Captain gets banned for making a prisoner play Russian Roulette

[ekaterina]

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.

[dendydoom]

you work fast on these threads ekat, good job.

from what i can tell it's a 30 day job ban from captain and hos only: the two roles which are capable of authorizing executions. there is no server ban attached.

if it were me in that situation i would also assume that losing the death game wouldn't be giving my consent to RR, since the inciting incident was supposedly a minor (escalated to moderate because it was the brig) crime that shouldn't warrant an execution on MRP. i would assume that the punishment would be both the dire shame of losing my honour in a game of fate and also the time it would take for my body to be moved to medbay, operated on and revived. this is, of course, operating under the assumption that breaking into the brig lobby is the only crime the detainee was found guilty of.

i do like the idea of handing out a game in lieu of sitting in a brig cell and staring at a wall for 7 minutes. it's cute and enjoyable for both the player to participate in and sec to oversee. but refusing to rez them after feels quite lame and improper under MRP rules.

[AsbestosSniffer]

you work fast on these threads ekat, good job.

from what i can tell it's a 30 day job ban from captain and hos only: the two roles which are capable of authorizing executions. there is no server ban attached.

if it were me in that situation i would also assume that losing the death game wouldn't be giving my consent to RR, since the inciting incident was supposedly a minor (escalated to moderate because it was the brig) crime that shouldn't warrant an execution on MRP. i would assume that the punishment would be both the dire shame of losing my honour in a game of fate and also the time it would take for my body to be moved to medbay, operated on and revived. this is, of course, operating under the assumption that breaking into the brig lobby is the only crime the detainee was found guilty of.

i do like the idea of handing out a game in lieu of sitting in a brig cell and staring at a wall for 7 minutes. it's cute and enjoyable for both the player to participate in and sec to oversee. but refusing to rez them after feels quite lame and improper under MRP rules.

Basically this, I was quite happy to play the game, I just felt like tossing my head into the plasmalake was incredibly lame. My only crime was quite literally just breaking into the brig, it was excessive, to put it simply.

[Archie700]

you work fast on these threads ekat, good job.

from what i can tell it's a 30 day job ban from captain and hos only: the two roles which are capable of authorizing executions. there is no server ban attached.

if it were me in that situation i would also assume that losing the death game wouldn't be giving my consent to RR, since the inciting incident was supposedly a minor (escalated to moderate because it was the brig) crime that shouldn't warrant an execution on MRP. i would assume that the punishment would be both the dire shame of losing my honour in a game of fate and also the time it would take for my body to be moved to medbay, operated on and revived. this is, of course, operating under the assumption that breaking into the brig lobby is the only crime the detainee was found guilty of.

i do like the idea of handing out a game in lieu of sitting in a brig cell and staring at a wall for 7 minutes. it's cute and enjoyable for both the player to participate in and sec to oversee. but refusing to rez them after feels quite lame and improper under MRP rules.

It would be lame and improper under LRP rules, you are not supposed to RR someone just for breaking into the brig once.

[WineAllWine]

shit peanut title

[conrad]

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.

This is a rule 7 ban.

[ekaterina]

from what i can tell it's a 30 day job ban from captain and hos only: the two roles which are capable of authorizing executions. there is no server ban attached.

If you're going by space law, only the captain can authorise executions, full stop. De facto, the HOS does authorise executions, but so does literally any security officer or vigilante under rule 4 (at least in LRP).

i do like the idea of handing out a game in lieu of sitting in a brig cell and staring at a wall for 7 minutes. it's cute and enjoyable for both the player to participate in and sec to oversee. but refusing to rez them after feels quite lame and improper under MRP rules.

I agree entirely. I just don't think this is worth a 30 day ban.

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.

This is a rule 7 ban.

Why is that not mentioned anywhere (other than your message just now)?

[conrad]

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.

This is a rule 7 ban.

Why is that not mentioned anywhere (other than your message just now)?

Because it's none of your business. Previous bans and notes from players, except for permanent bans, are privy to the player that were issued them.

[dendydoom]

If you're going by space law, only the captain can authorise executions, full stop. De facto, the HOS does authorise executions, but so does literally any security officer or vigilante under rule 4 (at least in LRP).

i actually had to check this, you're absolutely correct!

I agree entirely. I just don't think this is worth a 30 day ban.

30 days is a lot, but to a lot of people a job ban for 2 roles is a lot more palatable than being exiled from the funny space man game for even 1 day. we just have brain worms about our virtual escapism like that i suppose. i have no knowledge of this player's history or playtime (not that i could divulge even if i did) so it remains to be seen the reasoning behind the length of the job ban.

[Archie700]

To be very clear, I do not believe this would have been allowed in LRP either, because this would fall under Rule 1 - don't be a dick.

[sinfulbliss]

interjecting with peanut post:
the security policy of “dealing with someone in proportion to their crimes” is completely irrelevant here. they were offered a sentence that was proportional to their crime. they denied it and opted for possible death.

now you could say RR was a bit too far. I’d probably agree. but you could also say when the option offered is “death,” there is no reason to assume that by “death” they mean “life.” maybe they mean… you’re dead now. that would also be a safe bet.

30 days is too much for this. 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’ll buy this was a rule 7 ban when the past similar notes are given by the admin, until then I’ll just assume it’s yet another one of the “ehh you had notes so i’m escalating this” admins do, although they shouldn’t

[Archie700]

interjecting with peanut post:
the security policy of “dealing with someone in proportion to their crimes” is completely irrelevant here. they were offered a sentence that was proportional to their crime. they denied it and opted for possible death.

now you could say RR was a bit too far. I’d probably agree. but you could also say when the option offered is “death,” there is no reason to assume that by “death” they mean “life.” maybe they mean… you’re dead now. that would also be a safe bet.

30 days is too much for this. 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’ll buy this was a rule 7 ban when the past similar notes are given by the admin, until then I’ll just assume it’s yet another one of the “ehh you had notes so i’m escalating this” admins do, although they shouldn’t

If it was just death then it would have been funny. The ban was because the captain denied her a revival and the HoS made sure of it.

[dendydoom]

interjecting with peanut post:
the security policy of “dealing with someone in proportion to their crimes” is completely irrelevant here. they were offered a sentence that was proportional to their crime. they denied it and opted for possible death.

now you could say RR was a bit too far. I’d probably agree. but you could also say when the option offered is “death,” there is no reason to assume that by “death” they mean “life.” maybe they mean… you’re dead now. that would also be a safe bet.

30 days is too much for this. 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’ll buy this was a rule 7 ban when the past similar notes are given by the admin, until then I’ll just assume it’s yet another one of the “ehh you had notes so i’m escalating this” admins do, although they shouldn’t

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.

[Timberpoes]

On the topic of authorising executions on MRP:

Space Law is just a suggested roleplay guide and not following Space Law isn't against the rules, nor has Space Law ever been the basis for MRP security policy (tellingly so when EotC was in the insta-execute category of crimes, i.e. all antags were valid for execution via Space Law but not via the MRP rules).

On MRP executions can be authorised by either the Captain or the HoS. The HoS does not have to ask the Captain for permission to execute on MRP, although getting authorisation to execute from the Captain can absolve the HoS of responsibility if such an execution was invalid.

[TypicalRig]

The punisher probably absolutely should've clarified that not getting revived was also part of the terms, then it would've been fine. But also think it's kind of dumb on the player to assume that revival was the default. "Hey either you wait 7 minutes do something and are guaranteed life, or you take a 50/50 chance on a death game and if you win you can go free, but if you lose you get sent to medbay, healed, and freed at a rate that would've probably been faster than your actual 7 minute sentence!" isn't really a coherent thought process. Since this is Manuel, often medbay doesn't have much to do and can get shit done much faster assuming a competent medical team. Death by russian resolver doesn't take long at all to fix, so assuming sec brings their body straight to the medbay, they were probably gambling on worst case scenario they still save a few minutes from the heal time, rather than stay in the brig.

Also the person could've just asked "...but I will get revived, right?" So both of them are stupid for not clarifying.

also dendy tons of players would take the risk even with knowledge of the RR. snap back to reality.

[sinfulbliss]

But also think it's kind of dumb on the player to assume that revival was the default. "Hey either you wait 7 minutes do something and are guaranteed life, or you take a 50/50 chance on a death game and if you win you can go free, but if you lose you get sent to medbay, healed, and freed at a rate that would've probably been faster than your actual 7 minute sentence!"

100% this, yeah. If the deal is “SERVE 7 MINUTES OR SERVE 0 AND RISK DEATH,” why the hell are you assuming death comes pre-packaged with a revival? I wouldn’t, personally. I would be a bit irritated I was RR’d, but I wouldn’t ahelp because that was literally the deal I myself took.

I will never understand Manuel players’ aversion to RR. You are not entitled to being revived if you die. Death means death — this is a safe and healthy assumption to make. It can also make your roleplay better when you actually take the threat of death seriously instead of as a “okay okay but… I’ll be revived after right… so i won’t really be DEAD haha we’re just saying that?” It’s this same mentality that forced Melbert to bubblewrap heretic and auto revive all its victims into a bullet hell.

[sinfulbliss]

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.

[conrad]

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

[EmpressMaia]

Ekaterina doesn't understand that MRP has higher standards

[sinfulbliss]

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

[Archie700]

I don't think people expect the price for failing a game that would clear your 5 minute brig time for breaking into the labor shuttle should be "permanent removal from the rest of the round".

[Fren256]

Ekaterina doesn't understand that MRP has higher standards

They only understand it when it's convenient for them

[sinfulbliss]

Let me give another example to show just how silly y’all’s argument is.

Suppose the HoS arrests a tider for shocking the brig doors. He tells him he either gets 10 min gulag, OR he can duel with the detective. If he wins he goes free, if he loses he will be ripped limb from limb and his brain will be made into sandwiches.

The tider chooses to take the deal. He loses. His brain is, as promised, made into sandwiches.

Then he ahelps. He doesn’t think that was right! He thought it was just a figure of speech yknow, like “I’m gonna turn ya into paste!” Round removal is a little far, he reckons! Luckily for him, Conrad and Dendy hear his pleas in the supportmin channels. They rush to the scene, flaunting their shiny new trialmin badges and excited to use the new policy they’d been studying.

Conrad clears his throat,
BWOINK: Hey, got a moment?
HoS: Sure what’s up
BWOINK: Did you just turn John McTide’s brain into sandwiches?
HoS: Haha yeah, he agreed to it though. We had a deal and he lost.
BWOINK: When dealing with the crew and antagonists, make sure their punishments are in proportion to their crime(s).
HoS: Right but this was different it was a de-
interjection from Dendy: Minor crimes such as departmental break-ins, stolen equipment should be met with short, but increasing sentences depending on recurring visits by the apprehended.
HoS: Guys THE POLICY IS IRRELEVANT HERE IT WAS A DE-
A temporary ban has been created for HoS by ConradThunderBunch.

[EmpressMaia]

Let me give another example to show just how silly y’all’s argument is.

Suppose the HoS arrests a tider for shocking the brig doors. He tells him he either gets 10 min gulag, OR he can duel with the detective. If he wins he goes free, if he loses he will be ripped limb from limb and his brain will be made into sandwiches.

The tider chooses to take the deal. He loses. His brain is, as promised, made into sandwiches.

Then he ahelps. He doesn’t think that was right! He thought it was just a figure of speech yknow, like “I’m gonna turn ya into paste!” Round removal is a little far, he reckons! Luckily for him, Conrad and Dendy hear his pleas in the supportmin channels. They rush to the scene, flaunting their shiny new trialmin badges and excited to use the new policy they’d been studying.

Conrad clears his throat,
BWOINK: Hey, got a moment?
HoS: Sure what’s up
BWOINK: Did you just turn John McTide’s brain into sandwiches?
HoS: Haha yeah, he agreed to it though. We had a deal and he lost.
BWOINK: When dealing with the crew and antagonists, make sure their punishments are in proportion to their crime(s).
HoS: What no this was different it was a de-
interjection from Dendy: Minor crimes such as departmental break-ins, stolen equipment should be met with short, but increasing sentences depending on recurring visits by the apprehended.
HoS: Guys THE POLICY IS IRRELEVANT HERE IT WAS A DE-
A temporary ban has been created for HoS by ConradThunderBunch.

the issue isnt them killing the tider, the issue is that they RR'd the tider without informing them prior

[sinfulbliss]

the issue isnt them killing the tider, the issue is that they RR'd the tider without informing them prior

Exactly, the issue was the miscommunication that occured. It had absolutely nothing to do with security policy.

[AsbestosSniffer]

the issue isnt them killing the tider, the issue is that they RR'd the tider without informing them prior

Exactly, the issue was the miscommunication that occured. It had absolutely nothing to do with security policy.

Miscommunication I find to be an understatement here, there was no way to know that I'd be RR'd. Unlike what your previous posts imply, the captain never said "once you die your brain will be [X]", he'd just say "you'll die." Considering what I did was quite minor I figured "Okay, they'll kill me, maybe cut off my head and then toss the body outside medical", not toss the head into a plasmalake where it's then irretrievable.

[sinfulbliss]

the issue isnt them killing the tider, the issue is that they RR'd the tider without informing them prior

Exactly, the issue was the miscommunication that occured. It had absolutely nothing to do with security policy.

Miscommunication I find to be an understatement here, there was no way to know that I'd be RR'd. Unlike what your previous posts imply, the captain never said "once you die your brain will be [X]", he'd just say "you'll die." Considering what I did was quite minor I figured "Okay, they'll kill me, maybe cut off my head and then toss the body outside medical", not toss the head into a plasmalake where it's then irretrievable.

Code: Select all

r	(118, 171, 4)	Brig Overlook
07:53:12	EMOTE	S5nt/(Kazcov Korbov) points at the girder	(118, 171, 4)	Brig Overlook
07:53:12	EMOTE	S5nt/(Kazcov Korbov) points at the girder	(118, 171, 4)	Brig Overlook
07:53:30	SAY	S5nt/(Kazcov Korbov) "No not really"	(118, 171, 4)	Brig Overlook
07:53:39	SAY	S5nt/(Kazcov Korbov) "So make your choice"	(118, 171, 4)	Brig Overlook
07:54:01	SAY	S5nt/(Kazcov Korbov) "Again"	(117, 172, 4)	Brig Overlook
07:54:05	SAY	S5nt/(Kazcov Korbov) "It's either a 5 minute brig"	(118, 171, 4)	Brig Overlook
07:54:11	SAY	S5nt/(Kazcov Korbov) "With your shit taken"	(118, 171, 4)	Brig Overlook
07:54:13	SAY	S5nt/(Kazcov Korbov) "Or the number game"

“Being killed” doesn’t have an implied revival attached to it. Doesn’t it seem silly to you to lose, get killed then immediately wound tended and revived in medbay, to be revived probably before your sentence would even have ended? Doesn’t that seem the slightest bit artificial?

To me it does. It’s nothing more than a miscommunication. Most people don’t have this weird doublespeak of death not meaning death, only round removal meaning death, and the HoS can’t be faulted for not having our autistic rules lawyering lingo etched into his skull. For most people death means death, no givesees backsees.

[Fren256]

Let me give another example to show just how silly y’all’s argument is.

Suppose the HoS arrests a tider for shocking the brig doors. He tells him he either gets 10 min gulag, OR he can duel with the detective. If he wins he goes free, if he loses he will be ripped limb from limb and his brain will be made into sandwiches.

The tider chooses to take the deal. He loses. His brain is, as promised, made into sandwiches.

Then he ahelps. He doesn’t think that was right! He thought it was just a figure of speech yknow, like “I’m gonna turn ya into paste!” Round removal is a little far, he reckons! Luckily for him, Conrad and Dendy hear his pleas in the supportmin channels. They rush to the scene, flaunting their shiny new trialmin badges and excited to use the new policy they’d been studying.

Conrad clears his throat,
BWOINK: Hey, got a moment?
HoS: Sure what’s up
BWOINK: Did you just turn John McTide’s brain into sandwiches?
HoS: Haha yeah, he agreed to it though. We had a deal and he lost.
BWOINK: When dealing with the crew and antagonists, make sure their punishments are in proportion to their crime(s).
HoS: Right but this was different it was a de-
interjection from Dendy: Minor crimes such as departmental break-ins, stolen equipment should be met with short, but increasing sentences depending on recurring visits by the apprehended.
HoS: Guys THE POLICY IS IRRELEVANT HERE IT WAS A DE-
A temporary ban has been created for HoS by ConradThunderBunch.

Cute scenario and all, but it's not relevant because the prisoner just agreed to be killed, not to be RR'd

If you ask me, I do think the ban is excessive, but not entirely disproportionate. The captain abused their position to RR a prisoner that only trespassed into the brig, which could be taken as improper escalation. A week ban should've sufficed.

[sinfulbliss]

Cute scenario and all, but it's not relevant because the prisoner just agreed to be killed, not to be RR'd

Most people don’t have this weird doublespeak of death not meaning death, only round removal meaning death, and the HoS can’t be faulted for not having our autistic rules lawyering lingo etched into his skull. For most people death means death, no givesees backsees.

quoting myself cause y’all sayin the same shit …

[conrad]

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

You pull a balloon animal ruling outta your ass, put it on a pedestal like it's gospel, imply both dendi and I are banbots and go on a fairytale example.

There is no argument, it's just really funny.

[sinfulbliss]

You pull a balloon animal ruling outta your ass, put it on a pedestal like it's gospel, imply both dendi and I are banbots and go on a fairytale example.

Look pal, everyone chimed in giving their takes, and all you’ve given is the argument from authority “lmao that’s not how it works.” Dendy graced the appeal by regurgitating policy with no justification for how it applies. Very banbotty vibes.

[ekaterina]

Ekaterina doesn't understand that MRP has higher standards

You really don't, you just have more rules. Sybil has better roleplay than you do.

I will never understand Manuel players’ aversion to RR.

I do. I guess it has to do with the expectations that your experiences with the game have led you to set.

[conrad]

You pull a balloon animal ruling outta your ass, put it on a pedestal like it's gospel, imply both dendi and I are banbots and go on a fairytale example.

Look pal, everyone chimed in giving their takes, and all you’ve given is the argument from authority “lmao that’s not how it works.” Dendy graced the appeal by regurgitating policy with no justification for how it applies. Very banbotty vibes.

There was no authority there, don't fear the purple name. What you said simply wasn't true. It was a nice conjecture of how things could be, but it's not how the rules work.

[Fren256]

Cute scenario and all, but it's not relevant because the prisoner just agreed to be killed, not to be RR'd

Most people don’t have this weird doublespeak of death not meaning death, only round removal meaning death, and the HoS can’t be faulted for not having our autistic rules lawyering lingo etched into his skull. For most people death means death, no givesees backsees.

quoting myself cause y’all sayin the same shit …

6. Deal with the bad guys in proportion to their crime(s).

Restricted antagonists (or crewmembers) should be handled in proportion to their committed crimes. The decision to execute an antagonist should have good in-character reasoning based on their crimes and the state of the shift. Punishments against antagonists that repeatedly commit minor crimes may be escalated. Only antagonists that have committed the most severe crimes may be met with immediate execution.

The captain executed someone just for trespassing into the brig, simple as that.

[sinfulbliss]

You pull a balloon animal ruling outta your ass, put it on a pedestal like it's gospel, imply both dendi and I are banbots and go on a fairytale example.

Look pal, everyone chimed in giving their takes, and all you’ve given is the argument from authority “lmao that’s not how it works.” Dendy graced the appeal by regurgitating policy with no justification for how it applies. Very banbotty vibes.

There was no authority there, don't fear the purple name. What you said simply wasn't true. It was a nice conjecture of how things could be, but it's not how the rules work.

An important part of being an admin, Conrad, is not only knowing what the policies are, but when the policies should apply. That will come with experience.

For instance, if an RD triggers a bug that causes him to explode repeatedly, it’s important not to simply instantly sanction him for exploit abuse. You need to take the situation in holistically — could he have predicted such an outcome? Was this an intended exploit, or a bizarre bug? Lots of things can make the rules not apply to situations where you might think they do.

Such is this case, Conrad. After a brief reflection one will find that this wasn’t a matter of treating a prisoner disproportionately to his crimes — for he agreed to that treatment already when he agreed to death for B&E! The heart of the issue is whether this was a miscommunication in the deal, or whether the HoS was acting maliciously in preventing revival.

[TheLoLSwat]

This is why its important to know when to stop pulling and give a little as a villainous authority. You already got the guy to shoot himself after B&E, laugh at his body and parade it around but then let the paramedic get him so you can stare at him until he does another minor slip up and then whappow

[AsbestosSniffer]

This is why its important to know when to stop pulling and give a little as a villainous authority. You already got the guy to shoot himself after B&E, laugh at his body and parade it around but then let the paramedic get him so you can stare at him until he does another minor slip up and then whappow

It wasn't literal Russian Roulette, it was "choose the number 1 or 2 and I decide if you die".

[Archie700]

the issue isnt them killing the tider, the issue is that they RR'd the tider without informing them prior

Exactly, the issue was the miscommunication that occured. It had absolutely nothing to do with security policy.

Miscommunication I find to be an understatement here, there was no way to know that I'd be RR'd. Unlike what your previous posts imply, the captain never said "once you die your brain will be [X]", he'd just say "you'll die." Considering what I did was quite minor I figured "Okay, they'll kill me, maybe cut off my head and then toss the body outside medical", not toss the head into a plasmalake where it's then irretrievable.

Code: Select all

r	(118, 171, 4)	Brig Overlook
07:53:12	EMOTE	S5nt/(Kazcov Korbov) points at the girder	(118, 171, 4)	Brig Overlook
07:53:12	EMOTE	S5nt/(Kazcov Korbov) points at the girder	(118, 171, 4)	Brig Overlook
07:53:30	SAY	S5nt/(Kazcov Korbov) "No not really"	(118, 171, 4)	Brig Overlook
07:53:39	SAY	S5nt/(Kazcov Korbov) "So make your choice"	(118, 171, 4)	Brig Overlook
07:54:01	SAY	S5nt/(Kazcov Korbov) "Again"	(117, 172, 4)	Brig Overlook
07:54:05	SAY	S5nt/(Kazcov Korbov) "It's either a 5 minute brig"	(118, 171, 4)	Brig Overlook
07:54:11	SAY	S5nt/(Kazcov Korbov) "With your shit taken"	(118, 171, 4)	Brig Overlook
07:54:13	SAY	S5nt/(Kazcov Korbov) "Or the number game"

“Being killed” doesn’t have an implied revival attached to it. Doesn’t it seem silly to you to lose, get killed then immediately wound tended and revived in medbay, to be revived probably before your sentence would even have ended? Doesn’t that seem the slightest bit artificial?

To me it does. It’s nothing more than a miscommunication. Most people don’t have this weird doublespeak of death not meaning death, only round removal meaning death, and the HoS can’t be faulted for not having our autistic rules lawyering lingo etched into his skull. For most people death means death, no givesees backsees.

Was it WRONG for Lucy to assume that death would mean being killed and having to be dragged out for revived as well as her shit being taken, given the usual punishment for breaking and entering is basically a 5 minute brig sentence?

Was it wrong given that you can be revived from death, which means "death means death, no givesees backsees" is not true unless you explicitly go out of your way to make sure they don't get revived, as what happened in this case?

[Vekter]

ekat has this weird belief that previous bans should never factor into new ones, so any instance of escalating punishments is outright improper no matter what. They think it's cool if someone keeps doing the same bad thing over and over again and they shouldn't eventually be removed from the server.

[ekaterina]

ekat has this weird belief that previous bans should never factor into new ones, so any instance of escalating punishments is outright improper no matter what. They think it's cool if someone keeps doing the same bad thing over and over again and they shouldn't eventually be removed from the server.

Does the ban reason say anything about this being escalated?

[Lacran]

the issue isnt them killing the tider, the issue is that they RR'd the tider without informing them prior

Exactly, the issue was the miscommunication that occured. It had absolutely nothing to do with security policy.

It's not just miscommunication. Assuming your options are roulette or 7 minutes most players would assume revival is on the table.

The player wanted to avoid the 7 minute sentence. The Captain had no grounds to RR over the sentence.

for he agreed to that treatment already when he agreed to death for B&E! The heart of the issue is whether this was a miscommunication in the deal, or whether the HoS was acting maliciously in preventing revival.

The prisoner only consented to play roulette they chose to risk death. They didn't consent to RR because it was never mentioned and Rring them for the crime would result in admin intervention.

[kieth4]

We can hark on about how we would interpret it but if they weren't entirely upfront and clear it's easy to see where the confusion came from. When I see death for example I don't assume RR. "I'm going to kill you" I say to the assistants breaking into brig, then I kill them and throw their corpses out. It is fine to punish someone for prevent the revival- but I think that 30 days is a bit much.

[Turbonerd]

This is a really really weird case where I'm more on Sinfulbliss and TypicalRig's side than the usual. People care way too much about their rounds. The prisoner agreed to the "death game" and received their price, death. While revival is quite common in the setting of this game, I don't think it's far stretched to say that the prize of death means it's going to be the end of someone. Maybe they could've clarified that it would've been an execution, but this seems to be an overreaction to something someone willingly played.

To put this into perspective, accepting the death game is effectively the same as asking to get killed unless given a reward. It doesn't seem that someone values their life if they willingly ask (even if it's just a chance) to get their body mangled to the point of death.

This seems to have some form of history amd there may be more nuance to this, so maybe I'm just an idiot without context.

[Lacran]

Cute scenario and all, but it's not relevant because the prisoner just agreed to be killed, not to be RR'd

Most people don’t have this weird doublespeak of death not meaning death, only round removal meaning death, and the HoS can’t be faulted for not having our autistic rules lawyering lingo etched into his skull. For most people death means death, no givesees backsees.

quoting myself cause y’all sayin the same shit …

Death in the context of the video game isn't the same as real life death. We used terms like RR, husked or soulless to distinguish players that are dead and unrevivably dead.

People don't assume death is a permanent state in this game, because we have Medbay. A department dedicated to reviving dead people.

A dead prisoner for a minor crime needs to receive treatment from security, it is a part of their job.

The prisoner agreed to the "death game" and received their price, death.

If you play roulette in the bar with a friend, and then I grab your body and run to evac and space you, my conduct is completely separate from you playing roulette.

If I were a paramedic, it would be even worse because it goes against basic job conduct.

How security or the captain treat prisoner's is related to their job guidelines. Prisoner's get medical attention. Reviving a dead theif is proportional to the crime. Round removal is not.

[sinfulbliss]

The prisoner agreed to the "death game" and received their price, death. While revival is quite common in the setting of this game, I don't think it's far stretched to say that the prize of death means it's going to be the end of someone.

Basically just this, man.

It’s not like he did something wild and crazy by preventing revival. He just upheld what he believed were the terms of the agreement — your life in exchange for losing the bet. I don’t think it was malicious.

[Lacran]

The prisoner agreed to the "death game" and received their price, death. While revival is quite common in the setting of this game, I don't think it's far stretched to say that the prize of death means it's going to be the end of someone.

Basically just this, man.

It’s not like he did something wild and crazy by preventing revival. He just upheld what he believed were the terms of the agreement — your life in exchange for losing the bet. I don’t think it was malicious.

For MRP a captain saying " You can serve or 7 minutes or be executed" is wild and crazy. It's worse because it resulted in the player being executed without even realising. As it was presented as roulette, which even if they lost would have required then to be treated.

The roulette for a pardon was fine. But why are you trying to RR petty theives if your motivations aren't malicious?

[sinfulbliss]

The prisoner agreed to the "death game" and received their price, death. While revival is quite common in the setting of this game, I don't think it's far stretched to say that the prize of death means it's going to be the end of someone.

Basically just this, man.

It’s not like he did something wild and crazy by preventing revival. He just upheld what he believed were the terms of the agreement — your life in exchange for losing the bet. I don’t think it was malicious.

For MRP a captain saying " You can serve or 7 minutes or be executed" is wild and crazy. It's worse because it resulted in the player being executed without even realising. As it was presented as roulette, which even if they lost would have required then to be treated.

The roulette for a pardon was fine. But why are you trying to RR petty theives if your motivations aren't malicious?

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.

[Lacran]

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.

[blackdav123]

[2023-07-02 07:49:47.712] GAME-SAY: S5nt/(Kazcov Korbov) "where revolv" (Maltese Falcon (145,144,3))
[2023-07-02 07:50:07.287] GAME-SAY: S5nt/(Kazcov Korbov) "Who has the russian revolver" (Diner (145,137,4))

captain tried to find the revolver first but after being unsuccessful he just went to the next best option which was the number game
while this situation is kind of lame I dont think theres any room for misinterpreting what a "death game" entails. losers of death games dont usually avoid death!

[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