Squiddie complaint

[Nightmare]

BYOND Key: Nightmare 00

Player Byond Key: Squiddie

Reason for complaint: No reason basic level gank.

Approximate Date/Time: 3/2/2015 about 2:30 am

So basically, what happened was Nasir (my character) went to the kitchen to try to order a gummy bear after he got all his gear for the day. The chef went into the back room, so Nasir waited for like five minutes. The came out, and Nasir asked for the gummy bear. She said sure and left to get an orange to make it. She came back, and walked out of the kitchen. She handed Nasir the gummy bear, and then hit him with a stun rod and dragged him into the cold room. She tried to put him in the gibber, but im guessing live mobs don't fit so she said "Yeah, I need your meat" and beat his head in with the stun rod, gibbed him, hid all his stuff and cleaned up the mess. She put the meat in the lock and continued on with the round. I really hate complaining because I think antags should be allowed a bit of freedom, but really? I understand that you can't always have hours of /me's before killing someone, and I get that sometimes you gotta just do it. But just the way I died, after only one sentence just seemed, I don't know like weird.

Edited March 2, 2015 by Guest

[Guest]

I had a similar situation the other round, where I was working in botany as a captain (I often do that) and then the chef (traitor) came to talk and then took me out with the pen. He brought me to the freezer and then started to cut me apart 'with RP'. Yes, it turned out fun, but only because it got out. I was under the impression that taking people out of the round permanently was looked down upon. When I moaned about it, they said 'there was RP' and told me to deal with it. Being penned, restrained and told you're going to be cut up before being cut up is not my definition of good RP.

I just want this shit cleared up. What does even go as a good reason to kill someone?

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

Death is part of the game when you vote for antagonists, and join a round with antagonists. It's in their jurisdiction to murder you.

The question is this:

Was it fun?

For Nasir, I have to say that maybe the chef could have waited a few minutes before offing you, but I wasn't there for the specific situation. All I know is that you arrived, then never said a single word, but I'm used to Nasir ignoring everyone outside the ladies in engineering so I didn't think anything of it until a lady in engineering mentioned you were missing.

Murdering you as soon as you arrived was a little butts yes, but I don't know if I agree with the philosophy that effectively murdering someone is inherently bad, if it's to further the rp and not just gank their way to objective winning.

[Nightmare]

Actually, Nasir ignores people he doesn't like. But moving past that, like I said I understand that antags need to kill people. The reason I put the complaint is the only thing I said was "Can He have a gummy bear" That's it, and then death

[EvilBrage]

I was present during the round, and during my own interactions with the chef in question, I found them rather engaging in the moments before I was attacked; it's hard to replicate that sort of palpable tension. It may have just been an issue with you being the first victim, and I can admit an increased difficulty in dealing with the first of your victims in a round by sheer virtue of a lack of "fear" elements to make use of. I want to step away from that for a minute and approach it all from a different angle, though:

What would you have done differently?

No one is perfect, and apart from some creepy emotes or comments about how Nasir looks fit and lean, I'm not seeing much else that could be done. Sometimes, it may not be much fun for the player who's initially slaughtered, but it did provide the backbone for several disgustingly wonderful moments later (the discovery of the meat in question, her deranged babbling about how "a part of him is in all of us now," etc.)

[Susan]

What you are essentially attempting to do is justify something in the same vein as parapen+c4. Stun baton + grinder both result in total elimination from the round and are powergamey; there are very few circumstances where an antag should be allowed to just kill someone wordlessly and almost 100% of them have to do with either being shot at by sec or dealing with someone who poses a great, palpable threat.

What would I have done differently? I wouldn't have done it in the first place. Because it was bad roleplay.

[Nightmare]

I saw what the chef did after, and I agree it was amazing. Nasir flavored Gummy for the win. My problem, is that I only got off one sentence, and got a one word response before getting beaten to death, after which the chef went on for the round normally for close to an hour, probably like 50 minutes before doing anything else. That's the main thing I found weird. I got wordlessly killed, the mess cleaned up, and then the round went on like complete normal, so there was no need for such a quick and wordless death

[Baka]

Reading this so far...

If antags decide to kill a player, it is expected for them to provide interesting roleplay to their targets first. While them turning you into candy after the fact was hilarious to you because of your character's affiliation with gummies, yeah, the chef could had a little bit more dialogue in their antagging in the cold room before gibbing and turning you into a gummy bear. I don't think it was malicious ganking, more of a spur of the moment "I really need an idea and I'm going to take up this offer right now", which happens when you get antag roles and have no idea how to proceed with antagging, and no idea if the victim is going to comply with their roleplay.

I expect a bit more interaction with victims next time they gib and take a character permanently out of the round, because if you're going to do that, make it interesting.

I also want to read Squiddie's side of the story, as well.

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

I have to say I don't agree with this sentiment. It's a maximum level of cheese and arbitrariness to have an antag monologue about how creepy and evil they are before they kill you. I'm going to repeat in that dying is part of the round, and that the antag made it interesting for both the ghost and other players later on in the round.

Not every single player has to have a dramatic and over-the-top death "for RP", as if the amount of talking determines the quality of the story being told. Nasir was given a good death in an amusingly fitting way, not ganked then spaced. Would it honestly have been any better if the Chef kept him cuffed for a few minutes, rambling at him? I prefer it when I'm killed, and can watch the results later on.

There's also the option to respawn after 30 minutes; you're not permanently removed from the round.

[Nightmare]

If thats what you think Jackboot, then thats fine; but if thats how you really feel then I hope you wouldn't complain if im an antag and randomly kill you and wait like an hour before doing anything with it. I wont mind wordless killings as along as its allowed completely for all antags

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

If thats what you think Jackboot, then thats fine; but if thats how you really feel then I hope you wouldn't complain if im an antag and randomly kill you and wait like an hour before doing anything with it. I wont mind wordless killings as along as its allowed completely for all antags

 

I wouldn't complain. I might initially get surprised, but if I can ghost and see that my death furthered the story for the antag or gave people fun later, I wouldn't care. I'd either watch and rejoin in half an hour or go off and play another game if I didn't feel like being another character. I have died before, and I've died a lot - mostly on Archangel or hippie, so I suppose I may have a bias towards being more chill about death.

[Frances]

As a reminder, an antag doesn't have to monologue to kill people, and antags have a vast array of options at their disposal to do a whole lot of stuff, both with and without murder.

I simply don't think we can justify ganks in this day and age "because antags are about killing". They /can/ be. But what they decidedly /are/ about, is fun.

[EvilBrage]

I simply don't think we can justify ganks in this day and age "because antags are about killing". They /can/ be. But what they decidedly /are/ about, is fun.

 

At the same time, the responsibility of fun shouldn't rest solely on the shoulders of the antagonist - it's not fun at all if the individual you're tying to a chair and torturing says nothing and simply spams the resist button. 99% of the server will shout into their radio "HELP ENGINEERING MAINT JOHN IS KILLING ME" rather than attempt to empathize with their attacker and try to escape the situation alive. 85% of security forces will toss in flashbangs and rush an antagonist with a hostage, whether they're holding a gun to the individual's head or not. If we force the antagonist to shoulder the burden of creating a fun scenario without also holding the entire playerbase as a whole to a standard that enables an antagonist to create fun scenarios, you won't see much variation in antagonistic schemes at all.

[VoltageHero]

85% of security forces will toss in flashbangs and rush an antagonist with a hostage, whether they're holding a gun to the individual's head or not.

 

This is an issue. The bad thing is, a lot of security officers believe that this is a good approach to taking care of the situation, as well.

Flashbangs make sense in certain situations, but if it's obvious that a character is attempting to roleplay something, don't throw a flashbang at them.

At the same time, Security isn't the best at dealing with people aiming guns at them. I recall Nuke Ops targeting SMGs at two officers one round, only for a cadet to run up and try to flash them. Once they got shot point blank in the head. They began stating that their head hurt afterwards, although they still stayed around, to try and run at the Nuke Ops once more.

[Jennalele]

At this point, we are awaiting the input of the player in question regarding the complaint. Their side of the story will be given, and they will most likely be spoken to by staff in hopes of resolving this.

[mrimatool]

85% of security forces will toss in flashbangs and rush an antagonist with a hostage, whether they're holding a gun to the individual's head or not.

 

This is an issue. The bad thing is, a lot of security officers believe that this is a good approach to taking care of the situation, as well.

Flashbangs make sense in certain situations, but if it's obvious that a character is attempting to roleplay something, don't throw a flashbang at them.

At the same time, Security isn't the best at dealing with people aiming guns at them. I recall Nuke Ops targeting SMGs at two officers one round, only for a cadet to run up and try to flash them. Once they got shot point blank in the head. They began stating that their head hurt afterwards, although they still stayed around, to try and run at the Nuke Ops once more.

 

Remember that round and I'm pretty sure it was Meow as the cadet, though Meow back then was a lot better than our current sec sometimes. Plus Meow has become quite a good Roleplayer and while I was pretty pissed off that round(I was nuke ops) I do forgive 'em

[Guest Menown]

Tool, Voltage is talking about a recent Nuke Round. The cadet was a new player.

[mrimatool]

Hahahahah, then you're still bad Meowsers. >.> anyway to the topic at hand! people get annoyed far too easily by death but I do agree that the chef should have given more of an attempt to RP. Granted it was probably hard and he was probably nervous.

[Jennalele]

Alright. The player in question has been contacted and spoken to off-forums. This is considered resolved and completed.

Locked and archived.