/tg/Station 13

I didn't know whether to put this in ideas or in here.
What do you meme?
Well, anytime an admin trys to rule 0 ban some one, they have to make a player poll with at least 2 buttons: ban (can be multiple buttons for severity of the ban) or not to ban! Let the people decide also lets admins off scot free

im down for this, but it would never happen. even if it somehow was implemented the no vote option would always win.

Deitus wrote:im down for this, but it would never happen. even if it somehow was implemented the no vote option would always win.

THE PEOPLE WANT BLOOD

I can't see any way where putting a ban a the mercy of the mob could end well.

No way this could go badly at all.

You can't spell plebiscite without pleb.

>player polls
yeah lmao because those ever work accurately or properly

this might be the worst idea ever posted in policy discussion, which is quite the feat

looks like I know who i'm Rule 0'ing next.

Deitus wrote:im down for this, but it would never happen. even if it somehow was implemented the no vote option would always win.

are you sure? im pretty sure this was you (mightve been somebody else) but ive started votes to see if i should really bother with banning certain people when said certain people has done some grey-area type shit that pissed a lot of people off, and theyve passed every time

Quite possibly the best idea came up with in policy discussions. Let's start with a vote for Calzilla

PKPenguin321 wrote:

Deitus wrote:im down for this, but it would never happen. even if it somehow was implemented the no vote option would always win.

are you sure? im pretty sure this was you (mightve been somebody else) but ive started votes to see if i should really bother with banning certain people when said certain people has done some grey-area type shit that pissed a lot of people off, and theyve passed every time

i think you did once, but it was a while ago. im not saying that people wouldnt vote, im just saying the vast majority of all votes, whether restart or admin-initiated, tend to have the majority not voted at all. we either need to make the vote more apparent (pop ups maybe?) or just disregard them, cuz iirc no vote counts as "no" right now.

I feel like this is an obvious meme post, but I'll respond anyways

Having rule 0 be anything but at admin discretion completely removes the reason have rule 0 in the first place - also player polls suck dick and we all know it

if we did that we would change Rule 0 from "Admins feel like this player is cancerous and ruining the experience for everyone else" to "Players are salty and want this guy removed."

What could possibly go wrong?

This should be in the shitty ideas thread.

Instead have it so anyone can pay a set price to have a player banned and any ayer may unban them if they pay a set price above the initial one

I had an idea to host a pseudo-ban requests wherein the accuser must challenge the accused to a thunderdome duel (which the accused may decline). However if the accuser loses he can face up to twice the requested length of ban depending on how generous the winner is feeling.

Buy me steam games and I'll ban your desired shitter for the time based upon the value of the game.

This would work well, except, you know, direct democracy never ends well.

kevinz000 wrote:if we did that we would change Rule 0 from "Admins feel like this player is cancerous and ruining the experience for everyone else" to "Players are salty and want this guy removed."

Challenge: Explain how those two standards can be distinguished in a justiciable manner in 500 words or less.

Reminder: I was once permabanned because someone once wrote a salty shanty about me on /vg/

Oldman Robustin wrote:

kevinz000 wrote:if we did that we would change Rule 0 from "Admins feel like this player is cancerous and ruining the experience for everyone else" to "Players are salty and want this guy removed."

Challenge: Explain how those two standards can be distinguished in a justiciable manner in 500 words or less.

>robustin telling others to write shorter posts

Oldman Robustin wrote:

kevinz000 wrote:if we did that we would change Rule 0 from "Admins feel like this player is cancerous and ruining the experience for everyone else" to "Players are salty and want this guy removed."

Challenge: Explain how those two standards can be distinguished in a justiciable manner in 500 words or less.

Reminder: I was once permabanned because someone once wrote a salty shanty about me on /vg/

Challenge Accepted!

"If we did the latter you would be banned again"

Is that under 500?

Oldman Robustin wrote:

kevinz000 wrote:if we did that we would change Rule 0 from "Admins feel like this player is cancerous and ruining the experience for everyone else" to "Players are salty and want this guy removed."

Challenge: Explain how those two standards can be distinguished in a justiciable manner in 500 words or less.

Reminder: I was once permabanned because someone once wrote a salty shanty about me on /vg/

"Admins feel" is the key word - usually admin desires line up with the general consensus (I would hope), but in this specific description, the players are irrelevant

As previously mentioned, if we make it a player vote not only does it give risk and rise to people simply getting people banned that they don't like, but it also negates the fact that we vote in heads and even have admins.
Ultimately players don't have the complete full picture of potential rule 0 players or have the understand to how often or how that person is like to deal with.

I still personally think that rule 0 bans should only be headmin decision, with 2 of 3 heads required to say yes for it to pass. To be honest I already thought this was the case.

Yeah no, this is the policy in the discord and all it does is create strife between people.

This isn't a democracy.

more like you and rock pissing on each other all day long causes drama in the discord.

drama neatly solved if both of you were put int othe bin

I left, one day to return.

Most multiplayer games have a way to votekick/ban another player, I don't see anything wrong with it, as long as it's a temporary ban, not longer than 30 minutes, and limited to one server (unless the other server kicks them too when they go there).

Grazyn wrote:Most multiplayer games have a way to votekick/ban another player, I don't see anything wrong with it, as long as it's a temporary ban, not longer than 30 minutes, and limited to one server (unless the other server kicks them too when they go there).

inb4 salty ghosts just votekick the traitors.

Considering how hard it is to win a restart vote even when the antag has already murderboned the whole station, I don't think that it will be a issue. You'd have to be a really obnoxious, spamming, shitty player to get votekicked

Grazyn wrote:Considering how hard it is to win a restart vote even when the antag has already murderboned the whole station, I don't think that it will be a issue. You'd have to be a really obnoxious, spamming, shitty player to get votekicked

The reason restart votes don't normally pass is because it automatically fails if an admin is online. Restart votes are left in from the bad days when the MC would crash regularly and not enough admins that could restart the server.
Its not there for when you're having a bad day, thats just the slipping of a community as a whole.

Also this thread and vote is for rule 0 perma bans, not for in game temp bans. Though neither in my opinion make any sense when we have admins to specifically do this.

Servers/games that have kick/ban usually do so where admins are not possible or in short supply.

I know that, even when no admins are on during low pop murderboners it's hard to win a restart, probably because most of the ghosts disconnected or are AFK. But still, you can make the votekick work like the restart vote: no admins? The shitter is kicked. Admin on? He gets to deny the kick or confirm it. If that many people voted for the kick it probably means that the situation is dire enough that the admin is aware and already has an opinion on the matter and can choose accordingly

Grazyn wrote:I know that, even when no admins are on during low pop murderboners it's hard to win a restart, probably because most of the ghosts disconnected or are AFK. But still, you can make the votekick work like the restart vote: no admins? The shitter is kicked. Admin on? He gets to deny the kick or confirm it. If that many people voted for the kick it probably means that the situation is dire enough that the admin is aware and already has an opinion on the matter and can choose accordingly

>antag doing antag things you don't like
>gets kicked for it

How about no.
I have no love for the ebow esword leatherface types but just no.