Frances

Doesn't mean they have to follow any arbitrary conventions. We've seen such silly things as a death borg army, so I don't think trying to wrestle a gun out of somebody's arms should be inadmissible on the basis that "we're HRP, not an action movie". The main reason why the "antags are there for others" rule is so stressed is because some people can forget really quickly that antagging carries responsibilities, but it honestly goes both ways and antags are entitled to create their own roleplay too, not only something which conforms perfectly to the expectations of whoever they happen to stumble upon. But I digress. This all isn't too relevant to the situation at hand.

Alright. If the only interactions you've had with Techno's char were you catching him committing a crime, then him finding out antag code phrases, then that does seem sorely lacking in interaction for him to decide to outright kill you (and it's really the combination of "assumption a character he has no knowledge of would be bad" + "expeditive method" that I find problematic here). Sorry for arguing so long with you, but I had assumed the PDA messages were more... descriptive of your character, and that he had been able to gauge more about you through observation. The way you put it does sound pretty bad. Lastly, though, I can't really agree with that. I don't think Heavy-RP has to be "better" or "more realistic" than movies. Like, come on, let antags have their fun and act like James Bong from time to time (I mean by being badasses, not by executing characters). Otherwise, what's even the point of having baddies?

An antagonist trying to fight back while being held at gunpoint is only one example of how things could've gone wrong (and really, how often do you see it in movies?) You could've also pretended to play along, then sold him out or disposed of him when he no longer had you at gunpoint. There's a lot of ways you could've made his life hell, and I don't think he should have been contractually obligated to play along with your character just to keep them alive. What about the PDA messages? I don't think it's been explained what they were in this thread yet.

Going off of what you said, it'd be just equally meta to assume everybody would react receptively, no? The final choice on how to handle a situation should be left to the player/character, not to a rulebook that states all cases should be handled like X. Anyway, antags being non-canon is sorta negated by the fact that Techno was also an antag. I don't know exactly what he knew, but if he knew you were an antagonist and had believable reason to suspect you were willing to sell him out, I don't see his actions as being uncalled.

Is it metagaming, when you know the other character to be an antagonist? The actual lore/game outlines on what antags "are" are pretty vague (since a lot of them choose not to RP being syndicate), but I think an antag should be allowed to surmise a fellow antag would have access to the same tools he or she does, and could demonstrate a high level of both training and aggression. Edit: If you want to look at it from an OOC perspective, antags put themselves at risk whenever they try to coerce someone to do their bidding via RP (since it's so easy to screw an antag over by telling on sec, running around and causing a huge ruckus, or simply screaming on the radio). As an antag, I expect most bystanders to give me the courtesy of playing along to a reasonable extent (as that usually ends up creating more interesting situations than generic arrest/manhunt number 3000), but I could definitely see an antag pointing a gun at another antag as free rein for the second antag to do whatever they please to get out of the situation.

I'm super confused. Did either of you make a typo in their posts? I was under the impression extended pick rate had been increased in secret, to be at an advantage over all other gamemodes. Yet you (Scopes and 1138) seem to be arguing against each other, but saying the same thing. The main problem I was trying to solve while making this thread wasn't how boring secret-extended rounds were, but how rare voted-extended rounds felt, btw. I might not have clarified that enough but I think it's an important thing to focus on.

To be honest, I don't really know if Garnascus' call was wrong. After rereading this thread I find the evidence of the PDA messages discovered by Techno's character to be pretty valid. He could've threatened you, explosive-implanted you, kidnapped you, or do idk what thing to prevent your character from selling him out, but due to how unreceptive a lot of characters are to antags I don't think he was under any obligation to do so. At some point, you don't think it's a bit silly that antags have to "kidnap" or somehow keep alive every character problematic to their plan for the sake of roleplay? It's like, for example, if you engage in violent traitorous acts, and security comes to fight you with laser rifles, and you end up killing a member of sec or two that you've had little interactions with prior. Would that be considered ganking, and if not, what's the difference between that and this? They're both situations where an antag kills another character without extensive roleplay, for a believable motive, in an effort to protect themselves. If he had a clear advantage on you, a short courtesy conversation explaining to your character why he was executing them before pulling the trigger would've been nice, but given that a lot of players are tempted to resist even while being held at gunpoint, I don't think I can even really fault him for skipping that.

And if he's showing any interest in improving, now's the chance for him to examine his behavior and find ways to improve. Improvement doesn't come in a day. I do agree that him immediately shooting up your character simply for being a witness to something previous was crap, though. What exactly did you say on the radio?

-1 free welding without eyedamage permaantag OP 420trespassMLG nerf pls Just kidding, this problem always annoyed me as nearsighted characters. Seems like a pretty dank solution.

Well, the situation as I see it is that you and Techno's characters had some sort of antag feud going on, then Techno decided to assassinate your character for badmouthing/selling his off. Keep in mind the initial definition of a gank was the "immediate killing of a random person by an antagonist just to commit a random evil act", and that definition was never officially expanded beyond that. From the info given here, it seems that Techno had a legitimate reason to try to kill your character, though the quality of the execution of said killing would largely hinge on the previous interactions (which I'm assuming do exist if your own antag was able to witness enough of his to try to sell him out over comms - it'd nevertheless be really important to hear more about that). Lastly, I'll add that if Techno is found to be at fault here, shouldn't this be used as a learning experience rather than a ban request? I'd rather see someone trying to reform themselves over past behavior be met with a modicum of leniency, not by having previous restrictions immediately reapplied at the first mess-up.

I didn't know the rule on CMD had a precise "30-minute period", I was always told it applied to everything that happened during the shift, or at the very minimum antagonist actions. Wouldn't it be safe to assume he killed you to shut your character up?

Keep in mind a single person posting a tentative statement is different from a definitive and uncontested judgement. As much as I agree Techno was capable of doing more with your character than killing them the way he did, whether that makes it a "gank" or not remains to be established (it definitely served his antag a purpose, and didn't come entirely out of the blue).

Not really. A lot of people on here are simply expressing that they find the constant doomsaying kinda dumb.

hey guys what's going on in this thread

Solely having people complain about your behavior does not necessarily put you in the wrong. If we used that logic, a lot of regular antag players would have been banned by now, simply because antagging tends to make some people pretty salty. As for the complaints posted against Garnascus (and idk why that one needs to be numbered lmao), I don't see anything that Garnascus has done as the mark of a bad moderator. Garnascus has shown to be incredibly civil and open to discussion. He was able to share an understandable reasoning for the calls he made, and of the two other complaints made, one was solved after clearing up an (understandable) misunderstanding (Garn even said he'd make an effort to communicate more clearly in the future) and the other (the one against me) involves a topic the community seems to have very diverse opinions on (and I thus don't think he should be faulted for taking the stance he did). Keep in mind even senior members of staff make mistakes all the time, because administrating a HRP server causes you to run into a lot of gray areas while still requiring fast in-round decision making. I believe Garnascus has demonstrated to be both a pleasant and reasonable individual (two super important qualities for a mod), and I think it'd be a little unfair to say his position as a trialmod needs to be put in question simply because complaints have been made against him (instead of looking at the way he addressed the complaints.)

I do believe there's some decent Taj/Unathi players (I had my fun playing around and against Tajaran tropes myself, and none of my characters were ever overly uptight or zealous). The bad ones get noticed a lot, but it's also hard to deny there's not a lot of them. However, in a dream world, I'd still love to axe Tajarans and Unathis alike. Their good RPers would be more than capable of roleplaying other unique races - at that point, the qualities of these races remains a matter of preference.

So you don't believe that if secret-extended stopped happening, people would feel like voting for extended more? It's a theory, I feel like it makes sense on paper, but in the end the only way to verify it is to put it on trial. Is there anything to lose here? If my suggestion actually works, it would be a really nice QoL change for everyone.

If you've read my argument, you can see that I don't actually believe this change would reduce the number of extended rounds, but simply make it clearer when it's extended or not.

If most players don't want to be racist, you can't force them to roleplay something they don't like. This is the main problem with the current main "downside" of Tajarans/Unathis. It's not really applicable, and would be hard to apply.

You bring up a good point. However, I think we can have some semi-familiar alien races that aren't literally space furries. Obviously, another problem remains that anthropomorphism is desired, as we want to roleplay characters we can relate to, not Qxxrtlag-37 the seven-headed ¤{}¤ from planet Orange. Mass Effect races might be kind of a good example, though I'm genuinely curious whether the robust, warlike Turians would quickly earn Unathi status or not. But as a whole, a lot of sci-fi media already demonstrated that it's possible to create relatable aliens without directly porting a random Earth animal onto a human frame. I would actually consider the Skrell a very, very good race. They have the right mix of easy-to-relate and outright bizarre traits.

The Unathi/Tajaran cliques are probably the only instance of cliques I've actually witnessed on the server. And it's a quasi-universal phenomenon (no, I don't mean they all do it, I mean that there's no organization to it and that anyone can integrate the Unathi/Tajaran "badass hivemind".) The reason I'd advance, as hilarious as it sounds, is furries. Yep, furries. There's more to it than just furries (and a lot of people who play these characters don't associate with the furry fandom), but overall, I think most can agree that playing anthropomorphic characters resembling animal species makes you feel cool and badass. Skrells don't have the same problem because they don't follow "cool" conventions, they're really alien-looking and sorta bumbling and ridiculous. In comparison, you have anthro cats and lizards, both of which are popular enough tropes that an entire corner of the internet is dedicated to people roleplaying them or wishing they could incarnate them irl. If I had to remake SS13 from scratch (or build my own server), I'd get rid of Unathis and Tajarans altogether, and come up with some genuinely alien replacements for them. Catpeople and lizardpeople are just way too attractive options for people desiring to get a "cool" bonus, in contrast with their intended (?) purpose of simply providing different RP avenues. --- As for why they're so well-received, I don't know. I hate shitty Unathi/Tajarans, and I'm sure a few more reasonably-minded people hate them as well.

I'm just trying to explain why it's sometimes okay to hide bodies and sometimes bad, since people seemed to have questions about that.

I'm kinda confused, though. It's okay to joke about it if someone else tries to do it to you, but if you're responsible for provoking it yourself making fun of it isn't okay?

Here's the problem I still have, though. Let's say I walk through welder fuel with a cigarette again, accidentally or not. Am I supposed to writhe in agony and pretend to get terribly burned (like I also initially did as a joke) while taking no damage, or should I simply disregard it and try to get away from the fuel as quickly as possible while pretending nothing happened? Your answer matters in this. I sorta feel like I can surmise it won't be the former, and if it's the latter, then you're arguing something very different than a break of the painRP rule. The point isn't that I avoided pain-RP (that should be glaringly obvious to anyone, though we could also pretend that the flames didn't hurt for whatever reason, since they mechanically didn't). The point is that you believe I goofed off too much, and I'd rather we discuss that than minor and obvious details.