Families: Hold another vote

[carshalash]

Bottom post of the previous page:

When most of the manuel playerbase voted on keeping families we were under the assumption that things would get better through policy and coding. This was not the case at all.

Family members have been given FULL antag immunity to their actions, they are able to kill people for the flimsiest of reasons due to the fact they willingly became antags, code-wise we have had things get worse with the naming schemes of gang members. There is no deconversion, these people will ALWAYS be antags and be able to do as they please, there is no downside to becoming a gang member as sec and command are expected to let them do as they please.

This experiment has gone horribly wrong.

[Yulice]

First off, I am as much a game admin as any of the others in this thread.

Secondly, when you say "Clearly we need the headmins to decide some things"--yes, I agree! So why is the policy discussion thread about removing families entirely, rather than any popping up to actually iron out what family members should and should not be able to do?

Likely because there was an assumption that admins/coders would've done said tweaks without the NEED for there being a policy thread, and the policy thread being made by a player is because they are so frustrated at the inaction and so fatigued by families that any sort of fix would be too little too late at this point. Though I personally may be a bit biased, because I also dislike families and would not be one bit upset if it was nixed entirely, considering most of the issues seem to be player base wise, and you can't exactly fix that overnight.

[Armhulen]

I always thought that "the problem is the players" is a meme because we should be making gamemodes that work with our players first and foremost. And that's not that restrictive

[Mothblocks]

Likely because there was an assumption that admins/coders would've done said tweaks without the NEED for there being a policy thread, and the policy thread being made by a player is because they are so frustrated at the inaction and so fatigued by families that any sort of fix would be too little too late at this point.

Most policy discussion threads are made by players, if the problem is policy or that admins don't understand how they're meant to administrate families, then the solution to that is making policy discussion threads on what policies should be ironed out to make it more enjoyable/understandable.

There are some suggestions in this thread, but because it's just a catch all "remove it" thread, they're not going to get the attention they deserve, as the head admin response is going to be based on the original pitch of the thread. If the policy suggestions being pitched in this thread, such as Spookuni's of removing their antagonist status altogether, are made into their own threads, head admins can respond to them and make adjustments piecemeal.

I don't care about keeping or removing families, but I think it's unfair to say that you expected changes to happen without going through the effort of formally proposing them.

[Drag]

Edit: I would also like to note instead of listening to the MRP admin's perspective and grievances the maintainers are just saying "ahelp it". Thanks very cool. The policy isnt even clear if they have antag protections or not. Clearly we need the headmins to decide some things.

First off, I am as much a game admin as any of the others in this thread.

Secondly, when you say "Clearly we need the headmins to decide some things"--yes, I agree! So why is the policy discussion thread about removing families entirely, rather than any popping up to actually iron out what family members should and should not be able to do?

You don't count mothblocks, you're not a maintainer you're a moth. I am advocating for a removal because I don't think the game mode is salvageable because I feel like nobody wants to salvage it.

[CMDR_Gungnir]

Edit: I would also like to note instead of listening to the MRP admin's perspective and grievances the maintainers are just saying "ahelp it". Thanks very cool. The policy isnt even clear if they have antag protections or not. Clearly we need the headmins to decide some things.

First off, I am as much a game admin as any of the others in this thread.

Secondly, when you say "Clearly we need the headmins to decide some things"--yes, I agree! So why is the policy discussion thread about removing families entirely, rather than any popping up to actually iron out what family members should and should not be able to do?

Because we've already done that, and it hasn't worked. We've TRIED.

[Mothblocks]

Because we've already done that, and it hasn't worked. We've TRIED.

Families was merged September 27th.

Since then, the only policy discussion thread seems to be yours, about not allowing people to force people into gangs.

Is there something I'm missing? Policy discussion and refinement happens on this very forum, not on Discord or OOC.

[Drag]

Okay, I can see this is going in circles. Manuel statics, we have all said why we don't like families. I'm gonna ask some things that I'd like the headmins to vote on and we can maybe go from there. I want their definitive yes or no answer. I don't want "well it already says here-". I want to know what the headmins have to say.

What Id like the headmins to decide.
Players hunting down command or security for performing lawful damage control or securing a strongly justified shuttle call are not valid. They are valid if their actions are not lawful or if the shuttle call is poorly justified.

It is punishable from an admin standpoint if a player uses force in any way to convert or retaliate at someone for not willingly converting to their gang.

During the families rounds where subverting the ai is the focus the admins are encouraged to apply discouraging measures when a maint upload war starts.

If a gang member is arrested lawfully the rest of the gang cannot respond with lethal force. If the gang member was arrested illegally normal escilation rules apply.

Gang members are heavily discouraged from round removing other players, and are heavily discouraged from creating body pile ups that medical cannot keep up with.

If the round is revealed to be families players are allowed to use the suicide verb like they are allowed to when the round is revealed to be war ops. Command and security are discouraged from doing so and ahelping in advance would be preferable.

From an in character standpoint it reflects poorly on central to lose a station to gang warfare. Admins are encouraged to utalize erts and Centcom officials to counteract any uncontained chaos.

These are all things I feel really need definitive answers or spark arguments. I stated before that I felt families wasn't salvageable. There are some things I'd like to see change before I'm willing to change my stance in any capacity.

First and foremost: Making family objectives easier to find by moving it to the traitor panel. Timber has stated it's very difficult to find as is and having a quicker way to reference what the gang members objectives are would assist admins in handling tickets overall.

Sometimes not everyone's name changes when they are converted to a gang. Make it so everyone's name changes with no exceptions

Remove mid round families. As stated above midround gangs feels clunky and forced. Make it a roundstart ruleset only.

Change the "bomb the brig!" To "deface the brig!"

Remove the ability for silicon subverting families from exsisting together, removing the need for maint upload wars.

[Mothblocks]

I want to know what the headmins have to say.

Then make a policy discussion thread rather than putting out several questions in a reply on page 2 of a different thread. I'm trying to help you with how this process works, policy discussion threads that branch out into several paths are not as useful as dedicated discussions where head admins really are forced to give a direct answer. Right now, there is nothing codifying them to your post.

Remove mid round families. As stated above midround gangs feels clunky and forced. Make it a roundstart ruleset only.

This is planned, actually. There's a code freeze going on until the end of the month, though I was going to talk to Goof if he wanted to just disable it in dynamic.json until then.

Making family objectives easier to find by moving it to the traitor panel.

This already has a pull request open for it. I even just merged it, just for you.

[Drag]

I will move my questions for the headmins to its own thread, then. I hope nothing I've said has been mistaken for hostility that was not at all my intent.

[Mothblocks]

No worries, I didn't take it that way! I just wanted to make sure that the policy discussion people want to happen does happen.

[CMDR_Gungnir]

Because we've already done that, and it hasn't worked. We've TRIED.

Families was merged September 27th.

Since then, the only policy discussion thread seems to be yours, about not allowing people to force people into gangs.

Is there something I'm missing? Policy discussion and refinement happens on this very forum, not on Discord or OOC.

I mean. I've already tried it, and from what I'm seeing and hearing, it still happens, so.

At the very least, I'm allowed to complain about it.

[Mothblocks]

If you see it, adminhelp it!

[NoxVS]

I can't really think of the right way to word how I feel about families, but the best way I can think of is that it feels more like an event than a gamemode. It works well with admins closely guiding it and when it doesn't happen very often, and isn't very enjoyable when admins are more hands off or people are seeing the sports theme for the 20th time

[BrianBackslide]

I genuinely prefer families over revs. At the very least "PAY YOUR GODDAMN TAXES" is a little more RP than "UNGA KILL HEADS" even if, in practice, they can turn out similar. Maybe I'm just more likely to play those roles in good faith rather than just go at it for the antag pass it gives.

If families are bad on the admin side of things, then I wouldn't mind to see it go. Personally I haven't had any interactions with families that I felt called for an ahelp.

[Mothblocks]

On Goof's initial suggestion, and given the current code freeze, I have disabled Midround Families (Family Head Aspirants).

Please post in this thread or similar if there are further issues.

[cacogen]

Likely because there was an assumption that admins/coders would've done said tweaks without the NEED for there being a policy thread

Exactly. I've thought about this thread a bit these past couple of days and it annoys me how the onus to fix this is somehow being shifted to the players to make policy suggestions instead of the admins and maintainers to make sure the gamemode works well on the server it's on and isn't just glorified revs without any deconversion that makes the regular players want to call the shuttle rather than deal with the greytiding it enables that in some cases is built into the objectives Families receive.

I always thought that "the problem is the players" is a meme because we should be making gamemodes that work with our players first and foremost. And that's not that restrictive

Yeah. It's never made sense to demand that reality somehow conform to your expectations and yet certain people aren't interested in tweaking things so they actually work well on the servers and just want to shift blame to the players because it requires no work and no admitting there's a problem.

[Mothblocks]

it annoys me how the onus to fix this is somehow being shifted to the players to make policy suggestions instead of the admins

Policy discussion threads are made by players all the time, including this one! Expecting other people to do it is just falling for the bystander effect.

[cacogen]

You cut off my quote to misrepresent what I said again. Keeping the meaning intact it would read, "it annoys me how the onus to fix this is somehow being shifted to the players to make policy suggestions instead of the admins and maintainers to make sure the gamemode works well on the server it's on." Whoever usually makes policy discussion threads isn't relevant. And what are you talking about, bystander effect? Is there ever a sincere word that leaves your mouth or is it all just bullshit designed to manipulate people into getting your own way?

A period of time has passed since a vote that resulted in keeping Families on the server. People like OP expected something would be done to fix the issues with it. Neither the admins nor the coders have done anything about it. It's not the responsibility of the players to come up with policy suggestions to fix a gamemode. You can't blame OP for being fed up with the gamemode by now and wanting it off the server. They may not even like the gamemode and might not want to salvage it to begin with. You've had plenty of opportunity to do something about it if you actually care this much about it. The people who actually play on Manuel would rather another vote on removing it than to be corralled by you into coming up with ideas to improve it.

[Timberpoes]

I don't think the game mode is flawed per se. It's more complicated than that. I think the admin team feels fettered by policy and rules they don't think mix well to make a fun game mode.

I don't think families converts should be full antags. As a voluntary conversion game mode, it is certainly not conducive to fun, healthy rounds to have them as full blown antags.

And I think the playerbase feels conflicted as the admins don't seem to agree with the policy they're applying to the game mode. It's tough to know what to ahelp for. And when a player ahelps, its tough for admins to give them a satisfying conclusion because of the open ended objectives not working with murderbone policy.

For better or worse, our MRP servers are tied to greentext instead of to good faith play. This transforms quirky, open ended and more RP focused families objectives into cock and ball torture for the crew and admins. This is not the fault of families. This is just inflexible policy that is slow to change.

Families is a snowflake shaped peg. Our admin team are trying to cram it into a star shaped policy hole while our playerbase is trying to stick the peg up their nose and the headmin team are passed out on the sofa.

Families requires a different approach. A collaborative effort between all parties to create a workable voluntary conversion antag. And for none of those parties to try and sabotage the efforts of the others.

[Mothblocks]

Whoever usually makes policy discussion threads isn't relevant. And what are you talking about, bystander effect?

This thread, and your post, are predicated on that players were just expecting policy changes to happen, without actually doing anything to make them happen.

Is there ever a sincere word that leaves your mouth or is it all just bullshit designed to manipulate people into getting your own way?

What do you think "my way" is? In case it's not demonstrably clear, I don't care one way or another what the outcome is. I have no stake in families code and adminning families isn't something I worry too much about. If my goal is to preserve families, I think disabling half of it is probably a pretty silly way to go about that. I can't imagine this policy discussion thread ends with head admins doing anything other than running another vote anyway. What I want is for people to actually request the policy on whatever's so confusing, rather than say they expected someone else to do it. I seem to be doing a pretty good job at that, considering Drag has made a very solid and thorough policy discussion thread about it.

[oranges]

The general consensus on Manuel is that families is NOT fun and causes a lot of issues and burnout that makes players feel like they need to take a break. Either admins need to be given more quality control ability and code changes need to be made or the mode needs to go away.

Did anyone else miss the poll where Drag was voted as the general consensus of manuel?

The only way to get "general consensus" is a poll, which is what the OP is asking for.

[oranges]

Likely because there was an assumption that admins/coders would've done said tweaks without the NEED for there being a policy thread

Exactly. I've thought about this thread a bit these past couple of days and it annoys me how the onus to fix this is somehow being shifted to the players to make policy suggestions instead of the admins and maintainers to make sure the gamemode works well on the server it's on and isn't just glorified revs without any deconversion that makes the regular players want to call the shuttle rather than deal with the greytiding it enables that in some cases is built into the objectives Families receive.

I always thought that "the problem is the players" is a meme because we should be making gamemodes that work with our players first and foremost. And that's not that restrictive

Yeah. It's never made sense to demand that reality somehow conform to your expectations and yet certain people aren't interested in tweaking things so they actually work well on the servers and just want to shift blame to the players because it requires no work and no admitting there's a problem.

How do you expect a developer to change a gamemode if you won't speak about WHAT makes it bad? what kind of nonsense is this post?

[cacogen]

This thread, and your post, are predicated on that players were just expecting policy changes to happen, without actually doing anything to make them happen.

Your posts in this thread are predicated on the idea that players are expected to make policy changes happen, which is obviously not the case. You've had ages since the original vote to make a policy thread about it. It's not fair to only take an interest now and try to get in the way of what the players want by insisting they have an obligation to make suggestions to fix it.

What I want is for people to actually request the policy on whatever's so confusing, rather than say they expected someone else to do it.

It's not the job of the players to fix a gamemode. You should've recognised there was a problem and done something sooner. You didn't, and now people want to vote to remove it again.

How do you expect a developer to change a gamemode if you won't speak about WHAT makes it bad? what kind of nonsense is this post?

It shouldn't be up to the players to complain. It should be up to the coder of the gamemode, the maintainer that pulled it and the design lead to make sure it works and if it doesn't, do what they think is necessary to fix it. Part of that would presumably involve asking the players for feedback. But I'm sure a lot of people on Manuel have made complaints about the gamemode before this thread was made. You haven't fixed it, and now they want another vote.

[oranges]

It shouldn't be up to the players to complain. It should be up to the coder of the gamemode, the maintainer that pulled it and the design lead to make sure it works and if it doesn't, do what they think is necessary to fix it. Part of that would presumably involve asking the players for feedback. But I'm sure a lot of people on Manuel have made complaints about the gamemode before this thread was made.

From a brief search on manuel any substantive discussion on families only upticks after carsh makes his thread and very few people actually pinging goof to provide direct actionable feedback. If people aren't seeking out the coder of the gamemode to provide feedback that is useful (and by useful I mean isn't just - Your gamemode is shit remove it). Then the only direction it's going to develop in is the original idea that the developer had, which revokes anybodies right to complain that nobody is fixing it.

[Cobby]

Side note please ban “we will fix it later” poll options that don’t have a design document linked in the same option. It should be “The mode is fixed as detailed in X”.

It isn’t fair to any developer or players that there is an option that is literally different for everyone, as “make the mode better” is open ended.

As for families, I think it is definitely different from our conventional game modes and yet we’ve insisted on applying the same thought processes for it (we being both players and admins, potentially even coders), it obviously hasn’t worked.

[Mickyan]

From a brief search on manuel any substantive discussion on families only upticks after carsh makes his thread and very few people actually pinging goof to provide direct actionable feedback. If people aren't seeking out the coder of the gamemode to provide feedback that is useful (and by useful I mean isn't just - Your gamemode is shit remove it). Then the only direction it's going to develop in is the original idea that the developer had, which revokes anybodies right to complain that nobody is fixing it.

I can only speak for myself but seeing how often I've seen it happen to others it's safe to assume a lot of people by now have realized that trying to give feedback to goof directly just to get told to go fuck themselves over minor disagreements is a waste of time

Besides goof does not own the gamemode the same way me or any other coder owns any of their contributions to the codebase, asking people to bother coders directly is a bad precedent to set. There's been plenty of actionable feedback being thrown around, it's just that most of it boils down to the fact that the current mode at its core is not compatible with our rules and how the game typically plays out.

[oranges]

no other dev is tripping over themselves to waste their time developing on a shitty rev clone mickyan, it's not a matter of choice

[Tearling]

which revokes anybodies right to complain that nobody is fixing it.

No it doesn't. Most players don't even visit the forums, let alone know who the coder for families is. Expecting people to actively try to fix a problem they have no control over in return for the ""right"" to complain about the problem is wrong. It's natural to assume that, as a player, the admins and coders will fix things you don't like without your (The player's) intervention. Similar to how a regular person IRL would just assume a hole in the road will get fixed, without them having to contact the city council to have it repaired.

Maybe it's not right to ask for families to be removed without first trying to fix it (maybe), but it's definitely not wrong to complain about it.

[oranges]

if you dont provide any actionable intel in your complaining then you're just baselessly whining and will be ignored.

[Farquaar]

if you dont provide any actionable intel in your complaining then you're just baselessly whining and will be ignored.

[iamgoofball]

Similar to how a regular person IRL would just assume a hole in the road will get fixed, without them having to contact the city council to have it repaired.

im not sure what paradise you live in where the city just fixes holes in the roads but 90% of the time holes in roads never get fixed because "someone else will call city hall about it" repeats through every person who sees the hole's head for 10 years straight

[Tearling]

im not sure what paradise you live in where the city just fixes holes in the roads but 90% of the time holes in roads never get fixed because "someone else will call city hall about it" repeats through every person who sees the hole's head for 10 years straight

Irrelevant. Oranges was making the argument you shouldn't complain unless you actively try to fix the problem, my response was a counter-argument to that, not a claim on whether or not the hole will ever get fixed or should be fixed. Next strawman, please.

if you dont provide any actionable intel in your complaining then you're just baselessly whining and will be ignored.

In this case you're not ignoring the people complaining, you're actively contributing to discussion and saying they're wrong for complaining. You are right people are whining, though. Typically that's what people do when they don't enjoy something, they complain and whine.

[oranges]

Irrelevant. Oranges was making the argument you shouldn't complain unless you actively try to fix the problem, my response was a counter-argument to that, not a claim on whether or not the hole will ever get fixed or should be fixed. Next strawman, please.

Ironic considering your entire post is a strawman, I was only responding to the argument made that it's not up to players to report or fix the problems with a gamemode, if they don't report the problems, or discuss the issues, then nothing can get fixed and they're just whining without any possible outcome.

The only strawman here is the one you invented, I actually care very little about this half baked rework of a gamemode we already have (rev)

if you dont provide any actionable intel in your complaining then you're just baselessly whining and will be ignored.

In this case you're not ignoring the people complaining, you're actively contributing to discussion and saying they're wrong for complaining. You are right people are whining, though. Typically that's what people do when they don't enjoy something, they complain and whine.

I"m not ignoring the people complaining here because they're providing information that is useful, I'm ignoring them because this gamemode is a waste of time to even consider. My posts in this thread you are quouting are responding soley to comments made by cacogen.

[Tearling]

The only strawman here is the one you invented, I actually care very little about this half baked rework of a gamemode we already have (rev)

If people aren't seeking out the coder of the gamemode to provide feedback that is useful (and by useful I mean isn't just - Your gamemode is shit remove it). Then the only direction it's going to develop in is the original idea that the developer had, which revokes anybodies right to complain that nobody is fixing it.

Sorry, at what point did I misrepresent your argument? I understand that your comments were "My posts in this thread you are quouting are responding soley to comments made by cacogen." however, the claim "which revokes anybodies right to complain that nobody is fixing it" was wrong, was it not? Did you mean something else with it? Please explain it so I can understand it.

[oranges]

you are saying that I said people should be actively trying to fix the gamemode, whereas the claim I made is that you should provide actionable feedback, that is not the same thing as actively fixing it.

I know your sixth grade grasp of english makes it hard to know the distinction but have precise wording is important.

[CMDR_Gungnir]

To be entirely fair "This just isn't working, nuke it from orbit" is feedback that can be acted on;

But I'd say just hardlining policy that whatever you're doing for your Family isn't something that should severely impact the round for non-affiliated players. Alternatively, lean into it but make it so that Gangs can be wiped out with the fury of a thousand suns if they're confirmed, but I don't think that'd end well.

[Tearling]

you are saying that I said people should be actively trying to fix the gamemode, whereas the claim I made is that you should provide actionable feedback, that is not the same thing as actively fixing it.

I quoted you in saying "If people aren't seeking out the coder of the gamemode to provide feedback that is useful (and by useful I mean isn't just - Your gamemode is shit remove it). Then the only direction it's going to develop in is the original idea that the developer had, which revokes anybodies right to complain that nobody is fixing it."
This is not just an argument that "you should provide actionable feedback" it's also very clearly a claim that unless you're actively trying to give actionable feedback (which IS trying to fix it, as giving feedback is a DIRECT ATTEMPT to try and fix a problem) you should not be complaining. Or, as you switched your wording later, "whining".

The fact that you wouldn't correct yourself, and you're instead doubling down trying to switch the goalpost shows just how wrong the statement was. I'm glad to see you're at least trying to change the goalpost because indirectly that's an acknowledgement you were wrong, but really oranges, just be more honest next time.

*Edit:
Please be careful not to insult someone for having bad English comprehension and then, in that same sentence, make a grammatical error, oranges.

[RaveRadbury]

We have decided to disable families from the MRP config for the following reasons:

• Immersion-breaking families that heavily depend on reference (Shin Megami Tensei being a prime example)
• Many objectives are not conducive to RP and cause concern for grief as an opt-in antag (Powder Gangers, for one)
• Being able to meta the game mode from the manifest
• Staff interest in supervising
• Heavy need for supervision to be successful
• Issues with escalation
• Issues described here

Admins are welcome to run the families game mode whenever they like.

Headmin Votes:
RaveRadbury: Agree
Dragomagol: Agree
Namelessfairy: Abstain - I do not believe that I have sufficient experience with the most recent version of families or how the MRP playerbase responds to it to confidently rule on its inclusion on our MRP servers. I trust that my fellow headmins are experienced enough with it to vote on the matter in the best interest of the server and thus I’ll be leaving this vote to them.