Captain gets banned for making a prisoner play Russian Roulette

[ekaterina]

Bottom post of the previous page:

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=34358

A month-long ban for this? That is beyond insane. Unless he's done stuff like this before, all this should result in is "hey, you can't do that, don't round remove people who haven't committed capital crimes" and maybe a standard 1 day ban for 1 kill.

[conrad]

If dendydoom goes for headmin I'll vote for them and if they lose I'll pretend they won.

[sinfulbliss]

Countless ahelps I've responded to end with "so what happened to them?" after I say that "I handled it". It's none of your business, and you wanting to know serves to show your poor sensibility to someone's note or ban history. I have zero respect for drama queens.

Telling players the outcome isn't forbidden.
[…]
I believe that little bit of catharsis that players get from knowing a major griefer who just merc'd them FNR has been excluded from the server can often erase all the negativity that comes from an incident and show that the admin had some genuine empathy for them.

These two statements just could not read differently. One treats the playerbase antagonistically and skeptically, like a bunch of wild shitters who you dislike and need to monitor. The other is empowering and treats the playerbase like something you’re trying to nurture.

Only if you apply what I said to the entire playerbase. Something said about lack of good faith, no?

there are two types of admins. one type is cool as fuck, vibes well with the playerbase, enjoys playing and socializing with the players, maybe do an event or two, handle a ticket here and there and they’re a treat to have around. they just love the game and so they’re a part of the game and the players in the game. they get the culture they get the energy and they love it so it loves them back

the other type retreat to the Ivory Tower the instant they’re adminned, only really interact with other admins, and suddenly once purpled they become very outspoken since now people will pay attention to them, bemoaning the quality of the playerbase and how people suck and their tickets suck and everyone sucks except them and their admin circle. these sort of admins suck and should retire

i’m not sure which you are yet since you’re still a baby but from a glance. 9 rounds played in 2 months, 300 rounds total played. and a lot of that being old rounds. this is honest, compassionate advice coming from a place of love: play more and integrate more with the playerbase and the game in general so you can be the first type of admin. don’t let your perspective of the playerbase and game get soured by the finicky policy posting and ticket handling, seeing all the worst of the playerbase (including my peanut posts here), fuck around in the servers more, just enjoy the game and start to love it enough to be content just playing instead of adminning, and that will make you an awesome admin

[Justice12354]

Only if you apply what I said to the entire playerbase. Something said about lack of good faith, no?

(snip)

Uncommon Sinful W??

Edit: Only this post is a W compared to the rest of the thread tho :^)
Also, I don't think this applies to conrad BUT it's great advice nonetheless

[conrad]

I really don't get where you're coming from. Either you're misinterpreting, or deliberately cherrypicking what I said to build this weird strawman of "Conrad the Bad Guy".

Treating players different when you get adminned like the admin became a member of customer support is precisely the type of Ivory Tower behaviour I refuse to ascribe to. You are not entitled to be pampered outside of the game just because I'm an admin. I treat each other player with the respect they've merited, like I always have. In game, I treat every player the same.

Insofar, you insulted me as a rotten admin, did the trialmin joke, talked about my community time twice (stop stalking people on Scrubby dude, it's lame) and is sitting on this make-believe throne of the Peanut King. I'd have to be insane to take you seriously.

I applied for admin because I love this game, I love the community and to make the game more fun for the players. Most of my interaction is on the Discord recently, you'd know that but you dropped out? Part of that priviledge involves the duty of adminning the servers and dealing with shitters.

Seething and attacking me over my stance that players are not entitled to private information, and going on the assumption I'm withholding that information in bad faith "'cos Souless Conrad is now The Man", then proceeding to insult, only to then appeal to this "become the coolmin" tirade, idk man, grab a big mirror, stand in front of it and check yourself kek

[dendydoom]

conrad is a badass and casting aspersions on anyone's character at a personal level because of the yelling and guffawing we do as part of the beautiful sport of peanut posting is ridiculous. as soon as these threads devolve into armchair analysis of the other person's psyche then the starsector posting begins and everybody loses.

[TheRex9001]

Nah, both the admin and the person banned, and probably five or six other admins involved, know exactly why they were banned. Especially considering expiring bans, which are private in /tg/station.

no one cares if you and a few other admins know the "real" reasons. what's the point of even saying this on a peanut thread in players' club?
do you want everyone to just nod like good little sheeple and say ah yes sir sorry sir, there are factors we can't possibly know, I trust things are as they should be

thats the whole point of discussing these things in the peanut threads. if you don't like that discussion because you're privy to info other people don't have, then cope i guess. or do as dendy and timber have done and try to actually discuss the ban in terms of the policies and rules broken instead of getting on your makeshift trialmin high horse and shouting platitudes like a pedant

just sayin.

If I am honest note transparancy would be nice, just expect that if you have a lot of them others will know what they are for. Also if note transparancy is implemented you would need to use secret notes more as an admin which sucks.

[TheRex9001]

Countless ahelps I've responded to end with "so what happened to them?" after I say that "I handled it". It's none of your business, and you wanting to know serves to show your poor sensibility to someone's note or ban history. I have zero respect for drama queens.

Telling players the outcome isn't forbidden.
[…]
I believe that little bit of catharsis that players get from knowing a major griefer who just merc'd them FNR has been excluded from the server can often erase all the negativity that comes from an incident and show that the admin had some genuine empathy for them.

These two statements just could not read differently. One treats the playerbase antagonistically and skeptically, like a bunch of wild shitters who you dislike and need to monitor. The other is empowering and treats the playerbase like something you’re trying to nurture.

Only if you apply what I said to the entire playerbase. Something said about lack of good faith, no?

there are two types of admins. one type is cool as fuck, vibes well with the playerbase, enjoys playing and socializing with the players, maybe do an event or two, handle a ticket here and there and they’re a treat to have around. they just love the game and so they’re a part of the game and the players in the game. they get the culture they get the energy and they love it so it loves them back

the other type retreat to the Ivory Tower the instant they’re adminned, only really interact with other admins, and suddenly once purpled they become very outspoken since now people will pay attention to them, bemoaning the quality of the playerbase and how people suck and their tickets suck and everyone sucks except them and their admin circle. these sort of admins suck and should retire

i’m not sure which you are yet since you’re still a baby but from a glance. 9 rounds played in 2 months, 300 rounds total played. and a lot of that being old rounds. this is honest, compassionate advice coming from a place of love: play more and integrate more with the playerbase and the game in general so you can be the first type of admin. don’t let your perspective of the playerbase and game get soured by the finicky policy posting and ticket handling, seeing all the worst of the playerbase (including my peanut posts here), fuck around in the servers more, just enjoy the game and start to love it enough to be content just playing instead of adminning, and that will make you an awesome admin

I don't like analysing people like this in a peanut thread tbh just put it in the admins feedback thread but some of this stuff is important to keep in mind in order to avoid burnout, like have a bit of fun press some buttons do some shenanigans! I like what nameless fairy said in another thread about admins being DMs whose goal is to make each round as fun as possible.

[Timberpoes]

It takes a lot of effort to stay connected to the players in any capacity once you become an admin.

Admins get exposed to hidden part of the game where we're often tasked as a counsellor mediating conflicts between others. The admin team deals with the worst players. The headmin team deals with the worst admins. The host deals with the worst headmins. It's easy to become jaded and cynical.

I still stand by and support the quote Sinful pulled from me.

"I gave them a day off, thanks for the report!" or "Yeah, that was pretty shitty. Thanks for letting us know, I've given them a warning not to do something like that again."

They're humanising phrases. The player isn't left guessing if something was done, they're told it was actioned. They get instantenous feedback for their ahelp. They're happy and more likely to ahelp again knowing there's a tangible outcome.

It's a topic that even major game companies are still wrestling with. The impact on individuals when they get instant feedback about the issue they just reported contributes strongly to good vibes on the back of negative incidents.

Ahelps are not a business transaction. My goal is to perpetuate positive vibes. I try and encourage other admins to do the same. Positive interactions and positive outcomes resonante to future ahelps and players are less likely to be standoffish, guarded, cunty or just outright rude if their interactions with the team have, overall, been positive.

When it comes to revealing other players are antags? The reality is that it doesn't matter in 95% of situations.

The time it matters is when it's obvious there's not enough information to make a judgement call on the player's part and they're using ahelps to try and fish for validity.

But if the only two possible explanations for something are "they broke da rules" or "they an antag" - then you as an admin can save yourself SO much heartache by just going "Was valid, they're an antag."

[Not-Dorsidarf]

I still think my post on the situation was pretty good

[Bawhoppennn]

If you're going to argue about how admins are using rule 1 judiciously, maybe don't use the "killing someone without a good reason" as an example to argue your point.

We're all here to have a good time, supposedly. Going out of your way to seriously negatively impact or end the round for someone with little IC justification is against the rules, this also includes harassing a player OOC (Out of character). Legitimate conflicts where people get upset do happen however, as detailed in the escalation section of the rules.

No. This exactly what I was bringing up? The idea that somehow every non antag character death cause in a video game is "being a dick"? The exact problem is that we're turning every rulebreak, no matter the context (RP????), low severity, or lack of repeated behavior, into being a dick. Like I said I have always viewed the basic precedents as just another set of rules, rather than the more overarching spirit of the rule. That's how they've traditionally been used atleast. Slap the regular charge of killing someone, but not the grand high charge of "being a dick" onto this person, considering the context was a hell of a lot more than just a random silent killing in the halls with 0 context or RP.

Otherwise... Breaking news everybody: being a dick is killing a character in an online video game. It doesn't matter if it was a one time thing, it doesn't matter if there was RP surrounding it, it doesn't matter if they were likely an antag, and it doesn't matter that they EVEN AGREED TO IT.
Nope, none of that matters. It's all the same amount of moral wrong as keying my car. It's totally being a huge dick, right?

My point is just we need to not act like every negative act in the game amounts to truly "being a dick" or else we'll be able to apply it to literally everything grey in the game.

[sinfulbliss]

I really don't get where you're coming from. Either you're misinterpreting, or deliberately cherrypicking what I said to build this weird strawman of "Conrad the Bad Guy".

Insofar, you insulted me as a rotten admin, did the trialmin joke, talked about my community time twice (stop stalking people on Scrubby dude, it's lame) and is sitting on this make-believe throne of the Peanut King. I'd have to be insane to take you seriously.

Seething and attacking me over my stance that players are not entitled to private information, and going on the assumption I'm withholding that information in bad faith "'cos Souless Conrad is now The Man", then proceeding to insult, only to then appeal to this "become the coolmin" tirade, idk man, grab a big mirror, stand in front of it and check yourself kek

You’ve quite literally stated the reason you withhold the information is because of “drama queens” and you have explicitly stated that asking what happens with a ticket shows the player’s “poor sensibility,” I’m not sure how pasting an entire paragraph from you and comparing it to Timber’s is “taking you out of context,” maybe it sounds worse when you read it back to yourself? In what possible world could the purpose of asking the outcome of a ticket be to create drama? How would it show someone’s “poor sensibility” to ask for the outcome (your words)?

I never called you a rotten admin, I called that attitude you’ve expressed a rotten attitude. I’ve never painted you as “Conrad the Bad Guy,” I’ve criticized the way you've presented your ideas about adminning and offered some genuine advice.

To put it bluntly, I don’t think it’s possible for an admin to be integrated with the playerbase fully after 5 months here and 300 rounds total, particular if they’re only clocking 9 rounds in the past 2 months. And I don’t see why it’s such a sore subject for you — everyone starts somewhere and there’s nothing wrong with being new, I wasn’t being sarcastic when I said the advice I gave was from a place of compassion.

[WineAllWine]

I really don't get where you're coming from. Either you're misinterpreting, or deliberately cherrypicking what I said to build this weird strawman of "Conrad the Bad Guy".

Insofar, you insulted me as a rotten admin, did the trialmin joke, talked about my community time twice (stop stalking people on Scrubby dude, it's lame) and is sitting on this make-believe throne of the Peanut King. I'd have to be insane to take you seriously.

Seething and attacking me over my stance that players are not entitled to private information, and going on the assumption I'm withholding that information in bad faith "'cos Souless Conrad is now The Man", then proceeding to insult, only to then appeal to this "become the coolmin" tirade, idk man, grab a big mirror, stand in front of it and check yourself kek

You’ve quite literally stated the reason you withhold the information is because of “drama queens” and you have explicitly stated that asking what happens with a ticket shows the player’s “poor sensibility,” I’m not sure how pasting an entire paragraph from you and comparing it to Timber’s is “taking you out of context,” maybe it sounds worse when you read it back to yourself? In what possible world could the purpose of asking the outcome of a ticket be to create drama? How would it show someone’s “poor sensibility” to ask for the outcome (your words)?

I never called you a rotten admin, I called that attitude you’ve expressed a rotten attitude. I’ve never painted you as “Conrad the Bad Guy,” I’ve criticized the way you've presented your ideas about adminning and offered some genuine advice.

To put it bluntly, I don’t think it’s possible for an admin to be integrated with the playerbase fully after 5 months here and 300 rounds total, particular if they’re only clocking 9 rounds in the past 2 months. And I don’t see why it’s such a sore subject for you — everyone starts somewhere and there’s nothing wrong with being new, I wasn’t being sarcastic when I said the advice I gave was from a place of compassion.

you both need to make out and cut through all the sexual tension between the two of you

[CMDR_Gungnir]

It’s something that requires faith in the admins, but understandably people get fed up when that guy seemingly keeps getting away with slaps on the wrist.

As Timber says, the wheels of administration turn slowly, but they do turn. A note isn't a slap on the wrist, it's someone being put into (possibly short term) probation over an issue. This is what Rule 7 is for. Repeated behaviour of something not worthy of a ban will trigger a ban. I know that sometimes seems unfair, especially when you see someone in the round just after the admin says they've been handled, but believe me, that person is walking on eggshells unless they're really stupid or don't care about being banned.

In which case, they won't last long.

It's easy to say that, but that's because you can see the case building. But I can think of multiple cases where there's been a shitter who you almost swear their goal is just to be a cunt to everyone around them, and ruin the game for them. So you ahelp it. It's looked into. It's decided they DID do a bad, and they're given a note for it. You're told "it's handled" and yet...they're still in the round. In fact, they're in the next round, too, and they're doing the same thing again.

Fast forward to three months later. By this point you've stopped hopping on if you see they're already in the round before you. Every day you hear someone telling you "Hey, did you hear what John Shitter did today?" and you finally see it on Public Bans. John Shitter. He appeals it, naturally. Everyone does, there's no reason not to. Nothing wrong with that.

And then you see it.

"You've accumulated 35 notes in the last two weeks, and many more in the three months you've been here."

As Timber says, the wheels of administration turn slowly, but they do turn. I will agree with that. He wouldn't have been banned if they didn't. But I can't say I agree with "they won't last long".

On the contrary, "Yeah, I gave him a talking to, thanks for the report" lets me KNOW that they're turning. Sure, it's not a ban. Sure, I'll probably see him next round doing the same thing. But at least I know the process is happening. Instead of wondering if my cries are falling on deaf ears.

[conrad]

you both need to make out and cut through all the sexual tension between the two of you

I keep telling him I'm not interested and he keeps texting me man. I'm on my fourth mobile number and filing the second restraining order.

On the contrary, "Yeah, I gave him a talking to, thanks for the report" lets me KNOW that they're turning. Sure, it's not a ban. Sure, I'll probably see him next round doing the same thing. But at least I know the process is happening. Instead of wondering if my cries are falling on deaf ears.

I fail to see how that's different from "Yeah I've handled them". If someone's been "handled", their cheeks were clapped. I might have misunderstood, but in your rhetoric the player was banned? Sorry if I missed the point.

[CMDR_Gungnir]

On the contrary, "Yeah, I gave him a talking to, thanks for the report" lets me KNOW that they're turning. Sure, it's not a ban. Sure, I'll probably see him next round doing the same thing. But at least I know the process is happening. Instead of wondering if my cries are falling on deaf ears.

I fail to see how that's different from "Yeah I've handled them". If someone's been "handled", their cheeks were clapped. I might have misunderstood, but in your rhetoric the player was banned? Sorry if I missed the point.

Because it took three months of the active reports before anything happened.

But there are other admins who just say "Handled" no matter what. Whether the other person didn't do anything wrong (they were an antag and it was valid), whether they've simply given a stern warning, or whether the player has been given a note.

If all we hear is simply "handled" and it keeps happening for months, it looks like nothing's happening. After all, wouldn't something have happened by now? But if we're told straight up "We gave him a stern talking to, thanks for the report" even, it doesn't have to be "I gave him a note".

"Handled" is such a dismissive, over-professional business like approach. Sure, it's impartial and professional is definitely important, but it makes the admin seem disconnected. "I gave him a stern talking to" alone is better than just getting back "Handled" because it...fuck man I don't know how to put it in words, but the little bit of transparency makes it seem like you're upset that people are being griefed too, instead of just enforcing the rules emotionlessly. The "thanks for the report" makes the whole thing feel human.

You're definitely right that they're functionally the same thing, but it's just about the feel. It's hard to put into words.

[toemas]

based evil captain

[Fren256]

Don't ahelp, you can never trust admins. Always take matters into your own hands, and if you were RRd then you should RR that person next time you see them. Metagrudging is actually based, but admins won't admit it.

[conrad]

Right, gotcha. Thanks for elaborating.

Let's assume every admin from now on says something along the lines of "They was given a talking to" or "Cheeks clapped, catchya later". The same dude in your example would've still taken like 3 months to get banned. I'm not saying the admin were right (I have no idea who you're talking about nor do I particularly care about them) but it seems that the end goal portrayed would've been the same, just the message would've been different?

On the other hand, comes the issue of being dissensitized. Today, it seems people are dissensitized to "handled". So let's say admins are banned from using that word in ahelps. Will changing the wording really solve the "I keep ahelping and nothing happens" problem?

Honestly, this is what I mean by admin complaints. Feedback threads too, I sometimes forget about those. I'm not saying grab pitchforks and torches and demand a ban, since we don't do that here. But if you feel an admin is pussyfooting dealing with a long time shitter and their responses of "handled" are not giving you certainty...there are very public places where you can divulge that in an objective manner.

Don't ahelp, you can never trust admins. Always take matters into your own hands, and if you were RRd then you should RR that person next time you see them. Metagrudging is actually based, but admins won't admit it.

HE KNOWS TOO MUCH

[sinfulbliss]

“Handled” could mean anything from: you’re just raging and it was determined the other player did nothing wrong; an investigation occurred but there was no malice so no actionable offense; the other player was warned/talked to; the other player was noted; the other player was banned.

That’s like 5 different things it could mean. It really wouldn’t kill you to mention something was done, even if it’s nonspecific. I could understand being hesitant to do that to avoid arguments or worse admin complaint ban requests, but to “protect the privacy of the griefer” is a terrible reason to keep it unspecified.

[Archie700]

If you're going to argue about how admins are using rule 1 judiciously, maybe don't use the "killing someone without a good reason" as an example to argue your point.

We're all here to have a good time, supposedly. Going out of your way to seriously negatively impact or end the round for someone with little IC justification is against the rules, this also includes harassing a player OOC (Out of character). Legitimate conflicts where people get upset do happen however, as detailed in the escalation section of the rules.

No. This exactly what I was bringing up? The idea that somehow every non antag character death cause in a video game is "being a dick"? The exact problem is that we're turning every rulebreak, no matter the context (RP????), low severity, or lack of repeated behavior, into being a dick. Like I said I have always viewed the basic precedents as just another set of rules, rather than the more overarching spirit of the rule. That's how they've traditionally been used atleast. Slap the regular charge of killing someone, but not the grand high charge of "being a dick" onto this person, considering the context was a hell of a lot more than just a random silent killing in the halls with 0 context or RP.

Otherwise... Breaking news everybody: being a dick is killing a character in an online video game. It doesn't matter if it was a one time thing, it doesn't matter if there was RP surrounding it, it doesn't matter if they were likely an antag, and it doesn't matter that they EVEN AGREED TO IT.
Nope, none of that matters. It's all the same amount of moral wrong as keying my car. It's totally being a huge dick, right?

My point is just we need to not act like every negative act in the game amounts to truly "being a dick" or else we'll be able to apply it to literally everything grey in the game.

And my point is that you should not be using this incident as an example.

The ban was not because of the killing, which the victim agreed to and acknowledged as a consequence if they lost.

The ban was because they were round removed as the captain denied them revival, which they were not told before accepting to play the death game. Over the crime of breaking into brig/labor shuttle, which they were already arrested and detained for.

If the captain had a good reason (the victim had been a greytider and was caught multiple times/the victim had murdered people or was found to be an antagonist/the victim had accepted the death game despite being told that they would not be revived as a result), then rule 1 would not have an effect and it would fall under escalation or even be considered an IC issue.

As it is, the circumstances have shown that the captain was very negligent AT BEST, as Timber said on the appeal:

I don't think any player (at least on MRP) would expect to have their revival prevented in those above circumstances, and suggesting your game's conditions without clearly stating they were not going to be revived is highly negligent at the absolute best of times.

Even on LRP this would be looked into as not every LRP player subscribes to the notion "death is just death" unlike what some people have said in the thread. The incident would have been actionable in both situations, and it falls squarely under Rule 1, so it's not a good example of how admins are trying to stretch usage of the rule.

[Lacran]

If you're going to argue about how admins are using rule 1 judiciously, maybe don't use the "killing someone without a good reason" as an example to argue your point.

We're all here to have a good time, supposedly. Going out of your way to seriously negatively impact or end the round for someone with little IC justification is against the rules, this also includes harassing a player OOC (Out of character). Legitimate conflicts where people get upset do happen however, as detailed in the escalation section of the rules.

The idea that somehow every non antag character death cause in a video game is "being a dick"? The exact problem is that we're turning every rulebreak, no matter the context (RP????)

My point is just we need to not act like every negative act in the game amounts to truly "being a dick" or else we'll be able to apply it to literally everything grey in the game.

What the fuck are you talking about?

The rule doesn't say every death is being a dick, its not being treated like that in this instance, you seem to be soapboxing based off an issue separate from what happened here.

Going out of your way to seriously negatively impact or end the round for someone with little IC justification is against the rules

A Captain gave a prisoner a poorly explained faustian bargain that resulted in complete round removal.

This action involved deliberate effort, extremely negative round impact and very little in character justification. This matches the criteria, not because its a death, but because it was done in a totally dickish way that severely impacted the other player.

[CMDR_Gungnir]

Right, gotcha. Thanks for elaborating.

Let's assume every admin from now on says something along the lines of "They was given a talking to" or "Cheeks clapped, catchya later". The same dude in your example would've still taken like 3 months to get banned. I'm not saying the admin were right (I have no idea who you're talking about nor do I particularly care about them) but it seems that the end goal portrayed would've been the same, just the message would've been different?

Sure, but we'd at least know that our complaints aren't just falling on deaf ears. We all know that the wheels turn slowly, even people who aren't forumgoers. It takes a lot of notes to wind up with the bans.

But as Sinful said, "handled" could mean anything, and as I'd said, it's such a nothingburger empty, professional sentence. Professionalism is good, yes, but there comes a point where you want to feel heard. I know people who'll message me about how they got griefed, and I'll ask them if they ahelped and they'll tell me there's no point to it.

Somewhere along the line, there's a disconnect between players and admins. Where players, unable to see or hear anything about it, simply assume that nothing's happening. Maybe just a change of words that makes them feel heard could help fix that.

It's ultimately up to you how you want to handle it, mind you. My goal isn't to try and change how you do things, really. But you'd said earlier that people wanting to know what happened was just because they were drama-hungry or something, so I wanted to offer the perspective from the other side. There certainly might be people who just want to know and relish in the drama, but for a lot of them, they just want to be told "Your ahelp was worthwhile."

[s5nt]

wtf happened here i didnt even know this thread existed

[s5nt]

also apparently it was said that this is a rule 7 ban which i'm not sure how is possible because the last time i got a mark on my admin record before this was literally from 2022?

[conrad]

But as Sinful said, "handled" could mean anything, and as I'd said, it's such a nothingburger empty, professional sentence. Professionalism is good, yes, but there comes a point where you want to feel heard. I know people who'll message me about how they got griefed, and I'll ask them if they ahelped and they'll tell me there's no point to it.

Right. Yeah, Sinful was wrong there. I've never seen an admin do that, nor have I ever done that (saying "handled" when you've done nothing), since the outcome for that when it doesn't merit being "handled" is, well, IC issue :v (i.e.: in the end there wasn't a rule break). It feels the problem is more around the word than what the word means.

Maybe there is a lot of admin incompetence I am not privy to, since when stuff is "handled" someone used the funny admin verbs that put marks in your record.

It's ultimately up to you how you want to handle it, mind you. My goal isn't to try and change how you do things, really.

I appreciate that, I'm asking these questions and engaging in this subject precisely because I want to be a better admin. Thank you for your input, forreal.

[ekaterina]

I'm not saying grab pitchforks and torches and demand a ban, since we don't do that here. But if you feel an admin is pussyfooting dealing with a long time shitter and their responses of "handled" are not giving you certainty...there are very public places where you can divulge that in an objective manner.

Why would I want to discourage admins from going easy and encourage shitty rushed bans?

Even on LRP this would be looked into as not every LRP player subscribes to the notion "death is just death" unlike what some people have said in the thread.

As an LRP player, I can confirm.

I know people who'll message me about how they got griefed, and I'll ask them if they ahelped and they'll tell me there's no point to it.

I only ahelp being griefed if I can't solve it IC. Solving conflicts IC is the superior way to solve conflicts.

wtf happened here i didnt even know this thread existed

Bruh it's a hot thread with over 100 posts, how did you not know?

[sinfulbliss]

But as Sinful said, "handled" could mean anything, and as I'd said, it's such a nothingburger empty, professional sentence. Professionalism is good, yes, but there comes a point where you want to feel heard. I know people who'll message me about how they got griefed, and I'll ask them if they ahelped and they'll tell me there's no point to it.

Right. Yeah, Sinful was wrong there. I've never seen an admin do that, nor have I ever done that (saying "handled" when you've done nothing), since the outcome for that when it doesn't merit being "handled" is, well, IC issue :v (i.e.: in the end there wasn't a rule break). It feels the problem is more around the word than what the word means.

I have 100% been told a ticket was handled with the other player not having received a mark on their record. And even if it’s as you claim, it could still be anything from a verbal warning to a ban.

So it is definitely not just a grammatical issue with the word. There is tangible information left out when you opt for “handled” over “they’re banned.”

[conrad]

I have 100% been told a ticket was handled with the other player not having received a mark on their record.

Well that fucking sucks dude.

[sinfulbliss]

I have 100% been told a ticket was handled with the other player not having received a mark on their record.

Well that fucking sucks dude.

Not necessarily, sometimes it was somehow justified whatever happened. Or sorta like, grey area but the admin understood their side and closed it off. Handled just meant they looked into it and nothing needed to be done.

That’s why it’s nice when admins say “they’re banned” or something just for the player’s own benefit, since otherwise who knows

[kinnebian]

I have 100% been told a ticket was handled with the other player not having received a mark on their record.

Well that fucking sucks dude.

Not necessarily, sometimes it was somehow justified whatever happened. Or sorta like, grey area but the admin understood their side and closed it off. Handled just meant they looked into it and nothing needed to be done.

That’s why it’s nice when admins say “they’re banned” or something just for the player’s own benefit, since otherwise who knows

i use handled because i dont think the punishments of other players is info im handing out to other people and i trust my friendly ahelper to trust in me to appropriately punish the offender

that or the offender was an antag and im not telling you that

[Ryusenshu]

In my opinion, the only thing better than saying "handled" would be to say if the ahelp was "legit" , since it would help in questions like "do i ahelp this?" or "can i do this myself?"
I dont really care about the punishment itself, that can keep hidden

[conrad]

In my opinion, the only thing better than saying "handled" would be to say if the ahelp was "legit" , since it would help in questions like "do i ahelp this?" or "can i do this myself?"
I dont really care about the punishment itself, that can keep hidden

I'm gonna start saying "Cheeks have been clapped" until someone tells me to stop.

[kinnebian]

In my opinion, the only thing better than saying "handled" would be to say if the ahelp was "legit" , since it would help in questions like "do i ahelp this?" or "can i do this myself?"
I dont really care about the punishment itself, that can keep hidden

I'm gonna start saying "Cheeks have been clapped" until someone tells me to stop.

stop

[conrad]

In my opinion, the only thing better than saying "handled" would be to say if the ahelp was "legit" , since it would help in questions like "do i ahelp this?" or "can i do this myself?"
I dont really care about the punishment itself, that can keep hidden

I'm gonna start saying "Cheeks have been clapped" until someone tells me to stop.

stop

Handled.

[Not-Dorsidarf]

But as Sinful said, "handled" could mean anything, and as I'd said, it's such a nothingburger empty, professional sentence. Professionalism is good, yes, but there comes a point where you want to feel heard. I know people who'll message me about how they got griefed, and I'll ask them if they ahelped and they'll tell me there's no point to it.

Right. Yeah, Sinful was wrong there. I've never seen an admin do that, nor have I ever done that (saying "handled" when you've done nothing), since the outcome for that when it doesn't merit being "handled" is, well, IC issue :v (i.e.: in the end there wasn't a rule break). It feels the problem is more around the word than what the word means.

Has there been a recent guidelines update? "Handled" always used to be shorthand for "Im not giving you a full accounting of the ticket but just pressing ticket closed after 20 minutes of investigating seems rude"

[conrad]

But as Sinful said, "handled" could mean anything, and as I'd said, it's such a nothingburger empty, professional sentence. Professionalism is good, yes, but there comes a point where you want to feel heard. I know people who'll message me about how they got griefed, and I'll ask them if they ahelped and they'll tell me there's no point to it.

Right. Yeah, Sinful was wrong there. I've never seen an admin do that, nor have I ever done that (saying "handled" when you've done nothing), since the outcome for that when it doesn't merit being "handled" is, well, IC issue :v (i.e.: in the end there wasn't a rule break). It feels the problem is more around the word than what the word means.

Has there been a recent guidelines update? "Handled" always used to be shorthand for "Im not giving you a full accounting of the ticket but just pressing ticket closed after 20 minutes of investigating seems rude"

Maybe it's what I've been exposed to, and the times I've been told "handled". There isn't an admin directive on how to talk to people besides "be professional".

Saying that something's been handled when you didn't take any admin measures besides yelling at someone is stinkyyyyy

[TheLoLSwat]

But as Sinful said, "handled" could mean anything, and as I'd said, it's such a nothingburger empty, professional sentence. Professionalism is good, yes, but there comes a point where you want to feel heard. I know people who'll message me about how they got griefed, and I'll ask them if they ahelped and they'll tell me there's no point to it.

Right. Yeah, Sinful was wrong there. I've never seen an admin do that, nor have I ever done that (saying "handled" when you've done nothing), since the outcome for that when it doesn't merit being "handled" is, well, IC issue :v (i.e.: in the end there wasn't a rule break). It feels the problem is more around the word than what the word means.

Has there been a recent guidelines update? "Handled" always used to be shorthand for "Im not giving you a full accounting of the ticket but just pressing ticket closed after 20 minutes of investigating seems rude"

This!! “Handled” makes it feel that your ticket was punted into the sun to make time for others and the other person was (maybe) asked to stop. You need to trust the wheels of administration but just one little droplet of tire tread can make the wheel spin smoother for everyone (but especially playerside) Even hearing “I talked to them, ahelp if it happens again” “I took care of it, x shouldnt be happening anymore”, “i looked into it, and talked to the other guy” or some other variation does wonders and turns you into a players admin instead of just someone that admins players.

[sinfulbliss]

stubborn fellas about your little response words christ almighty. guess we’ll have to settle for the old fashioned way…

*breaks into armory

[vect0r]

Admins should tell you “if you wanna learn if it’s valid/know the deets, set yourself to DNR”

[sinfulbliss]

i’m not sure if this admin is just incapable of actually engaging in the argument but they havent once responded to the player’s actual argument. just said how they shouldn’t argue and they should know better etc etc

also it made me realize. what did he want the HoS to say? “or you can play the death game, if you lose you’ll be round removed” then get bwoinked for OOC IC? “if you lose you’ll be dead forever” sounds strange too. I mean it’s just the most natural thing to say “if you lose you die.”

[WineAllWine]

But as Sinful said, "handled" could mean anything, and as I'd said, it's such a nothingburger empty, professional sentence. Professionalism is good, yes, but there comes a point where you want to feel heard. I know people who'll message me about how they got griefed, and I'll ask them if they ahelped and they'll tell me there's no point to it.

Right. Yeah, Sinful was wrong there. I've never seen an admin do that, nor have I ever done that (saying "handled" when you've done nothing), since the outcome for that when it doesn't merit being "handled" is, well, IC issue :v (i.e.: in the end there wasn't a rule break). It feels the problem is more around the word than what the word means.

Has there been a recent guidelines update? "Handled" always used to be shorthand for "Im not giving you a full accounting of the ticket but just pressing ticket closed after 20 minutes of investigating seems rude"

Maybe it's what I've been exposed to, and the times I've been told "handled". There isn't an admin directive on how to talk to people besides "be professional".

Saying that something's been handled when you didn't take any admin measures besides yelling at someone is stinkyyyyy

I'll bring this up. Why not. This is from the official admin ahelp guidance

- Do not be drawn into e-dick or ego slap fights. Be aware of attempts by players to draw you personally into a conversation. Players may get confrontational, they may get aggressive, second-guess you, use the 'well if X can do Y then I'm going to do Y too' play, etc. Some players are mature enough to both appreciate and be respectful of admins who have some more informal or personal conversations in adminhelp. That's fine. Sometimes, curt and neutral replies are what is required to stop an adminhelp conversation from escalating. Of the many purposes that adminhelp conversations have, making sure you have the last word is not one of them. If no more information is required or if an individual has been sufficiently told something, there is no reason to continue an ahelp conversation if the player remains (passive-)aggressive or confrontational. Once you have what you need, disengage and ignore. If you warn someone of something, perhaps to not continue a specific action, and they remain aggressive, let them have the last word. Letting them have the last word does not hurt you and if they ignore your warnings, then any consequences are on them.

This is why "handled" is easier than "I think this was borderline within the rules but I'm gonna say its fine". I genuinely appreciate every time* someone ahelps, but they are often emotional and I don't want to get into an argument.

I've had too many arguments with ahelpers when I've told them im not punishing someone, and they've said "BUT THE HOS DID XYZ! IM GONNA DO XYZ FOR THE NEXT 50 SHIFTS!" when XYZ is a really specific thing under weirdly specific circumstances. This game is so situational. I understand the desire for closure Sinful, I do. But try and understand from our perspective as well


*this is a lie, some ahelps I hate.

[Lacran]

For being "kind", again, they literally picked this. I don't see how being kind entails removing all the consequences from a players actions. You don't let antags go after they've murdered somebody because it's kind, you arrest them. If somebody picks an action that leads to their death, an action they knew and were told multiple times would lead to their death, that's on them.

Dude doesn't understand that he gave the player an option that was terrible, didn't communicate how bad it was and doesn't understand that a Captain giving players options that round remove them will be seen as extremely bad faith unless you communicate it. Especially because the game had no means of verifying it.

He also makes no effort to justify why this option was even being pushed in the first place.

“if you lose you’ll be dead forever” sounds strange too. I mean it’s just the most natural thing to say “if you lose you die.”

"If you lose you won't be taken to Medbay"

"If you lose we will throw your body into lava" (I already used this example in my convo with you, read more type less)

"If you lose we won't revive you"

"If you lose we'll dispose of your body"


If you lose you die is too vague, because death is rarely permanent in ss13, not just OOC but ICly. A player won't assume the death is permanent if it would be unjustified, which it was.

The player took context into account regarding good faith, server rules, Sec standards and the game mechanics themselves and made a desicion.

The simplest interpretation is the Captain was annoyed by a shitter and tried to get them to agree to be RR'd by offering a deal that sounded far better than it actually was.

[sinfulbliss]

"If you lose you won't be taken to Medbay"

That's fine because generally losing a cointoss doesn't require medical attention anyway!

"If you lose we will throw your body into lava" (I already used this example in my convo with you, read more type less)

(he didn't even toss him in the lava the HoS did)

"If you lose we won't revive you"

why would they need to revive someone who's alive

"If you lose we'll dispose of your body"

sounds retarded

If you lose you die is too vague, because death is rarely permanent in ss13, not just OOC but ICly. A player won't assume the death is permanent if it would be unjustified, which it was.

"if you lose you die" is what a normal person roleplaying would say, all your examples suck and don't even mention death in the deal lol

you're bad at this so let me offer an alternative:
"if you lose, you will die and not be revived."

now doesn't this just sound a little bit contrived? I think we've already been over this with Dendy saying they'd prefer that bit of failRP over a miscommunication leading to surprise RR. that's sensible. but if you concede it's at least unnatural to say in a roleplaying context, you can understand why the cap left it out without it necessarily being malicious omission.

[Fren256]

Of course I can always give you an offer.

Guess the number in my head, 1 or 2. If you guess the correct number, I vote to unban you and remove all traces of the note. You walk away free. Guess the incorrect number and you'll be banned.

Or don't take the offer and sit out the rest of this as adjusted by TheBibleMelts.

Based ocelot

[sinfulbliss]

Of course I can always give you an offer.

Guess the number in my head, 1 or 2. If you guess the correct number, I vote to unban you and remove all traces of the note. You walk away free. Guess the incorrect number and you'll be banned.

Or don't take the offer and sit out the rest of this as adjusted by TheBibleMelts.

Based ocelot

This is fucking awesome

He HAS to take the deal

[sinfulbliss]

THINK ABOUT HOW PERFECT IT IS

HIGH RISK LOW REWARD. He has a 5 day roleban like the 5 minute brig sentence, OR he takes the death deal for a possible ban... AND IT'S UNSPECIFIED WHETHER THE BAN WILL BE PERMANENT OR NOT. JUST LIKE WHAT HAPPENED IN THE ROUND. IT'S PERFECT

[RedBaronFlyer]

Of course I can always give you an offer.

Guess the number in my head, 1 or 2. If you guess the correct number, I vote to unban you and remove all traces of the note. You walk away free. Guess the incorrect number and you'll be banned.

Or don't take the offer and sit out the rest of this as adjusted by TheBibleMelts.

Based ocelot

That is some peak King Solomon type stuff right there.

[Lacran]

now doesn't this just sound a little bit contrived? I think we've already been over this with Dendy saying they'd prefer that bit of failRP over a miscommunication leading to surprise RR. that's sensible. but if you concede it's at least unnatural to say in a roleplaying context, you can understand why the cap left it out without it necessarily being malicious omission.

I think the issue here is that you don't really have a very firm concept of roleplay. So you view giving necessary information to the player as impossible or unreasonable without ic ock.

Revival is an incharacter feature. People coming back from the dead is something that happens within roleplay, its not an OOC thing its an EXPECTED outcome on the station due to medbay. I just gave you examples of how to address it so the character knows revival wont happen. Your goalpost shifting and clumsy nitpicking doesn't alter that this is how the game is played and how its expected to be played.

It CAN feel a bit fourth wall breaking or awkward addressing it, because you know that is less for the character's sake, and more for the player. You are assuming this character didn't communicate it because they didn't have the means to because you yourself aren't used to communicating that, but the majority of players that roleplay on manuel can and would do this. Which is why admins expect it.

[Lacran]

the note should probably be edited to more accurately represent this if this is the issue at hand; if the asking is that the player be more verbose in the rules of their death game then the note should reflect that. as far as i'm aware, they had not told the Head of Security to throw the person's body in the lava, so it seems weird to pin that on them.

s5nt would probably have no issue with agreeing to be more verbose in their death games. it just seems a little extreme to assume bad faith play when it's clearly a matter of miscommunication. if you're concerned about s5nt playing in bad faith to rack up bodies then the note should be factual in that matter; i don't know why we're assuming so much bad faith and accusing them of being a dick head when it's only their first ban/note in a long time as they've pointed out. but you guys probably know s5nt more.

this next part? probably a little peanut-y, but this probably could have just been resolved by giving the victim a new body and then just explaining to s5nt that they should explicitly say something like "you will die and not be revived" or something along those lines. none of these talks about mrp policies are particularly relevant since they had already been given the appropriate punishment, it was just an option of a really stupid death game.

This is literally all peanut. the only info you posted had already been posted.

[Archie700]

now doesn't this just sound a little bit contrived? I think we've already been over this with Dendy saying they'd prefer that bit of failRP over a miscommunication leading to surprise RR. that's sensible. but if you concede it's at least unnatural to say in a roleplaying context, you can understand why the cap left it out without it necessarily being malicious omission.

I think the issue here is that you don't really have a very firm concept of roleplay. So you view giving necessary information to the player as impossible or unreasonable without ic ock.

Revival is an incharacter feature. People coming back from the dead is something that happens within roleplay, its not an OOC thing its an EXPECTED outcome on the station due to medbay. I just gave you examples of how to address it so the character knows revival wont happen. Your goalpost shifting and clumsy nitpicking doesn't alter that this is how the game is played and how its expected to be played.

It CAN feel a bit fourth wall breaking or awkward addressing it, because you know that is less for the character's sake, and more for the player. You are assuming this character didn't communicate it because they didn't have the means to because you yourself aren't used to communicating that, but the majority of players that roleplay on manuel can and would do this. Which is why admins expect it.

I don't even believe this feels awkward because it's known IC that you can be revived, the only reason is that death as a punishment is usually more permanent and by the time you're threatened with it you most likely committed more serious crimes than breaking in to the brig.

"If you lose you die, and we won't let you be revived." doesn't even sound contrived IMO. Even Timber and Kieth have said that the Captain should have told Lucy that he would not allow her revival afterwards, in no uncertain terms.

To quote Kieth"

We can hark on about how we would interpret it but if they weren't entirely upfront and clear it's easy to see where the confusion came from. When I see death for example I don't assume RR. "I'm going to kill you" I say to the assistants breaking into brig, then I kill them and throw their corpses out. It is fine to punish someone for prevent the revival- but I think that 30 days is a bit much.

It feels more like sinful going off his own opinion of failRP in general.

[sinfulbliss]

"If you lose you die, and we won't let you be revived." doesn't even sound contrived IMO. Even Timber and Kieth have said that the Captain should have told Lucy that he would not allow her revival afterwards, in no uncertain terms.

To quote Kieth"

We can hark on about how we would interpret it but if they weren't entirely upfront and clear it's easy to see where the confusion came from. When I see death for example I don't assume RR. "I'm going to kill you" I say to the assistants breaking into brig, then I kill them and throw their corpses out. It is fine to punish someone for prevent the revival- but I think that 30 days is a bit much.

It feels more like sinful going off his own opinion of failRP in general.

I think you missed my point. I think they probably should've said this too, but the fact they didn't is less them being an asshole IMO and more them just saying what sounds more natural. Which "you lose you die" does, it just flows better in the scene than "you will be killed and NOT revived (because of course, I'd have to revive you ordinarily, as round removal would be a bit far [this is what's implied which is sorta failRP to me but perhaps necessary failRP])." Miscommunication- but at this point we're repeating ourselves.