[thebiblemelts] - Exploiting an oversight to subvert lux pen restrictions

[Metek]

Round ID: 251297

Code: Select all

[2025-04-17 01:18:56.905] ATTACK: thebiblemelts/(Rick 'Ratman' Jones) (mob_3202) transferred reagents to [large beaker] with the luxury medipen which had /datum/reagent/medicine/salbutamol (10u, 1 purity), /datum/reagent/medicine/c2/penthrite (10u, 0.75 purity), /datum/reagent/medicine/oxandrolone (10u, 1 purity), /datum/reagent/medicine/sal_acid (10u, 1 purity), /datum/reagent/medicine/omnizine (10u, 1 purity) and /datum/reagent/medicine/leporazine (10u, 1 purity) (Locker Room (135,148,2))
[2025-04-17 01:19:45.609] ATTACK: thebiblemelts/(Rick 'Ratman' Jones) (mob_3202) transferred reagents to [syringe] with the large beaker which had /datum/reagent/medicine/salbutamol (0.83334u, 1 purity), /datum/reagent/medicine/c2/penthrite (0.83334u, 0.75 purity), /datum/reagent/medicine/oxandrolone (0.83334u, 1 purity), /datum/reagent/medicine/sal_acid (0.83334u, 1 purity), /datum/reagent/medicine/omnizine (0.83334u, 1 purity) and /datum/reagent/medicine/leporazine (0.83334u, 1 purity) (Central Primary Hallway (88,114,2))

This is a snippet taken from the round I'm filing a ban appeal about - the appeal itself is not relevant.

I'm lodging this complaint because, specifically, I view it as an abuse of administrative power to take advantage of a bug to benefit your character in a PvP scenario. As an admin, you are usually not being as closely monitored for bad behavior like this. I may also be slightly motivated to make this complaint because of how much I fucking hate what trying to balance the game around mining does but that is, also, off-topic.




It is abundantly obvious by inference and by the multiple PRs implemented to fix subversions of it that you're not meant to be able to use the reagents inside of a luxury survival pen outside of the context of the restrictions that pen places on the delay to inject it in standard atmospheric pressure.

Operative focus on the "don't be a hypocrite bit" about not doing things that would get someone else in trouble, then highlighting the rule 4 precedents of bug/exploit abuse not being something antagonists are allowed to do. Unless someone wants to assert that exploits technically aren't against the rules, and thus aren't liable for an admin complaint if an admin uses an exploit.

The
multiple
fixes
implemented
for extracting the chems from medipens or medipen style items also makes it abundantly clear that you're not supposed to be able to get easy access to the chems inside of them OUTSIDE of using the medipen itself.

[vect0r]

I thought that admin complaints were for admin conduct, not player conduct.

[DrAmazing343]

Admin complaints are generally for administrative actions a player has issues about, not for players who happen to be admins. This, however, touches on an intersection between the two in which one’s player conduct needs to be in tune with their admin conduct in terms of what they ban for.

We all risk peanut post removal by posting here, but I will note that it’s easy to see things like this possible ingame and not know it’s unintentional game design without a changelog addendum attached to the item’s description, and unless TBM actioned someone for doing the same thing, it’s not hypocritical at all.

[Metek]

Fair enough. My mistake. There's no problem. I withdraw the complaint unconditionally.

[iain0]

Hi there,

Will close this out.

Agree with the previous point that the behaviour of an exploit should either be obvious (e.g. duping) or known to the individual to be an issue here ; this situation is likely not intuitively a problem if you discover it.

Regarding the actual point about the medipens themselves, of the PRs listed, 3 are to prevent reagents being inserted into medipens, which has some pretty powerful implications for hostile injections, and one is about infinite reagents via a refiller, rather than directly about blocking obtaining the reagents. These are primarily targeted at other issues. Internal discussion was had and concluded this likely wasn't an exploit.

A PR could be submitted if this behaviour is deemed unintended but that's more in the realm of maintainers.

Thanks