Antag Rolling

[Xeroxemnas]

"People should have to die because I'm bored."

[Kenteko]

Get off the game if you find the game boring or code features to make it fun. I'm not going to accommodate people who only enjoy the game by ruining it for others.

As for "but it will just create more escalation problems" I can assess people when having to make escalation calls and start drawing patterns, I can't when they're silently returning to lobby or suiciding across a period of rounds where I may not even be on to see the early-game printout.

That you feel antag only exists for people to ruin rounds is either showing your own personal issues or the issues of culture present in TG.

Antags are absolutely not made for people to ruin rounds, they're there to accomplish goals and by extension, create tension and different circumstances with how those goals are accomplished. Two different people using two different kits causes a massive change in how the round itself runs on top of the departments that need to work to fix it. TB gets released? Different then a syndie bomb blowing up then a robust tot.

More importantly, you're thinking in pure black and white. You assume (at least I'm inferring) through your posts that traitor is a "reward" for suffering when it is, in fact, a simple roll of the dice. There are many people that actually do not play traitor at all because they don't find it fun, feel they're not robust, or simply dislike the idea of ruining someone's round. This is part of why I think antag rolling should be allowed: There should be people who strive to be the best antags they possibly can as there are people who strive to be the best (non traitor position) they possibly can be.

As for the whole "leave or code" dilemma, realize that people have differing skills and the like. If you're all but stating that you have some sort of higher position because you can code then that says more about your character than about anything else. People provide to communities in different ways, either from working within the game or community to create something better, to doing math, to mapping, to simply putting code together that choosing to wave a coding dick around just makes you come off worse.

[datorangebottle]

It's easy to enforce that.
When you spot a player commit suicide when not antag you make a secret note "Suicided as non-antag. Keep an eye on him in the future for antag rolling." And then when they suicide a second time you antag ban them!
Sounds fair, right?

Suiciding isn't against the rules. Getting banned because of bad circumstance twice is awful and shouldn't be a thing that happens.

This whole thread reeks of 'reeeee this isn't fair'. You shouldn't be able to hold people hostage at a computer screen just because you played so many times without getting what you wanted. Enforcing that people can't suicide at the start of the round will make them AFK. Or Ghost. Or just plain log out. And then you start banning for those things, and pretty soon if you sign up for a round you're signing up for an hour+ commitment.

If people are antag rolling because the game isn't fun for them otherwise, then why aren't the base mechanics of the game fun? Are they burnt out? Or are c*ders removing every ounce of fun to be had in the name of balance, roleplay, and efficiency?

[Qbmax32]

I think antag rolling should be allowed.

This is coming from someone that has no problem with the PVE side and actively encourages people to space explore/do their autism projects/etc. However, I'm not blind to the fact that most of the non antag side is in a terrible place right now on TG.

Most of the jobs are either boring, mindless, or unrewarding. I'm a huge fan of tedium when I need to do something mindless, but at the same time, I also understand that I tend to enjoy having the CHOICE of zoning out versus doing something.TG as a culture seems to revel in being a traitor, all the goodies you get often have no counter, things that make you have a hard time are constantly nerfed, and often the "NPCs" tend to get mostly ignored or rolled over in favor of a murderboner. Attempting to deescalte often ends with you dead in a ditch somewhere because "you should've shot them." This creates a situation of rocket tag where security often goes completely brutal to deal with an alpha strike, which leads to non antags getting shit on harder, which leads to antags wanting to up the ante and so on.

Really, antag rolling would extend rounds as people who don't get it are happy to end up observing and not tiding. Job slots aren't lost (not that HoP bothers with that) and people who are content to do their jobs are more likely to come around. This will lead to lower pop rounds and a complete admission that the game is about antags first (and being an antag) versus having a rich and nuanced system where you are happy to be the NPC or the antag either way.

Side note, don't assume that everyone who is for antag rolling wants to be an antag. I tend to roll either command staff or join in as an assistant when I don't want to deal with the responsibility and just want to autism fort. Even when I do traitor, I almost never spend my TC (either TC trading for devil/meme or letting it sit in my PDA) because I'd rather have to play on an even playing field then blatantly walk around with broken shit.

Antag rolling has encouraged and will continue to encourage a shitty playstyle where everyone only plays the game to acquire their license-to-grief so they can grab a desword fuck around for 20 minutes and either purge the station if they're good enough or die trying. You say that the non-antag gameplay is bad on tg and that it should focus more on playing as an antag and smashing stuff with departmental gameplay loops as secondary and I really don't understand what point you're trying to make.

/tg/ has not been medium rp for a long long time, some may argue it was never medium rp. But allowing antag rolling just encourages shitty players to keep pushing their cancerous play to win playstyles on others and pushes tg closer in spec to hippie. maybe im just out of touch and lord knows i dont play the game nearly as much as i used to but i honestly believe we should at the very least be trying to maintain some semblance of order im probably just rambling at this point but idk

[Shadowflame909]

the way we're trying to obtain "order" is the same way we tried to do so by removing the assistant role

Shitters gonna shit, but they're gonna shit to your detriment when you do a hack job of a solution

[Qbmax32]

antag rolling has always been banned though?

[Shadowflame909]

I shit you not

If this was true

"GENE BALL IS MOVING" would never have become a meme.

We have a culture where it's common for 20 people, (even more if the mode is war ops) will instantly commit suicide or go braindead.

It's right below the level of tiding, I would say.

Things will not end well if you suddenly try to enforce something that was not being enforced at all, to the point where it was well-known that admins were doing it.

Tldr; Fewer admins on bagil. Even though the number is 0 most of the time. More Tide, More Escalation, More Grief.

I should probably stop commenting on every little thing. Repeating myself is making my point redundant

[Cobby]

That you feel antag only exists for people to ruin rounds is either showing your own personal issues or the issues of culture present in TG.

Antags are absolutely not made for people to ruin rounds, they're there to accomplish goals and by extension, create tension and different circumstances with how those goals are accomplished. Two different people using two different kits causes a massive change in how the round itself runs on top of the departments that need to work to fix it. TB gets released? Different then a syndie bomb blowing up then a robust tot.

More importantly, you're thinking in pure black and white. You assume (at least I'm inferring) through your posts that traitor is a "reward" for suffering when it is, in fact, a simple roll of the dice. There are many people that actually do not play traitor at all because they don't find it fun, feel they're not robust, or simply dislike the idea of ruining someone's round. This is part of why I think antag rolling should be allowed: There should be people who strive to be the best antags they possibly can as there are people who strive to be the best (non traitor position) they possibly can be.

The people who tend to do "interesting" traitor stuff are also those that do interesting stuff when they aren't traitor. As such, the people who antag roll also tend to be murderboners (from the people who we've caught ofc).

You can create unique stories just as much while nonantag as you can antag. If you're legitimately interested in the storytelling aspect, you'd still do *something* in the round rather than just suicide as soon as you realize you haven't won your "golden ticket".

Telling me i'm the crazy one for saying these people treat it like such is absolutely nuts, THEY LITERALLY DO NOT PLAY THE GAME UNLESS THEY GET THIS. THAT'S THE PROBLEM.

As for the whole "leave or code" dilemma, realize that people have differing skills and the like. If you're all but stating that you have some sort of higher position because you can code then that says more about your character than about anything else. People provide to communities in different ways, either from working within the game or community to create something better, to doing math, to mapping, to simply putting code together that choosing to wave a coding dick around just makes you come off worse.

I've never implied I am better than someone else because I code. I use "code" to mean contribute with a deliverable (that is code, sprites, maps, etc.) rather than being just an ideas guy.

At some point you have to realize that no one has an obligation to code on your behalf or make the game fun for you. If you want epic features or "enjoyable jobs" then the onus is on the person complaining to take the initiative. If you refuse to do that, and see no one is helping you, then you're only non-masochistic option is to play something you DO find enjoyable.

The idea that i'm a bad guy for telling people that is odd.

[PKPenguin321]

Meaningful roleplay requires conflict, otherwise it’s just two people awkwardly doing bar RP. The only reliable source of conflict is from antags considering the only conflict that can be formed between two non antags is shallow or forced.

You what.

I'm starting to think that the whole "TG is norp" thing is really just that people don't have any fucking idea how to roleplay.

To his credit, roleplay that comes about due to conflict is leaps and bounds more interesting than roleplay that doesn't.

To whom

To me, to NoxVS, to pretty much most of our playerbase? A tense and dramatic situation brought on by conflict is way more interesting than "another day at work" or close variants thereof, and I think this is something that can generally be agreed on unless you play on High-RP servers (where they still enjoy conflict-risen RP, mind you, but are more tolerant for RP that isn't) or are a massive contrarian.

[Cobby]

Nabski got spoken to about antag rolling around the time the "gene ball is moving" meme appeared so that example is pretty bad.

[Kenteko]

That you feel antag only exists for people to ruin rounds is either showing your own personal issues or the issues of culture present in TG.

Antags are absolutely not made for people to ruin rounds, they're there to accomplish goals and by extension, create tension and different circumstances with how those goals are accomplished. Two different people using two different kits causes a massive change in how the round itself runs on top of the departments that need to work to fix it. TB gets released? Different then a syndie bomb blowing up then a robust tot.

More importantly, you're thinking in pure black and white. You assume (at least I'm inferring) through your posts that traitor is a "reward" for suffering when it is, in fact, a simple roll of the dice. There are many people that actually do not play traitor at all because they don't find it fun, feel they're not robust, or simply dislike the idea of ruining someone's round. This is part of why I think antag rolling should be allowed: There should be people who strive to be the best antags they possibly can as there are people who strive to be the best (non traitor position) they possibly can be.

The people who tend to do "interesting" traitor stuff are also those that do interesting stuff when they aren't traitor. As such, the people who antag roll also tend to be murderboners (from the people who we've caught ofc).

You can create unique stories just as much while nonantag as you can antag. If you're legitimately interested in the storytelling aspect, you'd still do *something* in the round rather than just suicide as soon as you realize you haven't won your "golden ticket".

Telling me i'm the crazy one for saying these people treat it like such is absolutely nuts, THEY LITERALLY DO NOT PLAY THE GAME UNLESS THEY GET THIS. THAT'S THE PROBLEM.

The thing is, if they're not playing, that's great: Better they not play than negatively contribute to the round. Not everyone has the gumption, patience, or even skill to be able to roleplay, make something from nothing, or work cooperatively with others and the culture sure as hell doesn't care to reinforce those values. I've literally gotten props and recognition playing as an assistant that assists because people simply do not understand that's even remotely possible in the culture and environment fostered by many people. This is still a paranoia game and some people just suck at trusting, have been hurt to often, or are not engaged enough to want to play the waiting game.

As for the whole "leave or code" dilemma, realize that people have differing skills and the like. If you're all but stating that you have some sort of higher position because you can code then that says more about your character than about anything else. People provide to communities in different ways, either from working within the game or community to create something better, to doing math, to mapping, to simply putting code together that choosing to wave a coding dick around just makes you come off worse.[/quote}
I've never implied I am better than someone else because I code. I use "code" to mean contribute with a deliverable (that is code, sprites, maps, etc.) rather than being just an ideas guy.

At some point you have to realize that no one has an obligation to code on your behalf or make the game fun for you. If you want epic features or "enjoyable jobs" then the onus is on the person complaining to take the initiative. If you refuse to do that, and see no one is helping you, then you're only non-masochistic option is to play something you DO find enjoyable.

The idea that i'm a bad guy for telling people that is odd.

Ideas are much more than just "Oh this would sound cool:" they are the start of game design. Proper game design often entails full mathematical breakdowns with spreadsheets and balancing, design documents, proofs of concept, or even simple polling and information gathering; it's disingenuous to call it just being ideas. Even if someone were to go and do the due diligence of presenting a full on game design idea, fleshed out and balanced, it will likely get universally shut down with "lrn2code" or just "this is stupid" by people who can code or contribute in different ways. Even things such as armor rebalances which, by game design perspective are incredibly easy to do, are near impossible tasks to accomplish currently due to confusing documentation or simple inconsistency in design. Did you know that two of the three RD outfits are simply worse than the other for no discernible reason? How is a number pass supposed to even be approached without an overall goal or intent for the server beyond "what the individual" wants.

This is further frustrating when things like the HoP mech get shut down without a word or the entire hullabaloo about sleepers and stasis beds. Why were they added and sleepers removed? Is this an overall design decision? Is this something that should be ignored? What if someone wants to reintroduce sleepers or use them in a new way? Too bad? It's confusing in general, but only compounding further.

So yea, game design is not just an idea thing, but I can see why people/coders find frustration with people who spout out ideas or try to see things from a larger game design perspective.

[Cobby]

"The thing is, if they're not playing, that's great: Better they not play than negatively contribute to the round."

I agree wholeheartedly, which is why I will ban antag rollers who do nothing but negatively contribute to the round unless they're antag, in which case most times they still typically contribute negatively.

[Kenteko]

"The thing is, if they're not playing, that's great: Better they not play than negatively contribute to the round."

I agree wholeheartedly, which is why I will ban antag rollers who do nothing but negatively contribute to the round unless they're antag, in which case most times they still typically contribute negatively.

The problem with this mindset is that you can and will get innocents in the process. This has been proven time and time again historically, with things like tell checks in muds to prevent botting (the bot scripts just got better), leavers getting dumped with other leavers, and a few other situations. Most of the time, it's better to solve the actual problem causing the behavior then to directly punish the behavior, barring some exceptions. Things like rage quitting in fighting games, which have a very specific and very obvious tell, are better examples of things to punish versus leaving (which could happen because of bad internet). It's especially worse if you automate a process because then it becomes arcane, INTERNAL DISCUSSIONS tower, and often hits the innocent more than the guilty.

The problem with this is the assumption that people have to suffer in order to be an antag. This would be true if there was a system in place where X amount of rounds survived as a non antag contributed to, say, an antag token, and then antag tokens were the main way of getting antags. That's using proper design on top of encouraging good gameplay. Antag rolling as it is would be fine because it's honestly just how the game rolls. Fix the disease not the symptom.

[teepeepee]

"if you don't let us/them suicide/ghost/space ourselves/themselves roundstart repeatedly we'll/they'll tide really hard instead"
why are these people even being paid attention lmao
just make it so x ammount of consecutive first 10 min self-caused deaths get you flagged

[Kenteko]

"if you don't let us/them suicide/ghost/space ourselves/themselves roundstart repeatedly we'll/they'll tide really hard instead"
why are these people even being paid attention lmao
just make it so x ammount of consecutive first 10 min self-caused deaths get you flagged

Honestly, that's a non starter. Then people will just afk for 11 minutes and faff about in another window. Once the time has been found out, and it will be found out as soon as the first warning is issued, people will just do the absolute bare minimum to do things.

As it stands, we barely even bother enforcing Rule 5, this isn't on the books and suicide is often even considered to be normal.

[cedarbridge]

"if you don't let us/them suicide/ghost/space ourselves/themselves roundstart repeatedly we'll/they'll tide really hard instead"
why are these people even being paid attention lmao
just make it so x ammount of consecutive first 10 min self-caused deaths get you flagged

Honestly, that's a non starter. Then people will just afk for 11 minutes and faff about in another window. Once the time has been found out, and it will be found out as soon as the first warning is issued, people will just do the absolute bare minimum to do things.

As it stands, we barely even bother enforcing Rule 5, this isn't on the books and suicide is often even considered to be normal.

This does a pretty solid job of just making it clear that we don't need a code solution and we're going to keep banning people for rolling. We don't need an algo to do it for us.

[SaveVatznick]

I'm starting to think that the whole "TG is norp" thing is really just that people don't have any fucking idea how to roleplay.

[Karp]

Meaningful roleplay requires conflict, otherwise it’s just two people awkwardly doing bar RP. The only reliable source of conflict is from antags considering the only conflict that can be formed between two non antags is shallow or forced.

You what.

I'm starting to think that the whole "TG is norp" thing is really just that people don't have any fucking idea how to roleplay.

To his credit, roleplay that comes about due to conflict is leaps and bounds more interesting than roleplay that doesn't.

To whom

To me, to NoxVS, to pretty much most of our playerbase? A tense and dramatic situation brought on by conflict is way more interesting than "another day at work" or close variants thereof, and I think this is something that can generally be agreed on unless you play on High-RP servers (where they still enjoy conflict-risen RP, mind you, but are more tolerant for RP that isn't) or are a massive contrarian.

i forgot to hit submit on a post i made on this chain fuck time to remake it

One thing I'm not a fan of is "Meaningful [action]" as generally it just refers to "[action] but I like it", making any serious discussion on the topic awkward as everyone has a different idea in mind. What do you mean by meaningful roleplay? Defining what meaningful roleplay is to you is to you and what level of conflict you might need would help others understand your point.

The biggest issue about Roleplay/meaningful roleplay is that everyone has a different definition of what roleplay might be and what is good or enjoyable roleplay. Defining this standard on a single scale is probably the hardest thing as some people treat basic coworker interactions as roleplay and others who won't count it, some who treat emoting as the bare minimum of roleplay and others who treat it as the minimum of high roleplay. We'd have to define what we're looking for in roleplay and accept that a lot of people won't be satisfied with the definitions at the end of the day.

You'd also have to elaborate which types of conflict are conducive to roleplay. Conflict also falls into the same trap as meaningful roleplay in that people can have wildly different expectations. The best current example is what we have with our escalation policy. Many people argue as if escalation policy's conflict isn't meaningful/good conflict because it tends to lead to nonantagonist murder or the fact that it encourages violent reactions over property crime is bad, discourages roleplay, and it makes the game feel like a TDM sim while others believe that nonantagonists being allowed to take agency and achieve conflict resolution in game avoiding the immersion break of an administrator intervening is a net positive and allows a natural way to recover and resolve situations without being forced to shove your thumbs up your ass and ahelp

And IMO, at the end of the day the server is best when it's a healthy mix of every playstyle. Chaos is fun, action is fun, survival is fun, cooperating and working with your coworkers is fun, relaxing peaceful slow rounds are fun. The issue with all of the above styles are when they feel too common or when they start to drown a playstyle out. Measured doses and all, even though everyone disagrees on what dosage they might like.

Also lmaoing @ ur life for saying "Antagonist conflict is the only good kind". Most all of the most hilarious and enjoyable conflicts I've had playing this game involve nonantagonist on nonantagonist interactions.

The rounds I'm talking about tend to be silly stuff like being drafted as security's surgeon to torture prisoners by replacing their eyeballs with flashlight eyes by the captain and head of security, creating a maint bar when the captain banned alcohol one round as I illegally distributing alcohol while avoiding questioning and lying to security and the captain barely avoiding being arrested, being crowned the king of the station by a bunch of fellow assistants so we could take the station under new management while delcaring that I would be fair and just as security attempted to hunt us down and prevent our peaceful message of reform and improvements to policy, or creating a deranged 9 shard supercharged oxygen supermatter setup that had a flaw that caused it to irradiate and nearly kill a decent percent of engineering as I had to repeatedly lie and distract engineering and the station while attempting to salvage the abomination gone wrong.

The stuff I said really doesn't do justice to the memorability, enjoyability, and "meaningful" roleplay that occured during those events. The real takeaway should be that the game can be fun and have "meaningful"/"engaging" conflict/roleplay if you're willing to step outside of your comfort zone and do risky weird or fun shit

I think antag rolling and antagonists have burnt the fuse in your brain out bro take the redpill

[Karp]

"if you don't let us/them suicide/ghost/space ourselves/themselves roundstart repeatedly we'll/they'll tide really hard instead"
why are these people even being paid attention lmao
just make it so x ammount of consecutive first 10 min self-caused deaths get you flagged

Honestly, that's a non starter. Then people will just afk for 11 minutes and faff about in another window. Once the time has been found out, and it will be found out as soon as the first warning is issued, people will just do the absolute bare minimum to do things.

As it stands, we barely even bother enforcing Rule 5, this isn't on the books and suicide is often even considered to be normal.

t. nonadmin

We aren't omniscient and people who suicide or disconnect will get warned before they get banned. I say it a lot but our policy is centered around assuming the best in people and giving people chances as the worst players will just hang themselves on the rope we give them. Banning people on first offenses and banning people because they upset another player is absolutely horrendous policy and creates a system where new players and players in general are expected to be omniscient and where the loudest voices get to arbitrarily dictate the rules on the server

It may surprise you but the gentle hand method of our administration is meant to encourage reformation, improvement, and is based on the understanding that most people are imperfect humans playing an imperfect game. It's in this state because the playerbase overwhelmingly dislikes harsh bans for the sake of punishment instead of reform/server improvement, rule 1 is basically forbidden to use outside of extreme scenarios due to the playerbase disliking that an admin can ban people whenever they want for something as arbitrary as "being a dick", and that the administration team dislikes the heavy-handed ruthless approach of banning people because the rules state it rather than because it would be benefical for the server.

If your issue is people greytiding with head roles you should adminhelp it and it'll be resolved or you could create a policy thread suggesting an increase in minimum head standards unless you're just complaining for the sake of complaining. We have a thread already on people not doing their jobs, and the ratio of like/dislike from administrators tend to be representative of the split between playerbase on liking/disliking the concept viewtopic.php?f=33&t=21618

Though we've had plenty of people get watchlisted/banned over antag rolling behaviour and it isn't as common nowadays primarily because job rolling allows you to easily avoid playing as a nonantag so you can observe instead of suiciding. Or maybe people are changing in general, we don't have ban quotas on any rules. We don't treat the playerbase as if they're implicitly guilty.

[Jimmius]

secret extended is the best mode
what kind of "RP" do you even do with traitors? greet the dsword murderboner with "hello good sir, i see you are having a wonderful day aboard this fine plasma research facility" and get instantly decapitated?
Think about how much RP goes on during cult, or nuke ops, or revs. Functionally none, because every second you waste doing incredibly high quality RP for a crowd of none is a second that you're not helping your side to win.
As was pointed out in the community meeting when discussing if nuke ops should end on antag death, once people know the mode, you cannot get them to stop searching for valids because the entire game is centered around that.
The slow pace (and mass suicide of antag rollers) in extended/secret extended forces people to find enjoyment with the games other systems, including (surprise surprise) talking to the other people on the station.

[WarbossLincoln]

Secret extended is the best mode

It's really not, because after 15 minutes of no antag activity like 25 tiders realize it's probably extended and start rioting and fucking everything up. There's usually more random grief, murder, and destruction on extended than on the non team-deathmatch modes like traitor.

[cedarbridge]

Secret extended is the best mode

It's really not, because after 15 minutes of no antag activity like 25 tiders realize it's probably extended and start rioting and fucking everything up. There's usually more random grief, murder, and destruction on extended than on the non team-deathmatch modes like traitor.

And more bans. Sometimes you've got to clean the pool, dude.

[CDranzer]

Okay, firstly, if you really want to remove antag rolling just make all antag roles midround so people don't have an easy way of knowing if they're going to be safe to gib themselves in the HoP line or not. I feel like there was some project or attempt at it at some point? But I don't keep up to speed with the coderbus.

Secondly, can we stop pretending that the moment a policy is implemented the admins are going to go full fucking gestapo? Like "have a suicide roll policy" does not mean "IF YOU EVER SUICIDE THE ADMINS ARE GOING TO PERMABAN YOU AND GAS YOUR METAFRIENDS", and the idea of "if we can't define the policy in the most flawless perfect way imaginable then it should never ever be implemented" would obliterate half of regular policy and probably the entirety of silicon policy.

[PKPenguin321]

me: doesnt use the word meaningful once, interprets nox's use of it to mean "more interesting"
karp:

Also lmaoing @ ur life for saying "Antagonist conflict is the only good kind".

nobody said this

[cedarbridge]

Okay, firstly, if you really want to remove antag rolling just make all antag roles midround so people don't have an easy way of knowing if they're going to be safe to gib themselves in the HoP line or not. I feel like there was some project or attempt at it at some point? But I don't keep up to speed with the coderbus.

Secondly, can we stop pretending that the moment a policy is implemented the admins are going to go full fucking gestapo? Like "have a suicide roll policy" does not mean "IF YOU EVER SUICIDE THE ADMINS ARE GOING TO PERMABAN YOU AND GAS YOUR METAFRIENDS", and the idea of "if we can't define the policy in the most flawless perfect way imaginable then it should never ever be implemented" would obliterate half of regular policy and probably the entirety of silicon policy.

1) As far as I'm aware the only code solution presented in recent memory was placing antag rolls before job rolls (or vis versa, I've lost track) to encourage more sec players not to feel like they'd miss out on antag due to rolling sec.

2) The policy literally already exists. Its already being enforced. The apocalypse has not happened.

[CDranzer]

The policy literally already exists. Its already being enforced. The apocalypse has not happened.

Is it actually in the rules though? Last I checked it isn't officially stated, it's just one of those things that people sort of take for granted like lynching for daniel.

[Karp]

me: doesnt use the word meaningful once, interprets nox's use of it to mean "more interesting"
karp:

Spoiler:

Also lmaoing @ ur life for saying "Antagonist conflict is the only good kind".

nobody said this

Meaningful roleplay requires conflict, otherwise it’s just two people awkwardly doing bar RP. The only reliable source of conflict is from antags considering the only conflict that can be formed between two non antags is shallow or forced.

did you read my post or are you intentionally acting stupid

you haven't addressed a single point I raised outside of trying to use epic zingers to discredit me after skimming the first 3 lines

I'll spoonfeed you because I'm nice. Every instance of meaningful I said involves me explaining the issue with using meaningful or saying that using meaningful [action] doesn't work because we'd have to define the metrics of what would apply just like how roleplay is arbitrarily used to define a style of roleplaying that specific person enjoys. The instances of "meaningful" I use involve me either elaborating with another more practical word(good) or using the stated phrase as an ironically with quotes showcasing disagreement but using the original posters wording as a joke. They're meant to show how I disagree with the usage of the word or elaborate with another word that explains what I mean

you still haven't addressed the issue on what kind of conflict is good for roleplay. Drama, conflict, and tension are great but a lot of the times the conflicts people complain about tend to be "x ran in, disarm spammed me for my medkit, and then started trying to relentlessly murder me with a fire extinguisher as I ran away/shoved them to get them to stop" or "The assistant I stunned and let out of the captain's office is now trying to break in and kill ian to upset me, is trying to stun me to cuff me and take my shit, and is acting like they're playing a competitive video game instead of trying to do something fun". Those situations can be fun and done well but generally the initiator and escalator of those conflicts tend to play it very dry and boring, as if they were trying to personally attack the player rather than do a funny gimmick or play out a funny situation to the point where the only engaging thing you could do with them is kill them or torture them until they hard ghost

[cedarbridge]

I'll spoonfeed you because I'm nice.

Cease

[Cobby]

The policy literally already exists. Its already being enforced. The apocalypse has not happened.

Is it actually in the rules though? Last I checked it isn't officially stated, it's just one of those things that people sort of take for granted like lynching for daniel.

Since when does every policy needs to be in the rules?

[CDranzer]

The policy literally already exists. Its already being enforced. The apocalypse has not happened.

Is it actually in the rules though? Last I checked it isn't officially stated, it's just one of those things that people sort of take for granted like lynching for daniel.

Since when does every policy needs to be in the rules?

I mean I tend to hold the opinion that a good administration policy should be compiled into a single legible public document rather than strewn haphazardly over a bunch of forum posts within a hive of concentrated autism but maybe I'm just old fashioned that way

[Cobby]

You can't have the complexity of our game and a legible document.

We could have A document, but it would be pretty overbearing and still probably wouldn't capture everything down the precision you'd like.

[Shadowflame909]

We do document headmin rulings though

It's how I can state all my precedent and avoid people calling me braindead.

Works half the time though.

[Cobby]

Right but it doesn't matter when the system is easily overturn-able by the next set of headmins tbh.

[teepeepee]

Right but it doesn't matter when the system is easily overturn-able by the next set of headmins tbh.

it does matter because they apply until they are overturned, and the overturning shouldn't work retroactively, as in, punishing someone for doing something that was allowed but the headmins decide that it is no longer acceptable and punish him as if it was forbidden at the time he did it(but it does, as we've seen with escalation policy)

[Cobby]

me no like escalation policy enforcement so me no comment.

As for antag rolling, we HAVE banned people for it in the past so unless you can show me on the doll where it permits antag rolling this argument doesn't really hold.

[Gamarr]

Broken fucking record incoming:
This shit ain't fixing until you massively change how you handle the game and its foundation with its direction!

You can't really 'police' antag rolling because it means the admins are paying attention every single damn round start and enforce this shit.
How much did they enforce naming standards?

There's too much democracy here because soon as you do something, the shitball later on can easily just derail long-term plans and coding just because.
Get a fucking leader and make a plan for tg, or stay this way.

[Yakumo_Chen]

You can police it though

and they are