Page 1 of 2

NikNakFlak V. An0n3 || Ninja Ruling/Not Objectives

Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2015 12:19 am
by NikNakFlak
This is half a complaint and half a policy thing I guess. The main point of this is not a complaint against conduct but a complaint against a ruling which stemmed from a ban which I believed to be invalid at the time it was made.

This mainly concerns a ban that I noticed in the ban database in which a player (coder in this case), was banned from syndicate antag positions for murderboning 21 people when he had the objective to save/protect lives or whatever. There are several ninja objectives that tell you to not kill people and I'm not sure which exact objective it was.

Here is the code.

Code: Select all

	if(mission)
		var/datum/objective/O = new /datum/objective(mission)
		O.owner = Mind
		Mind.objectives += O
	else
		if(helping_station)	//DS are the highest priority (if we're a helpful ninja)
			for(var/datum/mind/M in ticker.minds)
				if(M.current && M.current.stat != DEAD)
					if(M.special_role == "Death Commando")
						var/datum/objective/assassinate/O = new /datum/objective/assassinate()
						O.owner = Mind
						O.target = M
						O.explanation_text = "Slay \the [M.current.real_name], the Death Commando."
						Mind.objectives += O

		else				//Xenos are the highest priority (if we're not so helpful) Although this makes zero sense at all...
			for(var/mob/living/carbon/alien/humanoid/queen/Q in player_list)
				if(Q.mind && Q.stat != DEAD)
					var/datum/objective/assassinate/O = new /datum/objective/assassinate()
					O.owner = Mind
					O.target = Q.mind
					O.explanation_text = "Slay \the [Q.real_name]."
					Mind.objectives += O

		if(Mind.objectives.len < 4)	//not enough objectives still!
			var/list/possible_targets = list()
			for(var/datum/mind/M in ticker.minds)
				if(M.current && M.current.stat != DEAD)
					if(istype(M.current,/mob/living/carbon/human))
						if(M.special_role)
							possible_targets[M] = 0						//bad-guy
						else if(M.assigned_role in command_positions)
							possible_targets[M] = 1						//good-guy

			var/list/objectives = list(1,2,3,4)
			while(Mind.objectives.len < 4)	//still not enough objectives!
				switch(pick_n_take(objectives))
					if(1)	//research
						var/datum/objective/download/O = new /datum/objective/download()
						O.owner = Mind
						O.gen_amount_goal()
						Mind.objectives += O

					if(2)	//steal
						var/datum/objective/steal/special/O = new /datum/objective/steal/special()
						O.owner = Mind
						Mind.objectives += O

					if(3)	//protect/kill
						if(!possible_targets.len)	continue
						var/selected = rand(1,possible_targets.len)
						var/datum/mind/M = possible_targets[selected]
						var/is_bad_guy = possible_targets[M]
						possible_targets.Cut(selected,selected+1)

						if(is_bad_guy ^ helping_station)			//kill (good-ninja + bad-guy or bad-ninja + good-guy)
							var/datum/objective/assassinate/O = new /datum/objective/assassinate()
							O.owner = Mind
							O.target = M
							O.explanation_text = "Slay \the [M.current.real_name], the [M.assigned_role]."
							Mind.objectives += O
						else										//protect
							var/datum/objective/protect/O = new /datum/objective/protect()
							O.owner = Mind
							O.target = M
							O.explanation_text = "Protect \the [M.current.real_name], the [M.assigned_role], from harm."
							Mind.objectives += O
					if(4)	//debrain/capture
						if(!possible_targets.len)	continue
						var/selected = rand(1,possible_targets.len)
						var/datum/mind/M = possible_targets[selected]
						var/is_bad_guy = possible_targets[M]
						possible_targets.Cut(selected,selected+1)

						if(is_bad_guy ^ helping_station)			//debrain (good-ninja + bad-guy or bad-ninja + good-guy)
							var/datum/objective/debrain/O = new /datum/objective/debrain()
							O.owner = Mind
							O.target = M
							O.explanation_text = "Steal the brain of [M.current.real_name]."
							Mind.objectives += O
						else										//capture
							var/datum/objective/capture/O = new /datum/objective/capture()
							O.owner = Mind
							O.gen_amount_goal()
							Mind.objectives += O
					else
						break

	//Add a survival objective since it's usually broad enough for any round type.
	var/datum/objective/O = new /datum/objective/survive()
	O.owner = Mind
	Mind.objectives += O

	//Finally, add their RP-directive
	var/directive = generate_ninja_directive()
	O = new /datum/objective(directive)		//making it an objective so admins can reward the for completion
	O.owner = Mind
	Mind.objectives += O

	//add some RP-fluff
	Mind.store_memory("I am an elite mercenary assassin of the mighty Spider Clan. A <font color='red'><B>SPACE NINJA</B></font>!")
	Mind.store_memory("Suprise is my weapon. Shadows are my armor. Without them, I am nothing. (//initialize your suit by right clicking on it, to use abilities like stealth)!")
	Mind.store_memory("Officially, [helping_station?"Nanotrasen":"The Syndicate"] are my employer.")

	//spawn the ninja and assign the candidate
	Ninja = create_space_ninja(spawn_loc)
	Mind.transfer_to(Ninja)

	//initialise equipment
	Ninja.wear_suit:randomize_param()
	Ninja.internal = Ninja.s_store
	if(Ninja.internals)
		Ninja.internals.icon_state = "internal1"

	if(Ninja.mind != Mind)			//something has gone wrong!
		ERROR("The ninja wasn't assigned the right mind. ;รง;")

	Ninja << sound('sound/effects/ninja_greeting.ogg') //so ninja you probably wouldn't even know if you were made one

	success_spawn = 1

/*
This proc will give the ninja a directive to follow. They are not obligated to do so but it's a fun roleplay reminder.
Making this random or semi-random will probably not work without it also being incredibly silly.
As such, it's hard-coded for now. No reason for it not to be, really.
*/
/datum/round_event/ninja/proc/generate_ninja_directive()
	switch(rand(1,13))
		if(1)	return "The Spider Clan must not be linked to this operation. Remain as hidden and covert as possible."
		if(2)	return "[station_name] is financed by an enemy of the Spider Clan. Cause as much structural damage as possible."
		if(3)	return "A wealthy animal rights activist has made a request we cannot refuse. Prioritize saving animal lives whenever possible."
		if(4)	return "The Spider Clan absolutely cannot be linked to this operation. Eliminate all witnesses using most extreme prejudice."
		if(5)	return "We are currently negotiating with Nanotrasen command. Prioritize saving human lives over ending them."
		if(6)	return "We are engaged in a legal dispute over [station_name]. If a laywer is present on board, force their cooperation in the matter."
		if(7)	return "A financial backer has made an offer we cannot refuse. Implicate Syndicate involvement in the operation."
		if(8)	return "Let no one question the mercy of the Spider Clan. Ensure the safety of all non-essential personnel you encounter."
		if(9)	return "A free agent has proposed a lucrative business deal. Implicate Nanotrasen involvement in the operation."
		if(10)	return "Our reputation is on the line. Harm as few civilians or innocents as possible."
		if(11)	return "Our honor is on the line. Utilize only honorable tactics when dealing with opponents."
		if(12)	return "We are currently negotiating with a Syndicate leader. Disguise assassinations as suicide or another natural cause."
		else	return "There are no special supplemental instructions at this time."
Now in this, there are several things stating "Good guy or bad guy" or whatever based on what objectives you get. You can see them in the code comments where it states if your debraining a good guy or debraining a bad guy or whatever. At the bottom, there are the RP objectives which is where this ban and complaint comes from. As I said, Im not sure which objective the player got but I will list below the objectives that state "Do not kill" or whatever.

We are currently negotiating with Nanotrasen command. Prioritize saving human lives over ending them."
Let no one question the mercy of the Spider Clan. Ensure the safety of all non-essential personnel you encounter."
Our reputation is on the line. Harm as few civilians or innocents as possible."

All that aside, we have never enforced objectives for singular antags before ever as far as I am aware. Team antagonists are different as you work together as a team and while you may not want to do an objective in a team antag mode, you are required to. As a singular antag, as far as I was aware, you were free to do whatever you wanted. An0n3 and I argued many times about ERTs, ninjas as antags, the functions behind ninjas, and various other things which included forcing people to follow "Not" objectives or objectives that restrict behavior. We come into multiple conflicts about how he has always seen ninjas with that objective, and I have seen ninjas with any multiple amounts of objective, and ninjas even with that objective (to not kill anyone) and murderboned anyway.
While in the logs, HG points out Ninja should just be turned off permanently, this is still in debate, at least for me.

Edit: The ban was lifted but I guess my argument still stands at least in some cases. As I said, this is also half policy thing I guess.

Re: NikNakFlak V. An0n3 || Ninja Ruling/Not Objectives

Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2015 12:25 am
by Ikarrus
Objectives are a pretty terrible way to establish the restrictions around a certain role, but I've always advocated jobbaning players who blatantly work against their own objectives in order to get a high score of kills.

If this needs to be explicitly stated in the rules we can arrange that.

Re: NikNakFlak V. An0n3 || Ninja Ruling/Not Objectives

Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2015 12:51 am
by Bluespace
Tear out the non-murderbone objectives. Give antags back their full freedom. Objectives should forever and always be optional.

Re: NikNakFlak V. An0n3 || Ninja Ruling/Not Objectives

Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2015 12:54 am
by Ikarrus
There's optional, and then there's blatantly working against them in order to hunt for valid kills.

I'm not happy with the latter.

If it comes to it, I'd rather see ninja outright removed if people keep murderboning with them.

Re: NikNakFlak V. An0n3 || Ninja Ruling/Not Objectives

Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2015 12:54 am
by Tsaricide
Killing 20+ people when you have an objective to not murderbone is pretty shitty.

Re: NikNakFlak V. An0n3 || Ninja Ruling/Not Objectives

Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2015 1:07 am
by Saegrimr
The defining feature here is that it specifically told them to not murderbone. Killing 20+ people already gets eyes on you if you have to steal something.
We've seen similar problems where people who got "Just don't fucking die" objectives from wizard spawns would immediately go on a bloody rampage.

As far as removing objectives like this? Why?
Ninjas get an immense amount of tools to deal with people if you play smart, sure its hard as fuck to stay stealth when there's nearing 100 people on the station, but you're more likely to fuck yourself by wasting energy on killing people and having the rest of the station hunt you down because you're being a murderweeb.

Re: NikNakFlak V. An0n3 || Ninja Ruling/Not Objectives

Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2015 1:37 am
by Timbrewolf
You can ignore your objectives, but I think we need to explicitly state you that cannot ignore objectives that specifically tell you NOT to do something.

When creating antagonists for prayers or events we sometimes give them objectives NOT to do things to make sure they don't fuck over the round in progress, to give them some extra challenge, etc.

I've never once seen anyone ignore those, because it seems to be common sense that if one of my objectives is telling me NOT to do something, I probably shouldn't do that. Normal objectives give you goals to work towards, things to accomplish. Choosing to ignore those things to accomplish your own things is fine. But an objective that tells you NOT to do something...if you can simply choose to ignore it why would it be there in the first place? Especially not one that has to be toggled pass/fail by admins.

The happening that brought up this discussion in the first place was a Ninja ignoring his do NOT kill everyone objective to do exactly that. In a round with a pop of roughly 30 players he killed 21 of them. Ninjas are a rare occurrence and in my experiences with them they often have that same objective as their 6th goal. I believe this is a balancing objective put in place, because without it they can easily stomp over the station and murder everyone. It's only fun for one person when they're able to fire energy nets, rip guns out of people's hands, and run around at the speed of light with an esword AND have a license to kill everyone they want. Choosing to ignore the "Hey please don't use these tools to murder the whole station" objective to do EXACTLY THAT is misusing that antag role.

tl;dr objectives that give you a goal are fine to ignore, but any objective that tells you not to do something or dissuades you from certain behaviors should not be able to be ignored. If antagonists were actually free to ignore EVERY objective they get team antags would be free to tear eachother to pieces, ignore their rev heads, etc. ERT's would arrive on station and massacre everyone for fun.

It has never been this way and it shouldn't be this way. It's a common sense ruling that, like other things we would've assumed people understood, it seems we have to stop and codify for people.

Re: NikNakFlak V. An0n3 || Ninja Ruling/Not Objectives

Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2015 1:45 am
by lumipharon
I fucking always see ninja's ignore this objective adn just go full turbomurder.
It's a shame because if you actually try achieve all your objectives as ninja, and not be a murderboning shitter, it's actually rather enjoyable.

Re: NikNakFlak V. An0n3 || Ninja Ruling/Not Objectives

Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2015 1:46 am
by mikecari
Bluespace wrote:Tear out the non-murderbone objectives. Give antags back their full freedom. Objectives should forever and always be optional.
Yeah it's fine if it's a normal antagonist like traitor, but a literally unstoppable ninja murderboning and recalling the shuttle constantly is just shit and honestly ninja should be removed if people like you think this kind of behavior is ok.
Ninja is way too overpowered to be used as a murderbone machine and causes way more problems than its worth.

Re: NikNakFlak V. An0n3 || Ninja Ruling/Not Objectives

Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2015 1:49 am
by Saegrimr
An0n3 wrote:In a round with a pop of roughly 30 players he killed 21 of them.
Low pop too?
Isn't that the kind of stuff we've been telling regular antags to not do lately?

Re: NikNakFlak V. An0n3 || Ninja Ruling/Not Objectives

Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2015 11:09 am
by leibniz
Well, it is not really good to ban people for stuff before it is established that it is banworthy.
But other forms of admin intervention might be required in cases like this, even simply telling them to cut it out in PMs is helpful.

Re: NikNakFlak V. An0n3 || Ninja Ruling/Not Objectives

Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2015 1:58 pm
by Malkevin
Saegrimr wrote:The defining feature here is that it specifically told them to not murderbone. Killing 20+ people already gets eyes on you if you have to steal something.
We've seen similar problems where people who got "Just don't fucking die" objectives from wizard spawns would immediately go on a bloody rampage.
Are you talking about survivor objectives?

Thats the entire point that you're an antag thats free to do whatever they please, thats not me saying that, thats the word of Kor - aka the guy that coded summon guns - aka the author - aka the word of god.



Didn't you guys try to force no murderboner antags on us already, didn't you have to take back due to public outcry?
Ninja shouldn't be any different, but they really should be treat like wizard - i.e. not a random event spawning in.

Re: NikNakFlak V. An0n3 || Ninja Ruling/Not Objectives

Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2015 2:13 pm
by Saegrimr
Malkevin wrote:Thats the entire point that you're an antag thats free to do whatever they please,
So cultists and revs should totally be allowed to shank eachother for shits because "i'm an antag" right?
Nuke ops should make a rush for the gear, tase their teammates before they can grab any, and dive off before anybody else can grab all the bombs and just go wild on the station?
Malkevin wrote:thats not me saying that, thats the word of Kor - aka the guy that coded summon guns - aka the author - aka the word of god.
Bretty sure Scaredy, aka the guy that owns the server - aka the guy that fucking owns the server - specifically had wizard disabled until survivor objectives were removed entirely because its a fucking stupid excuse to just open up on your co-worker with an LMG because you got an objective telling you to not die.

Re: NikNakFlak V. An0n3 || Ninja Ruling/Not Objectives

Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2015 3:39 pm
by NikNakFlak
You can't compare nuke ops, cultist, or rev to ninja. Those are team antagonist modes that require cooperation to move towards a goal. Ninja is a singular antagonist and is most often compared and shadowed with wizard.

Re: NikNakFlak V. An0n3 || Ninja Ruling/Not Objectives

Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2015 3:55 pm
by Saegrimr
It's also why you can't compare special circumstances like ninjas and survivors to normal traitors and DAs. The fact survivor got straight up removed because of it reinforces that point.

Re: NikNakFlak V. An0n3 || Ninja Ruling/Not Objectives

Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2015 4:57 pm
by tedward1337
>antags thinking they're free of the rules

Rule 1 applies
Rule 0 applies
Rule 9 applies
Objectives are put in place to help guide antags, sure you dont have to listen to them, but when you get told not to murderbone and you do ANYWAYS, the problem lies with the player not the role. This was discussed in the bus, headmin ruling this was a no no. Putting this out further just shows the side of "antags are allowed to do a lot things, except the few." Most players respect that, and those who don't net a ban for it.

Edit: Fixed a few words

Re: NikNakFlak V. An0n3 || Ninja Ruling/Not Objectives

Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2015 5:01 pm
by NikNakFlak
These rules were not sited during the ban. The ban reason and reasoning behind it when discussed is that this kind of murderboning is not allowed with a restrictive objective. This is not stated anywhere and you can assume it's common sense but if there are no restrictions on any other singular antagonist objective, why is this one different? Don't forget this all started from a ban on which a player violated a "rule" that doesn't officially exist.

Re: NikNakFlak V. An0n3 || Ninja Ruling/Not Objectives

Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2015 5:13 pm
by tedward1337
NikNakFlak wrote:These rules were not sited during the ban. The ban reason and reasoning behind it when discussed is that this kind of murderboning is not allowed with a restrictive objective. This is not stated anywhere and you can assume it's common sense but if there are no restrictions on any other singular antagonist objective, why is this one different? Don't forget this all started from a ban on which a player violated a "rule" that doesn't officially exist.
The rules weren't cited sure, but now they are. You brought this up, and its being discussed. There was a policy to stop murderboning, which was repealed. Low pop = muderbones are poor form and should not be done. This is the same as camping out the arrivals shuttle to kill people fnr. Ninja is a special role which only EVER roles out because RNG chooses too. No admin spawns them very often. This role is very special in terms of antags and should be treated as such. If you bone on a no boning objective expect a ban, at the least. The difference with other antags is there is usually a higher point to them. Gamemodes are based around the antags that follow with them. Ninjas just appear as it is, and thus their objectives mean a lot more to the player, and the round. You can say the deathsquad could go and murder whoever spawns with them, but they dont, because they know what their purpose is with objectives. Same holds true here with ninjas.

Edit: my spelling is awful this morning, fixed all that.

Re: NikNakFlak V. An0n3 || Ninja Ruling/Not Objectives

Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2015 5:19 pm
by Ikarrus
NikNakFlak wrote:These rules were not sited during the ban. The ban reason and reasoning behind it when discussed is that this kind of murderboning is not allowed with a restrictive objective. This is not stated anywhere and you can assume it's common sense but if there are no restrictions on any other singular antagonist objective, why is this one different? Don't forget this all started from a ban on which a player violated a "rule" that doesn't officially exist.
The ban was rescinded was it not?

The rule doesn't exist yet, but that may change here.

Re: NikNakFlak V. An0n3 || Ninja Ruling/Not Objectives

Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2015 5:29 pm
by NikNakFlak
Exactly my point. For this reason, other rules can't be cited because it's never been decided if it really interacted upon them. It may be poor form but never punishable.

Re: NikNakFlak V. An0n3 || Ninja Ruling/Not Objectives

Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2015 6:26 pm
by leibniz
Saegrimr wrote:It's also why you can't compare special circumstances like ninjas and survivors to normal traitors and DAs. The fact survivor got straight up removed because of it reinforces that point.
The purpose of Summon Guns was to cause chaos on the station, the wording of the survivor objectives is not really important.

Re: NikNakFlak V. An0n3 || Ninja Ruling/Not Objectives

Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2015 10:19 pm
by miggles
IMHO ninjas specifically should be forced to go for their objectives
IC it makes sense since the spider clan would be much more strict about their operatives than the syndicate
OOC it prevents them from going full murderbone every round, which sucks, and would encourage them to play more stealthily, like an actual ninja

Re: NikNakFlak V. An0n3 || Ninja Ruling/Not Objectives

Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2015 1:43 am
by Timbrewolf
NOT objectives are put in place to guide different antagonists towards behaviors we want. They're used for balance, whether it's a badmin creating an antagonist or the game automatically assigning it to you.

Choosing to ignore them is playing that role in a way it wasn't intended. It upsets the balance of the game and can easily lead to situations that are shitty and un-fun for an overwhelming majority of players.

If you ignore them to do that kind of thing you're not playing the antagonist as it was intended and you're going to get banned from antag roles in the same way a that team antags working against eachother would. You're purposely ruining the game for your own enjoyment.

A somewhat similar issue arose a while back when we had cults ignoring their objectives to summon Nar-Sie every round when they had other objectives, and we decided that was a violation of their antag status and would result in them getting antag bans. Summoning Nar-Sie, when you don't have it as an objective, screws over the rest of the cult. Unless the whole cult agrees to say fuck it we Nar-Sie now, you shouldn't do it.

Antags have rules and restrictions. Antag is not a lisence to griff. They've always had rules and restrictions, just a lot fewer than the average non-antag player.

Here's another example:

You have a "Protect so-and-so" objective. You run right to them and murder them immediately. What should happen? Should there be a response at all, and if so, what?

Re: NikNakFlak V. An0n3 || Ninja Ruling/Not Objectives

Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2015 4:20 am
by TZK13

Code: Select all

This proc will give the ninja a directive to follow. They are not obligated to do so but it's a fun roleplay reminder.
Making this random or semi-random will probably not work without it also being incredibly silly.
As such, it's hard-coded for now. No reason for it not to be, really.
I think this is fairly important here, this comment in the code literally says that ninjas are under no obligation to follow their directives. While a comment in the code isn't necessarily important to how the administration runs things it does give something for people to point out if they do get in trouble under whatever's decided here.

Re: NikNakFlak V. An0n3 || Ninja Ruling/Not Objectives

Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2015 5:05 am
by Timbrewolf
We have a consensus:
Antagonists are free to ignore objectives as long as they do not willingy work counter to them. Failing an objective is not grounds for admin intervention, but purposely sabotaging or working against it is.

Re: NikNakFlak V. An0n3 || Ninja Ruling/Not Objectives

Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2015 5:23 am
by Ikarrus
Not yet. I'm not done talking about it.

Re: NikNakFlak V. An0n3 || Ninja Ruling/Not Objectives

Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2015 5:34 am
by Timbrewolf
REWRITE III: THE REWRITENING
Non-Team Antagonists are free to ignore objectives as long as they do not willingly work counter to them. Failing an objective is not grounds for admin intervention, but purposely sabotaging or working against one is. You may forgo a harmful objective to instead protect or safeguard the target if you wish.

Team Antagonists are free to do the same, but only if the rest of the team is in agreement.

Re: NikNakFlak V. An0n3 || Ninja Ruling/Not Objectives

Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2015 5:58 am
by Ikarrus
^ It's official now. Let us know if there are any weird loopholes or issues we didn't think of.

Re: NikNakFlak V. An0n3 || Ninja Ruling/Not Objectives

Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2015 6:37 am
by oranges
Could you maybe just not make it a rule, does this kind of stuff even have to be said, are people really that retarded?

Also code comments are worthless as an indicator of anything, including the code they're commenting

Re: NikNakFlak V. An0n3 || Ninja Ruling/Not Objectives

Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2015 6:41 am
by Ikarrus
oranges wrote:are people really that retarded?
Read the thread and find out.

Re: NikNakFlak V. An0n3 || Ninja Ruling/Not Objectives

Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2015 6:43 am
by TZK13
Well I don't think solo antags that have a steal objective should really be punished for instead intentionally destroying whatever it is they require considering it only really effects them, it doesn't really even effect whoever it is they may have stolen it from because it being stolen isn't much different than it being destroyed from their perspective.

Re: NikNakFlak V. An0n3 || Ninja Ruling/Not Objectives

Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2015 7:23 am
by Ikarrus
Although it's unlikely that sort of situation would come to the attention of admins, you're right. We'll have to look into it.

Re: NikNakFlak V. An0n3 || Ninja Ruling/Not Objectives

Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2015 7:43 am
by TZK13
Yeah it's a pretty dumb edge case but I feel that this ruling only really matters if actively working against your objective really effects other players "negatively" in some way like murderboning when you're supposed to avoid it, clarifying it along those terms might be better.

Re: NikNakFlak V. An0n3 || Ninja Ruling/Not Objectives

Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2015 11:11 am
by Vekter
What you have to remember is the EXACT WORDING of the objective in question is to "minimalize casualties". Murderboning outright disobeys that order and completely shits on the whole idea of a ninja.

Re: NikNakFlak V. An0n3 || Ninja Ruling/Not Objectives

Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2015 11:41 am
by leibniz
Can we have some examples for the "they do not willingly work counter to them" part?

Re: NikNakFlak V. An0n3 || Ninja Ruling/Not Objectives

Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2015 11:53 am
by lumipharon
Why does the rule say 'get bant for working against your objective' then goes on to say oh but the exception to that is if you choose to protect someone instead of murder them? It just seems... odd.

Re: NikNakFlak V. An0n3 || Ninja Ruling/Not Objectives

Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2015 11:58 am
by Steelpoint
free to ignore objectives as long as they do not willingly work counter to them
You may forgo a harmful objective to instead protect
Holy contradictions An0nman!

I've personally always subscribed to the ideology of allowing antagonists freedom to do nearly anything they want.

Nonetheless, this is a massive change to the game, as until now antagonists have always been told that accomplishing their objectives is secondary to them doing antagonistic things. This change puts a wall up saying that as a antagonist you cannot do certain actions that would compromise your objectives.

Re: NikNakFlak V. An0n3 || Ninja Ruling/Not Objectives

Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2015 12:27 pm
by Stickymayhem
So to be clear, if you ended up with a protect objective, theoretically, and killed the person you were supposed to protect; would that require intervention?

Re: NikNakFlak V. An0n3 || Ninja Ruling/Not Objectives

Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2015 1:07 pm
by Malkevin
Are HUDs still bugged so that they show cloaked ninjas?

What if I'm sneaking about and a sec officer or meddoc spots me?

Re: NikNakFlak V. An0n3 || Ninja Ruling/Not Objectives

Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2015 4:19 pm
by Vigilare
HUDs are just robust like that

I don't think they can see champroj'd people though, maybe base the ninja invis code off that so sec can't use their SUPER NINJA SPOTTING

Re: NikNakFlak V. An0n3 || Ninja Ruling/Not Objectives

Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2015 4:24 pm
by Jacough
Something I was about to suggest was to give "good"ninjas an additional objective that was something along the lines of "minimize crew casualties". If the ninja kills or crits a certain number of non-antags or higher he fails the objective

Re: NikNakFlak V. An0n3 || Ninja Ruling/Not Objectives

Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2015 4:36 pm
by Ikarrus
Stickymayhem wrote:So to be clear, if you ended up with a protect objective, theoretically, and killed the person you were supposed to protect; would that require intervention?
That was the intent, yes.

Re: NikNakFlak V. An0n3 || Ninja Ruling/Not Objectives

Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2015 6:43 pm
by Timbrewolf
Ikarrus wrote:
Stickymayhem wrote:So to be clear, if you ended up with a protect objective, theoretically, and killed the person you were supposed to protect; would that require intervention?
That was the intent, yes.
If you did it purposely yes.

An example I used was if you had a "Don't harm the crew" objective and were fighting a xeno when a stray laser blast hits a crew member and kills it. You've failed your objective but you weren't actively working against it. It's not grounds for admin intervention.

If you had a "Don't harm the crew" objective and you walk into the bar and laser everyone to death then yes, now you've broken the rule.
Steelpoint wrote:Holy contradictions An0nman!
It's not a contradiction, you're supposed to take the two statements in series. One is a ground rule and the other is a proviso.

Re: NikNakFlak V. An0n3 || Ninja Ruling/Not Objectives

Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2015 7:09 pm
by mikecari
It should be common fucking sense that you're supposed to not intentionally kill the person you are ordered to protect, so yes, it should be bannable. Unfortunately murderboners like oranges love to abuse a good roleplay opportunity and would rather ruin the round for everybody rather than make it fun.

Honestly I find that murdering innocents who are not on your hit list as a traitor is also a really shitty thing to do. Say I'm a chef for example, doing my job and making food in the kitchen when some asshole who doesn't have me as a target and has no beef with me decides to crossbow me and laser me to death "cause it's valid LOL". Honestly if anyone plays antagonist JUST TO MURDERBONE and cater to whatever sadistic, greytiding, childish fetish they have, they should either turn off the preference or be banned from antag roles until they learn to stop acting so fucking underage. I'm talking about people like Rob Ust by the way, who was luckily punished by scaredy for being a massive shitlord to literally everyone.

I can understand if you murder an innocent because they saw you spacing a guy, sure, but killing the guy literally minding his own business in his department all fucking shift and being polite to everyone is just a rule one violation of the highest regard.

Re: NikNakFlak V. An0n3 || Ninja Ruling/Not Objectives

Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2015 7:13 pm
by DemonFiren
One of those places where Bay's interpretation is actually halfway acceptable, I think, is antags: they're here to spice the round up and create as much fun as they can, for as many as they can.

Murderbonering is, I imagine, fun for one person alone. Even the mop-up afterwards is tedious, if anyone survives this shit.

Re: NikNakFlak V. An0n3 || Ninja Ruling/Not Objectives

Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2015 8:02 pm
by Stickymayhem
mikecari wrote:murderboners like steelpoint
I've literally never seen steelpoint murderbone.

Re: NikNakFlak V. An0n3 || Ninja Ruling/Not Objectives

Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2015 10:02 pm
by TZK13
DemonFiren wrote:Murderbonering is, I imagine, fun for one person alone. Even the mop-up afterwards is tedious, if anyone survives this shit.
This isn't really true though, I've often times had fun either try to stop the murderboner or being able to observe the murderboner after I've been killed.

Re: NikNakFlak V. An0n3 || Ninja Ruling/Not Objectives

Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2015 10:06 pm
by DemonFiren
's why I said "I imagine".
Most of my experience comes from the lowpop rounds on Basil, where one shitler deciding to murder everyone will murder everyone, then dick around until shuttle time. Which is not entertaining at all.

Re: NikNakFlak V. An0n3 || Ninja Ruling/Not Objectives

Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2015 10:08 pm
by TZK13
Murderboning on lowpop is terrible as well as when the murderboner goes out of their way to murder totally uninvolved people like botanists and the chef as mikecari said.

Re: NikNakFlak V. An0n3 || Ninja Ruling/Not Objectives

Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2015 7:31 am
by oranges
mikecari wrote: Unfortunately murderboners like oranges

Epic, thanks man :lol: