/tg/Station 13

Essentially, this rule allows a traitor to do is shout "SO-AND-SO KILLED IAN!" and then lynch Mr. So-and-So. It then allows non-antag crewmembers to space Mr. So-and-So's corpse, because hey, he killed Ian, didn't he? Fuck, why don't they just gib him, even.

This is on the level of validhunting. What happens when a player-controlled pet is being an intolerable shit, dragging people away from Security? Will Security be lynch-mobbed by the rest of the crew for killing the pet? Well, the crew certainly is allowed to, even if they had no relationship with the pet. Hell, the rule allows them to bomb the brig if all of Security took part in the killing.

So, should the rule be restored to its original form, despite admins never enforcing it? Or should station-wide lynchmobs over Ian-killers be banned entirely?

Previously:

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.

Now:

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. 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.

You've been complaining about this for so long, and now you're unhappy with the outcome?
Maybe you should stop trying to ban bait.

Saegrimr wrote:You've been complaining about this for so long, and now you're unhappy with the outcome?
Maybe you should stop trying to ban bait.

What does this have to do with anything?

Why don't we just alter it so that only the owner of the pet may seek retribution? I.e, Assistants cannot lynchmob you for spacing Ian, but the HoP (and only the HoP) can do whatever he pleases.

I thought that was the case?

If it's not, it seems uterlly stupid that a someone can kill someone who killed a pet they do not own.

Steelpoint wrote:I thought that was the case?

If it's not, it seems uterlly stupid that a someone can kill someone who killed a pet they do not own.

Ian gets special treatment (and has been ruled more than once) as "everyone's pet" with the HoP as the "owner" only in name. I think this mostly stems from corgi meat being a tator objective.

cedarbridge wrote:

Steelpoint wrote:I thought that was the case?

If it's not, it seems uterlly stupid that a someone can kill someone who killed a pet they do not own.

Ian gets special treatment (and has been ruled more than once) as "everyone's pet" with the HoP as the "owner" only in name. I think this mostly stems from corgi meat being a tator objective.

Vice versa, actually. Corgi meat stems from Ian making you omni-valid.

After reading into this a bit, it seems the actual rule on this was changed as a result of the OP's ban request thread. Originally you could kill a guy who killed your pet, but you could not hide/destroy the body. After the ban request was lodged this part of the rule was removed by Hornygranny.

To be frank, you should only be 'valid' to the person who directly own the pet. Ian is the HoP's pet, and should not be the crews pet. That's stupid, I could just steal Ian as the HoS, leave it somewhere in a hallway, hide in a locker then burst out and kill anyone who kills Ian.

B-b-bbbut Ian's meat is a objective! Who cares? Its a stupid objective, does not tell you how to get it easily, and more likley than not someone's already stolen Ian or its been spaced or whatever.

We don't let the entire crew be able to valid kill someone who steals a pair of Magboots or breaks into the teleporter room. Why is Ian the exception then?

is it that hard not to be a 2edgy spessmen and kill pets for no reason

Because we love Ian.

It's incredibly enjoyable that the entire crew loses their mind over Ian and making sure he's safe. I think it's a coping mechanism for being in spess all the time.

QuartzCrystal wrote:I think it's a coping mechanism for being in spess all the time.

There's something to be said about a crew that doesn't bat an eye over looting entire departments (or personal quarters) but loses their goddamn mind over a corgi.

Why not make only the owner of the killed pet the person responsible for taking revenge on the killer? If the owner cares enough, great, if not, a lynch mob is not warranted either.

cedarbridge wrote:

QuartzCrystal wrote:I think it's a coping mechanism for being in spess all the time.

There's something to be said about a crew that doesn't bat an eye over looting entire departments (or personal quarters) but loses their goddamn mind over a corgi.

Well, those humans were either going to be awful to you or kill you anyways. Ian never harmed anybody. Good guy Ian can be trusted and loved by everyone, he doesn't discriminate. He's the virtuous, pure and innocent soul among a station full of psychopaths, sociopaths, and other things ending in -path.

Cipher3 wrote:

cedarbridge wrote:

QuartzCrystal wrote:I think it's a coping mechanism for being in spess all the time.

There's something to be said about a crew that doesn't bat an eye over looting entire departments (or personal quarters) but loses their goddamn mind over a corgi.

Well, those humans were either going to be awful to you or kill you anyways. Ian never harmed anybody. Good guy Ian can be trusted and loved by everyone, he doesn't discriminate. He's the virtuous, pure and innocent soul among a station full of psychopaths, sociopaths, and other things ending in -path.

Homeopath

Defending and protecting Ian is the shared responsibility of all of the crew. MAYBE same for Runtime. MAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaybe Pun-Pun, if you've been actually doing stuff with him and not abandoning him until you want to wreck someone.

But you must guard Ian from all threats, foreign and domestic.

Oh yes. I've been killed multiple times by shitty greytiders because somebody lied that I killed Ian. Worse, I've had people assume that I killed Ian because I dragged his corpse to the chapel when some other retard killed him.

It's fucking retarded. Make pet killers only valid for pet owners, period.

Petkilling is for some reason the one type of 'gettin' muh valids' the admins endorse.

Pet killers should be valid to nobody, it should just be a briggable offense. As it stands now, it's just a stupid way to allow people to randomly killbait.

Also, do you have to be super gay for Corgis to be an admin? It's a fucking hyper low res sprite that does nothing. If it's about 'muh animuls' then why shouldn't all pets make you valid for everyone? What if I don't like people killing mice? It's just a stupid meme that's gone way too far, and it's actually gotten to the point where it's messing up people's rounds. (You know, actual people, as opposed to a simple piece of code that moves in random directions)

damiac wrote:It's a fucking hyper low res sprite that does nothing.

Ya realize you're playing a roleplaying game right son?

Yeah... in a roleplaying game you're supposed to act like a real human right? So if you hear secondhand someone maybe killed a dog, do you get every single person you know and go beat that person to death? Then stuff their body in a trash can?

Or if you hear there's a guy with a gun at the 7-11, do you grab the nearest toolbox and sprint to that 7-11 to get your valids on?

I'd say to the people who want to go lynch a suspected pet killer:

Ya realize you're playing a roleplaying game right son?

damiac wrote:Yeah... in a roleplaying game you're supposed to act like a real human right? So if you hear secondhand someone maybe killed a dog, do you get every single person you know and go beat that person to death? Then stuff their body in a trash can?

Or if you hear there's a guy with a gun at the 7-11, do you grab the nearest toolbox and sprint to that 7-11 to get your valids on?

I'd say to the people who want to go lynch a suspected pet killer:

Ya realize you're playing a roleplaying game right son?

Defending and protecting Ian is the shared responsibility of all of the crew. MAYBE same for Runtime. MAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaybe Pun-Pun, if you've been actually doing stuff with him and not abandoning him until you want to wreck someone.

But you must guard Ian from all threats, foreign and domestic.

That's nice that one admin said that on this forum, but what the hell is your point?

My argument (and the OP's) is that the stupid 'Kill anyone who anyone said killed Ian' rule is dumb, and only promotes validhunting. There are examples in this very thread of people whose round was ruined because of this rule. Nobody's round would be ruined if this wasn't a rule. And you're still quite free to RP being really bummed out that someone killed Ian, and could have a trial for the evil animal murderer. You know, like a human might do, the thing you're 'roleplaying'.

It's just some nice fun silliness in a station surrounded and staffed with murderous killers; I'd make it so that it doesn't make you valid for killing though. That is just plain stupid, and takes someone out the game.

damiac wrote:Nobody's round would be ruined if this wasn't a rule.

once again: is it that hard to not kill ian

Killing a pet so you can kill validhunters who try to kill you in 'self defense' is fucking retarded fuck you that's killbaiting and 100% against the rules you shitter.

It's not that hard to not kill Ian. It's harder to not get accused of killing Ian. Have you read the posts in the thread, where people talk about times they were killed, despite not having killed Ian?

That's why it's a problem, it's a dumb meta thing, like a traitor reading WGW with a voice changer to get his target killed, it only works because of stupid rules that encourage 'validhunting'. It's essentially the same as using a voice changer to say ":gI'm absorbing my last target", because it only works for meta reasons.

It's especially stupid that 1 pet is subject to different treatment than the rest.

For people who can only read the last post:

Lo6a4evskiy wrote:Oh yes. I've been killed multiple times by shitty greytiders because somebody lied that I killed Ian. Worse, I've had people assume that I killed Ian because I dragged his corpse to the chapel when some other retard killed him.

It's fucking retarded. Make pet killers only valid for pet owners, period.

Saintish wrote:Essentially, this rule allows a traitor to do is shout "SO-AND-SO KILLED IAN!" and then lynch Mr. So-and-So. It then allows non-antag crewmembers to space Mr. So-and-So's corpse, because hey, he killed Ian, didn't he? Fuck, why don't they just gib him, even.

This is on the level of validhunting. What happens when a player-controlled pet is being an intolerable shit, dragging people away from Security? Will Security be lynch-mobbed by the rest of the crew for killing the pet? Well, the crew certainly is allowed to, even if they had no relationship with the pet. Hell, the rule allows them to bomb the brig if all of Security took part in the killing.

Killbaiting is just as bad as validhunting if not WORSE because the killbaiters instigate it because they're bored or whatever.

paprika wrote:Killbaiting is just as bad as validhunting if not WORSE because the killbaiters instigate it because they're bored or whatever.

...then remove valid status so people don't killbait?..

Lo6a4evskiy wrote:

paprika wrote:Killbaiting is just as bad as validhunting if not WORSE because the killbaiters instigate it because they're bored or whatever.

...then remove valid status so people don't killbait?..

Holy shit, we're agreeing on something.

SO WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN WHEN SOMEONE KILLS PETS FNR? NOTHING? SECURITY DETAINING? ADMIN INTERVENTION?

paprika wrote:SO WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN WHEN SOMEONE KILLS PETS FNR? NOTHING? SECURITY DETAINING? ADMIN INTERVENTION?

Toggles something in the code that gibs them.

paprika wrote:SO WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN WHEN SOMEONE KILLS PETS FNR? NOTHING? SECURITY DETAINING? ADMIN INTERVENTION?

nothing

Or, more accurately, the owner of the pet now has a reason to want your head on a silver platter, maybe, if he cares, but who else gives a fuck? Ian is no exception, it doesn't make you valid, you don't get greytide lynchmobbed because "OMG HE KILLED IAN"

Fuck pets. Pets are dumb. I kill poly and pete every time. People who kill pet killers are the same cunts who slip security. If NT cares about animal cruelty just make it a space law for security to deal with.

Scott wrote:Fuck pets. Pets are dumb. I kill poly and pete every time. People who kill pet killers are the same cunts who slip security. If NT cares about animal cruelty just make it a space law for security to deal with.

Pete actually serves a practical function and is WORTH keeping alive; he provides free milk and can clear weeds out -fast-.

I also like Poly and Runtime as I own a bird and two cats, but Ian is the epitome of gay.

Kangaraptor wrote:

Scott wrote:Fuck pets. Pets are dumb. I kill poly and pete every time. People who kill pet killers are the same cunts who slip security. If NT cares about animal cruelty just make it a space law for security to deal with.

Pete actually serves a practical function and is WORTH keeping alive; he provides free milk and can clear weeds out -fast-.

I also like Poly and Runtime as I own a bird and two cats, but Ian is the epitome of gay.

Poly has outed more antags than many sec officers

tbh if i heard someone killed a dog, yes, i would want to beat the shit out of them irl, regardless of who they are
animal cruelty is fucking horrible and anyone who does it is less than human
there is no reason to do it other than being a sick cunt
if it was self defense its obviously not animal cruelty either, and its not like ian can kill you

Ian is not a real person, miggles.

I just want to point out that literally every single round he gets the opportunity Saintish has been killing Ian and killbaiting with it, as some sort of retaliation for a prior FNR post, in case people are wondering about the motivation behind this thread.

I fucking hate dogs IRL but being 2edgy by killing Ian is up there with graytiding for being a shit player

i never said ian was a person
animal cruelty differs from person to person violence in that there is no justifiable reason to do it other than being attacked yourself
attacking people is pretty bad too but if theyre breaking the law or endangering other people, etc, its justifiable
animals, especially pets, are innocent to those things. again, the only real reason to attack someone's pet, or a zoo animal, etc is if you or someone else is getting attacked by it. pets in SS13 cant do that, except for pete.

Seriously, the funnest thing to do with Ian, besides dressing him out is killing him. So, if you care so much about your little pets, how about an animal cruelty lawset?

P.E.T.A. AI Board:
1. You will not harm animals or allow an animal to come into harm.
2. Help animals as long as doing so does not conflict with Law 1.
3. Humans are considered animals until they harm a non-human animal.
4. Humans who harm animals are no longer considered animals and are to be neutralized.
5. The process of neutralization involves arrest, demotion, or execution, dependant of the degree of the crime.

Good? There is an obvious loophole, but I mean, I you can apply it I guess go for it, right?

Or just 4. Those who harm animals are not humans

That would allow the AI to unleash retribution on pet killers, but not prevent people from harming pets in the first place.
Of course the problem with the PETA lawset is that it prevents animal testing, but I'm pretty sure given the name that this was intentional.

Are xenos animals? I mean, biologically speaking, they're not members of kingdom Animalia....

what if they are huh
way to be kingdomist

Fragnostic wrote:Seriously, the funnest thing to do with Ian, besides dressing him out is killing him. So, if you care so much about your little pets, how about an animal cruelty lawset?

P.E.T.A. AI Board:
1. You will not harm animals or allow an animal to come into harm.
2. Help animals as long as doing so does not conflict with Law 1.
3. Humans are considered animals until they harm a non-human animal.
4. Humans who harm animals are no longer considered animals and are to be neutralized.
5. The process of neutralization involves arrest, demotion, or execution, dependant of the degree of the crime.

Good? There is an obvious loophole, but I mean, I you can apply it I guess go for it, right?

PETAmov*
And yeah, define what aliens and slimes and stuff are.

I was thinking the genetics/virology monkeys, which can't really be removed from "animal" under any definition of the word, rather than aliens
but those would be important to clarify too

miggles wrote:tbh if i heard someone killed a dog, yes, i would want to beat the shit out of them irl, regardless of who they are
animal cruelty is fucking horrible and anyone who does it is less than human
there is no reason to do it other than being a sick cunt
if it was self defense its obviously not animal cruelty either, and its not like ian can kill you

Michael Vick (an NFL player) ran a dog fighting ring, I'm pretty sure he killed some dogs. Should be easy enough to find out where he lives, he's famous enough. Strangely, a mob of people in grey shirts have not yet murdered him, so I guess he's all yours miggles.

Clearly pet murder should net you a 5 minute brig time if convicted, and no 'validing'.

If killing pets didn't automatically turn the round into 'deathmatch mode', people would probably do it less. So if you're really so offended that people kill Ian (basically the same thing as a reskinned mouse, by the way), then removing 'valid' status for pet killers would make people do it less.

People who want to be able to kill pet killers aren't animal lovers, they're people haters.

you seem to misunderstand the difference between these two sentences:
"if i heard someone killed a dog, yes, i would want to beat the shit out of them irl"
"if i heard someone killed a dog, yes, i would beat the shit out of them irl"

Why not just make Ian and Runtime be able to fight back, with a decent amount of damage?
At the very least, it'll hold off the killer for a bit.

thats stupid and doesnt actually change anything
people killing pets isnt a problem that needs to be fixed, the controversy is whether they should be valid for it or not

In my opinion, add a new law to space law that criminalizes animal killing, sentencing it to a 5 minute sentence.

Only the pet owner is allowed to kill the animal killer, however if they do kill the killer they will be charged with murder, and that they are prepared to be removed from the round and placed in prison for killing someone.

I think we should try and emphasize this as a Security issue.