RicardoFort Jobban Hazelnut Thread

[Thunder11]

https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=29000

Discuss.

[oranges]

as long as they don't do it every time they're an antag there's nothing wrong with this interaction, it should have stayed entirely IC.

But a few manuel mins think they are the arbiters of everyone's roleplay style, instead of just the amount of roleplay being done and have this toxic attitude where people need to roleplay exactly how they do, even though there is zero justification to determine how others are roleplaying unless it's crossing a line into being detrimental for the playerbase.

Since this had no negative affect involving yourself in the situation as an admin is laughable

This is the kind of ban that gives people the ability to say "manuel admin" as an insult.

[Thunder11]

I mean banning for not validing someone is the opposite of stereotypical Manuelmin behaviour

[oranges]

no, because those two types of bans stem from the same root cause

"you didn't roleplay this situation like I wanted you to"

They're two sides of the same coin, and it's always expressed in one or the other extreme.

[Jonathan Gupta]

no, because those two types of bans stem from the same root cause

"you didn't roleplay this situation like I wanted you to"

They're two sides of the same coin, and it's always expressed in one or the other extreme.

admins on MRP don't like powergaming and getting antag items as non-antag.

[BONERMASTER]

Good thing this guy never saw my captain on manuel, or I would have been permabanned twice already. And slapping the only sec of the shift for not being a braindead validhunter, I think this banbot might need a reboot.

[IkeTG]

Head roles are expected to have some minimum amount of effort, the HOS is not any different. So within the first ten minutes of the game trading high value objectives to a enemy of the company for syndicate gear back on the hopes to power game with it is not in the spirit of what Manuel is about.

I'm quite confused in how this whole ban revolves around "Minimum effort" of a head role. Is it low effort to step outside of the rigid boundaries of your job as Head of Security and roleplay taking a bribe to help a traitor? Why necessarily is this disallowed?

Under rule 6 of the roleplaying rules, it states the following.

If an antagonist shows a willingness to engage with you, do your best to reciprocate it, though leniency as to their punishment is still in your court.

Giving the rules another clear reading doesn't really suggest you're explicitly compelled against assisting a traitor, so long as you haven't doled out disproportionate justice or the engagement with the crime didn't result in the antag proceeding to murderbone (I may be misreading or misunderstanding rules so take this with a grain of salt.)

It would make more sense if this ban came from roleplay rule 10 or general rule 5, the latter of which states the following.

Abuse of a job position, particularly Rule 1 breaking abuse, is not allowed.

Should the note reflect instead on the player abusing their position as HoS to help a traitor, as opposed to not providing enough effort and neglecting their job? Otherwise, this is essentially saying that the player's actions were on the same level as logging out as head round-start, which is a big of a stretch in my opinion, since one would've had to roleplay out taking a bribe and setting a baseline for the traitor's actions continuing forth. You can't necessarily roleplay the dereliction of one's duties in-character unless you had those duties to begin with.

To further note, does this headmin ruling not extend to Manuel? The situation itself is not too clear to the extent in which the banned player assisted the antag.

Basically, you can assist antags with appropriate ic reasoning but you cant do antag things yourself. In more extreme or unsure cases, ask an admin for go ahead. Bribe are acceptable ic reasoning to assist antags- for more benign cases think tators giving emags to cargo and cargo assisting the tator in buying null crates and such. Looking the other way when a tator kills someone seems fine too, unfortunate if the victim is mad about sec, but that is the price of """rp""""""" sometimes.

In my eyes, as an admittedly out of touch player with a low amount of connections, the MRP I was used to as an old boi was about the emergent gameplay you wouldn't see in a server culture defined by playing to win. Bans like this only serve to undermine that sorta roleplaying by limiting what kind of emergent interactions can happen. Even if this situation had lead to the traitor killing someone while trying to achieve their objectives, I'd find it a bit interesting at least from a MRP perspective to have the HoS then implicated through their helping and then the station having to contend with the implications ICly.

[saprasam]

if the objectives posed next to no threat to the station & the hos got all the TC and the clown's full cooperation i dont see what the issue is

[Malkraz]

FAILRP FAILRP

[Agux909]

Embarrassmin.

[RaveRadbury]

You guys did see the part at the beginning when he put a call out to traitors to come and deliver their uplinks to him?

This wasn't some fortuitous circumstance.

[IkeTG]

You guys did see the part at the beginning when he put a call out to traitors to come and deliver their uplinks to him?

This wasn't some fortuitous circumstance.

What does this change?

[Farquaar]

If anything, the traitor should get beaned for being a friendly :v)

[Tlaltecuhtli]

mrp more like Minimum effort

[Rohen_Tahir]

FAILRP FAILRP

[NoxVS]

If anything, the traitor should get beaned for being a friendly :v)

Agreed

[terranaut]

Head of Security secured enemy high tech prototypes and kept the workers of the station safe? Failrp bro

[Agux909]

This is a deep sad sigh moment. So you try some interesting roleplay scenario which benefits everybody, makes for some funny interactions and would make sense on a silly setting as ss13 and get shit for it because civil protection had to keep up with their beating quota that day.

One can't even be angry at this, it's just plain sad. Hurts to see how wrong I was to defend Manuel so much back when I actually played on it, then realizing where people were coming from about the fake illusion of higher RP standard it ended up being.

-_- y i k e s

[Omega_DarkPotato]

So through talking over general comms, a HoS helped de-escalate a situation that could've ended with a literal bombing of the station, avoided killing anyone, and helped the station's scientific development?

Why is this not a "no harm no foul, interesting way of dealing with an antagonist but remember to keep in mind that you're security and they're an enemy of the corp for future dealings"??
Like, outside of complete round removal, there's not much more you can do to really "neuter" a traitor than remove all of their TC.

[wesoda25]

Eh either outcome would be fine idrc

[BONERMASTER]

Rate my take: rework item objectives to have impact on the station if they get taken and make it severe enough that people are motivated to defend them.

[Omega_DarkPotato]

bad
traitor shouldn't always force people to fight, otherwise the whole stealth aspect gets kind of shafted
forcing people to defend high-sec items would just lead to even more validhunt as "oh no what if tator man steals x item that without it this entire station fails".

[RaveRadbury]

Rate my take: rework item objectives to have impact on the station if they get taken and make it severe enough that people are motivated to defend them.

I like it, don't we have some of that in the form of the SM Shard (delams SM), core (neuters the nuke), and Black Box (I think it messes with data or something?)?

One potential roadbump might be that people will try to pre-emptively/intensely defend the objective in a way that isn't fun.

[terranaut]

Rate my take: rework item objectives to have impact on the station if they get taken and make it severe enough that people are motivated to defend them.

Excellent idea, and remove the garbage objectives like plasmatank. There was much more interesting conflict when the target were unique items like magboots and CM hypospray that actually gave you cool, unique abilities not everybody would have after 25 minutes of research and mining.

[Rohen_Tahir]

Rate my take: rework item objectives to have impact on the station if they get taken and make it severe enough that people are motivated to defend them.

I like it, don't we have some of that in the form of the SM Shard (delams SM), core (neuters the nuke), and Black Box (I think it messes with data or something?)?

One potential roadbump might be that people will try to pre-emptively/intensely defend the objective in a way that isn't fun.

Defending antag objectives for no reason is technically already forbidden by the rules, shouldn't be that much of an issue.

non-antagonists are not allowed to pre-emptively search for, hinder or otherwise seek conflict with antagonists without reasonable prior cause

BTW. Black Box does nothing right now. The machine it's in used to so some weird stuff but that functionality was removed years ago.

[wesoda25]

Rate my take: rework item objectives to have impact on the station if they get taken and make it severe enough that people are motivated to defend them.

Excellent idea, and remove the garbage objectives like plasmatank. There was much more interesting conflict when the target were unique items like magboots and CM hypospray that actually gave you cool, unique abilities not everybody would have after 25 minutes of research and mining.

Agreed, genuinely great idea. A (greater) conflict of interest between the station and steal objectives would be awesome. I think ill make a pr should i have the time

[Tlaltecuhtli]

better idea : rule 4

also

>jannie mad person isnt rping the way he wants
>notes him even if its fine by the rules
>doesnt just give someone else antag to steal the 20tcs back as a DM would

maybe he shouldnt have gone on manuel if he didnt want snooze 2h of nothingburger friendly antags in the first place

[Farquaar]

maybe he shouldnt have gone on manuel if he didnt want snooze 2h of nothingburger friendly antags in the first place

Friendly antags are already soft-banned on Manuel

Rule 5 Precedents:
1. In general, make an effort to roleplay as the antagonist role you've been assigned. If you want to break with what is expected of your role then you can but it should make sense for your character to do this and should create some form of conflict. A traitor immediately outing themselves to security and acting as a regular crewmember for the rest of the round is boring and is a waste of the role. However one who pretends to do so in order to get security gear, falsely imprison their target, and kill them while they are isolated in prison contributes to the round.

[Not-Dorsidarf]

Rate my take: rework item objectives to have impact on the station if they get taken and make it severe enough that people are motivated to defend them.

I like it, don't we have some of that in the form of the SM Shard (delams SM), core (neuters the nuke), and Black Box (I think it messes with data or something?)?

One potential roadbump might be that people will try to pre-emptively/intensely defend the objective in a way that isn't fun.

Defending antag objectives for no reason is technically already forbidden by the rules, shouldn't be that much of an issue.

non-antagonists are not allowed to pre-emptively search for, hinder or otherwise seek conflict with antagonists without reasonable prior cause

I feel that if you put strong negatives to the theft of the item in-round crew would indeed have a very good reason to defend them, because it doesnt matter if the thief is a greyshit or an antag if centcom confiscates all your money for its loss or whatever mechanics are implemented

[Tlaltecuhtli]

maybe he shouldnt have gone on manuel if he didnt want snooze 2h of nothingburger friendly antags in the first place

Friendly antags are already soft-banned on Manuel

Rule 5 Precedents:
1. In general, make an effort to roleplay as the antagonist role you've been assigned. If you want to break with what is expected of your role then you can but it should make sense for your character to do this and should create some form of conflict. A traitor immediately outing themselves to security and acting as a regular crewmember for the rest of the round is boring and is a waste of the role. However one who pretends to do so in order to get security gear, falsely imprison their target, and kill them while they are isolated in prison contributes to the round.

yes clown infringed rule, but hos got noted here

[terranaut]

centcom confiscates all your money for its loss or whatever mechanics are implemented

you're missing the point, the item should intrinsically have value for the station, ie. add an objective that has antags steal the gravity-core which causes the gravgen to be dysfunctional until its put back in. stuff like that.

[Tlaltecuhtli]

centcom confiscates all your money for its loss or whatever mechanics are implemented

you're missing the point, the item should intrinsically have value for the station, ie. add an objective that has antags steal the gravity-core which causes the gravgen to be dysfunctional until its put back in. stuff like that.

i think it would be better if traitor could choose their style of objs [which means they can also get preferences on discount types to fit better the style they want] maybe knit it to the old ''''lore'''' like i think lla had once where like u could choose s.e.l.f faction to get more silicon related objs etc? and then work on improve styles with unique objs and special interaction like choosing gorlax would give u discount of bone items and special objective to call lone ops by comm console etc

[wesoda25]

centcom confiscates all your money for its loss or whatever mechanics are implemented

you're missing the point, the item should intrinsically have value for the station, ie. add an objective that has antags steal the gravity-core which causes the gravgen to be dysfunctional until its put back in. stuff like that.

Wtf thats what my idea was

[terranaut]

centcom confiscates all your money for its loss or whatever mechanics are implemented

you're missing the point, the item should intrinsically have value for the station, ie. add an objective that has antags steal the gravity-core which causes the gravgen to be dysfunctional until its put back in. stuff like that.

Wtf thats what my idea was

I'll let you code it and take credit :o)