/tg/Station 13

Who will wax? Who will wane? Will Cheshify make someone cry at the debates? Find out on today's edition of the Headmin Elections!

Campaign Threads:
Rex9001
Kieth4
Timberpoes
TheBibleMelts
WalterMeldron
Kinnebian
DendyDoom
Tegun
Tattle

cant wait!

I'm waxing myself right now for the election

mentors still a bad idea in practice

i agree with kieth yet again (specially with the secoff and head policies) but i dunno about the toolboxing and generally aggressive stance youre losing me a little

i think the rule 5 changes are comical because it went from a pretty simple rule of "do the bare minimum when youre in an important role" to about 5x the length

i like rex too and the tshirt deal looks similar but i think some goals on it are a bit too vague in how they will be accomplished

quadruple posting as i read fuck you
i also think the response times on appeals are the best theyve been in a while its just campaign filler to put it on there: give your campaign a tighter focus on what you want

I think any kind of gimmick appeal resolution is a bad idea purely because every appeal already asks for headmin resolution and there's no reason every appeal wouldn't also ask for a 1v1 duel, asking doesn't cost anything but justifying why you did it for this guy but not this other one takes effort

I think Rex's ideas are indeed quite vague. I am particularly not happy to see the faster response times and rules clarity meme. He'd have to shift his thread around dramatically and have it be based on concrete stuff.

Kieth's current thread efficectively has one promise, the rule 5 change, which is currently to make something that has one short sentence into a massive wordy argument. Everything else is a pipe dream and it feels like he didn't learn about getting stuff done from his first headmin term. Kinda looks like a goof headmin thread.

conrad wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 11:48 am I think Rex's ideas are indeed quite vague. I am particularly not happy to see the faster response times and rules clarity meme. He'd have to shift his thread around dramatically and have it be based on concrete stuff.

Kieth's current thread efficectively has one promise, the rule 5 change, which is currently to make something that has one short sentence into a massive wordy argument. Everything else is a pipe dream and it feels like he didn't learn about getting stuff done from his first headmin term. Kinda looks like a goof headmin thread.

kieths rule 5 was him showing what it used to be to what it is now; go check the rules wiki
it was worded a bit odd but kieth doesnt like the rule 5 change

You are correct, I got them mixed up.

Well that's it less interesting. I wanna see effective, tangible, feasible change on headmin threads, not just reverting what was done literally the term before.

It's still early. Maybe they're gonna cook up something over time until the threads are open to discussion.

I’ll provide more examples. Not changing my platform though, that just wouldnt be true to me.

heres a bingo card for whenever the VC debate happens in however many days that was supposed to happen

i made this one early because if i didn't i was gonna end up forgetting about it and i didn't wanna be THAT GUY y'know

also i haven't read any of the threads yet don't kill me i just woke up and i saw this and i had to post the card somewhere

I'd be happier if keith moved the current rule 5 to the rp ruleset instead of scrapping in entirely.

As far as Rex9001's "telling players the outcome if they ahelp", I know that bans and notes are private, but quite a few of my ahelps have ended in an utterly opaque "it's resolved". You could even say something like "yeah, what they were doing was definitely against the rules, thanks for letting us know" while still leaving the final result as a secret, I think that strikes a better balance then what we have currently (understanding that different admins are different here).

PapaMichael wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 2:36 pm I'd be happier if keith moved the current rule 5 to the rp ruleset instead of scrapping in entirely.

As far as Rex9001's "telling players the outcome if they ahelp", I know that bans and notes are private, but quite a few of my ahelps have ended in an utterly opaque "it's resolved". You could even say something like "yeah, what they were doing was definitely against the rules, thanks for letting us know" while still leaving the final result as a secret, I think that strikes a better balance then what we have currently.

problem comes when the other player was an antag and you cant tell the victim without giving it away

kinnebian wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 2:39 pm problem comes when the other player was an antag and you cant tell the victim without giving it away

I understand that, but I've been told this even in cases where that isn't possible; I've gotten this response from delayed round-end tickets and next-round tickets.

Honestly, bwoinking sec players who do nothing about crime taking place in front of them is a good change, despite kieth's apparent opposition.
Yeah, it's not great as a sec player to be bwoinked for suboptimal gaming, but from the point of view of literally any other job, it sucks for someone to be harassing you with shoves and punches and for some retard shitsec to just sit there and do nothing about it. Shitsec who do nothing are even worse than shitsec who go overboard.

I agree with IC action (instead of OOC) for incompetent heads. With sec, however, literally nobody is going to do anything about it, and, if someone tries, the entire sec gang is going to fall on you without even hearing your side of the story. We've seen it a thousand times.

fuck ekat is changing my mind

ekaterina wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 2:45 pm Honestly, bwoinking sec players who do nothing about crime taking place in front of them is a good change, despite kieth's apparent opposition.
Yeah, it's not great as a sec player to be bwoinked for suboptimal gaming, but from the point of view of literally any other job, it sucks for someone to be harassing you with shoves and punches and for some retard shitsec to just sit there and do nothing about it. Shitsec who do nothing are even worse than shitsec who go overboard.

I agree with IC action (instead of OOC) for incompetent heads. With sec, however, literally nobody is going to do anything about it, and, if someone tries, the entire sec gang is going to fall on you without even hearing your side of the story. We've seen it a thousand times.

I can't say I entirely disagree with the fact that wanting security do their job is an ok idea. However I feel that with the nature of the game people are very prone to making mistakes, make a wrong call pick one side over another etc. A policy like this, I at least feel, will only end up tripping up newer seccies whilst allowing those who have experience with navigating admins and the rules already easy escape as it requires a "roleplay reason" to get out of it. Hopefully this expands my ideas on it although you should totally ask me about this when the threads open up.

fuck kieth is changing my mind

Donglesplonge wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 1:00 pm heres a bingo card for whenever the VC debate happens in however many days that was supposed to happen

i made this one early because if i didn't i was gonna end up forgetting about it and i didn't wanna be THAT GUY y'know

also i haven't read any of the threads yet don't kill me i just woke up and i saw this and i had to post the card somewhere

Oh nice I didn't need to make on myself this year

kinnebian wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 2:49 pm fuck ekat is changing my mind

kinnebian wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 3:09 pm fuck kieth is changing my mind

The based ekaterina-kieth debate where it's just two people who want the best for the game amicably discussing how best to achieve it

PapaMichael wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 2:43 pm

kinnebian wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 2:39 pm problem comes when the other player was an antag and you cant tell the victim without giving it away

I understand that, but I've been told this even in cases where that isn't possible; I've gotten this response from delayed round-end tickets and next-round tickets.

Delayed round-end tickets are usually a hurried mess, so don't expect the pwettiest reply there. Doing 5 tickets at the same time also limits how much thought we can put into replies.

If your ahelp doesn't have any sort of substance, you will be told so. With that in mind, if something's handled, then your ahelp was most likely accurate and the other party wasn't in the right to do whatever they did.

Just keep in mind that, unless absolutely no one replied to your ahelp, then it was surely looked into and, well, handled.

ekaterina wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 2:45 pm Honestly, bwoinking sec players who do nothing about crime taking place in front of them is a good change, despite kieth's apparent opposition.
Yeah, it's not great as a sec player to be bwoinked for suboptimal gaming, but from the point of view of literally any other job, it sucks for someone to be harassing you with shoves and punches and for some retard shitsec to just sit there and do nothing about it. Shitsec who do nothing are even worse than shitsec who go overboard.

I agree with IC action (instead of OOC) for incompetent heads. With sec, however, literally nobody is going to do anything about it, and, if someone tries, the entire sec gang is going to fall on you without even hearing your side of the story. We've seen it a thousand times.

No it isnt. there is no faster way to kill off anybody playing sec ever. Sec officers are already under a microscope. You want them to bwoink officers for things they might have simply missed?

we got our first shitpost, bonus points that it's from a permanently banned player who is soon to also be put on Headmin Election Subforum post approval

PapaMichael wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 2:43 pm

kinnebian wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 2:39 pm problem comes when the other player was an antag and you cant tell the victim without giving it away

I understand that, but I've been told this even in cases where that isn't possible; I've gotten this response from delayed round-end tickets and next-round tickets.

That's not the real problem. When you're a new admin you're likely to give the outcome, but you get burnt out when you get responses like "Why did they get noted when I got banned for the same thing?!?"

I guess there's a balance to be struck

i'm not gonna count bingos until the headmin electoral VC thing happens again i gotta start cookin' questions for when it does happen

i also gotta ask stereo if he's down to get wasted during the debate he put up a sticky note and everything for the last one but we both forgot about it but this time i won't god as my witness i will not forget i promise

policy changes don't affect me because i play very hermited anyways so i'm just here to watch how things go and hypeman someone i like into power

I had a big ramble about how the point of the change in policy for secoff expectations wasn't to encourage optimal gameplay, and has never been that, and thinking that it's that is just you being burned out from playing sec or being a shitty, annoying doomer, but I got bored halfway through 'cos I was helping my brother raise a brick wall and while having a conversation with him I realized that my words were directed at said brick wall whilst I talked to him which made me all tuckered out from talking to brick walls.

WineAllWine wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 6:10 pm That's not the real problem. When you're a new admin you're likely to give the outcome, but you get burnt out when you get responses like "Why did they get noted when I got banned for the same thing?!?"

That makes a lot of sense and isn't something I'd really considered, thanks.

conrad wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 7:52 pm I had a big ramble about how the point of the change in policy for secoff expectations wasn't to encourage optimal gameplay, and has never been that, and thinking that it's that is just you being burned out from playing sec or being a shitty, annoying doomer, but I got bored halfway through 'cos I was helping my brother raise a brick wall and while having a conversation with him I realized that my words were directed at said brick wall whilst I talked to him which made me all tuckered out from talking to brick walls.

I don't thing anyone is claiming that the intention of the new policy is to encourage optimal play. People are concerned that, in practice, it will force security players to play optimally or risk being noted/banned.

GPeckman wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 9:08 pm I don't thing anyone is claiming that the intention of the new policy is to encourage optimal play. People are concerned that, in practice, it will force security players to play optimally or risk being noted/banned.

Which really isn't the case. You sign up to play an Elder Scrolls guard and ignore someone kicking chickens, the first instinct isn't to note or ban you. It's to ask "hey bud did you see those chickens being kicked?"

If the player's response is "Yeah but there's this dead guy in engineering I need to check" that's admin skill issue for not paying attention and bwoinking incorrectly.

Literally today I saw this QM interrupting a legitimate arrest. My first instinct wasn't to bwoink them. It was to check if, for example, the other person was their valentine. They weren't, but by doing this I saw that previous IC interactions showed that they had reason to not want them arrested. The arrest still happened, and the round continued as normal.

Electing a headmin outta fear of getting bwoinked is silly. It's a negative, doomer orwellian vote. Vote positivelly with a bloomer vote on promises that resonate with you. Then remind yourself they are promises that need to go through 2 other headmins.

That's my copium pipedream that people will vote responsibly when most people don't even vote responsibly IRL.

Yeah but that's IRL voting, tgstation head admin is serious business.

a lot of lrp/mrp divide coming up this time, not that this is anything new. i will defer to my literal essays in the policy discussion subforum about my thoughts and feelings on why i don't agree with aspects of "minimum job expectations" but as with anything there is a lot of nuance that gets lost in translation during the election hype. i am just concerned how much of this is reactionary based on speculation and feelings of lrp disillusionment because of an "mrp term". these changes are based on weeks, sometimes months of discussions and are so fresh off the press the ink hasn't even had time to dry. i'm as mrp-blooded as they come yet there is a lot of lrp that i value. don't put the dichotomy cart before the horse, it's silly.

now that that's out of the way, i had to hide my excitement when timber asked me if they should run again this term. i didn't want to add any undue pressure to them. but now that they've done it?

conrad wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 9:20 pm Which really isn't the case. You sign up to play an Elder Scrolls guard and ignore someone kicking chickens, the first instinct isn't to note or ban you. It's to ask "hey bud did you see those chickens being kicked?"

If the player's response is "Yeah but there's this dead guy in engineering I need to check" that's admin skill issue for not paying attention and bwoinking incorrectly.

Literally today I saw this QM interrupting a legitimate arrest. My first instinct wasn't to bwoink them. It was to check if, for example, the other person was their valentine. They weren't, but by doing this I saw that previous IC interactions showed that they had reason to not want them arrested. The arrest still happened, and the round continued as normal.

Electing a headmin outta fear of getting bwoinked is silly. It's a negative, doomer orwellian vote. Vote positivelly with a bloomer vote on promises that resonate with you. Then remind yourself they are promises that need to go through 2 other headmins.

That's my copium pipedream that people will vote responsibly when most people don't even vote responsibly IRL.

Except that bad notes due to security officers not doing enough (or doing too much, depending on the way that you look at) have already happened. In fact, I have one that happened less than a week after the policy change was enacted: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=35337. A security officer was noted for "not doing the minimal verification" for an open and shut case of an assistant attacking someone with a saw.

You can keep saying that this is a "doomer orwellian" fear, but your words mean very little in comparison to the real examples of this sort of thing that we can all see.

GPeckman wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 9:48 pm

conrad wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 9:20 pm Which really isn't the case. You sign up to play an Elder Scrolls guard and ignore someone kicking chickens, the first instinct isn't to note or ban you. It's to ask "hey bud did you see those chickens being kicked?"

If the player's response is "Yeah but there's this dead guy in engineering I need to check" that's admin skill issue for not paying attention and bwoinking incorrectly.

Literally today I saw this QM interrupting a legitimate arrest. My first instinct wasn't to bwoink them. It was to check if, for example, the other person was their valentine. They weren't, but by doing this I saw that previous IC interactions showed that they had reason to not want them arrested. The arrest still happened, and the round continued as normal.

Electing a headmin outta fear of getting bwoinked is silly. It's a negative, doomer orwellian vote. Vote positivelly with a bloomer vote on promises that resonate with you. Then remind yourself they are promises that need to go through 2 other headmins.

That's my copium pipedream that people will vote responsibly when most people don't even vote responsibly IRL.

Except that bad notes due to security officers not doing enough (or doing too much, depending on the way that you look at) have already happened. In fact, I have one that happened less than a week after the policy change was enacted: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=35337. A security officer was noted for "not doing the minimal verification" for an open and shut case of an assistant attacking someone with a saw.

You can keep saying that this is a "doomer orwellian" fear, but your words mean very little in comparison to the real examples of this sort of thing that we can all see.

it's worth mentioning that this was overturned and basically everyone internally who had an opinion disagreed with xemo at the time. there are growing pains for any new policy and this is one of them. they owned up to their mistake, admitted it was not a ruling worth enforcing and the note (no ban was placed) was removed.

dendydoom wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 9:54 pm

GPeckman wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 9:48 pm Except that bad notes due to security officers not doing enough (or doing too much, depending on the way that you look at) have already happened. In fact, I have one that happened less than a week after the policy change was enacted: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=35337. A security officer was noted for "not doing the minimal verification" for an open and shut case of an assistant attacking someone with a saw.

You can keep saying that this is a "doomer orwellian" fear, but your words mean very little in comparison to the real examples of this sort of thing that we can all see.

it's worth mentioning that this was overturned and basically everyone internally who had an opinion disagreed with xemo at the time. there are growing pains for any new policy and this is one of them. they owned up to their mistake, admitted it was not a ruling worth enforcing and it was removed.

If that player hadn't bothered to appeal, then in all likelihood the note would still be there today. Not everyone will appeal notes, for various reasons, and appeals shouldn't be depended upon to prevent bad notes. Now, if this policy was actually necessary, then sure, I'd be willing to accept a few bad notes. So the question is, what sort of situations is this policy supposed to cover? Ideally I'd prefer a real example and not an unlikely hypothetical. As it is, I don't think there are any major issues with security officers ignoring crime. Kieth put it better than I could:

kieth4 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 3:03 pm A policy like this, I at least feel, will only end up tripping up newer seccies whilst allowing those who have experience with navigating admins and the rules already easy escape as it requires a "roleplay reason" to get out of it. Hopefully this expands my ideas on it although you should totally ask me about this when the threads open up.

It seems like this policy is just going to be a knowledge check for security officers to see if they know how to say the right words when they get bwoinked, not something that will actually improve the game.

wtf timber is actually running again we're so godamn back

i joke alot about not actually giving a fuck about headmin terms because most of the time its people going "i can fix her" and then TG smacks back and they burn out

but timbers not only funny he's just like good at it stone cold pimpin' y'feel y'feel?

yes, players need to appeal to have decisions they disagree with overturned. this is a very complex game with a lot of depth and nuance, with admins making decisions under a time crunch to appease impossible expectations. it's why we have these processes in the first place, so i don't feel like it's particularly worthwhile to entertain what it would be like if they didn't exist because they do.

i can't really help the second part of your request either. hypotheticals are the only thing i have to hand, but more importantly i do not disagree wholly with kieth either. this is part of the "disillusionment" i was talking about. as i put in a previous post, i have literal essays explaining what i think and why i think it around the enforcement of minimum job standards, and the cliff notes are that even as a dreaded mrp admin i do not like them. but again, the conversation is more complicated than "yell and ban secoffs who don't punish tiders enough" and in the case of overturned rulings it actually has the opposite effect of what you're insinuating: other admins will see a ruling was made in this way, see that it was overturned, and think "ah, this must be the incorrect way to enforce this policy."

Oh Timber's running again? They get my vote again.

kieth4 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 3:03 pm

ekaterina wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 2:45 pm Honestly, bwoinking sec players who do nothing about crime taking place in front of them is a good change, despite kieth's apparent opposition.
Yeah, it's not great as a sec player to be bwoinked for suboptimal gaming, but from the point of view of literally any other job, it sucks for someone to be harassing you with shoves and punches and for some retard shitsec to just sit there and do nothing about it. Shitsec who do nothing are even worse than shitsec who go overboard.

I agree with IC action (instead of OOC) for incompetent heads. With sec, however, literally nobody is going to do anything about it, and, if someone tries, the entire sec gang is going to fall on you without even hearing your side of the story. We've seen it a thousand times.

I can't say I entirely disagree with the fact that wanting security do their job is an ok idea. However I feel that with the nature of the game people are very prone to making mistakes, make a wrong call pick one side over another etc. A policy like this, I at least feel, will only end up tripping up newer seccies whilst allowing those who have experience with navigating admins and the rules already easy escape as it requires a "roleplay reason" to get out of it. Hopefully this expands my ideas on it although you should totally ask me about this when the threads open up.

That's why rule zero exists, admins don't have to be hardasses about it.

seems like what you really have a conflict with is some admins enforcement attitude.

So far, I'm caught between TBM and Timber. I've heard legendary stories of Timber (and I like their running stance) but honest to God I've seen a lot of good work from TBM both on policy-side as WELL AS running the Successionstation event that captured my heart. The recent Space-Law rewrite is also a late-coming but very powerful addition to his platform, I think.

xemo running again is for sure the first big shakeup, and an immediate frontrunner. Things are getting good already

Holy shit Xemo Vs Timber for the admin vote goes crazy

Didn't read anything and Timber is getting my #1 spot.

i like tbm but timber/kieth/dendy would be a perfect trinity in terms of perspectives and cool people in general

millions will die if dendy becomes headmin

Timonk wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 2:04 am millions will die if dendy becomes headmin

If?

ngl i dont think i could handle a term with timber/tbm/dendy. policy discussion would feel like being a kid sitting at the adult table

conrad wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 2:34 am

Timonk wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 2:04 am millions will die if dendy becomes headmin

If?

if

I dunno this dennis person but if she's anything like dennis the menace we're all doomed (for a number of months)