/tg/Station 13

So I said;

OOC: QuakeIV: could people seriously not try to pull wounded through space jesus christ that was stupid

I was pretty mad because a medborg just killed me and admit that led to some stupid decision making.

But really? What exactly was IC about that? All it implied was that there was space somewhere. It didn't reveal that there were traitors or something, or what round type it was, or anything else that I'm aware of.


I got a 45 minute ban due to 'third offense', even though I don't remember the last time I was banned for this because I have played on this server for years. (this is the first time I felt the need to post on the new forum though)

e: I cannot into the grammar

>Revealing there was a corpse in space being retrieved

Get out

Actually it was a crit guy in front of sec that was screaming for help shortly before being beaten to crit by randomspawn creatures. (my corpse yes bah whatever) The path to med happened to be bombed, which was where the rescuer came from.

QuakeIV wrote:Actually it was a crit guy in front of sec that was screaming for help shortly before being beaten to crit by randomspawn creatures. (my corpse yes bah whatever) The path to med happened to be bombed, which was where the rescuer came from.

There is zero reason to bring up any in-round information directly or indirectly in OOC. That's not what the channel is for. Its not a talk-a-round for inability to communicate IC.

There is no discussion here. You obviously posted IC stuff in OOC and got punished accordingly. Its a pretty damn clear rule, not sure what there is to debate about.

Mentioning anything that vaguely can be a part of the round, whether it is or it isn't, is not okay and can get you banned. This is explicit IC in OOC here.

Eh, I guess things changed. I was around when ickock turned from warning into ban, it was done because people were implying round type and or giving away traitors. A hole in the station happens at least once every round. Ill admit I had it coming since I was being a dick to what appeared to be a new borg, just it felt like an excessively literal interpretation of the ickock rule.

Particularly the attitude of "I'm so mad I'm going to whine in OOC" is what this rule aims to prevent. It is one of the best enforced rules on the server and should stay that way.

It's simple, don't ic in ooc.
Making it ''less sensitive'' will leave it abused by the playerbase.

I remember that there was some chemist who got a ban for saying in OOC that he was AFK.

So yeah, while this particular example is probably valid, I believe that rules on IC in OOC are too harsh.

Baycode has just the thing for stuff like this: Local Out Of Character.
It sends an OOC message only to those that you can see onscreen (And some that you can't see, but are still onscreen too.).
Allows you to talk about certain things in the round, as long as it isn't completely blatant, like who the antags are or where your body is.
Helps new players out a lot, really.
A shame we can't have nice things, so many people would abuse this to announce antags and the like on /tg/.

Spacemanspark wrote:Baycode has just the thing for stuff like this: Local Out Of Character.
It sends an OOC message only to those that you can see onscreen (And some that you can't see, but are still onscreen too.).
Allows you to talk about certain things in the round, as long as it isn't completely blatant, like who the antags are or where your body is.
Helps new players out a lot, really.
A shame we can't have nice things, so many people would abuse this to announce antags and the like on /tg/.

Admins see all LOOC, and it's very easy to ban anybody abusing it. It's been working quite nicely on /vg/station.

Aurx wrote:

Spacemanspark wrote:Baycode has just the thing for stuff like this: Local Out Of Character.
It sends an OOC message only to those that you can see onscreen (And some that you can't see, but are still onscreen too.).
Allows you to talk about certain things in the round, as long as it isn't completely blatant, like who the antags are or where your body is.
Helps new players out a lot, really.
A shame we can't have nice things, so many people would abuse this to announce antags and the like on /tg/.

Admins see all LOOC, and it's very easy to ban anybody abusing it. It's been working quite nicely on /vg/station.

Then someone remind me why we aren't using this?

Kelenius wrote:I remember that there was some chemist who got a ban for saying in OOC that he was AFK.

So yeah, while this particular example is probably valid, I believe that rules on IC in OOC are too harsh.

Also, this.

Because we don't need it.

geilebeer wrote:Because we don't need it.

We don't need a lot of things already in the game. Doesn't mean they weren't worth adding, and it doesn't mean LOOC isn't worth adding either

geilebeer wrote:Because we don't need it.

Care to support your position?

I do not understand. How is LOOC any different than the current OOC? You would still be talking about IC things in an OOC way, just locally. If new players want to ask questions, then i see no reason why they cannot just do it in OOC. If its related to antags, then they can just adminhelp it instead.

The rule isn't:

"No providing key round information to other players"

It's

No talking about the current round outside of the round.

This applies to anything about the current round. A common mistake people make is that they think this rule's only existence is to prevent information that would allow people to metagame from being seen by all players, but that's just not the whole case. IC in OOC and OOC in IC rules exist to provide a wall of separation between the two worlds so that they flat out do not exist as far as the other is concerned. Rather or not it provides useful information about the round is irreverent as far as determining rather or not the rule was broken.

So, knowing that, the following is ic in ooc:

OOC: someNub: Dude, WTF, I can't move.
OR
OOC: someNub: Dude, I can't get my backpack off.

Both are about the round.

The following is not ic in ooc:

adminhelp: someNub: Dude, WTF, I can't move.
OR
OOC: someNub: How does one take a backpack off, since clicking would open it.

now, back to this:

QuakeIV wrote: OOC: QuakeIV: could people seriously not try to pull wounded through space jesus christ that was stupid

What does this say about the round?

Case 1:
If there was an antag who had you as an objective, and they had some how linked your ic and ooc name, it would tell them you are dead or close to dead.

Case 2:
It also says that 1: someone is dead, 2: there is space they could be dragged thru, 3: if there is only one hole in the station, and someone knows where it is, it tells them where you are and that your hurt and/or dead.

Case 3:
At the time, you did not know whether or not the person trying to help you was actually trying to help you.

Had he been a tator, and you were his objective, you might have ruined his hard work with that ooc comment because it would have told anyone who knew where the holes in the station are that you were hurt/dead there, and somebody might have came up to help.



So, flat out, there is a lot going on about the round that can make minor ic in ooc be major meta information, and nobody can now before hand rather or not that is the case. So stop trying to assume shit about the round, and stop trying to skirt around the rules based on those assumptions.

@MrStonedOne, specifically, not directed particularly at anyone else

Prior to people constantly implying round types, IC in OOC was a warning if it didn't happen recently. The bans rather slowly scaled. Five minutes or something on second offense within the past few weeks or months etc.

It turning into a flat rate BAN no matter what, with an all time score that increases ban duration even if its been over a year since an IC in OOC related offense, was entirely due to metagaming. I was there. I literally read the threads and talked to the admins about their reasoning for the escalation of the punishment. If you don't want to believe that then that is fine with me at this point, but that is what happened. That is largely what I was in disagreement about. The severity of the punishment. Do you see what I am saying? If this had been a few years ago, I would have gotten a warning because I slipped up and ickocked for the first time in a very long time. Instead I got punted out of the round. I didn't scream the name of the scientist that blew me up, I didn't say 'FUCKING ASSHOLES BOMBING RANDOM PARTS OF THE STATION', I just was mad so I yelled at the medborg for making what at the time seemed to me to be a stupid mistake.

So in my opinion that falls outside of the purview of the adjusted punishment, which is why I wanted to propose a change.

e: People here seemingly got pretty mad at me though, (probably due to my dickish ooc message) so I pretty quickly gave up on anyone caring about my thoughts.

Ok, i might have been a bit harsh at the end of my last post. You have no idea how many people I've had to explain this to over admin help.

QuakeIV wrote:Prior to people constantly implying round types, IC in OOC was a warning if it didn't happen recently. The bans rather slowly scaled. Five minutes or something on second offense within the past few weeks or months etc.

It turning into a flat rate BAN no matter what, with an all time score that increases ban duration even if its been over a year since an IC in OOC related offense, was entirely due to metagaming. I was there. I literally read the threads and talked to the admins about their reasoning for the escalation of the punishment. If you don't want to believe that then that is fine with me at this point, but that is what happened. That is largely what I was in disagreement about. The severity of the punishment.

Ok, I see what you are saying here.

Yes, its kinda seen now that once somebody has been warned that x conduct isn't allowed, that person now knows, and regardless of how much time has past, they don't stop knowing. And on this note, with respect to ic in ooc users can expect to receive less repetitive warnings, and more bans with ban times doubling every infraction.

Basically, warnings are more so about officially reminding a user x rule exists and they broke it. Once a user breaks that same rule after that, we know that x user knows this rule exists, so they must have broke it knowingly. Once you see if from that prospective, it becomes hard to have much pity or mercy on the user who is knowingly breaking rules, even if they do it out of anger.

Now, while I can understand why that change might be a bit jarring; You have to understand how it looks from our point of view.

You're complaint basically boils down to "I should be allowed to get away with breaking a rule out of anger because its been awhile since I've broke it".

Can you see why we might be a bit reluctant to go along with that?

I'd imagine it could be gone along with because it's been a while since I have been whacked for that particular offense and also a while since I have seen someone whacked (because it doesn't go into OOC at this point, they just ban you without any messaging).

It's kinda difficult to stay in sync with the admins exact definition over a time period that long as a result.


e: What I said didn't quite work grammatically.

Aurx wrote:

geilebeer wrote:Because we don't need it.

Care to support your position?

Simple questions like how to unbuckle from a chair and how to do other basic things can be easily asked in ooc with a wider audience than with looc, if you have questions about current ic situations you can't use looc because it will still be ic in ooc so it doesn't solve anything.

geilebeer wrote:

Aurx wrote:

geilebeer wrote:Because we don't need it.

Care to support your position?

Simple questions like how to unbuckle from a chair and how to do other basic things can be easily asked in ooc with a wider audience than with looc, if you have questions about current ic situations you can't use looc because it will still be ic in ooc so it doesn't solve anything.

Not really, everyone watching knows what's going on, so it's not really IC in OOC.
An example that would be is, say, a ghost telling others where their body lies, or an asleep/ muzzled/ parapenned person using it as a way to speak to others ICly.
Both could easily be fixed by having an auto-disabling feature for LOOC so ghosts or people who are unable to talk for whatever reason can't use it.
An admin could manually reenable it if needed.

LOOC would not solve IC in OOC in any shape, since everything that is IC on OOC still is IC in OOC in local OOC.

The only thing LOOC is good for is letting people say something like "hang on, I have lag" or something like that, but this is barely ever required. And we don't need people discussing current situation in LOOC, like they probably will.

And no, not everybody in the radius will necessarily know what exactly is happening. You can make it so LOOC is only shown to mobs that can hear your character, but people with thermals may not necessarily be aware of exact situation in the room, for example. Or they may not just see a part of the room. Or their mob shouldn't understand yours, like monkey. It will create more problems than it will solve.

MrStonedOne wrote:So, knowing that, the following is ic in ooc:

OOC: someNub: Dude, I can't get my backpack off.

I'm just glad we're finally banning noobs that don't know how to take off their backpacks. Motherfuckers reminding me that they have backpacks has ruined this game for me. It's like, shit man, now I know it's a backpack round? Fuck it then!
[/snark]
But seriously, it would be insanely stupid to ban someone for something like that. The IC in OOC rules are to prevent in game details from being leaked to people who don't know them, not for admins to get their validban on.

Spacemanspark wrote:

geilebeer wrote:

Aurx wrote:

geilebeer wrote:Because we don't need it.

Care to support your position?

Simple questions like how to unbuckle from a chair and how to do other basic things can be easily asked in ooc with a wider audience than with looc, if you have questions about current ic situations you can't use looc because it will still be ic in ooc so it doesn't solve anything.

Not really, everyone watching knows what's going on, so it's not really IC in OOC.
An example that would be is, say, a ghost telling others where their body lies, or an asleep/ muzzled/ parapenned person using it as a way to speak to others ICly.
Both could easily be fixed by having an auto-disabling feature for LOOC so ghosts or people who are unable to talk for whatever reason can't use it.
An admin could manually reenable it if needed.

Saying that everyone watching knows what's going on is never true.
Also Damiac, I am pretty sure no one on the adminteam bans noobs for asking how to take of their backpack, they have full right to ban him because he didn't read the rules but they don't.

damiac wrote:

MrStonedOne wrote:So, knowing that, the following is ic in ooc:

OOC: someNub: Dude, I can't get my backpack off.

I'm just glad we're finally banning noobs that don't know how to take off their backpacks. Motherfuckers reminding me that they have backpacks has ruined this game for me. It's like, shit man, now I know it's a backpack round? Fuck it then!
[/snark]
But seriously, it would be insanely stupid to ban someone for something like that. The IC in OOC rules are to prevent in game details from being leaked to people who don't know them, not for admins to get their validban on.

Protip: something can be against the rules....






and not lead to a ban.

It's almost like admins can think and use common sense and make decisions based off of that.

A report on this thread up to this point has been created and delivered to the headmins. If activity in this thread continues, the report will be revised to account for such .

IC in OOC is both annoying as fuck, and one of the few cases where the slippery slope is a fully legit argument. It's never just 'How do I remove my backpack?' because the moment players see that, and see it being presented as okay or not punished, they'll think 'ah, that's okay to do'. That's only natural, that's how it works usually. So the next person goes a bit further. And so on. You'll always have the random moron who thinks he'll say who killed him in maint before logging off, yeah, but the problem gets a ton worse when you allow it.

The rules are fairly zero-tolerance, but enforcement is often very merciful. We hand out, I dunno, five or ten warnings for every ban regarding IC in OOC, and some people have multiple warnings in a row with no enforcement? And when it is, it's 15 minutes to start with. You have to really work at it, or ruin somebody's round, to get put in the trash very hard.

I'm fully in support of LOOC and it would be cool to see a coder want to port it over here. If people abuse it, we'll put them in the trash, just like we do for every thing, and it could be nice or convenient for random talking.

Here is my suggestion for looc:

Alive people who can speak or emote only (and dead/muted admins using some sort of verb for that so they don't use it while muted accidentally).

It shows only to people who can see that person, and those with ghost ears or alive admins who have deadchat enabled.

logging will list all mobs/ckeys that it was shown to, but this won't be aired to connected clients/admins of any kind, just logged.

When shown to admins who other wise can't see it, the xy and area name will be listed when shown to ghosts, just the area name will be listed.

Rules:

• looc is to only to be used for saying ooc things that relate to something ic that is happening near you. And should have a intended viewer(s).
• Using looc to bypass ic or ingame mechanics that are stopping you expressing something is forbidden.
  • looc should only be used in cases when ooc in ic rules stop you from expressing something,
    • (but, looc should not be used to bypass ooc in ic rules for general chitchat)

IE:
looc "Going for a smoke" (then again this works with say if you know how to rp, scrub.)
looc "drag your backpack to your empty hand while that hand is active"
looc "check the wiki page (some link here) for info. (so we can keep this shit out of pda messages)
looc "fucking coderbus changed that, you have to drag yourself on to the mech"

or even:
looc "How do i X" (when not referring to anything antag related)

Not ok:
looc "X is happening" (directly referring to events in the round is still not ok)
looc "god damn x is a y" (general chit chat.)
looc What the fuck is this cmo on" (general chit chat, can be said IC.)
looc "blah blah person x blah blah autist" (general chit chat)
(after getting cloned with cloning damage) looc "god damn it genetics get me a fucking clean se already" (bypassing ic or ingame mechanics, has no ooc elements)

Question. Why not just say it in character? I mean, I haven't seen anyone banned for occasional OOC in IC that was called for.

looc was ported once and denied by the maintainers. I don't recall the reason though

Just a heads up

oranges wrote:looc was ported once and denied by the maintainers. I don't recall the reason though

Just a heads up

9 out of 10 times, when they deny something, its from shitty code.

How do you explain the broken monkey game mode then?

rekt

Scott wrote:How do you explain the broken monkey game mode then?

If you're talking about why it's in despite being shitty, it's old. I mean like, pre-goon old. Well before SA even "discovered" SS13, in fact. No one's bothered removing it.

Monkey mode is the 1/10.