/tg/Station 13

http://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=1060

This is not stenography for the thread above, but that thread (and other instances in the past) have spawned this thread which has been necessary for a while now. Excuse me if it already exists.

This thread is for the discussion of what crimes, kill validity, escalation/etc is associated with killing station pets. Station pets include: Poly, Pun Pun, Pete, Runtime, Wags-His-Tail, Araneus, Orlocke, and Ian. These pets are on their respective maps every round (some of them aren't on the boxstation[sybil] map, but they are on metastation just like ian) and there have been too many instances where someone has been murdered over killing pun pun or ian to make this not a thread.

Also possibly related to this is slime pets made in xenobio with pink slime extracts, and pets ordered from cargo.

I don't have experience with the administration's most common judgments in regard to this and I'd like to know how things typically play out in the minds of admins or in discussions on the adminbus if it ever comes up.

Hypothetical situation would be someone indiscriminately killing ian (not for corgi meat objective) just because it's not a human and it's hittable. Brig times? Valid and space? How should HoPs/sec react?

Realistically, killing someone's pet is totally fucked up, but Ian is a whore pet and technically every HoP ever's pet, to the point where they usually don't give a shit about him nor treat him like the good dog best friend he objectively is. Is Ian the HoP's property, like something that spawns in his locker? Is killing him/stealing him a big deal? While gameplay wise outside of the shitty traitor objective it doesn't REALLY impact the round, but is it a dick move to run in and kick ian to death? What kind of punishments oocly should people receive for this, if any?

Something thats really important to note before I hear all the "Oh, We shouldent make petkillers valid!"

Killing Ian and having his meat in your bag is a tator objective. Thank you.

It really really shouldn't be, worse objective than slime cores.

There is already a policy for this:

the rules wrote:Killing someone's pet for the sole purpose of getting a reaction out of them means you will get a reaction out of them. Short of hiding you so you can't be cloned or destroying your body, you reap what you sow from creating one of these conflicts. The person who gets vengeance on you for killing their pet does not recieve IC protection from security or otherwise, however.

If I am playing security I am annoyed at pet validers whenever I encounter them.

No I do not have to look the other way while you get your valids on, same goes for other vigilantes.

I do like taking them down though I just wish they would stop expecting free reign.

Much like the WGW policy though, you shouldent be allowed to really 'fight back' and defend yourself if you decide to give Ian a bath (he really needs one)

Unlike the WGW policy though, the petkiller is still human, so the AI cant harm him.

The AI can trap him though.

My understanding is petkilling makes you valid from an OOC standpoint but not from an IC standpoint. Let's say Bozo the Clown kills Dr. House's pet cat Runtime. Dr. House may then kill Bozo the Clown without fear of punishment from the admins for killing Bozo the Clown. However, killing Bozo the Clown still makes him a murderer and its perfectly reasonable to get shoved in the permabrig for murder. I think that is a fair ruling for the majority of cases. Obvious exceptions include dangerous or aggressive pets, like Pete the Goat. If Chef Ramsay releases his goat into the hallway and it starts attacking people, yes someone is going to kill it, and no Chef Ramsay doesn't get to kill the one who killed the goat. I've had some chucklefuck toss that goat into chemistry and then cry over the radio that I killed the chef's goat.

http://tgstation13.org/wiki/Rules


It's literally in the rules.

Just because its in the rules does not mean it does not warrant discussion.

Under realistic circumstances we would classify murdering a pet under Space Law and the perp would end up being arrested for the crime, but since we love to kill people killing someone's pet makes them a valid target by the owner.

Some admins toss around different opinions on how the situation should go, but I generally feel that only the pet owner should be allowed to punish the person who killed their pet.

We should also limit the definition of pets to be ones that won't attack you out of hand

Having a spider as a *pet* and then validhunting people who kill it when it attacks them is pretty shit behaviour

Mandurrrh wrote:http://tgstation13.org/wiki/Rules


It's literally in the rules.

The Rules wrote:There’s a lot here, but the gist of the rules is roleplay takes priority. Don’t murder just for fun if you’re not antag. Don’t metagame. Don’t play to win. Don’t be a jerk OOCly.

The reason this warrants discussion is because most situations don't end up in the rules and if you've ever played ss13 before you'd know that. If admins legitimately enforced the 'don't be a dick' thing they'd be called hitlers and for good reason because that's a vague subjective bullshit non-rule anyway. Take out the 'being a dick lol' part of pet killing and you're effectively just hitting a simple mob that contributes nothing to the round anyway, and I'm not sure if that's murder someone worthy, but I do bully pet killers.

I want to know how admins approach this, I always see mixed responses and judgements when it comes to ban appeals that circulate around pet killing. That one ban that involved someone being killed for dragging ian's corpse towards the washing machines was another one I can immediately think of, but I forgot the outcome of that.

In the vast majority of cases, people kill petkillers just because they're allowed to, not because they're outraged about Ian dying.

Exactly. The purpose of this rule is to literally let someone kill another person for a stupidily badly coded mob that does nothing but yap and allows you to play dress up just like you're a real aspergers sufferer.
That is it. I would be fine with brig and shit but killing someone because they killed your pet? That's fucking terrible and long overdue for a change to stop shittyness.

Either remove the silly law or change the HoS pet from a spider to something more neutral. You cannot blame people for seeing a spider and killing it without knowing its a pet. They are usually hostile mobs after all.

The law itself is ok, but people like to take advantage of it. HoP making someone kill Ian so he can kill them, or an Assistant killing Ian so the HoP tries to kill him, allowing him to murder the HoP. Just seems unnecessary.

Today I was stunned/cuffed/robbed for dragging Ian's corpse from bombed HoP's office into the mining trying to get Lazarus. Yes, some fucking unrelated engineer stunprodded me for dragging Ian's corpse.

I think that any vengeance should be restricted to pet's owner and even then be frowned upon. It's just not worth it.

Honestly only the pets owner should be allowed to exact vengeance on the killer ,as other people have noted it is literally just a flimsy excuse to kill someone.

In fact I think it should be taken a step further where killing a pet is treated as someone breaking into a department, your free game for almost anything aside from murder.

Seriously, leave killing people for something with actual weight like a Nuclear Operative or Changeling, not some jackass who hit the dog one too many times.

In all my playtime I usually kill Ian as the Head of Personel for a crew reaction, and next to nothing seems to come from it.

I find this rule is similar to WGW and that's fine by me.

The vast majority of the time people kill pets because they want to stir up a conflict for the sake of making something interesting happen. I say this is perfectly fine. Losing OOC protection from the pet owner makes sense and opens up avenues for fun. Killing Pun Pun and having my blood turned into cocktails as I was bucklecuffed behind the counter was a particularly memorable round that likely wouldn't have occurred without that rule, since antags tend to be better behaved to avoid suspicion.

Important difference is that unlike someone spamming porn 24/7 killing pets is a precise, quick act and unless they explicitly are trying to get killed they might actually contribute after they do so.

oranges wrote:We should also limit the definition of pets to be ones that won't attack you out of hand

Having a spider as a *pet* and then validhunting people who kill it when it attacks them is pretty shit behaviour

I'm not gonna lie. Somebody killing Lamarr because he "attacked" them would be pretty shit.

cedarbridge wrote:I'm not gonna lie. Somebody killing Lamarr because he "attacked" them would be pretty shit.

First time I ever saw Lamarr, it was in the hall and unaccompanied, jumped on me and I hammered it to death with a crowbar.
Not everyone knows the RD has a neutered face hugger pet.

Lamarr is funny.

Cipher3 wrote:Lamarr is funny.

Its true. Poly > Lamarr > Runtime

We have too many pets for making anyone that kills a pet valid

callanrockslol wrote:We have too many pets for making anyone that kills a pet valid

Only on MetaStation

Here's a question: Is indirect pet killing an offense that strips OOC protection? I had a round recently where an engineer purposefully set fire to the engineering bay and killed Poly in the process (I'm fairly sure they were antag but I disconnected beforehand), and seeing as I picked up a bunch of wire and pulled up some empty tiles that the fire destroyed, engineering was fucked. I outed them, asked them to apologize, and killed them shortly afterwards with an emitter because their words were ear grating.

Now, if they started a small plasma leak that killed Poly inadvertently, how far could a CE go against them?

To put some thoughts out there, while I found it was good justification as far as the rules go, I admit my reasoning to kill this person wasn't because Poly was dead so much as them being absolute shit over comms and torching engineering. In fact, if it was just a plasma leak that was easily fixed with a few filters but still killed Poly, I likely wouldn't have cared much at all. Poly is an amusing diversion and can be fun to tune into command comms, but otherwise I spend maybe 5% of my round in my office playing with the computers and trying to teach Poly new words, no more than that. But god damn would I cite that rule the first second if I got a 'boink' message in that round, and I'm fairly sure most people in my shoes would be thinking the same awful thing.

What if a security officer accidentally lethal lasers Runtime while fighting spiders?

What if Wags His Tail is caught in a panic syphon due to plasma leaks? Could the Janitor validhunt the AI?

Though I will say Araneus is badass and needs to stay. I've seen him dunk 3/4ths of a fluke ops team before due to being robust and the ops' own friendly fire. Shit was glorious and hilarious.

Lamarr is a pet that needs to be taken out of his cage more often too. Too many RDs are too much of a nerd to smash that glass and wear their pet's testicles as a gas mask.

Yeah CE could probably get away with making a valid over that, hell all those examples would probably fly. This sort of NO RIGHTS YA VALID thing also functions as a green light for admins not to bother with a case.

I once got killed for carrying around dead pets I did not kill in a locker (or was it a coffin) as a mime. They got away scot free for it.

I believe the current policy we have is sufficient.

9. Killing someone's pet for the sole purpose of getting a reaction out of them means you will get a reaction out of them. Short of hiding you so you can't be cloned or destroying your body, you reap what you sow from creating one of these conflicts. The person who gets vengeance on you for killing their pet does not recieve IC protection from security or otherwise, however.
...
3. If you kill station pets unprompted and get dunked for it, you have only yourself to blame.