/tg/Station 13

Well, for the most part. Unsure where this should be placed. But I figure this is the best place.

So what is the policy on succumbing when you are knocked into crit and then ahelping. According to Skorvold it completely removes your right to adminhelp to complain about being killed. Like really, the first time I have ever heard this.

Wat? I've never, ever heard of a scenario or admin ruling where if you succumb when your in critical you suddenly lose all adminhelp rights. That would be insane and utterly stupid.

If its true, it should not be true.

Admin PM from-Skorvold: You succumbed, sooo.

PM to-Admins: Uhh....So?

Admin PM from-Skorvold: Your right to complain is forfeit?

PM to-Admins: ...Succumbing doesnt forfeit the right to complain...

Admin PM from-Skorvold: It kind of does.

PM to-Admins: No it doesnt.

Admin PM from-Skorvold: Then take it up in FNR or with Jordie. Otherwise my final word, is you succumbed.

Succumbing forfeits your right to complain as it prevents your attacker or anyone else from healing you.

So wait, that implies your free to attack people so long as you heal them afterwards?

I'm probely out of my depth here since I lack context, but I don't think that succumbing should immediently forfeit your right to ahelp if you were attacked and knocked into critical for no reason.

No, you can attack someone and crit them if they provide ample reason to be attacked.

Having something stolen from you is a good example, it's not worth killing someone over but if you can't get an item you want back from them critting them is acceptable.

Hence why I said...

if you were attacked and knocked into critical for no reason.

If there is a good reason, that's an entirely different ball park and probley justified.

So not wanting to look at a black screen for 2 minutes while you bleed out forfeits your right to complain about being murdered?
Nice.

Steelpoint. Basically stealing someone shoes, they dont even ask for it back, you get punched into crit, you succumbed, your rights to adminhelp is apparently forfeit for succumbing, and if you try to push it, you get threatened with a ban for banbaiting.

If the attack was provoked, it's not ahelpable. If it was not, it is ahelpable.

What does succumbing have to do with it?

First time I ever hear this.

What, may be if you crit them and then put them in morgue, or near a pile of other abandoned bodies that doesn't count as murder? What is this silliness.

firecage wrote:Steelpoint. Basically stealing someone shoes, they dont even ask for it back, you get punched into crit, you succumbed, your rights to adminhelp is apparently forfeit for succumbing, and if you try to push it, you get threatened with a ban for banbaiting.

And if you did not succumb that counts as murder and you can ahelp it? That makes no sense. You stole their shoes for no reason, get bent.

miggles wrote:So not wanting to look at a black screen for 2 minutes while you bleed out forfeits your right to complain about being murdered?
Nice.

Your inability to understand what this is about has flabbergasted me.

Succumbing means that you now, must be cloned. When you succumb to death you are basically saying "Oh, welp, might as well give up and wait to be cloned."

firecage wrote:Steelpoint. Basically stealing someone shoes, they dont even ask for it back, you get punched into crit, you succumbed, your rights to adminhelp is apparently forfeit for succumbing, and if you try to push it, you get threatened with a ban for banbaiting.

Because considering your history you aggro the fuck out of people and often get mad if they do something back. Running around stripping people of their clothing items is shitty behavior, people like Glove Gettin' George knew this shit and didn't ahelp it because they brought the hate on themselves.

When a guy crits you, you type out crit and hit enter, effectively killing yourself. He doesn't do it for you.

Oh really SKorvold. You mean the history of rarely, if ever, Ahelping when I make people angry because I know I prob deserve it. And maybe complaining a bit in deadchat? Oh boo, but when someone kills you for stealing their shoes, its A-ok.

And no Skorvold, critting someone is killing them. But wait, the TINY chance that someone doesnt mean to kill you while actively trying to kill you means you can't succumb, right?

If you got in a properly escalated fight - in which you are both attacking - and got crit because of it, it's already an IC issue. It doesn't matter if you succumb there, since you're both at fault anyway.
If someone puts you in crit for any other reason, and they're not an antagonist, then why the fuck does succumbing make your ahelp invalid? They were either going to kill you anyway, and if they weren't, they should be punished for putting people in crit for stupid reasons.
Your inability to respond to legitimate problems because someone decided they didn't want to wait and die before ahelping is what has flabbergasted me.

firecage wrote:Oh really SKorvold. You mean the history of rarely, if ever, Ahelping when I make people angry because I know I prob deserve it. And maybe complaining a bit in deadchat? Oh boo, but when someone kills you for stealing their shoes, its A-ok.

And no Skorvold, critting someone is killing them. But wait, the TINY chance that someone doesnt mean to kill you while actively trying to kill you means you can't succumb, right?

>Critting someone is killing them

After this I'm done with this thread, this is really something.

I will explain this to you as calmly as I possibly can, and hope you understand.

When you are in a critical condition, you are still alive, you have amazing potential to come out of this condition providing someone is willing to help you come out of it. BUT
When you decide to succumb, and by golly, you did succumb IMMEDIATELY upon being pushed into critical state you type out an action, a verb, a function whatever it is and when you hit ENTER on your keyboard YOU yes, YOU have made the decision to end YOUR life by doing this.

The issue, Skor, is that when you're critted you're usually going to die anyways so there's no point in waiting, due to
a. The person who killed you might be a traitor, so they're going to finish you off anyways and probably hide/gib your body (For a fun thought experiment, imagine if you got critted, succumbed, and they hid your body, as a nonantag, but you have no way of knowing, so you ahelp and oh it's invalid even tho hiding bodies is a huge no-no for nonantags).
b. You can't see anything but you, and whatever's a block away from you, so you don't know if help is coming or not, and waiting for five minutes at a black circle is dull.
c. Even if there is help, oftentimes you'll get looted and not saved.
d. For most intents and purposes, bringing someone to medbay to heal out of crit and bringing someone to medbay to clone are almost identical, one just takes longer with different equipment. The contrast of 'he critted a person' and 'he killed a person' matter in an IC sense, but it has lost meaning like most IC things.

Let me explain how this all went down.

Zoey Webb steels Bartenders shoes. Bartender crits Zoey Webb, Zoey Webb succumbs immediately. Bartender takes her to genetics. I eventually find the Bartenders Ckey and question him, putting my full faith in his word saying that he fully intended to heal Zoey Webb. It appears Zoey's total range of communication during this was "Why".

While the thread was made probably in response to them not being happy with your response at this time, most of the other people posting (probably) are talking about succumbing voiding your ahelp privileges in a general sense (which is how policy discussion should be).

Imo we don't need a blanket policy like this. I'd rather we be investigating these on a case-by-case basis. On one han it is shitty to start a fight and complain when you lose, but it's also not cool to have your right to fair play suddenly revoked arbitrarily when you're not at fault.

I've also heard that suiciding at any point during the round, either directly after the incident or later on, voids your ahelp privileges. As well as the succumb thing. It is definitely a thing, and the fact that it's yet another unwritten policy that some admins know about and some don't is... bad.

More broadly this speaks to what I've noticed is a conflict in what players are told to do.

- Admins/FNR: "Adminhelp everything bad, even if you think it's small! If there's no documentation and now that there's no steno, it is the only way anyone will be able to do anything."
- Admins/FNR: "Don't fucking adminhelp everything you whiny baby who whines this will just piss the admins off and make them hate you."

On one hand, pretty dumb stupid rule.
But on the other hand, you could just... not succumb?

danno wrote:On one hand, pretty dumb stupid rule.
But on the other hand, you could just... not succumb?

You do realize that it takes quite a long time to die JUST from crit oxydamage?

bandit wrote:I've also heard that suiciding at any point during the round, either directly after the incident or later on, voids your ahelp privileges. As well as the succumb thing. It is definitely a thing, and the fact that it's yet another unwritten policy that some admins know about and some don't is... bad.

More broadly this speaks to what I've noticed is a conflict in what players are told to do.

- Admins/FNR: "Adminhelp everything bad, even if you think it's small! If there's no documentation and now that there's no steno, it is the only way anyone will be able to do anything."
- Admins/FNR: "Don't fucking adminhelp everything you whiny baby who whines this will just piss the admins off and make them hate you."

Exactly. The fact that you can be banned for adminhelping is ridiculous. And how can anybody say "ahelp everything" after that?

Though I think it mostly comes from the fact that admins all have different opinions on the matter and different attitudes when it comes to their job.

Right. I don't even have a problem with this per se, I just think it should be written down in order to be enforceable. And before people come in all like "TOO MANY POLICIES" -- we ALREADY have this policy. It would not add any policies that do not already exist. It's just that the fact that it exists is news to people who unknowingly violate it.

The issue with succumbing is that the actions the other party takes after they have incapacitated you are a VERY large part of deciding what administrative action to take, if any.
Case 1: Bob beats John into crit for stealing his multitool. Bob then takes John to medbay and gets a doctor to take him.
Case 2: Bob beats John into crit for stealing his multitool. Bob then says over 145.9 that John needs medical assistance at arrivals, takes John's ID, and leaves.
Case 3: Bob beats John into crit for stealing his multitool. Bob then beats John all the way to death.
Case 4: Bob beats John into crit for stealing his multitool. John succumbs. The opportunity to see what action Bob would take afterwards is lost.
For each of the first three cases, the administrative action taken is going to be very different. But for the fourth case, it's impossible to get critical information to differentiate between the possible intents Bob had.

There's no fucking way suiciding voids your adminhelp rights, but it DOES signal an OOC desire to exit the round. So you can't exactly suicide when you get brigged and then ahelp that you got left in the brig for the whole round. If there's a solid universal policy for this, I can't put it into words.

People get banned for adminhelping when they're clearly in the wrong. Because GEE, MAYBE YOU SHOULDN'T ADMINHELP WHEN YOU'VE BEEN SHIT. And banbaiting is a very real thing, despite claims to the contrary.

This succumbing thing is a case-by-case basis. On one hand, it's a real pain in the ass to find somebody, successfully pump them full of inaprovaline/dexalin/CPR and then when you do get to Medbay to give them proper treatment, you find out they deathwhispered at the door or just plain succumbed. In many of those instances, the person in question will not clone, resulting in not only an absolute waste of my time and whoever else's to recover this person's sorry ass, but adding a bit of negative feelings towards the round since my character couldn't successfully save a life and the victim in question apparently wanted to die anyway.

I've also encountered the situation, with Firecage specifically, where I'll watch them be burned down into crit from one means or another. I'll get off my ass, pull them down to Medbay... and they death whisper at me. Nowhere near full death, but the whole "deathwhisper at the door" immediately tell me that the player in question didn't want to be in the round anyway, and I've personally dragged many bodies straight to the morgue for such behavior. Don't give me that "You can't tell where you are in the black circle!" thing either, most of the people posting here undoubtedly have a photographic memory of the station's layout by now, and you can definitely tell the difference between somebody rushing past tiles to get you to Medbay and a traitor skulking about maintenance to ditch your body in a locker.

That all being said and again, it's all dependent upon the context of the situation, and one instance of this context does not warrant a blanket policy. This goes again for a lot of the other policies that seem to pop up for discussion around here, too. It seems to be this issue where people aren't actually participating in the incident or round in question, and get faulty/incomplete/subjective information about it all.


Consider this also: If you succumb immediately upon crit, and are forced to be cloned... Stealthy and private murder non-applicable, aren't you just trading your would-be crit time for sitting bored staring at that black circle while you're cloning? It's silly to argue unless you're really that into instant gratification, and in which case you're not really even getting that either. It's fun to wait in suspense after a public fight to see what will happen to you.

The only question I have is who supposedly made this rule and if they even were in a position to make such a stupid rule be enforced.

Situation A
Guy 1 randomdeathmatches Guy 2 with a toolbox for no reason. Guy 2 hits critical and immediately succumbs. Doctor Doc, who would be able to help if he hadn't, walks past and farts on his corpse.
Verdict? Guy 1 should probably cop a ban for being a griefer.


Situation B
Guy 1 is pissed off at Guy 2 because of something Guy 2 did. Beat him up. Guy 2 hits critical and immediately succumbs. Doctor Doc, who would be able to help if he hadn't, walks past and farts on his corpse.
Verdict? Deal with it, IC issue; if you hadn't rage-succumbed then you would have gotten back into the game with no real harm done.

@geilebeer the rule has a point, it's not as stupid as you think. If succumbing wasn't taken into account at all then people could just go "*succumb F1 this fag killed me pls ban" in situations where they could have ended up fine otherwise.
Like KingLouis said, this should be taken at a case-by-case level.

So we have the absurd immersion shattering meta info providing circle of perma vision to stop the infantile succumbing. On the other hand blind people can get lost in the dark, who is aware of their surroundings more a comatose blind person or one in the dark our answer is obvious

Still it isn't enough, like the only thing that would appease them is just standing right back up again like it is rainbows in toyland.


Case by case basis, there is a big difference between some station diva crit a stone's throw from medbay and say someone in space or on the mining asteroid.

I suppose something should be said about actually letting people know what they are banned for or why their ahelp was invalid. It's not as obvious as you might think.

Cheridan wrote:Situation A
Guy 1 randomdeathmatches Guy 2 with a toolbox for no reason. Guy 2 hits critical and immediately succumbs. Doctor Doc, who would be able to help if he hadn't, walks past and farts on his corpse.
Verdict? Guy 1 should probably cop a ban for being a griefer.


Situation B
Guy 1 is pissed off at Guy 2 because of something Guy 2 did. Beat him up. Guy 2 hits critical and immediately succumbs. Doctor Doc, who would be able to help if he hadn't, walks past and farts on his corpse.
Verdict? Deal with it, IC issue; if you hadn't rage-succumbed then you would have gotten back into the game with no real harm done.

@geilebeer the rule has a point, it's not as stupid as you think. If succumbing wasn't taken into account at all then people could just go "*succumb F1 this fag killed me pls ban" in situations where they could have ended up fine otherwise.
Like KingLouis said, this should be taken at a case-by-case level.

This is basically what people are arguing, that the policy makes Situations A and B interchangeable. If people go "*succumb F1" then the story should reveal enough of whether it's Situation A or B, the only difference is whether they're in deadchat or not.

When I succumb it's usually because I would rather do other shit in real life than watch the window of a 2D spessman game to see if my virtual 2D spessman is going to be found and cloned. Other times it's because I don't feel like dealing with shit anymore. Neither of those change an attacker's intentions significantly.

>beat someone who attacks you into crit
>they instantly succumb
>WTF HE KILLED ME BAN HE

Yeah not gonna lie I see where skorvold is coming from here, while it's not suiciding, it's kind of rude especially because some people (including me) beat people into crit to pacify them, especially as sec versus hulks.

It's an extremely effective strategy and the only way to keep some people down if you are out of cuffs, succumbing and then saying WTF HE KILLED ME when I planned on reviving you once I had cuffs on you is so shitty.

But, like a lot of things, this is situational.

Also, instead of this retarded 'what if' policy discussion, can Firecage actually explain the situation surrounding this statement by skorvold and the ahelps?

This 'what if' shit is completely counter productive and I'm pretty sure firecage just succumbed during a fight he lost. I'm free to make assumptions like this because firecage and skorvold have yet to say what sparked this, and with a situational policy like this, we're gonna have to hear what brought it up.

In this instance the only reason why Firecage had the word "ban" pushed towards them, was because the more and more they persisted and the more and more I learned about the incident it seemed like a big ole ban baiting thing or an attempt to get their valids on the bartender.
Nobody up to any good runs back after getting whooped on before, if it's quite clear you pissed someone off by taking their shit then you generally fuck off because you've done your job of being a general menace to them already. Coming back for round two just makes it seem really fishy.

But yes, the succumbing thing is more or less a thing, and it isn't blanketed onto everything. If someone runs up and cuts your face off FNR or is just being a prick and constant critting you, you're more than free to succumb, but if you're in a fight with proper escalation or have aggroed someone in someway and succumb once you hit critical you're the one putting the nail in the coffin.

It's pretty often for people to ahelp before they crit a shitter saying they're dragging them to medbay or sec. It's also pretty often for the critted person to succumb and go "He killed me, ban him."

So basically, if you succumb, you have as much right to complain as if they critted you and immediately went for help, then saved you, even if they were actually going to kill you and stuff your body in a locker in maint.

Kelenius wrote:So basically, if you succumb, you have as much right to complain as if they critted you and immediately went for help, then saved you, even if they were actually going to kill you and stuff your body in a locker in maint.

Pretty much. If you're removing our information, we have to assume the best. If you wait until they've done whatever then succumb, that doesn't deny us information.

I take it that now if Greiferman crits me FNR and locks me in a unfindable area in maint as I am in crit, now deciding to succumb, I cant adminhelp it now.

Thats a load.

Helios127 wrote:I take it that now if Greiferman crits me FNR and locks me in a unfindable area in maint as I am in crit, now deciding to succumb, I cant adminhelp it now.

Thats a load.

Hurr imma take things out of context to make it look like admins r stupid hurr xddddd

Good job you win at reading comprehension forever.

Shame on anyone who posts like this and pretends to be retarded it's blatantly unfunny.

Cheridan wrote:randomdeathmatches

No. Do not use that word.

That's an appropriate way to use it tho.

What's wrong with judging players by their actions, not actions of their victims?

Who cares if you COULD heal the victim, if you harassed them for ten minutes, started a fight and critted them? You shouldn't have done that in the first place.

That's why I said it's situational and this policy discussion will yield nothing. If an admin's judgement is questionable, that's on the admin, but firecage is the one who turned this into a blanket policy discussion while making a broad statement about how since he didn't give his attacker an opportunity to heal him, and was subsequently ignored apparently everyone ever will be ignored after they succumb because it makes them valid which is retarded and pretty much not what skorvold had in mind.

Isn't this like ghosting when arrested and then complaining about what someone does with your body?

Pandarsenic wrote:Isn't this like ghosting when arrested and then complaining about what someone does with your body?

It's more like ghosting after being permabrigged/shoved in a 2x2 metal square naked and cuffed.

Meh, I see that Skorvold was right, I was being a prick. Sorry Skorvold.

ExplosiveCrate wrote:

Pandarsenic wrote:Isn't this like ghosting when arrested and then complaining about what someone does with your body?

It's more like ghosting after being permabrigged/shoved in a 2x2 metal square naked and cuffed.

Not in general, in this specific case.

You people will post stupid hypotheticals about anything. (See: Helios)

Actions taken after critical definitely effect the decision making process. If you succumb, you are removing yourself from the round rather than seeing it out and void any valid adminhelp you have.

That's pretty much the basic jist. And it's been like this. You all act surprised as if this was new.

Brotemis wrote:Actions taken after critical definitely effect the decision making process. If you succumb, you are removing yourself from the round rather than seeing it out and void any valid adminhelp you have.

If we were to take that statement by face value alone that would imply that under and circumstance that succumbing voids all Ahelp rights. So situations where you've been spaced/wielding in a locker in critical/left for dead and you don't want to spend the next several minutes staring at nothing, and if you do decide to succumb since you rightly fully don't want to stare at nothing for several minutes, you lose ahelp rights...

Drawing a ever worse case unlikely scenario, if someone was to intentionally subdue and keep you alive but in critical for a extended period, if you succumbed you would then lose your ahelp rights.

Moving away from the origin of the topic, people here just want to clarify the position of succumbing and ahelp rights, since the initial first posts of this thread implied you lost all ahelp rights if you succumbed in any circumstance.

EDIT: Which means, if I take your word for it Brotemis, I can as a Non-Antag attack someone, knock them into critical, and keep them alive for a long period of time, if they were to succumb they cannot ahelp the fact that I broke the rules. (Assuming they decided to succumb then ahelp instead of ahelping first).

Clarification is key, broad statements on matters can lead to bad things.

firecage wrote:Meh, I see that Skorvold was right, I was being a prick. Sorry Skorvold.

It's fine, we all get mad at this game and get answers we don't like sometimes. Don't worry about it.

Brotemis wrote:You people will post stupid hypotheticals about anything. (See: Helios)

Actions taken after critical definitely effect the decision making process. If you succumb, you are removing yourself from the round rather than seeing it out and void any valid adminhelp you have.

That's pretty much the basic jist. And it's been like this. You all act surprised as if this was new.

Next thing I'm doing is crit someone, then keep them alive forever with inaprov/dexalin/whatever until they succumb and lose their right to ahelp.

Oh, but officer, I tried to heal them, and they wouldn't let me!