sinfulbliss wrote: ↑Sun Jul 02, 2023 2:31 pm
dendydoom wrote: ↑Sun Jul 02, 2023 1:59 pm
interjecting with a rebuttal:
on the contrary, the reason the security policy exists is to allow people to play with antags in a way that doesn't immediately screw them over for minor mistakes. the only reason someone would take this deal is because we have IC knowledge of the fact that medical science can stitch us back together from anything with enough time. with revival, the punishment is an offer of a more interesting scenario than occupying a brig cell, but remains a temporary inconvenience that doesn't remove them from the round.
with a refusal to revive it becomes an execution, which is a completely disproportionate response to the crime, and if the detainee sincerely knew that's what the captain intended then they wouldn't have accepted it in the first place. no one would.
The instant the prisoner
willingly chose to take the deal with the devil, the “security precedent” of handling antags in proportion to their crimes went out the window. It no longer applies — they were offered the bog standard, by-the-book punishment. They opted instead for the alternative deal. Now there IS no policy, the policy is whatever the god damn deal they themselves accepted was. In this case it was death. This at most was a miscommunication about what death meant, but very clearly was not malice or the fault of the HoS for not realizing “death” actually meant instant revival then freedom after.
I can think of plenty of people who would opt for this deal despite it being RR. 7 minutes in a cell is a long time and pretty sucky, if you’re not particularly wedded to the round it could make sense to risk it.
people accept these gimmicks all the time because it's a fun and enjoyable alternative and because many people like to assume good faith from all parties involved. yes, had the captain made it clear that the punishment for failure was death with no revival, then it would be a different matter - i agree with you on that point. but they didn't. it was open to interpretation, and the rules insinuate that command/security will punish people proportionately to their crimes, so oftentimes manuel players will feel safe enough within those rules to accept wacky ideas like this so that they can participate in interesting rp situations instead of being locked into playing defensively and turning down offers for interesting situations because it might inadvertently be them signing their own death warrant.
i actually said all along that i enjoy the idea of giving out games like this, and i don't think that it's something that deserves to be restricted or punished on its own - just that using it as a way to RR someone because you explained it in a way that left any doubt is something that many manuel players won't expect because we have existing policy that usually protects people from this.
mrp has higher expectations of command and security policy which doesn't allow minor crimes to be punished with things like RR. the fact of the matter is that the captain utilized their authority in such a way that someone ended up RR'd because they committed a relatively minor crime, which is not something we generally accept. manuel players know this, and it factors into their expectations of their gameplay experience. i can appreciate that many people don't like this sort of environment, and prefer things fast and loose with more risks and less rules. in that case, it's a good thing we have servers that don't utilize those rules or expectations so people can play there and enjoy themselves in the environment they prefer. i don't play on those servers, so my experience and judgement with regards to how lrp handles it is limited, and i will take your word on it.
as for my banbotty vibes i'm actually known for noting people less than i should and banning people even less - i generally prefer to talk to them instead and give them the benefit of the doubt if they were acting in good faith, which all parties involved seem to be doing here. it's just that, like you said, it came down to a communication issue which i can understand from the pov of the detainee and the captain, but ultimately it was the captain's call and the captain's responsibility to be clear about what they were offering. it's not my ban so i'm not privy to all of the information that went into considering the length of the ban, but suffice to say it wouldn't have been 30 days if it were me pulling the trigger. i would've just discussed our expectations of command and how security are expected to punish criminals on mrp and let them be on their merry way, content in the fact that they probably won't do something like that again without making sure they're clear about what it means. adding mrp security policy to the appeal wasn't an excuse to show them a rule that they can be banned under to "gotcha" them, it was simply to inform them of the general standards that are expected when you play security or command and find yourself utilizing your authority to punish people.
i have no comment on your imaginary ahelp: this didn't happen anywhere else other than inside your own head.
sinfulbliss wrote: ↑Sun Jul 02, 2023 1:40 pm
it could have been resolved by teleporting the player’s body to medbay and giving the HoS a note not to run these types of games anymore, at least not with RR
i do like the idea of turning this into an IC matter, perhaps an investigation over the captain's conduct. it would at least help to turn the situation into something meaningful that can be the catalyst for rp, thank you for sharing.