Doktur Explosions Internal Affairs Intern

[Kendrickorium]

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=34389

what if we changed the rule that revs DOESNT override individual antag??

[Capsandi]

Holy shit sine when are IAA in rotation lets fucking goo oh wait does he mean the traitor flavor rip boe also can we get blood bros back on lrp thx

[ekaterina]

His reply was pretty shitty but come on... a permanent ban for bombing as an antag? This is ridiculous. It's disgraceful to have an admin trainer give such unholy bans.

[Constellado]

Something is needed this to be a perma ban me thinks...

• Either he has no playtime (but he says he played a lot)

• Was disconnected for the bwoink

• Was not cooperative in ahelp

• Or had lots of notes.

If none of the above apply then why a perma ban instead of a major note? Based on what he written he just misunderstood the rules. He said he had to read it instead of being told.
My guess was the not cooperative part.

[WineAllWine]

I wouldn't have cared about this appeal except they LIED. They copied their ban reason but changed the 3 to a 2 to make them seem more reasonable.

[Constellado]

I wouldn't have cared about this appeal except they LIED. They copied their ban reason but changed the 3 to a 2 to make them seem more reasonable.

Ooh now that is some spice!!
Yeah, don't lie in appeals. I wonder how he will explain that away.

[WineAllWine]

I wouldn't have cared about this appeal except they LIED. They copied their ban reason but changed the 3 to a 2 to make them seem more reasonable.

Ooh now that is some spice!!
Yeah, don't lie in appeals. I wonder how he will explain that away.

It was also totally unnecessary. If they went with the "Oh I thought revs could kill whatever" they might have got the benefit of the doubt. But lying in an appeal....It's not gonna look good. I know Iain, Timber and Kieth very well and I'd put serious money on this appeal being denied

[BlueMemesauce]

It's possible he hit the 2 key instead of 3 when writing down the ban reason, they are right next to each other after all. Why would you assume malice when he would have nothing to gain from it?

[sinfulbliss]

idk it'd be a very weird thing to lie about, it's not like 2 looks that much better than 3. but it also looks copypasted for the most part (except he didn't capitalize "Has")... so why would that one number be off? IDK I'd say there's a 60%-70% chance he lied but that's not quite enough to be sure IMO

[TheLoLSwat]

yeah i dont really see a reason to assume its a lie

[saprasam]

if he plays intermittently i doubt he'd be keeping tracks of how many notes he had for bombing dudes so i dont see the "liar liar pants on fire" argument

[ekaterina]

Bombing the captain for demoting him is soooo based. Killing someone for demoting you should be 100% valid, current policy needs to go.

[dirk_mcblade]

Do you revert back to being a solo antag if the revolution wins?

[dendydoom]

Do you revert back to being a solo antag if the revolution wins?

yea, we have a very cursed flowchart for what directives you should follow if you're more than 1 antagonist type:

Brainwashing/construct orders/Silicon Laws -> Cult -> Revs -> Blood Brother -> Wizard Apprentice/Abductor Teams/Other niche antags -> Nuke Ops -> Traitors

[dirk_mcblade]

Do you revert back to being a solo antag if the revolution wins?

yea, we have a very cursed flowchart for what directives you should follow if you're more than 1 antagonist type:

Brainwashing/construct orders/Silicon Laws -> Cult -> Revs -> Blood Brother -> Wizard Apprentice/Abductor Teams/Other niche antags -> Nuke Ops -> Traitors

That doesn't explain what do after revolution

[dendydoom]

Do you revert back to being a solo antag if the revolution wins?

yea, we have a very cursed flowchart for what directives you should follow if you're more than 1 antagonist type:

Brainwashing/construct orders/Silicon Laws -> Cult -> Revs -> Blood Brother -> Wizard Apprentice/Abductor Teams/Other niche antags -> Nuke Ops -> Traitors

That doesn't explain what do after revolution

apologies - i don't think i interpreted the question correctly.

when the revolution ends (either in a victory or defeat) then no one is a revolutionary anymore because there is no longer a revolution. with a victory, in an IC sense, centcom are writing the station off as a lost cause and leaving it to its own successfully unionized devices. in that case, you are free to move onto your next directive. if you're a traitor rev, then after the revolution ends you're just a traitor and are free to go back to traitoring.

hope this helps!

[iain0]

His reply was pretty shitty but come on... a permanent ban for bombing as an antag? This is ridiculous. It's disgraceful to have an admin trainer give such unholy bans.

Haha, I can see why you accumulate a reputation of having bad takes.
(Like you formed this opinion before I'd even posted a response, having more complete information is a good idea before settling on a take, at the very least)

[Atlanta-Ned]

The round continuing after revs was a mistake.

[ekaterina]

The round continuing after revs was a mistake.

So true. You're a c*der, can't you fix it?

[TheLoLSwat]

Bombing the captain for demoting him is soooo based. Killing someone for demoting you should be 100% valid, current policy needs to go.

You cant do anything to resist a valid demotion, but if you are getting screwed over by your boss feel free to punch their nerd glasses off

[ekaterina]

Bombing the captain for demoting him is soooo based. Killing someone for demoting you should be 100% valid, current policy needs to go.

You cant do anything to resist a valid demotion, but if you are getting screwed over by your boss feel free to punch their nerd glasses off

I shouldn't get meta protections when I demote someone for being a deranged shitsec. That person will be angry at me, which makes total sense, and I should have to be on the lookout dealing with the consequences of my choice.

[iain0]

I shouldn't get meta protections when I demote someone for being a deranged shitsec. That person will be angry at me, which makes total sense, and I should have to be on the lookout dealing with the consequences of my choice.

What? So if someone is being a shitter in my department and I decide to demote them, under your idea of what rules should be, I'm basically just giving them a pass to be a bigger shitter and grief me personally? Sounds like there's no point ever demoting anyone then if that makes you 'valid'. Instead I should just have them brigged I guess. Do you think having someone else arrested for a valid reason also should make you valid to that person? Despite them starting the whole thing. Closer to what I'd call kill baiting at that point than anything remotely compatible with current rules.

(Edit: And EVEN IF, that still wont authorise you to use area effect weapons in your personal grudge)

[ekaterina]

I shouldn't get meta protections when I demote someone for being a deranged shitsec. That person will be angry at me, which makes total sense, and I should have to be on the lookout dealing with the consequences of my choice.

So if someone is being a shitter in my department and I decide to demote them, under your idea of what rules should be, I'm basically just giving them a pass to be a bigger shitter and grief me personally?

You're giving him a pass to fuck around and find out. If you don't think you can win the fight, don't start conflicts. Get someone more robust from security, or the captain, to deal with it instead.
It makes no sense that you can just escalate an issue and massively harm a person's round by demoting that person and face no consequences whatsoever as long as it's a valid demotion. These metaprotections make no IC sense and break the immersion.

Do you think having someone else arrested for a valid reason also should make you valid to that person?

What does that even mean? You can't just grab sec like a puppet and "have someone arrested". You can tip sec off but it's still sec's choice and sec's conflict. In other words, no.

[TheRex9001]

I don’t think killing someone who demoted you is all that Common

[TheLoLSwat]

Bombing the captain for demoting him is soooo based. Killing someone for demoting you should be 100% valid, current policy needs to go.

You cant do anything to resist a valid demotion, but if you are getting screwed over by your boss feel free to punch their nerd glasses off

I shouldn't get meta protections when I demote someone for being a deranged shitsec. That person will be angry at me, which makes total sense, and I should have to be on the lookout dealing with the consequences of my choice.

you can be angry at someone for demoting you, as that makes total sense. Killing someone for demoting you when the reason is legitimate (such as being caught stealing from patients by CMO, or sabotaging rnd) is very flimsy though when you are not an antag. I think Jimmius states it best in his terms headmin ruling for the demotion === validity discussion

Demotions for a good reason are protected in a similar manner to valid arrests. Your boss taking away departmental access because you're using it to tide is no more grounds for IC escalation than a security officer arresting you for smashing windows with a fireaxe. You don't have to meekly hand over your ID card for demotion just because your boss requests it, but you can't do anything to resist a valid demotion that you couldn't do to resist a valid arrest.
Heads of Staff are expected not to abuse this meta protection: if the "demotion" consists of fullstripping you, taking your ID, and tossing you into the hallways nude, they will be treated in the same manner as a security officer doing the same. Command roles are held to a higher standard than other roles, so abusing the privileges of the role is an admin issue-- they've also waived their right to complain when you come back for IC revenge.

[Lacran]

]

You're giving him a pass to fuck around and find out. If you don't think you can win the fight, don't start conflicts. Get someone more robust from security, or the captain, to deal with it instead.
It makes no sense that you can just escalate an issue and massively harm a person's round by demoting that person and face no consequences whatsoever as long as it's a valid demotion. These metaprotections make no IC sense and break the immersion.

If someone is being a shitter and you demote them, that should never be a pass to be an even bigger shitter. You are literally just rewarding the player with that logic.

Escalation should come if the demotion wasn't justified.

[mrmelbert]

What? So if someone is being a shitter in my department and I decide to demote them, under your idea of what rules should be, I'm basically just giving them a pass to be a bigger shitter and grief me personally?

Iain you're a smart person, you don't have to engage with ekaterina

[conrad]

What? So if someone is being a shitter in my department and I decide to demote them, under your idea of what rules should be, I'm basically just giving them a pass to be a bigger shitter and grief me personally?

Iain you're a smart person, you don't have to engage with ekaterina

Carve this on a block of stone. Fill the carvings with glittering gold. Hang this from space so the entire planet sees it every so often.

[ekaterina]

What? So if someone is being a shitter in my department and I decide to demote them, under your idea of what rules should be, I'm basically just giving them a pass to be a bigger shitter and grief me personally?

Iain you're a smart person, you don't have to engage with ekaterina

Not only is that a questionable premise, it is a non sequitur on top. How disgraceful of you.

[conrad]

What? So if someone is being a shitter in my department and I decide to demote them, under your idea of what rules should be, I'm basically just giving them a pass to be a bigger shitter and grief me personally?

Iain you're a smart person, you don't have to engage with ekaterina

That is not only a questionable premise, it is a non sequitur. How disgraceful of you.

Why do you make such an effort to sound edgy? You used disgraceful twice in this thread already, so the effort isn't even paying off. Chill, dude.

[ekaterina]

What? So if someone is being a shitter in my department and I decide to demote them, under your idea of what rules should be, I'm basically just giving them a pass to be a bigger shitter and grief me personally?

Iain you're a smart person, you don't have to engage with ekaterina

That is not only a questionable premise, it is a non sequitur. How disgraceful of you.

Why do you make such an effort to sound edgy? You used disgraceful twice in this thread already, so the effort isn't even paying off. Chill, dude.

What effort? Why wouldn't I use 'disgraceful' to describe a disgrace? Are you so thick that you don't see different people talk differently?

[conrad]

What? So if someone is being a shitter in my department and I decide to demote them, under your idea of what rules should be, I'm basically just giving them a pass to be a bigger shitter and grief me personally?

Iain you're a smart person, you don't have to engage with ekaterina

That is not only a questionable premise, it is a non sequitur. How disgraceful of you.

Why do you make such an effort to sound edgy? You used disgraceful twice in this thread already, so the effort isn't even paying off. Chill, dude.

What effort? Why wouldn't I use 'disgraceful' to describe a disgrace? Are you so thick that you don't see different people talk differently?

Yes brain go oinkidoinkers everyone must talk the same. Disgraceful, really.

[ekaterina]

]You're giving him a pass to fuck around and find out. If you don't think you can win the fight, don't start conflicts. Get someone more robust from security, or the captain, to deal with it instead.
It makes no sense that you can just escalate an issue and massively harm a person's round by demoting that person and face no consequences whatsoever as long as it's a valid demotion. These metaprotections make no IC sense and break the immersion.

If someone is being a shitter and you demote them, that should never be a pass to be an even bigger shitter. You are literally just rewarding the player with that logic. Escalation should come if the demotion wasn't justified.

I've been on both ends. I've demoted players for valid reasons and found it extremely stupid that I could just expect zero consequences from disgruntled former employees. I have also been demoted for both valid and invalid reasons and it's beyond stupid that all you can do is cope and seethe and hope the admin rules in your favour when you ahelp. Both situations absolutely break the immersion.

Disgraceful, really.

Based.

[Lacran]

]You're giving him a pass to fuck around and find out. If you don't think you can win the fight, don't start conflicts. Get someone more robust from security, or the captain, to deal with it instead.
It makes no sense that you can just escalate an issue and massively harm a person's round by demoting that person and face no consequences whatsoever as long as it's a valid demotion. These metaprotections make no IC sense and break the immersion.

If someone is being a shitter and you demote them, that should never be a pass to be an even bigger shitter. You are literally just rewarding the player with that logic. Escalation should come if the demotion wasn't justified.

I've been on both ends. I've demoted players for valid reasons and found it extremely stupid that I could just expect zero consequences from disgruntled former employees. I have also been demoted for both valid and invalid reasons and it's beyond stupid that all you can do is cope and seethe and hope the admin rules in your favour when you ahelp. Both situations absolutely break the immersion.

If you have fucked up bad enough to warrant a demotion then you've already someone people don't want to deal with. There is 0 benefit to giving that player MORE leeway for revenge after their boss finally resolves it.

There should be consequences for being shit at your job, there shouldn't be consequences for firing someone who is shit at their job. You voided any right to feel like a victim when you failed to do your job basics. It's not immersive to have people in a role they can't/refuse to do correctly and it's sure as shit not immersive for them to then come back and attack their department over that.

[vect0r]

]You're giving him a pass to fuck around and find out. If you don't think you can win the fight, don't start conflicts. Get someone more robust from security, or the captain, to deal with it instead.
It makes no sense that you can just escalate an issue and massively harm a person's round by demoting that person and face no consequences whatsoever as long as it's a valid demotion. These metaprotections make no IC sense and break the immersion.

If someone is being a shitter and you demote them, that should never be a pass to be an even bigger shitter. You are literally just rewarding the player with that logic. Escalation should come if the demotion wasn't justified.

I've been on both ends. I've demoted players for valid reasons and found it extremely stupid that I could just expect zero consequences from disgruntled former employees. I have also been demoted for both valid and invalid reasons and it's beyond stupid that all you can do is cope and seethe and hope the admin rules in your favour when you ahelp. Both situations absolutely break the immersion.

If you have fucked up bad enough to warrant a demotion then you've already someone people don't want to deal with. There is 0 benefit to giving that player MORE leeway for revenge after their boss finally resolves it.

There should be consequences for being shit at your job, there shouldn't be consequences for firing someone who is shit at their job. You voided any right to feel like a victim when you failed to do your job basics. It's not immersive to have people in a role they can't/refuse to do correctly and it's sure as shit not immersive for them to then come back and attack their department over that.

Hard disagree. If you let heads fire people for being shot at their job, guess who gets fired? New players. I think firing/demoting should be reserved for people who are actively malicious, and fucking over the station/department.

[Lacran]

Hard disagree. If you let heads fire people for being shot at their job, guess who gets fired? New players. I think firing/demoting should be reserved for people who are actively malicious, and fucking over the station/department.

The conversation is about should we be able to escalate off of a valid demotion. Your opinion on demoting people for being new isn't really relevant or a point I was trying to make.

This isn't about which demotions are or aren't valid.

[Not-Dorsidarf]

You kinda did cite being bad at your job as grounds for "fuck off dont start shit eat your demotion you voided your rights to feel bad" so its an understandable response lol

[ekaterina]

If you have fucked up bad enough to warrant a demotion then you've already someone people don't want to deal with. There is 0 benefit to giving that player MORE leeway for revenge after their boss finally resolves it.

You didn't address any of what I said. It's a mechanic that degrades the experience of both parties. It doesn't "resolve" jack shit, it's an empty interaction for one player and it just leaves the other player seething and ahelping.
And when it is invalid, either the admin bans the head, which is something, I guess, but significantly less satisfactory than beating him up and throwing him out of the airlock, or the admin does nothing, and a player got griefed and the griefer got away with it. It doesn't make it any better that there don't seem to be general guidelines on what constitutes a valid demotion - you can find admins out there that think demoting someone for talking back to a dumb head is somehow valid.

[Lacran]

You kinda did cite being bad at your job as grounds for "fuck off dont start shit eat your demotion you voided your rights to feel bad" so its an understandable response lol

in the context of valid demotions I don't think being new and actively trying to learn would be grounds for a head to demote you. Technically a new player would be shit at the job, but I think most people understand from context or basic common sense that firing someone solely for being new to a job wouldn't be valid in the first place.

If you have fucked up bad enough to warrant a demotion then you've already someone people don't want to deal with. There is 0 benefit to giving that player MORE leeway for revenge after their boss finally resolves it.

You didn't address any of what I said. It's a mechanic that degrades the experience of both parties. It doesn't "resolve" jack shit, it's an empty interaction for one player and it just leaves the other player seething and ahelping.
And when it is invalid, either the admin bans the head, which is something, I guess, but significantly less satisfactory than beating him up and throwing him out of the airlock, or the admin does nothing, and a player got griefed and the griefer got away with it. It doesn't make it any better that there don't seem to be general guidelines on what constitutes a valid demotion - you can find admins out there that think demoting someone for talking back to a dumb head is somehow valid.

I'm not sure what part I missed, feel free to let me know.

I don't think anyone that plays head kicks someone from their department and then thinks "man I really hope I deal with this person more this round." You say you do but that just sounds too unhinged to believe.

If you wanna fight someone fight them, if you wanna get a shitter out of your department you demote them, you don't need to do both.

Demotion does resolve the issue, you didn't like how that person worked in your department, they now no longer work in your department. Matter resolved.

Admins can fuck stuff up, but putting justice in the hands of the person who got demoted encourages shitters to not do their jobs in the hopes they can use that to hospitalize their bosses if they get bored.

I don't think turning demotion into a game of escalation cat and mouse improves the round at all, especially not for heads who usually just want to keep their department running.

[ekaterina]

I don't think anyone that plays head kicks someone from their department and then thinks "man I really hope I deal with this person more this round." You say you do but that just sounds too unhinged to believe.

A mechanic shouldn't be based solely around what one player wants.

Demotion does resolve the issue, you didn't like how that person worked in your department, they now no longer work in your department. Matter resolved.

How does that resolve jack shit for the demoted player? Look at both players' points of view, not just the head.

Heads shouldn't get to massively grief another player and be OOC metaprotected with the demoted player having no recourse but hoping that the admins feel like being on his side that day.

Furthermore, demotions should be subjected to scrutiny more like an execution than an arrest, especially if the player who was demoted can't do anything about it. Arrests take a couple minutes off your round, while executions, like demotions, ruin the rest of the round. In practice, good admins already do this, but the way people are talking here does not reflect that, and you can catch the occasional shitmin.

[dirk_mcblade]

I've literally only been demoted once and I was a traitor doing traitor shit.

[dendydoom]

there are lots of IC ways to "retaliate" to something like a demotion - even if it's a "protected" demotion. i personally encourage people to take these routes because they develop into their own stories. talking to command, contacting a lawyer, doing petty things like yelling at them or protesting or getting drunk and throwing bottles at their department, these are just some dumb ideas i can think of off the top of my head. i've even been involved in situations regarding my own demotion where i contacted centcom and they sent a mediator to resolve the situation ICly. no one really expects you to just go "ok well that was a valid demotion so i will not be reacting to it in any negative way whatsoever" what we want to stop is people escalating a conflict that would be a suicidal endeavour in the first place. jumping to trying to saw their head off will not resolve anything and, even if it were allowed and even if you did win, would just lead to more repercussions for you.

"they slighted me so i'm going to kill them" is just about the lowest rung of RP possible in this game, and what people want to encourage is a slightly higher standard than the absolute bare minimum.

[Kendrickorium]

this is why you make peanuts for everything

the CONTENT

[BONERMASTER]

The first rule of lawyering - never lie. Just misrepresent.


With faded regards
-BONERMASTER