/tg/Station 13

Bottom post of the previous page:

Inexperienced command players are a plague and consistently lower the quality of rounds. I'm not asking for powergamer veterans, what I mean by inexperienced is stuff as simple as CE not knowing how to fix a plasma flood or sabotaged SM, CMO not knowing basic chemistry or when to defib instead of clone, HOS not having a good idea of at least HOW to take down specific threats (flashes and flashbangs for borgs, shotguns vs nukies, etc.

The repercussions I have in mind aren't severe at all, and are more to save the community from playing with exceptionally inexperienced command players rather than punishing a player for being new. Let's say RD player is beating the shit out of a tider and an asimov borg comes to save the tider because the borg is literally required to. RD proceeds to detonate the borgs because he suspected the borg was "rogue", showing a complete lack of understanding of silicon policy and asimov laws. Currently, the RD would probably get a note, and MAYBE a dayban if you're lucky. In my proposed solution,the RD would be command banned for let's say a week, and be strongly encouraged to read up on silicon related rules and command expectations.

tl;dr temporarily command ban players that display gross incompetence/inexperience as a command role. stick to short term temporary bans outside of extreme repeat offenders.

Every server has issues with command mains that have little to no clue what they're doing, and clearly just want the better gamer gear/the feeling of power over others. I believe that I have a good solution to the genuine issue of very bad command players - the current system of time gate is clearly not working, and probably never will. Time gates aren't effective because some people are really good at learning/common sense and some people are really BAD at it. We have some long term players that main command and are clearly not interested in becoming a better gamer.

Hulkamania wrote:Here is our current proposal, for the review of those in the thread, this is NOT a final decision.

Rule 5 changes:

Players in a head of staff, security, AI/Silicon role, or a team conversion role require a minimum amount of effort; generally considered to mean making a reasonable effort to perform your job.
Notify admins if you cannot play these roles and must leave near round start and make an attempt to inform other players IC as well for head of staff or AI roles. Abuse of a job position, particularly Rule 1 breaking abuse, is not allowed.



Modifcation to the first precedent of the rule:

Heads of staff, silicon roles, and team antagonists should not be logging out/going AFK at or near round start and should be making an effort to perform their jobs due to the importance of those roles within the round for progression. Constant logging out, going AFK, or neglecting bare minimum job responsibilities may be result in warnings by admins, and may progress to jobbans.

We wanted to recognize that security members can be very crucial to how a round plays out and have a lot more power than a typical job on station (at the least at round start). So with that end we've added security to the list of jobs already existing within the rule. The precedent is mostly unchanged and in fact already covered a similar amount of information the rule itself currently does, so it still works fine. However there has been a small tweak in the wording, and it's important to note that security is not included in the list. We didn't want to punish a general security player for going AFK like a head would be held accountable for, so they've been omitted from the precedent.

Thank you!

For the heads of staff at least activity is important since a disconnected head can literally just end the round. AI makes sense as there is only one of them and you tend to have to opt in for it.

Should there be a clarification that security is important but not QUITE as important as heads?
I would expect a head of staff to ahelp before leaving. I wouldn't expect one of seven security officers to need to ahelp before taking off.

my only soft requirement for sec is that they go somewhere safe before logging off.

You will have a message when you next login if I see you DC in the middle of the hall fully decked out.

to those under the impression that i was asserting that more "whimsical" takes on head of staff play shouldnt be allowed; I was not implying that at all. There's an issue with command roles that gets adminhelped frequently, where one will end up throwing their power around in a way that gets 1 or more people permanently removed from the round(usually captain ordering the execution of someone for a petty reason like tabling them), where for whatever reason the command players newfriend brain might have skewed an otherwise harmless scenario to appear as their own life being threatened. You can't blame a new player for thinking their life is in danger, and then acting on it as you would under that assumption while playing head of staff. This is one of a plethora of issues regarding inexperience in roles of high authority.

That was probably a bad example to use. If you get killed for tabling the fucking captain and then ahelp it, you deserve to be banned.

deedubya wrote:That was probably a bad example to use. If you get killed for tabling the fucking captain and then ahelp it, you deserve to be banned.

Imagine thinking exactly this

Don't you have to play for n hours to unlock the captain role? New players should have a fair grasp of escalation rules by then, at least enough to not go "HE TOUCHED THE ROYAL PERSON! OFF WITH HIS HEAD" at the first push or shove.

Grazyn wrote:Don't you have to play for n hours to unlock the captain role? New players should have a fair grasp of escalation rules by then, at least enough to not go "HE TOUCHED THE ROYAL PERSON! OFF WITH HIS HEAD" at the first push or shove.

To be fair though if you instigate a fight with someone dangerous and they kill you, and then you ahelp it, you're probably a homosexual.

Sandshark808 wrote:

Grazyn wrote:Don't you have to play for n hours to unlock the captain role? New players should have a fair grasp of escalation rules by then, at least enough to not go "HE TOUCHED THE ROYAL PERSON! OFF WITH HIS HEAD" at the first push or shove.

To be fair though if you instigate a fight with someone dangerous and they kill you, and then you ahelp it, you're probably a homosexual.

As long as it escalated properly, sure, you can't ahelp if you were the instigator. Imsx was talking about captains/heads instantly going lethal after a shove. Sec officers can't do that so neither should heads. Though I understand there's a fine line (and a small time window) between friendly tabling and tabling+stripping, but that's why head players should be experienced enough to realize the difference. Or just escalate it like they would do as non-heads.

Grazyn wrote:

Sandshark808 wrote:

Grazyn wrote:Don't you have to play for n hours to unlock the captain role? New players should have a fair grasp of escalation rules by then, at least enough to not go "HE TOUCHED THE ROYAL PERSON! OFF WITH HIS HEAD" at the first push or shove.

To be fair though if you instigate a fight with someone dangerous and they kill you, and then you ahelp it, you're probably a homosexual.

As long as it escalated properly, sure, you can't ahelp if you were the instigator. Imsx was talking about captains/heads instantly going lethal after a shove. Sec officers can't do that so neither should heads. Though I understand there's a fine line (and a small time window) between friendly tabling and tabling+stripping, but that's why head players should be experienced enough to realize the difference. Or just escalate it like they would do as non-heads.

"friendly tabling" doesn't exist now that tabling does damage. Even discounting the damage, there's really no difference between getting tabled and getting whacked with a stun baton. If you did either to anyone - much less security, a head, or the captain - you're valid salad.

deedubya wrote: "friendly tabling" doesn't exist now that tabling does damage. Even discounting the damage, there's really no difference between getting tabled and getting whacked with a stun baton. If you did either to anyone - much less security, a head, or the captain - you're valid salad.

This is another post of yours which makes me think you don't really understand the difference between validity and escalation.

My nigga deedubya only has 187 connections I don't think he knows what he is talking about

Timonk wrote:My nigga deedubya only has 187 connections I don't think he knows what he is talking about

Is that how few connections that ckey has? Damn. How'd you even check someone else's connections?

deedubya wrote:

Timonk wrote:My nigga deedubya only has 187 connections I don't think he knows what he is talking about

Is that how few connections that ckey has? Damn. How'd you even check someone else's connections?

Scrubby