Bygonehero Posted January 12, 2019 Posted January 12, 2019 (edited) BYOND Key: BygoneheroStaff BYOND Key: GarnascusGame ID: N/AEvidence/logs/etc:Additional remarks: So, there's an unfair advantage when it comes to the rules, in that they favor crew players over antags. I'll explain what I mean by this. According to Garnascus, as an antag, if someone saw me breaking into the vault, I would be alright in killing them without speaking to them first. This, frankly, isn't true, and anyone that was killed this way, especially if it's near the start of the round, or if it's the first time they have seen the antag, will ahelp this, most likely with their grievances successfully acted upon by admins. HOWEVER The reverse, is ok, If - say, someone saw the antag breaking into the vault, they would be well within their rights to disable/kill/subdue that antag without any interaction. This would, under the auspices of Garn, be also acceptable. Now let's take the latter situation and make it even worse. Lets say a member of your antag team gets caught, and/or/then killed breaking into the vault by security. This now means, again according to Garn, that your entire team is now subject to termination, by association with your slain teammate, if an association can be logically surmised by players. (It most always can) This, is frankly bullpoop and it allows security to punish antags so much. Context should not matter in the terms of rules. They are not contextual, they are rules. A gank is to kill someone without interaction with them. Lets enforce that rule rather than create arbitrary distinctions such as guilt by association. By using this logic, its ok for antags to murder every single member of security the second one member of security fires on them. This is again, NOT TRUE, and AGAIN highlights the unfair lenanince that the crew are given in regards with the rules. After experiences this firsthand, across more than one round, but with no specific admin besides Garn, who is the most recent case, I think this should be addressed, or-some kind of protection be implaced for antags, to the same degree of the crew. The crew deserve roleplay. The antag deserves roleplay. A Gank is to kill without having interactions with a person. There is no caveats to modify this. Either you ganked someone or you did not. Either I gave someone interaction, or I did not. Guilt by association is a way around this rule, and it allows players to nip a blooming round in the bud, for antags and crew, before it even gets a chance to start. Edited January 12, 2019 by Bygonehero
Garnascus Posted January 12, 2019 Posted January 12, 2019 1 hour ago, Bygonehero said: According to Garnascus, as an antag, if someone saw me breaking into the vault, I would be alright in killing them without speaking to them first. This, frankly, isn't true, and anyone that was killed this way, especially if it's near the start of the round, or if it's the first time they have seen the antag, will ahelp this, most likely with their grievances successfully acted upon by admins. HOWEVER The reverse, is ok, If - say, someone saw the antag breaking into the vault, they would be well within their rights to disable/kill/subdue that antag without any interaction. This would, under the auspices of Garn, be also acceptable. Now let's take the latter situation and make it even worse. Lets say a member of your antag team gets caught, and/or/then killed breaking into the vault by security. This now means, again according to Garn, that your entire team is now subject to termination, by association with your slain teammate, if an association can be logically surmised by players. (It most always can) Its bizarre to me that this is at all controversial. Suspicion is naturally going to escalate if you're part of a vox merc team and one vox gets caught breaking into the vault. The rest of you are probably going to get detained as well at the very least. Its the team's responsibility to communicate and make sure everyone is on the same page. You have AOOC for a reason to setup rules beforehand. Players will definitely ahelp in both situations but that is because its what everyone does when they die, including me. It does not mean its wrong. This is not new policy. Its how we have always operated stretching all the way back to doomberg. We just keep forgetting to add a definition of gank to the rules.
ShameOnTurtles Posted January 15, 2019 Posted January 15, 2019 I will be handling this complaint. @Bygonehero, to clarify, you aren't contesting a specific ruling, but Garn's interpretation of the rules?
ShameOnTurtles Posted January 19, 2019 Posted January 19, 2019 Sorry about the delay on this. To start, I want to clear up a misunderstanding here. On 12/01/2019 at 18:51, Bygonehero said: Context should not matter in the terms of rules. They are not contextual, they are rules. Context is absolutely integral when determining if a rule was broken, and if so, what punishment to give. Playing a paranoid and trigger happy character that punches people when startled is a lot more reasonable at the end of a hectic traitor round than when nothing has happened. One situation is violating the sane, believable character rule, and one is not. With that said, I know this may be an unsatisfying answer, but what is acceptable or not really depends on the context of the situation. I do not think Garn's interpretation of the rules is incorrect here. Antagonists have instructed to not kill without a clear purpose that promotes roleplay. There are many circumstances in which escalating to killing someone if you're about to get caught and outed is a valid path to take. It may not seem conductive to roleplay, but there are great stories that can be made from a sudden character death and the subsequent consequences and escalation. On the other side of the coin, security and the crew as a whole have to be responsible in how they approach antagonists. You describe that being part of an antagonist team gives security an fair advantage. I would disagree. It is believable and reasonable for security to figure that what one member of the team does, the others condone and/or helped them, unless it is otherwise made clear. This is where, as Garn said, antagonist teams need to be on the same page. This thread does indicate to me that we, as a staff team, need to get off our backsides and come up with a definition in the rules for gank, though, so you can expect that coming relatively soon.
ShameOnTurtles Posted February 4, 2019 Posted February 4, 2019 Apologies, I have left this open far longer than intended. We are currently in the final stages of working out a definition for Gank, @Bygonehero do you have anything to add on the subject of this complaint?
Recommended Posts