Nonhuman heads of staff?

[TheLoLSwat]

Yay or nay? Why?

[DrAmazing343]

Very much yay. If I could change the config to force only humans for HoS and the Captain, I think I'd still keep that on, but I find the idea of an Asimov AI grappling with or otherwise interacting with nonhuman heads quite an interesting one. Likewise, I think it's important for a lot of our players to play the characters they'd like to play in the roles they'd like to play them, even if Captain and HoS feel like they could never really have a nonhuman hold the position within the lore. I think pushing against the commonly accepted lore in the interest of gameplay and enjoyment is an okay sacrifice to make here, and I hope that one of the candidates that is elected manages to make it a reality, even if only to try a test-run.

I've seen lots of arguments for and against it, but at the end of it all, I just think it'd be FUN to try, and it's worth a shot to try it out for a spin! Maybe server-by-server settings, maybe we find it causes too many issues in the first place. Or, maybe we find a compromise or a code solution in the meantime, and can make it work one way or another. I couldn't NOT say yay here.

[TheRex9001]

Meh. I wouldnt fight for it or block it. If there is strong support for it I would poll players if they want it, test it for a week or two, poll again and based on those results set it to 0 or 1. Nonhuman heads of staff arent something I feel very strongly about because I usually see a full command team and multiple command statics, so I never saw a very urgent need to have it implemented. What matters most is just if its fun.

[Lacran]

I'm fine with more non human heads but I still think human supremacy should be a core component of the setting, so I'd be against the captain being non human. I think keeping systemic discrimination helps grant meaningful flavour and experiences to non humans, removing that makes them feel more like character skins, and less like characters with fundamentally different lived experiences and perspectives from humans.

I think entirely nonhuman heads will basically require us to no longer have Asimov, as non human rds and captains are going to constantly try to fuck with their laws. Personally I value Asimov a.i over non human heads significantly. I think having an all non human head team, with an a.i able to kill/impede them if any assistant asks is a pretty jarring and awkward lore setting.

The way I see it, CMO and C.E are a hard yes. HoS, RD and HoP are a tentative yes and Captain is a hard no.

[TheBibleMelts]

job weights based on species could be funny. humans will always win the roundstart rolling for command vs nonhumans, but give nonhumans an edge in other departments.

moths get medbay weight.
plasmemes get engi/atmos weight.
lizards get security/mining weight.
ethereals get science weight.
felinids get prisoner weight.

[Dax Dupont]

I would run a poll for it but personally I'm in favor.

[Itseasytosee2me]

I stand with the conviction that human supremacy is an interesting theme of our setting, of which we have so few, and I would be opposed to removing it.

That said, I don't mind changing the hard ban we have on nonhuman taking head positions, but I don't want to just change the config to yes. I'd be open to letting more heads be potentially run by nonhumans, or have more special circumstances in which nonhuman can be heads or whatever, but much of that relies on code that is currently not available.

[ekaterina]

I lean against it, both to preserve the theme of the setting and because of the mechanical vulnerability regarding Asimov.

However, if I find that more players want it than not, I'd support this change.

[xzero314]

Non human heads of staff is just a config change and doing it on only one server and not the others is very possible should only one server want this.

From what I understand a large resistance to the change is the History of TG. TG has always had human authority to my knowledge and gone with the Lore setting of having it. So for many people the idea of changing this at all is a hard no sell. There is nothing wrong with that opinion either. Its reasonable to want to keep the game how it has been. I don't play non human characters at all personally.

From my experience in the community, there are many players that would see new life breathed into the game for them if they could play their favorite non human statics as command.

I do have personal reservations. I am a huge fan of keeping Asimov++ as our default AI laws. I have no interest at all in losing this. But I also think it is entirely possible to have a playable game with both Non human Command and Asimov as the default lawset.
It may require a MRP rule precedent added to RPR 3 over non human command relawing the ai right away. But I think that is a very feasible solution.

[WineAllWine]

No. Nonhuman heads of staff make everything worse.

[DrAmazing343]

No. Nonhuman heads of staff make everything worse.

Can you expand on your rationale?

[RaveRadbury]

Big firm concrete no from me on this one.

It fundamentally degrades the experience to have this. Go check out stations that do this and have crewsimov. It's really immersion breaking, the non-humans just feel like cosmetic skins.

If that's something you enjoy by all means have at it, but not here.

In-round promotions are always cool.

[WineAllWine]

No. Nonhuman heads of staff make everything worse.

Can you expand on your rationale?

I was being a little hyperbolic but:

- having humans being in charge is fun for lore reasons.
- humans have no other interesting things other than AIs being asimov and heads of staff. It kind of reminds me of TTRPGs where the boring race (humans) win tie breaks by default.

As rave said, in round promotions are the tops and I love it when that happens. My favourite round recently was when I asked the Hop to be the CMO since we didn't have one (and frankly I'm overqualified). He told me to come back in ten minutes. Five minutes later I was made a headrev. I went back and got my promotion. I felt sorry for killing him later.

[Timberpoes]

Not interested because the policy implications are a pain in the ass.

Nonhuman heads will trend the crew towards Crewsimoving the AI. Especially nonhuman RD and nonhuman Cap, whom the AI can just ignore when it comes to upload/AI core open requests.

Silicon policy as written was designed to do the opposite of crew-aligning the AI, keeping it very specifically human aligned. This will likely lead to either a few major changes to silicon policy to accomodate the urge to Crewsimov the AI, or outright making it against the rules to Crewsimov the AI without at least the same level of justification for doing so needed right now.

Anyone can argue "oh but players won't do that!" - but of course they will. Our players are maximum gamers. The first time some random human assistant antag Law 2s the AI to kill the nonhuman head will be the first time players start looking at Crewsimov shiftstart to protect nonhuman command staff.

My solution to anyone looking to be a nonhuman head role is simple. Get promoted. The ultimate IC solution, and if another head appears later you can duke it out IC for supremacy.

Also don't care for references that CC has nonhumans. The reason we have nonhuman CC staff is because our admins are just as snowflakey as players when it comes to their statics and we've had to shoehorn in some half-assed doesn't-make-sense lore reason to pretend like it's fine Smells-His-Farts and Dipshitium XP are briefing ERTs and sending command reports.

[DrAmazing343]

Thank you for elaborating!

I understand the concerns about lore integrity, and the argument that getting promoted is the ultimate IC solution— but at the end of the day, I still would LOVE the spice and drama that would come from the dynamic between nonhuman heads and the silicate overlords. I would be willing to hammer out Silipol (my beloathed) on the matter, but above all else, I'd like to field-test it for a month or two at the very least to see what the implications on the game-space would be.

I still think Crewsimov would be abysmal dogshit, alongside the rest of you, and allowing nonhuman heads WOULD inevitably make people want it, but I believe that by managing our policies appropriately while still allowing this new mode of gameplay, we can break new ground while making a significant amount of players happy. IC promotions are all well and good, but oftentimes the Head slot is already taken, and when it's not it's a damn hassle to do round after round after round for nonhuman players that have done this for hundreds of hours. I think I buy the argument about making alien races more cosmetic than anything, but really, are they not already like that for a lot of people? I'm not on Team Eliminate All Racial Differences, but the differences aren't really felt ingame in terms of head vs. nonhead when damn near any HoP WILL promote a nonhuman to Head without any real fuss vs. specieism, which will not go away with nonhuman heads (and will probably be more prevalent, I'd argue) so I don't think we'd be losing too much here in return for seeing new variables in the formula of the round.

[Timberpoes]

It's spice and drama, but it doesn't vibe like interesting spice and drama.

Allowing nonhuman heads would make the game and setting itself actively worse, and I say this because I grok with why people want to do it. And it's not because they think the standard of Head roles will go down or even stay the same.

A lot of highly skilled, highly competent nonhuman staticnames with established reputations want the opportunities to run their departments to perfection without having to unhook themselves from that one specific nonhuman IC self-insert to play another human IC self-insert. They want no risk of any other player later joining to challenge. Some also don't want to risk entering the shift if they didn't get the Head role.

It's very little to do with the lore or setting or making SS13 better. It's more to let the well known non-human players yank their jerky in the eternal popularity contest, so we don't get a human Head of Staff that's perhaps less knowledgable, less competent or less willing to run their department to absolute perfection.

I like the idea that the Head roles can only be human and may also not be as optimal as the people in their department because the pool is reduced. I enjoy the conflict as players have to navigate around those complicated social situations where they're better than their boss and everyone knows it, but their boss is still their boss. I think it's part of what breathes genuine life and soul into the game, rather than just having the perfect pick at all times in all spots.

That's my take anyway.

[Timberpoes]

As an aside, this isn't something I can promise and to the best of my knowledge can't be configged right now, but I do believe having any head in every department is globally better for gameplay than having none. A fully staffed Command crew makes the game way more interesting.

If the codebase added a more granular config option to prefer human authority - only picking nonhuman head roles if no human is eligible for them, I may be more amenable to activating that over wholesale equality.

But I wouldn't push for it to be added and I don't care about it.

[DrAmazing343]

I’d certainly be more than willing to compromise on something like that, especially in the pursuit of ensuring the Captain and the Head of Security are human-only, but that’s a code solution that I sure as hell have no sway over, and so it’s out of my wheelhouse. I also do think the idea of the underling nonhuman being more skilled and grating under the shitty human command is a neat one thematically, but I feel as though the novelty of the situation for me at least has worn out to the point that I’d like to see the role reversal and/or trials and tribulations that the nonhuman Head would bring to the table concerning the AI and the crew.

I appreciate your input, and I respect the position, but I still think I’d like to hold firm on trying this out of the community chooses to elect me and I can reach a consensus with my fellow Headmins for a test. Thanks for talking about it!