ISRATOSH

[Timonk]

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=35476

I blame qbmax

[Justice12354]

I blame qbmax too (jk)

Imo, I think it'd be better if we gave temp-notes if the gimmick went wrong (that is, an antag primed one of their bombs).

This is a cool gimmick and you should be able to play as a contraband seller regardless of your antag status imo. While the sole action of selling bombs is not rule-breaking; the consequences that may come with it are (which makes it so the action is not punishable, but the consequence, which sounds like a fallacy to begin with). Ik it's a "fuck around, and find out", but, imo, it should first be warned with a temp-note to stop (I don't want people to do it once and never again bc they got a note for it in 2021), and only then banned if the behavior is recurrent.

[Jacquerel]

this guy waited one hour before saying "no response is crazy"

[Jacquerel]

This is a cool gimmick and you should be able to play as a contraband seller regardless of your antag status imo. While the sole action of selling bombs is not rule-breaking; the consequences that may come with it are (which makes it so the action is not punishable, but the consequence, which sounds like a fallacy to begin with). Ik it's a "fuck around, and find out", but, imo, it should first be warned with a temp-note to stop (I don't want people to do it once and never again bc they got a note for it in 2021), and only then banned if the behavior is recurrent.

To be fair it does sound like this is the third time they've done it and it has gone wrong, so we can't say there's no history
They have fucked around several times, found out several times, and are continuing to find out after not having learned how to make themselves not find out when fucking around

[Not-Dorsidarf]

ISRATOSH

[iwishforducks]

In their tongue he’s Dovahkiin- Dragonborn!

[PapaMichael]

Not that this particular case seems to hold any merit, but this IS the kind of thing where if you ask 5 different admins, you get 5 different answers.
I wouldn't ever try something like this without getting admin approval for it *in that specific round* (which is kinda sad, but what can you do)

[dendydoom]

bombs can only do one thing. it seems like a good idea to check first if you're going to release a bunch of bombs into the mix as a non-antagonist.

i get the frustration from a player's pov over having to tug on an admin's skirt and ask mother for permission but we also can't really have players assuming they have a vouch to do something like this whenever they want because someone said it was okay one time. we don't know the circumstances of why the admin said yes. maybe they went through some legwork to give you room to do that gimmick because they thought it would fit into the round: this is not going to be the case every time, sadly.

[conrad]

[Justice12354]

This is a cool gimmick and you should be able to play as a contraband seller regardless of your antag status imo. While the sole action of selling bombs is not rule-breaking; the consequences that may come with it are (which makes it so the action is not punishable, but the consequence, which sounds like a fallacy to begin with). Ik it's a "fuck around, and find out", but, imo, it should first be warned with a temp-note to stop (I don't want people to do it once and never again bc they got a note for it in 2021), and only then banned if the behavior is recurrent.

To be fair it does sound like this is the third time they've done it and it has gone wrong, so we can't say there's no history
They have fucked around several times, found out several times, and are continuing to find out after not having learned how to make themselves not find out when fucking around

Oh, yeah, I 100% don't judge Isra's ruling here. I just have a different view on how it should play out. I believe there should be a certain level of freedom to do this kind of gimmick regardless of the round's context. I generally dislike players having to check first with the admin to make sure they can do X, unless X is strictly rule-breaking. In this case, I guess selling explosives is inherently rule-breaking, though I'm not sure if it has a set-in-stone ruling, hence leading to various rulings from admins with different opinions. For instance, I believe it should not be inherently rule-breaking to sell explosives; with a temp-note (up to like 8 months) as a punishment if it goes wrong.

Taking this scenario in a bit of a vacuum, their last note regarding this was nearly a year ago, so I feel like this could've been a note. Taking the rest of their history in consideration, I understand a ban

[Archie700]

Here's the problem - there is no real reason to sell lethal bombs or grenades to begin with.

Unless you're an antag, or selling bombs in direct response to a existent threat, there's no real purpose to sell them except for...mining, I guess.

[chocolate_bickie]

This is a cool gimmick and you should be able to play as a contraband seller regardless of your antag status imo. While the sole action of selling bombs is not rule-breaking; the consequences that may come with it are (which makes it so the action is not punishable, but the consequence, which sounds like a fallacy to begin with). Ik it's a "fuck around, and find out", but, imo, it should first be warned with a temp-note to stop (I don't want people to do it once and never again bc they got a note for it in 2021), and only then banned if the behavior is recurrent.

To be fair it does sound like this is the third time they've done it and it has gone wrong, so we can't say there's no history
They have fucked around several times, found out several times, and are continuing to find out after not having learned how to make themselves not find out when fucking around

Oh, yeah, I 100% don't judge Isra's ruling here. I just have a different view on how it should play out. I believe there should be a certain level of freedom to do this kind of gimmick regardless of the round's context. I generally dislike players having to check first with the admin to make sure they can do X, unless X is strictly rule-breaking. In this case, I guess selling explosives is inherently rule-breaking, though I'm not sure if it has a set-in-stone ruling, hence leading to various rulings from admins with different opinions. For instance, I believe it should not be inherently rule-breaking to sell explosives; with a temp-note (up to like 8 months) as a punishment if it goes wrong.

Taking this scenario in a bit of a vacuum, their last note regarding this was nearly a year ago, so I feel like this could've been a note. Taking the rest of their history in consideration, I understand a ban

The power of the explosive matters.

IEDs, basically always fine.

Maxcaps, round ending threats only.

I consider the cut off point any explosive that can crit a full health player in one shot

[Justice12354]

Here's the problem - there is no real reason to sell lethal bombs or grenades to begin with.

Unless you're an antag, or selling bombs in direct response to a existent threat, there's no real purpose to sell them except for...mining, I guess.

I don't think roleplaying as a contraband seller is a bad thing on LRP unless you're doing it just to increase grief (in which case you'll get a note for it and doing it further will get you banana'd). Why can't you try to make some money by selling contraband? If you sell contraband in public, that's more sec interaction potential. I feel like just thinking "Well, why would you do it?" or "Bombs only do one thing" is very reductive. Some gimmicks will be inherently kinda dumb, but that doesn't mean they should be inherently rule-breaking.

The power of the explosive matters.

IEDs, basically always fine.

Maxcaps, round ending threats only.

I consider the cut off point any explosive that can crit a full health player in one shot

Honestly, I would rather blame it on the person who primes the explosive rather than the person selling AS LONG AS it doesn't look like they're just trying to grief (dragging explosives around or leaving them in the middle of the hallway). If that person's explosive gets primed and it causes damages, a temp-note would be enough to keep them out of the gimmick for some time in order to not allow repetitive grief. But, yeah, I'd give it far more leeway if they were selling IEDs instead of maxcaps.

[Archie700]

-snip-

I don't believe selling bombs should be put in the same category as, say, selling drugs or guns

Both are contraband, but bombs have a high capacity for collateral damage that guns can't do.

[conrad]

Here's the problem - there is no real reason to sell lethal bombs or grenades to begin with.

► Show Spoiler

Strictly speaking you shouldn't even be selling bombs to mining. You're an employee of Nanotrasen. The bombs are company property. You provide them to mining.

You sell the lethal bomb to the antag 'cos it's fun to make them and even more fun to hear a kaboom of your authorship. That's the real reason.

Some people will invariably take the L and get banned so the round is more interesting for themselves and the antag, and sure, it's bad and we have rules to prevent that since that interestingness comes at the cost of other people's fun when they get blown up...but if you ask me I find having the station shake 'cos someone detonated your bomb to be very, very satisfying.

E: grammeere

[Dax Dupont]

Man works 58 hours a week but is spending his free time on a ban appeal for selling bombs, go play some darktide or something.

[Timonk]

Drama Wars episode 7: Fight of the Admins

[Justice12354]

-snip-

I don't believe selling bombs should be put in the same category as, say, selling drugs or guns

Both are contraband, but bombs have a high capacity for collateral damage that guns can't do.

I don't see the issue with there being collateral damage. I obviously don't agree with this gimmick being done every round (I even suggested the temp-notes), but I feel like giving people a bit more freedom to sell stuff they usually shouldn't is good, even if just for the progression of the round and to create some dynamic. The chaos is a core aspect of ss13 and it will inevitably happen. Facilitating the access to explosives for antags as a non-antag is frowned upon, but doing it for the gimmick is funny imo. I don't get why we can't just allow it and temp-note it. Oh wait... NOTES ARE PUNISHMENTS. THE SLIGHTEST INSTANCE OF A NOTE IS THE END OF THE WORLD AND ADMINS ARE EVIL. MY NOTE HISTORY IS NOW RUINED BECAUSE I GOT A NOTE AND ALL ADMINS WILL BAN ME ON SIGHT!!!!!

I feel like this is restraining a cool gimmick because antags might do antag things and non-antag might do self-antag things. Like, wouldn't they either way?

I also want to point out that this is gonna be one of those "Well, if you knew every headmin ruling in existence, you wouldn't have done that. AH! Checkmate!" kind of policy. But, oh well, that's beyond the point

[CPTANT]

. NOTES ARE PUNISHMENTS. THE SLIGHTEST INSTANCE OF A NOTE IS THE END OF THE WORLD AND ADMINS ARE EVIL. MY NOTE HISTORY IS NOW RUINED BECAUSE I GOT A NOTE AND ALL ADMINS WILL BAN ME ON SIGHT!!!!!

I mean, this guy got banned because of an almost year old note.

[TheRex9001]

no response is crazy

[CPTANT]

2023-01-08 21:39:24: Ticket Opened by qbmax32: Hi I know I talked to you about this last round but can you please chill on the whole selling TTVs thing. Once in a blue moon is fine or as an antag but it's just asking for trouble when someone takes them to grief/antag with.

What does this even mean. Saying it is fine once in a blue moon and saying it is asking for trouble at the same time is super ambiguous.

[CMDR_Gungnir]

2023-01-08 21:39:24: Ticket Opened by qbmax32: Hi I know I talked to you about this last round but can you please chill on the whole selling TTVs thing. Once in a blue moon is fine or as an antag but it's just asking for trouble when someone takes them to grief/antag with.

What does this even mean. Saying it is fine once in a blue moon and saying it is asking for trouble at the same time is super ambiguous.

It's guaranteed to cause trouble, but you can probably get away with it if you're an antag, or it's rare.

[CPTANT]

2023-01-08 21:39:24: Ticket Opened by qbmax32: Hi I know I talked to you about this last round but can you please chill on the whole selling TTVs thing. Once in a blue moon is fine or as an antag but it's just asking for trouble when someone takes them to grief/antag with.

What does this even mean. Saying it is fine once in a blue moon and saying it is asking for trouble at the same time is super ambiguous.

It's guaranteed to cause trouble, but you can probably get away with it if you're an antag, or it's rare.

I would say that means it isn't "fine".

[BonChoi]

I was under the impression that anything you create you are responsible for the deaths it causes as a non-antag, within reasonable limits. I could've sworn I've seen ban appeals from people that just dropped TTVs on the floor and other people opened them up resulting in deaths, so what makes selling them better than just dropping them on the floor?

In my eyes selling them looks worse because there's a whole lot less to stand on to defend yourself.

[dendydoom]

I was under the impression that anything you create you are responsible for the deaths it causes as a non-antag, within reasonable limits. I could've sworn I've seen ban appeals from people that just dropped TTVs on the floor and other people opened them up resulting in deaths, so what makes selling them better than just dropping them on the floor?

In my eyes selling them looks worse because there's a whole lot less to stand on to defend yourself.

i would argue there's a difference because there is obviously *some* level of effort put into creating an IC reason for doing this. i'm currently operating under the assumption that this entire scheme was solely their own idea, and that no possible antags could have leveraged them to accomplish it.

there are 2 important aspects i think should be considered:
firstly, why did they open up a bomb selling business? if they've done this gimmick numerous times before, and this is somehow the first time something bad has happened with one of their consumer market nuclear explosives, then i can understand the shock at being banned because in the past it was a good addition to the round. but if it's a gimmick that has only ever historically caused random griefy chaos and pissed people off and they know this, then it stands to reason that they are just taking a very long winded route to be able to bomb shit as a non-antagonist by proxy, yes.

secondly, players should be strongly discouraged from using past vouches in specific situations as a free ride pass on all future gimmicks that involve that mechanic. this is because most admins will check if a gimmick someone wants to do as a non-antagonist is suitable for the current round without ruining what's already going on, but more importantly, if people start leaning on this stuff now, then in the future admins will just stop allowing non-antag destructive gimmicks because it'll come back to bite them in the ass later when after another 50 rounds someone levels the station with a steamroller because they were told it was fine once.

[BonChoi]

I was under the impression that anything you create you are responsible for the deaths it causes as a non-antag, within reasonable limits. I could've sworn I've seen ban appeals from people that just dropped TTVs on the floor and other people opened them up resulting in deaths, so what makes selling them better than just dropping them on the floor?

In my eyes selling them looks worse because there's a whole lot less to stand on to defend yourself.

-epic perspective essay snipped-

Thank you, dendy. Very cool.