Goonhub
10-21-2019, 06:52 AM
Full disclosure: I have a well-known habit of taking a very dim view of players who dual-class in chemistry and terrorism. Also full disclosure: This is because that is absolutely what i used to do before I was adminned, so I know very well the mindset behind it, and the perspective gained from adminning shows me what it's like from the outside.
I think of hellchems / bombs / diseases etc as being consistent with the Hilarity Clause that used to be in the rules: If you get away with it and nothing goes wrong, then it's fine. If something goes wrong, you're in trouble. (everything's fine with hellchems etc: only the intended target was harmed, it was OK for you to attack the intended target, any collateral damage to the station or other players is within acceptable limits; everything's fine with the hilarity clause: the admins thought it was funny enough to allow / going wrong with hellchems: what you did; going wrong with hilarity clause: the admins didn't think it was funny). You are free to mix up whatever you like (modulo chemicals where the act of creating them causes trouble in itself, like stuff that explodes into existence or creates a fireball as part of its systhesis), but what you DO with them is where things get fuzzy. I understand intimately that there's a shitload of stuff in chemistry that's really exciting and cool and you can't wait to fog it and watch it melt people or whatever, and that's fine. in fact, that's the intended purpose - to give a chemist who rolled antag that round something interesting to do that shows off the particular things that job has access to.
Consider what your pattern of behavior looks like to any given admin. You have a history of doing horrible shit to other players, sometimes with chemistry, sometimes with other means like the portapuke incident. You seem to have trouble understanding the difference between 'this is a fine time to fog my mixture that melts people' and 'this is not a good time to fog my mixture that melts people'. You also seem to really enjoy mixing things up that, if fogged, would melt people. We have a vested interest in not driving players away. One of the things that drives people away is getting melted because they wandered into a maintenance hallway.
So, okay, we've gotta figure out how to get you to stop murdering people. Clearly we've tried talking to you about it, we've tried yelling at you about it, last month you were told after the QGP incident that if you didn't stop doing it, we'd escalate to short bans.
You're looking at this from a perspective of 'how can they ban me for fogging poison, that seems like a heavy punishment because I haven't fogged poison before' and we're looking at this from a perspective of 'we have tried and tried to get you to stop screwing over other players and well would you look at that, they're screwing over other players again'.
So let's flip the script: Put yourself in our shoes. Say you were an admin. You see a player who's got a history of screwing over other players, sometimes with pranks that get out of hand, sometimes with attempts to take out antagonists that 'accidentally' get out of hand, sometimes with 'oh i didn't realize it would end that poorly', whatever, there's always an excuse. The mechanics of the mischief they get into shows that they deeply understand various roles in the game and how game systems interact, so clearly they're paying attention to things and it's not a case of 'the game, though it acted internally consistently, reacted to their input in a way they did not expect' - they really just have a habit of at best being a clumsy but well-intentioned person that melts people an awful lot, or at worst aching for the thinnest excuse to haul out their 'mixture that melts people' recipe. Previous attempts to get them to stop melting people have not stopped, at most, they've moved on to different methods of slaughter when their previous methods got them yelled at. How would you handle that person?
I think of hellchems / bombs / diseases etc as being consistent with the Hilarity Clause that used to be in the rules: If you get away with it and nothing goes wrong, then it's fine. If something goes wrong, you're in trouble. (everything's fine with hellchems etc: only the intended target was harmed, it was OK for you to attack the intended target, any collateral damage to the station or other players is within acceptable limits; everything's fine with the hilarity clause: the admins thought it was funny enough to allow / going wrong with hellchems: what you did; going wrong with hilarity clause: the admins didn't think it was funny). You are free to mix up whatever you like (modulo chemicals where the act of creating them causes trouble in itself, like stuff that explodes into existence or creates a fireball as part of its systhesis), but what you DO with them is where things get fuzzy. I understand intimately that there's a shitload of stuff in chemistry that's really exciting and cool and you can't wait to fog it and watch it melt people or whatever, and that's fine. in fact, that's the intended purpose - to give a chemist who rolled antag that round something interesting to do that shows off the particular things that job has access to.
Consider what your pattern of behavior looks like to any given admin. You have a history of doing horrible shit to other players, sometimes with chemistry, sometimes with other means like the portapuke incident. You seem to have trouble understanding the difference between 'this is a fine time to fog my mixture that melts people' and 'this is not a good time to fog my mixture that melts people'. You also seem to really enjoy mixing things up that, if fogged, would melt people. We have a vested interest in not driving players away. One of the things that drives people away is getting melted because they wandered into a maintenance hallway.
So, okay, we've gotta figure out how to get you to stop murdering people. Clearly we've tried talking to you about it, we've tried yelling at you about it, last month you were told after the QGP incident that if you didn't stop doing it, we'd escalate to short bans.
You're looking at this from a perspective of 'how can they ban me for fogging poison, that seems like a heavy punishment because I haven't fogged poison before' and we're looking at this from a perspective of 'we have tried and tried to get you to stop screwing over other players and well would you look at that, they're screwing over other players again'.
So let's flip the script: Put yourself in our shoes. Say you were an admin. You see a player who's got a history of screwing over other players, sometimes with pranks that get out of hand, sometimes with attempts to take out antagonists that 'accidentally' get out of hand, sometimes with 'oh i didn't realize it would end that poorly', whatever, there's always an excuse. The mechanics of the mischief they get into shows that they deeply understand various roles in the game and how game systems interact, so clearly they're paying attention to things and it's not a case of 'the game, though it acted internally consistently, reacted to their input in a way they did not expect' - they really just have a habit of at best being a clumsy but well-intentioned person that melts people an awful lot, or at worst aching for the thinnest excuse to haul out their 'mixture that melts people' recipe. Previous attempts to get them to stop melting people have not stopped, at most, they've moved on to different methods of slaughter when their previous methods got them yelled at. How would you handle that person?