Frances Posted August 2, 2015 Posted August 2, 2015 BYOND Key: FFrances Staff BYOND Key: Tablespoon Reason for complaint: Unjust punishment Evidence/logs/etc: Logs from my perspective: PM to-Admins: Hey, could I get the help of an admin? Secondary Admin PM from-Tablespoon: what do you need? PM to-Tablespoon: My leg got caught in a bear trap (not just now, a little bit ago) and I wanted to have it operated on, but the problem is bear traps don't cause a lot of damage in the current code, and the CMO just came in mid-surgery and meta that the bear trap didn't cause any actual gameplay damage PM to-Tablespoon: so I was wondering if I could be given some brute damage to my right foot, 30 or so should be enough to break the bone Secondary Admin PM from-Tablespoon: Or they could've just scanned you and saw that it didn't do a lot of damage. PM to-Tablespoon: it's a bear trap, though... shouldn't it? Secondary Admin PM from-Tablespoon: gave your leg some damage PM to-Tablespoon: Awesome, thank you. Hmm, how to get damage to refresh/apply, again? Secondary Admin PM from-Tablespoon: yea...it doesnt want to save/apply the value PM to-Tablespoon: would you mind if I just broke my leg? Secondary Admin PM from-Tablespoon: yea Secondary Admin PM from-Tablespoon: Alright...so that was not ok. Secondary Admin PM from-Tablespoon: I'm not going to give you a warning. But the metabuddying between you and halo needs to stop. PM to-Tablespoon: So just to make things clear PM to-Tablespoon: You're giving me a warning because I misunderstood your answer to a question I asked, to which you replied with only "yeah"? Secondary Admin PM from-Tablespoon: I gave halo a warning Secondary Admin PM from-Tablespoon: for either A) metacommunicating or b) acting off of shitty, ooc in ic conversation and attacking you. PM to-Tablespoon: That's not my question, though Secondary Admin PM from-Tablespoon: you're getting a minor warning for metacommunicating' Secondary Admin PM from-Tablespoon: because he just started dragging you to the tunnel as soon as you thought i gave the ok PM to-Tablespoon: Why does the rule on metacommunicating exist, again? Secondary Admin PM from-Tablespoon: I'm not going to discuss this with you right now. Secondary Admin PM from-Tablespoon: the warnings stay. If you have an issue, you're free to make a comp;laint. Logs from Halo's perspective: Secondary Admin PM from-Tablespoon: what are you doing? PM to-Tablespoon: didnt i have permission to do this? Secondary Admin PM from-Tablespoon: oh, I didn;t realize ffrances was metacommunicating with you Secondary Admin PM from-Tablespoon: I told her no PM to-Tablespoon: she just told me to break my leg PM to-Tablespoon: her leg i mean PM to-Tablespoon: that's it lol Secondary Admin PM from-Tablespoon: and so you did it? PM to-Tablespoon: also i didn't know you told her no Secondary Admin PM from-Tablespoon: Still ,why would you break her leg if she asked you to? PM to-Tablespoon: yeah she told me she asked you? Secondary Admin PM from-Tablespoon: The metabuddying with you two as balds...is kind of ridiculous PM to-Tablespoon: want me to get hair? PM to-Tablespoon: we're not really metabuddying, she just told me to break her leg for roleplay and that she asked an admin for permission You have been formally warned by an administrator. Click here to review and acknowledge them! Secondary Admin PM from-Tablespoon: Still PM to-Tablespoon: i dont understand, what did i do wrong? Secondary Admin PM from-Tablespoon: you attacked her repeatedly Secondary Admin PM from-Tablespoon: just ebcause she 'asked you to' PM to-Tablespoon: i thought i had permission from an admin Secondary Admin PM from-Tablespoon: icly, oocly, whatever PM to-Tablespoon: i didn't do it "just because she asked me to" Secondary Admin PM from-Tablespoon: and the only reason you knew that is because you metacommunicated with her Secondary Admin PM from-Tablespoon: even though I never gave her the go-ahead Secondary Admin PM from-Tablespoon: It's just a standard warning PM to-Tablespoon: i know that, but i hardly think that her telling me to break her leg is meta PM to-Tablespoon: it was to create roleplay, after all Secondary Admin PM from-Tablespoon: well it was PM to-Tablespoon: so, you didn't give her permission? Secondary Admin PM from-Tablespoon: no, I didn't. She asked me if I would mind if she gave herself the damage and I said 'yea', as in 'yea, I would mind' PM to-Tablespoon: oh well PM to-Tablespoon: in that case, isn't it just a misunderstanding? Secondary Admin PM from-Tablespoon: It would've been, if you didn't act on it. PM to-Tablespoon: but i had no way to know.. Secondary Admin PM from-Tablespoon: Either you acted on metacommunication, or you acted on shitty ic conversation which is still not justified. Also IC in ooc conversation. Secondary Admin PM from-Tablespoon: Either way, it's not ok. Secondary Admin PM from-Tablespoon: http://gyazo.com/141b78049464b0beaa282d7506ddd287 ((note: I attempted to make a joke in /say there to provide a bit of context for any potential ghost onlookers - I had already explained my plan to Halo over skype at this point)) PM to-Tablespoon: i don't completely agree but alright Secondary Admin PM from-Tablespoon: you're free to make a complaint 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. PM to-Admins: Hey, could I get the help of an admin? Secondary Admin PM from-Tablespoon: what do you need? PM to-Tablespoon: My leg got caught in a bear trap (not just now, a little bit ago) and I wanted to have it operated on, but the problem is bear traps don't cause a lot of damage in the current code, and the CMO just came in mid-surgery and meta that the bear trap didn't cause any actual gameplay damage PM to-Tablespoon: so I was wondering if I could be given some brute damage to my right foot, 30 or so should be enough to break the bone Secondary Admin PM from-Tablespoon: Or they could've just scanned you and saw that it didn't do a lot of damage. PM to-Tablespoon: it's a bear trap, though... shouldn't it? Secondary Admin PM from-Tablespoon: gave your leg some damage 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.) PM to-Tablespoon: Awesome, thank you. Hmm, how to get damage to refresh/apply, again? Secondary Admin PM from-Tablespoon: yea...it doesnt want to save/apply the value PM to-Tablespoon: would you mind if I just broke my leg? Secondary Admin PM from-Tablespoon: yea 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)
Garnascus Posted August 2, 2015 Posted August 2, 2015 I am so confused I don't really know what to say..... But ill try anyway. I honestly think just breaking the foot yourself shouldn't have been an issue since table literally tried to admin it. Then this charge of metacommunication? .....seriously? Are people not allowed to play with friends over voice unless they type every little thing to each other? This punishment is beyond absurd im sorry. I mean if im missing something here that's fine but seems kind of excessive to me.
Frances Posted August 2, 2015 Author Posted August 2, 2015 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.
Garnascus Posted August 2, 2015 Posted August 2, 2015 Ill admit I haven't been on much this past week because of moving to a new house, but I have noticed it being commented on in may you guys are friends and what not. However i dont really see much of an issue..
Guest Marlon Phoenix Posted August 2, 2015 Posted August 2, 2015 I don't understand how relaying information of admin approval for an action can be considered meta-communication. That is a very loose interpretation of the concept and sets a very strict precedent on this kind of thing. It seems like a misunderstanding turned into something far more serious than it had to.
Tablespoon Posted August 2, 2015 Posted August 2, 2015 So to clarify, Halorocks got an official warning, while ffrances just got an informal talking to over ahelps and a note added. I understand there was a miscommunication, that's not the issue. The issue is that halorocks immediately grabbed ffrances and started beating her. Even if I did give ffrances permission to hurt her character...that doesn't mean anyone can just go up to her and start hitting her to 'apply the damage'. The ahelped issue was between myself and ffrances...but then ffrances decided to involve a third party. Also, this occured: http://i.gyazo.com/00d86cfc73e1d04abad5641ed14f1394.png * *Bonk is ffrances. *Osborne is halo. And to further clarify the above image...halo dragged ffrances to the maintenance tunnels...without any asking icly or oocly from what I could see...and then the logs above occurred. And yes, these issues are relatively minor...which is why Halorocks got a standard warning and ffances was just talked to. They're both experienced players and should know the rules. No bans were issued, no substantial punishments dished out.
VikingPingvin Posted August 2, 2015 Posted August 2, 2015 Alright then. A few issues: In your second post. I've never metacommunicated with Halo And in your first: I asked Halo over Skype to drag my character into maintenance and break his foot How is that not metacommunicating? And before you call us out, let me make one thing clear. We treat you like we treat any other player, no exceptions. 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. Nobody was aware you want to get Halo to help you achieve that goal. Demage logs appeared, he was hurting you for? For what reason exactly? You asked him in Skype, which has nothing to do with any IC reason. And you can't blame a game mechanic. So that is just general grief, which warrants Halos warning, and not the fact you metacommunicated. So to recap it why it falls under "bad metacommunicating". While Table might have worded his resposne better -avoiding the misunderstanding- you broke your IC roleplay by asking Halo, to break your leg...for OOC reasons. On another note: None of you were punished. I don't really see this complaint a legit one.
Frances Posted August 2, 2015 Author Posted August 2, 2015 I understand there was a miscommunication, that's not the issue. The issue is that halorocks immediately grabbed ffrances and started beating her. Even if I did give ffrances permission to hurt her character...that doesn't mean anyone can just go up to her and start hitting her to 'apply the damage'. The ahelped issue was between myself and ffrances...but then ffrances decided to involve a third party. 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? How is that not metacommunicating?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. On another note: None of you were punished. I don't really see this complaint a legit one. 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.
Guest Posted August 2, 2015 Posted August 2, 2015 But you used a third-party method of communication to influence IC action... to further roleplay. Okay, so you broke the rules just so you could have fun? Take it from an administration perspective, then. We'll use the setting of Colonial Marines, for instance. You see two marines stickin' together and roleplaying with each other (mind you, this is a cut above the other randoms that join in, these two are using callsigns and adhering to the actual setting here), covering their backs, and generally having a good time and immersing themselves in the round. Okay, sure, this is fine. You can sort of tell they queued up with each other in the same squad, though, given the level of coordination and teamwork they're utilizing. So you're watching them further, since you're curious as to how this will play out. Maybe a tad suspicious as well, but when you're a staff member for a server that gets a pretty modest count of players, leniency isn't exactly something you can spare at the moment. A job needs done, and that's what it is. It's not personal, at all. It's just a job. And it needs to be done right, or not at all. The latter is not acceptable. Moving on, you notice that one of them breaks off a little too far from the pair, and gets yoinked by a crafty alien, and then facehuggered. You think this to be rather tragic, and you sympathize for a moment, but then return to overseeing the course of events. You then see the alien sit in a little spot in the jungle, produce a resin nest and place one of the marine dynamic duo in a nest. It's extremely secluded, and due to the nature of the environment, it is very dark and CQC-oriented. A marine could just as easily get his ass super-ganked and smacked with a faceraping alien that does not discriminate. And then the alien camps out for a bit in that spot, just to make sure that marine stays in its nest until it chestbursts. And then, strangely, you see the other partner home in onto that position, despite not actually tracking the alien and pal at all. The active pal, taking revenge, shoots the alien to fucking /death/, with no mercy at all. The marine then frees his battle-buddy from the nest and gets him back to the home base, the Sulaco, and medbay removes his chestburster before anything horrible happens. Well. That was odd. Did we just see a valiant rescue occur without any IC knowledge pertaining to where exactly his entrapped buddy was, in addition to the fact that his pal that rescued him, went in alone into the pitch-black, dark jungle, fearlessly, in order to save his battle-brother? I'll give them credit for purging the heretical xeno scum, but... what? How on earth did this make any sense? There was no way the marine would've saved him in the endless jungle unless he -- Oh. Knew exactly where he was. That complicates things, doesn't it? You're now faced with an issue that broke the game for that one alien who was doing his job and following the rules, and would subsequently affect the alien side as well, given that the marines now know what they're up against. Not. Good. At all. Yet, here's my question. Why is any level of metacommunication acceptable, to you, Frances? Do you expect special, or, rather, a different treatment because you were roleplaying it? I'll say this. You got off real light than what could've been doled out. What you both pulled was mild and inconsequential enough to only warrant a warning. I would've done the same, really, since it was. Not that bad. But it was still metacommunicating. I think the bottom line is that you don't break the rules. You're punished based on the severity of the rule violation and the circumstances attached to it. I don't think you need me to explain it any further.
Frances Posted August 2, 2015 Author Posted August 2, 2015 Yet, here's my question. Why is any level of metacommunication acceptable, to you, Frances? 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?
Guest Posted August 2, 2015 Posted August 2, 2015 Frances. It does not matter. Metacommunication, period. Is bad. It breaks character interaction and development just so you can get what you want out of a round. The advantages you did or did not gain do not matter, they are not relevant. The fact of the matter is, you metacommunicated. It was exercised in a mild, inconsequential manner, so the staff handled it in a mild manner. It sets a horrid precedent if this went on without any acknowledgement from the staff as a rule violation, you realize that? An admin was already attempting to break your foot for you, but I figure they were struggling with modifying VV. What occurred before was a bug, and not intended. The bear trap should have taken your foot off, but the mechanics for that scenario to occur do not exist due to the nature of its availability as a weapon and its capability as a chucklefuck method of operation. However, the suggestions and ideas board is open for that sort of suggestion and discussion. What you did was take matters into your own hands in an effort to break your own foot... but you did it in one of the most ridiculous and impractical way possible. It was poorly executed on your part and on Halorocks22. Not to mention how equally ridiculous that display of OOC in IC was. It makes a third-party think that roleplay was not the intention, the way it looks.
Frances Posted August 2, 2015 Author Posted August 2, 2015 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). Frances. It does not matter. Metacommunication, period. Is bad. It breaks character interaction and development just so you can get what you want out of a round. The advantages you did or did not gain do not matter, they are not relevant. The fact of the matter is, you metacommunicated.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.
Garnascus Posted August 3, 2015 Posted August 3, 2015 Frances. It does not matter. Metacommunication, period. Is bad. It breaks character interaction and development just so you can get what you want out of a round. The advantages you did or did not gain do not matter, they are not relevant. The fact of the matter is, you metacommunicated. It was exercised in a mild, inconsequential manner, so the staff handled it in a mild manner. It sets a horrid precedent if this went on without any acknowledgement from the staff as a rule violation, you realize that? 99% of the time you're correct, but the extent frances went to minimize it, going to a secluded tunnel, attempting admin help, and only attempting to create a situation with a bit of RP (like setting up a play). Complete and one hundred percent zealotry in the rules is never a good idea.
Guest Menown Posted August 3, 2015 Posted August 3, 2015 I dunno. I feel like the majority of the warning should be that Frances and Halo went through with trying to break the leg despite him telling Frances not to. The meta-thingy isn't as big of an issue as it seems. If that had done it over LOOC, that'd be better. But, there's really no other difference between setting this up in LOOC and Skype, as both are OOC. The only difference is Admins can see one of them. This rule on metacommunication should really be done on cases like, "I was killed by X. Find out a way to get my body back." or, "There's X things on X, go see if you can get it." Gamebreaking things, not two people trying to set up some form of RP that the game mechanics didn't allow.
Frances Posted August 3, 2015 Author Posted August 3, 2015 I dunno. I feel like the majority of the warning should be that Frances and Halo went through with trying to break the leg despite him telling Frances not to. Except the only thing I got was: PM to-Tablespoon: would you mind if I just broke my leg?Secondary Admin PM from-Tablespoon: yea 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?
Guest Menown Posted August 3, 2015 Posted August 3, 2015 Yes, Frances. He said yes to a Yes-Or-No question.
Frances Posted August 3, 2015 Author Posted August 3, 2015 I've actually seen "do you mind" go answered with a "yes" as a positive.
Guest Posted August 3, 2015 Posted August 3, 2015 I'm actually used to yes being a go ahead for the question do you mind... At least from where I'm from.
Guest Marlon Phoenix Posted August 3, 2015 Posted August 3, 2015 Where I am from "yes" to "do you mind?" questions is a positive.
Gollee Posted August 3, 2015 Posted August 3, 2015 Grammatically, and as I have always seen, yes to a "do you mind " question is "yes, I do mind." If there was ambiguity in your question, it's your own fault, "Could I please break my own leg then?" Would have been better.
VikingPingvin Posted August 3, 2015 Posted August 3, 2015 Please, can we NOT have 3 more pages regarding the grammar only? We have clearly stated our standing point. Misunderstanding was not the problem. If you still fail to see this Frances despite being explained perfectly, i am afraid we can do nothing more. And Delta gave a perfect explanation too.
Garnascus Posted August 3, 2015 Posted August 3, 2015 I think everyone understands your explanation we just disagree with it.
Frances Posted August 3, 2015 Author Posted August 3, 2015 I think everyone understands your explanation we just disagree with it. Correct. Table also has yet to answer my question, as stated here: PM to-Tablespoon: Why does the rule on metacommunicating exist, again? 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.
Guest Posted August 3, 2015 Posted August 3, 2015 And to further clarify the above image...halo dragged ffrances to the maintenance tunnels...without any asking icly or oocly from what I could see...and then the logs above occurred. This is important.
Frances Posted August 3, 2015 Author Posted August 3, 2015 And to further clarify the above image...halo dragged ffrances to the maintenance tunnels...without any asking icly or oocly from what I could see...and then the logs above occurred. 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.) Even if I did give ffrances permission to hurt her character...that doesn't mean anyone can just go up to her and start hitting her to 'apply the damage'.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).
Recommended Posts