this is what happens when you play on m*nu*el

[Timonk]

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=36005

they banned my boy gupta for gibbing someone while antagonist during a recycled pro skub vs anti skub event

[TheRex9001]

why the fuck is the entire appeal bolded huh? Explain that one....

[Rhials]

This appeal is rather anemic. Starving for content like a sick, withered, Gen-Z child without access their phone.

Unless someone swoops in with a note history or incriminating logs, a weekban over a single gibbing feels a bit excessive.

[ekaterina]

Whenever someone tells me Manuel isn't that scary, you don't just get banned for breathing, I can just point that person to this thread.

[britgrenadier1]

Crazy since Manuel's #1 hero Jeff "Gaming" Gaiman once gibbed like all of sec as a traitor chef and turned them into burgers. To my knowledge he was not banned for it. I wonder what extra context the ban appeal will provide as to why this was against the rules.

[Redbert]

I was playing during this round and while i agree the ban is a bit unjustified, the gibbing was in poor taste. This was about 5 or 8 minutes into a fresh round. Gupta being Gupta and killing people in kitchen(chef things idc, valid antag stuff). Detective steps into cafeteria, gets put to sleep, then dragged to gibber. I don't think any rules were broken here, but perhaps time for some RR protection policy?

[Higgin]

this is going to be a fun logdive

preliminary thoughts are that if you tell somebody "I'm going to kill you if you do this" and they run it straight down at you to then get killed, making good on your threat at that point is valid, restriction or no - that meets the test for relaxed escalation outside of objectives

if the appeal is genuine and complete, we're also talking about the RR/gibbing component of what he did as an antag as having been too far - but even off of restricted status and relaxed escalation it sounds as though security were about to make themselves a concrete obstacle to his doing anything else in the round by busting into the kitchen when told to not

the restriction policy is not meant to protect people who kick landmines from the consequences of their actions, even if the starting point of the escalation is skub

When wanting to cause death and destruction not related to objectives, restricted antagonists may instead rely on extremely relaxed escalation.

They may escalate lethally sooner and with less justification, may use more lethal methods to escalate and may rely on antagonistic reasons for escalating. Such reasons may include escalating against people who are excessively polite or helpful as well as being mean or rude, escalating against groups of people who exclude them or escalating against people who ignore or avoid attempts to communicate entirely.

They have no obligation to treat their victims but escalating over minor issues should not result in the antagonist taking steps to permanently round-remove the other player unless escalation policy would otherwise permit it.

Modified standard escalation applies to instances of player conflict. Players may escalate as per standard escalation policy on MRP where they have legitimate in character reason to do so. Players acting without legitimate IC reasoning (for example: randomly or unnecessarily attempting to steal items from departments or other people) void the right to escalate to lethal self-defence if it is employed reasonably by the wronged party.

the two issues that I want to see unearthed are:

1. did the player actually escalate this after having made their threat, or did security? did the detective have a chance to make that decision?
2. if he'd just killed them, would the consequences of that still be such that there was no going back? (this is often the case with killing security or the captain)

if the det did have the choice before going in to the threat, the kill itself seems valid under relaxed escalation - generous even to have been given a warning, but at that point, it was on the det to have gone in

if there would be no going back from this,

...

If a player or department directly interferes with the completion of an objective, this is no longer a hypothetical as the antagonist can now point to specific events in the shift to justify their actions.

removing you for whatever reason, if the initial kill fell within relaxed escalation, goes on to constitute direct interference in pretty much whatever you're going to do after.

this seems like it was with a reason, not without

you shouldn't be allowed to murder an entire department of people unprompted. if you try to justify doing it because security will eventually come after you, you could also justify killing all of medbay because they might revive your victims. and then murdering science because they might build mechs or make tools to stop you. and then murder cargo because they might buy guns to try to stop you.

if you've been outed and know that security is actively after your ass, that's different, but being able to just silently kill them by surprise one by one isn't what MRP tries to go for in antagonists role in the round.

edit: and should not have come as a surprise. idk why this got so interesting to me. i've been wrangling with a lot of sec incidents lately

[NecromancerAnne]

Crazy since Manuel's #1 hero Jeff "Gaming" Gaiman once gibbed like all of sec as a traitor chef and turned them into burgers. To my knowledge he was not banned for it. I wonder what extra context the ban appeal will provide as to why this was against the rules.

The two conditionals there is A) was it ahelped and B) did he give a better excuse than Gupta, because if you have a good excuse then a good deal can fly. To specifically turn people into burgers is kind of funny if sec is raiding you to stop you from doing that.

[Timonk]

so manuel is just LRP but with a fun police that can actually police fun

[dendydoom]

this is a situation that needs log diving to justify or resolve, yet no logs in sight. i'll come back later after everyone has done their required reading for this class.

[Constellado]

Yeah relaxed escalation is a thing.

RR sucks at the start of a round for sure, but if the det made the choice to run into a chef's kitchen after the chef made a threat... He signed up for it.

If the det signed up for it there should be no ban.

[ItzRiumz]

I'm going to be honest, if a chef tells you that he'll kill you if you enter his kitchen you should know what you're signing up for if you die in his kitchen.

Doubly so if the chef is an antagonist and you end up being gibbed and turned into a burger.

[RedBaronFlyer]

As crappy as a RR is, this does kind of seem like a fuck around find out situation on the detectives part.

[BonChoi]

This is not a situation where RRing someone is necessary I feel. I also feel a lack of understanding in this thread that if Gupta were caught he would also not be fully RR'd as a traitor like he would on other servers, and if you're playing on Manuel you're expected to pay that forward as a restricted antagonist. This wasn't a "fin police" ban, this was a justified ban for overescalation and unjustified RRing. If Gupta would've left him in a freezer down in the cold room, he probably would've been fine.

[Jonathan Gupta]

...if Gupta were caught he would also not be fully RR'd as a traitor like he would on other servers.

YOU ARE WRONG!!! I WAS CAUGHT AND PUT THROUGH 'TORTURE ROLEPLAY' WHERE THE CAPTAIN TAKES YOUR LEGS AND EYES OUT AND GIGGLES ABOUT IT!

[BonChoi]

- unintelligible ramblings of a madman snip -

Yeah but that was after you turned the detective into meat.

Also cringe, posting in your own peanut smh.

[iwishforducks]

the detective learned a valuable lesson. free gupta

[Bmon]

today we learn you cannot just ass rush RR people off objective on MRP

[Timonk]

The one thing I wanted to hear the least today was the opinion of terminally manuelite admin prime subject Bmon

[Constellado]

today we learn you cannot just ass rush RR people off objective on MRP

But what if they rush into your space instead of you rushing to them?

[Archie700]

today we learn you cannot just ass rush RR people off objective on MRP

But what if they rush into your space instead of you rushing to them?

No.

[Striders13]

Gupta did nothing wrong. You can't exactly kill and let go a member of security, cause he WILL return with the entire squad and stash your body in a locker forever (and it'll be a valid thing for him to do).
The kill was very valid, as the note states, but you can't afford to be cute and let a member of security scot-free after killing them.
As sec, you get metaprotections and a whole team of buddies that will be happy to kill for you, so you should accept antagonists seeing you as a threat and not wanting to let you be revived after you fuck with them.

[Bmon]

The one thing I wanted to hear the least today was the opinion of terminally manuelite admin prime subject Bmon

i know this might sound insane to you but i play on more than one tg server

But what if they rush into your space instead of you rushing to them?

it depends, what I am usually looking for is a significant reason for round removal or if it adds to the story.

[dendydoom]

what about the 2 other people that were killed which lead to security investigating in the first place? done out in the open to the point that people were just talking about it on comms?

also they were a spy not a traitor.

i'm not posting log snippets, here's the round. https://scrubby.melonmesa.com/round/226269

not even saying whether the ban is valid or not, just that the conjecture taking place here is either incomplete or wrong.

[Sightld2]

You can't exactly kill and let go a member of security, cause he WILL return with the entire squad and stash your body in a locker forever (and it'll be a valid thing for him to do).
The kill was very valid, as the note states, but you can't afford to be cute and let a member of security scot-free after killing them.

It's your choice as an antagonist to kill someone over something minor and reap those consequences. Even if it wasn't a member of security he killed, he'd still then have a whole security team after him.

And when you choose to kill someone over something minor, the rules say:

They have no obligation to treat their victims but escalating over minor issues should not result in the antagonist taking steps to permanently round-remove the other player unless escalation policy would otherwise permit it.

It's simple as that.

[Blacklist897]

Whenever someone tells me Manuel isn't that scary, you don't just get banned for breathing, I can just point that person to this thread.

eka i beg you please just play one round of manny before you start bitching about the hrp INTERNAL DISCUSSIONS tower

Also free Gupta my boy did nothing wrong

[Striders13]

words

It's your choice as an antagonist to kill someone over something minor and reap those consequences. Even if it wasn't a member of security he killed, he'd still then have a whole security team after him.

And it was for sure the detective's choice to decide to proceed to fuck with the antag after he was warned that he's gonna find out.

And when you choose to kill someone over something minor, the rules say:

They have no obligation to treat their victims but escalating over minor issues should not result in the antagonist taking steps to permanently round-remove the other player unless escalation policy would otherwise permit it.

It's simple as that.

I find it funny that sec is allowed to RR the antag while the antag isn't allowed to do the same to them. This sucks and forces antags to be passive to avoid round removal upon being caught. Rewrite it @jannies

[BonChoi]

I feel like there's a severe lack of understanding of the dynamics of RPRs 5&6 in this thread, as well as rule 10. I also think that people are letting exactly who got banned cloud their judgement as to whether or not they should've been banned, which I think that if you're anything other than a player is a bad look.

[Drag]

This is a weirdly out of touch ban, 0/10 needs more Pleeb

[Archie700]

words

It's your choice as an antagonist to kill someone over something minor and reap those consequences. Even if it wasn't a member of security he killed, he'd still then have a whole security team after him.

And it was for sure the detective's choice to decide to proceed to fuck with the antag after he was warned that he's gonna find out.

And when you choose to kill someone over something minor, the rules say:

They have no obligation to treat their victims but escalating over minor issues should not result in the antagonist taking steps to permanently round-remove the other player unless escalation policy would otherwise permit it.

It's simple as that.

I find it funny that sec is allowed to RR the antag while the antag isn't allowed to do the same to them. This sucks and forces antags to be passive to avoid round removal upon being caught. Rewrite it @jannies

Yes, I'm sure this will go well given what happened to terry

[Striders13]

I don't get what's this responding or referring to

[Archie700]

I'll put it a clearer way, this is the action that allows antags to snowball into murderbones of security.

This doesn't even make sense given that he was already catching heat for killing people, which was the reason why the detective went in.

[Striders13]

Then that just means the detective was already after the cook, which would mean getting rid of detective is valid.

[MooCow12]

If non antags get relaxed restrictions when defending their workplace, shouldnt that also apply to antagonists defending their base of operations? Or did this not take place in the kitchen with the antag in question being a chef.

If someone is attacking you in your "area" doesnt it make sense to not let them come back? Otherwise you have to either give up the area you are trying to defend and relocate in the event that the person you were fighting was revived...or fight them off yet again along with any reinforcements they muster.

There is higher stakes at play when you are defending your own territory, and the "invader" is aware of this when they encroach upon it to fight you.

[MooCow12]

In other words, the final boss isn't going anywhere, are you sure you want to enter the final dungeon and attempt to slay it while still under geared and under leveled and without a party formed?

[EmpressMaia]

This ban sucks and is why lrp players view manuel the way they do. Unban gupta this is fucking silly. This is exactly the type of ban that would be placed on me because "well you have a history of killing people as antagonist"

[Higgin]

it might be worth peeling apart here a few things:

1. Gupta's warning about "Don't come in here or you will die" was about four minutes after the det had been killed
2. there was no interaction between gupta and the det, or gupta and other sec that got involved, besides apparently with Chee-Mach earlier (another anti-skubber) asking him not to kill people and be insane in his fight to purge the skub

Off Topic

(edit correction:
[2024-03-28 18:17:23.580] GAME-SAY: AnAbsoluteDunce/(Huffs-The-Fumes) (mob_3372) "gupta please dont fucking kill people for liking... skubs?" (Aft Central Primary Hallway (170,115,2))
-snip, previous message was attempted over comms, about four minutes prior, possibly during a comms outage-
[2024-03-28 18:19:00.094] GAME-SAY: AnAbsoluteDunce/(Huffs-The-Fumes) (mob_3372) "comms back up?" (Brig (201,125,2)))

3. the det appears to have arrived with Elysius on the tail end of a fight between Gupta, Chee, and Ed Dee going out into the theater and the central hall
4. the det appears to have gone into the kitchen after Gupta during which Chase Tayle shoved Elysius, preventing him from as effectively fighting Gupta before Gupta then disarmed, stunned Elysius, and gibbed the det
5. while the overall skub conflict had been going on for several minutes at this point, and several people already killed (rather notably - not gibbed or RR'd) this doesn't seem likely to have been very clear to Elysius or the det on going in
6. the det doesn't appear to have landed a hit or fired a shot before getting into it with gupta, the chef, in the kitchen. Elysius, seemingly incapacitated afterwards, was not gibbed and got out arresting the person who jumped in, Chase Tayle, for accessory to murder (for 1k gulag points - relatively mild given the IC circumstances)

So it's not nearly as neat or clean a picture as
"don't come in or i kill you"
person comes in
gets killed

but that refines my questions to be more like.

does conflict which starts under restricted or nonantag-sufficient escalation, without direct relevance to objectives, become relevant to objectives if the consequences of losing that conflict and not removing that person/members of that dept. could very concretely stop you achieving your objectives elsewhere? or to put it another way, does it matter that at the point the non-objective conflict got to here, he'd very likely be prevented from achieving his objectives if he lost?

does security going in without saying as for what, in the moment, void their protection against being considered a concrete obstacle or a reasonable threat of RR, for which it seems much more reasonable that you could RR them as an antag? (i don't believe it was ever communicated by anybody but chee 'please stop' or that there was a way down from the non-RR skub killings before huffs and elysius went in)

if security as a department is already involved, does every individual member of sec involved have to be aware of it, or can the involvement apply to the whole dept. where even the intervention of indirectly involved or unaware members can set them up to be treated the same as people who are aware?


my personal intuitions about this are that they chased a chef into their kitchen who'd been killing (but not RRing) people for reasons that would be very questionable for a nonantag, but within (goofy) relaxed escalation and that had been within bounds for Gupta as an antag up to that point.

anti-skub chef fights everyone. security intervenes en masse. chef fights off several, gibs det in the course of conflict, objectives do not point to killing or removing security but would very likely turn into fight with security later. objective will very likely be impossible if losing to security at this point.

det shows up to ambiguous, dynamic situation, walks into kitchen after withdrawing perp, gets CQC'd, killed irrevocably before admin intervention and only later warning about the stakes.


idk. if we treat the whole conflict as objective-irrelevant, it looks like an overescalation. if it can be paired with pursuing the objectives and the more general license of antagonism, i think it was a valid kill.

on the broader topic of being an antag on MRP

The goal of antagonists on MRP is to create stories and make rounds interesting, for both antagonist players and crew-sided players alike. Antagonists are expected to put in at least some effort towards playing their designated role, though may break with it given sufficient in character reason. Some antagonists are restricted in the ways and quantities they may lend themselves to visiting death and destruction upon the crew.

1. Objectives are suggestions, and antagonists are free to ignore them if they have a preferred or more interesting idea for their course of action.
2. Actions as an antagonist do not have to be nefarious or evil, but should make an effort to influence the story and meaningfully impact the shift. Explicitly friendly antagonistic play or siding outright with the crew is restricted – players must have good in-character reasoning behind the decision or an antagonistic goal in mind by doing it.

I don't think Gupta can be remotely faulted for failing to have done this, or for taking the skub thing and running with it. Antag is a license to be a prime mover, escalate, and make out of what would otherwise be rote and meaningless situations something more. When you play security, it's been my experience as a player, however frustrating it might be if you were not directly keyed into the story unfolding, that sometimes that means being the Soldier A to facecheck a situation and become the pile of familiar meat that says "the stakes are now raised."

in this case, the lizard steaks

[dendydoom]

archie has done the legwork to spoonfeed this thread the relevant logs (still a small snapshot of the overall situation, which is why i refused to chop them up myself - if you're gonna dig your heels in on an appeal that contains no factual evidence, then you should probably at least look up the logs first) and there are still responses that are just a derision of mrp rules with no actual content that considers the reality of the situation.

here's a thought: who cares how lrp players view manuel? people should play the server they enjoy. if someone doesn't like the preference of play on manuel, we have 4 other servers to choose from. not liking the fact that manuel has more rules than lrp has no bearing on whether or not this ruling is fair.

still, none of this is my input on whether the ban is valid or not. it's not for me to get involved until i need to get involved and until then i'll remain comfortably spectating while the admin and the player attempt to reach an understanding and resolve the situation.

but my thankless job in these tearful threads long before my name changed colour has been to talk people down from their soapbox and actually address the situation rather than what this says about x server or y player.

if you want my advice, which you are absolutely free to ignore and continue yelling, is that admins read these threads and take sensible, logical points based on the facts onboard from players. it is the value of these threads. pointless diatribes attacking the existence of manuel will make an admin roll their eyes and close the thread. choose whether you want to be productive and contribute based on the evidence or you want to express your disdain at the existence of a ban or manuel. but please consider that one is not the other and which will actually help the banned party the most.

thanks for your time.

[Higgin]

to second what dendy's said and that* archie's done the legendary legwork on this already

here, click the hyperlink which for some reason i tried to do with the quote function rather than just linking to the actual post

parsed logs are here: https://tgstation13.org/parsed-logs/man ... nd-226269/

[Archie700]

-snip-

Code: Select all

[2024-03-28 18:17:01.766] TELECOMMS: BallastMonsterGnarGnar/(Jonathon Gupta) (mob_3373) [Common] (spans:  ) "WE ARE EXECUTING THE PRO SKUBS" (language: Galactic Common) (Cafeteria (129,155,2))
[2024-03-28 18:17:07.167] TELECOMMS: Porkimus/(Ed Dee) (mob_3382) [Common] (spans:  ) "Gupta just snapped the clowns neck" (language: Galactic Common) (Fore Central Primary Hallway (134,129,2))

I'm very sure everyone was aware that Gupta was killing people.

This was definitely a major crime, and a publically declared one at that.

[Timberpoes]

Antags gonna antag.

I think it's important to note that Escalation Policy has changed since I drafted the rules on MRP antags. The part on killing and round removal slides in here:

... Killing a crewmate is a severe response, and requires severe justification to do, such as those in Rule 1's precedents, or Rule 4.

Critically wounded characters must be treated or taken to the medbay by the standing party where reasonable, and taking unnecessary action against a downed player opens you up to reprisal...

And the RP rules part is here:

[Antags] have no obligation to treat their victims but escalating over minor issues should not result in the antagonist taking steps to permanently round-remove the other player unless escalation policy would otherwise permit it.

Escalation is now quiet on round removal (it used to permit it for repeat escalations) but we can sensibly interpret it in line with new escalation policy via "Critically wounded characters must be treated or taken to the medbay by the standing party where reasonable".

I think this is one of those scenarios where I do think that antagonistic escalation covers Gupta's actions. It allows an antag to kill another player for being overly nice, for example. So taking a side during a Skub War and killing other players that don't fall into your side is 100% fine.

Mix this together and with RP Antag Escalation not requiring them to revive whoever they kill and we are still within the rules.

It's all about the round removal. I think when security invades an antag's personal space, that antag should be able to deal with it to finality. There's a special relationship there and I don't think the rules should be flexed to protect security members when they get all up in an antag's grill. Entering the chef's holy ground as sec without adequate backup and prep is basically a terminal skill issue when they get Steven Segal'd.

[MooCow12]

Personal space/base of operations just doesnt come up enough, i think the vast majority of (successful) antagonists have learned to adapt to a very mobile playstyle because thats the best way to deal with being hunted down and outnumbered, you automatically avoid most confrontations but you have no hard assets that you can consistently take advantage of, youre more reliant on whatever you pick up from this nomadic playstyle. prog tots and heretic almost enforce this playstyle to a degree.... and so the context of a solo antagonist being invested in a location is usually unheard of. Even a location a heretic drew their rune is often discarded because they might prefer to draw a new one rather than take a body across the station.


To hold a location as an antagonist you have to face overwhelming odds and I've had many defensive murderbones because thats the playstyle I became attuned to, I dont like running around and hiding I like having a location where I can do all of my crafting and tinkering and scheming even if it means as soon as it gets called out I'll have to face the wrath of every valid hunter on the server, its alot different when youre fighting people who are aware of your location rather than people that you simply stumbled into in a corridor.


Some people have tried to associate this attachment to a specific location as just an excuse to "killbait" or "escalation bait" when all it does is filter out the people that want nothing to do with you and the ones that do reach you have already provided enough evidence that reaching you was their goal. There's a parallel conversation ive seen on if an ahelp would result in either an ic issue or a "dealt with/closed", I've seen some players argue that it shouldn't tell you if an admin marks your ticket as an ic issue because it empowers you to act...in an ic fashion...when the point is to play it out normally and treat is business as usual. You should be allowed to treat someone jumping through hoops to get to you....as someone who is jumping through hoops to get to you.

[Timonk]

i know this might sound insane to you but i play on more than one tg server

He's running an illegal Manuel server for Manuel elitists where every shift is a free shift and they just do their job for 8 hours then depart with the shuttle

[ekaterina]

Higgin raises some relevant questions about the interpretation of this policy that could make for an interesting policy discussion that would affect Manuel enforcement going forward.

Whenever someone tells me Manuel isn't that scary, you don't just get banned for breathing, I can just point that person to this thread.

eka i beg you please just play one round of manny before you start bitching about the hrp INTERNAL DISCUSSIONS tower

Also free Gupta my boy did nothing wrong

I know what you are trying to do! You are trying to get me banned like Gupta! The moment I connect to Manuel, boom, instant ban! I will not fall for these dirty tricks.

[AsbestosSniffer]

ah no wonder people stop playing on manuel I see now

[Timonk]

ah no wonder people stop playing on manuel I see now

Check my signature. You don't want that happening to you

[DaBoss]

Spies are such a garbage antag. "Hoo boy i rolled spy time to shit out nuke op items for a full round and do nothing else because i dont have real antag status or objectives besides staying alive" incredible addition lads

[ekaterina]

i dont have real antag status

Spies do have real antag status.

Spy is a full Rule 4 antagonist

[DaBoss]

Which is meaningless if your ability to antagonise tied to their objectives, which are goon style untracked 'throw a birthday party for the captain but poison the cake' trash and survive the round. What the fuck do you do with the 3 rocket launchers and 2 syndie bombs you get given except get banned using them.

[Jacquerel]

Their ability to antagonise isn't tied to objectives either