/tg/Station 13

Bottom post of the previous page:

There is. I rarely have to do with greytide at all while playing security.

In fact I would say a server culture has developed where greytide is seen as a bannable offence and a form of "being a shitter".

The fact is that greytide makes things interesting. Both for security and the tide.

A server culture has also developed where security either doesn't care about your crime, or outright perma's/ executes you.

I think at the core of this is the severity with which greytide and escalation from greytide (labeling such acts as banbaiting) are currently treated by the admin team.

ExcessiveCobblestone wrote:

cedarbridge wrote:

Lazengann wrote:

cedarbridge wrote: If I determine that Dreams-of-Trees is just an asshole who starts every round by looting the captain's office and then makes his way to the teleporter to loot a handtele and half the armory every chance he gets, I might personally decide that he's a imperfect person playing an imperfect game that needs to be removed for just being a play-to-win tumor on the server.

I don't like how if I'm Sec I have to pretend I don't know they're a worthless player who's going to continue being shit, and I have to catch them multiple times before I can finally remove the menace.

I mean, metagrudging is against the rules for a reason.

Similar to how characters are allowed to know everything about ingame mechanics or antagonists under rule 2, characters are allowed to have persistent knowledge/relationships/friendships with the caveat that knowledge of a character being an antagonist from a previous round is not used.

hmmmmm.....

I know, I was thinking that bit over too. I think there's some value in prohibiting carrying a grudge between rounds over prohibiting positive thoughts or feelings between rounds. I'd rather players got along more between rounds than used previous antag rounds as an excuse to hound the other until valids.

Metafriendships are fickly when people form OOC opinions of people.

If you can't constitute a healthy working relationship (or atleast try) with station colleges (WHICH ALSO means treating security with a degree of respect for keeping you safe, as much as medbay for keeping you healthy or atmos for the luxury of breathing) between rounds then you're carrying attitudes with you. Most sec who get mobbed by shitters may know the person but haven't actually done anything to said person ever, or because the shitter got caught and therefore salty. The shitter carries the negative attitude versus the officer over rounds.

FantasticFwoosh wrote:(WHICH ALSO means treating security with a degree of respect for keeping you safe, as much as medbay for keeping you healthy or atmos for the luxury of breathing)

I was mentioning this before, though slightly differently. The stronger the need to "win" every "round" of SS13 becomes the less people think or care about each department being more than a different loot pile or colony of colored players. People don't call medics to the scene of a murder, they drag the victim to medbay (medbay rework eventually har har), they don't call security, they grab a spear/toolbox. They don't ask to have something built or installed somewhere, they demand parts and make it on their own. That's probably mostly just protag syndrome though. Everyone is the main character in their own story and that story involves <name here> beating <the bad guys> or <being the bad guy who wins>.

I suppose a lot of that is a product of the greytide mentality as well. If every department is just another loot pile, its just a matter of smashing up the place and looting what I can before saxing off. Why get a job when I can just loot the science department for goodies and go hunt the bad guys? Why ~assist~ when we've developed a culture where greyshirts are stickyfingers violent hooligans most of the time?

The part where metafriending crosses the line isn't "these two know each other and talk and behave like colleagues." The part that crosses the line for me is the buddy gangs that get arrested by sec and then smash up the brig to set their buddy free. The pairs that wordlessly give favors like weapons or high risk items for shiggles. Its really not hard to see the sorts of behavior as metafriends that crosses the line into overhelping for OOC reasons. Deadchat is good at being salty but they're definitely solid at spotting the metaclubs.

cedarbridge wrote:I was mentioning this before, though slightly differently. The stronger the need to "win" every "round" of SS13 becomes the less people think or care about each department being more than a different loot pile or colony of colored players. People don't call medics to the scene of a murder, they drag the victim to medbay (medbay rework eventually har har), they don't call security, they grab a spear/toolbox. They don't ask to have something built or installed somewhere, they demand parts and make it on their own. That's probably mostly just protag syndrome though. Everyone is the main character in their own story and that story involves <name here> beating <the bad guys> or <being the bad guy who wins>.

IMO this is tough to fix

people don't approach it as a job on the station anymore, which means they're busy doing whatever

you also see people busy doing whatever, so if you call on the radio for someone to help you by making a thing/reviving a guy/etc. etc. they often don't respond, which in turn leads to people not asking for help ever again and doing everything on their own

it's a vicious cycle

People want to be rewarded for putting in effort in their jobs. People on high RP servers get rewarded with positive player interactions when they give the chef fresh tomatoes or call a medical team to fix somebody. We don't really have that here so powergaming the fuck out of your job so you can have an impact on the round before the shuttle comes is what you're left with.

As to why players pick Assistant to hunt valids instead of Security, Assistants aren't obligated to chase down the guy who's shitting it up as a nonantag for the third round in a row who the admins never ban.

Qbopper wrote:That's the biggest problem to me, at least - I think there's got to be a point where someone puts their foot down, but I don't know who that will be or when

Rule zero may not even exist by now - the rule says we can intervene in the interests of the playerbase, but it doesn't work, because people will step up to defend known players who do this shit all the time (cedar isn't kidding when we say we know these people by name) and then nothing will come of the ban but you looking like a tyrannical asshole and they banned player getting of scot free

Why not every time you see them being aggressively shitty hit em with a few hours ban or a day ban, aren't you not allowed to appeal anything under a day? Just tell em what they did wrong and give them a timeout

Nilons wrote:

Qbopper wrote:That's the biggest problem to me, at least - I think there's got to be a point where someone puts their foot down, but I don't know who that will be or when

Rule zero may not even exist by now - the rule says we can intervene in the interests of the playerbase, but it doesn't work, because people will step up to defend known players who do this shit all the time (cedar isn't kidding when we say we know these people by name) and then nothing will come of the ban but you looking like a tyrannical asshole and they banned player getting of scot free

Why not every time you see them being aggressively shitty hit em with a few hours ban or a day ban, aren't you not allowed to appeal anything under a day? Just tell em what they did wrong and give them a timeout

There isn't a policy about "you can't appeal day bans", people will just mock you for it because >it's a day ban, and if it's not even a day your appeal will probably be laughed out the door immediately (unless it was super super shit of the admin)

It depends, there's a lot of context involved - what does "aggressively shitty" mean? Are they actually impeding the round/removing people from it or just being major annoyances? Do they have a history of being shit?

It's really hard to do this stuff because we can't enforce this with policy (short of turning into a high RP server, honk), but since we can't enforce via policy if we hand out bans people will screech about how there's no rule saying they did anything wrong, and then you get to the issues I mentioned with trying to use rule 0

Qbopper wrote:

Nilons wrote:

Qbopper wrote:That's the biggest problem to me, at least - I think there's got to be a point where someone puts their foot down, but I don't know who that will be or when

Rule zero may not even exist by now - the rule says we can intervene in the interests of the playerbase, but it doesn't work, because people will step up to defend known players who do this shit all the time (cedar isn't kidding when we say we know these people by name) and then nothing will come of the ban but you looking like a tyrannical asshole and they banned player getting of scot free

Why not every time you see them being aggressively shitty hit em with a few hours ban or a day ban, aren't you not allowed to appeal anything under a day? Just tell em what they did wrong and give them a timeout

There isn't a policy about "you can't appeal day bans", people will just mock you for it because >it's a day ban, and if it's not even a day your appeal will probably be laughed out the door immediately (unless it was super super shit of the admin)

It depends, there's a lot of context involved - what does "aggressively shitty" mean? Are they actually impeding the round/removing people from it or just being major annoyances? Do they have a history of being shit?

It's really hard to do this stuff because we can't enforce this with policy (short of turning into a high RP server, honk), but since we can't enforce via policy if we hand out bans people will screech about how there's no rule saying they did anything wrong, and then you get to the issues I mentioned with trying to use rule 0

Only give out day bans with rule zero maybe?

Nilons wrote:Only give out day bans with rule zero maybe?

I think people want to shy away from rule 0 bans for various reasons - I think that might help, but I still don't know if it's a good idea or other people would be okay with it

Could a lot of problems be solved by taking away assistants antag roll and job banning people who go braindead at roundstart in limited roles?

Nilons wrote:Could a lot of problems be solved by taking away assistants antag roll and job banning people who go braindead at roundstart in limited roles?

We tried that. It just turns cargo/engineering into the new greyshirt antag roll slot.

Aggressively shitty: Provocatively being annoying with verbal or physical threats while non antag

- Attempting to disarm you (to humilate, steal or kidnap you)
- Persistently following you (see above and below)
- Escalating all of the above very easily into a actually dangerous situation.

Being humilated and then robbed of your ID puts the station at risk, if you are in cuffs being dragged around you can't do the important nessecities of your job, for example sec/command getting killed by OPS as HOS being cuffed by the clown and dragged around the hall in a Tu-Tu. Humilation is also a deliberate act to invoke a reaction which leads into the third clause if the situation suddenly turns serious and escalates into 1 and/or 2 in a spate of harrassment.

FantasticFwoosh wrote:Aggressively shitty: Provocatively being annoying with verbal or physical threats while non antag

- Attempting to disarm you (to humilate, steal or kidnap you)
- Persistently following you (see above and below)
- Escalating all of the above very easily into a actually dangerous situation.

Being humilated and then robbed of your ID puts the station at risk, if you are in cuffs being dragged around you can't do the important nessecities of your job, for example sec/command getting killed by OPS as HOS being cuffed by the clown and dragged around the hall in a Tu-Tu. Humilation is also a deliberate act to invoke a reaction which leads into the third clause if the situation suddenly turns serious and escalates into 1 and/or 2 in a spate of harrassment.

We'll put, leaves enough wiggle room to avoid toeing the line

FantasticFwoosh wrote:an attempt to write policy for something I just said we can't write policy for

you're missing the point - I'm not asking someone to define "aggressively shitty" for me, I'm saying that the difference of where that line is will be different for everyone and having a policy regarding it is genuinely impossible

hell, we have pax as a trialmin and he loves to slip/disarm people constantly, under your definition he would get the boot (and har har yeah someone will say "good" but that's not my point)

Qbopper wrote:

FantasticFwoosh wrote:an attempt to write policy for something I just said we can't write policy for

you're missing the point - I'm not asking someone to define "aggressively shitty" for me, I'm saying that the difference of where that line is will be different for everyone and having a policy regarding it is genuinely impossible

hell, we have pax as a trialmin and he loves to slip/disarm people constantly, under your definition he would get the boot (and har har yeah someone will say "good" but that's not my point)

It is your point, you can't administrate with snowflake admins that should get the boot.

For the second time I have to say, Fwoosh is correct.

Edit: That came out bigger than i expected sorry.

>ian not runtime
>not poly
>not lamarr
>not araneus
>not renault
>not wags
>NOT WAGS

---

Okay back on topic please. *cough* *cough*

Not really actionable, this has just been five pages of shouting with no serious or reasonable proposal on what should really be done policy-wise. I see no reason to leave this thread hanging around