/tg/Station 13

There is currently zero written policy on either end for nonantag bombing of the station.

The standard used to be absolutely zero bombs as a nonantag unless it ended the round immediately, however this isn't being followed through by the current (stand-in) headmins, or previous dropout headmins.

Where do you think bombs like this are acceptable and why the fuck is this not written down anywhere?
https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic ... 17#p107519


Butthurt preservation:
[spoiler]Have fun guys, just don't actually kill anybody directly with the blast because its easy to fix.
Be sure to be in a fight you can't win either despite using polyacid grenades in self defense has also been bannable before to zero successful appeal.

Alternatively with this coming election make sure you pick a headmin who is actually willing to communicate their changes to how we handle things both to the players and admins.[/spoiler]

Okay, I read that ban appeal that made you make this

And

What

Sec, and by extension, the heads, have always been given a bit more leniency in rev
I would ASSUME that this carries over to gang because gang is equivalent levels of everything going to shit and anyone being a potential threat

Sec in rev is given the green light to gun down innocents if it seems like they're an immediate threat, so why would gang be any different, especially after they place a dominator and make their intentions perfectly clear

You remember how whenever you'd make a decision about something you'd decry the playerbase taking that to the furthest extreme they can stretch it to then shouting "IS THIS OKAY ADMINS???"

This thread is literally the same thing.

The logic is entirely flawed for multiple reasons already covered in replies about the status of the gang and the dominator.

What I want to know is where and when did we start ignoring things like this, when as i've said smaller and significantly less destructive things like polyacid grenades on a voice switch has gotten people banned without successful appeal.

Was it Oldman's bombing of the gulag, which was okay because "The guy was a prick" and "It wasn't on the station anyway so its okay"?
Now we've stepped it up to "It was on the station, but its okay anyway because there were antags in front of me", or is it "It was the captain so he can do what he wants"?
Is next stop "I didn't actually kill anyone with the direct blast, so its okay"?

It was always a straight -DO NOT DO THIS UNLESS IT ENDS THE ROUND- for a reason, to prevent cases like this because everybody should know better than to blast huge holes in the station.

I have no problem enforcing new policy on this, but i'd like that to be told to me beforehand so I don't end up banning people for outdated rules or because stand-in headmins retroactively decide its okay now.

newfren wrote:You remember how whenever you'd make a decision about something you'd decry the playerbase taking that to the furthest extreme they can stretch it to then shouting "IS THIS OKAY ADMINS???"

This thread is literally the same thing.

Because that's how you get people to respond to you on tgstation. Haven't you learned by now? Its pretty dumb.

Things are handled case by case, not everything is always so black and white saegrimr.

It used to be black and white, is the issue. I was never told of any change to this concerning toxins bombs.

Isnt this thread literally the definition of toeing the line? Someone got away with something once so you stretch it to maximum retarded levels and get mad when you get banned because "but this one guy did it this one time"

Only it is an admin making a thread about it saying it is okay.

wat.

Is this really as passive agressive on Seagramir's part as it seems? Did another admin overturn your ban or something?

Vote for a headmin to promises to find a code solution to toxins rather than a bunch of confusing policies! Vote NikNakFlak!

Wyzack wrote:Is this really as passive agressive on Seagramir's part as it seems? Did another admin overturn your ban or something?

Yes it is, the CNN scare tactics headlines intending to actually get some discussion in here playerside. Since thats how you get attention to a subject around here.

And no it wasn't overturned apart from sticky memeing on the thread, scones mulling it over noncommittally, and goofball actively coming into supportbus to say bombing isn't that bad because you can just fix it.

Wyzack wrote:Isnt this thread literally the definition of toeing the line? Someone got away with something once so you stretch it to maximum retarded levels and get mad when you get banned because "but this one guy did it this one time"

Only it is an admin making a thread about it saying it is okay.

wat.

Is this really as passive agressive on Seagramir's part as it seems? Did another admin overturn your ban or something?

This post sums up this thread perfectly I think.

What an epic thread. Saegrimr is a master swordsman, his satirical prowess and rapier wit are his arms. This is a thread for the ages, folks.

I guess I memed too hard to where nobody wants to actually talk about bombing. Coulda sworn this was how you're supposed to start arguments here.

Simply masterful.

This is how it's always been. If you blow up the blob, or the malfunctioning AI, or whatever, and you happen to tag a few people on your side (or outright gib them if the round ends), you're fine. In the case that made you take to the policy forums and bark about how it's apparently okay to just nuke whatever you want, I blew a bomb in a hallway that was empty sans for myself and the three gangsters I was fighting on a very much gang-controlled station, less than five minutes before the shuttle arrived, in a desperate last stand. This is very much valid, because it killed three gangsters and myself, and the hallway was already exploded to the north. Nobody else was hurt. Just the antagonists. It was okay. Nobody adminhelped.

You decided to ignore this particular policy, which has probably been around longer than you have, the context for the explosion, the victims, and the reasoning, and ban me for it anyways.

Would it kill you to admit you're wrong?

Yes, and as was discussed on your ban appeal you bombed 3 relatively unimportant people on your way to destroy a thing that was already destroyed and had made a stationwide announcement that it had been destroyed.

I want to know where the line is drawn, and where everybody else should expect the line to be drawn, because self-defense chemistry grenades are no longer out the window despite that being one notable example where it was a hard line on "Don't do this". TTV bombs being significantly more destructive were also very obviously included in this.

If this was decided some time ago and I wasn't informed then yes, i'm wrong. I don't agree with it, but i'm enforcing the rules not my opinion. Even worse that the rules make no mention of explosives anymore for some reason.
I don't want another situation like this where i'm in the wrong because i'm still going off apparently old news that never gets updated.

Saegrimr wrote:Yes, and as was discussed on your ban appeal you bombed 3 relatively unimportant people on your way to destroy a thing that was already destroyed and had made a stationwide announcement that it had been destroyed

Do you mean the three gangsters that were apparently attacking him, or were there three other people caught up in the blast that no one seems to have brought up until now?

Compared to the 20 or so other gangers currently running around other parts of the station? I'd say three stragglers is pretty unimportant considering how absolutely devastating current bombs are.

For example, if you're still unfamiliar with the amount of shit these bombs cause. https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic ... 17#p107519

Everyone disagrees with you. Accept that you are wrong and move on.

When all of sec are dead or missing, bucket loads of gangsters runnng around, shit is ALREADY bombed, and gangsters are actively trying to murder you, surely this is a proper use of a god damn bomb?

lumipharon wrote:When all of sec are dead or missing, bucket loads of gangsters runnng around, shit is ALREADY bombed, and gangsters are actively trying to murder you, surely this is a proper use of a god damn bomb?

You're throwing more variables in there that did not exist. The warden was the one who just rolled in and finished the cargo gang's dominator by himself and walked back out. Sec was attempting to control escape, and one uninformed captain ~despite global announcements that it was already destroyed~ is taking a bomb into cargo to detonate it. And I cannot confirm or deny that part of the station was already bombed, considering there was space vines there which probably just broke the windows leading one to assume theres a hole in the station.

What the problem here is there was a zero-tolerance policy on nonantag bombing unless it ended the round which is apparently no longer the case, and i guess i'm the only one who wasn't informed nor was anything written down anywhere about these changes. Consider actually reading my post next time.

Saegrimr wrote:

lumipharon wrote:When all of sec are dead or missing, bucket loads of gangsters runnng around, shit is ALREADY bombed, and gangsters are actively trying to murder you, surely this is a proper use of a god damn bomb?

You're throwing more variables in there that did not exist.

Those are literally the exact variables. The warden was dead.

Then it was the HoS dressed as the warden who walked in there, lasered it to death, and walked out completely unimpeded.

Either way it wouldn't have even been a ban in the first place if there was some communication about the handling of bombs being changed in adminbus, and if there was even some sort of hint for anybody reading the rules page about explosives. The less I have to ban people, the better.

Nerf bombs back down to saner levels

Even life web nerfed access to bomb making stuff because bombs are annoyingly powerful

I still don't understand why bombs were significantly buffed in the first place.

There was a change to a damage spread that was more affected by terrain so they made it more damaging. Problem is most department and especially public areas are glass houses anyway so the fact that walls and rwalls perform better against them doesn't really matter once some loon gets into the chandelier or just plain open underbelly most of our areas have. Probably science fares a little better under bombing still doesn't help much since they come from the drat place.

Ah I remember now.

That's been a horrid failure in most cases.

In theory it gives more protection to protected areas of the station, but in practice the only areas that are that protected are the AI Core. All of the R-Walls in the Brig, for example, are useless considering that the 99% areas a bomb is placed boarder right next to glass windows, meaning a bomb outside the brig can go as far as to ruin the armoury.

Box just isn't designed to have enough rwalls or hell even walls in most departments. Fun for beam shoot outs but it means that change didn't really fit the map.

Stop being such a big baby jesus christ you're doing the exact thing the shittiest players do to get attention and it makes you look dumb.

Everything is based on circumstance. You'll notice the precedent "You can now maxcap as nonantag lol have fun kids" hasn't been added to the big precedent list. Captain's have always had a lot more leniency and there were like four other variables that made this specific situation ok.

Pax knows the game well enough that he can judge risk and reward pretty well. I wouldn't recommend inexperienced players to pack that kind of heat but when you understand the system you know how to work within it.

Saegrimr wrote:Not every incident becomes the norm, take your tinfoil hat and fuck off.

This isn't to say I agree with his ruling, but jesus christ stop taking every situation to the extreme opposite ends.

Wow, It's almost like you are a complete and total hypocrite.
one arguable ban get's over-ruled "GUYS IT'S TOTALLY OK TO BLOW SHIT UP NOW!"

Falamazeer wrote:

Saegrimr wrote:Not every incident becomes the norm, take your tinfoil hat and fuck off.

This isn't to say I agree with his ruling, but jesus christ stop taking every situation to the extreme opposite ends.

Wow, It's almost like you are a complete and total hypocrite.
one arguable ban get's over-ruled "GUYS IT'S TOTALLY OK TO BLOW SHIT UP NOW!"

Wow even Saegrimr thinks Saegrimr is being a baby

Can't even read the first few posts where we discussed the dank memes. Keep up, here.

Saegrimr wrote:Can't even read the first few posts where we discussed the dank memes. Keep up, here.

You're just upset because the conversation isn't going the way you thought it would.
It's just easier to point out how buttflustered you are that nobody likes your ill conceived ban based on black and white rules.

Maybe instead of leaning on precedents and policies you should do what everyone else does and reason your way out of a wet paper bag, by acknowledging context matters.

Falamazeer wrote:You're just upset because the conversation isn't going the way you thought it would.
It's just easier to point out how buttflustered you are that nobody likes your ill conceived ban based on black and white rules

Fiiiiiine, i'll edit the OP.

Fine, On topic, The rule shouldn't be that black and white, are you an antag? go mad, no? did you end the round? banned.
It should be a simple context specific rule that anyone who isn't line toe-ing should be capable of following.

"Setting Bombs off on station can be a highly destructive and disruptive task and if you choose to engage in such an act, you had better be prepared to explain yourself. Bombing is not an acceptable action for self defense, nor is it an acceptable method of escalations, If you aren't sure you are justified, don't use it. here are a few positive examples of acceptable bomb use: Xeno Hive, Blasting charges for mining, Thrown into the malfunctioning AI core, thrown at the blob, The shuttle after round end.

All of these examples while not exhaustive can be made an even fairer use through broadcasting loudly and often your intention to use high yield explosives, Be sure that either nobody is likely to be caught within your blast radius, or that you have taken steps to ensure that those who have chosen to ignore your warning have no excuse for having done so.
and that you have taken every fairly expected method of warning possible. While some situations may lead to disastrous consequences for tipping your hand by possibly warning your target of your intention to use bombs, you may be held responsible for unintended collateral damage, and unanticipated victims. and may be judged accordingly, act responsibly with bombs, or you may be denied the right to use them. and in the case of malicious practices with those bombs, may be removed from the server.

tl;dr You are responsible for the consequences, intended or not for bombs you build or employ, Use your best judgement for anything involving high yield explosives. failure to take basic measures to prevent the misuse of your bombs may also lead to being held responsible for their results. Think things through."

Saegrimr wrote:There is currently zero written policy on either end for nonantag bombing of the station.

The standard used to be absolutely zero bombs as a nonantag unless it ended the round immediately, however this isn't being followed through by the current (stand-in) headmins, or previous dropout headmins.

Where do you think bombs like this are acceptable and why the fuck is this not written down anywhere?
https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic ... 17#p107519


Butthurt preservation:
[spoiler]Have fun guys, just don't actually kill anybody directly with the blast because its easy to fix.
Be sure to be in a fight you can't win either despite using polyacid grenades in self defense has also been bannable before to zero successful appeal.

Alternatively with this coming election make sure you pick a headmin who is actually willing to communicate their changes to how we handle things both to the players and admins.[/spoiler]

That was never the standard. Bombs have been used to kill blobs, wizards, nuke ops, malfs, aliens and basically you're just wrong there.

Was the guy who used poly acid grenade a captain who only killed antags and was surrounded by several of them?

Bombs should be a case by case based on:

- How upset everyone is (Was it funny enough that no one cares "F R E E D R O N E factor")
- Was it used responsibly (Weigh the damage and loss of innocent life against how helpful it was to the station. Did it kill the blob or just damage it? Did it wipe out several nuke ops and one bystander or blow a hole in a bridge with 20 casualties?)
- Did they do what they could to warn bystanders to get the fuck away?
- Was it used by the right person? (Bomb happy toxins guy? Random greytider? Security or Captain?)
- Do they have a history of bombing at every opportunity?
- Was it justified (How important are they, what was the result? Did they deny the nuke disk/vital equipment? Was the target worth the damage? Did they have no other reasonable options like guns?)
- Do you hate fun?

Well i'm glad you shared those guidelines before you quit being a headmin. Oh.

Anyway for the grenades, usually it was for being cornered in maint where it wouldn't even damage anything aside from themselves and a poor defenseless cable coil, or even a glass enclosure with nobody else around. https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=3121 Hmm

Secondly "was it funny?" or "did they have fun bombing the station?" is definitely not a good measure for something like this. I know you're the posterchild for "no rules lel" but there is a limit.

Falamazeer wrote:Fine, On topic, The rule shouldn't be that black and white, are you an antag? go mad, no? did you end the round? banned.
It should be a simple context specific rule that anyone who isn't line toe-ing should be capable of following.

"Setting Bombs off on station can be a highly destructive and disruptive task and if you choose to engage in such an act, you had better be prepared to explain yourself. Bombing is not an acceptable action for self defense, nor is it an acceptable method of escalations, If you aren't sure you are justified, don't use it. here are a few positive examples of acceptable bomb use: Xeno Hive, Blasting charges for mining, Thrown into the malfunctioning AI core, thrown at the blob, The shuttle after round end.

And heres the disconnect i'm facing here, highlighted for emphasis.

If nobody ahelped or was even salty in deadchat then why get involved? If you're wanting a black-and-white rule for whether any action, bombing or otherwise, is an issue, then "literally nobody involved is complaining about this" is about as close as you'll get.

Saegrimr wrote:Well i'm glad you shared those guidelines before you quit being a headmin. Oh.

Anyway for the grenades, usually it was for being cornered in maint where it wouldn't even damage anything aside from themselves and a poor defenseless cable coil, or even a glass enclosure with nobody else around. https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=3121 Hmm

Secondly "was it funny?" or "did they have fun bombing the station?" is definitely not a good measure for something like this. I know you're the posterchild for "no rules lel" but there is a limit.

Falamazeer wrote:Fine, On topic, The rule shouldn't be that black and white, are you an antag? go mad, no? did you end the round? banned.
It should be a simple context specific rule that anyone who isn't line toe-ing should be capable of following.

"Setting Bombs off on station can be a highly destructive and disruptive task and if you choose to engage in such an act, you had better be prepared to explain yourself. Bombing is not an acceptable action for self defense, nor is it an acceptable method of escalations, If you aren't sure you are justified, don't use it. here are a few positive examples of acceptable bomb use: Xeno Hive, Blasting charges for mining, Thrown into the malfunctioning AI core, thrown at the blob, The shuttle after round end.

And heres the disconnect i'm facing here, highlighted for emphasis.

If it entertained everyone what's the issue? See The Secret Rules at the bottom of the rules page for this. I did implement that.

The guidelines are the ones that admins vaguely use to determine what constitutes a bad bomb, even if it's not an open checklist. You are the only admin so far who made a shitty bomb ban, which is why I spelled out those guidelines in this thread.

Defending yourself from openly antagonistic forces is not escalation. It's self-defence.

Stickymayhem wrote:If it entertained everyone what's the issue? See The Secret Rules at the bottom of the rules page for this. I did implement that.

The guidelines are the ones that admins vaguely use to determine what constitutes a bad bomb, even if it's not an open checklist. You are the only admin so far who made a shitty bomb ban, which is why I spelled out those guidelines in this thread.

Alright i'll concede to this. Pax has my apologies and i'll handle all future bombings with this in mind. I was using an outdated guideline of "absolutely not", and even if I disagree with how bombs are used if these are going to be the standards set forth that's how i'll handle them. This is really all I ask for. Clarification, so I don't need to ban people for shit that doesn't need banning.

Stickymayhem wrote:Defending yourself from openly antagonistic forces is not escalation. It's self-defence.

See again with that we're back at "Bombing is not an acceptable action for self defense", so it's really one or the other and the way things are going this particular excerpt needs to go. Two clashing definitions here.

It's not really a disconnect, He was bombing an antagonist force.
Not to say that's the only time it's ok, but it is one of the better examples of fair and proper bombings.

But where does it say it's not an acceptable method of self defense?

If aliens take you back to the nest no one is going to get pissed off if you bomb the nest.

I mean it doesn't really make much difference. Bombs used offensively or defensively are still bombs.

Stickymayhem wrote:But where does it say it's not an acceptable method of self defense?

If aliens take you back to the nest no one is going to get pissed off if you bomb the nest.

I mean it doesn't really make much difference. Bombs used offensively or defensively are still bombs.

Nobody official said that, I said that, And I meant it more like not to be used for self defense in a simple fight, It is not a fire extinguisher. It is a bomb. Being disarmed repeatedly or robbed of your shoes is no excuse to press the proverbial fuck you button.

Though I could have probably been more specific.

To clarify, bombs aren't mentioned in the rules page at all. There is however a section on what is reasonable escalation. Reasonable escalation is not using an excessive amount ot force to control a situation. For example, tabling/neckgrabbing and killspacing the clown both allow you to control a situation where the clown is slipping you but the killspace option is excessive.

Bombs are treated exactly the same. Bombs used in a situation like a remote alien nest is fine-it's one of the few options available to control the situation or rather, take control of the situation away from aliens by killing them. Detonating a max-cap in the hallway to take out a ling killing you might not be, since many innocents are at risk, which make it excessive force.

Practically speaking, and while this doesn't condone or condemn non-antag bombing, people have asked admins in situations where it's not completely clear whether using a bomb will be a good enough idea or not. The answer usually given when there is a good IC reason, is that while you can try, there will be a minimum of a dayban per innocent killed.

Since this thread is still active, and it ties back in, I'd like to draw attention to my post from before, specifically:

Takeguru wrote: Sec, and by extension, the heads, have always been given a bit more leniency in rev
I would ASSUME that this carries over to gang because gang is equivalent levels of everything going to shit and anyone being a potential threat

Am I wrong for assuming as such?

Takeguru wrote:Since this thread is still active, and it ties back in, I'd like to draw attention to my post from before, specifically:

Takeguru wrote: Sec, and by extension, the heads, have always been given a bit more leniency in rev
I would ASSUME that this carries over to gang because gang is equivalent levels of everything going to shit and anyone being a potential threat

Am I wrong for assuming as such?

We've always had a sort of "hands off" approach when it comes to rev aside from large incidents like singulo, bombs, plasma floods, or obvious shittery like revs killing their own heads or people actively seeking to get deconverted/implants removed. (So all in all, hardly hands off at all)

Yes I'm aware

My question is if that policy carries over to gang or if it's different for some reason

The Secret Rules section touches on this, but it might be good to spell it out explicitly somewhere. Rules don't exist to protect an admin from looking silly when his ban is overturned. Rules exist to let players know what is permissible. If a player breaks a rule, AND an admin thinks that the player ruined the fun of someone who didn't have it coming, then a ban is justified.

A player can be banned without breaking any rules (line-toeing), and a player can remain unbanned after breaking rules (situations like this one). The rules aren't a sacrosanct entity that needs to be protected for its own sake. The rules are a tool for admins to use in the process of dissuading and removing people who ruin the fun of others. An admin who loses sight of that begins to harm the server.

Arete wrote:Rules don't exist to protect an admin from looking silly when his ban is overturned. Rules exist to let players know what is permissible.

I'd still rather have something to point at for reference so no more bad bans like this come about.

I now see why so many people hate you, Saeg.