ISRATOSH
Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2023 4:30 pm
To be fair it does sound like this is the third time they've done it and it has gone wrong, so we can't say there's no historyJustice12354 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 18, 2023 4:44 pm This is a cool gimmick and you should be able to play as a contraband seller regardless of your antag status imo. While the sole action of selling bombs is not rule-breaking; the consequences that may come with it are (which makes it so the action is not punishable, but the consequence, which sounds like a fallacy to begin with). Ik it's a "fuck around, and find out", but, imo, it should first be warned with a temp-note to stop (I don't want people to do it once and never again bc they got a note for it in 2021), and only then banned if the behavior is recurrent.
Oh, yeah, I 100% don't judge Isra's ruling here. I just have a different view on how it should play out. I believe there should be a certain level of freedom to do this kind of gimmick regardless of the round's context. I generally dislike players having to check first with the admin to make sure they can do X, unless X is strictly rule-breaking. In this case, I guess selling explosives is inherently rule-breaking, though I'm not sure if it has a set-in-stone ruling, hence leading to various rulings from admins with different opinions. For instance, I believe it should not be inherently rule-breaking to sell explosives; with a temp-note (up to like 8 months) as a punishment if it goes wrong.Jacquerel wrote: ↑Mon Dec 18, 2023 4:46 pmTo be fair it does sound like this is the third time they've done it and it has gone wrong, so we can't say there's no historyJustice12354 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 18, 2023 4:44 pm This is a cool gimmick and you should be able to play as a contraband seller regardless of your antag status imo. While the sole action of selling bombs is not rule-breaking; the consequences that may come with it are (which makes it so the action is not punishable, but the consequence, which sounds like a fallacy to begin with). Ik it's a "fuck around, and find out", but, imo, it should first be warned with a temp-note to stop (I don't want people to do it once and never again bc they got a note for it in 2021), and only then banned if the behavior is recurrent.
They have fucked around several times, found out several times, and are continuing to find out after not having learned how to make themselves not find out when fucking around
The power of the explosive matters.Justice12354 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 18, 2023 6:30 pmOh, yeah, I 100% don't judge Isra's ruling here. I just have a different view on how it should play out. I believe there should be a certain level of freedom to do this kind of gimmick regardless of the round's context. I generally dislike players having to check first with the admin to make sure they can do X, unless X is strictly rule-breaking. In this case, I guess selling explosives is inherently rule-breaking, though I'm not sure if it has a set-in-stone ruling, hence leading to various rulings from admins with different opinions. For instance, I believe it should not be inherently rule-breaking to sell explosives; with a temp-note (up to like 8 months) as a punishment if it goes wrong.Jacquerel wrote: ↑Mon Dec 18, 2023 4:46 pmTo be fair it does sound like this is the third time they've done it and it has gone wrong, so we can't say there's no historyJustice12354 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 18, 2023 4:44 pm This is a cool gimmick and you should be able to play as a contraband seller regardless of your antag status imo. While the sole action of selling bombs is not rule-breaking; the consequences that may come with it are (which makes it so the action is not punishable, but the consequence, which sounds like a fallacy to begin with). Ik it's a "fuck around, and find out", but, imo, it should first be warned with a temp-note to stop (I don't want people to do it once and never again bc they got a note for it in 2021), and only then banned if the behavior is recurrent.
They have fucked around several times, found out several times, and are continuing to find out after not having learned how to make themselves not find out when fucking around
Taking this scenario in a bit of a vacuum, their last note regarding this was nearly a year ago, so I feel like this could've been a note. Taking the rest of their history in consideration, I understand a ban
I don't think roleplaying as a contraband seller is a bad thing on LRP unless you're doing it just to increase grief (in which case you'll get a note for it and doing it further will get you banana'd). Why can't you try to make some money by selling contraband? If you sell contraband in public, that's more sec interaction potential. I feel like just thinking "Well, why would you do it?" or "Bombs only do one thing" is very reductive. Some gimmicks will be inherently kinda dumb, but that doesn't mean they should be inherently rule-breaking.
Honestly, I would rather blame it on the person who primes the explosive rather than the person selling AS LONG AS it doesn't look like they're just trying to grief (dragging explosives around or leaving them in the middle of the hallway). If that person's explosive gets primed and it causes damages, a temp-note would be enough to keep them out of the gimmick for some time in order to not allow repetitive grief. But, yeah, I'd give it far more leeway if they were selling IEDs instead of maxcaps.chocolate_bickie wrote: ↑Mon Dec 18, 2023 7:10 pm The power of the explosive matters.
IEDs, basically always fine.
Maxcaps, round ending threats only.
I consider the cut off point any explosive that can crit a full health player in one shot
I don't believe selling bombs should be put in the same category as, say, selling drugs or guns
I don't see the issue with there being collateral damage. I obviously don't agree with this gimmick being done every round (I even suggested the temp-notes), but I feel like giving people a bit more freedom to sell stuff they usually shouldn't is good, even if just for the progression of the round and to create some dynamic. The chaos is a core aspect of ss13 and it will inevitably happen. Facilitating the access to explosives for antags as a non-antag is frowned upon, but doing it for the gimmick is funny imo. I don't get why we can't just allow it and temp-note it. Oh wait... NOTES ARE PUNISHMENTS. THE SLIGHTEST INSTANCE OF A NOTE IS THE END OF THE WORLD AND ADMINS ARE EVIL. MY NOTE HISTORY IS NOW RUINED BECAUSE I GOT A NOTE AND ALL ADMINS WILL BAN ME ON SIGHT!!!!!
I mean, this guy got banned because of an almost year old note.Justice12354 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 1:48 am . NOTES ARE PUNISHMENTS. THE SLIGHTEST INSTANCE OF A NOTE IS THE END OF THE WORLD AND ADMINS ARE EVIL. MY NOTE HISTORY IS NOW RUINED BECAUSE I GOT A NOTE AND ALL ADMINS WILL BAN ME ON SIGHT!!!!!
What does this even mean. Saying it is fine once in a blue moon and saying it is asking for trouble at the same time is super ambiguous.2023-01-08 21:39:24: Ticket Opened by qbmax32: Hi I know I talked to you about this last round but can you please chill on the whole selling TTVs thing. Once in a blue moon is fine or as an antag but it's just asking for trouble when someone takes them to grief/antag with.
It's guaranteed to cause trouble, but you can probably get away with it if you're an antag, or it's rare.CPTANT wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 9:41 amWhat does this even mean. Saying it is fine once in a blue moon and saying it is asking for trouble at the same time is super ambiguous.2023-01-08 21:39:24: Ticket Opened by qbmax32: Hi I know I talked to you about this last round but can you please chill on the whole selling TTVs thing. Once in a blue moon is fine or as an antag but it's just asking for trouble when someone takes them to grief/antag with.
I would say that means it isn't "fine".CMDR_Gungnir wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 10:02 amIt's guaranteed to cause trouble, but you can probably get away with it if you're an antag, or it's rare.CPTANT wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 9:41 amWhat does this even mean. Saying it is fine once in a blue moon and saying it is asking for trouble at the same time is super ambiguous.2023-01-08 21:39:24: Ticket Opened by qbmax32: Hi I know I talked to you about this last round but can you please chill on the whole selling TTVs thing. Once in a blue moon is fine or as an antag but it's just asking for trouble when someone takes them to grief/antag with.
i would argue there's a difference because there is obviously *some* level of effort put into creating an IC reason for doing this. i'm currently operating under the assumption that this entire scheme was solely their own idea, and that no possible antags could have leveraged them to accomplish it.BonChoi wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 11:40 am I was under the impression that anything you create you are responsible for the deaths it causes as a non-antag, within reasonable limits. I could've sworn I've seen ban appeals from people that just dropped TTVs on the floor and other people opened them up resulting in deaths, so what makes selling them better than just dropping them on the floor?
In my eyes selling them looks worse because there's a whole lot less to stand on to defend yourself.
Thank you, dendy. Very cool.dendydoom wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 2:27 pm-epic perspective essay snipped-BonChoi wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 11:40 am I was under the impression that anything you create you are responsible for the deaths it causes as a non-antag, within reasonable limits. I could've sworn I've seen ban appeals from people that just dropped TTVs on the floor and other people opened them up resulting in deaths, so what makes selling them better than just dropping them on the floor?
In my eyes selling them looks worse because there's a whole lot less to stand on to defend yourself.