Suggestion: Changing of Rule 0 exception regarding pipes.

[Rurik]

Rule 0 Precedent to which I am referring: 

Quote

Deliberately breaking the atmos net in order to hamper antags that use it (xenos, borers, terrors, headcrabs, atmostechs, etc) counts as breaking this rule. Regardless of your job and/or antag status. This includes making the air distribution pipenet damaging to crawl through, creating "traps" in the net, obscuring the exit of pipes with objects, or unwrenching almost any pipe. The only time you can unwrench a pipe to hinder ventcrawling antags is if you see a specific ventcrawling antag, in a specific room, then you're allowed to unwrench the pipe only to that specific room, and reconnect it after the ventcrawling antag is no longer there. You must reconnect it before going on to disconnect any other pipe, anywhere. Welding vents/scrubbers is always okay once ventcrawling antags are known to be on the station, and does not fall under this rule.

Specifically about: 

Quote

The only time you can unwrench a pipe to hinder ventcrawling antags is if you see a specific ventcrawling antag, in a specific room, then you're allowed to unwrench the pipe only to that specific room, and reconnect it after the ventcrawling antag is no longer there.

This was a recent clarification, but the fact that it is an exception at all is odd.

Unwrenching the pipes is uncounterable. Theres is nothing a vent crawling antag can do about it. Half of the time the UI doesn't update when it is unwrenched until you pop out of a vent and re-enter, thus having it so antags mistakenly believe the pipe is still fastened and suddenly get thrown out. Even if it does render, it is easily missible and instantly puts said antag in a bad spot that can easily end in them dead (and even if, say, a terror spider manages to kill an engi that unwrenched in front of the spider, what then? Then the engi can't repair the pipe and every spider is fucked over for it). 

Unwrenching a pipe at *all* to fuck over an antag is a dick move, violating the nature of rule 0. This should not be an exception to the rule. There is no reason for it. There exists other ways to counter ventcrawling antags based on which antag it is. It abuses the piping system in the main flaw it has: the inability to climb into a open pipe without a vent. Might as well be an exploit that, to my understanding, is unfixable. 

This exception does not belong on paradise. I urge a removal of said exception, or at least a discussion on why it is being kept despite its contrarian nature to our rules.

[Spacemanspark]

35 minutes ago, Rurik said:

a discussion on why it is being kept despite its contrarian nature to our rules.

This came about because of someone's actually quite legitimate use of the system being spat back at them in an attempt to get them in trouble by a salty player.

In this specific scenario, a swarmer was inside the permabrig area, causing problems and doing its usual thing. It attempted to escape elsewhere via the pipe system to continue causing problems. A pipe was unwrenched and removed to prevent them from getting away, and they were destroyed.

 

This is a vastly different case from 'lol imma just unwrench this pipe preemptively and leave it there just cause'. There was context and proper reasoning/ motivation behind the action of removing the pipe and it was in a relatively contained area. The actions taken made sense and in character.

[Rurik]

59 minutes ago, Spacemanspark said:

In this specific scenario, a swarmer was inside the permabrig area, causing problems and doing its usual thing. It attempted to escape elsewhere via the pipe system to continue causing problems. A pipe was unwrenched and removed to prevent them from getting away, and they were destroyed.

This is a vastly different case from 'lol imma just unwrench this pipe preemptively and leave it there just cause'. There was context and proper reasoning/ motivation behind the action of removing the pipe and it was in a relatively contained area. The actions taken made sense and in character.

I agree, that is vastly different. One fucks over the entirety of vent crawling antags with uncounterable play and the other only a specific individual of vent crawling antags with uncounterable play before being repaired. Despite being localized and only done to stop a specific marauding swarmer/spider/xeno, it is still uncounterable and quite frankly unfair. I don't see anything that can be learned by it from the antags perspective, other than "get fucked for harassing this specific area." Why would we want to allow that? I'm aware not everything in ss13 is fair but for antags that rely heavily on vent crawling it is particularly egregious and I don't think making it acceptable is a good idea.

Should be noted, I'm not intending to come off as rude or trying to question the merits of the 'fore-mentioned debacle with the swarmers and perma. Just trying to understand the reasoning of such a precedent going forward. 

[Kyet]

1 hour ago, Rurik said:

Just trying to understand the reasoning of such a precedent going forward. 

Personally, I would prefer it if it was simply never allowed to unwrench pipes to counter ventcrawling antags. For exactly this reason - from the antag's perspective its often uncounterable gameplay. Their options become "stay in the room and eventually get swarmed and killed" or "attempt to run through the pipe anyway and pop out right next to someone who is prepared to shoot/axe you".
That said, I made this change anyway because the other two heads wanted it. Its one of the cases where I implemented something I don't personally like because of its popularity with the rest of the staff.

[Spacemanspark]

I'd say that's part of getting caught. Most of those antagonists have other ways of escaping many rooms as is, either via their abilities or sheer numbers. If you run into a situation without ideas on what you intend to do and without ways of getting out (and if you're in the vents you typically have a lot of time to consider your actions without interruption) then you can only blame yourself. 

In isolated, sensible situations its perfectly fine. It's when people are running around preemptively ripping pipes apart and leaving them on the same tile they were placed in to make them look like they're still there that it becomes a problem.

[Spacemanspark]

31 minutes ago, Kyet said:

I made this change anyway because the other two heads wanted it. Its one of the cases where I implemented something I don't personally like because of its popularity with the rest of the staff.

Emphasis mine. At least one other head admin has told me that while you talked with them about it, you outright ignored their input on the edit of the rule and put in your own wording instead. I can't speak for the other other head admin, but I think you're being a bit unfair.

[Sikroth]

Going to post just to say I fully agree with Rurik here. I honestly felt like this rule edit was added just to retroactively justify an action carried by an admin that resulted in some salt a while back.

I think localized pipenet griefing is still griefing and falls under the being a dick rule. Everyone knows how hard it can even be to notice an unwrenched pipe, if the pipenet even updates to begin with. In my eyes there really is no "strategy" here, it's just a dickish abuse of bad game mechanics.

Plus it's just simpler rules wise. Don't fuck with the pipes. If you add exceptions you just add ways for people to argue and bs their way out of trouble with excuses.

[Sirryan2002]

I disagree with this suggestion. It very specifically outlines where/when you are allowed to unwrench a pipe to catch antags. In a scenario like this, the vent crawling antag will be able to see said person unwrenching the pipes and would be able to actively intervene and do something(unwrenching takes a few seconds). Additionally, vent crawling antags can often relocate to another network(scrubber/supply) or another room while the person would have to rewrench the pipe before moving on. 

Besides, this will only happen very very rarily. It may be annoying to the vent-crawling antag, however, it is also annoying to the crew to not be able to lay a finger on an antag because they immediately vent away. This can unreasonably prolong the life of certain team antags and would actually allow the crew to possibly hunt them down. This exception gives the crew one small strategy that can't really be abused without still breaking Rule 0. 

I know this is an unpopular opinion, however, it is not unreasonable for crew to do this. It doesn't really fall under "a dick move" because the antag has opportunity to combat this and in normal circumstances, alternate means of escape. 

 

[Spacemanspark]

8 hours ago, Sikroth said:

Going to post just to say I fully agree with Rurik here. I honestly felt like this rule edit was added just to retroactively justify an action carried by an admin that resulted in some salt a while back.

Yes, we very often just change server rules on a whim to justify admin wrong doing. Shit, we've been busted boys, get out the admin bom-

Are you fucking kidding me. 

No. This action could have been carried out by a player with the same result. The situation it was used in showed us that the rule needed fleshing out, and we moved to adjust it. It was discussed by staff and head admins alike and agreed upon for the most part (Kyet being the exception, obviously).

Perhaps there could have been more community input on the matter before it was placed in, but saying it was made to give an admin a 'get out of jail free' card is so unbelievably uncalled for--especially when you take in mind that this was drakeven, an admin that actually goes out of their way more often than most to encourage roleplay and interesting situations. 

Please watch what you're accusing staff of. Or anyone, really. 

[Landerlow]

8 hours ago, Sikroth said:

Going to post just to say I fully agree with Rurik here. I honestly felt like this rule edit was added just to retroactively justify an action carried by an admin that resulted in some salt a while back.

This is absolutely not the case.

Edited March 13, 2021 by Landerlow
words

[Sikroth]

I am not really accussing staff of anything. I just said it felt that way since the ruling kind of came out of nowhere (for us non-admin plebs who can't see internal discussion, anyway) with the only previous situation regarding it being the aforementioned admin complaint.

I understand if said admin complaint prompted an internal discussion and that's what got the ruling in place and not just a "lets bend the rules to our admins actions", obviously. But there was a lack of transparency on where the rule came from, what the reasoning was or why it was changed.

Plus I still think it'd be simple and fairer to keep it out.

[Spacemanspark]

21 minutes ago, Sikroth said:

I am not really accussing staff of anything. I just said it felt that way

One and the same as far as I can tell. If you aren't trying to accuse us of such, you're sure wording it in a very poor manner. 

22 minutes ago, Sikroth said:

since the ruling kind of came out of nowhere (for us non-admin plebs who can't see internal discussion, anyway) with the only previous situation regarding it being the aforementioned admin complaint.

I understand if said admin complaint prompted an internal discussion and that's what got the ruling in place and not just a "lets bend the rules to our admins actions", obviously. But there was a lack of transparency on where the rule came from, what the reasoning was or why it was changed

This is something I can agree on. I wouldn't have minded giving a bit more of a heads up to the community at the very least, if not a bit more discussion beforehand. 

However. 

23 minutes ago, Sikroth said:

Plus I still think it'd be simple and fairer to keep it out

In the words of the holy arbiter, 

Nothing about this game is simple. Managing it from an admin perspective is a nightmare at the best of times, and we have to accommodate a near limitless set of possibilities in a near limitless world. 

I was up at the top of the hill shouting for the initial pipe removal rule to be placed because the issues it caused with the players that solely focus on 'winning' and meta. But we cannot simply wave a magic wand and make a rule that perfectly covers every single situation. This is why we've tried to make an extended rules page, with varying degrees of success--but again, infinite situations with infinite possibilities. The situation that happened resulting in this change was perfectly fine to utilize, with proper context and motivation and in an isolated area. The antag was a single swarmer that had isolated itself from the rest of its allies and was surrounded by enemies--an already doomed individual. There's not always going to be a perfect 'get out of jail free' card to every situation, especially if you fail to think it through before blindly charging in. 

Nor should there be, for that matter.

[Sikroth]

12 hours ago, Spacemanspark said:

One and the same as far as I can tell. If you aren't trying to accuse us of such, you're sure wording it in a very poor manner. 

Just to clarify, again, what I said was my personal subjective perception of things. That is distinctly not an accusation. I chose my wording specifically with that intention, although clearly that is not how it came across. I apologize for the missunderstanding. I should have added the explanation as to why I said that in my first post (that is, all the bits about transparency and communication from my 2nd post).

Nothing else to add in regards to the topic at hand that hasn't been discussed already, unfortunately. Just wanted to clear the missunderstanding. Apologies for the derail as well.