Discussion in 'Announcements' started by Taicho, Oct 23, 2014.
You didn't log in yesterday and no admin PM'd you today. What are you doing?
I forget what your name is. Please remind me so we can discuss this.
His first name is literally Dr. It is one of those names that really annoyed me (I like all the names to be First Name, Last Name.) He really should just come up with a first name.
Love the way the rules are going. More looking into the intent of things rather then the details. Use the logs and investigate the case between each player to determine the intents both parties had. With our new transparency tools we have gained we can use these new rules and inform both parties of the outcome so they can fully understand why actions were taken. I hope this will continue to be an enjoyable server remember, we are all here to have a great time playing a game.
Aye, I have no sympathy and find those names annoying/obnoxious as well. I can pretty much tell someone is going to be a shit player almost without exception when they don't follow the (First Name, Last Name) format. Happy to see this rule implemented.
Recently when I was a traitor some idiot going by the IC name "Sixteen Year Old Squeaker" repeatedly claimed that I was a rev head and chased and assaulted me for no reason at the start of the round. It was *extremely* satisfying buying a revolver and C4, pumping his guts full of lead, blowing up his corpse so he was irreversibly removed from the round, and talking myself out of the situation and getting away with it due to an incompetent AI and sec force in spite of doing it blatantly in the open for all to see.
Yeah, intent of things was sort of the goal when people came up with the Rule 1 thing months ago. Then there was a bunch of little meanings and grief details behind the rule that were just forgotten about over time. I'm not seeing a big change with these rules here.
and I haven't received an answer for this yet
I've seen worse names IRL... I agree there are obnoxious names, but I'd like for that not to kill the possibility of having a little humor in names.
Does that not fall into the "borderline griefing" category? If not, it falls into "ruining other players' experience", right? Any situations that wouldn't fit into those categories, justifying mentioning "RP" in the rules?
Alright. Would you have gotten into trouble should had he murdered the whole security force and spaced their bodies after being freed?
A security officer systematically freeing permabriged prisoners, or even freeing every arrested criminals shortly after the arresting officer departs. Basically being the criminals' agent on brig for little to no reason.
Stunning, stripping and demoting other security members for little reasons; sabotaging brig and impeding security work; helping gray tiders sack and destroy the brig; stealing and giving away security's gear to the gray tiders, etc. That is what I mean by gray tiding security officers. Would those things be legit or not?
Then I think the rule should be reworded, for the current wording implies there are IC/RP reasons that justify the OOC intention to ruin someone's round:
Rule 10.) Griefing is not allowed. Griefing is defined as the OOC intention to ruin someone's round with no IC/RP reason for their actions. Borderline grief will not be tolerated.
One, I guess. Can I take your answers as the official server posture? Thanks for your time and effort.
If someone is consistently hitting you and chasing you and trying to break into somewhere to continue harming you although you've tried to bring the fight to an end by disarming and running away then calling sec, but it looks like they're not going to stop even if windows/doors get in the way then incapacitating them shouldn't get you in Admin trouble even though you may still be subject to space law.
This shouldn't be taken as a pass to crit someone for breaking and entering, but taken in the context that they were aggressive to you, you tried to push them, run away, maybe punch them a few times, and they just kept coming full force and things are about to get lethal/critical for yourself and doors or windows aren't slowing them down.
I wholeheartedly agree that I don't wanna see humorous names taken away like my ability to play Bart Ender the Bartender.
It is a little difficult for me to come up with an answer out of thin air, but imagine the AI got an Ion law "Unbolted doors cause human harm." and then they did the same thing. It would be just living up to the expectations of its laws rather than actively trying to be a dick OOCly by being terrible about default Asimov laws. This would be an RP reason over an OOC reason even though the same thing is happening.
Possibly, but a bit of context to the situation is that the escape shuttle was just about to leave, I broke in, grabbed him while he was cuffed, dragged him to mining, freed him there, then he murdered me. The escape shuttle had already left, but the way I had viewed it my character owed him a favor because he saved my life and my character had commandeered mining as his own station.
To an extent you will likely still be responsible in this situation, but the rule is more there to keep people from actively helping traitors to get a free "I get to murderbone people card." and then when DING-DONG-ADMINPM comes they scream "I had to help him or he would murder me~" like there was truly no other option.
Yeah, no. That is a good way to get jobbanned in my opinion. You're actively working against your department and job intention in a way that is detrimental to the server as a whole. I could understand a crooked cop that lets people out on sentences early in exchange for favors from them, but it is still an unsavory way to play. The wording of the rule is so that officers cannot steal people's equipment when they have them in a vulnerable state since they start with better gear than the rest of the station.
Definitely not okay. That is just being plain terrible, bad for the server, etc. If an office is grey-tiding like this then they need to be jobbanned. Playing the crooked cop like I mentioned before is one thing, and can still bring repercussions and demotions, but this definitely deserves admin attention.
We're not gonna be getting caught up on minor hang-ups of wording like we were in the past, but I see what you mean.
I suppose so. I'm not getting told "Don't do that." when I answer these questions and I /am/ still helping write the rules.
I'm not sure that would be "RP", but instead directly and correctly interpreting your laws... I ask those questions to see what Rule 7(.0) is about. Because if there is no scenario in where RPing beyond the rules is valid, I don't see the point...
The issue is that for Rule 8 to be valid you shouldn't have gotten into trouble no matter if he did murderbone the whole of security later, since you had good IC/RP reasons to aid him. If people with good IC/RP reasons to aid antagonists are still responsible for what they enable the antagonists to do, then that should be stated in the rules. And it would be simpler to remove the IC/RP part and simply state that: that you are responsible for what you enable a known antagonist to perform.
I understand and see what you mean, but, in my opinion, the current wording does not optimally convey the idea you are trying to give, thus my questions and suggestions.
I believe then that Rule 9 should make that clear. If you want help with the wording I can offer suggestions...
Well, I'm all for short and clear rules. The less ambiguity, the better. Maybe I'm not making a good enough point, or maybe we just disagree. In order to clear that issue let me ask you on what do you believe the "with no IC/RP reason for their actions" line adds to the rule that would not be covered without it?
I didn't mean yesterday, I'm on mobile right now. I meant the other day.
Ah! I was months ahead of my time.
I just like to thank everyone who actually took time to comment on this. I played no real part in the creation of these new rules but it makes me happy that most of our servers denziens are committed to being not-shitters. and I also appreciate everyone asking the important questions. such as the ones dealing with use of force. <3
RIP Deathchat our main flame love.
How will this be done? If a robust clown starts tabling senor Howard, would the clown actions be negative enough?
Why is banning needed to be reference, it's the server rules?
If two people fight to the death but have openings to escape but don't, how would this be handled?
The roles also forget about critting, will it be allowed if a person only goal is to crit them so they can produce handcuffs and heal them. Will they be allowed to do this, and if the person who's critted succumbs will the attacker be at fault?
If a attacker, with 5% health, crowbars a defender 1 times and the defender one hit crits and walks away, what would this be considered?
I can understand this rule, but shouldn't people be able to decided their own name if it isn't offensive? A example of this is people using Doctor (blank)/ Dr. (blank) instead of a full name.
May I suggest setting up admin policy's instead of one admins opion, so we decrease the chances of possible bad rp reason ntags helping tea, and possibly increase antags effort for RP? Is it possible to have it state known antagonists, for clarification.
Does this make any lethal force when playing as a officer invalid? Does this also include torturing prisoners (HONK)?
The security, AI, and heads of staff are given a hard job, will this make it harder?
Anyway, I hope to see Draft 2, and to see community members discuss this and ask questions.
Unfortunately this is treated as murder and you can get banned easily for it. Even if you heal them and their safety was guaranteed.
That's something I would like to see different.
Tabling someone isn't really negative enough to warrant a ban or talking to, but if you were repeatedly tabling someone for no reason then you may expect an administrator to send you a PM. This is just a clause to cover administrators when they see something that is negatively affecting the whole round, like an antagonist recalling the shuttle multiple times to prolong a round and murderbone everyone when there is really no need for it and it is killing the server population of bored ghosts, and exists to nullify rule lawyering.
This is iffy without more context so I'll explain as best as possible:
Critting people just to incapacitate and handcuff them is generally frowned upon unless it is an absolute last resort. It is hard to tell if someone succumbed to death immediately and makes it cloudy whether they really did too much damage or if the victim succumb'd so the attacker may still be held at fault unless there is an easy way to search for someone succumbing that is beyond my current knowledge.
We've always maintained that there are such things as IC escalations leading to murder, but legitimate escalations are few and far between.
If a security officer in the brig is attempting to arrest an allegedly dangerous criminal and runs out of stun weaponry and has to make a split-second decision, they crit the person, handcuff them, drags them to the medical station in the brig and starts fixing them up then it is questionable, but can be legit. If it really was a last resort then I could see it being okay and within the rules as long as they were trying to do things right, but didn't want a possible antagonist to escape.
In cases like the weakened attacker going crit when someone defends I'll use a story that happened recently:
I got an ahelp "Help, "X" killed me." so I PM the person. "Hey, could you explain why you put "Y" into critical?" "Oh, "Y" hit me first when I hit him back he went into critical." so then I check Y's variables and he had been getting in fights with several people. I then PM "X" one last time "Oh, okay. Well, you're not really in the wrong, but from now on could you still drag the person to medbay at least? They are still your fellow crewmember as loyal crew." "Oh, yeah. OK." and then I PM Y and continue to explain how his actions lead to that and it was an IC escalation. Player Y was mad, but came to understand that his violent ways had lead to his destruction and through viewing variables it was clear that Y really wouldn't have known a single punch of defence would've critted him.
The main purpose of this rule is to keep Threesixty NoScope and The Annhilator or That Gangster from playing because it is immersion breaking. I don't think we've ever PM'd Dr. Mizibooboo over his name. It would just look better as Dr. Nyal Mizibooboo or Mr. Warren Green.
We're working on an Administrative Code of Conduct as well.
This rule is in place to prevent officers from abusing vulnerable players by using their position over them to torture or steal from them during an arrest and booking. Using lethal force against known antagonists is still allowed of officers and heads, but they must be certain (with evidence) of the antagonist's status.
They are given a hard job, but they are jobs with a lot of power over other players. This is meant to be for the benefit of the entire station and encourage newer players to grow into the role and for experienced players to pick up the job.
Awesome! Thanks for your questions and I hope I've answered them satisfactorily.
So like where is draft 2
Rule 9.) Security officers are not allowed to harm criminals or steal items from criminals while processing them. Security Officers, AI, and Head of Staff roles are important to the progress of the station, and as such, abusing these roles in any way may result in a jobban until we believe you capable to act responsibly when playing as them.\
Since when is stealing items greif?
Because alot of sec officers steal itmes like engi gloves for personal use and they can't follow space law so now its in the rules bitchs.
Separate names with a comma.