Ghost role policy suggestion

[Slignerd]

The current ghost role policy seems somewhat vague, so I would like to suggest a following addition to the ghost role policy.

• Regardless of IC conflicts with the crew, unless they're a neutral role threatened with complete annihilation or an antagonist role, ghost roles may not cause any major, round-ending damage to the station.

I believe it would clear up a certain grey area in hostilities between station crew and ghost roles that I didn't know was a rule issue until told so by an admin.

[Pascal125]

You would think this would be common sense to people and not need to be specifically stated.

[Slignerd]

It wouldn't be. Ghost roles have no loyalty to the station whatsoever, which is why it is not at all obvious how far they can go when retaliating against hostilities. Plenty things that should be "common sense" will see different interpretations depending on who you ask.

The point of the rules is to have clear, understandable boundaries set in place to prevent such misunderstandings from happening.

[Pascal125]

The more rules and clauses you introduce for situations like this, the more people will search for loopholes or say "Oh well it's not in the rules. I didn't know."
Regarding situations that really aren't that difficult to understand shouldn't be done on flimsy reasoning to begin with.

[Slignerd]

So, it's better to ban people when they do something they didn't know they couldn't do?

[Nilons]

This would be good, Ive had golems BoH bomb me before

[Sweets]

Policy is clear as day on the wiki.

Friendly Roles
These roles are typically expected to be either friendly towards Miners and other non-monster entities, outside of self defense.

Seed Vault Dwellers
Free Golems
Animal Hospital
Beach Bums

You BoH bombed over theft. Not self defense. You wouldn't have been in the right even if a miner killed you because you would have killed tons of other innocents.

What you did was the exact same as a roboticist BoH bombing sec for destroying a mech.

[Slignerd]

What you did was the exact same as a roboticist BoH bombing sec for destroying a mech.

Ghost roles have no loyalty to the station whatsoever, which is why it is not at all obvious how far they can go when retaliating against hostilities.

I agree that BoH bombing is overkill. But it is not made clear by policy at all. Being "friendly unless provoked" loses meaning as a guideline when the role is provoked.

[Sweets]

https://tgstation13.org/wiki/Lavaland/Space_Role

Don't ignore the rest of my post.
It's clear as day. If you had BoH bombed as an ash ligger you would be fine.

[Slignerd]

That's a page intended as a basic introduction, on a wiki that anyone can edit, not server policy. And this line of discussion relies too heavily on personal interpretations of what entails "provocation" or "self-defense".

[Sweets]

It's still a better guideline than nothing at all.

In addition, you have to think about this in terms of equal retribution. Sure you have no loyalty to the station, but neither did the space bartender and hotel staff when they were in game. Do you really think if a greyshit teleported to the space bar/hotel and trashed it, you would beb allowed to teleport to the station and release their singularity or something?

One person wronged you and you took it out on the entire server's population. It's like a scientist maxcapping cargo because the QM won't give him mats.

[Slignerd]

What you did was the exact same as a roboticist BoH bombing sec for destroying a mech.

It's like a scientist maxcapping cargo because the QM won't give him mats.

Can you quit making loaded statements such as "it's the same as a crewmember doing this" while it's exactly the fact that it's not a crewmember that is the cause for confusion?

Don't you understand the problem here? The problem is that being a non-crewmember role and entering hostilities with the crew results in a number of players, including myself, being confused on the boundaries of how far these hostilities are allowed to escalate. I was operating under the impression that free golems are a neutral faction that is allowed to turn hostile when antagonized, and I can assure you that there are other players who think the same.

This solutions seeks to resolve this, by adding a clear statement to the policy, a statement that is not currently there.

[RandomMarine]

Creating a loose singularity is already a rule 1 violation. Nothing more really has to be said about it.

[Nilons]

Creating a loose singularity is already a rule 1 violation. Nothing more really has to be said about it.

calling me mean names is a rule 1 violation, this is not helpful

[feem]

[onleavedontatme]

Free Golems have been a thing for like 2 years and largely functioned smoothly for thousands of rounds now, why do we need to add an extra paragraph to an already bloated ruleset reiterating that using your recreational nukes on a bunch of innocent people because someone stole your easily replaceable property is overkill?

[Cobby]

You can retaliate against a miner who steals your stuff.

You can retaliate against the station if they collectively (see Captain orders or something) try to antagonize you. If the station agreed to not have your stuff returned and there were unique items (like boss loot) then I could probs sympathize a bit more with the boh bomb.

You can NOT retaliate against the station (boh bombing) against a single miner who steals your easily replaceable stuff.

Think of it like a purged ai, you can lmao those that wrong you and sometimes broad brush that to the entire station depending on the circumstances. Until that point you still have to ultimately obey rule 1 even though you are a non-allied faction.

[cedarbridge]

It should be fairly obvious that ghost roles should not take minor confrontations with one person as justification for genociding the station.

[EagleWiz]

It should be fairly obvious that ghost roles should not take minor confrontations with one person as justification for genociding the station.

now when you say ghost roles you mean like beach bums and golems right? Because I like being able to try and bring the glorious champions of the lavalands to the station so they can smite the unbelievers, and the old round end chair tendril is hilarious

[cedarbridge]

It should be fairly obvious that ghost roles should not take minor confrontations with one person as justification for genociding the station.

now when you say ghost roles you mean like beach bums and golems right? Because I like being able to try and bring the glorious champions of the lavalands to the station so they can smite the unbelievers, and the old round end chair tendril is hilarious

The roles that spawn without explicit hostile instructions, yes.

[Saegrimr]

Free Golems have been a thing for like 2 years and largely functioned smoothly for thousands of rounds now, why do we need to add an extra paragraph to an already bloated ruleset reiterating that using your recreational nukes on a bunch of innocent people because someone stole your easily replaceable property is overkill?

Probably because someone used recreational nukes on a bunch of innocent people.

It should be fairly obvious

I've slowly learned that this is never the case. Nothing is obvious, and if it really truly is obvious someone will play stupid long enough to be believed on it. That's how our rules got to where they are in the first place.

[bandit]

it's another "ban/warning appeal disguised as policy thread" episode man I love this happening every week

the thing about adding new policies is that it only makes sense if something is a recurring problem. ghost rules deciding to ALL HAIL LORD SINGULO the station is not, so far, a recurring problem. it's just one dude getting a bomb boner and trying to retroactively justify it with RP reasons that don't make sense (because how the fuck is a free golem going to know what putting two bags of holding together does)

[Slignerd]

the thing about adding new policies is that it only makes sense if something is a recurring problem.

Actually, Nilons' post indicates that it is. I talked with him, and he was BoH bombed by the golems three times, neither of which was the incident involving me. It reassured me that it wasn't just me who was confused about the boundaries of ghost role escalation.

(because how the fuck is a free golem going to know what putting two bags of holding together does)

Why would they not?

[feem]

i'm extraordinarily disappointed that the position you're presenting is that you need a new, special rule not to release the ultimate weapon of destruction on the station as a non-player role

[bandit]

i'm extraordinarily disappointed that the position you're presenting is that you need a new, special rule not to release the ultimate weapon of destruction on the station as a non-player role

this; the only possible reasoning for jumping straight to BoH bombing as escalation is "how can I be the biggest dick possible?"

now if only we had a rule against that

[Slignerd]

I have no problem agreeing that such actions taken in response to one guy's actions is overkill, but I do believe that it's a grey area in the rules that would be better cleared up.

• Regardless of IC conflicts with the crew, unless they're a neutral role threatened with complete annihilation or an antagonist role, ghost roles may not cause any major, round-ending damage to the station.

Are you opposed in any way to such a policy? It's honestly absurd that people who technically favor something end up speaking in opposition to it. Since you are opposed to ghost role overescalation, why are you reacting negatively to a thread that suggests making ghost role overescalation expressly forbidden?

[onleavedontatme]

Because we dont want to double the length of our rules page adding "dont end the round when X minor thing happens to you" to various places when 99.9% of our players already understand that isnt okay.

[Slignerd]

this; the only possible reasoning for jumping straight to BoH bombing as escalation is "how can I be the biggest dick possible?"

Actually, it could be "I want to punish the crew for stealing from us, and I have no means of chasing down a guy thrice as fast as me." And the desire to punish others for such misgivings, occasionally including their entire faction, is certainly not something that's rare for the players to have.

Because we dont want to double the length of our rules page adding "dont end the round when X minor thing happens to you" to various places when 99.9% of our players already understand that isnt okay.

I really wouldn't be so sure about that percentage, especially considering that you made it up on the spot.

And to quote myself from earlier,

I was operating under the impression that free golems are a neutral faction that is allowed to turn hostile when antagonized, and I can assure you that there are other players who think the same.

I guess to confirm this, we'd have to wait for another such incident, caused by a player who doesn't read the forums.

[feem]

Actually, it could be "I want to punish the crew for stealing from us, and I have no means of chasing down a guy thrice as fast as me."

As a crewmember on the station, do you typically sabotage the supermatter because an engineer took your chainsaw?

Do you generally boh bomb science when they take away your corgi artifact?

Are you in the habit of clf3 bombing security when they take the monkey you were using to make synthflesh?

Since the obvious answer to all of those is 'no,' why do you think that level of behavior is remotely acceptable for a fluff role, if it's not acceptable for an actual player role?

[Slignerd]

Now that I'm aware it isn't, I do not.

But before I did, I was operating under the impression that free golems are a neutral faction that is allowed to turn hostile when antagonized.

[BeeSting12]

If kors percentage isnt right then once I'm done banning then it will be.

[cedarbridge]

If kors percentage isnt right then once I'm done banning then it will be.

It should be fairly obvious that admins should not take minor dumb policy threads with one person as justification for genociding the playerbase.

Spoiler:

Especially not ban appeals dressed up as policy threads.

[BeeSting12]

What I'm saying is the minority that do not get that mass destruction over one small thing is a violation of rule one then they wont last long.

[oranges]

Free Golems have been a thing for like 2 years and largely functioned smoothly for thousands of rounds now, why do we need to add an extra paragraph to an already bloated ruleset reiterating that using your recreational nukes on a bunch of innocent people because someone stole your easily replaceable property is overkill?

Probably because someone used recreational nukes on a bunch of innocent people.

who

[Saegrimr]

who

Judging by the rest of this thread, my guess would be Slig?

[kevinz000]

d'oh

[Slignerd]

I guess admin stance on this is that we don't want to clear up grey areas within the rules, and that we want to keep them around as ban traps.

And as Nilons said,

calling me mean names is a rule 1 violation, this is not helpful

It's silly to dismiss this with "it's obvious that they can't do this" or "they're just being a dick if they do this", while we allow roboticists to follow people around, beat them into crit and eventually debrain them over a spare toolbelt. Overescalation and ruining people's rounds over petty quarrels is the bread and butter of /tg/, and if you intend to enforce certain boundaries, then these boundaries should not be invisible.

[Limski]

The players have this:

• brain
• admins that can help them

I think that should be a fair substitute for this:

• Unnecessary amount of rules that restrict gameplay
• Linear gameplay dictated by policy

[Slignerd]

It's already an enforced, unwritten policy that dictates gameplay. I'm simply suggesting to make it written.

[bandit]

Overescalation and ruining people's rounds over petty quarrels is the bread and butter of /tg/

it... really isn't fam

[feem]

After looking over the rules again, and with the caveat that we really shouldn't have to tell you not to boh bomb the station, Slig is right that there really isn't a good direction on that page for ghost roles to have limited interactions with the station.

In fact, there's an explicit call-out that escalation rules are relaxed bidirectionally.

It might be good to rewrite the lavaland/ghost role policy to describe which ghost roles are actually allowed to be antagonistic to people beyond lavaland, or to update flavor text.

That having been said, this is still an enormous and misplaced overescalation on par with any of the many other comparisons made in this thread. In this particular instance, I feel like the ambiguity about ghost roles was abused to do something disruptive, but we should probably clear up the ambiguity too.

[BeeSting12]

Yeah sure it's a little ambiguous. My preference would be to divide the ghost roles into Friendly, Neutral, and Hostile and put it in a chart on the rules page and then note that escalation is highly relaxxed against ghost roles.

It should be common sense to not "Singulobomb the station as a golem because somebody stole his BoH and KA."

Putting extra rules because one player can't act like they have common sense like a normal adult is bad, the most we need is a chart showing which ones are friendly/unfriendly/neutral.

[Slignerd]

I believe your mistake here is in trying to turn a policy suggestion into a witch hunt against an already banned player. Claiming it's just about "one player", after it's been already established that it's not, is counter-productive to policy discussion.

[cedarbridge]

as ban traps

This is not a ban trap.

[BeeSting12]

I believe your mistake here is in trying to turn a policy suggestion into a witch hunt against an already banned player. Claiming it's just about "one player", after it's been already established that it's not, is counter-productive to policy discussion.

Spoiler:

To add to that, the argument of "common sense" is not helpful when previous incidents of overscalation are ignored by admins completely, in situations where common sense would dictate that administrative action should be taken. You can't really blame the players for getting the wrong impression from past precedents.

It's baffling that the admins who had before ruled that it's fine to throw people out to space with no questions asked for bumping into someone else inside an airlock, or that it's fine to kill and debrain someone over a spare toolbelt, with both attackers showing the disposition of blatant griefers, are now lecturing me about "common sense".

No I'm pretty sure it's a very small minority of players that don't understand this.

Not quite sure why you're comparing those situations to using weapons of mass destruction on the station.

[Nilons]

Almost unanimous agreement against and 1 headmin has showed up can 1 more show up and finish this thread it's becoming a shitfest

[BeeSting12]

Last edited by Slignerd on Mon Feb 26, 2018 9:47 am, edited 18 times in total. View post history.

[feem]

As I said, I don't think there's enough ambiguity in the rules to justify BoH bombing the station as a golem, but I do think that Slig has a point regarding there being some ambiguity as to whether or not ghost roles are allowed to engage the station at all, and there IS a statement saying that escalation rules are relaxed in both directions.

Ban appeal disguised as policy discussion notwithstanding, I think there may be some benefit, NOT in creating a special rule regarding this situation, but in clarifying the general position regarding ghost roles and gameplay, because while I haven't seen such ridiculous overcompensation myself often in the past, I've definitely often seen people misunderstanding what ghost roles are for.

[Rustledjimm]

I remember a recent incident where the golems set up an A.I.

This AI proceeded to antagonise the crew, specifically security, by closing and bolting doors, shocking them etc. etc. So much so that security ended up raiding the free golems who then, in self-defence to what they saw as a raid unknowing it was because of their AI, set off a singulo bomb on their own ship in their final defence as security overran them. Promptly killing much of the security force too.

Now in this situation you can see the escalation, it upset a lot of folk however. Personally I said that the Golem A.I. was to blame and I merely warned them to not randomly fuck with the crew in this situation in the future. They were even quite remorseful (they themselves had been eaten by the singulo), for some reason not realising that security would come for the Golems as a whole. A lot of misconception and miscommunication which is what happens in this game, it's meant to happen. However I still warned the Golem AI player to not antagonise the crew without prior reason beforehand.


This happens rarely enough I don't think we need stringent policy on it. It can be done fairly easily case by case.

[BeeSting12]

That sounds like one of those interesting situations created by conflict and player interaction. The AI was likely "at fault" for terrorizing the humans, but if it was within or encouraged by its laws then I'd call everything that happens there valid just because it was cool/funny.

It's a huge leap from guy took my two easily replaceable objects, let me BoH bomb the station.