Update the policy on antag tokens.

[WineAllWine]

This is the policy at the moment, for completeness.

Code: Select all

Antagonist tokens are simply a note an admin gives a player which allows them to trade in for antagonist. These are given in cases where an admin may ruin an round beyond the point of any redemption. In some cases these are given as rewards for specific events like the wiki drive or feature freeze with approval from headmins for them to be given.

These tokens may be given away by admins should they mess up a standard round; as in a round that didn't have any specific admin event running and was going on its natural course before a mistake was committed. What do I mean by messing up? Well, things like crashing the server or spawning things in that ended up making the round unplayable from lag.

Tokens are not to be given when something outside an admin's control happens; such as the server just locking up and crashing without an admin doing anything, team antagonist killing each other by accident or even incidentally, and the player losing connection and dying. They WILL NOT be given just because you feel like giving one out for something or the other.

These tokens are not to be given out lightly; somethings should be taken into consideration such as the above mentioned reasons, round length, and was the round about over if a token should be given. If the round was practically going to be over with the shuttle on it's way then it wouldn't really warrant a token be handed out when the antagonist generally made good use of the previous round at that point. Alternatives should be considered as well before handing out tokens, such as recreating the previous round. If you messed up a round up that hardly is underway; is acknowledge your error, apologize to everyone, and try to recreate the previous round. As in set the mode to secret and make the affected antagonist from the previous round the same antagonist type or less. Example, you crashed the server by accident and it was traitor. You apologize for the error and then remake the previous round's traitors as traitors for the new round. The issue generally gets resolved without much drama at that point that is fair to everyone.

If a token has to be given; do not give them being vague and open. You need to specify what antagonist type was affected and what they are allowed to trade for as to prevent a larger number of people being able to "trade up" for something rarer/stronger. Example: If you messed up a traitor round, you need to specify that they are allowed to trade for traitor or something that is lesser like revenant. Exercise similar judgement and restraint that is used with telecrystal trades. Additionally, when a TC trade occurs you should try to put them in rounds where it doesn't end up causing more confusion than is needed. Using the previous example of the traitor round; when you let someone claim the token you shouldn't put them in the middle of a cult round as a traitor.

In all honesty, the best solution to this is try not to fuck shit up as we don't want to make a habit of handing tokens out. Repeatedly interfering with rounds can result in punishment if a trend is seen doing such and any notes regarding tokens may be examined. Additionally, if you are unsure of a situation where you believe they are warranted; you can consult with others in adminbus and specifically try to consult with a headmin.

I believe this is out-of-date. I believe this is an overly-harsh guideline for how we should use antag tokens. I know at least 2 admins who have gone against the policy as written and haven't been punished. Having rules that we don't use is pointless.

My draft proposal would be something like "Antag tokens are special and shouldn't be given out for free. Antag tokens, as previously, should be considered to be given out when an admin fucks up a players round. Admins are not mandated to do so. Antag tokens may also be used to reward players for behaviours we want to encourage."

I accept that this is very liberating compared to the current ruling, I'm by no means wedded to it. I think it's more important we have a discussion about how it is acceptable to use antag tokens.

Even the current proposal but appended with "but if you want to give an antag token out contrary to this ask a headmin" would be a huge improvement

[iwishforducks]

+1 - antag tokens open up for some fun moments. people using said tokens for dumb items (like the sm sword, meteor gun, etc.) is pure heart and soul. i wanna see more of that

[conrad]

To add to Wine's policy take, here's the antag tokens I've given over the course of my first year as admin:

"Antag token for Heretic. Redeem when desired (Redeemed)" given in 31-07-2023, 'cos I fucked this one heretic's round.

"Antag token for any solo antag - did a cool centcom rebuild after I accidentally detonated it. Redeem whenever " and "Antag token for any solo antag - Passed along from another player and doubled all the way up to 32. (this is actually just one token). Redeem whenever ", both in 04-10-2023, because I accidentally exploded the escape shuttle and they were spawned randomly from the ghost pool to fix it, and did an amazing job.

The first token was entirely valid with our current directive. The other ones aren't, especially since the person that received the second token wasn't the original intended one.

The servers didn't collapse. The token economy didn't implode. I wasn't deadminned. The players weren't banned. Note, however, that I've given only two policy-breaking tokens over the course of a year.

I think the level of preciousness of antag tokens is outdated with the advent of Dynamic. I also think we shouldn't be giving them for whatever reason, as that can lead to bad things slipping through the cracks (i.e.: breach of admin conduct where an admin gives tokens to their friends). But I also think admins shouldn't feel terrified of the idea of having given an antag token in the past and have that bite them in the ass, nor shackled to the idea of only giving them when they fuck it up.

Having someone play an antag in the future because they did something extraordinary today is badass.

[PapaMichael]

As I said in the peanut, I don't like it.

Do you want players to perceive that admin metafriends are being given favors moreso than they already do?

Do you want the endless slew of "X did Y and got a token, but I also did Y and didn't, wtf!"?

On Manny, the "non-antag tokens" that some admins currently divvy out have definitely not had the warmest reception among some players in part due to how utterly arbitrary they are.

[WineAllWine]

As I said in the peanut, I don't like it.

Do you want players to perceive that admin metafriends are being given favors moreso than they already do?

Do you want the endless slew of "X did Y and got a token, but I also did Y and didn't, wtf!"?

On Manny, the "non-antag tokens" that some admins currently divvy out have definitely not had the warmest reception among some players in part due to how utterly arbitrary they are.

If this policy thread concludes with "we shall keep the current policy" then I think we should be punishing admins that go against it, and admins do. (Sorry, Conrad)

This thread ending with "everything's perfect and we're not changing anything" would be a bad outcome.

[Higgin]

I think the level of preciousness of antag tokens is outdated with the advent of Dynamic. I also think we shouldn't be giving them for whatever reason, as that can lead to bad things slipping through the cracks (i.e.: breach of admin conduct where an admin gives tokens to their friends). But I also think admins shouldn't feel terrified of the idea of having given an antag token in the past and have that bite them in the ass, nor shackled to the idea of only giving them when they fuck it up.

Having someone play an antag in the future because they did something extraordinary today is badass.

Everything that you and Wine have said on this speaks to me, and reading back this last bit helped me make a connection on something I've felt for a long time:

Metacurrencies fucking rock. There's so much we could be doing to reward people and give them the feeling their actions (and the effort they put in) matter in a longer sense than the single round. It'd be cool to have something in the toolbox they can actually hold and use.

It's already at an admin's discretion (and due diligence) to judge if a token is fairly given and then to redeem it if appropriate.

I think any step towards something like "ask headmins" or "ask other admins" before giving a token for non-fuckup reasons would be a good way to steer the policy. We can and do already talk about this stuff. Because we're talking about tokens, too, by nature it's going to be documented if there are concerns about fairness issues.

I'd suggest anyone thinking about those when thinking about circumstances under which to give a token ask:
- could anyone have done this thing we want to reward?
- if an antag token was known to be part of the stakes, did everybody in the round get a reasonable chance to participate? (i.e. if you held some player contest for doing something cool, could everyone reasonably get in on that at the point it was offered in the round?)
- if it's just a reward for prosocial or cool behavior, is it cool behavior of a sort that everyone benefits from it? talking about using a token like a positive note in this instance
- if it's for a fuckup where people got their reasonable expectations dashed, did everyone else similarly affected get the same offer?

[Sightld2]

It's already at an admin's discretion (and due diligence) to judge if a token is fairly given and then to redeem it if appropriate.

NGL Higgin, if I read "ANTAG TOKEN OF X QUALITY" I'm not going to go hunting to figure out if it was fairly given by pinging whoever put it there.

That said, I think the rules are too strict and me personally I think even something like this:

I think any step towards something like "ask headmins" or "ask other admins" before giving a token for non-fuckup reasons would be a good way to steer the policy. We can and do already talk about this stuff. Because we're talking about tokens, too, by nature it's going to be documented if there are concerns about fairness issues.

Is a good starting direction, but too restrictive IMO. Instead I think a log of tokens given out, maybe even public so players can call us out on it, would be a better way to go. Or, instead of asking permission from the headmins, doing it anyways and then asking for forgiveness from the headmins so they dont take 6 years to get back to you, and THEY can track if the Striders Clan is showing favoritism.

I agree with all of this stuff tho Higgin, these are great standards I think.

I'd suggest anyone thinking about those when thinking about circumstances under which to give a token ask:
- could anyone have done this thing we want to reward?
- if an antag token was known to be part of the stakes, did everybody in the round get a reasonable chance to participate? (i.e. if you held some player contest for doing something cool, could everyone reasonably get in on that at the point it was offered in the round?)
- if it's just a reward for prosocial or cool behavior, is it cool behavior of a sort that everyone benefits from it? talking about using a token like a positive note in this instance
- if it's for a fuckup where people got their reasonable expectations dashed, did everyone else similarly affected get the same offer?

My only ehhhhhhh is point 2, IDK how I feel about people gaming events knowing that there's an antag reward in it if they participate. Maybe I'm ok with some people not participating if they have to be incentivized to do so.

[Vekter]

My only requirements for an antag token policy would be:

1) They are never guaranteed, only ever a potential and are completely up to the admin in question.
2) Admins are permitted and encouraged to give them out as rewards for very special events but should do so sparingly.

[DrAmazing343]

-Snipter-

+1 to these, and just about everything Higgin said.

I'm certainly biased as a player, but playing on Monke and seeing how arbitrarily their antag tokens are given out without absolutely and entirely wrecking the server has very much brightened my perception on what antag token scarcity should be. We're not Monke, so I don't think we should absolutely ape them (:3) but I do think having a way to reward players for extraordinary acts, behaviors, projects, or even just experiences should be allowed and encouraged.

Someone manages to create a perpetually-burning 4x4 Supermatter setup, generating MW's in the hundreds? Incredibly impressive! Someone takes on a ghost roll and roleplays with their whole soul for it? That brings warmth to the hearts and minds of damn near the whole crew, they should be rewarded for that. Player consistently takes on apprentices and interns, teaching them everything their greedy little hands can take as fast as they can hand out their knowledge? That's an EXCELLENT thing to reward and encourage.

I also think this next point is already sort-of how it is, especially with the nebulous(?) standards of TC trades, but antag tokens should also be able to be used for non-antagonist gimmicks or to upgrade antagonist gimmicks with admin-only actions (Like, helping guide an adventure or something?). AFAIK that's about how it is, but I figured that was worthwhile to add.

Above all else, I support admin discretion in all of this. Player entitlement is real and kind-of disheartens me sometimes, so it certainly should never be a mandate to give out tokens, even in the event of fuck-ups.

[DrAmazing343]

I'd suggest anyone thinking about those when thinking about circumstances under which to give a token ask:
- [in an event] if an antag token was known to be part of the stakes, did everybody in the round get a reasonable chance to participate? (i.e. if you held some player contest for doing something cool, could everyone reasonably get in on that at the point it was offered in the round?)

My only ehhhhhhh is point 2, IDK how I feel about people gaming events knowing that there's an antag reward in it if they participate. Maybe I'm ok with some people not participating if they have to be incentivized to do so.

+1 to this, as well, supporting the whole admin discretion thing. Events are already a treat to the players— if there's an antag token on top of it, that's icing on the cake, and players will start getting antsy (:3) when they smell the sugar. That's no good.

[dendydoom]

there are 2 concerns i have off the bat:

the first is favouritism. currently, when admins inject threat into a round or run an event with antagonists, they pull people randomly from the ghost pool or they engage with whoever has the job or whatever they're targeting in-game. we are encouraged in training to always pick random people over our friends, it is even supported by conduct. with tokens players are exchanging something they specifically were given in order to inhabit an antagonist role that would otherwise be given away randomly and fairly to someone else. there is historically good self-control for this sort of thing from admins, but obviously with less oversight there is more chance for abuse, intentionally or otherwise. the new policy would need to address the terms under which tokens are given out that highlights the importance of fair and considered dispensing of tokens that have tangible in-game benefits.

secondly is, to put it bluntly, entitlement from players around tokens. there is already currently a meme with this rather draconian policy that players expect tokens for anything and everything. while this is currently a joke, i would like to assert the importance of tokens as a rare and special reward that players should not come to expect under certain conditions. if there were to be a re-interpretation of this policy, i would like it to give admins more control over when it's appropriate and valuable to reward a player for something, but in such a way that they know this should still be a rare and unexpected treat that should never be guaranteed.

i would also like to keep antag tokens specifically as rare as possible. if we reach a point where an admin is getting requests every round for someone to use their token on a wizard-blob-nukie, then we have a problem.

[Sightld2]

We can have an antag token allowance, if you will. Maybe just one per month. For your blue moon, epic, sick cool event.

[mrmelbert]

I'm of the opinion that with Dynamic, Antag Tokens are a dated concept, and I don't really think we should be handing out more than we already do.

9 times out of 10 someone asks to redeem a token now-a-days I have to tell them "Eh this round would really suck for you to use this so maybe next time" because I check Dynamic and it's like 85 threat and there's already like 3 rulesets executed and it wouldn't be fair to have them line up some gimmick or neat idea just for it to get nuked.

Antag roles in general are a lot more common now-a-days, such that I feel no real need to give people a "Have a free antag round on me" outside of when we (I) personally fucked them up somehow and I feel guilty over it (crashing the server).

[Timberpoes]

I'm with Melbert on this one. Antag tokens are outdated.

They currently work because other admins rarely redeem them except when the player doesn't request antag and wants a fun trade or the round can actually fit in another antag nicely. And players rarely redeem them because admins either say no or they just forget cuz they get antag often enough anyway.

It's also because they're so darn rare that they can actually be redeemed and have value. If tokens are given out faster than the rate of redemption not only do they get more worthless with time but it can actively feel bad to get one and be repeatedly told no when you want to redeem them.

This year 22 antag tokens have been given out in various forms. 8 have been redeemed. The historic redemption rates of antag tokens given out in 2023 are similar.

So to me they're a bit shit. Promote more positive notes and promote more types of tokens that are actually worth redeeming for the average player (usable any time even when they don't want to be antag) and are worth redeeming for the admin (basically any shifts chaotic or quiet).

The above non-antag reward tokens are free and every headmin term for years has said hand them out freely.

[Higgin]

So to me they're a bit shit. Promote more positive notes and promote more types of tokens that are actually worth redeeming for the average player (usable any time even when they don't want to be antag) and are worth redeeming for the admin (basically any shifts chaotic or quiet).

what sorts of things have you seen claimed or offered as tokens, which work best in your opinion, and how should they be tracked or regulated?

[Timberpoes]

So to me they're a bit shit. Promote more positive notes and promote more types of tokens that are actually worth redeeming for the average player (usable any time even when they don't want to be antag) and are worth redeeming for the admin (basically any shifts chaotic or quiet).

what sorts of things have you seen claimed or offered as tokens, which work best in your opinion, and how should they be tracked or regulated?

It's a difficult question to answer, because it depends heavily on the player or admin in question. I've seen one traded to turn someone into an immortal gondola with the knock spell. I've seen one traded to force the wizard event to make ghosts visible. I've seen one traded by a ghost to become a CC inspector role. I've seen lesser tokens traded for items and misc interactions with admins.

That kinda stuff ended up being so much more cooler and awesome than just +1 antag in the shift. As a hypothetical bonus from the examples listed above all of them could have been redeemed in the same shift so you have an immortal knocking gondola, visible ghosts and a CC inspector all at the same time.

They can also still be traded in by an antag that wants a boost towards a gimmick and can allow promotion of one antag type to another more readily. (I.e. trading a token in to go from heretic to tot, or trading a token in to go from tot to wizard, etc.) which admins are otherwise far less likely to entertain.

In my opinion these tokens tend to be healther for the game overall than antag tokens. They're a token type that encourages the best of SS13 - unique player<->DM<->gameworld interactions.

Tracking and regulating those kinds of notes isn't important because admins are kinda encouraged to do this sort of stuff anyway in the guise of events. It is all part of the admin team's expected interaction with shifts. That's why they're considered so free.

Being given out so freely also allows them to be used freely, because there's a good chance if you're a good player that gets involved with stuff admins like to see, that you'll be able to pick up another one at some point in the future.

[spookuni]

The issue with favouritism, both true and optical, has already been brought up in regards to why this is probably not the best idea, but I think it's worth it to also raise the issue of inverse favouritism when it comes to the fairness associated with opening admin tokens up more broadly.

To explain as succinctly as I can - is it fair to the friends of admins, and people well liked by the admin team in general, that they would effectively end up locked out of a rewards program for good contributions to the server to prevent optical or actual issues with bias and conflict of interest inherent in that discretionary rewards program?

To say nothing of the deeper issue of actual biased decision making and nepotism, the optics of an admin materially rewarding their friends entirely at their own discretion are never going to avoid drumming up resentment, and the only way to entirely avoid that would be to never do it. A resolution which (in my eyes at least) unfairly excludes a bunch of players from what is now material reward for invested effort and good behaviour.

I don't really see a way to square this circle when talking on a macro level about a tangible rewards program with entirely discretionary entry criteria, some individual choices by admins will almost certainly be able to be explained with reference on demand to some reasonably internally consistent or objective criteria for award, but as a whole either admins are giving rewards to people they like or they're actively avoiding doing that and either way the system isn't fair to somebody.

(And while I mention friendships a lot, players don't need to explicitly be direct friends with an admin or admins for the admin team in general to like them, being a good player is often a good way to get the admin team liking you in general to be quite honest, and that's the type of thing we apparently want to reward directly and materially, which is extra food for thought)

(Also extra note that's far less relevant since it only extends to ~100 people instead of many more that either play consistently on or float in and out of tg, but wew lad the optics on whether or not to give an actual admin (or even a retired in good standing admin) an antag token for doing good shit outside of their capacity as an admin, the easy way to avoid that entirely is to hard lock admins out of giving tokens to other admins on discretion - but that lends itself to a microcosm of the same issue discussed above)

[conrad]

This idea of trust and favouritism is very simply put to bed by the fact that any admin can at any time for any reason gift a player with virtually any thing that admin wants, except, apparently, a note that lets adds an antag datum for them in the future.

I could give someone a pulse rifle token to be claimed as antag so they can bone, a reactive armor token, a generic gamer gear token that will give a future admin a headache, a token that adds 20 TC to they uplink. Heck I could elevate someone to antag without a token and call it an event.

Except these things, when it's clearly abuse and favouritism, don't happen. And if they do, they are either poorly monitored (which they aren't, as we have admins that will pull you by the ear if you so much as sneeze wrong), or admins are sneaky enough that nobody sees them. Which they can't be, because we have PLAYERS, who have way less tools than we do, that pull you by the ear if you pull off shit like this.

If anything is dated, it's the directive, and if you want to keep things fair, the proposal should include the aspect of randomness: you give out tokens based on an outcome that is random and fair (i.e.: ghost pool recruitment, or an event available to everyone, or at least most people, on the station).

I personally think it's unecessary, because if this precedent of trust is so real we should be limiting moreso than allowing. Meanwhile the concept of upholding something from six years ago that is clearly dated holds absolutely no ground.

[Timberpoes]

I'm going to leak part of the conclusion on this in the admin subforums from when the policy was first introduced back in 2017:

Tue Jan 31, 2017 1:37 am
Things change as time went on. It went from willy nilly Admins giving them out for events, to not give out, to it's okay to give out here, then now it's not okay. Obviously you been here longer so you've seen the different standing orders from a time when I was just the lowly player.

As far as long as I've been an admin it's always been reserved for very rare occasions when an admin seriously fucks up by ending the round prematurely and there wasn't really anything redeeming about the fuck up; in that people couldn't even play the round or get some enjoyment out of it. E.G. accidentally hitting reboot and then somehow like a doofus accepting yes on the prompt. That at least deserves some recompense for the error, but as my post says it's best to try avoid giving them altogether when you can pull in the same players from the round you fucked up and antag them again.

I never given one during my time as an admin nor will I likely give one even though I'm in a position to give "fun" ones. Just handing out antagonist for some half-assed event is poor form.

The policy itself accomplished its original objective. Heavily restricting admin freedom to hand out antag tokens. It has created a culture where admins think very carefully before handing out antag tokens. That is a good thing.

Handing out antagonist for some half-assed event is still poor form.

We can do better than this and we should. Antag tokens should either be given to compensate genuine loss of antag due to an admin doing a very serious fucky-wucky, or as an incentive for community drives. March into Mapness, Bar Sign contest, Wiki Drives, players repeatedly organising events IC, that sorta stuff.

They shouldn't be given out because individual admins lack the imagination to do anything more cool for the player than just go "Lol, I can't think of anything fun so free antag hashtag low effort"

[conrad]

They shouldn't be given out because individual admins lack the imagination to do anything more cool for the player than just go "Lol, I can't think of anything fun so free antag hashtag low effort"

Could we perhaps not resort to explaining the history and/or pursuing the upholding of a directive through calling admins uncreative? That seems largely unnecessary.

"lmao anteg token" for something inocuous is bad, yes. I don't think anyone who agrees with a change in restriction, or has doubts and could be swayed is willing to die on the hill that it would be used for unimpressive circumstances or just plain breach of conduct like giving them to your friends.

The servers, and especially the admin team regarding this subject, are not the same as they were in 2017.

[Timberpoes]

Antag tokens are the uncreative solution. They were the uncreative solution in 2017, they're the uncreative solution in 2024 and they'll be the uncreative solution for the rest of time. Defaulting to antag tokens as a reward for players that do something above average IC is so uncreative that it's almost meme-worthy.

I would prefer admins genuinely think about what they're giving players and pick thematic rewards that match the IC accomplishments.

Winning a toolbox battle royale shouldn't be free antag, but it could be the ability to request a pimped out golden toolbox with a bit of extra robustness and some gamer tools in it during a future shift. Someone who roleplays well in an event could get a CC intern token where they can request an admin send them to the station as a CC role. A clown that puts on a good show for the crew should get a drip token to enable a future gimmick.

That way antag tokens can still be used when it matters the most - an admin fucks up or a player does good stuff OOC. When you're handing out tokens en mass, that uncreative generic nature is useful. Everyone gets the same. And their rarity makes them easier to redeem on any shift, admins generally tend to respect that for good antag tokens.

[Vekter]

So to me they're a bit shit. Promote more positive notes and promote more types of tokens that are actually worth redeeming for the average player (usable any time even when they don't want to be antag) and are worth redeeming for the admin (basically any shifts chaotic or quiet).

what sorts of things have you seen claimed or offered as tokens, which work best in your opinion, and how should they be tracked or regulated?

I have given out "Vekter Tokens" before that are basically just license for me to help them with a gimmick that makes me laugh. Effectively it gives them the right to ask me for any one non-gamebreaking item that will help them do a gimmick that I find entertaining or funny.

[dendydoom]

i would like to attempt to drill down a bit more and instead of pontificating about the nature of tokens or that the current policy is strict, let's try to address what we are specifically trying to achieve with this new interpretation.

the first consideration is that the terms for an antag token currently are for an admin's discretion when they have directly done something to ruin a round which cost specific players their antag roll. in enforcing it in this way, the insinuation is that you are being reimbursed for something that was unduly taken from you outside of your control.

changing the terms of how antag tokens are given will change our entire mindset around antag tokens in general.

the OP says:

I believe this is out-of-date. I believe this is an overly-harsh guideline for how we should use antag tokens. I know at least 2 admins who have gone against the policy as written and haven't been punished. Having rules that we don't use is pointless.

My draft proposal would be something like "Antag tokens are special and shouldn't be given out for free. Antag tokens, as previously, should be considered to be given out when an admin fucks up a players round. Admins are not mandated to do so. Antag tokens may also be used to reward players for behaviours we want to encourage."

the main component of the proposed change is "Antag tokens may also be used to reward players for behaviours we want to encourage."

what specific kinds of things do admins currently feel like they should be rewarding players for with antag tokens?

why specifically antag tokens over other kind of rewards?

what is the impact of using rewards in this way on how antags are distributed? could it have an effect on rounds through things like lots of people having antag tokens = more antags on average derived from reclaiming tokens, or players who make more of a fuss about tokens getting them more, or admin favourites getting a disproportionate amount of rewards?

is there anything to be said about the possible variance in standard between admins? should there be a maximum? if someone is too lenient with tokens, should another admin be able to call them out on it and have a valid point?

what would the impact be of a greater culture of antag tokens being given out = more antag tokens being redeemed regularly = more antags sourced not from events or random dynamic pulling from the ghost pool, but rather eager volunteers cashing in their tokens?

[vect0r]

As a player I would rather get a cool positive note for something cool I did instead of an antag token. One is cool and unique and the other is just "you get heretic lmao".

[WineAllWine]

As a player I would rather get a cool positive note for something cool I did instead of an antag token. One is cool and unique and the other is just "you get heretic lmao".

By definition an antag token is a positive note. The difference would be this:

positive note: "Did a really good roleplay job as a centcom inspector!"

antag token: "Antag token for doing a really good job as a centcom inspector! status: REDEEMED in round 42069"

-------------------

I'd end up happy if the end result of this was some policy regarding non-antag-tokens. But then kinda, what does that mean? can I give out gib() token? a supermatter sword? barnyard curse? a nice pair of shoes? I'm being a bit glib here but I think my main point is why are some of those things okay for admins to give out but a BB is beyond the pail? The whole point is that we trust admins to be DMs. we can trust them to give out appropriate antag tokens.

If useful and good non-antag-admin-tokens are allowed then we can throw the favouritism argument out of the window.

So the remaining argument to me seems to be "antag tokens just aren't that interesting" -> So? We let admins do really boring "events" all the time. Whether it's just kicking dynamic to do something or forcing clown ops. These aren't cool or original but they're good.

I guess there is another argument of "it might upset antag balance in rounds" but as I mentioned above admins meddle with antags all the time. Just this week I spawned some nuke ops with a debug uplink. (Trust me the station deserved it)

[Timberpoes]

Policy since at least Moth/Melb/Poes has been that non-antag tokens are free. Unrestricted. Give them out to your heart's leisure. I haven't seen a headmin term yet which has opposed that, and it looks like non-antag tokens were the solution back in 2017 as well.

I've never seen a headmin tell an admin off for giving a non-antag token, I've never seen a headmin say admins shouldn't give non-antag tokens, I've seen (and been) headmins tell admins to give out more non-antag tokens and more positive notes.

I'd rather let antag tokens fulfill their two niches - rewards for out-of-game contributions and compensation when an admin totally fucks a shift up.

And the solution also seems to be to use more positive notes and non-antag tokens in their place. Which are free. And can be tailored in scope to the level of effort the player put in to earn it. And don't need policy on because they're just treated at the same level as positive notes - admins are eternally encouraged to give them out more and admins never do.

[spookuni]

I'd end up happy if the end result of this was some policy regarding non-antag-tokens. But then kinda, what does that mean? can I give out gib() token? a supermatter sword? barnyard curse? a nice pair of shoes? I'm being a bit glib here but I think my main point is why are some of those things okay for admins to give out but a BB is beyond the pail? The whole point is that we trust admins to be DMs. we can trust them to give out appropriate antag tokens.

If useful and good non-antag-admin-tokens are allowed then we can throw the favouritism argument out of the window.

So the remaining argument to me seems to be "antag tokens just aren't that interesting" -> So? We let admins do really boring "events" all the time. Whether it's just kicking dynamic to do something or forcing clown ops. These aren't cool or original but they're good.

I guess there is another argument of "it might upset antag balance in rounds" but as I mentioned above admins meddle with antags all the time. Just this week I spawned some nuke ops with a debug uplink. (Trust me the station deserved it)

I would raise points of contention with both of the highlighted statements.

Admin tokens for gimmicks or admin investment in minor stuff are (mostly) significantly less combative with the rest of what's going on in a given round, there's less of an argument for favouritism when they're directly a positive note mixed with a personal marker for "yeah I'll help you do something cool". That layer of protection doesn't apply so much to a set and forget injection of an antagonistic... antagonist (the part of my brain that pretends to be a thesaurus has failed me).

In addition, and applying even more to the second point than the first (though applying on some level to both points). Antag tokens are nominally intended to be redeemable by other admins and in other rounds (A trait obviously not shared by single-admin gimmick tokens) - admins should be meddling with antags and acting as dms to keep rounds interesting, but that gets a bit more awkward when talking about assigning antags for other admins to inject in other rounds, crossing out of the territory of a DM making the game more interesting there. Those other admins have the absolute ability to reject the redemption of an antag token but as others have pointed out, relying on that to be the main moderator for cross-round antag injection is going to end up being a source of disappointment when/if tokens essentially become 'beg admins for antag with slightly more chance of success than normal'

[WineAllWine]

I would raise points of contention with both of the highlighted statements.

Admin tokens for gimmicks or admin investment in minor stuff are (mostly) significantly less combative with the rest of what's going on in a given round, there's less of an argument for favouritism when they're directly a positive note mixed with a personal marker for "yeah I'll help you do something cool". That layer of protection doesn't apply so much to a set and forget injection of an antagonistic... antagonist (the part of my brain that pretends to be a thesaurus has failed me).

In addition, and applying even more to the second point than the first (though applying on some level to both points). Antag tokens are nominally intended to be redeemable by other admins and in other rounds (A trait obviously not shared by single-admin gimmick tokens) - admins should be meddling with antags and acting as dms to keep rounds interesting, but that gets a bit more awkward when talking about assigning antags for other admins to inject in other rounds, crossing out of the territory of a DM making the game more interesting there. Those other admins have the absolute ability to reject the redemption of an antag token but as others have pointed out, relying on that to be the main moderator for cross-round antag injection is going to end up being a source of disappointment when/if tokens essentially become 'beg admins for antag with slightly more chance of success than normal'

Thanks for engaging with this post.

I'm afraid I really don't agree on your points but I accept my poor reading comprehension might be on the line.

favouritism: Is this "antag tokens are better than other kinds of tokens"? I think there's loads of tokens that I could give/ ask for that would be more gratefully received than an antag token.

or is it "WIne should only be able to give wine tokens that are resolved by wine". This I would also be fine with, but I think needs codifying. And, again, limiting. Can a wine token be resolved by giving someone a hypnoflash? Or a slave? Or making them the third in a BB?

Personally for both of the above if I were to give a token I trust that the admin being asked to redeem it, do so in a responsible manner [edit: this sentence reworded to clarify]

Your second point I understand less but I think it comes down to Undervaluing antag tokens

to which the answer is "okay"

[Constellado]

As a player I would rather get a cool positive note for something cool I did instead of an antag token. One is cool and unique and the other is just "you get heretic lmao".

I agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment.

Positive notes ain't given out much so I don't expect adding the ability to put tokens to change that. Maybe? Hey if it makes it so admins are more likely to put a positive note I am all for it.

I think antag tokens should be sent in these scenarios in my opinion:
1: You ruined an antags round. Either by an event or ruining their greentext because you sent in a deathsquad.
2: You totally fucked up the round oh god the server is unplayable. Antag token to all antags.
3: Competitions. Especially the OOC ones such as art or coding competitions.

Somebody did something cool in a round? Positive note imho.
The non antag token drag came up with is very smart for if you ruined a player's round and they were not an antag, though.

[WineAllWine]

Policy since at least Moth/Melb/Poes has been that non-antag tokens are free. Unrestricted. Give them out to your heart's leisure. I haven't seen a headmin term yet which has opposed that, and it looks like non-antag tokens were the solution back in 2017 as well.

I've never seen a headmin tell an admin off for giving a non-antag token, I've never seen a headmin say admins shouldn't give non-antag tokens, I've seen (and been) headmins tell admins to give out more non-antag tokens and more positive notes.

I'd rather let antag tokens fulfill their two niches - rewards for out-of-game contributions and compensation when an admin totally fucks a shift up.

And the solution also seems to be to use more positive notes and non-antag tokens in their place. Which are free. And can be tailored in scope to the level of effort the player put in to earn it. And don't need policy on because they're just treated at the same level as positive notes - admins are eternally encouraged to give them out more and admins never do.

I am not criticising you or any headmin term since 2017 but the very harsh wording of the antag token ruling has made me incredibly reluctant to award any kind of token even when I'd like to. If we could get a headmin statement of "antag tokens are still the same but feel free to give out other tokens" that would be a huge improvement.

[WineAllWine]

I was even given one token by a headmin to give out a non-antag token. I haven't given it out because I've been saving it, assuming it's the only one I'm allowed to give out
edit:

(1) Tattle Token: allows you to give (1) meme token to a good player

[vect0r]

As a player I would rather get a cool positive note for something cool I did instead of an antag token. One is cool and unique and the other is just "you get heretic lmao".

By definition an antag token is a positive note. The difference would be this:

positive note: "Did a really good roleplay job as a centcom inspector!"

antag token: "Antag token for doing a really good job as a centcom inspector! status: REDEEMED in round 42069"

-------------------

I'd end up happy if the end result of this was some policy regarding non-antag-tokens. But then kinda, what does that mean? can I give out gib() token? a supermatter sword? barnyard curse? a nice pair of shoes? I'm being a bit glib here but I think my main point is why are some of those things okay for admins to give out but a BB is beyond the pail? The whole point is that we trust admins to be DMs. we can trust them to give out appropriate antag tokens.

If useful and good non-antag-admin-tokens are allowed then we can throw the favouritism argument out of the window.

So the remaining argument to me seems to be "antag tokens just aren't that interesting" -> So? We let admins do really boring "events" all the time. Whether it's just kicking dynamic to do something or forcing clown ops. These aren't cool or original but they're good.

I guess there is another argument of "it might upset antag balance in rounds" but as I mentioned above admins meddle with antags all the time. Just this week I spawned some nuke ops with a debug uplink. (Trust me the station deserved it)

Yeah ik it’s a positive note, but one feels more personal. Idk how to explain it.

[WineAllWine]

Yeah ik it’s a positive note, but one feels more personal. Idk how to explain it.

I'm afraid I simply don't understand how "thanks for doing this cool thing, I like you for it!" is not strictly worse than "thanks for doing this cool thing, I like you for it, and here's a present for doing so!"

[dendydoom]

my experience so far is that we're self policing on this kind of stuff. there are admins who give out antag tokens. i'm not really interested in digging up the reasons why so far after the fact, it's not that huge of a deal. but trying my best so summarize my thoughts concisely: it's better that antag tokens are a rare and valuable thing and not a viable way to get antag instead of rolling it.

tokens are a persistent award that grant tangible power over the game. there are admins who give out tokens for fuck ups or as rewards for things already, and it seems everyone has been fine about controlling themselves on it? if you're looking for reassurance that giving out an antag token won't get you in huge major terrible trouble, then i personally don't really mind as long as you're sensible about it, as you seem to be already!

[WineAllWine]

my experience so far is that we're self policing on this kind of stuff. there are admins who give out antag tokens. i'm not really interested in digging up the reasons why so far after the fact, it's not that huge of a deal. but trying my best so summarize my thoughts concisely: it's better that antag tokens are a rare and valuable thing and not a viable way to get antag instead of rolling it.

tokens are a persistent award that grant tangible power over the game. there are admins who give out tokens for fuck ups or as rewards for things already, and it seems everyone has been fine about controlling themselves on it? if you're looking for reassurance that giving out an antag token won't get you in huge major terrible trouble, then i personally don't really mind as long as you're sensible about it, as you seem to be already!

Again, I disagree.

There are admins that are literally going against the rules as written. I firmly believe this shouldn't happen.

Maybe non-antag-tokens are allowed but the ruling on antag-tokens is so scared that I for one am reluctant to give them out, even when I'd love to. A headmin executive order can fix both points.

[Constellado]

Yeah ik it’s a positive note, but one feels more personal. Idk how to explain it.

I'm afraid I simply don't understand how "thanks for doing this cool thing, I like you for it!" is not strictly worse than "thanks for doing this cool thing, I like you for it, and here's a present for doing so!"

I think it's due to how antag tokens are written. It has to be written in a specific way which makes it feel robotic. There are ways to write them in a friendly and personal way though so I don't mind as much.

I do get where they are coming from though, and it is indeed hard to explain.

[WineAllWine]

Yeah ik it’s a positive note, but one feels more personal. Idk how to explain it.

I'm afraid I simply don't understand how "thanks for doing this cool thing, I like you for it!" is not strictly worse than "thanks for doing this cool thing, I like you for it, and here's a present for doing so!"

I think it's due to how antag tokens are written. It has to be written in a specific way which makes it feel robotic. There are ways to write them in a friendly and personal way though so I don't mind as much.

I do get where they are coming from though, and it is indeed hard to explain.

The good news is that this is incredibly easy to solve. We make it so you can pick. "Would you rather have an antag token or a positive note?"

[Timberpoes]

Positive notes and tokens are independent. You don't have to pick one.

If you intended to give a player positive note, please give them a standalone positive note.

Please don't couple the positive note with a token, as generally we don't treat tokens as positive notes. There's no guarantee the redeeming admin won't edit in a strikethrough for example to show the token has been redeemed.

[TheRex9001]

I’m kinda eh on this, I like unique tokens like ”did something cool redeem for a hat” over just antag tokens. I am also worried there will be issues around high threat rounds were people still want to redeem tokens to the detriment of the round, if a player is denied this it might feel frustrating, I know for sure I’d feel frustrated if my token got denied.