Jump to content

all the hating gotta stahp


Thundy

Recommended Posts

All I'm saying is, if someone debates like an asshole, even if they're right, no one's going to listen to them.

The people have a responsibility to try actually addressing their points. If they refuse, if the other person actually has valid points, then it is their responsibility and they are thus guilty of unacceptable behavior.

Quick example: Person A writes a rather acerbic reply to a question from person B, while also addressing said question. Later, person A is accused of "dismissing" the previous question by person B, because the tone they used was dismissive, although person A did also provide a clear answer. In this case, person B, more preoccupied with the appearance of the message than its content, feels like their question is not being taken seriously because of the way the response was written.


I would honestly find person B's reaction natural. Yes, you should do your best to judge people on what they say, not just on how they say it, but if someone acts like an asshole and no one listens to them because they act like an asshole (even if they're right), that's pretty much their own fault.

If everyone ignores their point, those people are not showing proper maturity. I am perfectly able to respond to someone debating in an assholish manner. I routinely do so. I do it on a daily manner. I expect others to show the same basic skills, and if they do not then I see no reason why they even deserve respect in the first place.


The proper route is to admonish their tone and also respond to their points. Otherwise, simply concede the argument. You do not ignore their points. You have the self control necessary to not do so, and the validity of their point is entirely separate from their tone.


This is conditional on the fact that they are not simply engaging in direct personal attacks while not making a point. Criticizing someone's behavior is not a personal attack. This is also conditional on the fact that they must be engaging in honest debate, countering the points presented to them, not engaging in dishonest tactics (such as goalpost shifting, etc.). They can't just hammer the same points over and over again and deflect all counterpoints.


Now it's certainly not nice. And it's not good. I have personally admonished many people for acting like, frankly, rabid shitting monkeys, even when they were on my side in a debate, because they were like raging balls of hatred for no reason. And I criticized them for that. Their tone, specifically, even though I was on their side of the debate.


However, had someone responded by flat-out ignoring their points, by responding to their post and saying that they would ignore them because of their tone, that person would be showing a disrespect to the very premise of reasoned debate. They can simply not state that they will ignore the points. They can say they're going to leave the debate. They can respond to the points and also criticize the tone. But if they refuse to respond to the points and use the tone as an excuse to ignore points, shutting down discussion, then they do not deserve the respect which they demand.


Do note the conditions. They are rather specific, and someone just raging off and acting like an ass would probably not fit those criteria.

Additionally, when large groups of people start doing this, it becomes very hard to "discipline" them, because again, you're not trying to serve justice here, you are trying to get these people to understand you.

The behavior- acting dishonestly, dismissing a point based on tone- should be discouraged nonetheless. Tone should not be used to actually counter a point. If someone actually has a legitimate counterpoint, then they should use that rather than trying to worm their way out of a response.


Often people are trying to convince third parties in debates, not the person they're actually debating with. At least, that's what I'm used to. That's pretty much standard. If someone is actually convinced by the other party, even after a heated debate, then that's pretty admirable.

Link to comment
  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Going back a little bit. The reason I want the complaints to be abolished, or at least remove the communities say in it, is because only the people who were involved in the incident, should have a say and not the entire club that might dislike the 'suspect.' To have everyone have a say in the thread only causes it become something like the stocks, where everyone reduces down into egging the individual and almost drowning out that individuals voice so they can't give their own defense.


It's also because some of the threads get really nasty on the complaints board, so nasty that the bloke in charge of it ends up having to lock the thread while getting angry PM's about him not letting the mob continue to shake their pitchforks and torches. It would be between the plaintiffs, the person in question and the staff member. A nice controlled thread, that way it protects the defendant from being chucked on the social gallows before the staff member can even make a decision. Sure, the board gives the community a voice but should it be so at the expense of an individual?

Link to comment
what Jakers said

I suppose the alternative to that would be to have players submit complaints privately, then get the staff to investigate the incident and mediate/discipline directly with the people involved.


The two downsides to that is that firstly, it would require a lot more effort on the part of the staff, as you likely couldn't use the forums for it anymore (so assigning a staffmember to a case, getting them to track the offending user, and so on), and secondly, the input of other users, both players and staff, would be severely minimized.


I do think that input from everybody in the community has its worth. When a question such as "were this players' actions good or bad for the round" is raised, anyone can provide an opinion given accurate information, not only people who were directly involved. Additionally, people might have their own contributions to bring to a complaint - for example, I've often seen repeat offenders have several incidents rightfully reported against them solidifying a complaint that would've resulted in lighter action being taken had other users not seen it and decided to speak up as well.

Link to comment

Perhaps, but the whole mess around a particular thread has made me reconsider how valuable a community input is. Though I'm not staff or anyone with a grain of authority, I still think it should be as I've suggested until people can learn to calm down. The staff member who closed the thread also got some flak from it which... is kind of disgusting to me. Maybe I'm being heavy handed, but people need to learn how to take it down a notch.

Link to comment

This whole "witch hunt" labeling sounds a lot more like "Don't you dare criticize or get angry at my friends" than "Wow, I actually care about the state of the community and everyone getting along". Because if it was the latter people would not only just try to calm down the "mob" (or so called) but rather see if they could convince the "target" from causing shit with so many people.


My two cents on that.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment

There seems to be a misconception, that the longer and more fancy looking your block of text is, the right-er (Is that even a word?) you are in an argument.


This means, that whenever someone screws up they tend to delve into ridiculously long convoluted arguments which seem to draw attention away from the issue, rather than attempt to resolve it. I admit I did this once myself, to avoid an argument.

I have found out that the best way to deal with this is to be blunt and brutal with my accusations.

This isnt required on threads where both sides actively try to resolve the issue, albeit in different ways. It can still happen even then and that's an unfortunate side effect of our tendency to strangle each other. I recognize I was too hostile in the lore thread debating if Nanotrasen should be good or evil, sorry about that.


However, what I see in the 10 page blood orgy isnt two sides trying to solve an issue, I see one side trying to solve an issue and the other trying to hide it.


Here's a lovely example.

Frances, in the original post of the 10 page blood orgy you defended Susan by claiming everyone is taking the game too seriously, that antags are not here to hold our hands - that characters die all the time. And most of all (I assume, you did have it bolded.) that we shouldnt hound people over the fact that they screwed up once.

You defended this argument on several times in this same thread, claiming that engaging in such behavior is wrong. I agree with that.


Meanwhile, you've been hounding Valkrae for that one nuke round which happened a bloody month ago in which he prematurely detonated the station. You even made the complaint WHILE the blood orgy was in motion and you were defending your argument that we shouldnt hound people because they screw up from time to time.

You raised this isssue - the issue of people being mad bad things happen to their characters, and you used it to defend Susan's actions for the duration of the thread.

And then, you completely ignored your stance on the subject and used the same argument you previously discredited against Valkrae.

That's not trying to solve an issue, that's bringing up an unrelated issue to get heat off your friend and then subsequently contributing to the previously mentioned unrelated Issue all while claiming that your friend should be left alone to fight against the same issue.

It's dishonest and hypocritical, much like claiming that every single complaint in the subforum at the time was there due to the same reason as Susan's and trying to bring other people into the argument by trying to compare Susan's actions to theirs in vague convoluted ways.

If your contribution to a debate on solving an Issue is denying the Issue exists and derailing the argument, then I will not be respectful when I respond to you.




Jakers, as odd as it may seem for me to be against something involving capital punishment and Susan, im going to ask you to stop trying to nail her to a Cross.

She's ruined a lot of people's experience, those people made complaints. These complaints were ignored by the staff, and now those people left the server rather than having to deal with her.

Now, you're not only ignoring these people, but implying that it is they who should be held accountable for the act of complaining that their rounds were ruined. If your reaction to people being angry about griefing is an attempt to remove people's ability to be angry about griefing, rather than deal with the griefing, then maybe you're in the wrong in this argument.

Link to comment

Guy, you are complaining so much. Everyone are so angry because of one thing: You took it to serious, this is a game, this is just people, you cannot change them, we are all human and individuals. Here we have some kind of social structure and as you all knows in every society there is a problem with understanding each other, but that is not end of life or the server. Have you ever seen me making complaint? - No. Because all my complaint are not going out of OOC or Skype. I am trying to avoid any arguments. All my arguments are only at TS with scopes or skull, becaue I like to argue with them.


As some guy said "People are going to the internet just to argue, because eventually it would make everyone pissed off"

So I would ask you to take a rest, get your steam out and return with calm head, please)

Link to comment




Jakers, as odd as it may seem for me to be against something involving capital punishment and Susan, im going to ask you to stop trying to nail her to a Cross.

She's ruined a lot of people's experience, those people made complaints. These complaints were ignored by the staff, and now those people left the server rather than having to deal with her.

Now, you're not only ignoring these people, but implying that it is they who should be held accountable for the act of complaining that their rounds were ruined. If your reaction to people being angry about griefing is an attempt to remove people's ability to be angry about griefing, rather than deal with the griefing, then maybe you're in the wrong in this argument.

 


You misunderstand my intentions. I speak of this only because I wish there to be a fair way of dealing with griefers and such. People can be mad for sure, but we shouldn't turn the complaints board into a place for people to be put in the stocks while the angry mob tears into them, no. I am stating that we should keep it privvy, between the person who reported the incident, the person who committed and the staff in charge of the board, keep it contained, keep it civil and allow for a solution to be made without a massive circle jerk. That way both parties have a voice to speak with, without it being bleated out by the angry masses. Perhaps I worded myself wrong for you to assume I was chastising the individuals for being angry, but that isn't it. I chastise the ones who acted in a way that is not justified by their grievances, who even chose to harass the ones responsible for closing that awful thread once and for all. By all means, be mad but do not become an angry mob in an attempt to beat out someone you dislike.


If the individuals leaving, are leaving because of the Sue incident then their messages are conflicting. Because if we wish for this place to be less poisonous, then even the people who have issues with Sue must meet her on the same level and approach it maturely with a civil manner.

Link to comment
Meanwhile, you've been hounding Valkrae for that one nuke round which happened a bloody month ago in which he prematurely detonated the station. You even made the complaint WHILE the blood orgy was in motion and you were defending your argument that we shouldnt hound people because they screw up from time to time.

You raised this isssue - the issue of people being mad bad things happen to their characters, and you used it to defend Susan's actions for the duration of the thread.

And then, you completely ignored your stance on the subject and used the same argument you previously discredited against Valkrae.

I'm going to object to that because it's outright false.


Like... I don't get how you've gotten the idea I've been hounding Valkrae. All I've done was make a complaint to try to understand what Valkrae did, and figure out if his actions (specifically stealthily setting up the nuke with minor involvement of the crew, even with IC reason) were something that should be avoided in the future. I did not demand Valkrae be punished, insist his behavior should be curbed at all cost, and in fact I believe I made it very clear (to him, when I put up the complaint) that I wasn't the least bit angry and was simply looking to discuss the events. Additionally, the only reason why it's lasted a month is because he has been slow to reply himself :/


In comparison, I believe Sue has had to endure several pages of unfounded attacks, including incidents she had to explain herself only for people to ignore her explanations and accuse her again of irrational behaviors she provided perfectly reasonable explanations for, as well as dismissing facts established by staff by looking at the code. (and no, I don't agree with everything Sue has done or said in that thread - and I've called her out myself when I believed her arguments weren't on point or that she was in the wrong.)


Can you explain to me in more detail why you compare the two situations?

(btw, feel free to reply on here, but if you're interested in continuing this argument I'll probably reply to you via PM, just so the thread doesn't delve into OT too much.)

 

These complaints were ignored by the staff, and now those people left the server rather than having to deal with her.

That is... not true. While you can say that the complaints were dismissed by staff (which does not make them valid or invalid by itself), not a single person has cited, or hinted at Sue being present (or the way administration handled her) being one of their reasons for leaving. The only thing in all this people have referred to as a deterrent for being part of the community is the bantering that seems to continuously take place.

Link to comment

Just to drop in the once here, one person who I used to talk to, stated to me that Sue was the reason they left. Not going to name names, unless you want to PM me, but at least one person did.



I will also agree that the page after page of anger on those threads was inappropriate, and I feel more than a little bit guilty for my part in that.

Link to comment

Not a single person has cited, or hinted at Sue being present (or the way administration handled her) being one of their reasons for leaving.

 

You're being dishonest again.

If you intend to actively involve yourself in our weekly emotional meltdowns, stop doing that. Please.

You're just being disruptive for the sake of being disruptive.

Link to comment

Not a single person has cited, or hinted at Sue being present (or the way administration handled her) being one of their reasons for leaving.

 

You're being dishonest again.

If you intend to actively involve yourself in our weekly emotional meltdowns, stop doing that. Please.

You're just being disruptive for the sake of being disruptive.

Huh, I completely forgot about Chaz. My bad. (No need to be a douche, though.)


I flat out didn't remember anyone leaving because of Sue - which is why I didn't further the argument - but I'd like to point out that several people (including staff) have told me that Chaz had "an outright vendetta going on with Sue", so there might be more going on with that than just a disgruntled player leaving because staff refused to heed them.



Edit: My goal isn't to tone police, but I'd like to add that the way you phrased your post, immediately jumping to the conclusion that I'm trying to be disruptive (instead of considering the much simpler possibility that I simply forgot about Chaz) really makes me feel like you're more concerned with winning this argument than you are with figuring out how we can solve everybody's issues.



2nd edit: Not entirely correct, either. I remember the reason why I didn't immediately thought of Chaz is because he cited "being backed into a corner by staff over the issues with Sue". So that makes it seem more like he left because he couldn't agree with staff and didn't like the way things were being debated, than because the Sue issue was so terrible he couldn't stand to leave it running rampant.


Anyway, I thought this thread was about people being mean and overly dramatic/passionate about minor issues, not about whatever Sue did. And it's ironically starting to turn into the very thing it's supposed to out. Like, err, every thread before it.

Link to comment
Stop it. All of you.


Stop. You don't even notice that you've all descended into a god damn spiral of arguing about arguments.

Maybe to provide some context to my actions, my own posting (when it delves into off-topic arguments) has always been driven by a desire to defend people I saw as being targeted unjustly, or respond to accusations made against my person (I frankly don't really care that much, but I'm afraid if I don't try to explain why I think people calling me a X or whatever are in the wrong, they'll later use it as further evidence in their claims because "I had nothing to say"). At the end of the day, some people are being dealt bullshit, and then that bullshit simply sticks because people are being told "not to argue anymore" and all conflicts are left unresolved which results in a lot of people being mad and disliking each other.


Yes, most of this isn't terribly relevant, but apart from pointing that out, there's not much I can do, because I'm not staff. I'd appreciate if staff were more involved in directing these topics (and sorting out the good from the bad), but - nobody seems to want to get involved.



I myself have lost quite a bit of faith in the usefulness of these repeated threads, as little, little discussion about the issues I believe are the most crucial are taking place. If anything, I'm just considering giving up, and not getting involved anymore, unless it's to show direct support for people I believe are being wronged or misrepresented in one way or another (which is the only thing I wanted to do as far as arguments are concerned).


About all the arguments, if people actually want to have a clear and civil discussion to find out (or explain to me) if I'm being disruptive or not - and so that we can actually try to reach an agreement - I'm always glad to talk via PM or on pager. If, however, you're more interested in simply proving to others how wrong I am, rather than trying to understand my viewpoint or share your own with me, then that makes me rather sad though I suppose little can be done on my end about it.

Link to comment
Huh, I completely forgot about Chaz. My bad. (No need to be a douche, though.)

The correct term is "Asshole".



 

My goal isn't to tone police, but I'd like to add that the way you phrased your post, immediately jumping to the conclusion that I'm trying to be disruptive (instead of considering the much simpler possibility that I simply forgot about Chaz) really makes me feel like you're more concerned with winning this argument than you are with figuring out how we can solve everybody's issues.

 

If you couldnt be bothered to actually research if "X never happened" why claim that "X never happened" without actually being aware if X had ever happened or not? Isn't that dishonest? If you're in the right, why do you have to be dishonest to convince me to see things your way?



 

So that makes it seem more like he left because he couldn't agree with staff and didn't like the way things were being debated, than because the Sue issue was so terrible he couldn't stand to leave it running rampant.

 

You said earlier in the same post that you had been lead to believe by a reputable source, that he had a personal vendetta against Susan.

So, this claim is contradictory to the same one you made earlier in your post.

Of course, I am working under the assumption that you yourself believe the claim that Chaz had a personal vendetta against Susan.

If your sources were reputable, why wouldnt you believe them? Or more importantly, if your sources aren't reputable and you do not believe their claims, then why present them in the argument in the first place? Seems rather dishonest to me.


Now, as for me being more focused on our argument than solving issues, my viewpoint goes like this.



People, harmless people who just wanted to have fun on the server had their fun ruined by a certain someone. Then when these people reported the grief, these people were called "Retarded blood hitlers", likened to a lynch mob for complaining about grief, all because the griefer in question was popular.


Try to put yourself in background player#2643's shoes. You dont have friends in high places, you're not some sort of Baystation arpee legend, you dont have a fancy special rank, you dont chill with the 'mins daily. Does that mean your RP is shit? Does that mean that even if your RP is shit, it cant improve in the future? Does that truly mean that you should be used as a punching bag to anyone more popular than you are, even when you're not breaking the rules or doing anything to provoke such a response?

Imagine, you're just trying to have fun doing whatever it is you're doing - in a calm non-griefy way, and then suddenly someone popular just griefs you and shits all over your fun, and you cant do anything about it, even if you complain about it people get angry at you for complaining.


So, what im asking here is for Frances and anyone else who shares her viewpoints to make a post in which they explain Why everyone else is less important and less special than Susan, why everyone else's RP is worse and expendable compared to hers - and most importantly, why everyone should deal with having their fun ruined so that Susan has hers.

I want to know why two players are expendable compared to her.

The only victims here are the people who have been griefed, to imply that the person who griefed them is the victim for being scolded for griefing them is ridiculous.

I was content to ignore the 10 page blood orgy, I assumed that someone actually told Susan to stop griefing. But, since then she executed a helpless stunned, injured antag janitor with her revolver as a Detective, and wrote down the names and locations of cultists in blood while observing a cult round.


So, on behalf of the people who had their rounds ruined, the people who will get their rounds ruined as nobody is actually trying to prevent this from happening, I have to ask what makes their RP, their contribution to the server so insignificant and so expendable that they should be treated in such an awful way?

Is the community truly so strong that it would afford to carelessly mangle not only newbies, but also actual roleplayers who contribute to the fun to be had on the server? Is the community so fucking condescending that they'd label every new player a chucklefuck and let Susan toss them around however she sees fit?

The reason for my refusal to shut up about this issue is identical to that of Frances. I am speaking in favor of the people who apparently havent been here long enough, the people who arent friends with someone important, the people who everyone has been continiously ignoring or scolding, because everyone appears to care about the feelings of their griefer instead.


This, is the issue which I am currently discussing, and I absolutely refuse to believe that the small, whiny, depressive forum community is destroying the server while the actual IC and OOC in-round mistreatment of both new and old players isnt.

Link to comment

The main point in your argument is that fun and RP are something you must have 100% of the time all the time and if anyone does anything that ever prevents you from having fun, such as putting you in the brig, they are Space Hitler and must clearly be part of a widespread admin conspiracy to make things not fun because my fun is the most important and anyone who prevents my character from being CUHRAZY is awful.


The problem is that this is inherently flawed.


It is the nature of this game to have 'fun' tossed to the side. Do you think anyone wants to be put in the brig? Do you think anyone finds it fun they have to serve a sentence when committing a crime? No, they don't. So we need to remove security because it shits on people's fun, right? In this game you will be killed, you will be brigged, your characters will make relationships that are based upon rivavlry and dislike with another character. And these are things people will not find fun. So then, Inverted, since no one finds these things fun, they must be grief, then, right?


So yes, you are right in saying your fun isn't important. No one's fun is important. Your roleplay is expendable. That is the nature of the game. If a changeling roleplays with you and then eats you, I know plenty of people who would not find that fun and plenty who would. To those who don't: Oh well. Get over it. Your enjoyment isn't sanctified, and it certainly isn't important, nor is mine, or an admin's, or anyone else's. There is a reasonable expectation for antags and security to try to make things somewhat fun for people, but the nature of their role makes that impossible. You can't make everyone happy, and you can't make sure everyone is having fun.


To assume that anyone who does something you don't like is griefing is ignorant and narrow-minded. You can't even get your facts straight - the janitor as not stunned, he had sunglasses that protected him from a flashbang, I was not a detective, I was a CSI and it wasn't a revolver, it was a laser gun. He was also armed. Not that you care enough to consider anything but what you've decided is the truth, anyway.


In short: If you really want to believe that me arresting people or shooting people who pose a threat is griefing, then go ahead. I have no control over what you choose to believe and what you choose not to believe. I have no interest justifying myself to you after talking myself hoarse attempting to do so, and if you feel that that is emblematic of a problem we should just remove security as a whole so you guys can have fun stabbing people to death or whatever it is you do.


Instead, I will choose to believe that it is the small, whiny, depressive forum community that is destroying the server, including those who feel that a character being rude to them is unholy grief, ban they.


PPS: Chaz left because of an argument in lore chat that I did not participate in, and if you want the damn logs as proof, I will get them. He did have a personal vendetta against me, but make no mistake. It was the argument between him and other people that made him leave. 'Fuck it, I'm out' were his words - I will not take blame for something I did not do. If you want the argument logs, I will get them.

Link to comment
The main point in your argument is that fun and RP are something you must have 100% of the time all the time and if anyone does anything that ever prevents you from having fun, such as putting you in the brig, they are Space Hitler and must clearly be part of a widespread admin conspiracy to make things not fun because my fun is the most important and anyone who prevents my character from being CUHRAZY is awful.


The problem is that this is inherently flawed.

That's a straw man. It's not being put in the brig that rustles RP'ers jimmies here, it's -how- they're often put into the brig. Over-zealous sec, sec who gank, and so many issues similar to such that is actually causing bad RP incidents.

 

It is the nature of this game to have 'fun' tossed to the side.

It's a game. You're supposed to have some element of fun otherwise it is not a game, but rather some strange second life filled with self-inserts; which is something we need to avoid because it causes mountains of problems.


Our fun isn't goon or tg-tier fun, it's HRP fun. A group of individuals roleplaying with each other, and making a story with each other which is interesting. That's my perception of it anyway.

 

So yes, you are right in saying your fun isn't important. No one's fun is important. Your roleplay is expendable. That is the nature of the game. If a changeling roleplays with you and then eats you, I know plenty of people who would not find that fun and plenty who would. To those who don't: Oh well. Get over it.

Goes both ways Susan. Why not sacrifice your desire to "eliminate all threats" and actually roleplay situations of conflict? Wanna get over that?

 

To assume that anyone who does something you don't like is griefing is ignorant and narrow-minded. You can't even get your facts straight - the janitor as not stunned, he had sunglasses that protected him from a flashbang, I was not a detective, I was a CSI and it wasn't a revolver, it was a laser gun. He was also armed. Not that you care enough to consider anything but what you've decided is the truth, anyway.

>stun bolts


I've always had the opinion that people who use lasers in non-ad-hoc situations are bad security, and it still stands even to this day.

 

In short: If you really want to believe that me arresting people or shooting people who pose a threat is griefing, then go ahead.

*Unnecessarily turning to lethals in unnecessary situations. Playing to win mentality. Ruining experiences of antags who are there to actually make an antag round interesting.

 

Instead, I will choose to believe that it is the small, whiny, depressive forum community that is destroying the server, including those who feel that a character being rude to them is unholy grief, ban they.

 

*A player channelling rudeness through their character, and by doing so blurs the distinction between IC and OOC. I can like rude/dysfunctional characters. It's easy to tell the difference.

Link to comment

You can keep repeating your own backwards assumptions as much as you like, Cassie. Maybe somewhere down the line if you say it enough it'll come true, and you can kick back in your armchair and feel good about yourself.

 

That's a straw man. It's not being put in the brig that rustles RP'ers jimmies here, it's -how- they're often put into the brig. Over-zealous sec, sec who gank, and so many issues similar to such that is actually causing bad RP incidents.

 

So what do you consider 'often'? The argument should not be how often security is brigging people if it's for legitimate reasons. If you steal something and get brigged, whose fault is that? Certainly not security's. Or do you expect antags and the like to get let off easy and for security to metagame and release the changeling after he kills people because they 'forgot' to get evidence? We already have a thread clarifying hostage situations and, since you like throwing the word around so much, gank, wherein it outlines acceptable situations for said gank. I don't deny that security has a high turnover rate, but so do antags. Neither faction is wholly innocent, and antags equally caused bad RP incidents. Sec just gets more flak because people expect them not to care when they do stupid shit.

 

It's a game. You're supposed to have some element of fun otherwise it is not a game, but rather some strange second life filled with self-inserts; which is something we need to avoid because it causes mountains of problems.


Our fun isn't goon or tg-tier fun, it's HRP fun. A group of individuals roleplaying with each other, and making a story with each other which is interesting. That's my perception of it anyway.

 

You're right - It's also a game, and a game has rules. A story has to have a modicum of believability. I'm sorry if getting arrested rustles people's jimmies, but ain't nothing I can do about that. I'm not going to not arrest people because I OOCly know they'll kick up a shit fit or if they're an antag. That's flat-out metagaming. If you don't want to get arrested and continue your super cool story, maybe you shouldn't do things that would make security arrest you? Is it that difficult to just sit around and chair RP for your story without welding down walls or breaking into the bar? Not saying you yourself do these things, but I know plenty of HRP regulars that have and get pissed when sec comes down on them.

 

Goes both ways Susan. Why not sacrifice your desire to "eliminate all threats" and actually roleplay situations of conflict? Wanna get over that?

 

I actually have. I said this before, but in the ten page foaming-at-the-mouth bitchfest, none of you people actually gave a shit, so I have no reason to believe you'll give a shit now. I've talked hostage takers down before, I've let antags go before, all due to IC things. However, the majority of our antags seem to want to be able to revolver people and then expect escalation of force not to be applied to them. If you think I'm going to try to talk down a psychopath who already killed one of his hostages, you're mistaken. I'm going to eliminate him because he's unstable and the safety of the hostages cannot be guaranteed.


I've let people go before who I know are antags OOC because security fucked up, or there wasn't any evidence. But, again, you all choose to believe what you want so I'm really just wasting my breath here, so if it makes you feel better you can think of me as the oogly-boogly powergamer who robusts all the antags and never cares ever.

 

>stun bolts


I've always had the opinion that people who use lasers in non-ad-hoc situations are bad security, and it still stands even to this day.

 

Well, you're free to that opinion. Doesn't mean it's not wrong.

 

*Unnecessarily turning to lethals in unnecessary situations. Playing to win mentality. Ruining experiences of antags who are there to actually make an antag round interesting.

*Already stated previously never thinks lethals are acceptable unless hostages, even if getting revolvered. Assumes previously stated ridiculous opinion doesn't make the usage of 'unnecessarily' suspect.


 

*A player channelling rudeness through their character, and by doing so blurs the distinction between IC and OOC. I can like rude/dysfunctional characters. It's easy to tell the difference.

 

See opening line. One day maybe you'll live to see your repeated assumptions come true, Cassie. You'll get an award for your perseverance in spreading misinformation in a vain attempt to better your argument.

Link to comment

Alright gents. I think you all know this thread has gotten out of hand. I am giving a try to make an end for it.


First of all.

Examine the thread title. Examine it again.


All i see is pointing fingers and blaming the other one for mistakes, without providing clear, constructive ideas. Wanting to find someone to blame will help nothing in solving the issue.

You write walls of texts about justifying your previous walls of texts. IT HAS TO STOP.

This could have been avoided if EITHER side just took a deep breath and just let it go.


And yes, we have made mistakes, incidents gone unpunished that should have been punished, and vica-versa. We are aware of this and trying our best to improve on the matter.

what happened, has already happened. In light of it, we acknowledge the mistakes, and we apologize for them happening. And with these mistakes in mind, we will try to avoid committing similar ones in the future.


However, we will not seek to punish someone for our mistakes. That is not the mentality of the staff team. Instead, they will be taken into consideration and will be used to add gravity to any future incidents that arise. On another hand, many people who had questionable conduct are no longer staff.

So yeah, i am not going to write a well formatted, perfect wall of text and i hope you understand what i want to achieve here.

If you have issues, fine, do post them but in a manner where there are no fightning, pointing fingers etcetera, but a clear representation of the issue with others communicating about it and not fightning over who was in the right or wrong.

Link to comment

You write walls of texts about justifying your previous walls of texts. IT HAS TO STOP.

This could have been avoided if EITHER side just took a deep breath and just let it go.

 


And I did.

I did just that after the blood orgy.

Then, someone decided to observe a cult round and write cultist names and locations in blood.

Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, shame on you.

Link to comment

Then you'll probably have a heart attack when you find out admins said that's okay, so long as the cult kills you. Then you can write their names and locations in blood as much as you want.


Guess the admins are griefing you too now, huh, Inverted.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...