/tg/Station 13

Ideally this thread should come about creating a line that can be inserted in the roleplay rules that explains what crew members know or don't know about antagonists and their items.

Unlike some heavy RP servers, it's pretty much standard that everyone knows what antagonists are and what their items look like. When someone yells "Nuke ops!" everyone knows what to do, just like how everyone knows what to do when they encounter a changeling (more or less). I don't have a problem with this, and I'm assuming the majority of the playerbase doesn't as well. Yet there have been times in the past newer players have perhaps been unsure about whether or not they would recognize a chameleon projector as Syndicate tech, or if a new religious movement on the station is indeed a dangerous cult. From an IC perspective, I like that we play this way as it only makes sense that all the crew members would be briefed on the various dangers that could potentially put Nanotrasen's property at risk.

So I'd like to propose adding an additional roleplay rule:

"Members of the crew are allowed, if they wish, to roleplay that they have practical knowledge of the different antagonist types, their items, and their abilities, that they could potentially end up facing on their shift. Rule 3 of the Primary Policies takes precedent over this however."

I'll leave the poll open for switching answers, I'll also change or update the line above if there are any suggestions.

EDIT: I'm only trying to come up with a rule that makes what we all basically know already explicit for new players who are reading the rules.

Can't wait for assisstants to strip eachother to check for chameleon jumpsuits. Anyone with brown shoes becomes valid. Gasmask! Must be a voice changer. :^)

Do you want to bwoink people for no reason?

No.

UtterNewbie wrote:Can't wait for assisstants to strip eachother to check for chameleon jumpsuits. Anyone with brown shoes becomes valid. Gasmask! Must be a voice changer. :^)

Do you want to bwoink people for no reason?

No.

Lots of people wear brown shoes, but if you saw someone run across a wet floor with brown shoes on most of the playerbase would know these are no-slips.

I'm just trying to think of a way to make what is implicitly known by the majority of the playerbase explicit for new players. Perhaps however it works so well because people learn it over time?

I don't actually think brown shoes are a default wearable item. Though its not exactly something you check all the time.

Steelpoint wrote:I don't actually think brown shoes are a default wearable item.

There's a pair right in arrivals locker room. Heads also spawn with them. Also detective.

So we're taking this full-opposite-Bay then? We're not obligating ignorance, we're obligating knowledge. If you "know" something is an antag item and don't act you're in the wrong? Does this make the opposite true? If I see some chucklefuck running around in a gas mask that I "know" is a voice changer then I can immediately valid them without OOC repercussions because they looked like an antag? Traitor items are designed to be covert (mostly) that's why they look like normal items.

Since I know this started about uplinks anyway, lets look at what you're justifying. You're literally justifying the warden permanently bucklecuffing somebody because they "might" have an uplink implant. And if they have an uplink implant they can c4 their brig cell (and probably kill them self in the process. Great, I'll add this to my usual search every time I brig and search somebody now as a HoS/Warden/SO. Now I can, search their bag, search their box, check their PDA, full cavity search and then get out the drapes to check for implants.

And I thought the idea was to curb the "power gaming play to win arrests per minute" mindset? Did I miss a memo?

My point stands, they are a very uncommon item hence why I supported the idea of making no-slips adopt a similar mechanic to a chameleon jumpsuit but for shoes.

On topic, won't this proposal mean that the crew are allowed to know utterly everything about antagonists? That seems counter intuitive.

What the flying fuck is this.
Are we turning into an inverted version of Bay?
What the fuck is wrong with roleplaying not knowing what an uplink is?
I mean, if you're a head or something, I can see this.
But, this is just throwing the idea that we enforce powergaming more.
Just stop.

Spacemanspark wrote:What the flying fuck is this.
Are we turning into an inverted version of Bay?
What the fuck is wrong with roleplaying not knowing what an uplink is?
I mean, if you're a head or something, I can see this.
But, this is just throwing the idea that we enforce powergaming more.
Just stop.

Stop being me.

My issue is, when a door is permanently stuck open everyone says its emagged. If the detective finds prints and arrests someone, then upon searching them finds a Cryptographic Sequencer, everyone says "confirmed traitor" and doesn't think twice about it and no one claims this to be metagaming.

There has to be a middle ground in which we can explicitly make it clear that the crew knows what traitor items look like and what they do, but this doesn't lead to everyone wearing a gas mask getting lynched. I'm just trying to find out a way of putting into words the common practice of the majority of the playerbase.


It's no way against the rules for an assistant to dunk someone they see having and using traitor items, because it's assumed that everyone knows what these items look like. It's also no way against the rules for someone to yell "NUKE OPS!" or "CULT!" or even "REV!" because, everyone knows the round types in character apparently. Yet our rules don't have anything to say about this or anything else relating to IC knowledge of antagonists.

QuartzCrystal wrote:My issue is, when a door is permanently stuck open everyone says its emagged. If the detective finds prints and arrests someone, then upon searching them finds a Cryptographic Sequencer, everyone says "confirmed traitor" and doesn't think twice about it and no one claims this to be metagaming.

There has to be a middle ground in which we can explicitly make it clear that the crew knows what traitor items look like and what they do, but this doesn't lead to everyone wearing a gas mask getting lynched. I'm just trying to find out a way of putting into words the common practice of the majority of the playerbase.

Again, if I want to RP not knowing/ not believing what the uplink / syndicate/ cult/ etc. is, without being on a heavier RP server, what's so bad about that? This is too restrictive for this server.

Spacemanspark wrote:

QuartzCrystal wrote:My issue is, when a door is permanently stuck open everyone says its emagged. If the detective finds prints and arrests someone, then upon searching them finds a Cryptographic Sequencer, everyone says "confirmed traitor" and doesn't think twice about it and no one claims this to be metagaming.

There has to be a middle ground in which we can explicitly make it clear that the crew knows what traitor items look like and what they do, but this doesn't lead to everyone wearing a gas mask getting lynched. I'm just trying to find out a way of putting into words the common practice of the majority of the playerbase.

Again, if I want to RP not knowing what the uplink is, without being on a heavier RP server, what's so bad about that? This is too restrictive for this server.

Nothing, I made a change to the wording of the proposed rule. I'm not trying to limit any playstyles, just trying to explicitly explain that one of the common types is not against the rules.

QuartzCrystal wrote:

Spacemanspark wrote:

QuartzCrystal wrote:My issue is, when a door is permanently stuck open everyone says its emagged. If the detective finds prints and arrests someone, then upon searching them finds a Cryptographic Sequencer, everyone says "confirmed traitor" and doesn't think twice about it and no one claims this to be metagaming.

There has to be a middle ground in which we can explicitly make it clear that the crew knows what traitor items look like and what they do, but this doesn't lead to everyone wearing a gas mask getting lynched. I'm just trying to find out a way of putting into words the common practice of the majority of the playerbase.

Again, if I want to RP not knowing what the uplink is, without being on a heavier RP server, what's so bad about that? This is too restrictive for this server.

Nothing, I made a change to the wording of the proposed rule. I'm not trying to limit any playstyles, just trying to explicitly explain that one of the common types is not against the rules.

Based on this and the edit to the proposal of the rule, this seems better. I still think it will throw the idea out that we encourage powergaming, but it's not conflicting with playstyles, at least.

I can make additional changes of course, I think the way it's currently worded appeals to both my concern and the concerns of you guys.

Yeah, as long as it's "allowed" and not "obligated," this seems like a good clarification to make.

Yeah I threw in "if they wish" to make this abundantly clear.

QuartzCrystal wrote: It's no way against the rules for an assistant to dunk someone they see having and using traitor items, because it's assumed that everyone knows what these items look like.

Actually, that's implied in the code. An emag literally says "cryptographic sequencer" when I mouse over it and examine it. Apparently the game thinks I know and thus I do. Lets take this to the next step. If I mouse over a chameleon jumpsuit turned into a grey jumpsuit, what does it tell me? "That's a jumpsuit you moron. Duh." As a sec officer I can know that such jumpsuits exist, but I'd be a jackass to start shooting every inmate with the ion gun just to make sure.

cedarbridge wrote:

QuartzCrystal wrote: It's no way against the rules for an assistant to dunk someone they see having and using traitor items, because it's assumed that everyone knows what these items look like.

Actually, that's implied in the code. An emag literally says "cryptographic sequencer" when I mouse over it and examine it. Apparently the game thinks I know and thus I do. Lets take this to the next step. If I mouse over a chameleon jumpsuit turned into a grey jumpsuit, what does it tell me? "That's a jumpsuit you moron. Duh." As a sec officer I can know that such jumpsuits exist, but I'd be a jackass to start shooting every inmate with the ion gun just to make sure.

Exactly, which is why I amended the rule proposal to make explicit reference to the anti-powergame rule.

I don't like encouraging the current binary gameplay we have going on of VALIDs.

I'd honestly prefer to see things go the other way. Things like mesons, masks and brown shoes shouldn't be tested as a matter of course and this kind of thing encourages that.

I think players should have the option to let antagonists get away with things. It allows for more interesting rounds than standard murderbone, but if policy like this gets out the door soon that's all we are going to see. It will be the only safe option for antagonists.

Knowing that noslips exist is not metagaming.
Keeping perma's bar of soap next to a brig cell so you can drag all new arrests across to check for it is metagaming.

Not that hard, guys.

Saegrimr wrote:Knowing that noslips exist is not metagaming.
Keeping perma's bar of soap next to a brig cell so you can drag all new arrests across to check for it is metagaming.

Not that hard, guys.

But this isn't actually explained anywhere in the rules. If someone first joins our server they have no idea if their character is allowed to know that noslips exist or not.

QuartzCrystal wrote:If someone first joins our server they have no idea if their character is allowed to know that noslips exist or not.

This is true, but I was referencing the slippery slope that everybody is arguing about this going in the full-nox direction.

So we had a couple of lings just fucking around, using public armor abilities and shit, just obviously dicking around. I was HoS. I wanted to do something fun with it, so I decided I would offer them a job at the force. But captain came into brig. He tried to shoot them (they were in the brig cell with timer ticking just dicking around, fully clothed and stuff) through the glass with taser from outside. A couple of times. Then he walked into the brig and started, without use of capital letters in the beginning of the sentences, telling everyone to "flash them goddamit" while trying to tase them through the glass. Finally he managed to reach timer controls. He walked in and lasered one of them to death. I tried to intervene, said that they did nothing wrong. There was an officer nearby who collected both dead and living lings into a locker and welded them. He said "Enemy of The Corporation", read space law idiot. I attempted to arrest him for calling me an idiot. I always do that, or at least try, when I'm the head. Captain tased me and handcuffed me. Together they went ahead and demoted me and the officer immediately asked to be HoS. In the HoP line he got stuck with the locker and couldn't walk out on his own. Gee, and this guy told me to read space law.

My point is, this is not what I want to see. I want to have fun, not antaghunt, thank you very much.

So yeah, obviously people will always be allowed to identify antags, but the choice is important.

And you should probably follow the Chain of Command if you want people to follow it when it comes to being your underlings. You disobeyed the Captain and even stood against him.

Lo6a4evskiy wrote:I attempted to arrest him for calling me an idiot. I always do that, or at least try, when I'm the head.

That's... kinda shit.

Can we not go off topic here? I think the current rule proposal reflects the reality of our server pretty well.

Saegrimr wrote:

Lo6a4evskiy wrote:I attempted to arrest him for calling me an idiot. I always do that, or at least try, when I'm the head.

That's... kinda shit.

Not in my opinion.

Violaceus wrote:>changeling
>did nothing wrong

It is assumed that if you play normally as gloroious Nicolas Delacour®, when you are a changeling, original Nicolas was killed (oh no....) before crew entering station.

So every changeling is a murderer.

See, I don't really care. I want to have fun. Murdering goofballs for successfully rolling antag isn't part of it, not for me.

Scott wrote:And you should probably follow the Chain of Command if you want people to follow it when it comes to being your underlings. You disobeyed the Captain and even stood against him.

Sure and it's not the first time heads stand up against captain and hopefully not the last.

>standing against the captain to defend changelings

Ban from heads.

Did you just seriously change the poll subject while keeping the poll results from previous subject?

Subject is the same, OP has been edited. I specified I made it so people can change votes to reflect changes made to OP.

This rule prettymuch currently exists, it's just not written anywhere.

We're not like bay, we don't force people to pretend to be ignorant about things.
You CAN pretend to be ignorant about things if you want, but that's up to you.

Saegrimir put it perfectly. Metagaming and Metaknowledge are too different things.

Knowing that the shuttle wont work in a rev round so you don't bother trying to call it is fine.
Purposely calling it to see if the round IS a rev round is metagaming.

An0n3 wrote:This rule prettymuch currently exists, it's just not written anywhere.

We're not like bay, we don't force people to pretend to be ignorant about things.
You CAN pretend to be ignorant about things if you want, but that's up to you.

Saegrimir put it perfectly. Metagaming and Metaknowledge are too different things.

Knowing that the shuttle wont work in a rev round so you don't bother trying to call it is fine.
Purposely calling it to see if the round IS a rev round is metagaming.

Something like this could be added as a sub-point to the rule to make it clearer?

I just feel since we have this unwritten rule, there's no harm to writing it down.

If the rules exist in any tangible way then the line wil be toed.

Better to tell everyonr about the unwritten ones.

the line, if any, should be drawn at obvious traitor items
weapons, and items like the emag or syndicate toolbox or what have you, with obvious and iconic sprites should instantly confirm traitor
if you see someone walking around in brown shoes and wearing a gasmask, you probably shouldnt attack them right away, because even if they are suspicious, the only way to tell is by blatantly metagaming through an item designed to look like something someone should wear. if they also act strangely, or give other evidence as to being a traitor, you could probably search them on the basis of them being suspicious in the first place. but tasering people wearing gasmasks and stuff is bad.
knowing that something that actually looks like a traitor item is a traitor item is different than knowing a disguise item is a traitor item because you know what item it is disguised as.

Personally, I'd love to be able to taze and search idiots running around with gas masks on fnr just to get people to stop doing it.

But you can already do that

If newcomers are so bayshocked they can't comprehend our rules allow them to do this already I don't see the point of the proposed rule.

paprika wrote:But you can already do that

Gas masks aren't a crime, yet.

Security is free to preform random searches on the crew at all times, there has never been a constraint on that.

You need a valid reason.

Scott wrote:You need a valid reason.

I can search a random crew member for any or no reason at all as a member of Security, that's is the case nor have I ever been told otherwise.

If you want to change that, make another policy discussion on it.

And you will get bwoinked for it because it's powergaming dickery.

Scott wrote:And you will get bwoinked for it because it's powergaming dickery.

I've played in Security for around a year, I have never been warned about random searches when playing in Security. I've even been told by admins that I can freely randomly search people even in Code Green.

Go ahead and search people in the hop line.

Having the authority does not mean you have to exercise that authority.

Backing away from your claims?

Scott wrote:Backing away from your claims?

What I'm saying is that just because I have the right to do something does not necessarily mean its in my best interests to do it. If I acted similar to how people like Juan-Luc Price acted (Essentially played Security by the book literally) I would be one of the most unpopular if not reviled Security player on tg station.

You need to be intelligent when playing Security, you have access to a wide range of powers but knowing when to use them to your benefit, and when to not use them, is a key factor in playing Security.

Go lose your title and search random people in the HoP line at round start.

Scott wrote:Go lose your title and search random people in the HoP line at round start.

Why would I want to search people in the HoP line at round start? While I can do that why would I want to do that?

Please stop going incredibly off topic. Stop talking about what we're already allowed to do, etc. This is not the point of this thread.

The point is to decide if we think it's beneficial to have a rule that makes our unwritten implicit rule explicit and available for viewing by everyone.