Policy on IC responses to grief

Discussion in 'General' started by Flatoftheblade, Apr 19, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. So, I want to address the matter of server policy on in-character responses to grief. Wellington wrote this in a recent incident report: "in the future we ask that all players follow the proper channels and guidelines on reporting rather than taking things into your own hands as it can muddy up the waters for investigators."

    For the record, I not only completely disagree with this policy, but I actively refuse to follow it and I encourage the player base in general not to follow it.

    I'll give two examples where this came into play in my personal experience:

    -This latest one, I was an Asimov borg, and the Asimov AI killed me, put two human players into crit, and killed several human NPCs. After getting a reset, I went straight to the AI core and started to baton the AI to death, he blew me and we both died in the explosion.

    -Previously, I was murdered by a non-antag security officer, and after getting a revive I got him arrested and permabriggged.

    In both cases I was told that when an admin "handles" a case you should pretend the events didn't even happen. It's hard to properly articulate how ridiculous a position this is, because it basically amounts to saying that non-antagonist griefers will actually receive protection that legitimate players are not entitled to.

    In the first case, as an Asimov borg, my laws not only made it justifiable to try to take out an AI that was actively murdering people; they actually mandated that I did so. In the second case, murder is a capital crime against Space Law, and any legitimate antagonist who did the same thing would face consequences.

    Not taking administrative action against a griefer is one thing. Not everything needs to be handled with a ban. But actively protecting griefers against IC consequences for their conduct is absurd.
    QuantumWings and Mabblies like this.
  2. Chaznoodles

    Chaznoodles Well-Known Member

    Man, if someone is clearly griefing and I know it, I'm going to take necessary steps to subdue them. It's silly to protect people like that from IC consequences when they're wrecking other peoples' rounds. Treat them as antags, fair and square.
  3. daddysds1

    daddysds1 Well-Known Member

    No one protected the ai from ic actions.

    You had to be blown up for attacking an AI who's case was allready dealt with.

    Now i could understand if the ai was shocking all the doors pumping plasma and killing everyone on station then yes go beat it's ass.

    But for a case that has been handled you don't need to go to the core as a borg and kill it.

    This is fine up to the time the admins deal with the issue.
    Flavo and Raptorblaze like this.
  4. Tharinoma

    Tharinoma LS13 Admin

    That's not how it works.
    When an admin gets involved in an IC issue, it's because the issue was not legit. Somene had an action that they weren't allowed to. That wasn't supposed to happen. The admin fixes this problem, the best way he can, by reviving, moving, whatever, in order to put the game in a state where the unlegit actions never took place. Once an admin revives a borg that was killed by a griefing AI, the AI never blew up that borg. It's even still alive. Once an admin teleports a prisoner out of perma because his arrest wasn't legit, the prisoner was never sent to perma. He's in a hallway.
    Not mentionning how impossible it would be for admins to solve problems while the griefer and the griefed person are fighting to death because one of them killed the first, so the second wants revenge and tried to kill him, so the first tried to kill him too in self defence, all of this happening while the admin tryes to understand who's at fault.
  5. JPR

    JPR Well-Known Member

    I would say that is you are KILLED, and admin revived, you should NOT take action against the player, because you wouldn't have been able to do so without admin intervention... and the admins are now aware of the incident... and if he does it again, he'll probably get banned. If you AREN'T killed... respond appropriately IC?
  6. daddysds1

    daddysds1 Well-Known Member


    For the AI incident. He is useing the ban request on me.

    Pretty much russians kill the borg and 2 humans. Borg gets reset and goes to the ai core and begins harm batoning the ai.

    Ai locks it down. Rd unlocks it. AI blows the borg. AI dies to the explosion. Borg is later reborged by an all access robotics
    Flavo and Raptorblaze like this.
  7. Felix Feufer

    Felix Feufer LS13 Admin

    That's being dishonest and you know it.
    http://llagaming.net/forums/threads...e-human-harm-as-an-asimov-ai.3992/#post-59909
    Second to last post

    Your ommitting your own side of the story.

    EDIT: No point shooting posts back and forth at each other as that'd be off-topic, so if you want the last word, go ahead.
  8. This argument (which I've heard from admins) basically amounts to "the admins are too incompetent to actually perform an investigation, so don't make them have to do so." (EDIT - I should clarify, I'm not necessarily saying that they are too incompetent, but I am saying that's implied by that specific argument for this policy.)
    QuantumWings likes this.
  9. daddysds1

    daddysds1 Well-Known Member

    Ok this i agree might want to get locked before the flameing gets any bigger.
  10. Tharinoma

    Tharinoma LS13 Admin

    It's not an argument. It's a fact. Situations where two players are fighting, one because he was killed and revived, the other because he's being attacked can't be solved. Both players can't kill the other without breaking the rules. Both players have a good IC reason to kill the other. It makes no sense from an IC perspective, and has nothing to do with the competence of the admin dealing with the case.
    Anyway, the important part of my previous post was the beginning.
  11. LeJack

    LeJack Active Member

    I try to deal with these situations IC first. If I'm left with no options I'll Ahelp it, and consider it dealt with at that point. It is frustrating, but if an admin intervenes and restores you to the state you were in before the incident, and you continue to act on it, it creates a paradox.
    JPR, Flavo, CannibalCrow and 3 others like this.
  12. Jariahtoadsage

    Jariahtoadsage LS13 Admin

    Okay, so, i understand where you're coming from. But the anwser to this has more or less already been stated. Admins are NOT too incompetent or lazy to perform an investigation, and frankly it peevs me more than a little bit you'd insinuate that. As ive tqken the better part of rounds i stood a solid chance at being able to enjoy investigating some bullshit because people cant read our fucking rules and follow them. If an admin has decided there isnt a ban or prisoning nessisary for an event it NORMALLY means that the player has been talked to, the admin and they have reached an understanding about what went wrong and why it was wrong. And the player has apologized or otherwise shown they do not intend to repeat the mistake.

    You'll recall that in response to your most recent ban request i made special note of not seeing a history of AI abuse. And as such, Daddys apology and informing me he understood the problem and would refrain from intentionally repeating it in the past contributed to my handling the case as i did. Yet another moment in which i took the better part of a round to handle something for a play which involved not ONLY a great deal of investigation but a great deal of discussion and argument.

    On the subject to responding to admin handled nonlegit things IC. If you have called on an admin to intervine, and they do, you have made the issue an OOC issue by involving an OOC entity in the process of deliberation. Thereby continuing in a fashion as though the admin were never involved actually becomes an issue of Metagrudging, as you are at that point using an OOC situation as a reason to go kill someone IC. The Admin intervention policy is not made to protect a greifer, its made because allowing a player to be revived and go kill the person who killed them before ISNT going to turn anyone from a path of greif to a path befitting a legitimate player. They will simply feel greifed in return. Oft times by the time an admin is done with any given player, they have been calmed down and ... Well .... More or less subdued by the conversation theyve just had, and are ready to try to play the round the way it was meant to be played. And the other player returning and killing them out of nowhere isnt going to cement that mindset in place, its going to blow it apart and cause them to feel like the server is out to get them.
  13. Taicho

    Taicho Director of LS13 Staff Member

    Hello folks. I'll be addressing this particular issue today.

    When a scenario occurs that is potentially against the rules, the victim of the case is left with two options: they may take it into their own hands, if possible, and respond with appropriate force - a course of action we don't particularly encourage, as we require incidents be reported so griefers don't slip under the radar - or they may report the case to administrators. At this point, an administrator will intervene, 'interrogate', review, and decide on an outcome. Whether that be noting, banning, whatever - the case is closed, and the situation is treated as though it never happened from an IC standpoint because it wasn't legitimate in the first place. Why do we not allow players to 'take matters into their own hands' after an administrator has intervened? Because it convolutes everything. It creates a paradox. It wastes administrators time and rekindles an issue that has been dealt with already. Two wrongs don't make a right. Furthermore, it promotes grudging, it promotes toxicity, it promotes a very unpleasant environment wherein people will act spitefully towards each other 'just cus', despite the issue already having been resolved. There is no reason to prolong these issues.

    On that note: if an administrator says a situation has been resolved, it's been resolved. If you don't agree with the resolution, you go through the appropriate channels. You don't add to the cesspit of toxicity because you disagree. We have to deal with the mass of insulting verbal vomit on the forums daily as it is. Please don't drag that into the game too because MUH HUMAN RIGHTS LET ME DEAL WITH IT MYSELF. No. We have an administrative system for a reason. Tharinoma actually summed it up very well.

    To stem any lengthy, undoubtedly vicious discussion before it even begins, this policy has always been in place. This policy will remain in place. To those who accept it and the reason we enforce it, thank you.

    We might as well hit two nails on the head here, so as to the presentation of this issue... Flat, we appreciate that you put your time and effort into dictating how we should run our server. We really do. And we're constantly striving to improve and forge a fun environment for everyone. Handling things as we do isn't a case of 'incompetence' or 'ineptitude' -- it's us handling things in a manner we believe best for the community we are tasked to administrate. If you remain unhappy with how we handle things, nobody is forcing you to stay here. There are communities out there that will suit your needs more whilst we continue to change, expand, and improve at our own pace. You're welcome to leave. Otherwise?



    Thank you to the rest of you for your understanding. you're gr8 m8
  14. Ah, input from the company man who made project lead apprentice by never finding an LLA policy or ruling that he disagreed with. Knew this thread wouldn't be complete without that.
    Agent1667 and QuantumWings like this.
  15. Taicho

    Taicho Director of LS13 Staff Member

    It appears you have not, in fact, let it go. I'll assume the explanation was satisfactory then.

    Happy Spessmanning. Don't hesitate to poke me with a PM if you have any further questions about this or suggestions for improvement.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page