you must ICly do nothing peanut thread

[iwishforducks]

Bottom post of the previous page:

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=35858

what were they supposed to do, OOCly check if their IC perceptions were correct?

and also something about the captain not being part of sec, i guess.

[britgrenadier1]

And even if the captain found out the CE's not in danger when she entered the room, what then? Was she supposed to stand around as the CE fights off the heretic with his baton?

Obviously you sit there and cheer

[NecromancerAnne]

It's for reasons like this I am willing to remove the note so long as you understand the contents of it.

"If you say uncle I'll remove the note"

Either the note is right or wrong (it’s wrong btw). An admin should never essentially say “Admit that I’m right and I’ll remove the note.”

I think the implication isn't a removal but a rewording. If they would remove the note if xzero admits they were right, I would think that would be administrative misconduct. Either the note is valid, or it isn't. If the note is incorrect but valid, you can have it reworded, but if it the note is correct but the only way to remove it is to accept that the note is correct, what was the fucking point of this entire discussion other than to bully one player into bending the knee?

[RedBaronFlyer]

I didn't take bmons wording as "say uncle and I'll remove it" so much as a "if you at least acknowledge argument I'm making and where I'm coming from with it, then I'll remove it"

still really eh note imo. I get that captains shouldn't be antag hunting too much but it felt appropriate in this situation.

[Constellado]

I am glad it is going to headmin review.

[Drag]

Casual reminder that captain has a security liver

[gameaddict07]

And even if the captain found out the CE's not in danger when she entered the room, what then? Was she supposed to stand around doing nothing as the CE fights off the heretic with his baton? Someone who had already attacked the HoP?

I interpret the "defend yourself and others" part of the rule as players being able to defend others from antagonists actively trying to kill someone. The key word is defend, once it is no longer a defensive initiative it ceases to be valid.

Obviously she was supposed to just walk away when she encountered the confirmed violent heretic because she's not sec. The only time you're allowed to stop the guy who has the ability to instantly stun and kill people before they get a chance to react is when they're attacking someone (stunning and killing them before they get a chance to react).

[GPeckman]

Casual reminder that captain has a security liver

I actually checked that, they actually have a command liver, not a security liver (although I don't know what mechanical difference there is, if any). With that said, they have a security bank account.

[conrad]

Another happy landing.

[BonChoi]

Holy shit justice was swift and almost unanimous lol

[Rageguy505]

Casual reminder that captain has a security liver

I actually checked that, they actually have a command liver, not a security liver (although I don't know what mechanical difference there is, if any). With that said, they have a security bank account.

i think command really likes lizard wine

[DrAmazing343]

Gotta love
>Admin holding super fucking hard on an appeal
>Unanimous decision among >FIVE HEADMINS<

[Constellado]

The ending I wanted.

Bmon looked like a stubborn person based on what I seen so it wasn't too much of a suprise to me for it to get to this end. But I am a big fan of admins being responsible for their own tickets unless a headmin review is used. Its a better to have things like this that go to completion for clarity sake.

[dendydoom]

bmon might have decent points about the intricacies of validhunting on manuel - i know he's personally been tunnelled by people who really had no right to hunt him in the past when he's played as a heretic. i think there is valuable discussion in things like this.

but in this situation too much has to be ignored for us to reduce this to a conversation strictly around the captain's role in engaging antags with security. i do not like policy-by-appeal, it's shitty for the player to experience and unfair for them to have to endure a black mark on their record while we figure out internally what we even want. the only thing this tells clara is that in future situations they should ignore IC reasoning in order to sate an OOC blanket restriction for validhunting because otherwise they might be punished. we have always told players that IC reasoning is more important than enforcing rules to the letter. this is a situation where i think it is most valuable.

it is much better in my eyes to deal with this situation as it is in a vacuum - a captain using IC information to defend a head of department in what they believed was an attack - as opposed to using it to enforce a new standard on the captain's role in fighting antags. this is better suited to policy discussion without a player stuck in limbo waiting for the outcome. that way, we can try to uncover the truth in what bmon is trying to say about validhunting standards without worrying about the fate of the player.