal wouldn't be proportional either, but guess what? It doesn't matter because they agreed to it! He needs to stop copypasting this policy like a banbot, it's completely getting away from the issue at hand.

If the game (which was just you saying 'Am I thinking of the number 1 or 2?' worst Saw puzzle ever IMO) was the basis for you killing them, what was the basis of you ensuring they weren't revived?

He already answered this! The basis was him thinking that death meant death -- that revival wasn't IMPLIED in a deal for death. Not malice.

Snip

I appreciate you explaining your take further. It places you out of the banbot territory like Conrad. But to me what's being missed is the fact that everyone is assuming RR proves the cap had an evil motive, to try to RR an innocent player based on a nothing-sentence just to be a dick. The possibility that this was simply part of the deal he THOUGHT they both agreed to, which he was honoring by keeping the player dead, is being completely ignored by the banning admin. He's just regurgitating policy. I feel like he's being intentionally dense and not trying to understand the player's perspective at all here.

[EmpressMaia]

Sinfulbliss doesn't understand

[Archie700]

Everything that sinfulbliss has complained about has already been answered by Timber's post.
viewtopic.php?p=692571#p692571

[sinfulbliss]

Everything that sinfulbliss has complained about has already been answered by Timber's post.
viewtopic.php?p=692571#p692571

Yeah because Timber has a good head on his shoulders. It was then completely ignored by the admin right after Timber replied.

[Archie700]

Both are basically saying pretty much the same thing.

I do not like that people are blaming the victim, who would reasonably expect a revival given the circumstances, for not clarifying with the HoS given that the situation in itself wasn't extreme enough to warrant removal from the round.

[sinfulbliss]

Both are basically saying pretty much the same thing.

I do not like that people are blaming the victim, who would reasonably expect a revival given the circumstances, for not clarifying with the HoS given that the situation in itself wasn't extreme enough to warrant removal from the round.

One is saying “hey you need to be clearer about the deal before you RR someone.” The other is saying “EXECUTION ISNT PROPORTIONAL TO A 7 MIN BRIG SENTENCE!” which misses the point entirely.

[Lacran]

No, it wasn't proportional, nor did it need to be proportional because they AGREED TO IT!!

The agreed to play roulette to reduce their sentence, they didn't agree to round removal if they lost. they didn't assume their loss would feature round removal because their crime did not warrant round removal, so why would a captain offer it if it was such a terrible deal. Unless they were being malicious.

He already answered this! The basis was him thinking that death meant death -- that revival wasn't IMPLIED in a deal for death. Not malice.

Revival doesn't need to be implicitly on the table its inherently on the table. Security would be required to aid the prisoner after they died the HoS thought this aswell until the captain told him not to. No party here but the captain did not expect revival because his job and the Hos' job required it.

The only justified way for revival to be off the table would be if the player specifically consented to that, which they didn't. roulette never justified round removal.

I feel like he's being intentionally dense and not trying to understand the player's perspective at all here.

Ah yes Sinful, the learned empath.

[sinfulbliss]

The agreed to play roulette to reduce their sentence, they didn't agree to round removal if they lost. they didn't assume their loss would feature round removal because their crime did not warrant round removal, so why would a captain offer it if it was such a terrible deal. Unless they were being malicious.

Their crime also didn’t warrant execution, but they agreed to execution. It’s completely irrelevant what their crime warranted because the deal is a separate issue.

And the deal doesn’t HAVE TO BE good. Yeah RR would make it a shit deal, but that’s irrelevant. If you agree to a shit deal it doesn’t mean it’s malicious because you always had the option not to agree. Again it was a miscommunication in what the deal entailed.

[Lacran]

Their crime also didn’t warrant execution, but they agreed to execution. It’s completely irrelevant what their crime warranted because the deal is a separate issue.

And the deal doesn’t HAVE TO BE good. Yeah RR would make it a shit deal, but that’s irrelevant. If you agree to a shit deal it doesn’t mean it’s malicious because you always had the option not to agree. Again it was a miscommunication in what the deal entailed.

If we remove the miscommunication its a Captain saying to a theif: "Pick a number, 1 or 2. If I decide its wrong I'll execute you and throw your body into lava, if you get it right I lift your 7 minutes, deal?" considering that, why are we assuming this Captain had any motivation other than to fuck this player over?

Captains are trusted by players to treat them fairly, so when there were vague parts of the deal the player assumed good faith, and was let down which neither the prisoner nor the HoS expected. So why are you assuming good faith when you know the goal of the captain was to round remove this person?

[TheRex9001]

I am not super sure the captain acted in bad faith with the game, they should have been clearer about the round removal aspect as that can be shitty since some players dont want to be round removed. I think a month long ban might be a bit too much but that depends on their previous notes.

[CMDR_Gungnir]

What the Captain did here is basically the genie play.

Offer something, don't mention the downside, fuck them over with the downside. Twist the words.

You know what we call that? Bad Faith. Nobody looks at those Genies and goes "Yeah, they're pretty good."

They go "God I fucking hate genies."

Edit: After reading what he's said in the appeal, up it to a perma. You can't trust someone like this not to be a cunt, and thus they can't be trusted with the authority to make these decisions. Hyperbole aside, lowering it to a week is a mistake.

[TypicalRig]

People need to stop throwing out buzzwords like malicious and bad faith. The captain was giving them the chance for RR as well as instant release. Assuming the game wasn't rigged, this was a two-way miscommunication error.

Also Manuel players only agreeing to do things ICly because they are acting on OOC metaprotections saving them is awfully fail RP for the MRP server and not something Dendy, or any admin, should be encouraging lol.

And wouldn't this have worked better as a temporary job ban instead, since it was an authority related issue?

[AsbestosSniffer]

And wouldn't this have worked better as a temporary job ban instead, since it was an authority related issue?

It quite literally is a temporary job ban.

[TypicalRig]

And wouldn't this have worked better as a temporary job ban instead, since it was an authority related issue?

It quite literally is a temporary job ban.

I really need to learn to read these thread formats better.........

[dendydoom]

i don't necessarily think the captain was trying to RR people as a meme and get away with it just to cause grief. i think they thought they were being clear with what they were offering, and the compounding of mrp rules and culture would make regular players assume the opposite because of things like security policy. there are assumptions made in that situation that originate from 2 different methods of reasoning, both of which are valid under certain circumstances and both of which are being hammered on over and over in this thread.

to be honest i feel like i understand the reasoning more now behind TBM's ban: there is nothing to say they should *never* try gimmicks like this again, but rather, they need to understand how rules and culture around good gameplay create these expectations in these situations. if they're going to play roles that can authorise executions and affect rounds in that capacity, then they should probably understand the nuances behind things like "you'll die" and "you'll die and stay dead" so that in future they can create gimmicks like this that are enjoyable for the people involved, OR ensure that their "executions" that involve RR are only done when it's appropriate to the crime being punished.

usually, things like this are nothing more than common sense: if you're offering a situation that fucks someone over with an RR for a reason that would otherwise break the rules if you did it without offering, then it stands to reason that you should be pretty clear about the consequences of what you're offering. but since the appealer seems to not immediately understand this, pointing to rules that explain good and expected general behaviour might help to inform them. TBM (and the vast majority of admins i would say, i cannot think of any where this isn't the case) aren't out to just punish people because of what the rules say - obviously you use common sense and discretion to keep the game fun. captain and security are important roles and have much higher expectations on mrp. they want this guy to understand what's being asked of them so that they can go back to playing these roles in the future and have a more positive impact on people's rounds with the authority and responsibility they're given.

Also Manuel players only agreeing to do things ICly because they are acting on OOC metaprotections saving them is awfully fail RP for the MRP server and not something Dendy, or any admin, should be encouraging lol.

sec and captain have metaprotections on the grounds that they don't use them to abuse their authority. players know this and expect people who take captain/sec roles to not make the game unfun for other people without good reason. i'm not sure how else to respond to this.

EDIT: also, can we all just agree that the game sucked? "pick 1 or 2"? cmon bro. no coin to flip? no dice to roll? couldn't even write the number on a piece of paper and give it to the HOS to dramatically read out like it's a game show? nothing? disappointing.

[TypicalRig]

usually, things like this are nothing more than common sense: if you're offering a situation that fucks someone over with an RR for a reason that would otherwise break the rules if you did it without offering, then it stands to reason that you should be pretty clear about the consequences of what you're offering.

The people in the thread seem pretty divided about this so maybe common sense isn't the best argument here. Particularly because it's also common sense to double check the terms behind something so outlandish as being shot in the head.

sec and captain have metaprotections on the grounds that they don't use them to abuse their authority. players know this and expect people who take captain/sec roles to not make the game unfun for other people without good reason. i'm not sure how else to respond to this.

My argument isn't really why/why aren't the metaprotections are in place. I'm saying players shouldn't heavily be influencing their IC actions based on these metaprotections. Things like "Okay, I'll do this because I know by the rules he can't round remove" vs "Okay, I'll do this because my character doesn't want to die forever" are two very different things and I was pointing out how it's silly that you yourself point out how a lot of your players won't leave their safety net ICly unless they are absolutely sure they are protected by the rules from something unfortunate happening. If the standard for RP is higher, the objective should be the opposite, no?

EDIT: also, can we all just agree that the game sucked? "pick 1 or 2"? cmon bro. no coin to flip? no dice to roll? couldn't even write the number on a piece of paper and give it to the HOS to dramatically read out like it's a game show? nothing? disappointing.

It was pretty lazy yeah.

[dendydoom]

My argument isn't really why/why aren't the metaprotections are in place. I'm saying players shouldn't heavily be influencing their IC actions based on these metaprotections. Things like "Okay, I'll do this because I know by the rules he can't round remove" vs "Okay, I'll do this because my character doesn't want to die forever" are two very different things and I was pointing out how it's silly that you yourself point out how a lot of your players won't leave their safety net ICly unless they are absolutely sure they are protected by the rules from something unfortunate happening. If the standard for RP is higher, the objective should be the opposite, no?

thanks for taking the time to elaborate. i can see where this feeling comes from - but my lazy response is that it doesn't really happen that way when playing manuel. or at least, not in my experience.

my slightly less lazy response is that i personally believe the opposite to be true in effect: if we were truly a ~high class thespian roleplay experience~ then a true and pure expression of that in RP would be to hide in a dorm room for the entire shift because this place is fucked up, twisted, dangerous and suspect in every way imaginable. but people want to have wacky space adventures, and to do that we need to have some level of trust in each other to not fuck each other over for silly reasons that make the game unfun. like many other people my rule of thumb when judging these situations is "did they have a logical IC reason to come to this decision?" and if yes, then even if it's "against the rules" then more often than not i will allow it, because telling a story is more important than checking off boxes, and telling an interesting story is often a messy affair. it's why i tried to throw the appealer a lifeline in the appeal and ask them questions that would elaborate more on the IC situation that could feasibly lead to them deciding to field execute someone for a petty crime before i had more context surrounding the situation.

to be able to say "yes" to those wacky situations and throw yourself into them to tell enjoyable stories and have enjoyable experiences playing the game, then you need to have some level of assurance that your time won't be immediately wasted for your innocent efforts. it is, to my knowledge, why all subsequent rules are just more elaboration on "don't be a dick." we're all here to share the space together and use it to tell stories and enjoy the game without having to play defensively because someone might be acting in an OOCly malicious way.

of course, this all concerns actions from non-antags, especially roles like security and the captain. antagonist are a different story.

EDIT: also, can we all just agree that the game sucked? "pick 1 or 2"? cmon bro. no coin to flip? no dice to roll? couldn't even write the number on a piece of paper and give it to the HOS to dramatically read out like it's a game show? nothing? disappointing.

It was pretty lazy yeah.

it's the true crime in all of this. forget what "death" truly means in ss13. we need to have discourse on how to design a better death game for prisoners.

[Archie700]

My argument isn't really why/why aren't the metaprotections are in place. I'm saying players shouldn't heavily be influencing their IC actions based on these metaprotections. Things like "Okay, I'll do this because I know by the rules he can't round remove" vs "Okay, I'll do this because my character doesn't want to die forever" are two very different things and I was pointing out how it's silly that you yourself point out how a lot of your players won't leave their safety net ICly unless they are absolutely sure they are protected by the rules from something unfortunate happening. If the standard for RP is higher, the objective should be the opposite, no?

Given those metaprotections are basically the very backbone of how security and captain has to function and interact with players whether LRP or MRP, IC actions are going to be heavily influenced based on them whether you like it or not.
Whether you follow or break these metaprotections will affect further IC actions done by you or to you down the line.

[AsbestosSniffer]

usually, things like this are nothing more than common sense: if you're offering a situation that fucks someone over with an RR for a reason that would otherwise break the rules if you did it without offering, then it stands to reason that you should be pretty clear about the consequences of what you're offering.

The people in the thread seem pretty divided about this so maybe common sense isn't the best argument here. Particularly because it's also common sense to double check the terms behind something so outlandish as being shot in the head.

sec and captain have metaprotections on the grounds that they don't use them to abuse their authority. players know this and expect people who take captain/sec roles to not make the game unfun for other people without good reason. i'm not sure how else to respond to this.

My argument isn't really why/why aren't the metaprotections are in place. I'm saying players shouldn't heavily be influencing their IC actions based on these metaprotections. Things like "Okay, I'll do this because I know by the rules he can't round remove" vs "Okay, I'll do this because my character doesn't want to die forever" are two very different things and I was pointing out how it's silly that you yourself point out how a lot of your players won't leave their safety net ICly unless they are absolutely sure they are protected by the rules from something unfortunate happening. If the standard for RP is higher, the objective should be the opposite, no?

EDIT: also, can we all just agree that the game sucked? "pick 1 or 2"? cmon bro. no coin to flip? no dice to roll? couldn't even write the number on a piece of paper and give it to the HOS to dramatically read out like it's a game show? nothing? disappointing.

It was pretty lazy yeah.

I actually chose the game because the captain was going to put me in the brig for 7 MORE minutes as well as take all of my worldly possessions, the game gave me an opportunity to get out instantly and with everything I had. But please, continue about how I want to abuse metaprotections and not be round removed for breaking into the brig ONCE. The captain failed to communicate, it's as simple as that and I'm sick of the people in this thread putting the blame on me. You are all quite frankly delusional and would do the same thing if you were in my shoes. Especially Sinful, who mentions "player empathy" and then keeps making up nonsensical stories and allegories to defend a captain round removing a prisoner for a minor infraction.

That being said, I do think a month job ban is a tad excessive for such actions taken during the round, but I am also unaware of this player's history in particular, and if what was said was true (that rule 7 played a factor), then I am not one to speak on such matters.

[TypicalRig]

a lot of soapboxing

I don't really see anything mentioned in the appeal about the 7 [more] (emphasis on the more part, since when you say it that way it sounds like your brigging was delayed quite a bit) minutes time, but is there not a policy about how more than 10 minutes of incarceration time stops being an IC issue? Generally speaking, admins will count the time as from the point of being handcuffed if the person took an unreasonable amount of time to brig you and slap the timer on. If that's what the captain pulled, then that also would've been worth mentioning...

I don't know what the procedure on MRP is for brig break-ins and removal of prisoner items is, but on LRP they usually aren't dealt with very politely and it's fairly common to remove tools that would enable them to break in again unless the officers are feeling nice. I assume on MRP you can't really take a prisoner's shit without a good reason? I'm not really here to pick apart if the captain followed procedure or not, just the validity of alternative forms of punishment that deviate from the standard, so it's kind of a moot point.

If you agree to some weird alternative punishment that deviates from the standard set punishment given, you should be sure of what you are agreeing to. You both failed to communicate. They're only putting extra focus on the captain because of his role and because he was the round remover, not because you're inherently less foolish for not asking for clarification. There's a reason a tons of people are arguing about "it's assumed death means death with revival" vs "it's assumed death means death with nothing extra" and you're too busy basking in your "woe is me attitude" to pick up on that.

[AsbestosSniffer]

a lot of soapboxing

I don't really see anything mentioned in the appeal about the 7 [more] (emphasis on the more part, since when you say it that way it sounds like your brigging was delayed quite a bit) minutes time, but is there not a policy about how more than 10 minutes of incarceration time stops being an IC issue? Generally speaking, admins will count the time as from the point of being handcuffed if the person took an unreasonable amount of time to brig you and slap the timer on. If that's what the captain pulled, then that also would've been worth mentioning...

I don't know what the procedure on MRP is for brig break-ins and removal of prisoner items is, but on LRP they usually aren't dealt with very politely and it's fairly common to remove tools that would enable them to break in again unless the officers are feeling nice. I assume on MRP you can't really take a prisoner's shit without a good reason? I'm not really here to pick apart if the captain followed procedure or not, just the validity of alternative forms of punishment that deviate from the standard, so it's kind of a moot point.

If you agree to some weird alternative punishment that deviates from the standard set punishment given, you should be sure of what you are agreeing to. You both failed to communicate. They're only putting extra focus on the captain because of his role and because he was the round remover, not because you're inherently less foolish for not asking for clarification. There's a reason a tons of people are arguing about "it's assumed death means death with revival" vs "it's assumed death means death with nothing extra" and you're too busy basking in your "woe is me attitude" to pick up on that.

Nah fuck off mate.

[Archie700]

Why are people blaming the victim for being round removed because "they failed to clarify what death meant".
Security had a duty to revive the person and has to be trusted to do the right thing because of the very role of security.
You want an IC reasoning? "Security should not be expected to prevent a revival for someone who was only caught breaking in to security and had not resisted arrest, then decided to go for a death game where she would either be freed or die."
Not everyone thinks like you do, which I fear is a failing of some people in this thread.

[conrad]

Why are people blaming the victim for being round removed because "they failed to clarify what death meant".

Because at least three people in this thread are coming up with rulings based on their feelings rather than what the rules actually say or are meant to signify, when otherwise they should be making policy threads.