/tg/Station 13

Bottom post of the previous page:

There is currently zero written policy on either end for nonantag bombing of the station.

The standard used to be absolutely zero bombs as a nonantag unless it ended the round immediately, however this isn't being followed through by the current (stand-in) headmins, or previous dropout headmins.

Where do you think bombs like this are acceptable and why the fuck is this not written down anywhere?
https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic ... 17#p107519


Butthurt preservation:
[spoiler]Have fun guys, just don't actually kill anybody directly with the blast because its easy to fix.
Be sure to be in a fight you can't win either despite using polyacid grenades in self defense has also been bannable before to zero successful appeal.

Alternatively with this coming election make sure you pick a headmin who is actually willing to communicate their changes to how we handle things both to the players and admins.[/spoiler]

I now see why so many people hate you, Saeg.

This thread seems like the admin version of when you tell someone something was valid in a specific context, and they go off saying "WELL OK I GUESS THAT MEANS ITS UNIVERSALLY FINE ILL START DOING IT NEXT ROUND ADMIN AHHA"

WELL OK I GUESS THAT MEANS ITS UNIVERSALLY FINE ILL START DOING IT NEXT

valid admin statement

ADMIN AHHA

Saegrimr wrote:I'd still rather have something to point at for reference so no more bad bans like this come about.

That's just not a good way to structure a set of rules, though. You're never going to completely remove the individual admin's judgment from the equation. There will always be cases where a rule is technically broken but no one's fun is undeservedly ruined for it, and handing out punishments in those cases only helps in the most abstract "prevent anyone from even coming close to ruining anyone else's fun" sense. The best solution is to eliminate zero tolerance policies entirely. That way, when there's disagreement on whether a ban is bad (which is always going to happen, even with the clearest rules possible), people are actually talking about important things like whether anyone was hurt rather than arguing over legalistic details.

bruh