/tg/Station 13

Inspired by these threads:

viewtopic.php?t=34348
viewtopic.php?p=665181

So, interesting point, if someone builds the BSA in a bad place the first time, but has no further involvement in its unlocking or firing, should that player be noted or banned over it?

Similarly, someone makes a dangerous construction, but it only becomes dangerous through no fault of the person, who in good faith tried to prevent that (someone breaking it from outside, the prisoner getting free). Should the player get noted for that incident?

Not exactly the same situation but this ruling might as well cover this.

Responsibility for dangerous projects gone wrong falls upon both the builder and the person who causes the eventual fuckup. However amount responsibility fluctuates depending on amount of information players have on it (E.g. a person activating a random signaler that detonates several maxcaps without knowing what it would do is not actionably responsible for the damage, only the person who set up the circumstances is, has they known exactly what the signaler would do they would be responsible as well)

Basically if you set up the circumstances for mass destruction for a gimmick your expected to bubble wrap it sufficiently that the only way its going to go wrong is if a antag makes it go wrong. You can't leave random maxcaps in the halls, you can't build a random chute that leads to the SM in a hallway, you can't build a BSA pointed at the AI unless your going to bubblewrap it in a way thats going to stop it from randomly becoming a critical threat. Secure your maxcaps, put a windoor and text warning infront of your chute, move the AI out of the way of your BSA.

There have been several instances in the past where a player sets everything up for mass grief except actually pushing the button for mass grief because they know someone will push that button on their behalf and they think that will give them immunity from admin action, behavior like this isn't healthy for the game as a whole and should continue to be forbidden.

tldr: If your going to set up circumstances where mass destruction is possible its your responsibility to make sure that the risk of it going wrong in minimized to an extent that only antags or griefers pose a risk to it, if you don't you are either fully or partially responsible for the ensuing destruction.

The BSA is already locked behind two head of staff IDs. I'd argue that's already more than enough bubblewrapping.

GPeckman wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 9:30 pm The BSA is already locked behind two head of staff IDs. I'd argue that's already more than enough bubblewrapping.

The problem is that, as has been shown, heads of staff don't tend to care where it's built, nor do they follow up on the matter before swiping it.

Then maybe we could make heads of staff care by shifting the responsibility for a fuck-up onto them as opposed to the builder.

they both should be responsible because they are both part of the problem
1. The engineer building it in a dumb place
2. The heads unlocking it without any care of the world
3. Any idiots who fire it recklessy at whatever signal they can as a non antag

Vekter wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 10:50 pm

GPeckman wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 9:30 pm The BSA is already locked behind two head of staff IDs. I'd argue that's already more than enough bubblewrapping.

The problem is that, as has been shown, heads of staff don't tend to care where it's built, nor do they follow up on the matter before swiping it.

Bluntly speaking, that seems like a problem with the heads of staff, not with the person building the the BSA in the first place.

GPeckman wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 11:36 pm

Vekter wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 10:50 pm

GPeckman wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 9:30 pm The BSA is already locked behind two head of staff IDs. I'd argue that's already more than enough bubblewrapping.

The problem is that, as has been shown, heads of staff don't tend to care where it's built, nor do they follow up on the matter before swiping it.

Bluntly speaking, that seems like a problem with the heads of staff, not with the person building the the BSA in the first place.

Indie-ana Jones wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 11:04 pm Then maybe we could make heads of staff care by shifting the responsibility for a fuck-up onto them as opposed to the builder.

They were. I had to go back and do so after the fact, but they were. The responsibility was shared between all of them, including the builder.

Frankly this is a code issue, regardless of where you put the bsa its going to fuck someone over since its one directional and requires a large free space to build it. The safest place to put the bsa without needing to remake the area is perma or atmos but both require access and fuck over the people working there. In secs case, you wouldnt perma brig someone next you a big fucking cannon that can level anything and in atmos case inless you thread the needle it might go through a gas chamber making it useless.

Frankly though I think building bsas in public areas is fine, the station objective isn't done enough to where you aren't going to be getting lasered every other shift.

Ezel wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 11:25 pm they both should be responsible because they are both part of the problem
1. The engineer building it in a dumb place
2. The heads unlocking it without any care of the world
3. Any idiots who fire it recklessy at whatever signal they can as a non antag

This is objectively the correct take.

Shellton(Mario) wrote: ↑Sun Jul 02, 2023 12:08 am Frankly this is a code issue, regardless of where you put the bsa its going to fuck someone over since its one directional and requires a large free space to build it. The safest place to put the bsa without needing to remake the area is perma or atmos but both require access and fuck over the people working there. In secs case, you wouldnt perma brig someone next you a big fucking cannon that can level anything and in atmos case inless you thread the needle it might go through a gas chamber making it useless.

Frankly though I think building bsas in public areas is fine, the station objective isn't done enough to where you aren't going to be getting lasered every other shift.

Ideally it wouldn't blow a fucking hole in the station when it fires, but this is one of the rare cases where I'm fine with soul winning out over any reason to remove it.

Most players have been building it on Lavaland.

Also, for the record? I don't hate the idea of it being built in public, but you have to do something to idiot-proof it. Secure the firing console behind access airlocks, mark the firing line and put up holofans so atmos stays inside, whatever.

Shellton(Mario) wrote: ↑Sun Jul 02, 2023 12:08 am Frankly this is a code issue, regardless of where you put the bsa its going to fuck someone over since its one directional and requires a large free space to build it. The safest place to put the bsa without needing to remake the area is perma or atmos but both require access and fuck over the people working there. In secs case, you wouldnt perma brig someone next you a big fucking cannon that can level anything and in atmos case inless you thread the needle it might go through a gas chamber making it useless.

Frankly though I think building bsas in public areas is fine, the station objective isn't done enough to where you aren't going to be getting lasered every other shift.

Building in space would be auctally 10 times easier then constructing it in station and for the people who argeu they dont want to spacewalk

The way how BSA works the part at the cannon the little ball thing doesn't destroy floors so if you put the cannon against a wall in a outer area of space at the right direction 9/10 times it wont hit anything or slice the station and the BSA can fire safely without causing atmos issues but this is just as uncommon knowledge as people not knowing the console doesn't have to be connected to the bsa.

Vekter wrote: ↑Sun Jul 02, 2023 12:06 am They were. I had to go back and do so after the fact, but they were. The responsibility was shared between all of them, including the builder.

I still think assigning any blame to the builder at all is unreasonable. Suppose the RD ordered a scientist to make a bomb for them, and then used that bomb to grief. Would you say that the scientist should also be blamed? I don't think it that would be reasonable, and I don't think blaming the builder is reasonable here either.

GPeckman wrote: ↑Sun Jul 02, 2023 1:02 am

Vekter wrote: ↑Sun Jul 02, 2023 12:06 am They were. I had to go back and do so after the fact, but they were. The responsibility was shared between all of them, including the builder.

I still think assigning any blame to the builder at all is unreasonable. Suppose the RD ordered a scientist to make a bomb for them, and then used that bomb to grief. Would you say that the scientist should also be blamed? I don't think it that would be reasonable, and I don't think blaming the builder is reasonable here either.

The person who built it didn't build it in the bar under anyone's orders. If he did, he would most likely not be held responsible, or at least to a much lesser degree.

So a big question I have is how does this play into the pill example.

If I make a pill that says "100% instant death you will die" and someone eats it then I am not at fault. However if someone then force feeds the clown this pill am I going to get bwoinked?

If I build a suicide machine in the showroom. Something so clear that anyone looking in can clearly see that they ain't coming out if they go in with signs all over the place saying as much. Im prolly not gonna get a talking to if someone walks in. However what if an antag starts throwing people in there? Am I on the hook now?

Let's take Vekters latest example. I build a zoo for gorillas in the bar. People come by and they have a drink take a look at the apes when suddenly mr.gas mask comes by with his fire axe and unleashed the monke. Under his idea both the builder and the inciter would be culpable here.

Personally I enjoy a more chaotic station that maybe has some more dangers because people have fun with their autism projects.

Under current precedent, you would be considered to blame for all three examples, because you did something blatantly dangerous and other players used that dangerous act to kill people.

That's part of the issue is that we have a conflicting precedent. Current president is that if I leave pills that kill you labeled death on the floor I'm good because only a retard is going to eat these.

It's only after this latest ban that this idea that if you set up the dominos but someone else pushes them over then you're also in trouble.

Now clearly I prefer a much more chaotic environment in which people are able to do things that are suboptimal without worrying about getting banned by the fun police but frankly I would just be happy with any sort of policy that's consistent.

Edit: Interestingly enough Vekter seemed to agree that leaving deadly things labeled as "fun pills" would be ok a year ago. I wonder what happened to make him change his mind.

The BSA is an incredibly hard-to-construct machine with many loops one must go through before firing it causing potentially catastrophic things to happen.

When I was getting into this game one of the things I loved was antags taking advantage of cool shit that all seems to come together and I wouldn't want to limit it completely.

The steps to fire it are somewhat arduous so the real there is a question of how much responsibility should the builder have if it's in a shit place? I think the acting of building it creates ample roleplaying opportunities, security can clamp down and force movement you can make a gimmick around it like the cannon bar or something. In that regard, we do not care where you build it- however the actions you take after you build it matter.

As timber says; Build it wherever the fuck you like cuz it looks cool, but if you're egging on others to unlock it or fire it after building it in a grief spot it's partially on you.