does this count as type baiting or not.

[Ihateforums]

me and an admin had this discussion a not even a little while ago and they suggested I made thread about it as we had differing opinions on it. this happened in MRP but I don't think that matters for this case.

within this scenario; where you are asked to write something down on a piece of paper and then being unable to react to the attacks (being pricked with deadly chems in this case that downed me in around 2 seconds.) count towards as a form of type baiting? the admins argument for it not being so was that this was an in character distraction as you hold the paper in front of you, but I argued that since the pop up covers up a large(ish) part of the screen it prevents you from *reading* the piece of text that says your character is *feeling* hurt. and even if you did see it from how you positioned the pop up, the paper would still get the button presses until you tab out of it since, obviously you were asked to write something down, much like the average type bait.

so the question I suppose is if this is IC and is a legal distraction, or ooc and type bait. I would honestly say that it does make sense if you take the game aspects out of it, obviously you arent actually holding the paper in your face in such a way that majority of your vision is lost, no one writes like that. but you would will not be able to react as well to a punch to the face, but afterwards the gamey aspect of "I need to tab out of this thing" appears which is absolutely not IC at all unless you are Frank Drebin from the naked gun (and maybe some specific scenarios that are not relevant to this specific scenario). which, to me, feels like the exact same steps of type baiting in the speaking form, where you would caught off guard with the initial distraction with the speaking scenario and it being realistic, but then being unable to react cause of it being game and you need to tab out of it.

no I am not suggesting that I would have reacted in any way meaningful in this scenario I would 100% still die and "probably" be mad about, maybe "help help" at the comms at best. but its the thought that counts.

Furthermore, I consider that Carthage must be destroyed.

[Vekter]

No, quit making threads that amount to "someone killed me and I'm mad about it, change policy".

The only thing that actually counts as type baiting is someone intentionally trying to get you to type something as a reply to them and then killing you, and even then the rule is extremely hard to enforce unless we have extremely obvious evidence it's happening. The only reason type baiting is against the rules is because it's a meta solution to killing someone that doesn't make any sense under any other context. You could easily tell someone to fill out a form IRL and then stab them with something - that makes sense and can be explained without having to result to meta terms to do so. You don't have to stand still and completely forfeit your focus to talk in real life.

If someone walks up to you, asks you a question, and then immediately kills you when you start replying (when the little typing indicator comes up), that's type baiting. Literally nothing else is.

[Jacquerel]

Asking someone to do some paperwork to distract them while you poison them is role play.

[SkeletalElite]

It was previously ruled that getting someone to use a machine is not running afoul of type baiting because the person is physically interacting with a machine, the same is probably going to be true here, the person is physically focusing their attention to a piece a paper and writing on it with a pen in hand.

[Higgin]

This one should be pretty much wrapped. 3 for 3: no, this isn't typebaiting.

Is it in good taste or necessarily healthy for getting people to play along in situations where there might actually be a reason to write stuff?

It's not in bad taste. It's fair play. But it is fair play in a game where you're encouraged to be antisocial, paranoid, and brutal as a rule.

Either ask for the game to change or recalibrate your expectations, I guess.

[Vekter]

It's not in bad taste. It's fair play. But it is fair play in a game where you're encouraged to be antisocial, paranoid, and brutal as a rule.

I would argue that it's not fair play, but I don't see an issue with that. It's underhanded and scummy, but you're playing the bad guy. You're not supposed to be nice or play fair. There's nothing wrong with doing whatever you need to in order to get your objectives done.

[Higgin]

I would argue that it's not fair play, but I don't see an issue with that. It's underhanded and scummy, but you're playing the bad guy. You're not supposed to be nice or play fair. There's nothing wrong with doing whatever you need to in order to get your objectives done.

I fucked up by not being clear there: it's fair play at an OOC level for the antag to do this being the bad guy. I agree on all of that.

Which is why if they want to change this, or change how it's felt, or why - you should instead talk about changing what antags are and where the conflict comes from instead of trying to force an artificial "be sporting" requirement on them.

If somebody is being flattered in a scene where writing on the paper and getting penned for it pays off - either by leading to something other than being spaced/lockered, or by playing up a deliberate trait of their character (trustingness, naivete, helpfulness) - they're a lot less likely to have beef afterwards.

Objectives don't really select on that, and it's the very rare player that can deliver - especially when they're fighting uphill against the expectation on a target's part* that anyone who wants to interact with you nonmechanically may very well want you dead and dump you given the chance.

[Ihateforums]

No, quit making threads that amount to "someone killed me and I'm mad about it, change policy".

The only thing that actually counts as type baiting is someone intentionally trying to get you to type something as a reply to them and then killing you, and even then the rule is extremely hard to enforce unless we have extremely obvious evidence it's happening. The only reason type baiting is against the rules is because it's a meta solution to killing someone that doesn't make any sense under any other context. You could easily tell someone to fill out a form IRL and then stab them with something - that makes sense and can be explained without having to result to meta terms to do so. You don't have to stand still and completely forfeit your focus to talk in real life.

If someone walks up to you, asks you a question, and then immediately kills you when you start replying (when the little typing indicator comes up), that's type baiting. Literally nothing else is.

well I don't know why you are being rude about it considering I am literally just asking if it was or wasn't, there isn't even an attempt for a policy change here I am just explaining my thought process about why I thought it would be, I even said I would still be mad about it so it's not a secret. besides a policy change would not even a good fix for this anyway, it would just make 'being caught off guard' an ooc interaction that you need to call the admins for which is immersion breaking and not all that fun. an actual fix would just making it so that taking damage or getting some action done on you automatically close all the pop-ups you have, that would keep the RP of being caught off guard without having to deal with the gamey aspects of screen clutter.

[kinnebian]

taking damage or getting some action done on you automatically close all the pop-ups you have, that would keep the RP of being caught off guard without having to deal with the gamey aspects of screen clutter.

this would be a good idea but imagine frantically trying to interact with door panels while dying in space or trying to make a cure chem while constantly taking bits of damage and it closing all your pop ups

[Jacquerel]

yeah the difficulty in "closing windows when you take damage" is that it's actually not necessarilly obvious on the code end to know at the point when you are taking damage whether that damage is from an active source (someone poking you with a pen, which notably doesn't actually do any damage) or a passive one (ingested poison a while ago, suffocating, on fire, my appendix just burst, wounded...) and you wouldn't want to close the windows in the latter case because you may need the window in order to prevent the damage

[MooCow12]

Due to the speed at which combat can begin and end, a solution that closes your window wouldnt really solve anything and just has risk of causing side affects.

I cant even remember the last time that I didnt just oneshot someone that I wanted to kill.

[Ihateforums]

yeah the difficulty in "closing windows when you take damage" is that it's actually not necessarilly obvious on the code end to know at the point when you are taking damage whether that damage is from an active source (someone poking you with a pen, which notably doesn't actually do any damage) or a passive one (ingested poison a while ago, suffocating, on fire, my appendix just burst, wounded...) and you wouldn't want to close the windows in the latter case because you may need the window in order to prevent the damage

yea that's true, though thinking about it a little bit more I'm sure just making every action that makes gives you the red chat messages whether it does damage or not should be fine enough since it would still "disturb" you working, like a slap from a clown soon to be tabled or the initial stab from a poison filled syringe while the poison it self doesn't actually do it (besides killing you), but I do agree there needs to be a way to also toggle it off in the Continuous damage scenario mentioned above, though I don't know what you could use for that without making it really unintuitive, I'm sure no one would think to press f8 when they need to hack open a door to save themselves from space for example, maybeeee toggling harm intent would do the trick? since (if I remember correctly) most items that can be used on machinery or otherwise just get used instead of smashing the object with it anyway (like trying to smash a chem dispenser with a beaker just putting it inside it) and it seems reasonable enough as a harm intent function.

another option, while not as effective would probably just be having a dedicated bindable button for closing the pop ups, its not perfect since you the player still need to notice whats happening in the game world but it would have way less side effects, and it would also be really nice for trying to fist fight, I remember trying to have a fight in medical for a legal dispute and having my screen full of IV drop menus that would just fade out instead of disappearing.

[Vekter]

well I don't know why you are being rude about it considering I am literally just asking if it was or wasn't

We have been getting a lot of policy discussion threads that boil down to "I died because someone did something that wasn't actually against the rules, please change the rules so it doesn't happen again" and its never actually anything useful that needs to be against the rules.

there isn't even an attempt for a policy change here

Then this thread isn't relevant to being in the Policy Discussion subforum and can be closed.

Also this is not the place to discuss code changes (though I think your idea of UI closing when you take damage is not good or well thought-out for the same reasons others have already pointed out). We have an Ideas forum for that kind of thing.

[TheBibleMelts]

i'm still in the camp of not wanting to overly define things like this as being either 100% good or 100% bad. if someone is overdoing a cheap gimmick like this to score kills in a way that discourages any level of player interaction, we have other rules to handle that behavior.

[Cheshify]

Literally just what TBM said. I don't personally think this is typebaiting because it's entirely using IC methods, but it is very cheap and if overused can be acted on with existing rules.

Chesh - not much that needs to be done
TBM - See above post
Fikou - n/a