Timberpoes wrote: ↑Mon Jan 02, 2023 8:13 pm
Think of it this way: The second anyone engages in conversation with you, they cannot antagonise you under very strict typebaiting rules. They
have to let you reply. Otherwise they're typebaiting and are going to get noted or banned.
Why are you engaging in a conversation with someone you want to kill immediately? In the end what decides what is and isn't typebaiting is intent. If you're JUST talking to them so they get distracted by the say menu then you're typebaiting. You can't "accidentally" type bait someone. There is no use in asking someone a random question if you're just going to kill them. With typebaiting the conversation is fake, because it's just bait. The victim won't ever get into a conversation because he'll be attacked before he can respond. It also depends on the conversation you're having. If you're engaging in say, robbery roleplay then you're making your intentions clear. There isn't any bait because the victim is being actively threatened. You're not hiding your intentions to harm them.
At what point can you attack a player that towerposts short say messages? At what pooint can you attack a player that's typing the complete works of Shakespeare in response to you?
And
Was 5 seconds between message and reply long enough? Was 10 seconds? 20? How long is long enough?
If you're roleplaying with people the answer would be when the conversation is over. I must repeat myself, there is no reason to get into a conversation with someone you plan to kill UNLESS you actually want to hear them out.
Loosely define it and you have rules admins are not going to want to enforce because appeals are a dice roll where the odds change every 6 months. Strictly enforced and you have rules players are not going to want enforced because they break the game.
I agree with this.
Do we have a 5 second rule? A 10 second rule? An infinite second rule where you simply cannot attack, stun or otherwise engage with a person typing a response to you?
People that are willing to roleplay with their victims won't need any time limit and people that do typebait attack you as fast as possible. If this policy is accepted most people that currently typebait will just rush their victim like the average player does.
Think about my example from the above post, an admin tried to call stopping a borg and making it state its laws so it can be emagged typebaiting. They factored this into their decision in the following shift to place a week antag ban for "... asking a scientist to explain circuits and gunning them down with the typing indicator up ..."
The borg case isn't typebaiting IMO. It's using an in-game mechanic (the borg PDA) to get the borg to sit still. In the second case if the scientist only asked how circuits worked just to distract the other player then yes, he was typebaiting. An admin could also easily figure this out.
Example:
Admin: Why did you ask PLAYER how circuits worked and then killed them while they replied?
Player: Because I wanted to know how they worked.
Admin: Then why did you kill him before he could respond?
Now there isn't any real way someone could weasel out of this.
This is the reality of policy operating in the real world instead of in the theoretical space of the forums. Questions may have answers like "technically yes that's typebaiting but it totally doesn't count in this case!" or "that kinda isn't typebaiting but it's still lame to do so I want it to count all the same!"
I have still yet to be given an example where asking someone a question then immediately attacking them has an actual purpose other than typebaiting. And as I said above an admin can very easily figure out what is/isn't typebaiting.
For every one totally obvious 100% uncontroversial typebaiting incident, there'll be 20 or 30 really fuzzy, grey, "really not sure what to do here" incidents.
The rule can be changed or removed if it's that bad.