/tg/Station 13

This scenario is being used strictly as a talking point/example, not making a complaint or anything similar.

I was playing today and found myself following the chef into their kitchen after they left the door open, disarm spamming them a bit, then trying to hop the table and leave. They spammed the shutters on me a few times (which I fucking deserved for being a shitter). To the point where I was almost dead. I left for a bit and made an explosive lance, putting it on my back. Then I went back to the kitchen and told them I wanted an apology. Tried to hop the table (giving up an advantageous spot to use the lance if I was going to) where they shutter slammed me to death and gibbed me. My question is at what point does defending your workplace become grounds for removing a person from the round, if I deserved it in this case how much lower does the bar go? If I hadn't had the lance would it have been similarly valid? If I didn't deserve it how high is the bar? To what extent does protecting your workplace go?

Good work, don't be an asshat next time.

Rule 1 Precedent 7 wrote:You may defend your workplace from trespassers who damage or steal property within that space with significantly greater force than elsewhere. If someone is severely disruptive and returns after ejected, this opens them up to "fun" of the creative workplace death variety.

By your own description, you broke into a department and got robusted for it. Rather than take the hint and stop disrupting the kitchen, you made a threatening weapon and proceeded to do the same thing that got you robusted in the first place. You played a stupid game, you won the stupid prize behind door number 1.

The second time a disarm spammer breaks in

cedarbridge wrote:

Rule 1 Precedent 7 wrote:You may defend your workplace from trespassers who damage or steal property within that space with significantly greater force than elsewhere. If someone is severely disruptive and returns after ejected, this opens them up to "fun" of the creative workplace death variety.

By your own description, you broke into a department and got robusted for it. Rather than take the hint and stop disrupting the kitchen, you made a threatening weapon and proceeded to do the same thing that got you robusted in the first place. You played a stupid game, you won the stupid prize behind door number 1.

How much can I stress the thread not being about the anecdote but rather the actual topic. Sure man I played the stupid game and won the stupid prize, but thats not the point of the thread.

Edit: "severely disruptive"

Nilons wrote:Edit: "severely disruptive"

This isn't complicated. Ask yourself "Can the cook/chemist/roboticist do his job while I'm disarm spamming him and chasing him around his department?" if your answer is "No" then you're severely disruptive. You're made yourself a pain in an innocent party's ass within their domain. They are thus allowed to remove you from that domain. If you choose to return and continue the matter, they can then remove you via "creative workplace death." In the cook's case that means you go into the gibber. In robotics they might forceborg you. Engineering has been known to throw repeat offenders into whatever engine we have that week.

The solution is "don't break into places you don't belong and if you do have the good sense to only do it once."

cedarbridge wrote:

Nilons wrote:Edit: "severely disruptive"

This isn't complicated. Ask yourself "Can the cook/chemist/roboticist do his job while I'm disarm spamming him and chasing him around his department?" if your answer is "No" then you're severely disruptive. You're made yourself a pain in an innocent party's ass within their domain. They are thus allowed to remove you from that domain. If you choose to return and continue the matter, they can then remove you via "creative workplace death." In the cook's case that means you go into the gibber. In robotics they might forceborg you. Engineering has been known to throw repeat offenders into whatever engine we have that week.

The solution is "don't break into places you don't belong and if you do have the good sense to only do it once."

I'm not arguing that you were/are wrong, I'm just trying to explore policy. You don't need to be on aggro so much my man.

Nilons wrote:

cedarbridge wrote:

Nilons wrote:Edit: "severely disruptive"

This isn't complicated. Ask yourself "Can the cook/chemist/roboticist do his job while I'm disarm spamming him and chasing him around his department?" if your answer is "No" then you're severely disruptive. You're made yourself a pain in an innocent party's ass within their domain. They are thus allowed to remove you from that domain. If you choose to return and continue the matter, they can then remove you via "creative workplace death." In the cook's case that means you go into the gibber. In robotics they might forceborg you. Engineering has been known to throw repeat offenders into whatever engine we have that week.

The solution is "don't break into places you don't belong and if you do have the good sense to only do it once."

I'm not arguing that you were/are wrong, I'm just trying to explore policy. You don't need to be on aggro so much my man.

I'm not arguing this from an angle of right and wrong. I'm explaining the terms you emphasized from the rule. That's how it works and how it has worked for many years now. Policy changes when there's a good reason that it needs to change. If that's what you want to see happen then please provide reasons the policy should change.

cedarbridge wrote:I'm not arguing that you were/are wrong, I'm just trying to explore policy. You don't need to be on aggro so much my man.

I'm not arguing this from an angle of right and wrong. I'm explaining the terms you emphasized from the rule. That's how it works and how it has worked for many years now. Policy changes when there's a good reason that it needs to change. If that's what you want to see happen then please provide reasons the policy should change.[/quote]

If a clown runs into science after someone leaves the doors open, throws a pie in someones face, then runs out. And later on puts a banana peel on the ground in science and honks whoever it slips, can they then beat to death and have the clown cremated? That doesn't sound like much fun for anyone tbh (considering what is the clown supposed to do then, make sure he never pranks any departments twice for fear of execution?) but thats what would be okay under the cited rule

Nilons wrote:If a clown runs into science after someone leaves the doors open, throws a pie in someones face, then runs out. And later on puts a banana peel on the ground in science and honks whoever it slips, can they then beat to death and have the clown cremated? That doesn't sound like much fun for anyone tbh (considering what is the clown supposed to do then, make sure he never pranks any departments twice for fear of execution?) but thats what would be okay under the cited rule

Using what has been discussed above, is the clown tossing down a peel and honking "severely disruptive?"

cedarbridge wrote:

Nilons wrote:If a clown runs into science after someone leaves the doors open, throws a pie in someones face, then runs out. And later on puts a banana peel on the ground in science and honks whoever it slips, can they then beat to death and have the clown cremated? That doesn't sound like much fun for anyone tbh (considering what is the clown supposed to do then, make sure he never pranks any departments twice for fear of execution?) but thats what would be okay under the cited rule

Using what has been discussed above, is the clown tossing down a peel and honking "severely disruptive?"

Is hopping a table? This is what I think policy is good for, some admins will say that disruptive is just being in the department some will say its down to actually harming people. I didn't intend this thread to just be a back and forth argument or rehash of ahelps between you and me man.

We neither need or want to draw a hard line on this because it would just be abused by people who would toe the line

If they're being shit they can get turned into burgers, leave it up to player and admin discretion

you should not have used the example because no matter how you phrase it it will come off as a ban request.

oranges wrote:you should not have used the example because no matter how you phrase it it will come off as a ban request.

ruthless

<> >help I redtided my way into chemistry and the chemist lit me on fire so off to the gulag he goes
<> >help I broke into the kitchen twice and brought an explosive lance with me the second time to "demand an apology" and he gibbed me
<> Stupid games with even stupidier prizes.

if this was basically what happened you need to accept yo fate instead of holding on to it and making threads clearly about it hours later

Fool me once, to crit you go
Fool me twice, to crit you go again while also being stuffed in a locker/gibbed/cremated/space

Doesn't roll off the tongue like I'd prefer but it'll do.

Mate I'd have killed you the first time and you'dhave stayed dead. Why should I risk my round if you are being a shit

>I was playing today and found myself following the chef into their kitchen after they left the door open, disarm spamming them a bit
> I left for a bit and made an explosive lance, putting it on my back. Then I went back to the kitchen and told them I wanted an apology. Tried to hop the table

what's behind door number one?

Fucking bravo for tactical shutters, gibbing may have been too far. He should have kept you alive, shoved you onto a meathook, and left you there

I would have killed you the first time and ate the ban.


If someone comes in, disarms you, you're entitled to defend yourself to your fullest extent because one lucky hit can mean death. If they decide to come back and you fear they might to do so again, then out they are.

For your clown example, scientists might just rapid fire syringe them if they keep being a nuisance trying to break into RnD (an area that becomes high hazard the more research is done) or just test maxcaps on them while they're tied to the Doppler.

I want to say it sounds like he's trying to find the line so he can toe it.

The characterization I've always understood and followed regarding workplace invasions is that if somebody invades your department and either refuses to leave, tears the place up, or returns for round two after being thrown out they are actively volunteering for you to do whatever you want to them within your department. Science gets to feed you to the slimes, chef gets to feed you to the crew etc.

I've personally forceborged an invader, used them as a test dummy for various chems and medicines, tossed them onto the bomb test range or just tossed them out the airlock/onto the telesci telepad.

The sky is the limit when you have a very actively willing participant.

Nilons wrote:

oranges wrote:you should not have used the example because no matter how you phrase it it will come off as a ban request.

ruthless

See?

Good thread

cedarbridge wrote:In robotics they might forceborg you.

So, if a Scientist just grabs one of the spare toolbelts and upgrades machines and leaves shortly after, are Roboticists justified in constantly chasing them down, repeatedly threatening them in a thug-like "got a problem, bitch?" manner, beating them into crit with wrenches and crowbars, and when the Scientist shows as much as mild dislike of them, pushing them into Robotics to have an excuse to decapitate and forceborg them and act on such excuse? Just asking.

In all seriousness, situations like that set a precedent, and then players feel they can get away with shit like that. We need to grow a clear line where "defending your workplace" is nothing but kill baiting.

Unfortunately drawing a clear line only lets people know exactly how far they can toe it.

I can't remember who it was that summed this argument up a while back as "we can't make that decision in the absence of context and there are people who capitalize on that sort of thing. If we were to declare, say, pickpocketing 100% acceptable in all circumstances, we'd see people fishing in each other's pockets like it was a handjob convention to the tune of THE ADMINS SAID IT WAS OKAY".

Sligneris wrote:

cedarbridge wrote:In robotics they might forceborg you.

So, if a Scientist just grabs one of the spare toolbelts and upgrades machines and leaves shortly after, are Roboticists justified in constantly chasing them down, repeatedly threatening them in a thug-like "got a problem, bitch?" manner, beating them into crit with wrenches and crowbars, and when the Scientist shows as much as mild dislike of them, pushing them into Robotics to have an excuse decapitate and forceborg them and act on such excuse? Just asking.

In all seriousness, situations like that set a precedent, and then players feel they can get away with shit like that. We need to grow a clear line where "defending your workplace" is nothing but kill baiting.

10/10 Strawman

you know what cedar is saying, we all do. Don't try to make it like this, they're in the same department.

Armhulen wrote:

Sligneris wrote:

cedarbridge wrote:In robotics they might forceborg you.

So, if a Scientist just grabs one of the spare toolbelts and upgrades machines and leaves shortly after, are Roboticists justified in constantly chasing them down, repeatedly threatening them in a thug-like "got a problem, bitch?" manner, beating them into crit with wrenches and crowbars, and when the Scientist shows as much as mild dislike of them, pushing them into Robotics to have an excuse decapitate and forceborg them and act on such excuse? Just asking.

In all seriousness, situations like that set a precedent, and then players feel they can get away with shit like that. We need to grow a clear line where "defending your workplace" is nothing but kill baiting.

10/10 Strawman

you know what cedar is saying, we all do. Don't try to make it like this, they're in the same department.

Disclaimer: This is conjecture Im not Slig I might be wrong here.

The point is not to represent Cedars argument (I think), but to give examples where the letter of the law is lacking. As within whats been established that would be deemed acceptable. He's not saying "SO THIS IS WHAT YOURE SAYING BASIPALLY I CAN BE A SHITLORD" but hes saying "what is the response to this then, this is technically within the rules but obviously shittery". I understand the need for not toeing the line but using your workplace to get valids is something players will do, and that needs to be kept in mind.

Armhulen wrote:10/10 Strawman

you know what cedar is saying, we all do. Don't try to make it like this, they're in the same department.

It's hardly a strawman if stuff like this actually happens. In fact, this is exactly the kind of thing that took place on cedar's watch.

My point is, if we do want to prevent stuff like this from happening, then it is something we should address.

Armhulen wrote:

Sligneris wrote:

cedarbridge wrote:In robotics they might forceborg you.

So, if a Scientist just grabs one of the spare toolbelts and upgrades machines and leaves shortly after, are Roboticists justified in constantly chasing them down, repeatedly threatening them in a thug-like "got a problem, bitch?" manner, beating them into crit with wrenches and crowbars, and when the Scientist shows as much as mild dislike of them, pushing them into Robotics to have an excuse decapitate and forceborg them and act on such excuse? Just asking.

In all seriousness, situations like that set a precedent, and then players feel they can get away with shit like that. We need to grow a clear line where "defending your workplace" is nothing but kill baiting.

10/10 Strawman

you know what cedar is saying, we all do. Don't try to make it like this, they're in the same department.

Less of a strawman and more an attempt to re-litigaate an issue that was handled elsewhere and with specific context. Unsurprisingly, context left out of the conversation and relevant to the issue when handled in game.

And robotics on Box (like most maps I think?) has special access requirements.