/tg/Station 13

I really didn't want to make this thread but its now a decision affirmed by Ausops and it goes against everything I've ever been told by admins (and my own decisions when I was an admin) in the past 5 years so here we go:

"No we don't let players use stupid reasons to crit people. The fact that they can be healed up right after is not a mitigating or excusing factor when it comes to critting people for stupid reasons."

The incident was a bunch of people chasing the clown around yelling on the radio about him taking his shoes off (people generally react to clowns removing their shoes the same as mimes talking). I saw the chase going by and I cut off the clown, 4 other people were attacking the clown - two just pushing - but a borg had intervened and was flashing everyone and the clown was punching back. I was juking like a madman and landed the vast majority of the punches, about 80 damage worth.

As soon as I saw the clown go critical, I pulled them away from the mob (this was in front of bridge) and toward the medbay. I had the clown safely in the medbay next to a doctor and a medkit within 10 seconds. Only one catch, the clown was already dead because they succumbed within a couple seconds of going critical and ahelped about being killed. In this case I honestly expected the clown to get in trouble for ban-baiting - instead I found myself banned for contributing most of the damage that made the clown go critical.

Yet I've been told dozens, not once, not several, but DOZENS of times by admins over the years that making someone go crit is an IC issue unless it happens repeatedly, you die from the wounds, or if the victim was security, or other aggravating circumstances are present. I get crit by non-antags multiple times a week and on a station where non-antags get into fights EVERY ROUND and where crit'ing is the natural outcome of any fighting because the crew don't have stuns. Virtually every admin I've talked to over the years treats a crit for what it is, a knockout effect. So they typically evaluate crits under Rule 1 the same way you'd treat a KO. If you were knocked out for 20 seconds, who gives a shit, its IC and you can either get revenge or move on, deal with it.

Yet Ausops has now held that even if they were crit for 3 seconds before you used your magical space medicine to return them to perfect health, you can be banned. If you are part of a group attacking a talking mime and the mime goes critical, you can be banned even if you shoot them with a wand of healing a half-second later.

Apparently now critical status is another snowflake rule in our unwritten escalation policy. You don't have to do 100 damage even! Now instead of asking the common sense question of "How did that person crit'ing you affect your round?", we get to have another special secret rule that defies player's expectations. Ausops acknowledged the possibility of "admin deviation" from this rule and since this directly conflicts what I've been told by other admins, I feel this deserves a full answer from our 3 headmins so at the very least I don't have people crit'ing me over stupid shit in the morning and get tolds its IC but then catch a ban in the afternoon when I return the favor.

I've spelled out my feelings but the argument is simple. If we're going to have a super-simple rule like "Don't be a dick" for our entire escalation policy, then the interpretations of that rule MUST be intuitive and follow common sense. Rule 1 has always held stuff that only disrupts your round for a minute or two to be an "IC issue" because natural conflict over stupid shit is an inherent part of this game and if it doesn't seriously interfere with your round then the admin's involvement is typically far more disruptive to the round than any of the underlying behavior. Having unwritten snowflakey exceptions to a simple rule makes the path we've taken for our rules completely unsustainable.

I have a sneaking suspicion the admins dont really give a fuck what you think this deserves

Have you tried not critting people for no reason? Try it, you might enjoy it. This is the question you consistently refuse to answer. Why do you feel the need to attack people, to the point of incapacitating them, for no reason? What makes your wish to be a dick to people outweigh others' wish not to have people be a dick to them?

bandit wrote:Have you tried not critting people for no reason? Try it, you might enjoy it.

I loathe taking people out of the round. I'll typically only do it as a matter of survival/necessity (unless I'm an antag, then GGnoRE). I'm also a pragmatist who recognizes that thanks to the magic of space medicine that crit'ing someone is often the most merciful way to resolve a conflict assuming you take the proper steps to ensure they are treated.

As far as headmins giving a shit. I think PKP will actually be responsive, they actually participate here and seem to give a shit about policy. We already have Ausops answer. Getting Joan involved is another story but who knows - maybe if I can incorporate Clock Cult into my post we can get her attention.

You lied again, the clown wasnt fighting back. How are you not banned for lying in policy

The rule 1 is pretty straight forward in most cases, like this one:
Rule 1) Don't be a dick
Critting a clown(regardless of you healing him or not) for not wearing the shoes = being a dick.

Oldman, there's precedent for this already. There was just a ban appeal by a chaplain who got banned for critting a botanist who was breaking into an empty chemistry during a blob round.

You'd have more luck if you made the thread about whether shoeless clowns or talking mimes should be open for a certain amount of abuse.

This is what happens when you let robustin run his mouth instead of putting him down quickly.
He'll bitch and whine over multiple threads for the next few days about his unwavering logic and inability to be wrong.

NikNakFlak wrote:This is what happens when you let robustin run his mouth instead of putting him down quickly.
He'll bitch and whine over multiple threads for the next few days about his unwavering logic and inability to be wrong.

Rule0 him see who stops you if you feel that strongly

Holy shit I didn't think this kind of thing truly happens, oldman is really THE rules lawyer wew

Clown deserved it the, always wear your shoes or get cuff shoes

Nothing is always a ban and situations are judged case by case at the admin's discretion

Also certain players will get banned where certain others would not

Lazengann wrote:Also certain players will get banned where certain others would not

Certain players make themselves a lot harder to deal with.

On top of that, some admins will ban for things that others would not, and no one notices a ban that doesn't happen.

"Yet I've been told dozens, not once, not several, but DOZENS of times by admins over the years that making someone go crit is an IC issue unless it happens repeatedly, you die from the wounds, or if the victim was security, or other aggravating circumstances are present. I get crit by non-antags multiple times a week and on a station where non-antags get into fights EVERY ROUND and where crit'ing is the natural outcome of any fighting because the crew don't have stuns. Virtually every admin I've talked to over the years treats a crit for what it is, a knockout effect. So they typically evaluate crits under Rule 1 the same way you'd treat a KO. If you were knocked out for 20 seconds, who gives a shit, its IC and you can either get revenge or move on, deal with it."

Are we talking about your title, specifically critting FNGoodR, or just critting in general. I think "someone broke into my department and trying to steal things" vs "honk the clown doesn't have his shoes on" are a bit different.

captain sawrge wrote:

Lazengann wrote:Also certain players will get banned where certain others would not

Certain players make themselves a lot harder to deal with.

On top of that, some admins will ban for things that others would not, and no one notices a ban that doesn't happen.

My post wasn't a criticism in any way, I'd consider it a poor state of affairs if it wasn't true

Fair enough

Nilons wrote:

NikNakFlak wrote:This is what happens when you let robustin run his mouth instead of putting him down quickly.
He'll bitch and whine over multiple threads for the next few days about his unwavering logic and inability to be wrong.

Rule0 him see who stops you if you feel that strongly

Just because someone is awful to deal with doesn't mean they should be rule 0'd it just means that situations like this have to happen and as long as the stance is held strong by the administration team
and in this case, that is what happened, then everything works out and he shouts into the wind but serves his entire ban time out. Rule 0s rarely work, rarely are solid, rarely get placed, and rarely stick if they are placed.

I don't feel that strongly about this since the ban wasn't lifted. As I said, I feel like he's mostly just spouting into the wind. This is just another one of those robustin threads he makes after he gets banned/warned/noted/whatever
that come around so much like clockwork, it's to be expected at this point and adminbus almost always has a conversation of "ohboyherewegoagain.jpg"

Robustin come on

You talk about rules needing to be intuitive and done through common sense but please for a moment take the viewpoint of a new player who has played maybe a 100 connections or so, plays clown and then gets lynched for it. What are they going to think of the server if they do what to them is a totally innocuous action only for a swarm of players to kill them? What do you think theyre going to infer from the rules? Or how its going to influence how they themselves play?

I'm not sure how you arrived at the clown banbaiting but remember that not every player will think like you nor plan things like you.

If I saw you beat down a clown as a non-antag with no provocation other than "because he wasn't wearing shoes", with the intent of critting or killing, you'd get a note. If you did it repeatedly, I'd issue increasing-duration bans until you stopped doing it.

If that ban made it to an appeal, I'd accept a headmin ruling, but I'd maintain that you violated the spirit of Rule 1.

I don't foresee a headmin ruling about the circumstances you've described, in a general sense, landing in your favor -- and a lot of admins have already weighed in on this in the three threads you've posted in about this same issue.

Some notes:
* Taking off shoes as a clown is not ban-baiting.
* Beating on someone who's broken into your area or who's slipped you repeatedly is an IC issue until it becomes death or spacing.
* Similarly, repeatedly greytiding security during a hectic round, or stealing security's batons et al during a situation where antags are known to be about (as in already exposed in the round, and usually team antags) is something we're probably likely to call an IC issue.

In the case of the above instances, the spirit of the rule is "is this something that could realistically have happened? Is it a direct response to an aggressive or disruptive action taken by another character ICly, and is it a reasonable response to be had in our loose world of murder and mayhem?"

Some examples of single-qualifier (i.e. this is the only "reason") bad reasons to beat someone down:
* They're nude
* They're a clown and not wearing their shoes
* They're a mime and not wearing their mask
* They're a lizard
* They're a catperson
* They're from centcomm

There was recently a headmin ruling directly affecting the previously-lax allowance of behavior regarding the last item on that list, which is why I included it.

In the case of the above listed 'bad' reasons, the spirit of the rule as described above inevitably leads to the person who is engaging in the beatdown being a shithead. There's no escalation here.

There ARE some exceptions. WGW comes to mind, which is a little tricky. It's a tradition: both to engage in WGW and to lynch people engaging in it. The argument can be made that there is actually a rule against it (Rule 8, re: ERP), but that rule has come and gone over the years.

But it does come down to: who is the aggressor?

Taking off shoes, or being a lizard, is not an aggressive act.

Spamming WGW is.

As such, taking off shoes is not a valid reason to smack someone down.

Furthermore, I'd argue that "BUT I DIDN'T KILL HIM I ONLY CRITTED HIM FNR" is a violation of rule 7, if it's a justification you tend to use frequently, and you're claiming exactly that.

It actually kind of surprises me that you've brought this up so many times so quickly, and that you feel so strongly about it. You're fighting for the right to violate Rule 1 and Rule 7 over literally the smallest thing.

Yes. Crit is a very general thing and therefore is heavily case by case. In your case it was not cool. Your thread title screaming "ALWAYS A BAN NO MATTER WHAT REEEEE" misses the entire point of what we've been telling you and in fact actually subverts it completely.

Instead of writing essays about your right to be a cunt you should maybe try not acting like a cunt.

Screemonster wrote:Instead of writing essays about your right to be a cunt you should maybe try not acting like a cunt.

i hate to shitpost but this is a great summary of my own essay, i retract my earlier post

Oldman Robustin wrote: loathe taking people out of the round. I'll typically only do it as a matter of survival/necessity (unless I'm an antag, then GGnoRE). I'm also a pragmatist who recognizes that thanks to the magic of space medicine that crit'ing someone is often the most merciful way to resolve a conflict assuming you take the proper steps to ensure they are treated.

You still didn't answer the question. Why do you feel the need to crit people for no reason? This isn't resolving a conflict. It's creating a conflict out of nothing.

Also in response to

Lazengann wrote:Also certain players will get banned where certain others would not

Maybe, in the sense that if the person critting people for shitty reasons is new, without much of a notes history, I would probably have left it at a strong warning and a note to apply a ban if they do it again. We get a lot of players from servers with more lax policies on grief, who might not know that things are different here. But Oldman has played for over four years and should know better by now.

In terms of banbaiting: yes, it is a thing, and we do ban for it. But if someone isn't the instigator of a conflict, it is very unlikely that they are banbaiting. Here is an example (all names removed) of a ban I placed recently for banbaiting:

Banned for 1440 minutes - Banbaiting -- Went around throwing fluorosulfuric acid at a ton of people for no reason, then ahelped when one of them decided they didn't like it. No part of this is acceptable server behavior here. Please review our rules.

This guy was literally running around as chemist throwing beakers of acid at multiple people for no reason, melting their shit. Pretty clear instigation. One of them decided to kick his ass, and the chemist ahelped that. That's banbaiting: deliberately provoking people, then trying to get the person who retaliated banned. Taking off one's shoes is not provoking people.

Nilons wrote:You lied again, the clown wasnt fighting back. How are you not banned for lying in policy

Clown was triggering his autism by not wearing clown shoes. He was clearly assaulting Oldman by sending him into a spergy panic attack.

Jacough wrote:

Nilons wrote:You lied again, the clown wasnt fighting back. How are you not banned for lying in policy

Clown was triggering his autism by not wearing clown shoes. He was clearly assaulting Oldman by sending him into a spergy panic attack.

ah mb.

On the shoeless thing I normally just get sec to arrest the clown for dereliction or kick his ass in a nonlethal way, or steal his stuff. Crit is much too far

Why can't you just admit you are wrong lol. Do you have brain problems?

https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic ... 33&t=11675

What did oldman mean by this sudden change in attitude? Does he create policy threads on a whim based on what happens to him?

Yes okay well the headmins have spoken and there's clearly nothing of value left in this thread so