/tg/Station 13

Vomitgoose is a fairly recent addition to the station's menagerie. For those of you who don't know, the goose vomits in incredibly large quantities, and it's fairly common to see entire hallways coated in vomit. Some players get kicks out of dragging it around the station and covering as much floorspace in barf as possible.

My question is as follows: Where does killing this vile beast sit in escalation policy? On one hand, Birdboat is clearly a pest, like a wire-chewing mouse. On the other, some people are violently protective of it. Is using Birdboat to purposefully spread vomit all over the station an instigation of conflict? Or is it instigation to kill Birdboat with the goal of halting the barftide?

Birdboat can't vomit on command, right?

Also it's not a department pet so killing it is fine. And anyway vomit doesn't cause miasma last I checked so it's just a visual nuisance (and free snacks for lizards!!).

Sandshark808 wrote:Birdboat can't vomit on command, right?

Also it's not a department pet so killing it is fine. And anyway vomit doesn't cause miasma last I checked so it's just a visual nuisance (and free snacks for lizards!!).

He vomits when you feed him though so you can just feed him over and over again with the food that he vomits back out

Let’s not validate any more killbaiting

Killing Birdboat is an act of mercy

Sandshark808 wrote:Also it's not a department pet so killing it is fine.

Birdboat is a department pet. He's specifically located in maint bar because he's the assistant pet.

That being said, killing department pets has never actually been codified as valid or not valid. I've never been bwoinked for killing Ian, nor have I been bwoinked for killing/spacing someone that killed Ian. It just seems like one of those unwritten rules. If you kill Birdboat, you should expect to get lynched by anyone that actually cares, but you should still be allowed to kill him.

I would think killign animals to be in the same position as "sprading WGW over intercom", or
"Viro fucked up and released a virus". Not a bannable offense, but an action that will lead to rightful IC lynches.

Now, if Clown is the one doing it, would it be considered as a prank, or as a lynch-worthy prank?

If you kill someones pet, you are instigating conflict. Escalation rules follow.

That said, even a dead birdboat will eat and vomit, so unless you butcher why bother.

Calomel wrote:I would think killign animals to be in the same position as "sprading WGW over intercom", or
"Viro fucked up and released a virus". Not a bannable offense, but an action that will lead to rightful IC lynches.

Now, if Clown is the one doing it, would it be considered as a prank, or as a lynch-worthy prank?

Well the standing headmin ruling on killing pets is as follows

Validity when killing pets If you perform an action which has zero benefit to you other than making others upset (like killing Ian) I will ban you if you adminhelp when someone kills you.

tl;dr: you're valid.

However, I don't think it applies in this case, since killing the vomitgoose doesn't have "zero benefit" for you, in fact it has the benefit of having less vomit around.

Vomit isn't a problem with fly-men on the manifest.

Oh wait.

skoglol wrote:That said, even a dead birdboat will eat and vomit, so unless you butcher why bother.

regardless of what plapatin says this is a bug

Who's idea was this vile shitbird anyway?

The pet policy has been around because there's hasn't ever been a good reason to kill pets, meanwhile birdboat seems to have been specifically made to annoy people and ruin the janitor's day and does not deserve the same protection

Mickyan wrote:The pet policy has been around because there's hasn't ever been a good reason to kill pets, meanwhile birdboat seems to have been specifically made to annoy people and ruin the janitor's day and does not deserve the same protection

Back when Ian was first introduced, people would kill him to killbait the HoP (or anyone else who wanted to avenge him). So they made pet-killers valid and unable to ahelp. So now that we have an annoying pet like the vomitgoose, people are using it the opposite way, to killbait (or banbait, if they lose) anyone who tries to dispose of it.

Grazyn wrote:

Mickyan wrote:The pet policy has been around because there's hasn't ever been a good reason to kill pets, meanwhile birdboat seems to have been specifically made to annoy people and ruin the janitor's day and does not deserve the same protection

Back when Ian was first introduced, people would kill him to killbait the HoP (or anyone else who wanted to avenge him). So they made pet-killers valid and unable to ahelp. So now that we have an annoying pet like the vomitgoose, people are using it the opposite way, to killbait (or banbait, if they lose) anyone who tries to dispose of it.

Or maybe, just maybe, they enjoy having the vomitgoose around? Floors being full of vomit doesn't negatively effect your game experience. It's not slippery, it's not toxic, it's only a temporary visual gag.

If you're willing to kill the bird over a visual gag, why not valid a spraypainter for graffiting the floors? Valid chemistry for spreading carpet everywhere? Valid the chaplain for dumping salt and holy water everywhere? Valid anyone that's dragging a corpse to medbay and leaving blood on the floor? Where does it end?

tl;dr if you kill a pet with the flimsy excuse of "muh vomit" you're valid, end of.

deedubya wrote:Or maybe, just maybe, they enjoy having the vomitgoose around? Floors being full of vomit doesn't negatively effect your game experience. It's not slippery, it's not toxic, it's only a temporary visual gag.

If you're willing to kill the bird over a visual gag, why not valid a spraypainter for graffiting the floors? Valid chemistry for spreading carpet everywhere? Valid the chaplain for dumping salt and holy water everywhere? Valid anyone that's dragging a corpse to medbay and leaving blood on the floor? Where does it end?

tl;dr if you kill a pet with the flimsy excuse of "muh vomit" you're valid, end of.

There’s nothing fun about spending all round working on an aesthetically-pleasing project and having some greytider cover it in vomit every time you try to clean it. Not to mention, anyone who’s played janitor knows what happens and how people begin to act as the station becomes dirty. Deliberately spreading filth is an act of minor sabotage.

Your latter point isn’t relevant. Nobody is saying that they greytider dragging birdboat should be valid. This is a discussion on whether it’s okay to put a pe(s)t that’s only role is to spread vomit out of its misery.

Farquaar wrote:

deedubya wrote:Or maybe, just maybe, they enjoy having the vomitgoose around? Floors being full of vomit doesn't negatively effect your game experience. It's not slippery, it's not toxic, it's only a temporary visual gag.

If you're willing to kill the bird over a visual gag, why not valid a spraypainter for graffiting the floors? Valid chemistry for spreading carpet everywhere? Valid the chaplain for dumping salt and holy water everywhere? Valid anyone that's dragging a corpse to medbay and leaving blood on the floor? Where does it end?

tl;dr if you kill a pet with the flimsy excuse of "muh vomit" you're valid, end of.

There’s nothing fun about spending all round working on an aesthetically-pleasing project and having some greytider cover it in vomit every time you try to clean it. Not to mention, anyone who’s played janitor knows what happens as the station becomes dirty. Deliberately spreading filth is an act of minor sabotage.

Your latter point isn’t relevant. Nobody is saying that they greytider dragging birdboat should be valid. This is a discussion on whether it’s okay to put a pe(s)t that’s only role is to spread vomit out of its misery.

Would you kill Poly because the CE came and disassembled your autism project? Would you expect to be protected by the rules if you did so?

Poly played no role in the CE’s actions. Killing Poly would make zero difference in whether my project got the boot. Vomitgoose, on the other hand, functions as the tool with which the dirty deed is done.

Other more active admins can come in and correct me if I'm wrong here, but as I understand it killing pets alone doesn't make the 'valid'. Rather it's the action of intentionally killing someones beloved pet to get a rise out of them that makes the valid to that person. The same applies if you publicly kill a beloved pet to annoy the crew, your intention is to upset them so complaining when they lynch you is ban baiting and you might get punished (or more likely told to fuck off).

With this in mind there are two scenarios to keep in mind with Birdboat: If you are using Birdboat to annoy or bait someone into a fight (for example, following the Janitor around to make his work pointless) then you are instigating that situation, not them. If they kill Birdboat and then you kill them, frankly you were in the wrong. Should you start fighting them because they want to stop Birdboat and they end up killing you as a result of that conflict I wouldn't ban them; you started that conflict.

Alternatively, if you are simply dragging Birdboat around and bothering no one with it, or say, cleaning up after your bird pukes all his food up. If someone then kills your pet for no good reason besides to piss you off then they are instigating that conflict and they have no right to complain should it end in their death.

The key here is intent. Classic Kor policy on killing pets is; "If you perform an action which has zero benefit to you other than making others upset (like killing Ian) I will ban you if you adminhelp when someone kills you." The implication of this is pretty simple; if you are going out of your way to start a conflict, don't bitch when someone puts you down.

claiming birdboat is an "assistant pet" just so you, as an assistant, can claim easy casus belli on anyone that kills the annoying fucker prior to claiming is stupid.

The pet killing policy already works for this. If the bird isn't being annoying, don't kill it FNR or face the wrath of its owner.

You could just kill it roundstart before it gets claimed for free too, it's not anyone's default pet.

deedubya wrote: Would you kill Poly because the CE came and disassembled your autism project? Would you expect to be protected by the rules if you did so?

A more fitting comparison would be killing Poly after someone fed him a ton of crackers and was dragging him around with an open radio.

birdboat was designed to be a tool of destruction. janitors waging war on him and assistants valiantly protecting their precious goose is emergent gameplay. i personally would say that killing him is fine, unless the goose is just sitting there in someone's autism fort like any other pet, in which case it falls into the "killing pets exclusively to provoke a reaction" policy

Grazyn wrote:

deedubya wrote: Would you kill Poly because the CE came and disassembled your autism project? Would you expect to be protected by the rules if you did so?

A more fitting comparison would be killing Poly after someone fed him a ton of crackers and was dragging him around with an open radio.

You're right, that is a better comparison. I'd still consider anyone who kills Poly in that situation valid, however.

Think about it this way: Would you consider a player valid for doing something that a pet is currently doing? If not, don't kill them. Otherwise, you should prepare your anus for the wrath of anyone that cared about said pet.

if I killed a rat in maint you don't get to claim it was your pet despite never interacting with it and use that to escalate.

deedubya wrote:

Grazyn wrote:

deedubya wrote: Would you kill Poly because the CE came and disassembled your autism project? Would you expect to be protected by the rules if you did so?

A more fitting comparison would be killing Poly after someone fed him a ton of crackers and was dragging him around with an open radio.

You're right, that is a better comparison. I'd still consider anyone who kills Poly in that situation valid, however

Then you would be wrong

deedubya wrote:

Grazyn wrote:

deedubya wrote: Would you kill Poly because the CE came and disassembled your autism project? Would you expect to be protected by the rules if you did so?

A more fitting comparison would be killing Poly after someone fed him a ton of crackers and was dragging him around with an open radio.

You're right, that is a better comparison. I'd still consider anyone who kills Poly in that situation valid, however.

Think about it this way: Would you consider a player valid for doing something that a pet is currently doing? If not, don't kill them. Otherwise, you should prepare your anus for the wrath of anyone that cared about said pet.

Roleplay-wise I understand your point, you wouldn't kill a pet IRL for something his owner forced it to do (unless the pet is being dangerous to people), i.e. killing a dog for shitting on your porch after his owner fed it a laxative. But gameplay-wise we have players using the pet as a tool to be annoying, and if you make people automatically valid for killing the pet, regardless of the fact the pet was used only to annoy people (spammy Poly, vomitgoose), you have the perfect recipe for killbaiting. That's because validity is different from escalation. I'm fine with escalation over this thing, but valid means you can instantly lethal the guy who killed the pet without him being able to ahelp. It's pure killbait and as I said before, even banbait because if you lose, you can say the other guy was killbaiting you by killing your beloved pet. And it's a really shitty situation all around because then you're punishing a guy who tried to avoid escalation by removing the annoying tool instead of attacking the player who was using the tool.

Reminder that our precedent on pet policy is, and I vaguely quote: “if you do something with no benefit besides pissing people off (like killing ian) I will ban you if you adminhelp when someone kills you.”

If we still use this precedent then coating the halls in puke makes you valid, not the guy killing your puke dispenser.

Grazyn wrote:

deedubya wrote:

Grazyn wrote:

deedubya wrote: Would you kill Poly because the CE came and disassembled your autism project? Would you expect to be protected by the rules if you did so?

A more fitting comparison would be killing Poly after someone fed him a ton of crackers and was dragging him around with an open radio.

You're right, that is a better comparison. I'd still consider anyone who kills Poly in that situation valid, however.

Think about it this way: Would you consider a player valid for doing something that a pet is currently doing? If not, don't kill them. Otherwise, you should prepare your anus for the wrath of anyone that cared about said pet.

Roleplay-wise I understand your point, you wouldn't kill a pet IRL for something his owner forced it to do (unless the pet is being dangerous to people), i.e. killing a dog for shitting on your porch after his owner fed it a laxative. But gameplay-wise we have players using the pet as a tool to be annoying, and if you make people automatically valid for killing the pet, regardless of the fact the pet was used only to annoy people (spammy Poly, vomitgoose), you have the perfect recipe for killbaiting. That's because validity is different from escalation. I'm fine with escalation over this thing, but valid means you can instantly lethal the guy who killed the pet without him being able to ahelp. It's pure killbait and as I said before, even banbait because if you lose, you can say the other guy was killbaiting you by killing your beloved pet. And it's a really shitty situation all around because then you're punishing a guy who tried to avoid escalation by removing the annoying tool instead of attacking the player who was using the tool.

"It doesn't make sense RP-wise" should be the be-all and end-all for justifying an action. You wouldn't take a sledgehammer to your neighbor's dog just because he trained it to bark at squirrels all night. Likewise, you wouldn't toolbox a goose just because it keeps throwing up on the floor.

Furthermore, there are several different methods of solving the issue that don't involve killing the pet or its owner. Just taking him and hiding him is one. Calling security is another. Removing the grief tool itself is another.(common channel from Poly, rats from Birdboat) There's several ways you can solve the issue without escalating to your bloodied toolbox.

actually if someone got killed for puking everywhere I'd close his adminhelp

confused rock wrote:Reminder that our precedent on pet policy is, and I vaguely quote: “if you do something with no benefit besides pissing people off (like killing ian) I will ban you if you adminhelp when someone kills you.”

If we still use this precedent then coating the halls in puke makes you valid, not the guy killing your puke dispenser.

This

It's not exactly hard to grasp. Someone kills your dumb goose for no clear reason? Dunk on them.

You make a nuisance of yourself with the goose and someone removes the goose? You got the reaction you were angling for.

deedubya wrote: Likewise, you wouldn't toolbox a goose just because it keeps throwing up on the floor.

I absolutely would toolbox a random goose that vomited all over my apartment, it isn't that out of the ordinary

bandit wrote:

deedubya wrote: Likewise, you wouldn't toolbox a goose just because it keeps throwing up on the floor.

I absolutely would toolbox a random goose that vomited all over my apartment, it isn't that out of the ordinary

I was using the context of an RL scenario to compare it to an ingame one of the same nature. IRL, fuck geese, they're fucking assholes and should all be shot. Ingame? It's someone's pet doing something annoying. Contrary to what the majority of redshirts and greyshirts believe; being annoying isn't a capital offense.

deedubya wrote:being annoying isn't a capital offense.

but it is grounds for valid IC escalation
how do you think lynching for WGW originally started?
why do you think killing the clown is such a staple SS13 gag?
if you're annoying on purpose and then freak out and kill/ahelp people when they naturally retaliate, you may as well be banbaiting

applying realism when talking about a bird that infinitely pukes so long as you feed him enough is a bit crazy.

We get it, you want to shit up places without repercussion. It's not going to happen.

Birdboat can get really buggy and can crash the game.

Suffer for your greytide shittery, lest ye end the round

I wish being annoying was a capital offense so I could shoot deedubya in his dented head

Cobby wrote:We get it, you want to shit up places without repercussion. It's not going to happen.

Quite the contrary. I'm very much against shitters roaming free with no recourse. I just don't see how a visual gag/infinite food for flymen is equivalent to fireaxing every window you can see. Honestly, there's more of a legitimate case for killing a cracked up Poly than there is for Birdboat. How does vomit on the floors cause you so much asshurt that you're reduced to psychotic pet murder?

deedubya wrote:

Cobby wrote:We get it, you want to shit up places without repercussion. It's not going to happen.

Quite the contrary. I'm very much against shitters roaming free with no recourse. I just don't see how a visual gag/infinite food for flymen is equivalent to fireaxing every window you can see. Honestly, there's more of a legitimate case for killing a cracked up Poly than there is for Birdboat. How does vomit on the floors cause you so much asshurt that you're reduced to psychotic pet murder?

Especially since vomit doesn't seem to cause miasma.

deedubya wrote:How does vomit on the floors cause you so much asshurt that you're reduced to psychotic pet murder?

it's vomit, it's unpleasant. if you had to wade through vomit on your way to work every single day you'd probably be pissed too

deedubya wrote:

Cobby wrote:We get it, you want to shit up places without repercussion. It's not going to happen.

Quite the contrary. I'm very much against shitters roaming free with no recourse. I just don't see how a visual gag/infinite food for flymen is equivalent to fireaxing every window you can see. Honestly, there's more of a legitimate case for killing a cracked up Poly than there is for Birdboat. How does vomit on the floors cause you so much asshurt that you're reduced to psychotic pet murder?

It literally drives you insane, IC. Vomit->room is unpleasant->mood debuff->insanity

deedubya wrote:

Cobby wrote:We get it, you want to shit up places without repercussion. It's not going to happen.

Quite the contrary. I'm very much against shitters roaming free with no recourse. I just don't see how a visual gag/infinite food for flymen is equivalent to fireaxing every window you can see. Honestly, there's more of a legitimate case for killing a cracked up Poly than there is for Birdboat. How does vomit on the floors cause you so much asshurt that you're reduced to psychotic pet murder?

If we're going by the metric of "does this lead to your death" like fireaxing windows that may or may not lead into space, There is more of a case against birdboat's vomit spam into mood debuff than there is for "you now how to scroll up more in chat" from poly.

Even then, it's the intent behind it that should make it valid-able. If you do something for no other reason than to rile up people, then you don't get to cry to admins when you get an unfavorable reaction.

Like this is why we have petkilling = valid in the first place, it's literally applying that same mentality here.

Birdboat isnt a pet, its a pestilence.

Grazyn wrote:

deedubya wrote:

Cobby wrote:We get it, you want to shit up places without repercussion. It's not going to happen.

Quite the contrary. I'm very much against shitters roaming free with no recourse. I just don't see how a visual gag/infinite food for flymen is equivalent to fireaxing every window you can see. Honestly, there's more of a legitimate case for killing a cracked up Poly than there is for Birdboat. How does vomit on the floors cause you so much asshurt that you're reduced to psychotic pet murder?

It literally drives you insane, IC. Vomit->room is unpleasant->mood debuff->insanity

Huh. I actually didn't know that. If this is the case, then I admit I was wrong.

Not-Dorsidarf wrote:Birdboat isnt a pet, its a pestilence.

it's the first failed syndicate experiment

I believe intentionally making a mess in a department, workplace, or the public hallways should open up the person doing it to some amount of escalation, and the person who in this instance kills birdboat should not be valid to the person dragging them around.

I get tired of all the messy spam people seem to get away with... Mediborg treats, salt shaker, shrooms, breaking glasses, etc. If you're causing inconvenience or creating a considerable eyesore just to be a butthole, you deserve what is coming to you.

at the very least a PR has been opened to keep the goose from vomiting while dead

Imagine being janitor and this guy gives you a half hour of extra work and will continue to do so but stopping him is the wrong thing to do