Actually write down you are not allowed to murderbone on LRP lowpop

[CPTANT]

So admins are actually enforcing this now. Maybe actual write it down in the rules and don't assume everyone just knows?

There is no reference to this policy whatsoever and it is major enough to not just let people hunt policy threads for it.

4. Lone antagonists are unbound by (most) rules.
With the exception of metagaming/comms, bug/exploit abuse, erotic/creepy stuff, OOC in IC or IC in OOC, or spawn-camping arrivals, solo antagonists may pursue any goals they wish, in any way they wish. Crewmembers are not allowed to pre-emptively search for, hinder, or otherwise seek conflict with antagonists without reasonable cause to do so. Otherwise, they may handle antagonists in any way they wish, provided they understand that their actions may be punished by Space Law if given IC cause. Team antagonists can do as they wish as per lone antagonists, but their actions should neither harm their teams efforts, nor intentionally harm it through inaction. Emulating an antagonist by action or outfit puts you at risk of being treated as one.

Rule 4 Precedents

Regular crewmembers can assist antagonists with good IC reasoning, but assisting an antagonist doesn't mean you get a pass on acting like one. If in doubt, ask an admin if a particular action is okay. Depending on the level of assistance, sufficient IC reasoning ranges from treating everyone who goes into medbay regardless of their history, to bartering contraband, to performing actions under threat of death.
Xeno Queens/Broodmothers are treated the same as Malf AI and Cyborg as far as team antagonists go. Xenos/Spiders should prioritize following the directions of their leaders where possible.
Ghosting out mid-conversion/deconversion, going AFK, suiciding, or logging off after conversion/deconversion can result administrative action if done in bad faith. Let an admin know if you cannot or do not want to play any of the above mentioned roles so they may be offered to a willing participant.

[TheLoLSwat]

iirc it’s in the MOTD, so maybe that can get reiterated / updated?

[Isratosh]

https://tgstation13.org/wiki/Headmin_Rulings

It's been on this page and active policy since November 21 2021. The visibility of this page and the clarity of its contents could be improved. It should also be standard practice for admins to utilize warnings written in notes before applying lengthy bans for obscure rulings like these. Or think of interesting IC event ways to handle it when it occurs.

[kinnebian]

One of my headmin platforms every time, has been to make a channel on the discord to post accepted policy changes / headmin rulings. I still think it would be a great idea, as not everyone uses forums, but more people use the discord.

[iwishforducks]

One of my headmin platforms every time, has been to make a channel on the discord to post accepted policy changes / headmin rulings. I still think it would be a great idea, as not everyone uses forums, but more people use the discord.

#policybus exists but it hasn’t been used since january. oops

edit: it is used for discussion but it could just be repurposed for exactly what you said, kinnebian. headmins could just open up perms on that channel and allow admins to post policy threads that were locked and give a summary on the headmin decision or something. iunno

[Vekter]

Yeah, I think the general issue here is "headmin rulings should be more visible" which I absolutely agree with.

[CPTANT]

https://tgstation13.org/wiki/Headmin_Rulings

It's been on this page and active policy since November 21 2021. The visibility of this page and the clarity of its contents could be improved. It should also be standard practice for admins to utilize warnings written in notes before applying lengthy bans for obscure rulings like these. Or think of interesting IC event ways to handle it when it occurs.

This is what the rules say about the admin rulings page:

These rulings are largely situational or niche in scope and generally not applicable in situations outside of the specifics outline in the ruling. They may additionally be superseded by later rulings. You should only use these as references for ban appeals or admin complaints.

Personally I think admin rulings should only cover grey areas and niche cases. This is neither, it is just an entirely different rule than what rule 4 states.

[DrAmazing343]

I also agree we should have some way to make these rulings more visible, but there’s too damn many of them to lump ‘em on just the one page. Very open to suggestions, I’ve been pondering some way to integrate/slim down the rules to get more of the standalone rulings in but it’s difficult.

[CPTANT]

I would also like to state that what it does say in the headmin rules is not particularly informative:

We welcome admins to note lowpop murderbone at their discretion. Repeated notes may result in bans

I am rather surprised myself honestly that "low-pop" is anything under 35 people now.

[kinnebian]

One of my headmin platforms every time, has been to make a channel on the discord to post accepted policy changes / headmin rulings. I still think it would be a great idea, as not everyone uses forums, but more people use the discord.

I also agree we should have some way to make these rulings more visible, but there’s too damn many of them to lump ‘em on just the one page. Very open to suggestions, I’ve been pondering some way to integrate/slim down the rules to get more of the standalone rulings in but it’s difficult.

[kinnebian]

Keep wiki page updated, pin it to the new discord channel, and only announce new actual policy changes in there (not failed or inconsequential policy threads)
you could only do the last half of that sentence and itd be better than what we have now

just a link would do, maybe a new role for pinging people?

[Vekter]

I think it would be wise to do a pass on old headmin rulings and see what we can do to collapse them a bit, remove ones that are redundant/outdated/covered by rule 1, then put a link in the regular rules saying that the headmin rulings are binding and should be referred to.

[Not-Dorsidarf]

I think that any headmin ruling that redefines what the actual text of the game rules are should just be a rules change. Making a rules change doesn't *have* to be a six month term-definining project every time resulting in tiptoing around the idea of changing the wording on the big important page itself.

If you're worried about making the rules page more complex and harder to understand, consider that adding player-relevant changes to seperate pages or discord channels or whatever makes things MUCH harder to understand, especially pages which are explicitly said to be "You should never need to read these if you're playing normally" level?

[kinnebian]

If you're worried about making the rules page more complex and harder to understand, consider that adding player-relevant changes to seperate pages or discord channels or whatever makes things MUCH harder to understand, especially pages which are explicitly said to be "You should never need to read these if you're playing normally" level?

i dont think you understand what im saying at all and i really dont see how a channel that just posts when so and so ruling is made on [insert policy forum here] would make anything MORE complicated,
it would make it a lot easier for people who dont use the forums but still care about minor changes/rulings to see those rulings

[CPTANT]

Honestly the point is still that this isn't just a headmin ruling on existing rules, it is an entirely new rule and should stated as such in the rules. There is a clear difference with most other ruling where they are an interpretation of existing rules. You can not arrive at this interpretation from other rules, it is literally the opposite of what rule 4 says.

[dendydoom]

i agree in that if we want to have this "no low population killing sprees" be enforced at a higher population level (people who don't play rounds with 10~ people in never really saw it before) it needs to be amended to the actual rule 4 rather than having rule 4 say "antags can do whatever they want, whenever they want, for whatever reason they want! always!" and then secretly in headmin rulings have "except when the server is less than 30 people"

someone needs to bite the bullet and add this restriction to rule 4, but i have a feeling that this has generally been avoided because rule 4 is seen as the infallible and sacred golden ox of lrp and any attempts to touch it is seen as mrp meddling looking to destroy lrp. which, granted, might be true, but in this case, it's to stop the server from dying because it's unplayable when 1 antag makes the game so unbearably bad to experience that everyone quits to do something else.

[Vekter]

Honestly the point is still that this isn't just a headmin ruling on existing rules, it is an entirely new rule and should stated as such in the rules. There is a clear difference with most other ruling where they are an interpretation of existing rules. You can not arrive at this interpretation from other rules, it is literally the opposite of what rule 4 says.

Rule 1.

[Deathrobotpunch1]

Rule 1.

rule 4.

[CPTANT]

Honestly the point is still that this isn't just a headmin ruling on existing rules, it is an entirely new rule and should stated as such in the rules. There is a clear difference with most other ruling where they are an interpretation of existing rules. You can not arrive at this interpretation from other rules, it is literally the opposite of what rule 4 says.

Rule 1.

With the exception of metagaming/comms, bug/exploit abuse, erotic/creepy stuff, OOC in IC or IC in OOC, or spawn-camping arrivals, solo antagonists may pursue any goals they wish, in any way they wish.

Come on you can't say Antagonists are exempt from most rules can do whatever they want and then claim doing just that is "Being a dick". If you are pedantic enough any form of antagonizing can be interpreted as "being a dick". Killing Ian? Dick move. Setting the station on fire? Dick move. Blowing up the shuttle? Dick move.

[dendydoom]

fwiw timber asked me to update the headmin policy ruling to

We welcome admins to note lowpop murderbone at their discretion. Repeated notes may (read: should) result in bans. This may be enforced stronger on any servers struggling to build population and to prevent servers literally dying.

on the 18th and i was stoned at the time and forgot. it is now changed.

i understand this thread wants to adapt rule 4 directly but i feel compelled to bring up that i had a hand in this being buried and i must come clean about my woopsie.

i am a very good wiki admin

[Timberpoes]

It's not that lowpop murderbone is banned. It's that some lowpop murderbones are fine and some are not. Admins are empowered to decide which falls into which basket and are empowered to note and if it's repeated ban players - from antags as the first step, from the server as a last-ditch effort - to prioritise the health of the server.

Lowpop murderbone is a niche ruling. It's not about pop count, but about the station's capacity to resist the antag's killing spree. Lower pop levels tend to have lower ability to resist. But sometimes you get a shift with staffed medical and sec plus no useless fluff roles like assistant, and now antags have more freedom to cause chaos because the shift's capacity to turn it into fun is higher.

It's why there's no numbers set on what is and isn't lowpop. The ruling is not about a 35+ player server. It's not 10+. It's not 1+. The ruling is more about where an antag has decided they are going to prioritise their own fun and the crew can't reasonably be expected to deal with it and because of that players are just quitting to go play on a better server instead of observing.

I see this as an admin problem. In that it's a problem that an admin was merely given advice by our incoming host but which they took as a commandment due to the perception of host rank.

We don't need to change our approach to the rules or modify the rules page every time some random host or admin or player has a uwupsie likkle fucky wucky moment.

As for the question of headmin rulings in general, it will never be enough. Nothing anyone suggests will ever be enough. Post them on the forums, the wiki, the Discord, ping everyone every time a new ruling is made, add them to the message of the day, add them to announcements, force the players to type the literal words of the ruling into a box and hit "I have read and understand the EULA" before they join the server and still like 75% of the players will have no clue about any of them. Then someone will make a policy thread about how we don't communicate headmin rulings well enough and a headmin needs to personally go visit every player IRL and explain everything to them in person every time a new bit of policy is made.

And that's fine, because headmin rulings aren't really for the players. They're for admins to point to whenever a player complains about something.

"It's revs" vs "there's revs" isn't for players to help them roleplay better. It's for admins when they tell players to stop being NRP trash and they player goes "BUT I'M A HRP GOD" and the admin can tap the sign that says "this is OOC in IC don't do it here's the exact rule that covers this tiny niche".

There's policy that has to state "vampires aren't antags just because they're vampires" - no fucking shit. You can bet your ass at least one admin has had a player go "BUT IMMA VAMPIRE I SUCC ZE BLOOD" and the admin has had to tap the sign saying "You're not an antag".

A policy telling you you're not allowed to go to different admins to get different rulings - no fucking shit. What, you think a player ever read that and decided they were just going to accept the ruling they were given and not go to all their admin friends and find out if it was bullshit? No. They'll do it anyway and try to say "BUT I WASN'T ADMIN SHOPPING I WAS JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF I SHOULD MAKE A COMPLAINT". And the admin has to tap the sign.

A policy against organising mass grief as security. Why? Why is this needed in 2024? It's literally against the rules. Because some player will have pulled that card and now some admin has a sign to tap.

So I could propose we remove all headmin rulings and all precedents (which are basically just fancier headmin rulings) and you know who'll complain? Admins.

So you can just assume all the headmin rulings and precedents are for admins. They're signs for admins to tap when a player tries to rules lawyer. Occasionally signs for headmins to tap when admins get too HRP or MRP for their respective servers and rules lawyer too.

That's not also to say we don't have some totally useless rulings added too. An MRP ruling that basically says "MRP has rules on antags". And MRP ruling that says "powergaming is bad" when an anti-powergaming rule exists. A headmin ruling that says naming policy exists, then links to a naming policy that is no longer valid.

[kinnebian]

It should absolutely included in rule 4, or at least in the precedents if people are getting punished for it.
look, weve already done this before!

4. Lone antagonists are unbound by (most) rules.

With the exception of metagaming/comms, bug/exploit abuse, erotic/creepy stuff, murderboning on low population, OOC in IC or IC in OOC, or spawn-camping arrivals, solo antagonists may pursue any goals they wish, in any way they wish. Crewmembers are not allowed to pre-emptively search for, hinder, or otherwise seek conflict with antagonists without reasonable cause to do so. Otherwise, they may handle antagonists in any way they wish, provided they understand that their actions may be punished by Space Law if given IC cause. Team antagonists can do as they wish as per lone antagonists, but their actions should neither harm their teams efforts, nor intentionally harm it through inaction. Emulating an antagonist by action or outfit puts you at risk of being treated as one.

just add lowpop murderbone to that preamble, or to the precedents even!

[kinnebian]

i agree in that if we want to have this "no low population killing sprees" be enforced at a higher population level (people who don't play rounds with 10~ people in never really saw it before) it needs to be amended to the actual rule 4 rather than having rule 4 say "antags can do whatever they want, whenever they want, for whatever reason they want! always!" and then secretly in headmin rulings have "except when the server is less than 30 people"

someone needs to bite the bullet and add this restriction to rule 4, but i have a feeling that this has generally been avoided because rule 4 is seen as the infallible and sacred golden ox of lrp and any attempts to touch it is seen as mrp meddling looking to destroy lrp. which, granted, might be true, but in this case, it's to stop the server from dying because it's unplayable when 1 antag makes the game so unbearably bad to experience that everyone quits to do something else.

oh my god dendy already made the point i was making whoops

[DaBoss]

Can we have an ingame indicator for when population is high or not? If it affects how the player is expected to act within the rules it should be visible. You cannot seriously think it's acceptible moderation to have two sets of rules for two different situations, and not inform players which ruleset is in place. Especially over something as arbitrary as this, where 30 population is either high or low or mid depending on who you're asking, and also something that can quickly change without warning.

[GamerAndYeahMick]

No. I strongly share the point of timber, to add this into the rule changes the dynamic altogether, this is has been here since 2020 or some shit, and has never been an issue until someone got banned and it was done by a trial admin listening to the host trolling or something, it isn't an issue, it won't be an issue, and adding it to the rules will make people hesitate to antagonise altogether, lead to further questions about "what is lowpop" "what is murderbone" and weighs heavier since its an actual rule and not a headmin ruling, the truth is it's so subjective and depends on a multitude of factors and the person judging those factors, it's not meant to be a stick to beat players but rather a safeguard to stop the pop dying and the server not becoming active again, the admin can intervene in multiple ways that aren't bans or even notes, and they can simply ask you to stop.

One bad ban won't make me add it into the rules, just as a heads up an admin can technically do anything if it's for the better of the playerbase or the server and it doesn't even have to be written down anywhere, the real way we uphold standards and quality is by having multiple layers of oversight. Maybe we could make the headmin rulings more visible on the rules page instead of a separate page but hard no to it being in rule 4.

[MooCow12]

I dont think this was the first time this issue came up tho, didnt admins grief a tot that recalled shuttle one time at around 40 minutes so they could pursue their final objective? They blew him up when he was next to his comms console and sent ert or something