Does type baiting apply to action windows?

[Timonk]

Related: viewtopic.php?p=667957#p667957


During a recent round that I played on Manuel as captain I hid in a bin and waited for a nukie to open the action window to eject me from it so I could jump out and stun him. (It never happened, they fluked)

Now that I read the type baiting ruling I was wondering: should we extend the ruling to things like this?

[Vekter]

We ruled at one point that someone handing you a piece of paper and asking you to read it before blowing your head off was funny/valid, so I imagine this is also okay.

The problem with typebaiting is the meta aspect of it, not the act itself. Opening a window could be seen as someone looking down to interact with the device/computer they're in front of, which is a valid distraction IMO.

[TheBibleMelts]

nah.

[Timonk]

Now here's the kicker

► Show Spoiler

⠀⣤⣤⣀⣀⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣶⣶⣦⣤⣄⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣶⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠈⠉⠛⠛⠛⠛⠛⠛⠛⠛⠛⠛⠛⠛⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢹⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣷⣄⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣼⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⣶⣶⣦⣄⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠙⠛⠛⠛⠛⠛⠛⠛⠋⠉⠉⠀⠀

Wouldn't type baiting be considered the same as action baiting irl? You walk up to someone, ask them a innocent question and then just start shanking them while they are trying to answer?

[kinnebian]

Now here's the kicker

► Show Spoiler

⠀⣤⣤⣀⣀⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣶⣶⣦⣤⣄⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣶⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠈⠉⠛⠛⠛⠛⠛⠛⠛⠛⠛⠛⠛⠛⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢹⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣷⣄⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣼⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⣶⣶⣦⣄⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠙⠛⠛⠛⠛⠛⠛⠛⠋⠉⠉⠀⠀

Wouldn't type baiting be considered the same as action baiting irl? You walk up to someone, ask them a innocent question and then just start shanking them while they are trying to answer?

would they have to close their typing window to stop you?

[Timonk]

Now here's the kicker

► Show Spoiler

⠀⣤⣤⣀⣀⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣶⣶⣦⣤⣄⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣶⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠈⠉⠛⠛⠛⠛⠛⠛⠛⠛⠛⠛⠛⠛⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢹⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣷⣄⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣼⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⣶⣶⣦⣄⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠙⠛⠛⠛⠛⠛⠛⠛⠋⠉⠉⠀⠀

Wouldn't type baiting be considered the same as action baiting irl? You walk up to someone, ask them a innocent question and then just start shanking them while they are trying to answer?

would they have to close their typing window to stop you?

No but you don't have action windows irl either (that you have to usually close in-game to fight back)

[kinnebian]

Now here's the kicker

► Show Spoiler

⠀⣤⣤⣀⣀⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣶⣶⣦⣤⣄⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣶⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠈⠉⠛⠛⠛⠛⠛⠛⠛⠛⠛⠛⠛⠛⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢹⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣷⣄⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣼⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⣶⣶⣦⣄⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠙⠛⠛⠛⠛⠛⠛⠛⠋⠉⠉⠀⠀

Wouldn't type baiting be considered the same as action baiting irl? You walk up to someone, ask them a innocent question and then just start shanking them while they are trying to answer?

would they have to close their typing window to stop you?

No but you don't have action windows irl either (that you have to usually close in-game to fight back)

no but the point being made was like the action windows being an tablet or something that you have to drop or put away

[Imitates-The-Lizards]

No, the logic behind this is that the chat window is an ooc window, while an action window like a pda screen is an ic window.

In the original thread on this topic I said I think it's ridiculous to base rules compliance based on the ic/ooc state of a window in another person's HUD but no one else seems to agree with me on that one, so here we are.

[Vekter]

In the original thread on this topic I said I think it's ridiculous to base rules compliance based on the ic/ooc state of a window in another person's HUD but no one else seems to agree with me on that one, so here we are.

Let me see if I can explain it in a way that makes sense.

Baiting someone into reading something so you can attack them has meaningful counter-play. If someone comes up to you and asks you to read a book, you have a reason to be suspicious of this action. You have a meaningful choice you can make to either trust them and read it or not trust them and don't. That choice might not matter much in the long run, but it's still a choice.

Typebaiting sucks because it doesn't have a realistic counter. It's punishing you for doing something that is reasonably expected of 96% of players that wouldn't get you shot in the vast majority of situations. There's very little reason to ever be paranoid of someone who's asking you a simple question, and if there was (ie: if typebaiting was allowed), it would be severely unhealthy for the game. Paranoia is important, but you shouldn't be so paranoid you aren't actively roleplaying with people. You could argue that most people wouldn't use typebaiting as a tactic if it was permitted, but I've seen what this community does for an advantage in combat, we're not above anything*.

tl;dr You can be suspicious of someone telling you to read something but you probably won't be of someone asking you a question, so that's the main distinction aside from IC/OOC reasoning.

* This isn't a bad thing, mind, just an observation.

[DaydreamIQ]

I was under the impression that a previous term ruled that type baiting wasn't actually against the rules because it was a BITCH to enforce

[Sightld2]

In the original thread on this topic I said I think it's ridiculous to base rules compliance based on the ic/ooc state of a window in another person's HUD but no one else seems to agree with me on that one, so here we are.

tl;dr You can be suspicious of someone telling you to read something but you probably won't be of someone asking you a question, so that's the main distinction aside from IC/OOC reasoning.

It's also purely a limitation of playing a text based game, where typing and moving is not easy. In real life, if someone asks you a question, it's not very distracting to answer, talking is mindless compared to typing, you're not locked in place, etc. It doesn't actually take any attention to speak really.

Comparatively, "What do you think of this book?" If I want to answer I need to put my eyes on the book and start reading

[TheBibleMelts]

I was under the impression that a previous term ruled that type baiting wasn't actually against the rules because it was a BITCH to enforce

it's downright maidenless behavior and if I can prove someone is doing it, it's a banneru.

[NecromancerAnne]

I feel like making it a habit to force people to be wary to interact with you or do things in your presence because you bait them like that is an equal problem. I don't think timonk's example counts, thats just uncontrollable to a degree, it's not like you weren't in an active combat already. But I can think of a few instances where it would be applicable. Like paper or pdas.

Both remove focus from the game window because the game presently lacks in-game UI components and is still technically leveraging a game limitation that involves a degree of communication or involved interaction to get a near uncontestable edge, with the only counterplay being to not interact. Why would we think it okay to trick someone into reading a screen filling window, like a piece of paper, and not okay to open the much smaller window that is the talk box, despite both being methods of communication and both remove window focus and filling the screen? The reason we do not want typebaiting is because it is exploiting an engine limitation.

I think making exceptions is foolish. If you're openly abusing things like this in poor fashion regularly, I see no reason as to not believe it is done in bad faith and you should be spoken too.

To believe there is somehow a different in these windows is also completely nonsense they're all popups. All UI elements. There is no IC windows, its just UI. There is a sprite that pops up as you're speaking, does that somehow justify talkbaiting?

[Agux909]

It's also purely a limitation of playing a text based game, where typing and moving is not easy. In real life, if someone asks you a question, it's not very distracting to answer, talking is mindless compared to typing, you're not locked in place, etc. It doesn't actually take any attention to speak really.

Comparatively, "What do you think of this book?" If I want to answer I need to put my eyes on the book and start reading

I think Sight puts it in the most concise way. Papers, books, PDAs or what have you make sense to be somewhat obstructive to your next immediate action, because in a RL scenario, you'd be deviating your attention (eyes, hands to be holding them up, even), while you could fully see what a person is doing if they approach and just ask you a question.

Taking advantage the moment the speech bubble pops up is a blatant abuse of the game mechanic of not being able to move while speaking, which has no parallel on a real life situation.

[Higgin]

I feel like making it a habit to force people to be wary to interact with you or do things in your presence because you bait them like that is an equal problem.

Seconding the concern.

► Show Spoiler

More broadly, dangling the promise of something more interesting than getting fragged is a great way to set people up to get fragged - at least the first few times.

Then, it becomes less so because nobody can count on you (you especially if you're playing a recognizable static but also other players in general) to be doing anything interesting that'll actually have a payoff.

I consider it a pretty big part of the social deduction game to use deception and surprise. However, the more you take advantage of others' good faith behavior, the less likely you are to see that behavior continue.

It's why I don't use bluffs like pretending to be new at some part of the game and asking to be taught as a window for kills or accessing targets -

I've had it done to me, and I do not offer to teach people in-game without some understanding of a cross-round interest now. If somebody I don't know asks, I'm much more given to leave them on read or say no.

That sucks, because things like teaching others, playing D&D in the library, or holding public events like trials/chaplain rituals are cool. It's also part of the game that you shouldn't stop to talk or expose yourself to anyone nore than minimally necessary, and you should never take a chance on a gift horse because it might be a snake.

Edit because it ties this ramble together better and because I like prospect theory:
Behaving socially or exposing yourself to the sorts of risks you get through good faith behavior only makes sense to the extent you've got nothing to lose.

If the outcome of the game you've made (or in this case the sandbox that you've got) is that people have to stop caring about it in order to get anything out of it, it might be time to reconsider your game design or tell people to kill all their darlings at the door.

---

Typebaiting with speech is the same in kind as handing somebody a book to read, asking them to look at a console, or sending them a PDA message to reply to (or better yet an attached image) before fragging them.

The fact you can't walk and talk is a game engine limitation, but disadvantages around those other things are too. The fact you can only see and talk to people in 7-10 meters of you without otherwise using a radio or binoculars is an engine limitation.

It's pointless to split hairs here. It's more useful to ask what you want to protect by putting guardrails around talking to people to begin with and come up with a more general rule about how conflict can be started, on what grounds, etc.

A traitor doming you wordlessly with no esc or an officer wordlessly batonning you on sight aren't so far different from them saying "is your refrigerator running?" or waiting for you to use the radio, start talking to someone else, before they leap in to do it while you're disadvantaged*.

Edit because it just occurred to me: what makes the choice to never talk to people face-to-face or to use the text bar (rather than the hotkey which throws TI) any less meaningful or valid of a choice under the conditions of the game?

[Cobby]

the IC parallel argument doesnt really hold because the idea that I would take my full focus away from someone potentially suspicious is absurd, especially when looking at a handheld object or something.

If youre using mechanics of the OOC game such as a window popup that takes focus from the game itself, I think that is also cruddy/overtly gamey behavior that if proven youre doing it specifically because of an OOC aspect then you should be noted for it. I assumed that is what the spirit of the rule is trying to curb, and it feels fairly arbitrary if that aspect is ignored simply because its not being done specifically through talking.

[Rageguy505]

You can walk and talk, but it's pretty awkward moving and trying to spell stuff correctly.
Anyways it makes enough sense to distract someone with a paper, you could move it out of the way of your screen anyways as like a analogue to giving someone the side eye while reading it.

[sinfulbliss]

I think the reason this was ruled as unenforceable is because it’s quite literally impossible to prove unless you are an admin orbiting one of the two parties in the type-bait encounter. Completely impossible to retroactively verify in the logs.

If this became bannable you’d open up pandora’s box allowing everyone who’s killed to get a fruitless investigation launched over their killer, “they baited me into X Y Z then killed me,” good way to weaponize admins against people who get you angry in the spaceman game.

[TheBibleMelts]

i am not personally interested in the mess that enforcing this would entail, and the idea of giving someone a piece of paper that says 'i am going to shoot you' and shooting them when they read it seems funny.

[Higgin]

Typebaiting sucks because it doesn't have a realistic counter. It's punishing you for doing something that is reasonably expected of 96% of players that wouldn't get you shot in the vast majority of situations. There's very little reason to ever be paranoid of someone who's asking you a simple question, and if there was (ie: if typebaiting was allowed), it would be severely unhealthy for the game. Paranoia is important, but you shouldn't be so paranoid you aren't actively roleplaying with people. You could argue that most people wouldn't use typebaiting as a tactic if it was permitted, but I've seen what this community does for an advantage in combat, we're not above anything*.

tl;dr You can be suspicious of someone telling you to read something but you probably won't be of someone asking you a question, so that's the main distinction aside from IC/OOC reasoning.

* This isn't a bad thing, mind, just an observation.

it absolutely does have a counter, it's called using electronic comms and being a paranoid, antisocial motherfucker until you absolutely can't do otherwise - that's what you get pushed towards anyway rn, keeping people at a distance and not standing perpendicular to any solid object.

short of typebaiting being allowed, I think a lot of people just bypass even needing that to run it down into mechanics. that possibility is just as corrosive to having people do things that you might consider as them 'actively roleplaying' if not much more than typebaiting, which is just a slightly cheaper grab at a tactical advantage you could get by waiting for a person to talk to anyone else, stop to do/look at anything in public, etc.

I think the reason this was ruled as unenforceable is because it’s quite literally impossible to prove unless you are an admin orbiting one of the two parties in the type-bait encounter. Completely impossible to retroactively verify in the logs.

If this became bannable you’d open up pandora’s box allowing everyone who’s killed to get a fruitless investigation launched over their killer, “they baited me into X Y Z then killed me,” good way to weaponize admins against people who get you angry in the spaceman game.

it's doable with typing indicator logs (source: skyrat, bubberstation) but it's a bitch and a half even with self-triggered combat indicators (logged separately under game and attack logs,) which are a massive policy headache and severely compromise the game. even discussing typebaiting raises the specter of similar questions like 'how long is long enough after someone stops typing for you to run their shit?' 'how do you know if they're talking to answer you or call for help?' 'are you entitled to any protections if you start the conversation or try to pick it up and they attack you while you're typing?'

[NecromancerAnne]

i am not personally interested in the mess that enforcing this would entail, and the idea of giving someone a piece of paper that says 'i am going to shoot you' and shooting them when they read it seems funny.

There doesn't have to be much done. Just handle it in the same way we handle talkbaiting, which already is a difficult to prove without someone observing a player. If someone earns themselves a reputation of baiting interactions, they are usually well earned. We're typically the last people to discover this unless an admin happens to be a victim of it. And one off incidents aren't something we necessarily do anything over anyway, it is patterned behaviour, even though I would never interact with a player like that again in-game even after the first incident simply because I cannot be sure if it is a pattern or not and that player will almost certainly exploit my leniency.

If someone makes it a frequent issue, where they seem to be deliberately leaning on it to get an edge and they are known for it enough that other players begin to stop interacting with them whatsoever or else that player may exploit the interaction, they are very obviously breaking Rule 1. There is nothing that need be done beyond this. I'll be extremely wary about enabling this behaviour openly and pidgeon-holing the ruling to just talking.

[TheBibleMelts]

i am not personally interested in the mess that enforcing this would entail, and the idea of giving someone a piece of paper that says 'i am going to shoot you' and shooting them when they read it seems funny.

There doesn't have to be much done. Just handle it in the same way we handle talkbaiting, which already is a difficult to prove without someone observing a player. If someone earns themselves a reputation of baiting interactions, they are usually well earned. We're typically the last people to discover this unless an admin happens to be a victim of it. And one off incidents aren't something we necessarily do anything over anyway, it is patterned behaviour, even though I would never interact with a player like that again in-game even after the first incident simply because I cannot be sure if it is a pattern or not and that player will almost certainly exploit my leniency.

If someone makes it a frequent issue, where they seem to be deliberately leaning on it to get an edge and they are known for it enough that other players begin to stop interacting with them whatsoever or else that player may exploit the interaction, they are very obviously breaking Rule 1. There is nothing that need be done beyond this. I'll be extremely wary about enabling this behaviour openly and pidgeon-holing the ruling to just talking.

pretty much. if it becomes an issue, it needs to be handled as rule 1, not some special clause buried in the rules that say it's okay when x or y criteria is met.

[Cobby]

pretty much. if it becomes an issue, it needs to be handled as rule 1, not some special clause buried in the rules that say it's okay when x or y criteria is met.

The typebaiting policy is pretty restrictive to typebaiting in the headmin ruling page though, the policy needs to be expanded on because right now it is exactly that.

[NecromancerAnne]

pretty much. if it becomes an issue, it needs to be handled as rule 1, not some special clause buried in the rules that say it's okay when x or y criteria is met.

Cobby's point is why i would be cautious about how exactly you phrase accepting the behavior so readily. We do not have coverage for abuse on this. It is a tentative abuse risk should it come up. It hasn't as far as I am aware, but I'm sure someone will get inspired. Especially if it isn't cautioned against and someone sees this thread and sees you being so openly inviting of it.

[PKPenguin321]

if you cant type at full speed with only your left hand (or use hotkey mode) you should be permabanned

[Stickymayhem]

if you cant type at full speed with only your left hand (or use hotkey mode) you should be permabanned

god based

[conrad]

Nah, I think it's funny. You have your face full of buttons while the guy clubs you upside the head.

Typebaiting rules exist 'cos a spacemens mouth and feet are located in the same general keyboard area.

[Vekter]

I'm honestly of the mindset that if someone is reading a book and you hit them with combat mode on, you should shove the book in their face and blind them for a second.

[chocolate_bickie]

if you cant type at full speed with only your left hand (or use hotkey mode) you should be permabanned

You use your right hand for movement?

[Timberpoes]

pretty much. if it becomes an issue, it needs to be handled as rule 1, not some special clause buried in the rules that say it's okay when x or y criteria is met.

The typebaiting policy is pretty restrictive to typebaiting in the headmin ruling page though, the policy needs to be expanded on because right now it is exactly that.

The headmin ruling is irrelevant to the enforcement of typebaiting, speaking as a headmin from the term that set in motion the wheels to enforce typebaiting. Typebaiting was handled under metagaming beforehand and there are typebaiting notes that predate the official headmin ruling. This hasn't stopped being the case, it's just now admins have a sign they can clearly tap. This is partly because we've created a culture where the admins feel they can't handle shitty player behaviour without having one of 150 individual rulings to point to as a gotcha.

Expanding or changing the ruling isn't really the stopper for admins enforcing typebaiting. The stopper is proving or evidencing typebaiting, which is non-trivial. Nothing you can put in the headmin rulings page will change this fact beyond loosening the requirements to allowing players to be noted/banned on less evidence or a mere suspicion and removing defenses like accident or coincidence.

On a different note, please let's limit adding more piss to the genuine sea of piss that we call the headmin rulings page.

It now has so many "This thing that breaks Rule X is against the rules"-style rulings that its primary purpose is now to document gotcha technicalities. I back TBM's approach of common sense administration instead of thousands-of-rules-for-every-occasion administration-by-wiki.

[Cheshify]

Typebaiting is OOC in IC because it uses the OOC knowledge of a spacemen needing to type to speak in order to gain an unfair IC advantage. Someone burying their face in a book or console is IC, and not a part of typebaiting.

Cheshify - IC issue
Fikou - "I don't want policy on this, invites rools [sic] lawyering."
TheBibleMelts "^"