/tg/Station 13

I've noticed that recently admins seem to be making major changes to rule interpretation and policy in the middle of a ban appeal, then banning based on the new policy. Basing what's bannable based on an interpretation that hasn't already been put into rules is harmful to the server and gets in the way of playing the game. The two instances of this I've noticed are escalation and rule 1.5 interpretation.

The purpose of this post is to propose a policy that headmins rule on ban appeals based on rules, and any reinterpretation or additions they think should be added should take effect at the time they are decided, and not be used to justify a ban. I consider rules to be as much if not more for protecting rule following players from bans as they are for banning shitters. If justification for bans doesn't come from the rules, then whether or not an action is bannable depends solely on who is in power at the moment. There would be no way to know whether or not an action would be allowed, except for knowing how the admins thought. What actions are bannable and which are not should be resolved by looking at the rules, as this will allow players to know which actions will get them banned and which are allowed. New headmins who seek to change things should do this by changing the rules, thus giving players warning about what is no longer allowed. Grey areas appearing is inevitable, but for actions that don't merit a rule 0 type response, the action should be make a solid ruling on it, even if the ruling invokes admin discretion, and let the player go with a warning. Players who repeatedly seek out loopholes can be dealt with through rule 7. I would consider making a new ruling to a player's benefit on a ban appeal to be OK, but punishing someone for actions that were allowed at the time should not be done.

The first ruling that bothered me was the reinterpretation of escalation. I won't argue that escalation policy as it is currently written is good. It's horrible. An escalation system that allows you to gib or otherwise permanently remove someone from the round for disarm spamming them to try to steal a tool is fundamentally flawed. But that is the way it is written. The key part of the rule states "If you are the instigator in a conflict and end up killing or severely impairing the round of the person you are fighting, you should make a reasonable effort to return them to life at least once or make amends, ONLY SEEKING ROUND REMOVAL IF THEY CONTINUE TO PURSUE YOU. THIS PROTECTION DOESN'T APPLY TO AN INSTIGATOR BEING KILLED." The rule clearly states that while the victims of a crime are safe from permanent round removal, the instigators receive no protection. In spite of this, multiple people have been banned for removing people from the round. Eskjjlj is one example, as was Spyroshark, assuming he had good reason to know the roboticist was coming for him. An example of how things ought to play out can be seen in Wesoda25's ban appeal. In it, he killed and spaced a man for destroying two Christmas trees. In the end, it was decided that this wouldn't be allowed in the future, but Wesoda25 wouldn't be punished, as he was acting in good faith. This is how the approach to round removal should be changed, not by making something retroactively bannable.

The second ruling is the major reinterpretation of rule 1.5, resulting in a ban. The point of this post isn't whether the headmins new definition of it is good or bad, but that it is too different from what is written to be considered interpretation or the spirit of the rule, and therefore shouldn't have applied to actions taking place in the past. This is the part of the headmins decision that is most important to this topic:

Nervere wrote:The reason why we have this protection in place for heads of staff and security is because there's always that round where some shitter hacks open some door in bridge or captain's quarters and all hell breaks loose. In situations like these, security needs the extra leeway to defend themselves and heads of staff from people breaking in. However, this same privilege granted to security does not carry over 15-20 minutes after the crime has happened, especially if the person has not acted antagonistic since then. Sure, the criminal is still open to full punishment - the factor of time does not change this. However, taking it upon yourself to stun + cremate them as soon as you find them is excessive behavior that stems from approaching the game from a validhunting mindset. Such an approach to the situation wasn't the right response and, dare I say, violated the spirit of the precedent.

Rule 1.5 reads: "Players who attempt to break into the captain's office, head of personnel's office, or the bridge at or near roundstart for no legitimate reason put themselves at risk for being legitimately killed by the captain, heads of staff, or security." As the rule is very specific about the locations covered, captain's office, head of personnel's office, and the bridge, the people allowed to respond, captain, heads of staff, and security, and the incident required, I believe the rule is meant to be taken at a much more literal level, including the time frame limitation included for punishment, that is, none. From how the rule is worded, I believe the intent of it was to discourage shitters from breaking into the captain's office at roundstart while the captain is trying to secure the disk and do other important things by making it valid in a similar vein to killing pets and talking as a mime. Another issue I have with the time frame is that other rules would make anyone breaking in at round start valid, namely escalation and acting like an antag. While I believe the current escalation rules came after rule 1.5 and so wouldn't have been considered in it's creation, the rule that people acting like an antag can be treated like one is old. Anyone caught breaking into the locations listed could definitely be expected to be an antagonist. It doesn't make sense that a rule making people breaking into these specific places valid to these specific people would be limited to a time period already covered by another rule. It wouldn't be reasonable to expect anyone to interpret it in the way described by the headmins unless they were told ahead of time, and therefore they should have been ruled on it before banning someone for it.

In summary: I feel like headmins have been making retroactive ruling on ban appeals to the detriment of the server. Bans should result from rules that existed at the time of the initial ban, not major reinterpretations of the rules. The escalation and rule 1.5 bans are examples which I believe would damage the server if they become a pattern. I don't know the admins' side of this, but I would like to hear their response.

tl;dr: Admins rulings should take effect when they are made and should not be retroactive.

*edit: added clarification as to what time frame limitation referred to

Big agree

yeah retroactive rulings are one of the first things that got taken out of most countries' law because they were only ever used to shit on someone you don't like

retroactive rulings are dumb

headmin ruling wrote:Sure, the criminal is still open to full punishment - the factor of time does not change this. However,

this part bothered me, literally okaying the act just to immediately backpedal

Just realized I should clarify that the 1.5 ruling I mention several times refers to https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic ... 34&t=20969.

iksyp wrote:

headmin ruling wrote:Sure, the criminal is still open to full punishment - the factor of time does not change this. However,

this part bothered me, literally okaying the act just to immediately backpedal

I didn't think to mention this, but yeah, that does bother me too.

the rules are guidelines, and are free to be interpreted by admins and headadmins at any time, trying to encase them in rigidity is stupid and frankly is just going to cause more grief than a few people getting done in because they couldn't not act like a dick.

It's a bit unfair imo to take a purposefully explicit rule such as "you can do X when Y conditions" and interpret it the same way as a purposefully implicit rule such as "don't be a dick".

It's like saying you can treat an antag like you're an antag ONLY if you've seen them do something antagonistic in the last X minutes. It doesn't make sense to add on hidden amendments to those rules.

What cobby said is why a thread like this is here. If your rules are full of examples, headmin rulings, and conditions that very explicitly list "X is ok", it's kind of fucked up to ban for someone doing exactly X.

If you want the rules to be guidelines then don't have extremely specific examples of allowed behavior in the rule.

oranges wrote:the rules are guidelines, and are free to be interpreted by admins and headadmins at any time, trying to encase them in rigidity is stupid and frankly is just going to cause more grief than a few people getting done in because they couldn't not act like a dick.

First, thanks for replying to my post. I'm glad it at least got read. I do disagree with what you say, I believe more rigidly defined rules would improve gameplay and the server.

The rules being treated as guidelines is something I strongly disagree with. The rules page is the chief guide to players on how they are expected to act, using them as suggestions makes it much harder to tell whether something is bannable. If the rules are treated as guidelines people acting in good faith can be banned. Admins and headmins should stick to what the rules say to avoid confusion. I am not as focused on rigidity in ruling that someone shouldn't be banned, but when justifying bans there should be no retroactive rule changes or reinterpretations. Rule 0 does exist and is important, but should be kept to cases like someone constantly being an asshole or ruining stuff for everyone.

Whether or not someone acts like a dick is highly subjective and therefore definitely not suited to ruling on whether or not someone gets banned. What one admin considers dickish behavior is allowable to another. As I mentioned in my original wall of text, this would mean whether someone got banned more dependent on which headmins are in power or which admins are online than whether they followed the rules they are directed to. You wouldn't be sure whether what you are doing could get you banned. I believe this "don't be a dick" subjectiveness is part of the reason for the escalation and 1.5 rulings, and it should not be used to justify bans.

Also, the rule against being a dick isn't enforced. Greytiding is being a dick, stealing is being a dick, slipping people is being a dick, but no one is punished for it. While someone who excessively greytides or utterly trashes the station should get banned, for the most part this lack of enforcement over minor cases is an important part of the server. If headmins want to change it they can, but they should let us know what isn't allowed first.

Your claim that making the rules more rigidly enforced will cause more grief may be subjective, but I disagree. I find it far worse when someone is banned for doing something specifically allowed by the rules than when someone gets off scot free for something I think should be punished. It is far more important to me that innocent people be protected from punishment than it is to get every rules lawyer every time. If someone is constantly looking for loopholes, however, admins should feel free to throw rule 7 at them.

I just thought of something to add on here. I'm not arguing this to create a pointlessly obstructive legal system. I'm arguing this because power needs to have limits. Admins have the ability to ban people and change the round, but they are expected to follow headmin decisions, not use the powers to cheat, and not take ahelps involving a player they have a grudge against. This last one got Nabski deadminned. Headmins can change laws as they see fit, and this power could be abused. If I were given power and allowed myself to ban as I saw fit without regard to the rules, I would probably do even worse. They should limit how they use their ability to make rules so as not to make bans arbitrary. While it may be irritating to find a player who has acted shitty, but has not broken a rule, the effects of not banning them has less effect on the admin and other players than an unfair ban has on the banned player and others who find themselves in a similar situation.

If you knew the ligger's history you'd see why that ban is a really bad example.

Malkraz wrote:If you knew the ligger's history you'd see why that ban is a really bad example.

Since I'm not an admin, I can't see his notes, but according to posts on the ban appeal, he didn't have a history. Playing sec when he was detective, he did seem more valid focused than I would like, but not to a rule breaking degree. Anyways, the ban I mentioned was about a specific instance, and I think arguing over whether he's a good detective or not would be getting off topic.

Remove all rules except rule one and let admins just ban all the rule lawyers.

Dax Dupont wrote:Remove all rules except rule one and let admins just ban all the rule lawyers.

rule 1 says don't be a dick

you can't lawyer your way out of being a dick

it's perfect

also make rule 0 only apply to admins

and people I don't like

Malkraz wrote:If you knew the ligger's history you'd see why that ban is a really bad example.

People not liking him or how he plays detective doesn't change the fact that he got banned for doing something explicitly allowed in the rules.

WarbossLincoln wrote:

Malkraz wrote:If you knew the ligger's history you'd see why that ban is a really bad example.

People not liking him or how he plays detective doesn't change the fact that he got banned for doing something explicitly allowed in the rules.

They should just admit that it's a rule 0 ban

I did not add all those weird exceptions to the rules, they all represent failures of the administration to resist the stupidity of trying to write a fixed and rigid ruleset for a game that changes every day and a community that changes every day. The rules are 100% subjective and always applied subjectively. Our original ruleset acknowledges and makes that clear and enshrines that into the rules as the 1st and zeroth rules.

There never will be any kind of clarity around rules and gameplay, so the best you can ask for is the admins banning people who thought they were in the right simply take into account if the person was doing it cynically or not and moderate their approach accordingly.

Anyone pretending that it's possible to create a crystal clear rule-set that doesn't leave everything up to the interpretation and subjective opinion of the administrators is either doing it in bad faith or is hopelessly naive. The only possible situation in which that would make any kind of sense is if both the people playing the game an the game itself, never changed from a single point going forward in any way.


Adminstration power on this server is limited only in a few ways
1) admins are answerable to the headadmins
2) the headadmins are answerable to each other
3) the headadmins are elected every six months

pretending that a ruleset or anything else is an anyway a limiter to that power is foolish, because the rules can be changed by headadmins or admins at any time, as per the rules.

That is not a bad thing, it's a good thing, it's an important part of how this community manages to evolve and adapt with the codebase and players. Arguing to remove that flexibility because you care that istoprocent or others got banned for things that were supposedly "allowable by the rules" is stupid and shortsighted, and can only come from a place of bad faith where you want license to commit similar acts and not get pulled up for it.

The reality of the situation is that it has and always will be the case that if you continually go out of your way, to in the administrations view, make the game worse for other people, you will eventually be taken out the back and shot for it, even if every single thing you do is considered allowable or not.

This is not a power that is exercised lightly and is nearly always challenged to some degree.

I have no problem with this because I believe that our current system of appeal and public conversation remains transparent enough to manage the process without ending up as an admin power trip.

Malkraz wrote:If you knew the ligger's history you'd see why that ban is a really bad example.

You realize that the only reason his ban stuck is because the headmins didn’t like him right?

oranges wrote:I did not add all those weird exceptions to the rules, they all represent failures of the administration to resist the stupidity of trying to write a fixed and rigid ruleset for a game that changes every day and a community that changes every day. The rules are 100% subjective and always applied subjectively. Our original ruleset acknowledges and makes that clear and enshrines that into the rules as the 1st and zeroth rules.

There never will be any kind of clarity around rules and gameplay, so the best you can ask for is the admins banning people who thought they were in the right simply take into account if the person was doing it cynically or not and moderate their approach accordingly.

Anyone pretending that it's possible to create a crystal clear rule-set that doesn't leave everything up to the interpretation and subjective opinion of the administrators is either doing it in bad faith or is hopelessly naive. The only possible situation in which that would make any kind of sense is if both the people playing the game an the game itself, never changed from a single point going forward in any way.


Adminstration power on this server is limited only in a few ways
1) admins are answerable to the headadmins
2) the headadmins are answerable to each other
3) the headadmins are elected every six months

pretending that a ruleset or anything else is an anyway a limiter to that power is foolish, because the rules can be changed by headadmins or admins at any time, as per the rules.

That is not a bad thing, it's a good thing, it's an important part of how this community manages to evolve and adapt with the codebase and players. Arguing to remove that flexibility because you care that istoprocent or others got banned for things that were supposedly "allowable by the rules" is stupid and shortsighted, and can only come from a place of bad faith where you want license to commit similar acts and not get pulled up for it.

The reality of the situation is that it has and always will be the case that if you continually go out of your way, to in the administrations view, make the game worse for other people, you will eventually be taken out the back and shot for it, even if every single thing you do is considered allowable or not.

This is not a power that is exercised lightly and is nearly always challenged to some degree.

I have no problem with this because I believe that our current system of appeal and public conversation remains transparent enough to manage the process without ending up as an admin power trip.

This is all based on the admins, the system should be based on the players, players should know what will or wont get their access to the server restricted. Putting this much trust in admins who have proven time and time again to not be worthy of the role (if more scrutiny was put on the quality of admins instead of it taking 12 complaints to get one deadminned for consistent shitty behaviour this would be a non issue) and basing your entire ruleset around giving said admins as much power as possible to use at their discretion instead of how to make the server a better place for players is going to result in a shit system with a large amount of discontent within the player base.

Yes its impossible to have an entirely comprehensive rules page, but having one that is entirely up to whichever admin is on at the time regresses the server and creates even more inconsistency. Just because you can't have a rules page that covers everything doesn't mean you should go as far in the opposite direction as possible.

The goal of the rules is not to keep shitters out or ban people you dont like, its to make a good, fun, environment for players. Banning people is a by product of creating that environment

If you wanna give admins the amount of leeway and flexibility that they have now its almost required that you hold them to a higher standard or else you create the problems we are currently experiencing

Why didn't they just cite rule zero?

Shadowflame909 wrote:Why didn't they just cite rule zero?

Most of the time it's rule 1 they need to quote.

That also would have worked, if not for the better. Cremating people for doing non lethal and non hostile acts isnt right. Would you execute a thief after detaining them?

oranges wrote:I did not add all those weird exceptions to the rules, they all represent failures of the administration to resist the stupidity of trying to write a fixed and rigid ruleset for a game that changes every day and a community that changes every day. The rules are 100% subjective and always applied subjectively. Our original ruleset acknowledges and makes that clear and enshrines that into the rules as the 1st and zeroth rules.

There never will be any kind of clarity around rules and gameplay, so the best you can ask for is the admins banning people who thought they were in the right simply take into account if the person was doing it cynically or not and moderate their approach accordingly.

Anyone pretending that it's possible to create a crystal clear rule-set that doesn't leave everything up to the interpretation and subjective opinion of the administrators is either doing it in bad faith or is hopelessly naive. The only possible situation in which that would make any kind of sense is if both the people playing the game an the game itself, never changed from a single point going forward in any way.


Adminstration power on this server is limited only in a few ways
1) admins are answerable to the headadmins
2) the headadmins are answerable to each other
3) the headadmins are elected every six months

pretending that a ruleset or anything else is an anyway a limiter to that power is foolish, because the rules can be changed by headadmins or admins at any time, as per the rules.

That is not a bad thing, it's a good thing, it's an important part of how this community manages to evolve and adapt with the codebase and players. Arguing to remove that flexibility because you care that istoprocent or others got banned for things that were supposedly "allowable by the rules" is stupid and shortsighted, and can only come from a place of bad faith where you want license to commit similar acts and not get pulled up for it.

The reality of the situation is that it has and always will be the case that if you continually go out of your way, to in the administrations view, make the game worse for other people, you will eventually be taken out the back and shot for it, even if every single thing you do is considered allowable or not.

This is not a power that is exercised lightly and is nearly always challenged to some degree.

I have no problem with this because I believe that our current system of appeal and public conversation remains transparent enough to manage the process without ending up as an admin power trip.

The precedents to the rules are not examples of an overly rigid ruleset, they are examples of admins clarifying what is and is not bannable for players to do. Without these precedents, players wouldn't be able to tell what is and is not allowed. I'm not sure when this rule was added or whether it is part of the original ruleset, but rule 7 "If you regularly come close to breaking the rules without actually breaking them, it will be treated as the rules being broken." clearly implies that there are rules more firmly defined than "Don't be a dick". Rules lacking clarity just means people acting in good faith doing what they were encouraged to do a few months ago get banned. Any ruleset left solely up to the headmins opinions is not a crystal clear ruleset.

If you read my previous posts, you know I'm not arguing that rules can't be changed. I am arguing that changes should take effect when they are decided, not a week prior to the decision. As for situations where someone is repeatedly dodging through loopholes or causing big problems for the server, rules 0 and 7 would both work to get rid of them.

When people are being banned for an action specifically allowed by the rules, that power is being taken too lightly. Telling people something is allowed and then banning them for it will drive good players away.

Your accusation of bad faith is laughable. I tend to be relatively non-confrontational in game and stick to non-lethal methods as much as possible. I wouldn't have fallen into either of the incidents I have listed. As a sec officer, I avoid using lethal force, even in one incident against someone I thought was trying to esword me (it was a fake). I've asked people I know are traitors to come quietly, without stunning them, because they haven't acted aggressive. As a miner I don't even valid the ash lizards unless they try to start shit. I've already stated why I'm posting this, accusing me of posting because I want to murder people is so far off that I can't get offended.

Nilons wrote:The goal of the rules is not to keep shitters out or ban people you dont like, its to make a good, fun, environment for players. Banning people is a by product of creating that environment

This is what the rules should be doing. Arbitrary bans only hurt players and the server.

>the goal is not to keep shitters out
>the goal is to make a good fun environment
Isnt this the same thing

Shadowflame909 wrote:That also would have worked, if not for the better. Cremating people for doing non lethal and non hostile acts isnt right. Would you execute a thief after detaining them?

The issue is that the actions of the banned players in all these cases were specifically allowed by the rules. When the headmins decided that permanent round removal was no longer acceptable in these cases they should have applied them to all cases going forwards and let the players off with a warning, as they did with Wesoda25.

NikNakFlak wrote:>the goal is not to keep shitters out
>the goal is to make a good fun environment
Isnt this the same thing

The top priority is to make the server fun. Keeping shitters out prevents them from ruining things, but banning people for things that are specifically allowed makes things even worse.

Rule 1.5 reads: "Players who attempt to break into the captain's office, head of personnel's office, or the bridge at or near roundstart for no legitimate reason put themselves at risk for being legitimately killed by the captain, heads of staff, or security." As the rule is very specific about the locations covered, captain's office, head of personnel's office, and the bridge, the people allowed to respond, captain, heads of staff, and security, and the incident required, I believe the rule is meant to be taken at a much more literal level, including the time frame limitation included, that is, none.

Not-Dorsidarf wrote:

Rule 1.5 reads: "Players who attempt to break into the captain's office, head of personnel's office, or the bridge at or near roundstart for no legitimate reason put themselves at risk for being legitimately killed by the captain, heads of staff, or security." As the rule is very specific about the locations covered, captain's office, head of personnel's office, and the bridge, the people allowed to respond, captain, heads of staff, and security, and the incident required, I believe the rule is meant to be taken at a much more literal level, including the time frame limitation included, that is, none.

The wording of the rule states that the break in must occur at or near roundstart. It does not give a limitation as to when the punishment can occur. That is what I meant when I wrote that sentence and I apologize for not being clearer.

oranges wrote:the rules are guidelines, and are free to be interpreted by admins and headadmins at any time, trying to encase them in rigidity is stupid and frankly is just going to cause more grief than a few people getting done in because they couldn't not act like a dick.

"rules aren't rules" lmao
This is like "literally" not meaning literally.

Rigid rules have flaws but this is exactly why we have "Rule 0" as a last resort. It makes no sense to turn all the rules into rule 0 when it already exists.

Dax Dupont wrote:

Shadowflame909 wrote:Why didn't they just cite rule zero?

Most of the time it's rule 1 they need to quote.

Rule 10.

ohnopigeons wrote:Rule 10.

imagine having an issue with rule 10.

I'm imagining admins forgetting rule 10 exists when citing rule 1. Like in this case.

ohnopigeons wrote:I'm imagining admins forgetting rule 10 exists when citing rule 1. Like in this case.

>its a "policy thread about a specific case" episode
nevermind im leaving this thread

Shadowflame909 wrote:That also would have worked, if not for the better. Cremating people for doing non lethal and non hostile acts isnt right. Would you execute a thief after detaining them?

b-but the rules say he valid!!! I only play to get muh valids!

Yodeler wrote:The wording of the rule states that the break in must occur at or near roundstart. It does not give a limitation as to when the punishment can occur. That is what I meant when I wrote that sentence and I apologize for not being clearer.

This kind of thinking is exactly why the rules and "policy precedent" are such a byzantine mess as is.

It wouldn't be a problem if people didn't pretend hunting someone down for half an hour for a realistically minor offense just so you can wordlessly remove them from the round completely is totally ok behavior. For the most part the rules are just fine when you don't approach the game with a retarded attitude.

Yodeler wrote: The wording of the rule states that the break in must occur at or near roundstart. It does not give a limitation as to when the punishment can occur. That is what I meant when I wrote that sentence and I apologize for not being clearer.

treating the wording of the rules as more important than the spirit is where lawyers come from and why everyone fucking hates them

fuck playing "gotcha" with some cunt who dives around the letter of what's technically allowed so they can whinge about their divine constitutional right to be a festering fucking boil

Malkraz wrote:It wouldn't be a problem if people didn't pretend hunting someone down for half an hour for a realistically minor offense just so you can wordlessly remove them from the round completely is totally ok behavior. For the most part the rules are just fine when you don't approach the game with a retarded attitude.

how about pretending that breaking into cap office at roundstart is the pinnacle of roleplay and must be defended lmao that's way more fucking retarded
I would never complain for getting cremated after doing something so loathsome it had to be put into letter in the rules as THIS MAKES YOU VALID

Screemonster wrote:

Yodeler wrote: The wording of the rule states that the break in must occur at or near roundstart. It does not give a limitation as to when the punishment can occur. That is what I meant when I wrote that sentence and I apologize for not being clearer.

treating the wording of the rules as more important than the spirit is where lawyers come from and why everyone fucking hates them

fuck playing "gotcha" with some cunt who dives around the letter of what's technically allowed so they can whinge about their divine constitutional right to be a festering fucking boil

Given that the rule is specific about everything else, but doesn't give a timeframe for punishment, and the acting like an antag rule would already cover people actively breaking in to the locations mentioned, the spirit of the rule is to discourage shitters from breaking in at roundstart while everyone else has important stuff to do and fucking up the whole round by making them valid for the rest of the round.

I don't think spacing/cremating one person, as all the cases I discussed are about, is enough to be considered a festering boil enough to get a rule 0 type ban, especially when it involves theft, either from the person killing them or from the captain's quarters.

PKPenguin321 wrote:

ohnopigeons wrote:I'm imagining admins forgetting rule 10 exists when citing rule 1. Like in this case.

>its a "policy thread about a specific case" episode
nevermind im leaving this thread

This thread isn't about just one case, I mention 4 different cases including one in which I think the headmins took the correct action. The rule 1.5 case is the most recent, so that's what everyone wants to talk about.

you remind me of robustin

Shadowflame909 wrote:That also would have worked, if not for the better. Cremating people for doing non lethal and non hostile acts isnt right. Would you execute a thief after detaining them?

Yes if it’s something so important the rules say you can kill over it.

Otherwise no.

the spirit of the rule not the rule reeeee

Shadowflame909 wrote:the spirit of the rule not the rule reeeee

What Cobby said is completely in line with the spirit of the rule.

The spirit of the rule is shitlers who break in to certain areas lose their protection.

It certainly isn’t in the spirit of the rule to protect people not interested in playing the game beyond causing trouble.

The point is, it was long after that event took place. They were detained, and they were the detective.

It is not the detective's duty to execute antagonists nor should they do it out of circumstances that aren't self-defense.

It's why they get a weak little essentially lame stun-gun and not a taser.

This is clearly over-escalation when they should have just brought the person to sec and let the higher-ups make their judgment.

He was out of line, and out of jurisdiction. No matter which way you slice it.

It wasn't self-defense, just unlawful enforcement of their version of justice.

I am glad that the case turned out this way, but I think they could have used a better ruling to do so.

Shadowflame909 wrote:The point is, it was long after that event took place. They were detained, and they were the detective.

It is not the detective's duty to execute antagonists nor should they do it out of circumstances that aren't self-defense.

It's why they get a weak little essentially lame stun-gun and not a taser.

This is clearly over-escalation when they should have just brought the person to sec and let the higher-ups make their judgment.

He was out of line, and out of jurisdiction. No matter which way you slice it.

It wasn't self-defense, just unlawful enforcement of their version of justice.

I am glad that the case turned out this way, but I think they could have used a better ruling to do so.

Except for the thread that was just ruled on saying otherwise about the detective role

TribeofBeavers wrote:It does not matter in terms of the rules if the detective follows their fluff beyond them being a member of security.

They are, of course, open to IC repercussions for ignoring their job (demotion, ridicule etc.) But you generally won't get banned for not following the fluff.

However, like everybody else they are of course still subject to server rules, including rule 1. As such, abusing the role in such a way that it negatively impacts the round for other players can open them to admin intervention.

Shadowflame909 wrote:The point is, it was long after that event took place. They were detained, and they were the detective.

It is not the detective's duty to execute antagonists nor should they do it out of circumstances that aren't self-defense.

It's why they get a weak little essentially lame stun-gun and not a taser.

This is clearly over-escalation when they should have just brought the person to sec and let the higher-ups make their judgment.

He was out of line, and out of jurisdiction. No matter which way you slice it.

It wasn't self-defense, just unlawful enforcement of their version of justice.

I am glad that the case turned out this way, but I think they could have used a better ruling to do so.

except they acted like an antag and can be treated as such so anyone, detective or not can treat them like an antag and do whatever they want to them

Shadowflame909 wrote:The point is, it was long after that event took place. They were detained, and they were the detective.

It is not the detective's duty to execute antagonists nor should they do it out of circumstances that aren't self-defense.

It's why they get a weak little essentially lame stun-gun and not a taser.

This is clearly over-escalation when they should have just brought the person to sec and let the higher-ups make their judgment.

He was out of line, and out of jurisdiction. No matter which way you slice it.

It wasn't self-defense, just unlawful enforcement of their version of justice.

I am glad that the case turned out this way, but I think they could have used a better ruling to do so.

The rule clearly states that people who break in at roundstart are valid to be killed by security, no overescalation about it. This was 100% allowed by the rules. Probably not ideal play, but definitely not bannable.