[Poll] (Chem and Track) Implanting Hired Sec Officers

Ask and discuss policy about game conduct and rules.

Moderators: In-Game Game Master, In-Game Head Admins

Forum rules
Read these board rules before posting or you'll get reprimanded.
Threads without replies for 30 days will be automatically locked.

Should implanting hired security officers with trackers and chemicals be against the rules?

Poll ended at Wed Jan 28, 2015 1:04 am

Yes
7
4%
Yes
7
4%
Yes
7
4%
No
45
29%
No
45
29%
No
45
29%
 
Total votes : 156

AssassinT90
 
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2014 5:13 pm

[Poll] (Chem and Track) Implanting Hired Sec Officers

Postby AssassinT90 » Mon Dec 29, 2014 1:04 am #54057



Another round of SS13. Reckless HoP is reckless and hires a scientist to the security force. Without consulting the HoS, who was me/I. And gives the officer maintenance access.

I implant the security officer, named Dmitri Bocharov. Three times. Once with Chloral Hydrate, once with a tracker, and once for loyalty. The round goes on.

A few minutes later, this happens:
Message from Josiah Lombardi (Detective), "TO LABOR SHUTTLE. DIMITRI IS ABSORBING THE CLOWN" (Reply)


I rush my way into the labor shuttle to find a blood trail and a headset. I get the shuttle to take me to the labor camp. No one is in there. I get back to the station. We all have this lovely conversation over radio:
Spoiler:
[Security] Kameron Bousum (Sec) says, "We have infiltration in our ranks"
[Security] Kameron Bousum (Sec) says, "Im still trying to comprehend what i just witnesed"
[Security] Dmitri Bocharov (Sec) says, "Look i want to help"
[Security] Kameron Bousum (Sec) says, "Yea that guy"
[Security] Caskill (AI) states, "Dimitri cannot be tracked. This is very suspicious."
[Security] Kameron Bousum (Sec) says, "Tried to do something weird with the clown"
[Security] Dmitri Bocharov (Sec) says, "I just dont want to die"
[Security] Josiah Lombardi (Disgu) says, "He was choking him out."
[Security] Josiah Lombardi (Disgu) says, "Stop playing games."

At this point, I pushed a couple buttons in the prisoner console. Dmitri went to sleep. For a very long time. Still using the prisoner console, I managed to locate Dmitri's soon-to-be-debrained body in Arrivals North Maintenance. He was grabbed, debrained, and borged.

After this, Dmitri ahelped it and I talked to Sometinyprick:
Code: Select all
Admin PM from-Sometinyprick: So why did you implant Dmitri Bocharov?
PM to-Admins: New officer.
Admin PM from-Sometinyprick: Ah I see
Admin PM from-Sometinyprick: Why the tracking implant and the chemical implant though?
PM to-Admins: I try to make sure that if someone backstabs my security team, they don't do it more than once.
PM to-Admins: The thing about antags is that they'd love to be granted a taser gun and a stun baton.
PM to-Admins: So they are very, very eager to join sec. You get a reckless HoP, like this one, and we get lings in sec.
[b]Admin PM from-Sometinyprick: That's metagamming and powergaming mate. Just don't okay.[/b]


And that's what I want to discuss. Is it meta/powergaming to implant new officers with trackers and chemical implants? And how about the ones that you didn't ask for and whose promotion was never disclosed to you?
Last edited by AssassinT90 on Mon Dec 29, 2014 1:30 am, edited 2 times in total.



Stevepelcz
 
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2014 9:04 pm
Byond Username: Stevepelcz

Re: (Chem and Track) Implanting Hired Sec Officers

Postby Stevepelcz » Mon Dec 29, 2014 1:14 am #54059

All NT security employees spawn implanted, it only makes sense that new hires would have to get implants as well.
I don't see why following the precedent that "all officers should be implanted to the point of trustworthiness" would be considered powergaming.

Alex Crimson
 
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:05 pm
Byond Username: Dazbuzz

Re: [Poll] (Chem and Track) Implanting Hired Sec Officers

Postby Alex Crimson » Mon Dec 29, 2014 1:22 am #54061

Loyalty Implants are not the "problem". Its the Tracking and Chemical Implants that were called powergaming.

AssassinT90
 
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2014 5:13 pm

Re: [Poll] (Chem and Track) Implanting Hired Sec Officers

Postby AssassinT90 » Mon Dec 29, 2014 1:29 am #54065

Alex Crimson wrote:Loyalty Implants are not the "problem". Its the Tracking and Chemical Implants that were called powergaming.

Well, are they powergaming?

Stevepelcz
 
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2014 9:04 pm
Byond Username: Stevepelcz

Re: [Poll] (Chem and Track) Implanting Hired Sec Officers

Postby Stevepelcz » Mon Dec 29, 2014 1:31 am #54066

Alex Crimson wrote:Loyalty Implants are not the "problem". Its the Tracking and Chemical Implants that were called powergaming.


Tracking and Chemical is actually less powergamey and more fun than straight up loyalty implanting people, it gives antags a chance to quietly keep their agenda while loyalty results in basically another officer.

User avatar
ThatSlyFox
 
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 7:00 am
Location: USA!
Byond Username: ThatSlyFox

Re: [Poll] (Chem and Track) Implanting Hired Sec Officers

Postby ThatSlyFox » Mon Dec 29, 2014 1:34 am #54067

The way they put it sounded very powergamey:

PM to-Admins: The thing about antags is that they'd love to be granted a taser gun and a stun baton.

Woah bro.

User avatar
lumipharon
 
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2014 4:40 am
Byond Username: Lumipharon

Re: [Poll] (Chem and Track) Implanting Hired Sec Officers

Postby lumipharon » Mon Dec 29, 2014 1:34 am #54068

If the HoP is literally promoting people without authorisation then fuck him, you have every right to be suspicious of the new officer. It's within your right to take his ID and kick him out on his ass if you want, and brig and ID strip the HoP too if he keeps doing that shit.

The HoP is a person that controls a console, he had no authority of any department except supply. If he's giving himself all access and looting sec/other departments, demote his ass. If he's promoting randoms into departments without consulting heads (especially sec) demote his ass.

If, as the HoS, you get lumped with a new recruit you didn't authorise, why should he NOT implant him to shit? The random should consider it lucky he wasn't thrown out on his ass.

User avatar
Saltycut
 
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2014 4:17 pm
Byond Username: Saltycut

Re: [Poll] (Chem and Track) Implanting Hired Sec Officers

Postby Saltycut » Mon Dec 29, 2014 1:39 am #54073

Implanting new officers is neither power not metagaming.
Femstation 5ever

User avatar
Jeb
 
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 4:01 pm
Byond Username: Stapler2025

Re: [Poll] (Chem and Track) Implanting Hired Sec Officers

Postby Jeb » Mon Dec 29, 2014 1:51 am #54076

Should also be noted that heads can demote people from their own departments.
Image
Unbiased Global Moderator
Guy that made a thing that got put on the homepage of /tg/station13
Defeated in the Great Purge of 2014
[Security] Fiz Bump says, "Beats me, I'm not a scientist. But this is a problem that can be solved with harmbatons."
Johnson Fitzwell asks, "HOW THE FUCK ARE YOU STILL ALIVE?"
Image

User avatar
paprika
Rarely plays
 
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 10:20 pm
Location: in down bad
Byond Username: Paprka

Re: [Poll] (Chem and Track) Implanting Hired Sec Officers

Postby paprika » Mon Dec 29, 2014 2:21 am #54078

At least 80% of the time people sign up for sec mid round or at the start is because they're traitors, period. You could play the incompetency card here and say heads of staff have to roleplay that they're fucking stupid but personally as a HoP I never sign up new sec officers unless they explicitly ask the HoS first and he gives me a PDA message / okay over command channel. Seriously though, when are new officers NOT traitors?
Oldman Robustin wrote:It's an established meme that coders don't play this game.

User avatar
Scones
 
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2014 2:46 am
Location: cooler than thou
Byond Username: Scones

Re: [Poll] (Chem and Track) Implanting Hired Sec Officers

Postby Scones » Mon Dec 29, 2014 2:22 am #54080

That's neither power nor metagaming. Sort of a silly accusation, at that.

A new officer magically shows up in your force without prior notice from the HoP. The Head of Security is 100% in the right to take measures to ensure officers who enter under suspicious circumstances have a sort of panic button built into them.

You are not 'playing to win' by implanting these people. Want IC reasoning? The Head of Security knows what Code Blue means - There are possible subversive elements among the crew, and as a result, that is total validation to taking bonus Security measures when dealing with new officers who join under questionable circumstances. Chemical and tracking implants are underused either way; you have a box of them for a reason, and I hate to see people get bwoinked for actually making sensible use of them in a legitimate situation.

100% disagree with Sometinyprick's view on the situation. It sounds to me like a ling got BTFO by a fairly intelligent (If not paranoid) HoS and ahelped it in a fit because his highly suspect entry into the Security department was not accepted without the batting of an eyelash by the people who are there to ensure the smooth & secure operation of said department.
Last edited by Scones on Mon Dec 29, 2014 3:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
plplplplp WOOOOooo hahahhaha

User avatar
paprika
Rarely plays
 
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 10:20 pm
Location: in down bad
Byond Username: Paprka

Re: [Poll] (Chem and Track) Implanting Hired Sec Officers

Postby paprika » Mon Dec 29, 2014 2:37 am #54084

But cecily, being incompetent is r-roleplay!
Oldman Robustin wrote:It's an established meme that coders don't play this game.

mikecari
In Game PermaBanned
 
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2014 5:48 am
Byond Username: Mikecari

Re: [Poll] (Chem and Track) Implanting Hired Sec Officers

Postby mikecari » Mon Dec 29, 2014 3:33 am #54094

AssassinT90 wrote:snip

Ah yes, typical badmin behavior. "I-if you do something intelligent then it MUST be powergaming!"

User avatar
CreationPro
 
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2014 11:11 am
Location: Commiefornia
Byond Username: Solar Marine

Re: [Poll] (Chem and Track) Implanting Hired Sec Officers

Postby CreationPro » Mon Dec 29, 2014 6:34 am #54114

I'd say this isn't a case of excessive metagaming. With the level of meta we allow around here, I'd say sec players should be given the most leeway, and chem-implanting your officers is OK from my point of view.
terranaut wrote:Scared? My stand 「CLOWN WORLD」 and it's 「FUNNY COMPANY」will defeat your weak stand in moments.

Terry the Moth, Melody Jean the roboticist and S.O.L. the cyborg.
I will not change my avatar but if I did I'd have this good KVADRATNIY boy.
Spoiler:
Image

IkeTG wrote:love is okay
CreationPro wrote:i love you
IkeTG wrote:love is no longer okay


Old quotes and stuff
Spoiler:
obscolene wrote:I super glued my PC case shut please don't ask why.

<Pretendo> well Ia ksed in banbus
<AurxSS13> IA KSED! IA KSED! THE BLACK TYPO WITH A THOUSAND ERRORS!

<scaredofshadows> I randomly take buttons away from people
<scaredofshadows> because I am now rogue
<hornygranny> host is rouge
<Ikarrus> blow the admins

trytryagain66 wrote: I accidently axed a guy said I was sorry to him, then he punched me so I axed his head off.

Hibbles wrote:Man, I love CP. I wish we had more CP on the server.

Antonkr wrote:<antonkr> tfw you will never lick hg|works delicious sexy mustache
<antonkr> ;_;

User avatar
Steelpoint
Github User
 
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 6:37 pm
Location: The Armoury
Byond Username: Steelpoint
Github Username: Steelpoint

Re: [Poll] (Chem and Track) Implanting Hired Sec Officers

Postby Steelpoint » Mon Dec 29, 2014 6:54 am #54115

Is it powergaming? Arguable. But if you say taking these kind of precautions are powergaming I would counter that it is called being a competent head of security.
Image

User avatar
Ikarrus
 
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 2:17 am
Location: Canada
Byond Username: Ikarrus
Github Username: Ikarrus

Re: [Poll] (Chem and Track) Implanting Hired Sec Officers

Postby Ikarrus » Mon Dec 29, 2014 7:49 am #54117

Its fine imo
Former Dev/Headmin
Who is this guy?

User avatar
cedarbridge
In-Game Admin
 
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 12:24 am
Byond Username: Cedarbridge

Re: [Poll] (Chem and Track) Implanting Hired Sec Officers

Postby cedarbridge » Mon Dec 29, 2014 9:46 am #54123

Stevepelcz wrote:
Alex Crimson wrote:Loyalty Implants are not the "problem". Its the Tracking and Chemical Implants that were called powergaming.


Tracking and Chemical is actually less powergamey and more fun than straight up loyalty implanting people, it gives antags a chance to quietly keep their agenda while loyalty results in basically another officer.

I don't know where you're playing where loyalty implants suddenly make a changeling not a changeling anymore.

User avatar
Saegrimr
 
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2014 4:39 pm
Byond Username: Saegrimr

Re: [Poll] (Chem and Track) Implanting Hired Sec Officers

Postby Saegrimr » Mon Dec 29, 2014 10:35 am #54126

The problem here is your reasoning was "b-b-but antags".

If your reason for doing anything when I ask about it is "To fuck over antags" then you're metagaming and will be called out on it.
tedward1337 wrote:Sae is like the racist grandad who everyone laughs at for being racist, but deep down we all know he's right.

User avatar
Steelpoint
Github User
 
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 6:37 pm
Location: The Armoury
Byond Username: Steelpoint
Github Username: Steelpoint

Re: [Poll] (Chem and Track) Implanting Hired Sec Officers

Postby Steelpoint » Mon Dec 29, 2014 10:44 am #54127

Saegrimr wrote:The problem here is your reasoning was "b-b-but antags".

If your reason for doing anything when I ask about it is "To fuck over antags" then you're metagaming and will be called out on it.


The reasoning is why does a highly trained scientist/engineer/technician/insertjobhere suddenly want to change their occupation to security mid shift? Under any normal circumstances that would be suspicious if not just a stupid sudden realization your in the wrong job, not to mention that person has no security training, or any known prior combat or security experience.
Image

kosmos
 
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2014 2:59 pm
Byond Username: Kingofkosmos

Re: [Poll] (Chem and Track) Implanting Hired Sec Officers

Postby kosmos » Mon Dec 29, 2014 10:46 am #54128

Saegrimr wrote:The problem here is your reasoning was "b-b-but antags".

How does that change anything? Should've he rephrased it to "My character wants to keep the crew safe and knows that traitors exist on the station and doesn't want them joining the security force"?

User avatar
cedarbridge
In-Game Admin
 
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 12:24 am
Byond Username: Cedarbridge

Re: [Poll] (Chem and Track) Implanting Hired Sec Officers

Postby cedarbridge » Mon Dec 29, 2014 11:07 am #54132

kosmos wrote:
Saegrimr wrote:The problem here is your reasoning was "b-b-but antags".

How does that change anything? Should've he rephrased it to "My character wants to keep the crew safe and knows that traitors exist on the station and doesn't want them joining the security force"?

By that same logic, this would only work if the assumption is "traitor exists as a roundtype therefore traitors exist and I need to take precautions against that possible roundtype." There's a reason metagaming looks really retarded in extended rounds.
Last edited by cedarbridge on Mon Dec 29, 2014 11:11 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Stickymayhem
In-Game Game Master
 
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2014 6:13 pm
Byond Username: Stickymayhem

Re: [Poll] (Chem and Track) Implanting Hired Sec Officers

Postby Stickymayhem » Mon Dec 29, 2014 11:08 am #54133

Powergaming is about the attitude at reasoning behind it.

If you are reconfiguring atmos because you want to play with it and maybe make it more efficient, that's fine. If you are reconfiguring atmos to fuck over potential rogue ais that's power/metagaming.

You should never justify your reasoning with the idea that antags are constantly about and you need to fuck them up. This doesn't mean feigning incompetence, it means finding better reasons to do things. Do this enough and holy shit your roleplaying look at that!

Of course this is for borderline cases. I'm just making the point that you shouldn't do anything for the sole reason of fucking over potential antags.
Image

Image

Naloac wrote:reminder to suck jannie cock daily to avoid being banned. dare to speak out about a jannies being shit and you will be banned!!

User avatar
Saegrimr
 
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2014 4:39 pm
Byond Username: Saegrimr

Re: [Poll] (Chem and Track) Implanting Hired Sec Officers

Postby Saegrimr » Mon Dec 29, 2014 11:10 am #54134

Sticky put it pretty well there.
tedward1337 wrote:Sae is like the racist grandad who everyone laughs at for being racist, but deep down we all know he's right.

User avatar
Bluespace
 
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:04 pm
Location: UK
Byond Username: Bluespace

Re: [Poll] (Chem and Track) Implanting Hired Sec Officers

Postby Bluespace » Mon Dec 29, 2014 11:26 am #54136

I'm not an admin or anything so this is just my personal opinion, but Assassin you have a reputation of being a powergamer, and that's probably why tiny said this to you.
I play Boris Pepper.
Image

User avatar
paprika
Rarely plays
 
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 10:20 pm
Location: in down bad
Byond Username: Paprka

Re: [Poll] (Chem and Track) Implanting Hired Sec Officers

Postby paprika » Mon Dec 29, 2014 11:27 am #54137

I get other jobs not being able to do shit like this to fuck over antags like atmos techs and stuff (HURR IT'S JUS BEING A GUD ATMOS TECH 2 SWITCH DA VALVES), but it is LITERALLY security's job to fuck over antags or at least protect the crew from them, why would they allow antags to fuck them over for the sake of 'not powergaming'? Sure random assistant, you can be an officer, we won't tracking or chem implant you, welcome aboard!
Oldman Robustin wrote:It's an established meme that coders don't play this game.

kosmos
 
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2014 2:59 pm
Byond Username: Kingofkosmos

Re: [Poll] (Chem and Track) Implanting Hired Sec Officers

Postby kosmos » Mon Dec 29, 2014 11:52 am #54140

cedarbridge wrote:By that same logic, this would only work if the assumption is "traitor exists as a roundtype therefore traitors exist and I need to take precautions against that possible roundtype." There's a reason metagaming looks really retarded in extended rounds.

No, my character knows nothing of roundtypes. But, like Cecily put it, my character working in security knows about Code Blue.

If you want security not to take any precautionary actions against traitors (a.k.a. powergaming as you put it), you should remove Code Blue alert at roundstart.

User avatar
Steelpoint
Github User
 
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 6:37 pm
Location: The Armoury
Byond Username: Steelpoint
Github Username: Steelpoint

Re: [Poll] (Chem and Track) Implanting Hired Sec Officers

Postby Steelpoint » Mon Dec 29, 2014 12:18 pm #54145

Or remove security, by its very definition they're job is literally to stop antagonists.
Image

AssassinT90
 
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2014 5:13 pm

Re: [Poll] (Chem and Track) Implanting Hired Sec Officers

Postby AssassinT90 » Mon Dec 29, 2014 12:32 pm #54149

Saegrimr wrote:The problem here is your reasoning was "b-b-but antags".


Space Law, Section Five

411: Enemy of the Corporation

To act as, or knowingly aid, an enemy of Nanotrasen.

Description: Current enemies of Nanotrasen include: The Syndicate (through secret agents, boarding parties, and brainwashing specialists), The Wizard Federation, The Changeling Hivemind, and The Cult of Nar'Sie.
Note that this is one of the few crimes where you may summarily execute someone for if they present a significant risk to detain them.


So... Uhm... The Space Law talks about it, the Centcom message talks about it, and I am supposed to pretend I don't know we may see antags in the round (No, I won't call it a "shift." )?

Last night I had a Shaft Miner calling a malf AI because he saw a hacked APC in the satellite (Page 7). How is that not metagaming? How the fuck is a Shaft Miner supposed to know the difference between a hacked APC and a charging APC? And still, none will take action against him. But you implant a security officer arbitrarily promoted by someone else and that's meta? Yeah.
Roleplayers are just incoherent, I suppose.

User avatar
srifenbyxp
 
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Flo-wee-durr
Byond Username: Srifenbyxp

Re: [Poll] (Chem and Track) Implanting Hired Sec Officers

Postby srifenbyxp » Mon Dec 29, 2014 12:39 pm #54152

Why have the chem and tracking implants there when you can’t even use it without the fear of being accused power gaming? It’s dam near (not completely near) on par of telling the captain to leave his laser gun in the glass case because it may/may not be an objection. I’ve personally have never seen a new officer get that many implants at a single given time, very rarely a tracking but not the whole dam package.In fact I find it very rare for any other implantation other besides loyalty implant. Tricord chem implant is the way to go fucking kudos and promotions all around but that much of a lease on a new officer, is overkill. It’s valid-able to do that much implanting but a truly shit thing to do. Sticky fingers got it nailed down but like I always say just because you could, doesn’t mean you should.
Click This> https://www.twitch.tv/ggfenby | https://twitter.com/GGFenby

To be robust is not about combat prowess, it is the state of readiness for the situation at hand.

Steam ID, GamerTag and everything else: SrifenbyXp

Lo6a4evskiy
 
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 6:40 pm
Byond Username: Lo6a4evskiy

Re: [Poll] (Chem and Track) Implanting Hired Sec Officers

Postby Lo6a4evskiy » Mon Dec 29, 2014 12:46 pm #54154

It just comes down to the reasoning behind the decision. Which wasn't "this is a new guy, so naturally he isn't trustworthy enough, especially given the circumstances". It was "only antagonist would ever want to join security".

Holy shit, yeah, roleplaying can come down to saying the same thing with different words.

User avatar
bandit
In-Game Admin
 
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 7:35 pm
Byond Username: Bgobandit

Re: [Poll] (Chem and Track) Implanting Hired Sec Officers

Postby bandit » Mon Dec 29, 2014 1:32 pm #54161

I do not like the idea of punishing players for making creative use of underused gameplay elements. I generally dislike the changes to Code Blue, as they make it essentially useless; ironically it's metagaming not to take extra precautions under code blue because "the admins will bwoink me if I do."

Or in other words:

Cecily wrote:A new officer magically shows up in your force without prior notice from the HoP. The Head of Security is 100% in the right to take measures to ensure officers who enter under suspicious circumstances have a sort of panic button built into them. You are not 'playing to win' by implanting these people. Want IC reasoning? The Head of Security knows what Code Blue means - There are possible subversive elements among the crew, and as a result, that is total validation to taking bonus Security measures when dealing with new officers who join under questionable circumstances. Chemical and tracking implants are underused either way; you have a box of them for a reason, and I hate to see people get bwoinked for actually making sensible use of them in a legitimate situation.
"I don't see any difference between ERP and rape." -- erro

admin feedback pls

User avatar
Sometinyprick
In-Game Game Master
 
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2014 8:24 pm
Byond Username: STP

Re: [Poll] (Chem and Track) Implanting Hired Sec Officers

Postby Sometinyprick » Mon Dec 29, 2014 2:05 pm #54167

The reason I saw this as metagaming and powergaming was because T90 literally did it to fuck over possible antags. I mean you are only doing this to new security officers because you know they could be antags and not doing it for your other officers as well because you know roundstart security can't be antags.
i play leo bonhart, feel free to grief me

AssassinT90
 
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2014 5:13 pm

Re: [Poll] (Chem and Track) Implanting Hired Sec Officers

Postby AssassinT90 » Mon Dec 29, 2014 2:07 pm #54168

ChrisTheThird wrote:The reason I saw this as metagaming and powergaming was because T90 literally did it to fuck over possible antags. I mean you are only doing this to new security officers because you know they could be antags and not doing it for your other officers as well because you know roundstart security can't be antags.

Is that forbidden knowledge? I mean, knowing that authority roles can't be antags. Is it metagaming to know that?

User avatar
Sometinyprick
In-Game Game Master
 
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2014 8:24 pm
Byond Username: STP

Re: [Poll] (Chem and Track) Implanting Hired Sec Officers

Postby Sometinyprick » Mon Dec 29, 2014 2:13 pm #54170

AssassinT90 wrote:
ChrisTheThird wrote:-snip-

Is that forbidden knowledge? I mean, knowing that authority roles can't be antags. Is it metagaming to know that?

I think so yes, knowing that roundstart security can't selected as antagonists seems like OOC information to me. I could be wrong however so if anyone wants to correct me or debate that feel free.

EDIT: Asked around for some opinions on OOC and a lot of people seem to agree that it should be IC information. I suppose I was a bit quick on calling you out for metagaming directly however doing it solely to dick over antags does seem like powergaming.
Last edited by Sometinyprick on Mon Dec 29, 2014 2:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.
i play leo bonhart, feel free to grief me

User avatar
Saegrimr
 
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2014 4:39 pm
Byond Username: Saegrimr

Re: [Poll] (Chem and Track) Implanting Hired Sec Officers

Postby Saegrimr » Mon Dec 29, 2014 2:14 pm #54171

AssassinT90 wrote:
Saegrimr wrote:The problem here is your reasoning was "b-b-but antags".


Space Law, Section Five

411: Enemy of the Corporation

To act as, or knowingly aid, an enemy of Nanotrasen.

Description: Current enemies of Nanotrasen include: The Syndicate (through secret agents, boarding parties, and brainwashing specialists), The Wizard Federation, The Changeling Hivemind, and The Cult of Nar'Sie.
Note that this is one of the few crimes where you may summarily execute someone for if they present a significant risk to detain them.


So... Uhm... The Space Law talks about it, the Centcom message talks about it, and I am supposed to pretend I don't know we may see antags in the round (No, I won't call it a "shift." )?

Last night I had a Shaft Miner calling a malf AI because he saw a hacked APC in the satellite (Page 7). How is that not metagaming? How the fuck is a Shaft Miner supposed to know the difference between a hacked APC and a charging APC? And still, none will take action against him. But you implant a security officer arbitrarily promoted by someone else and that's meta? Yeah.
Roleplayers are just incoherent, I suppose.


Fun, we're getting into this debate. I'll just start with

SPACE LAW DOES NOT OVERRIDE SERVER RULES

Now that's out of the way. The entire line you quoted has absolutely nothing to do with the thread whatsoever, or even to do with what I replied with.

As for that shaft miner, he saw a hacked APC on the AI sat and called out about a malf AI? Congrats! He knows more about the server policy regarding antag knowledge than you do!

Now here's the key difference in his situation and yours.

Him.
1. Sees antagonist activity.
2. Reports it.

You.
1. Assumes antagonist activity.
2. Prepares in advance for a threat he doesn't even know exists currently.

Remember how Sticky mentioned fucking with the plasma outlet valves in Atmospherics to fuck over a malf/traitor AI? This isn't quite that, but your reason for it MAKES it that.
I have no problem with implanting new hire sec officers with fucking everything under the sun, your reason for it when asked however...
PM to-Admins: The thing about antags is that they'd love to be granted a taser gun and a stun baton.

You blatantly made it about metagaming, which is why you got called out on metagaming.
tedward1337 wrote:Sae is like the racist grandad who everyone laughs at for being racist, but deep down we all know he's right.

User avatar
Steelpoint
Github User
 
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 6:37 pm
Location: The Armoury
Byond Username: Steelpoint
Github Username: Steelpoint

Re: [Poll] (Chem and Track) Implanting Hired Sec Officers

Postby Steelpoint » Mon Dec 29, 2014 2:35 pm #54176

In our game (or "real life" if you want to do that), our security EXPECTS something bad to occur, hence why a security force exists in the first place, you can't argue against that point. Security is not only about PREVENTING something bad from occurring, but to MITIGATE events when something bad does occur, which means taking PRECAUTIONS to prevent and mitigate hostile outcomes.

Operating under the idea that our security force are dumbwits that cannot do their job in setting up a precautionary effort to mitigate a hostile action is ludicrous. Now if we were mall cops or rent a cops you would have a point, but its well established we are a private security force working on a top secret research space station for a very powerful corporation, hence the extra security provided.

TL;DR: Security's job is to assume and expect hostile activity. That is their job.

E: But as stated above, a simple word is all the difference between "powergaming" and competency.
Image

AssassinT90
 
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2014 5:13 pm

Re: [Poll] (Chem and Track) Implanting Hired Sec Officers

Postby AssassinT90 » Mon Dec 29, 2014 3:48 pm #54190

Saegrimr wrote:Fun, we're getting into this debate. I'll just start with

SPACE LAW DOES NOT OVERRIDE SERVER RULES

Now that's out of the way. The entire line you quoted has absolutely nothing to do with the thread whatsoever, or even to do with what I replied with.

As for that shaft miner, he saw a hacked APC on the AI sat and called out about a malf AI? Congrats! He knows more about the server policy regarding antag knowledge than you do!

Now here's the key difference in his situation and yours.

Him.
1. Sees antagonist activity.
2. Reports it.

You.
1. Assumes antagonist activity.
2. Prepares in advance for a threat he doesn't even know exists currently.

Remember how Sticky mentioned fucking with the plasma outlet valves in Atmospherics to fuck over a malf/traitor AI? This isn't quite that, but your reason for it MAKES it that.
I have no problem with implanting new hire sec officers with fucking everything under the sun, your reason for it when asked however...
PM to-Admins: The thing about antags is that they'd love to be granted a taser gun and a stun baton.

You blatantly made it about metagaming, which is why you got called out on metagaming.

Congratulations.

You have convinced me that you have absolutely no idea what "metagaming" means, thus I'll explain it simply for you.

Don’t metagame. Do not ever use information, acquired out of character or through patterns or events your character would not be able to know, in game.


1.1. Space Law recognizes the existence of antagonists.
1.2. As Head of Security, it is my job to read the Space Law.
1.3. After Reading the Space Law, I know about the existence of antagonists.

All the information I have used for my decisions was information available to my character. The fact that so many people called it "metagaming" leaves it clear that many people don't know what that word means.

2.1 There is no conceivable way a miner could have recognized a blue APC as a hacked APC. Much less could he conclude from a blue APC that the AI was malfunctioning.
2.2 He called malf AI anyway, thus he was metagaming.

The miner saw a dark-blue APC and immediately called out a malf AI. His character would not have that information. THAT is metagaming. Get your definitions straight.

User avatar
Saegrimr
 
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2014 4:39 pm
Byond Username: Saegrimr

Re: [Poll] (Chem and Track) Implanting Hired Sec Officers

Postby Saegrimr » Mon Dec 29, 2014 4:09 pm #54194

AssassinT90 wrote:2.1 There is no conceivable way a miner could have recognized a blue APC as a hacked APC. Much less could he conclude from a blue APC that the AI was malfunctioning.
2.2 He called malf AI anyway, thus he was metagaming.

The miner saw a dark-blue APC and immediately called out a malf AI. His character would not have that information. THAT is metagaming. Get your definitions straight.


And again, we allow our players to know what all the different antagonist roles are capable of. This is normal. We don't expect bay-level of "GEE GOLLY WHATS THIS SHINY SWORD-LIKE THING THIS GUY IS RUNNING DOWN THE HALL WITH, OH WOW HE JUST KILLED SOMEONE I HOPE THAT WAS AN ACCIDENT."
tedward1337 wrote:Sae is like the racist grandad who everyone laughs at for being racist, but deep down we all know he's right.

Lo6a4evskiy
 
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 6:40 pm
Byond Username: Lo6a4evskiy

Re: [Poll] (Chem and Track) Implanting Hired Sec Officers

Postby Lo6a4evskiy » Mon Dec 29, 2014 4:10 pm #54195

AssassinT90 wrote:The miner saw a dark-blue APC and immediately called out a malf AI. His character would not have that information. THAT is metagaming. Get your definitions straight.

That's the equivalent of seeing a guy with esword. How's that metagaming?

User avatar
Steelpoint
Github User
 
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 6:37 pm
Location: The Armoury
Byond Username: Steelpoint
Github Username: Steelpoint

Re: [Poll] (Chem and Track) Implanting Hired Sec Officers

Postby Steelpoint » Mon Dec 29, 2014 4:13 pm #54196

Lo6a4evskiy wrote:
AssassinT90 wrote:The miner saw a dark-blue APC and immediately called out a malf AI. His character would not have that information. THAT is metagaming. Get your definitions straight.

That's the equivalent of seeing a guy with esword. How's that metagaming?


To be fair, there's a massive difference between seeing someone running around with a sword killing people versus a miner, whom has no engineering experience, seeing a APC and knowing its been hacked by a malfunctioning AI unit. But I digress.

Personally, if anyone is going to receive a bit of leniency, Security of all departments deserve it.
Image

AssassinT90
 
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2014 5:13 pm

Re: [Poll] (Chem and Track) Implanting Hired Sec Officers

Postby AssassinT90 » Mon Dec 29, 2014 4:16 pm #54197

In a somewhat unrelated subject, but still maybe related, I think this guy quite nails the discussion about the metagame. Destroying the Metagame is Your Responsibility, Too

Like he said, I think that new strategies and shifting trends are what keeps a game interesting. That ling that got wrecked by my implants? He won't be so eager to join sec anymore. Perhaps the word will spread. At some point, antags might just no longer want to join sec, because they know what may happen if they misbehave. And then HoSes will see that their implants became unecessary, and might just stop implanting people. And then some crazy-ass traitor with adrenal implants and no-slips joins security.

The point is, you don’t have to accept the metagame paradigm. You don’t have to play the way everyone else insists. You do have to understand why the most popular strategies came to dominate the field, but your next responsibility is to adapt. To invent. To discover. Because the minute you resign yourself to defaulting on a strategy, the minute you leave yourself open to get burned by a random “noob” with a few ideas of his own.

Read the full article: http://www.toptiertactics.com/21319/des ... z3NIx7V5CM

Lo6a4evskiy
 
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 6:40 pm
Byond Username: Lo6a4evskiy

Re: [Poll] (Chem and Track) Implanting Hired Sec Officers

Postby Lo6a4evskiy » Mon Dec 29, 2014 4:51 pm #54201

Steelpoint wrote:To be fair, there's a massive difference between seeing someone running around with a sword killing people versus a miner, whom has no engineering experience, seeing a APC and knowing its been hacked by a malfunctioning AI unit. But I digress.

Personally, if anyone is going to receive a bit of leniency, Security of all departments deserve it.

Nobody said anything about killing people.

Seeing someone killing people with esword is equal to AI activating code delta. As in, seeing active harm from specific antagonist.

Seeing someone with esword is equal to seeing blue APCs. As in, seeing signs of a specific antagonist.

User avatar
Saegrimr
 
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2014 4:39 pm
Byond Username: Saegrimr

Re: [Poll] (Chem and Track) Implanting Hired Sec Officers

Postby Saegrimr » Mon Dec 29, 2014 5:32 pm #54205

AssassinT90 wrote:In a somewhat unrelated subject, but still maybe related, I think this guy quite nails the discussion about the metagame. Destroying the Metagame is Your Responsibility, Too

Like he said, I think that new strategies and shifting trends are what keeps a game interesting. That ling that got wrecked by my implants? He won't be so eager to join sec anymore. Perhaps the word will spread. At some point, antags might just no longer want to join sec, because they know what may happen if they misbehave. And then HoSes will see that their implants became unecessary, and might just stop implanting people. And then some crazy-ass traitor with adrenal implants and no-slips joins security.


You're missing the entire point. Nobody here actually gives a shit if you implant your new hires. Just come up with a better excuse than "GOTTA GET DEM ANTAGS!"
I don't know how to make this any clearer here.

Steelpoint wrote:To be fair, there's a massive difference between seeing someone running around with a sword killing people versus a miner, whom has no engineering experience, seeing a APC and knowing its been hacked by a malfunctioning AI unit.


And that's the reason we have different rules than Baystation. We don't force ignorance of antagonist abilities on our players. If you want to roleplay that way that's fine, but don't expect others to.
We do, however, expect them to not prep every little thing to get their valid salads on unconfirmed enemies.
tedward1337 wrote:Sae is like the racist grandad who everyone laughs at for being racist, but deep down we all know he's right.

User avatar
danno
 
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2014 5:07 pm
Location: e-mail me if you want a pizza roll
Byond Username: Dannno

Re: [Poll] (Chem and Track) Implanting Hired Sec Officers

Postby danno » Mon Dec 29, 2014 7:07 pm #54216

I think that loyalty implants is one thing, and tracker implants is just MAYBE acceptable, but a chem implant? At that point you're really just going "fuck you" to the entire round on the off chance that this person is a traitor. As someone who often signs up as an officer mid-shift as a non-antag it seems retarded. We don't want to fuck over every antag as soon as possible. That just kills the chances for crazy shit to happen later on.

Also it doesn't mean they're an antag if they sign up mid-shift???? I do that all the time. Some people just like to gauge their options first.
Hornygranny wrote:wtf i like danno now

Image
I don't even play ss13 anymore, pretty much due to dannos stupid bullshit

User avatar
cedarbridge
In-Game Admin
 
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 12:24 am
Byond Username: Cedarbridge

Re: [Poll] (Chem and Track) Implanting Hired Sec Officers

Postby cedarbridge » Mon Dec 29, 2014 8:46 pm #54231

AssassinT90 wrote:You have convinced me that you have absolutely no idea what "metagaming" means, thus I'll explain it simply for you.

Don’t metagame. Do not ever use information, acquired out of character or through patterns or events your character would not be able to know, in game.


1.1. Space Law recognizes the existence of antagonists.
1.2. As Head of Security, it is my job to read the Space Law.
1.3. After Reading the Space Law, I know about the existence of antagonists.

All the information I have used for my decisions was information available to my character. The fact that so many people called it "metagaming" leaves it clear that many people don't know what that word means.

2.1 There is no conceivable way a miner could have recognized a blue APC as a hacked APC. Much less could he conclude from a blue APC that the AI was malfunctioning.
2.2 He called malf AI anyway, thus he was metagaming.

The miner saw a dark-blue APC and immediately called out a malf AI. His character would not have that information. THAT is metagaming. Get your definitions straight.

You're not doing so hot here yourself on the "having no idea"department. For one, you're going into this with some sort of warped idea that our server rules enforce department/job knowledge. What you're doing here is justifying banning non-engineers for touching the engine, non-security for firing guns, and non-chaplains from leading services. I mean, what does an assistant know about engines amirite? Hell, I saw somebody tell an admin that a player was a "metagaming shit" because they said they'd been facehugged on the gulag (they had.) There's a reason we don't enforce that and using it as a core of your argument shows me you don't really understand the concept of metagaming. Its not a rule about only using information on an invisible character sheet. "In character" refers to in-round sources of information. We've made allowances for things like the wiki in the past for the sake of easing the learning curve of some jobs etc but that's it really. If you go into every round and start making a "Gotta cover all my bases in case X,Y,Z antags show up" checklist, you're doing something wrong.

mrpain
 
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2014 12:32 am
Byond Username: Mrpain666

Re: [Poll] (Chem and Track) Implanting Hired Sec Officers

Postby mrpain » Mon Dec 29, 2014 10:10 pm #54250

If you have doubts that a hired sec officer might be an antag you shouldnt hire him in the first place.

I can understand a loyalty implant, but a chem implant just seems pretty meta/power gamey to me.
/vg/station Head Admin

mikecari
In Game PermaBanned
 
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2014 5:48 am
Byond Username: Mikecari

Re: [Poll] (Chem and Track) Implanting Hired Sec Officers

Postby mikecari » Mon Dec 29, 2014 11:02 pm #54260

mrpain wrote:If you have doubts that a hired sec officer might be an antag you shouldnt hire him in the first place.

I can understand a loyalty implant, but a chem implant just seems pretty meta/power gamey to me.


Then the HoP needs to be held accountable for hiring people without asking for permission.

Somejerk
 
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2014 1:04 am
Byond Username: Somejerk

Re: [Poll] (Chem and Track) Implanting Hired Sec Officers

Postby Somejerk » Tue Dec 30, 2014 12:14 am #54289

Implanting someone who you should be able to trust on your security team with harmful chems should be scrutinized heavily. The point of those implants is either to keep repeating offenders in line or for officers to have a trump card in case someone with a proper weapon starts to attack them.

Tracking implant could be beneficial in the sense that if an officer goes down during something and yells out in the radio you could locate that person relatively quickly.

User avatar
cedarbridge
In-Game Admin
 
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 12:24 am
Byond Username: Cedarbridge

Re: [Poll] (Chem and Track) Implanting Hired Sec Officers

Postby cedarbridge » Tue Dec 30, 2014 1:27 am #54300

Somejerk wrote:Implanting someone who you should be able to trust on your security team with harmful chems should be scrutinized heavily. The point of those implants is either to keep repeating offenders in line or for officers to have a trump card in case someone with a proper weapon starts to attack them.

Tracking implant could be beneficial in the sense that if an officer goes down during something and yells out in the radio you could locate that person relatively quickly.

The thing is, security trusts the new recruits sent from the HoP as much as they trust the HoP. And I don't personally trust any HoP that doesn't pass new hires by the heads of staff first.

Raven776
 
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2014 5:51 pm
Byond Username: Raven776

Re: [Poll] (Chem and Track) Implanting Hired Sec Officers

Postby Raven776 » Tue Dec 30, 2014 5:02 am #54374

Given any other reason than "Antags are bad" I'm pretty sure this wouldn't have been a problem at all.

I can only imagine that it's somewhat common knowledge that security forces are routinely searched and background checked to no longer be possible antags. Someone trying to become a security member mid round is sketchy as fuck, and seeing as you don't have the centcomm resources (waterboarding) to make sure they're not sizing your own crew up like human juice boxes, giving them a cyborg kill switch is the next best thing.

Next

Return to Policy Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users