/tg/Station 13

Players should be protected from escalation against valid demotions in the same way that you cannot escalate against a security officer for making a valid arrest on you.

Valid demotion would be common sense actions like "wow you made meth instead of a chems literally the entire round so far!" or doing something the head of staff has asked you not to do (that's a reasonable request).

I think one of the major reasons people don't perform demotions despite the user basically being deadweight for the department is fear of getting hounded for the rest of the round (and consequently seeing no point to go head or actively avoid it).

At this point its cannon that the detective I demoted will kill me

wesoda25 wrote:At this point its cannon that the detective I demoted will kill me

Any detective who gets demoted and does anything other then immediately going on the run to try to solve the big case while staying one step ahead of security deserves a bwoink.

Yes please

Yes please

I have always treated like it was... IF someones demoting you because you dont play the role you picked you shouldnt escalate against them.

Fully support. I've had entire rounds ruined because some bozo thinks demotion === VALIDS.

I suppose the argument here is what do you define as a "valid" demotion

Personally speaking anyone who kills someone who gets them demoted for what I consider a valid reason is getting dunked into the sun anyway

Related question:
Should invalid demotions entitle a player to administrative help? Or just, "well go kill them bruh".

Last time i had this happen i asked the player. "if you got fired would you kill your boss irl?" and holy hell the answers i get back you all need therapy.

Personally I think the issue is more code then policy - getting someone to stay still long enough you can take their ID, important job gear, change the ID perms, give it back and then throw them out of the department is realistically not within the means of most heads that lack stunbatons or access to non-cable cuffs. And Security won't generally get involved for something minor like that unless they're really bored.

I would personally look at giving heads some means of having more control over their subordinates specifically. Something like being able to strip perms remotely for people within their department, at the very least.

I think that a part of a valid demotion is getting telebatonned, getting your gear/ID stripped, and getting thrown out. The head should make a good faith attempt to ask the person to come quietly prior to this but just because the head uses force doesn't mean you're allowed to escalate against them the whole round.

if I’m demoted I can still greytide and that includes stealing people’s ids(aka robbing my former boss to get my shit back) as allowed in escalation

Flatulent wrote:if I’m demoted I can still greytide and that includes stealing people’s ids(aka robbing my former boss to get my shit back) as allowed in escalation

Under this new proposal: no. Stealing them back wouldn't be valid escalation, it'd just be greytiding.

Still, that raises a question. If the detective gets demoted, is that gamer gear he confiscated still his anymore? If an engineer gets demoted for building a disposals trap in the main halls, are the materials he collected to build it still his? Where do we draw the line between job equipment and equipment acquired on the job?

Farquaar wrote:

Flatulent wrote:if I’m demoted I can still greytide and that includes stealing people’s ids(aka robbing my former boss to get my shit back) as allowed in escalation

Under this new proposal: no. Stealing them back wouldn't be valid escalation, it'd just be greytiding.

Still, that raises a question. If the detective gets demoted, is that gamer gear he confiscated still his anymore? If an engineer gets demoted for building a disposals trap in the main halls, are the materials he collected to build it still his? Where do we draw the line between job equipment and equipment acquired on the job?

I think it should be fairly obvious. If you get demoted as an engineer and then use the fact that they took your insuls/metal/whatever job related stuff to kill them then you should get dunked on. If you didn't want that shit taken from you, consider actually doing your job next time. Steal it back or acquire new ones if you want to, but you cant escalate over it.

While I'm in favor on encouraging more demotions as response to shitters being shitters the post above mine could easily spiral to "I told the Engineer to set up the Engine but he just built a bar in maint after wiring solars". Yeah sure he ignored his boss and irl that'd get you bopped but Engis doing autism projects is the reason half the people play the role and I'd rather not give power tripping shitters, which is a big chunk of the command players, rules backing when it comes to demoting players for "valid" reasons (and trying to bait them into escalating so they cop a ban).

I would be okay with escalating against someone so long as the actions you did (in this case wire solars) provided enough power to the station.

If solars isn't sufficient, no you should be focusing on providing power THEN doing le epic maint bar (just do a cringe N2 setup which is probably what you could have done in the first place).

Similarly for chemistry, it's fine if you make your AMAZING concoction (see: meth) but have at least one setup made for making meds.

Arianya wrote:Personally I think the issue is more code then policy - getting someone to stay still long enough you can take their ID, important job gear, change the ID perms, give it back and then throw them out of the department is realistically not within the means of most heads that lack stunbatons or access to non-cable cuffs. And Security won't generally get involved for something minor like that unless they're really bored.

I would personally look at giving heads some means of having more control over their subordinates specifically. Something like being able to strip perms remotely for people within their department, at the very least.

Maybe but finding a way to sensibly allow for easy demotion and removal of job-specific items in a way that nuanced so it doesn't also act as a really good quickstrip/stun device is gonna be a PITA. It's easier to just say if you're not doing bare necessities of your job to the point where someone wants you out then you don't get to escalate.

In my experience the biggest and most noteworthy demotions that lead into escalation are security related, and frankly there's nothing funnier than watching a retard try to pick a fight against a group that can vibecheck them on a dime

Technically making meth (or possessing it, anyway) is a crime and you can totally be arrested by sec for that. But I don't think I've ever seen sec arrest anyone for making meth except when the chemist refuses to share it.

If we wanted realism, there would be a way to disable someone's ID access remotely. Last time I tried something similar to that, it got closed (though to be fair, it was a blanket AA-panic button). We'd want some sort of record process too, or else people will just run off to the HoP and say their ID got stolen by a tider and they need a new one.

Perhaps ID cards would serve as only ID cards. While your access is determined by a central server. Using your six digit bank code as a private ID. (Only you know it)
Example:
Man walks to door.
Door looks for man's ID
His ID returns 123456
Door knows the permission requirements for that door. (Maintenance)
Door to ID server: does 123456 have maintenance access?
ID server: ye
Door open

Unlocking and bumping topic due to discussion in this thread

Atlanta-Ned wrote:Fully support. I've had entire rounds ruined because some bozo thinks demotion === VALIDS.

This is the correct opinion.

The remotely removing access thing is a nice idea too.

Heads of staff should have more power and meta-protections period. Playing a head currently is putting yourself in a position where you are held to higher standards (both IC and OOC), as well as being basically loot pinatas for your access and tools.

This has led to the current meta where, as previously stated by someone in this thread or the hours one, experienced players would rather NOT play heads most of the time (except for the few command mains we have); and mostly new and naive players will try them out, get dunked by tiders or heavy command expectations, and then fall in line as they get more hours, never playing heads again.

As a disclaimer, I mostly only play command roles, and my opinion is definitely biased in some way for it.

"I can't believe I missed this thread. Its an absolute no brainer."

Cimika wrote:Heads of staff should have more power and meta-protections period.

Be cautious about giving out meta protections, as unlike security (who has lots), heads of staff can be antags. That being said, this suggestion seems good, I'd like to see more demotions on LRP. It's not one that is affected by heads being antag, since if the demotion must be valid, then there's not particularly any way for antags to game that meta protection.

This is a really good point. Protecting valid demotions for now sounds like a good stepping stone. I'm aware of my bias as someone who doesn't antag much and plays a lot of command, but I would really love some more love for command players.

I stopped playing CMO because the only pros is access to extra stuff and the whole department, and the cons is you're actually not a command role because people rarely take you seriously and you end up being medical staff 2.0

And don't even get me started on demotions where people valid you after you demoted them for being absent the whole round and not doing their job, making a bunch of drugs and not medicine, and let's not forget my favorite: Doctors that steal patients belongings.

I think one of the major reasons people don't perform demotions despite the user basically being deadweight for the department is fear of getting hounded for the rest of the round (and consequently seeing no point to go head or actively avoid it).

Heads should lead by example, if they can't robust people out of their department they shouldn't be playing command (the role where people are meant to look up to you as experienced leaders theoretically).

Comfy pro-staff head policy like this is unneeded, forbidding IC conflict like this is restrictive. Truth is, if they can't back up their decision to assert themselves on someones round with righteous power they shouldn't be crying to admins when they get shoved at a wall and lose their baton.

t. Someone who doesn't play.

I share pretty much same opinion as Pugie. What I belive is also important in this thread is that if this passes trough I fear that it can be used maliciously, especially with incompetent command players. By the way chemists are supposed to be allowed to possess all drugs, same as how botanists can posses deathnettles or death berries and not get arrested for that.

I say this as CE main, if you are a boss and need to have gods help in order to not be scared of your employee, what kind of boss are you?

Cimika wrote:Heads of staff should have more power and meta-protections period.

I personally don't agree with this take. Metaprotection ,in my experience at least, hasn't led to much good. It tends to breed this species of powerhungry people who will use this a crutch to hide behind if anything there should be no metaprotection at all. You start with the telebaton which is one of the strongest weapons in the game so you should be expected to lead your department by example and fuck up tiders and keep your dept in line.

Cimika wrote:This has led to the current meta where, as previously stated by someone in this thread or the hours one, experienced players would rather NOT play heads most of the time (except for the few command mains we have); and mostly new and naive players will try them out, get dunked by tiders or heavy command expectations, and then fall in line as they get more hours, never playing heads again.

Heavy command expectations make sense in this scenario. You need to be able to lead and teach whilst dealing with tiders. The real pain of command is trying to get people to listen to you or having to deal with absolute troglodytes who seem to exist soley to piss you off, this, I feel is the primary reason experiences players don't play it. It's not more rewarding than playing a normal role and you're expected to be responsible for your dept when it's full of apes.

See, it's true that being a sec player makes other sec players blindly agree with me.

pugie wrote: Heads should lead by example, if they can't robust people out of their department they shouldn't be playing command (the role where people are meant to look up to you as experienced leaders theoretically).

That's where I disagree. A Head of Security should be experienced at robusting people, that's no question. But that's because robusting is security's area of specialty. The only combat ability your average head of staff needs is enough to avoid becoming a glorified loot pinata.

A Chief Engineer should be an experienced engineer. A Chief Medical Officer should be an experienced doctor. A Research Director should be an experienced scientist. How good you are at robusting people has very little to do with how skilled you'll be at organizing a team of doctors or engineers. They're two entirely different sets of skills. And frankly, Heads of Staff should focus on their departments instead of having to dedicate their time being the departmental security force because a former miner keeps smashing cargo's windows because he's angry he got demoted for starting fights instead of mining all shift.

A consistent point being made in this thread is that there aren't enough incentives to play a head of staff. Signing up for a command role is giving up freedom and taking on extra responsibility, with the only incentives being a couple gamer items. Experienced players don't take head roles because the cost is greater than the benefit. Protecting valid demotions like valid arrests takes a load off of head jobs stress-wise, while also giving the chain of command actual weight. Head roles already have extra scrutiny placed on them. To give them proportional protections is a no-brainer.

pugie wrote: Comfy pro-staff head policy like this is unneeded, forbidding IC conflict like this is restrictive. Truth is, if they can't back up their decision to assert themselves on someones round with righteous power they shouldn't be crying to admins when they get shoved at a wall and lose their baton.

Do you think that valid arrests should be protected? After all, why arrest someone if you can't back up that arrest with righteous power when they come back and crit you from behind when you're dealing with an antag? What're you gonna do, cry to the admins?

Thermonuclear take:
I don't think there should be that much incentive to play as a head of staff unless it's an absolutely necessary position. (to which I don't think there's really any that I can point out - heads of staff work great if a department is underfilled but otherwise are not exactly super necessary aside from HoP)

People should play as a head of staff because they want to help lead their department, not because they get protected by admins or because they get sick gamer gear.
I don't want a CMO who plays only to get the hardsuit + emped compact defib, I want a CMO who plays because they're confident in their skills as a glorified medical doctor and knows how to deal with just about any corpse that's tossed into medbay.

Removing escalation rights for a valid demotion is fine, as imo there really shouldn't be any form of escalation if you have to remove some jackshit chemist who thinks it's totally ok to take the slot to just make meth and blow up the chem lab the entire shift, (or god forbid, ignite med tech after someone tells him off for making meth the whole shift, an event I have seen before) but there doesn't need to be much more after that imo.

I heavily agree with farquaar's take though that CMOs shouldn't be expected to be hyperrobust powergamed gods, just please know how to use your telebaton.


TL;DR - we don't need additional incentives to play head of staff, just a few tweaks to escalation rights to set them as an actual head of a department instead of just another worker.




I realize after posting this that I should be taking up the mantle of CMO now that I've got a human static to go along with my moth static Nutella.
fuck I don't want responsibility I play this game to avoid that and I despise revs

If a person is being shit enough at their job that the head has a good reason to fire them, then treat the employee as the instigator in any further escalation.
If the demotion actually is bullshit, then the head is the instigator.

"If someone wrongs you, you may retaliate. If you choose to retaliate with violence, you in turn have opened yourself up to violence."
For invalid demotions, they have wronged you, go nuts.
For valid demotions, the head hasn't wronged you - you wronged them and they retaliated with demotion, which isn't violence so you don't have valids to escalate further.

Even the sec arrest thing works under the same lens.
If the arrest is invalid, you're completely innocent, and security are busting you anyway - congratulations, sec have wronged you so you can fight them.
If the arrest is valid, then you instigated it by commiting a crime. You don't get to then escalate against them.

Farquaar wrote:ae

Robusting is a part of every job (especially authority ones) unless you're on Manuel sorry sweetpea...

Ahelping is literally always wrong in every situation, but if guy you demoted for a valid reason comes back and kills/fullstrips you I assume they broke rule 1??? Why does this thread even exist. Literal rulebloat.

pugie wrote:Robusting is a part of every job (especially authority ones) unless you're on Manuel sorry sweetpea...

Ahelping is literally always wrong in every situation, but if guy you demoted for a valid reason comes back and kills/fullstrips you I assume they broke rule 1??? Why does this thread even exist. Literal rulebloat.

Farquaar wrote:Do you think that valid arrests should be protected? After all, why arrest someone if you can't back up that arrest with righteous power when they come back and crit you from behind when you're dealing with an antag? What're you gonna do, cry to the admins?

i didnt read your entire post

what about the part he clipped out

Screemonster wrote:If a person is being shit enough at their job that the head has a good reason to fire them, then treat the employee as the instigator in any further escalation.
If the demotion actually is bullshit, then the head is the instigator.

"If someone wrongs you, you may retaliate. If you choose to retaliate with violence, you in turn have opened yourself up to violence."
For invalid demotions, they have wronged you, go nuts.
For valid demotions, the head hasn't wronged you - you wronged them and they retaliated with demotion, which isn't violence so you don't have valids to escalate further.

Even the sec arrest thing works under the same lens.
If the arrest is invalid, you're completely innocent, and security are busting you anyway - congratulations, sec have wronged you so you can fight them.
If the arrest is valid, then you instigated it by commiting a crime. You don't get to then escalate against them.

Why does there always have to be an instigator? What if the demotion is simply the result of conflicting interests or differing knowledge?

CPTANT wrote:

Screemonster wrote:If a person is being shit enough at their job that the head has a good reason to fire them, then treat the employee as the instigator in any further escalation.
If the demotion actually is bullshit, then the head is the instigator.

"If someone wrongs you, you may retaliate. If you choose to retaliate with violence, you in turn have opened yourself up to violence."
For invalid demotions, they have wronged you, go nuts.
For valid demotions, the head hasn't wronged you - you wronged them and they retaliated with demotion, which isn't violence so you don't have valids to escalate further.

Even the sec arrest thing works under the same lens.
If the arrest is invalid, you're completely innocent, and security are busting you anyway - congratulations, sec have wronged you so you can fight them.
If the arrest is valid, then you instigated it by commiting a crime. You don't get to then escalate against them.

Why does there always have to be an instigator? What if the demotion is simply the result of conflicting interests or differing knowledge?

well gee if you did nothing wrong and got demoted anyway then I guess the demotion wasn't valid and your head just wronged you and you can retaliate just like if security came after you for a crime you got framed for

welcome to the world of imperfect information

Screemonster wrote: well gee if you did nothing wrong and got demoted anyway then I guess the demotion wasn't valid and your head just wronged you and you can retaliate just like if security came after you for a crime you got framed for

welcome to the world of imperfect information

who decides when a demotion is valid

Evil jannies

Malkraz wrote:

Screemonster wrote: well gee if you did nothing wrong and got demoted anyway then I guess the demotion wasn't valid and your head just wronged you and you can retaliate just like if security came after you for a crime you got framed for

welcome to the world of imperfect information

who decides when a demotion is valid

You have performed your job 64% less efficiently than what I expected of you. It is now time to demote you, leaving you naked in the central hallways. And if you try to fight back I will ahelp.

if you are framed then you can escalate same as an arrest because you dont deserve the arrest.

Admins at the end of the day decide if you have sufficient reason to demote someone, same as any other conflict. Not sure whats with the weird framing here.

Yes, hi, I am alive. Hi Pugie.

When I played actively (and I am itching to come back tbh) I play almost exclusively a head roll (RD).

To quickly explain the positives and the negatives.

Positives:

1) Gamer gear and gamer access. Yes, I liked my to armor for my very unrobust ass and I liked having full access to command channels and all of sci departments.

2) You can do more to protect your department if you want it to actually, you know, do its job. Departments inevitably descent into a bunch of bullshit pet projects unless someone does the bare minimum coordination.

And now the negatives:

1) Gamer gear makes you a loot pinniata as someone mentioned.

2) If there is no HoS or Captain you have to either accept that every greytide is about to have AA in 5 minutes OR you will have to abandon your job (that you signed up for and actually want to do) to be discount HoS/captain for the next 10-15m while trying to stave off the very funni greytiders who will come for you.

3) You have way higher responsibility, both IC and OOC. If shit goes down, it's your fault IC and you can't just fuck off on frustration because an admin will bwoink you.

All in all, I found playing as RD very fun when it was with people I knew weren't dickheads (even when traitors) and infinitely frustrating when I had shitters under me.

----

For the thread at hand, demotions are given rarely because heads kinda.....are also there to have fun. We aren't here to make sure the xenobiology runs at 110% efficiency, the robotics only pumps out useful stuff etc.

The only demotions I have given are for actively harming the department. F.ex. someone deliberately wasting research after being told multiple times not to do it or (my favourite) a roboticist building off robotics to declare a "free republic of robotia" and even he I tried to talk to before he tried to fight me (then he got batoned, handcuffed, demoted and thrown to sec half naked).

The problem is that any random shitter can then lie to the hos and say "I lost my id can I have it back" and he will have it back. Having heads control who has access is a great idea. Furthermore, I think some actual enforcement against greytiding in the case where respective department heads are missing would go a long way to prevent the extreme frustration that it can bring.

This isn't going to work when it comes to antags who definitely won't be doing their job. The moment a Head tries to demote them for fucking off the antag will ahelp about how this Head "Pre-preemptively meta them because they left the department roundstart and didn't do their job for 15 minutes"

Cobby wrote: Admins at the end of the day decide if you have sufficient reason to demote someone, same as any other conflict. Not sure whats with the weird framing here.

I have enough things to Adminwho for every time I join the server already.

counterpoint: youre already pressing the button anyways :smug:

Arathian wrote:Yes, hi, I am alive. Hi Pugie.

When I played actively (and I am itching to come back tbh) I play almost exclusively a head roll (RD).

To quickly explain the positives and the negatives.

Positives:

1) Gamer gear and gamer access. Yes, I liked my to armor for my very unrobust ass and I liked having full access to command channels and all of sci departments.

2) You can do more to protect your department if you want it to actually, you know, do its job. Departments inevitably descent into a bunch of bullshit pet projects unless someone does the bare minimum coordination.

And now the negatives:

1) Gamer gear makes you a loot pinniata as someone mentioned.

2) If there is no HoS or Captain you have to either accept that every greytide is about to have AA in 5 minutes OR you will have to abandon your job (that you signed up for and actually want to do) to be discount HoS/captain for the next 10-15m while trying to stave off the very funni greytiders who will come for you.

3) You have way higher responsibility, both IC and OOC. If shit goes down, it's your fault IC and you can't just fuck off on frustration because an admin will bwoink you.

All in all, I found playing as RD very fun when it was with people I knew weren't dickheads (even when traitors) and infinitely frustrating when I had shitters under me.

----

For the thread at hand, demotions are given rarely because heads kinda.....are also there to have fun. We aren't here to make sure the xenobiology runs at 110% efficiency, the robotics only pumps out useful stuff etc.

The only demotions I have given are for actively harming the department. F.ex. someone deliberately wasting research after being told multiple times not to do it or (my favourite) a roboticist building off robotics to declare a "free republic of robotia" and even he I tried to talk to before he tried to fight me (then he got batoned, handcuffed, demoted and thrown to sec half naked).

The problem is that any random shitter can then lie to the hos and say "I lost my id can I have it back" and he will have it back. Having heads control who has access is a great idea. Furthermore, I think some actual enforcement against greytiding in the case where respective department heads are missing would go a long way to prevent the extreme frustration that it can bring.

Hi arathian, welcome back

The ID system has been completely reworked and the all-access handout tidal wave is no longer mechanically possible. There are at most 2 cards on station that can have all-access loaded onto them.

Heads of staff have had the ability to manually demote someone from the department without involving the HOP for some time, and the situation you describe where they just say "i lost my id can i have it back" is instantly prevented by using the head of staff exclusive command channel to tell the HOP that so-and-so has been fired and may not be re-promoted

Cobby wrote:"wow you made meth instead of a chems literally the entire round so far!".

that doesn't seem like a valid demotion to me, just demanding a player sacrifice their own fun to work for you (which should be reserved for MRP)
if the meth exploded and they went back to it then you'd have a point because rebuilding after that is a pain in the ass

chocolate_bickie wrote:This isn't going to work when it comes to antags who definitely won't be doing their job. The moment a Head tries to demote them for fucking off the antag will ahelp about how this Head "Pre-preemptively meta them because they left the department roundstart and didn't do their job for 15 minutes"

so what is a valid demotion i think is necessary to agree upon before you can say whether they should be invalidated as a reason for reprisal by non-antags
the antag can attack the head of staff but then it becomes an antag tell and i don't see why antags should be expected to do this just to keep their jobs