Frances

Except I did. Tish and I exchanged about five messages (most of which consisted of me being confused and him trying to explain why he thought what I did was bad) before I asked the player if they were aware I was joking (which already seemed pretty obvious due to the "yes, i know" they had replied, but I mostly wanted to show/reassure Tish that everything was good between this person and I). How am I the bad person here? Was my joke truly in bad enough taste to warrant being admin-PMed and asked to not do it again?

There's a difference between being targeted and being a victim of collateral, though. I remember at least one instance in which one of your sec officers was killed by a nuke op while unarmed for basically no reason, and that was shit. There is a difference between that and what Brage is advocating, imo.

Tishina was fairly short and direct, as was I. I was a bit taken aback, and I don't think my reaction was uncalled, given that he immediately described my actions as "an attempt to deliberately mislead another player for my own amusement", and proved that he had no clear understanding of the situation. Compare: There was also a brief exchange over a misunderstanding early on (which I've omitted as it was irrelevant) in which Tish acted very tense and somewhat accusatory. I don't really understand how anything I did was out of line, given that the server's staff has a longtime habit of deliberately antagonizing most players they have to PM. The two quotes just above in this message should help single out the issue.

BYOND Key: FFrances Staff BYOND Key: TishinaStalker Reason for complaint: I don't even really know what to call it Evidence/logs/etc: Additional remarks: Above logs should be enough, I can provide more information or explanations if needed.

I'd actually argue putting the QM in charge of more people (giving the HoP less responsibilities by extension) and giving chefs and botanists access to the supply channel is a much bigger change than simply creating a new channel for the chef/bartender/botanist.

Sometimes, it's pretty difficult for an antag to determine whether you want to be involved in their spiel or not, and in some situations you can't very well politely ask someone if they would like to get involved in the collateral fire of nuke ops fighting sec. When I was playing more regularly, I'd say I would get killed/fucked over by antags at most 1-2 times a week, and since objectives have been removed, almost all of it has been collateral damage. While secret has become the go-to round over extended, I don't think it's fair to get mad at antags just because they do their antagging. I mean, what would you have them do? (And I think you should leave bad antags out of this, because they're a separate problem.)

Well, that seems like a perfectly reasonable answer to me. Alright, thank you.

Not really. I edited some things in my above post because I honestly think half of this is bullshit. (And like, wanting people to use LOOC over skype is the only acceptable thing out of all of this.)

There we go. It took four pages to anyone to explain that, and even Doomberg failed to. I am absolutely flabbergasted by all of this. Anyway, why not simply say this instead of having a long angry talk and give us both a warning? It's not like we had any malicious intentions. And actually, while we're here, there's a few things I want to sort out. I know why it's there. I wrote it. (And it's technically two rules, metagaming and IC knowledge.) If you don't know why a rule exists yet you're enforcing it, well... that's pretty bad? If you don't know the purpose of a rule, how can you be sure you're enforcing it for its intended purpose and not for an arbitrary reason? My problem is not with the severity of the punishment, but with the presence of a punishment at all. By that logic people (staff included) will have to stop whispering silly things such as "Ayy Lmao" in escape. Again, me getting my leg broken was a completely OOC action (and something you guys seem to have stated you were okay with.) If you guys have problems with me making funny OOC comments while engaging in an OOC action (that nobody should even be around to see) then you may be a little too strict with your moderation. I would like to strongly argue that me trying to get my leg broken for RP has little to do with generic chucklefucking. Yes, I play silly balds and do funny stuff, but if that's what annoys you I'd much prefer you call me out on that than on unrelated rules - much like you did to Cassie.

The one thing that keeps being ignored whenever this image is posted is that these messages were said in maintenance, in the presence of no-one, as an attempt to reflect on the humor of a particularly silly situation (needing to "break" someone's leg to simulate a break that would supposedly have happened earlier). So it's not like they were uttered in a room full of people in an attempt at chucklefucking. Also, aren't you basically saying that you're refusing to look into this issue because of whatever precedent I would have with the staff? Because you have still failed at explaining what exactly I've done wrong here.

Well, my mistake for not knowing objects can be self-targeted to body parts (punches can't). That was the only reason why I asked someone else for help. This is about the smallest possible difference, though, and what you're advocating is blind enforcement of the rules in a pretty stupid way.

Two people are roleplaying treating a broken leg that's not actually broken. The player with the "broken leg" asks if they can break their leg so they actually have something to RP. The other involved player then proceeds to break the leg. What's the problem, and why is it a problem worth a warning? Also, for the record, I'm pretty sure I don't have any way of targeting my own body parts.

I don't think the first part of your post is really applicable. I was trying to reproduce a previous injury through OOC means, so trying to find a way to break my leg again IC would've made no sense. In the canon of the roleplay, the leg was broken by the beartrap. I just had to find a way to get it to break in-game. For the second part of this, I don't exactly see what was wrong with involving the very other person who was roleplaying my leg being broken despite it being fine in-game. That person was obviously in the know, and it had no effect in game. Considering this, how was it different from breaking the leg myself?

This is important. Let's look at the situation assuming the misunderstanding did not happen (as Table said it wasn't important). You, as an admin, give a person trying to be treated by a doctor the permission to break their own leg to match a wound they previously received. Within the next 30 seconds, you see said doctor (who you know to be a semi-frequent RP partner of that person) break said person's leg. Wouldn't it be safe to assume these two situations are related in a perfectly reasonable manner? (I can expand on variables if needed, but trying to keep things at their simplest for now.) This is the part I don't get. That seems arbitrary and I have no idea why anyone would get upset at that (but do try to explain it, rather than simply restating that it is bad).

Correct. Table also has yet to answer my question, as stated here: I believe him doing so would allow me to prove my point that the course of action I chose (misunderstanding notwithstanding) did not deserve a reprimand. Additionally, staff complaints have rarely been thrown out against the user's will, but I think it should probably be Doomberg's job to look into this if anyone.

I've actually seen "do you mind" go answered with a "yes" as a positive.

Except the only thing I got was: This was after Table had already attempted to break my leg through variables. Since the English language is fickle and that reply was really unclear, I assumed that was a "yeah, sure" and not a "yeah, I mind", especially given the context. Should I really be faulted for that?

I sometimes do attempt to target the player rather than the character in my roleplay (mostly to fuck with people, like doing *deathgasp feints during combat), but I feel like dealing with captured antags isn't really a good case for this. Like, if the antag has been properly searched and cuffed, in theory, they're done. It's really hard to escape on your own once you've been cuffed by a competent sec player, and I don't really see trying to intimidate the player more as being really fair-play. I'd rather find ways to create interesting situations by cooperating with said player, and that can involve intimidating their character, or providing them anything fun for them to work with.

We actually went to a secluded maintenance area to do it (I didn't randomly yell in a room of people, only to Halo). The only reason why we were spotted was because there was a random geneticist with x-ray vision around who rushed to us, but at that point I attempted to explain what was happening in LOOC (only to be promptly ignored). I really can't agree with this. If you can't explain why a rule even exists then you have no business enforcing it in the first place.

I don't agree on this. Are you trying to intimidate the player, or the character?

Because metagaming is only bad if it has an effect on IC situations, specifically in a way that confers a character/player an advantage they would otherwise not have, much like in the example you described above. I was looking for an OOC way to break my character's foot. Whether my foot was broken through admin commands or through the help of a friend in the know, the result would have been the exact same. Thus, can you explain to me why what I did was bad?

Knowing the miscommunication was not the problem, why does this matter? We had already agreed that damaging my leg through OOC means was okay (as you had tried to edit its variables yourself). If you're saying it was fine if I hurt myself, what would be the issue/difference in getting a friend to hurt me through OOC means? You took out the part of my post where I explained it was never used to confer our characters with an IC advantage. It's a kind of metacommunication, but I really don't see why it should be punished as it has no unfair effect on the round or other players, which is the reason why the rule on metacommunication even exists. I believe we were reprimanded for a non-valid issue. While there's no ban to appeal or anything of the sort, I'd prefer if staff could acknowledge they were in the wrong - mostly as a question of principle. You should be able to figure out why this is still important.

People did start arguing about the legitimacy of the round, when there was already an ongoing complaint thread for it (which Scopes even asked people to go to). I don't really see Delta's vitriol as being related to that, though. I think his issue was more with the round lauded in the OP happening at all than it being rule-breaking, and the ensuing niceness came as a result to that.

Well, if I can attempt to bring some sort of explanation, Halo and I play together relatively often (whenever I play, which isn't a lot) and we usually play pretty silly characters. While our antics haven't really bothered anyone as far as I know, the admins often see us "together" and I can understand how they could get annoyed at this fact alone considering a lot of the things we do are silly. In this case, however, I don't think the punishment was just. I've never metacommunicated with Halo (in the "sec is arresting me come help me" kind of way), and while we do tell each other about some of the funny things we witness by playing, neither of us have acted directly upon something the other was told, nor have we let any of our characters use any knowledge acquired through OOC means in an unfair way.

BYOND Key: FFrances Staff BYOND Key: Tablespoon Reason for complaint: Unjust punishment Evidence/logs/etc: Logs from my perspective: Logs from Halo's perspective: Additional remarks: Gonna try to provide context as quick as I can. My character was a clumsy janitor who got his leg caught in a bear trap. While bear traps do little damage gameplay-wise, I was having fun roleplaying being severely injured. I came to a friend, Halo, who was playing as a MD at the time. Right before he could begin operating on my character, though, a vast crowd of people (about 4-5) barged into the OR and began claiming that my character was not actually injured, due to his health readings showing up as 100% on med scanners. We were quickly ushered out of the OR and left ignored in the general confusion. At that point, I tried ahelping my issue, seeing if I could get an admin to give my foot brute damage and break it, to match the bear trap injury. Tablespoon came in at this time. Sadly, we encountered a problem as the damage didn't actually apply to my leg/foot, nor did any bones get broken. I consequently asked if I could go to a secluded location and simply break the foot myself (which would functionally carry out the same result.) This was the last communication I got from Table. Assuming I was in the clear, I asked Halo over Skype to drag my character into maintenance and break his foot (he was already aware of my plan to get the admins to give my character damage through vars, and its failure. We went into maintenance, broke the foot. Next thing we know, Halo's doctor is being winded, with Tablespoon berating him for metacommunication. Table explains to him (and later to me) that he did not give me the go ahead to break my foot, but rather that his "yea" was a negative, not a positive. We were consequently both given warnings for metacommunicating, and when I attempted to discuss how exactly what we had done was a concrete breach of the rules, I was referred to the forums. My issues with this whole affair come as follow: Admins were already in the process of finding an OOC way to break my leg. Me or a friend using gameplay mechanics to do so had no effective bearing on the round, and would've amounted to the same result. Part of the logs posted at the beginning of this complaint seem to indicate I was punished partly because of the misunderstanding between Table and I, and that Halo was punished due to the information I gave him as a result of said misunderstanding (which he had no way to know of) The out-of-character communication was used exclusively to find a way to get my leg into a broken state - given that this was an action driven by OOC motives, I fail to understand how it falls under the "bad" kind of metagaming, or what I was supposed to do, short of asking Halo to break my leg in LOOC or even ICly (both of which would've made about as much sense as using Skype)