Butlerblock - Player Report: Bryan 'Old Timer' Owers(Assumed), Rule 6: No Metagaming or Metacommunication

Butlerblock - Player Report: Bryan ‘Old Timer’ Owers(Assumed), Rule 6: No Metagaming or Metacommunication

What’s your BYOND key?


Round ID:


Your character name:

Prime Lurker (BUT-475)

Accused BYOND key:


Accused character name:

Bryan ‘Old Timer’ Owers(Assumed)

What rule(s) were broken?:

Rule 6: No Metagaming or Metacommunication

Description of the incident:

Accused player deconstructed a hijack objective APC(Engineering Reactor Core Room) and placed it into the maintenance room directly east of its usual spot. Accused player then built reinforced walls on top of the two western entrances into that room. This effectively prevented any non-T3 from breaking into that room and destroying the objective. While Rule 6 sub-points do not explicitly state a marine cannot do this, I believe that the sub-point “Surrounding a communications tower entirely with reinforced walls to prevent Xenos attacking it without T3s.” should be assumed that it applies to all other key objectives.

As this was a-helped by myself and may be a break of rule 8 of the player report rules. I would like to mention that the handling mod(Backsea) did not give an official statement as to whether the reinforced walls were a rule break, just a clarification that the APC did exist(my original ahelp was whether or not it was missing before I mentioned a possible rule break), and that it was merely hiding a room over behind a sign(possible layering issue with APCs?). Note that this clarification was given after the round had finished to prevent IC in OOC.


Rule break evidence(southern most reinforced wall not pictured due to door being closed, however it was noticed upon alt-clicking the tile)

Evidence showing it was the accused player(hence the assumption. I cannot be 100% certain this was the player who broke the rule)

Hello Butlerblock, I apologize that this player report took so long. I have looked into this situation to verify all the information given, and this conversation has sparked discussion about our metagaming rules amongst staff members. We agree with your assessment that this action constitutes metagaming, but as we feel it is not clearly outlined in the rules, it does not seem just to punish the culpable player. With that said, this incident has been logged and is being used to reapproach our metagaming rules, and will factor into our amendment of the rules in the future. This appeal is approved , however no action is being taken against the player

Added report:approved and removed report:pendinglogs