/tg/Station 13

See title. An incident where a Robo killed an RD over wasting research points for clown modsuits modules over Durands, resulting in a disagreement between admins on how to deal with it.

Should this (and other stupid behaviours like spacing a gun given to you, which was also argued) be punished with immediate killing?

More specifically are they considered self-antagonistism?

ic issue

I am in firm belief that in any situation that is time-critical to the crew, which in this context was nuclear operatives declaring war on the crew and the crew having time to prepare, and somebody intentionally wastes station resources to the benefit of nobody, they are valid to be killed. Wasting resources that would otherwise be used to combat a station-wide threat is essentially self-antagging, and there is no time for standard IC escalation in situations like these.

Archie700 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 1:51 am See title. An incident where a Robo killed an RD over wasting research points for clown modsuits modules over Durands, resulting in a disagreement between admins on how to deal with it.

theres 97k points in 20 minutes, we dont have TIME TO WASTE 2500 POINTS OVER FUCKING CLOWN MODSUITS, WHATS 2500 POINTS YOU MAY ASK? WELL ILL TELL YOU! THE RESEARCH FOR INDUSTRIAL IF YOU DONT DO THE EXPERIMENT.

HUDS, NEURAL NETWORK FOR THE COOLIO FUCKING IMPLANTS.

HEY WHATS THAT? YOU WANT GOOD SHIT? NAH BUD WE NEED CLOWN MODSUITS! DURANDS CAN GO IN THE TRASH!

its about 97k points give or take, its 94k atleast. But I added extra for the decimal.

I have zero issue with someone fighting someone else over this or starting an IC conflict. I do have issue with someone immediately jumping to lethals over it. I see this far more as "What exact situations can I kill someone because I want valids" than I do "that person did something that will materially harm the station and crew" solely because it's people straight up bypassing escalation over it.

I also really, strongly dislike this idea because I can already read the complaint about an admin letting somebody kill someone else because they bought mining research instead of one of the pre-requesites for mechs.

theres a pretty huge difference between, mining research, and clown modsuits.

But hey maybe im fucking insane! This is the loony bin where we discuss whether or not someone is in the wrong getting CLOWN FUCKING MODSUITS! DURING WAR OPS!

and hey what server was this shit on, because I know if its manuel this is a ban eater on there.

But if its terry or sybil, this is you're death bargaining on a fucking platter. Especially terry.

Jonathan Gupta wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 2:25 am theres a pretty huge difference between, mining research, and clown modsuits.

But hey maybe im fucking insane! This is the loony bin where we discuss whether or not someone is in the wrong getting CLOWN FUCKING MODSUITS! DURING WAR OPS!

Okay, here's the problem: The ruling would have to be worded something like "It's okay to kill someone who's wasting research points on something that's not useful or helpful to the war effort". How do you define that? Is it okay if someone researches something that's not directly related to combat? What if it's something that helps the station in other ways?

It's such a broad thing and generally fucking unhelpful because you're basically saying "I'm okay with doing a thing that saves you like 20 seconds over having players just escalate like normal". This doesn't need a ruling, just don't jump straight to lethals. That's it.

Jonathan Gupta wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 2:26 am But if its terry or sybil, this is you're death bargaining on a fucking platter. Especially terry.

The rules on Sybil and Terry are identical.

Vekter wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 2:33 am The rules on Sybil and Terry are identical.

rules and players dont collide exactly the same, I dont think you walk around in sybil doing the same thing as you do in terry.

Server culture is a thing, nobody walks on manuel like they waltz on sybil or run around like ten rats out of a bag on terry.

Jonathan Gupta wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 2:44 am

Vekter wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 2:33 am The rules on Sybil and Terry are identical.

rules and players dont collide exactly the same, I dont think you walk around in sybil doing the same thing as you do in terry.

Server culture is a thing, nobody walks on manuel like they waltz on sybil or run around like ten rats out of a bag on terry.

We're getting off-topic but "Server culture" is something people use as an excuse for breaking the rules because they think they shouldn't be beholden to them based on what server they're on.

The only times I've ever heard it seriously talked about are when I've told someone not to do something.

Vekter wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 2:33 am Okay, here's the problem: The ruling would have to be worded something like "It's okay to kill someone who's wasting research points on something that's not useful or helpful to the war effort". How do you define that? Is it okay if someone researches something that's not directly related to combat? What if it's something that helps the station in other ways?

okay lets run through it, ya demote him. Great hes waltzing on the station, it's war, armorys probably open he might or might not be trying to get revenge on said person.

Ya arrest him put him in whatever a cell, he gets out probably does the same shit.

Okay so ya put him in perma, on war? Hes just sitting waiting for the nuke to go or not go off.

So ya make him a monkey and unable to tap the research console, hes of more use to the war effort then he was researching but now he probably still wants revenge so ya got two lingering threats against you and one can climb in vents.

Ya put him in MEDICAL BAY after you kill him, he comes back spends MORE POINTS ON USELESS SHIT!

Ya bring him to the bumfuck nowhere land where he cant harm a soul, it's war.

Ya just ahelp it, great now hes still out there roaming the lands It's not immediate the effect isnt there, you can't solve a issue instantly.

ya look at yourself and say man, maybe if this was a great rd who knew how to handle his department. Maybe just maybe he kills me instead, maybe he understands how to handle this situation better then I do and that clown modsuit? It kills the nukies and we go home scottfree.

this whole fucking situation is making nothing out of something, a rd died due to incompetence during war, it's not even the ruling of killing during war or wasting points. Its just fucking incompetence and usually ya demote em, ya can't it's war they're just gonna die roaming the halls or die fighting nukies or die doing nothing, or maybe they get something come back or maybe the get something and die fighting nukies. Maybe they just die to you instead because they cant even fight a fucking robo! So they cant fight nukies! Just I don't understand what would be the better solution in this case.

Vekter wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 2:52 am

Jonathan Gupta wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 2:44 am

Vekter wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 2:33 am The rules on Sybil and Terry are identical.

rules and players dont collide exactly the same, I dont think you walk around in sybil doing the same thing as you do in terry.

Server culture is a thing, nobody walks on manuel like they waltz on sybil or run around like ten rats out of a bag on terry.

We're getting off-topic but "Server culture" is something people use as an excuse for breaking the rules because they think they shouldn't be beholden to them based on what server they're on.

The only times I've ever heard it seriously talked about are when I've told someone not to do something.

you get ahelped over shit thats normal on sybil on manuel, Its become a fucking cultural identification that security wont kill you for the most heinous of crimes without captains permission, or just wont kill you at all.

Jonathan Gupta wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 2:53 am

Vekter wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 2:33 am Okay, here's the problem: The ruling would have to be worded something like "It's okay to kill someone who's wasting research points on something that's not useful or helpful to the war effort". How do you define that? Is it okay if someone researches something that's not directly related to combat? What if it's something that helps the station in other ways?

:words:

You escalate a fight against him like you normally would, if you crit/kill him you take him to medical. If he comes back and starts fucking with the research machine again, all bets are off at that point. It's that simple. By the point in time where he's back, it's probably not going to fucking matter if it's war ops.

I'm not saying "Don't kill him", I'm saying "This doesn't need to be a ruling, just escalate as normal for IC issues".

Fuck that noise

If someone helps after being killed for pissing people off during a nukeops round then I would hope you would hit them with a rule one ban. If you'd like IC reasoning, here it is for most cases: "Nuclear operatives are a global threat with station-ending consequences. In doing my part to help the station, I had to neutralize someone that was not acting in the best interests regarding our survival."

That being said I don't think this needs a specific ruling, I think the best thing to do would be to put some thinking caps on in the moment.

I don't think that not helping should be punishable by death on warops. I'd say that wasting any amount of resources for non-war efforts on nukies is a good cause for escalation, but not one to sidestep it and just outright kill some bozo for not participating. There's apparently a discussion to be had on whether or not is taking any amount of resources is enough to consider you an antag, to which I think that's complete bullshit. Researching clowntech, or making weed in botany or printing a paint can at a lathe so you can spend the shift making art should not be reasons to sidestep escalation on their own, because the amount resources taken is negligent. If we had some guy spacing the whole armory, sure orbital strike them. If we had a guy that spaced a single rifle as an act of protest against war in the RP sense? Scream at em, make fun of em, but don't go out of your way to just lynch them because they are not playing the way you want them to. For all I care the RD could've found the idea of "squiek-walking around and honking a nukie, while protected in a bomb-suit MOD" funny. And despite me finding this dumb as hell, I don't think he should just be summarily executed for it, because it took away 50 seconds of one dude's time.

Yell at em, demote them, shovestun them out of RnD, sure. Free kill pass? nah.

If I get attacked for spending 3k points on circuits because someone doesn't know that they can be used against nuke ops or something I'm gonna go ballistic especially given my track record of consistently killing nukies with them

Either way it means that the person attacking me doesnt have the meta knowledge / experience to know that circuits are good vs nukies...

And if they dont attack me it could possibly be due to....having meta knowledge / experience that circuits are good vs nukies.


When i say meta knowledge im talking about the knowledge that you gain as an experienced player although the bad type of meta knowledge is also relevant in this situation since people constantly call me shit like "circuit lizard" and those are likely the ones that would decide "this person can research circuits"


My point is there is a slippery slope with metagrudge and metagaming in this context.

I think the intent is important, maybe I forgot to convey that in my original post. If someone is doing these things just to piss someone else off then absolutely I have no problem with them being thrown into a wall until death. Warops is serious business IC, and if your character is doing stuff to piss other people's characters off during it, especially during a high-danger scenario like warops, I think there should be no problem with a field execution i.e. throwing them out of the same airlock that they threw their gun out of, just as a hypothetical.

all i'll say is that i've chopped crew members' heads off for less when they were fucking around during nuke ops

MY POSTS HAVE TO BE APPROVED BY MODERATORS BECAUSE I'm CLEARLY A THREAT TO DEMOCRACY

This is a roleplaying game. Going "my co-worker is doing a stupid thing I'm gonna MURDER THEM" is failrp.

"B-b-but we're gona l-lose warops C-conrad?!!?!?"

𝒲𝒽𝑜 𝒸𝒶𝓇𝑒𝓈?

Sub-optimal play shouldnt be punishable by death. This is also the RD, the Guy leading the research and they should decide and not get killed for picking sub-optimal research. If doing gimmicks or anything but fight the nukies is punishable it would make war ops even worse and I’d just suicide if it rolled.

Per rule 5, the RD is the BOSS of science. If he can't even dictate the flow of research as the Research Director, then rule 5 needs to be scrapped and tossed from the rules page.

Similarly, however, I would say that this is good grounds for a mutiny, and the science department worker who killed the RD is acting reasonably. "Why did you kill the RD?" "They wasted our points during warops on stupid shit and could get us all killed." is valid as a reason to me.

So I guess what I'm saying is, I feel like neither party broke the rules, and this is an IC issue. Were I an admin, that is how I would rule this case.

I think DEATH is a bit extreme, grab some cuffs throw the point waster in a cell.
Specifically in the context of nuke-ops a simple death may just become a round removal with how busy medical will soon become, and a round removal seems awfully unfair for wasting some points.

if war is declared and command declare red alert then refusing or ignoring their orders is already grounds for arrest/execution.

these things are already quite sensibly set in stone but it requires people to step back from playing validball to see the logic in it.

it's not some mathematical formula like ah yes, war ops + wrong research = RD valid. it's a story. the RD refuses orders under a red alert scenario, they are arrested and executed because of the impending war on the station. this is a logical escalation of action, a progression of cause and effect, rather than checking off boxes until someone can be killed.

generally i expect people to make IC considerations in these situations and react accordingly. perhaps you threaten the RD and they suddenly fall in line. why would you carry on trying to execute them? the circumstances have changed and you're expected to once again react accordingly.

The adnins should not enforce optimal play, and should be hesitant to allow players to enforce optimal play via a pass to bending or breaking the rules.

It is not against the rules to not contribute to the war effort. It is not acting like an antagonist to carry on business as usual around war ops and not act like winning winning winning is all that matters.

War ops is not and should not be the death of any fun or joy in the shift. It should not be the mandatory player enforcement of winning at all cost. An RD shouldn't be afraid of researching Durands because a robo wanted Gygaxes and Gygaxes are better than Durands so they RD is acting like an antag and can now be valided.

It feel like some admins would like to allow rule breaks against players that break the imaginary script that admin has for how to most optimally game war ops as the crew. No deviations allowed. All must know the meta. All must power the game.

No, stop killing the biggest SS13 moments that make for the best SS13 stories. Encourage players to use all IC means at their disposal that are firmly within the rules. Use their words. Call sec or a superior to the RD. Just play the hand you're deal and change your plans because your boss doesn't want to win win win hard hard hard must win cannot have fun cannot roleplay cannot do anything but be optimal.

Timberpoes wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 8:50 am The adnins should not enforce optimal play, and should be hesitant to allow players to enforce optimal play via a pass to bending or breaking the rules.

It is not against the rules to not contribute to the war effort. It is not acting like an antagonist to carry on business as usual around war ops and not act like winning winning winning is all that matters.

War ops is not and should not be the death of any fun or joy in the shift. It should not be the mandatory player enforcement of winning at all cost. An RD shouldn't be afraid of researching Durands because a robo wanted Gygaxes and Gygaxes are better than Durands so they RD is acting like an antag and can now be valided.

It feel like some admins would like to allow rule breaks against players that break the imaginary script that admin has for how to most optimally game war ops as the crew. No deviations allowed. All must know the meta. All must power the game.

No, stop killing the biggest SS13 moments that make for the best SS13 stories. Encourage players to use all IC means at their disposal that are firmly within the rules. Use their words. Call sec or a superior to the RD. Just play the hand you're deal and change your plans because your boss doesn't want to win win win hard hard hard must win cannot have fun cannot roleplay cannot do anything but be optimal.

I was under the impression that the RD was killed under the IC logic of "I am mutineering because you did something incredibly stupid that might get us all killed.", not the OOC logic of "They acted like a valid antag, so now I get a free pass to kill the RD.". Am I wrong here? Because I support the first set of logic, not the second.

The line for doing incredibly stupid stuff that may get everyone killed is not drawn at a minute or two of research points.

The desire to win at all costs may make it feel like the RD has doomed everyone, but the reality is probably that it doesn't, didn't and won't actually matter to the outcome of the shift.

Togopal wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 1:58 am I am in firm belief that in any situation that is time-critical to the crew, which in this context was nuclear operatives declaring war on the crew and the crew having time to prepare, and somebody intentionally wastes station resources to the benefit of nobody, they are valid to be killed. Wasting resources that would otherwise be used to combat a station-wide threat is essentially self-antagging, and there is no time for standard IC escalation in situations like these.

Are they self-antagging because they are causing trouble for the rest of the station?

Or are they "self-antagging" because you want to win and they are not being "optimal" with how they spend their points?

Imitates-The-Lizards wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 9:13 am I was under the impression that the RD was killed under the IC logic of "I am mutineering because you did something incredibly stupid that might get us all killed.", not the OOC logic of "They acted like a valid antag, so now I get a free pass to kill the RD.". Am I wrong here? Because I support the first set of logic, not the second.

I do not believe the entire station will be killed because science does not have mechs with weapons.

Victory over nukes have almost always been without crew in mech involvement.

dendydoom wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 8:37 am -snip-

In this case, there was no order, Robo killed RD because he research clown mods instead of Durands, that's it

Archie700 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 12:41 pm

Togopal wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 1:58 am I am in firm belief that in any situation that is time-critical to the crew, which in this context was nuclear operatives declaring war on the crew and the crew having time to prepare, and somebody intentionally wastes station resources to the benefit of nobody, they are valid to be killed. Wasting resources that would otherwise be used to combat a station-wide threat is essentially self-antagging, and there is no time for standard IC escalation in situations like these.

Are they self-antagging because they are causing trouble for the rest of the station?

Or are they "self-antagging" because you want to win and they are not being "optimal" with how they spend their points?

This always will regard people acting in the former rather than the latter. Let me go over the first part again, and perhaps a more extreme example of what could happen when war is declared - the clown spacing a gun given to them. By spacing a gun that could be used to fight the operatives, you are doing something that serves as a detriment for, probably, the joke. Whether it's funny or not could be argued, but killing them is in my opinion a perfectly valid response to this. The consequences contribute to the story as equally as the action does. I have no issue with assisting somebody who was killed for doing something that they believed to be beneficial to the crew during the time of crisis, but as for silly things like clown tech, I think KorPhaeron says it better than me here: viewtopic.php?f=33&t=14718#p369897 (minus the ban part, I would just slap it with IC issue)

As far as the argument for roleplaying goes: "This team of angry hired guns wants to kill us all and destroy our very way of living, and we only have limited precious time to prepare, so I'm going to spend our research funds on the schematics of an attachable bicycle horn." No sane individual says this, but this is okay since this game is far from a shining bastion of realism and I like it that way.

While being wasteful and frivolous with tight resources during an emergency situation as a head of staff is dumb and crew should totally give them shit for it, saying "Waste your R&D points at all = kill" is kinda crazy and is, blunty, powergamer talk.

In this specific case especially, comparisons to "Throwing away all the armory guns" is stupid. the RD (R&D's boss) spent 30-40 seconds of research time frivolously and was killed over it. Would you suggest that the Captain be lynched when he's 40 seconds late calling the shuttle because he was writing a rude message to the nuke ops or announcing "Food service will be suspended due to the presence of armed health inspectors? That's far more likely to result in a game over during war ops than mechs being potentially slightly delayed.

Archie700 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 1:51 am See title. An incident where a Robo killed an RD over wasting research points for clown modsuits modules over Durands, resulting in a disagreement between admins on how to deal with it. Should this (and other stupid behaviours like spacing a gun given to you, which was also argued) be punished with immediate killing? More specifically are they considered self-antagonistism?

Delta alert's "disobedience is punishable by death" comes to mind, and it stands out to me how it was the exact opposite happening here: someone who is hierarchically inferior executing his direct superior. Unless overriden by, say, the captain, how research points are spent is ultimately up to the RD. Allowing crew to execute heads of staff for suboptimal gaming is insane. What if behind his decision was some master plan to defeat the nukies by throwing pies at them? This would basically be enforcing that everyone has to do whatever's meta any time you get nuke ops.

Based on the limited details provided in this post...
Should he be demoted by the captain? Perhaps, if the captain had laid out a plan beforehand and he refused to go along with it.
Should he be arrested by security for hindering the war effort? Possibly.
Should he be wordlessly lasered by his own subordinate? Hell no.

Timberpoes wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 10:23 am The line for doing incredibly stupid stuff that may get everyone killed is not drawn at a minute or two of research points.

The desire to win at all costs may make it feel like the RD has doomed everyone, but the reality is probably that it doesn't, didn't and won't actually matter to the outcome of the shift.

After sitting, resting and thinking on it for a few hours, yeah, Timber is, as usual, completely correct, in my opinion. The offense, while legitimately stupid, is not something which is strong enough of an offense to warrant a mutiny. It's kind of the equivalent of the RD shoving you in the hall and you killing him for it. Actually, the shoving may even arguably be the greater offense. So, Robo in the wrong.

I think its less about "win-win-win" and "optimal play" rather than RD just griefing for no actual reason. If he doesn't want to help the effort, its okay. However he should not grief others for his amusement - what was the purpose of researching clown tech? Was he gonna do anything with it? If not its either IC issue if he got RRd or Rule 1.

Togopal wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 4:10 pm Let me go over the first part again, and perhaps a more extreme example of what could happen when war is declared - the clown spacing a gun given to them. By spacing a gun that could be used to fight the operatives, you are doing something that serves as a detriment for, probably, the joke. Whether it's funny or not could be argued, but killing them is in my opinion a perfectly valid response to this.

Doing something that is a detriment for yourself should not get you killed by crew.

No, I don't think one less gun is a loss condition against ops.

As I said, punishing players for not being optimal.

Escalation Policy wrote: You may begin IC conflicts with another player if it does not excessively interfere with their ability to do their job. While you are allowed to escalate conflicts, if it leads to violence and you have poor IC reasoning for inciting it, you may face administrative action.

Killing a crewmate is a severe response, and requires severe justification to do, such as those in Rule 1's precedents, or Rule 4.

Critically wounded characters must be treated or taken to the medbay by the standing party where reasonable, and taking unnecessary action against a downed player opens you up to reprisal. If you are incapacitated in a fight and treated, or the conflict is otherwise meaningfully broken, you are expected to require an IC reason beyond 'bruised ego' to re-initiate it.

somebody misspending a few research points is not grounds to kill them or RR them.

if you think they were doing it to deliberately troll the station, other people in sci, or what have you, go ahead and ahelp it.

if you're damned sure about that, maybe just sack them IC and throw them on the frontlines if you can't be assed to ahelp. put them in the penal battalion if you have to, but there's nothing so immediate or direct a threat to you that them not doing the meta research rush path for mechs is reason to cut them down on the spot.

a lot of this depends on context we don't have, but imagine getting killed or totally sacked for a misclick if that's what this was. don't kill people for being bad at their jobs or not playing optimally to the competitive game please.

Acting like this is killing someone for being suboptimal is a bad faith argument that contributes nothing to this discussion because it's arguing against something that never happened.

As long as everyone involved is playing in good faith, no one should be killed like they were in the inciting incident. One player wants mining tech (for gathering of materials against the nukies) and another wants mechs (for fighting the nukies)? Both are handling it in good faith, so no you can't execute the other. The RD wants a durand but the roboticist wants a gygax? Both are handling it in good faith, find a way to convince the RD or accept it. If both sides are putting forth good faith efforts then they are both protected from the wrath of the other because at the end of the day both of you are trying to do what you think is best. If you do end up getting in a fight over these, for whatever godforsaken reason, you need to ensure everyone walks away from it.

The inciting incident involved one player researching clown technology, which does literally nothing, while the other player wanted to research mechs. When prompted for a justification, it boiled down to "funny". One player is participating in good faith and the other is not. Because you aren't participating in good faith, you are no longer shielded from the consequences of doing something someone else doesn't want you to. We have a rule that already sort of applies to this - If you do something that has no benefit to you other than making others upset and adminhelp the in-game consequences, you may be banned instead.

The question is not "Can I murder someone for playing suboptimally?" The answer is obviously no, you cannot force everyone to play optimally and kill them if they refuse it.

The question is "Does the station facing a major existential threat lower the threshold for the Fuck Around, Find Out rule?" I feel like it makes absolutely no sense that you should be obligated to go through the process of dealing with someone who isn't handling the issue in good faith when you are in the middle of an impending nuclear emergency in which Syndicate agents are coming to blow you the fuck up. If they want their actions to be protected, they need to be playing in good faith too. We shouldn't expect one player to handle it as if everyone is participating in good faith if we aren't obligating the other player to do so as well.

im not really here to debate or argue but here are my two cents on the situation
from what i have heard about this situation i think it is really simple, yes it was justified, especially since it took place on sybil
first of all it definitely wasnt a misclick as the person in question was playing 'harvy klownington'- a character that is meant to be a clown even when not directly playing the clown JOB (as you can see by the name), and i feel its kind of hard to do that for.. yknow, a clown modsuit
research points are incredibly important, sure normally you could just wait for them to come back, but during war ops? time is precious!!! it is a WAR!!!! you will want the tools and tech to combat them as soon as you possibly can, right? as well as tech that ensures others survival (for example surgery, biotech, etc)
research points arent the equivalent of a single gun, this is like, a critically important thing
of course i dont think that wasting points = KILL MODE ACTIVATE, give a warning first but if they dont listen then.. yeah, on sybil of all places of course you'll get your ass beaten to death-- blatantly ignoring others and just doing what you want will lead to that. it's kind of apart of the culture to beat the shit out of eachother there imo. obviously no its not ok if its RR/permadeath or whatever but death is a thing that can be solved quite simply via revival
yes there are other options such as cuffing but that feels like more effort and time wasted, bro could just run around everywhere and avoid it
so ya....

The question is "Does the station facing a major existential threat lower the threshold for the Fuck Around, Find Out rule?"

absolutely, and I apologize for treating it too broadly if that's what this situation was unambiguously dealing with.

If the issue here is people trolling or deliberately throwing in a life-or-death situation, it does lower the threshold to where i'd probably say "you fucked around knowing it would piss people off, by doing the opposite of anything useful your job is supposed to do in this situation, either A) don't do it again or B) accept the consequences here," possibly both.

round state matters. where there's any doubt about them being on-side, reasonable disagreement about what to do, or there isn't a massive, overbearing set of pressures to deal with, i'd really rather people stuck to solutions within escalation - but being a dick or doing something for the funny that unambiguously helps the big, obvious threat gives people reason for treating you like one too.

i'm not sure that provides a clear rule to use here, but i hope it clears up misconceptions i shouldn't have brought to begin with about the actual situation here

NoxVS wrote: ↑Tue Mar 26, 2024 12:24 am We have a rule that already sort of applies to this - If you do something that has no benefit to you other than making others upset and adminhelp the in-game consequences, you may be banned instead.

I agree with everything you said here, but the quoted text is outdated because this headmin decision was moved to archives in the rules for reasons unknown to me.

I dont think the threshold for "fuck around and find out" is loose. I had an issue where a near ascended heretic that wiped out the entire sec team and heads of staff and made them into his zombie thralls. This was an existential threat that caused the shuttle to be called and one of the last 2 remaining people alive that had weapons and armor (a shaft miner) chose to keep that gear to themselves and "vibe" next to the existential threat in question that was actively killing people doing nothing but providing that existential threat with metaprotection from being bombed.

It seems that either "fucking around and finding out" does not pertain to hording things related to your job to yourself to prevent use against a threat (So RD can keep their points and use it how they see fit) or the existence of an existential threat in the first place just doesn't give anyone a ticket to treat the situation seriously and lynch those who don't take the situation seriously.

To be clear, if you're doing things to the point you can be killed immediately, you're doing things to the point where you can be noted or banned if you're a nonantag and they ahelp.

And I think we're falling far short of the spirit of the rule and only concerning ourselves with the letter at this point.

MooCow12 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 26, 2024 2:53 am I dont think the threshold for "fuck around and find out" is loose. I had an issue where a near ascended heretic that wiped out the entire sec team and heads of staff and made them into his zombie thralls. This was an existential threat that caused the shuttle to be called and one of the last 2 remaining people alive that had weapons and armor (a shaft miner) chose to keep that gear to themselves and "vibe" next to the existential threat in question that was actively killing people doing nothing but providing that existential threat with metaprotection from being bombed.

It seems that either "fucking around and finding out" does not pertain to hording things related to your job to yourself to prevent use against a threat (So RD can keep their points and use it how they see fit) or the existence of an existential threat in the first place just doesn't give anyone a ticket to treat the situation seriously and lynch those who don't take the situation seriously.

I know this is really hard to grasp, but I don't honestly give a shit if an antag greentexts or not, and I think the vast majority of players would enjoy the game more if they felt the same.

Vekter wrote: ↑Tue Mar 26, 2024 3:47 am

I know this is really hard to grasp, but I don't honestly give a shit if an antag greentexts or not, and I think the vast majority of players would enjoy the game more if they felt the same.

What did anything i say have to do with greentext. A nukie wants to blow everyone up with the goal of and killing everyone, a flesh heretic wants to kill everyone (and is doing a good job of it) and wants to abuse giant worm to finish doing that.

MooCow12 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 26, 2024 2:53 am I dont think the threshold for "fuck around and find out" is loose. I had an issue where a near ascended heretic that wiped out the entire sec team and heads of staff and made them into his zombie thralls. This was an existential threat that caused the shuttle to be called and one of the last 2 remaining people alive that had weapons and armor (a shaft miner) chose to keep that gear to themselves and "vibe" next to the existential threat in question that was actively killing people doing nothing but providing that existential threat with metaprotection from being bombed.

It seems that either "fucking around and finding out" does not pertain to hording things related to your job to yourself to prevent use against a threat (So RD can keep their points and use it how they see fit) or the existence of an existential threat in the first place just doesn't give anyone a ticket to treat the situation seriously and lynch those who don't take the situation seriously.

I'll be honest, if someone bombed and killed the existential threat and the guy, and the guy ahelped? I would just say "valid, don't stand near a fucking giant worm doing nothing"

NoxVS wrote: ↑Tue Mar 26, 2024 12:24 am snip

Frankly I disagree. Clown tech can do stuff during nukies and this really is killing someone for acting sub-optimally and it will always look like that optically and any ruling on this will appear as such. This incident as described was someone killing the RD because they didnt game hard enough to not optimally spend like 2 minutes of research. If the bar is that low you should kill a clown for slipping someone during war ops, or kill a cargo tech for ordering weapons too slowly or kill a qm for buying a pack of stickers. This is silly, in no world should 2 minutes of research waste because "funny" be an instant kill. Ultimately this policy only strives to worsen the issues of war ops by now making anyone doing anything that has potential to "hinder the war effort in bad faith" by maybe building a rage cage valid. I'll also add that its the RD, the one who decides where research goes. Roboticists arent the leaders of science and their will isnt law.

Ultimately I'll echo Timberpoes "The line for doing incredibly stupid stuff that may get everyone killed is not drawn at a minute or two of research points."

Mechs are not a vital part of the war infrastructure without which everyone's going to die. They are a novelty predicated on both mining and research collabing on achieving them. Eating a minute or two off the research time is not dooming everyone to death, it's just being negligent and as such can be a fine starting point for a conflict. But that doesn't exempt you from adhering to escalation.

Timberpoes wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 8:50 am The adnins should not enforce optimal play, and should be hesitant to allow players to enforce optimal play via a pass to bending or breaking the rules.

It is not against the rules to not contribute to the war effort. It is not acting like an antagonist to carry on business as usual around war ops and not act like winning winning winning is all that matters.

War ops is not and should not be the death of any fun or joy in the shift. It should not be the mandatory player enforcement of winning at all cost. An RD shouldn't be afraid of researching Durands because a robo wanted Gygaxes and Gygaxes are better than Durands so they RD is acting like an antag and can now be valided.

It feel like some admins would like to allow rule breaks against players that break the imaginary script that admin has for how to most optimally game war ops as the crew. No deviations allowed. All must know the meta. All must power the game.

No, stop killing the biggest SS13 moments that make for the best SS13 stories. Encourage players to use all IC means at their disposal that are firmly within the rules. Use their words. Call sec or a superior to the RD. Just play the hand you're deal and change your plans because your boss doesn't want to win win win hard hard hard must win cannot have fun cannot roleplay cannot do anything but be optimal.

Timber when i am being repeatedly slipped by a clown when i'm trying to get into the AI upload to give it a law that allows it to help the station against nuke ops my rage CAN and WILL facilitate the removal of that clowns head.