Page 1 of 1

Community Meeting III

PostPosted: Sat Apr 13, 2019 10:31 pm
by wubli
Image
Community Meeting III


(Big thanks to Dorsidwarf for the art)
Recording of (most) of the meeting, thanks to Names are Hard!
These are the notes we got from the community meeting held on discord on April 13th.

Wubli's notes:

[Streaming Policy]
Delay of 5-20 minutes, one hour, not allowed at all. Team antags streaming is impossible.
Delay kills chat interaction. Restrictions? Non antag, pacifist quirk.
Events like Summer Ball, Charity events and such can be an exception to the rule in case it’s disallowed.

[Nuke Ops ending on antag death]
Ruins paranoia.
It should end during war ops, but not stealth ops.
If most people die and the station becomes uninhabitable, no one’s there to call the shuttle and people end up sitting in dchat.

[Roundstart AI Lawsets]
Silicon policy is a fucky wucky!
Very small chance of alternative lawsets.
Let AIs choose whether or not they want guaranteed ASIMOV or a chance to roll other lawsets.
If added, the alternative lawsets shouldn't be anything inherently harmful. (Paladin, Tyrant)

[Population Caps on the servers]
???????????
Overflow servers??????? I kind of died in here.

[Playtime restriction for Heads of Staff]
A Chief Engineer, who should know how to set up the engine and atmos, should require more than 3 hours.
Ranging from 10 hours to 20.
Hours in that department, or hours in each job of the department?
Captain should have playtime on every head as requirement.
AI should have playtime for every department because it's very important the AI understands what's going on, why it's happening and what the players are doing.
Apprentice roles, something to work on with coders.

[Hivemind remaining within the game]
Mixed feelings, better to make a poll.

TribeOfBeavers's notes (Naatli)

[Streaming policy]
"Dirty Lizard Miner" - it's obvious when people stream snipe
Hulk- "nah, not always"
Seems controversial in chat, debate about delays
Hulk - Turn off team antags?
Terl. - Too easy to metagame and hide it, anybody watching gets a lot of knowledge they would have to tiptoe around using, metagangs form around streamer
John Crabs - Good idea to stream but add restrictions, significant time delay. Get admin permission/oversight first
Macho Man Zinc - Streamers wouldn't agree with higher delays. Blur out server you're on etc possibly to make it harder for others to join and meta
Terranaut - Antags off and pacifist on? - No real resolution
"Advertising stream in OOC?" - Negative response, encouraging metacomms

[Nuge awps round ends on death of antags]
Dirty Lizard Miner again - Shouldn't end round if nuke is active but otherwise should (I think that's how it works)
John Crabs - Nuke ops should end, wizard etc should as the wizard often insta-dies. Allows for easier metagaming with wizard- "Interesting point, but keep it to wizard"
Arcane - End during War ops, not during stealth/normal ops
Chat person i didn't get the name of - Not ending the round allows for more stuff to happen/opportunities for interesting situations
Terl. - Not ending it turns into secret extended, which they didn't like. (Controversial opinion in the chat)
RaveRadbury - Split it based on server - Hulk hesitant on creating confusion by splitting server config, didn't want to force a culture change on a server
John Crabs - Give the crew the freedom to choose to end the round or not
Repairing the station instead of leaving immedietly is controversial but fairly popular too
Karp - When nukeops die the station is completely wrecked usually, not a good environment for roleplay etc.
Kenky - Also supportive of letting it play out and giving the players the option of ending it or not via the shuttle
Tyrone Darksaber - Survival situation after nuke ops is boring for a lot of the station role, can't RP and don't have the tools to assist
Karp again - Need both chaotic and rp game modes

[Randomize Roundstart AI Lawsets]
Can weight lawsets etc. Problem is that a lot of the current policy is asimov-centric
Miles Rockwell - Supportive of config option, more variety for the AIs and more interesting rounds
Macho Man Zinc - Played on other servers that use this config, found it made things more enjoyable. Varies the round, not just a door opener, more things to consider for crew when interacting with AI
Emergency Reboot Board - better if it's rare
Bod9001 - "Just follow rule 1"
PizzaTiger - Buff to non-human races, nerf to humans
"Should AIs get to pick" - Not something we can do, code thingy
Terranaut - Supportive of enabling it, mostly restated points. Asimov AI acts as an opposing force to sec, changes could affect that
Namvar - Certain gamemodes would be affected - Rev, Wizard, Nuke ops - Validhunting AIs would side with the crew every time and affect game balance
HolyCheeseduck - change would force people out of entrenched routines, positive. Asimov should be more weighted than the other sets
Karp - rework silicon policy to be based around following the lawsets
Miles Rockwell - If Ai law choice is added - Asimov, Crewsimov, Corporate, Paladin
Some discussion on Paladin etc being validhunt-y

[Population caps]
In place due to influx of players, maintain server culture (Sybil having lower pop etc)
Whatstaunt - Wrong topic, was discussing heads of staff thing early. But they said there is no need for time stuff since the heads don't really do anything anyway
RaveRadbury - Rather than popcaps, allow people in as passive roles or observers (pAI etc)
MSO - Two reasons for cap - hardware and experience, hardware is mostly solved, more overflow servers to be added to help with the second (not having 180 pop on a single server), really lowpop servers possibly added
(Some discussion of DDOS, attack actually like 30gigabits or something dumb like that)
"Event Hall on Hubs" - Somewhat controversial, no resolution reached really

[Playtime restrictions for Heads of Staff]
Nervere - Event Hall staff in particular are bad and don't lead, just cause trouble. Need higher times, 10 hours suggested
John Crabs - Have a larger impact on the round, act as role models for newer players, supports increasing times
MSO - Going through the HoP is intentional and allowed
Macho Man Zinc - 10 hours is unreasonable, admins should jobban more | Nervere- Don't want to punish new players who are making a good faith effort and messed up
Kenky - 10 hours is annoying for experienced players moving in from other servers. | MSO,Nervere - Can provide overrides to those cases, can also base the limit on byond account age rather than the server time
Terrranaut - Flat amount is unreasonable, should require experience on certain jobs within the department. Atmos for CE etc.
Nigel Farage - New heads lack "social quality", not sure what was going on with this one
General chatter is supportive of increasing hours requiremets
oranges - Assistants -> Tourists, locked to new players
Some people saying that restrictions won't stop bad players, still need jobbans etc. Only stops new players
Nervere, Hulk - No whitelists ever, community too large
Space Law discussion for some reason, headmins not in favour of making it an ooc requirement unless it's cleaned up and the community voted it in

[Hivemind]
The Stalker - Rework or move features to other existing antags
Emergency Reboot Board - Unfun to play as or against, no counterplay, no way to prevent being vessel'd.
Crew doesn't get to really interact
"Maybe make it a secondary antag" | Nervere - hesitant due to Lings + Traitors being bad
Zinc - round not enjoyable, should consider removing it
Kenky - (missed most of this) - implimentation has changed from original intentions, would likely work better on higher roleplay servers etc.
John Crabs - Doesn't add to the round, not fun to fight or be
Headmins plan to do IRV vote on it etc

__________________________________________________


Consider this a thread for feedback! Tell us what you thought of the meeting, and if you have any suggestions for the next ones!
Thank you for attending. :heart:

Image

Re: Community Meeting III

PostPosted: Sat Apr 13, 2019 10:34 pm
by terranaut
reminder that our current silicon policy is awful to read and i have a rewrite available that should replace what we have
https://tgstation13.org/wiki/User:Terranaut


also captain should have command experience on every command job
also AI should have at least basic department experience

Re: Community Meeting III

PostPosted: Sat Apr 13, 2019 10:44 pm
by Shadowflame909
My thoughts on this is that hulkamania still hasn't addressed the scrungularity voice text

Re: Community Meeting III

PostPosted: Sat Apr 13, 2019 10:51 pm
by MrStonedOne
i got as far as
It is possible to use precise wording to create a loophole in a law. The "OneHuman" law, for example, defines a single person as the only human, thus making them the sole person on the station an Asimov AI has to care about. An AI with antagonist status is exempt from this - their antagonist law takes priority and they are allowed to ignore any other laws as well as attempts at containing it with loopholes.
before i had to stop.

I get why this is easier for some players to understand, the issue is it complete obfuscates the actual distinction: Definition vs instruction laws.

It works more like a guide to silicon policy and less like the actual policy.

Re: Community Meeting III

PostPosted: Sat Apr 13, 2019 11:09 pm
by terranaut
MrStonedOne wrote:i got as far as
It is possible to use precise wording to create a loophole in a law. The "OneHuman" law, for example, defines a single person as the only human, thus making them the sole person on the station an Asimov AI has to care about. An AI with antagonist status is exempt from this - their antagonist law takes priority and they are allowed to ignore any other laws as well as attempts at containing it with loopholes.
before i had to stop.

I get why this is easier for some players to understand, the issue is it complete obfuscates the actual distinction: Definition vs instruction laws.

It works more like a guide to silicon policy and less like the actual policy.

I honestly don't feel like that distinction is really important given the rest of the policy and maybe rubbing two braincells together covers those cases.
If there's a direct law conflict, the higher ranking law will take priority.
If you have an instruction law "kill all humans" and an instruction law "don't harm humans" then the higher one takes priority.
If you have a definition law saying "Only George Melons is human" and a definition law saying "All Felinids, Lizardpeople and Moths are also considered human" then the higher one takes priority.
If you have two opposing traitors, one defining himself as OneHuman and the other instructing the AI to kill all humans then that is also a clear case.

If I missunderstand what you mean then please explain, but I don't think this particular case is an issue.

Re: Community Meeting III

PostPosted: Sun Apr 14, 2019 12:49 am
by MrStonedOne
Current Silicon policy calls out that distinction though.


Only commands/requirements ("Do X"; "You must always Y") can conflict with other commands and requirements.
Only definitions ("All X are Y"; "No W are Z"; "Only P is Q") can conflict with other definitions.


This is spelled out because it has to be spelled out because we still get people confused about how a law 4 law that says somebody is not human or only somebody is human works.

They see it as "overriding" law 1 and in their mind that's the same as conflicting with law 1.

Re: Community Meeting III

PostPosted: Sun Apr 14, 2019 1:13 am
by terranaut
I've thankfully only seen that happen once but you're not wrong, I've changed the wording to reflect that better.

Re: Community Meeting III

PostPosted: Tue Apr 16, 2019 12:51 am
by bobbahbrown
If anyone is interested I had also recorded the community meeting -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cyr_gcVHPlU

I also admittedly started recording immediately after Hulk said the first question