(Proposal) Rule 4 & 5 changes

[TheBibleMelts]

hello, my name is thebiblemelts and i am a registered streamer. i want to use this title and affluence to change rule 4 and 5 to the following, with the intent to keep antagonist related policy to rule 4, and let rule 5 be the rule where we put crewbased standards of conduct. rule 4 itself won't be changing much at all with this proposal, but rule 5 will be changed pretty significantly with its intent and the standards it enforces on players who seek to be THE BOSS.

i'd like rule 4 to change to

4. Lone antagonists have freedom from (most) crewmember rules.
With the exception of metagaming/comms, bug/exploit abuse, erotic/creepy stuff, OOC in IC or IC in OOC, or spawn-camping arrivals, solo antagonists may pursue any goals they wish, in any way they wish. Crewmembers may similarly handle antagonists in any way they wish, but are not allowed to pre-emptively search for, hinder or otherwise seek conflict with antagonists without reasonable cause to do so. Team antagonists can do as they wish as per lone antagonists, but their actions should neither harm their teams efforts, nor willingly allow the goals of the team to be stopped through inaction. Emulating an antagonist by action or outfit puts you at risk of being treated as one.

with the new set of precedents listed being

Non-antagonists are allowed to assist antagonists with good IC reasoning, but assisting an antagonist doesn't mean you get a pass on acting like one. If in doubt, ask an admin if a particular action is okay. Depending on the level of assistance, sufficient IC reasoning could be simply treating everyone who goes into medbay regardless of them being a murderer or not, all the way to being threatened under pain of death by an antagonist to do something.

The relationship between xeno queen and xeno is treated the same as malf AI and borg, and are considered team antagonists for the purpose of main rule 4. Xenos should prioritize following the directions of their queen where possible.

Ghosting out mid-conversion, going AFK, suiciding, or logging off when converted to a team antagonist position can result in warnings from an admin; extending to bans for repeated behaviour. This extends to when Command/Security mindshield implants an individual to their side in said modes. Let an admin know if you cannot or do not want to play any of the above mentioned roles. Admins will attempt to transfer the role to someone else. Obviously, if an admin does so for a player, the player must not use knowledge of that antagonist position existing.

and then, for the real meat of this proposal, the great EnHeadening. rule 5 would be as follows.

5. Players in vital job roles require a minimum amount of effort.

As a Head of Staff, you should be a reliable worker for your department, and are expected to perform the minimum duties of that role to the best of your ability. As an upside, being THE BOSS allows you to dictate the workflow of your department as you like, so long as you are reasonable - and have the ability to demote staff who do not comply, with similar protections that security is afforded for valid arrests. Notify admins if you must leave near round start, and make an attempt to inform other players IC as well for Command or AI roles.

with the rule 5 precedents being changed as follows

that's right, i got rid of all the goddamn rule 5 precedents. they're baked into rule 4&5 now. less bloat and cross-reference for everybody.

head of staff players should have more unquestioned control and authority over their departments, they are THE GODDAMN BOSS, and as such should also probably be the one dude you should be able to rely on, and set an 'example' for their employees.

[wesoda25]

+1 to shifting (written) team antag expectations from not harming their team to actually contributing something. I also much prefer your phrasing of "act like an antag get treated like one". Don't particularly care for the rest of your grammatical/phrasing changes to rule 4 but I do admit they're more soulful.

I also like your Rule 5 changes. Upping expectations from "don't DC" to "try to do your job" just seems like common sense to me. I also like your inclusion of the word "reasonable" with regards to department management, that should hopefully counter the fact that heads can be antag.

Sincerely wesoda twenty five, forefather of Kurtism and non-streamer

[CMDR_Gungnir]

I'm generally in favour of all of this, but there is one thing that just grates my ear a little when I hear it.

OOC in IC or IC in OOC, or spawn-camping arrivals,

I'd probably make it "OOC in IC/IC in OOC" just so you don't hit the "or" twice in such quick succession. Just sounds nicer in the think-ear, imo.

[Boot]

Since we are breaking out the red pens for this I gotta ask.

What is an example of metagaming that wouldn't be allowed per rule 4?

[TheBibleMelts]

Since we are breaking out the red pens for this I gotta ask.

What is an example of metagaming that wouldn't be allowed per rule 4?

the same ones that exist right now.

i copy pasted that whole section of current rule 4.

[Vekter]

Since we are breaking out the red pens for this I gotta ask.

What is an example of metagaming that wouldn't be allowed per rule 4?

Anything that would get you banned under rule 4 right now will also get you banned under these. That hasn't changed. Metagaming in this case would include things like using knowledge from previous lives, outing a Heretic who sacrificed you, metacomms, that sort of thing.

The exceptions under rule 4 aren't special ones, they're just saying "If you would normally get in trouble for doing it, then rule 4 doesn't save you from that".

[Imitates-The-Lizards]

So, if I'm reading this correctly, rule 4 basically doesn't change at all, but rule 5 has added minimum expectation of service to heads of staff (Basically the "CE, set up the fucking SM" rule), an obligation to non-antag crew to follow reasonable directives from their head of staff, along with demotion metaprotections being moved from head admin rulings to just being in rule 5 which doesn't change anything, and Silicons and team conversion antagonists like cultist or head revolutionary are....no longer required to meet the minimum expectation of not logging out near round start?

Is that a correct summation of changes?

[MooCow12]

I dont like the "dictate workflow" and "demote those who dont comply" part of the head of staff stuff , its too ambiguous and can be abused.

It could literally mean that the basic requirements to be a part of a lesser department job varies from head to head, demotions should stick to malicious and careless acts rather than possibly leaking to inaction due to lesser understanding.

[Imitates-The-Lizards]

I dont like the "dictate workflow" and "demote those who dont comply" part of the head of staff stuff , its too ambiguous and can be abused.

It could literally mean that the basic requirements to be a part of a lesser department job varies from head to head, demotions should stick to malicious and careless acts rather than possibly leaking to inaction due to lesser understanding.

This part of the new rule literally doesn't change anything, it straight up just moves demotions from being a headmin ruling to being a part of the rules section. You can already demote someone, with OOC metaprotection, for not doing their job.

[MooCow12]

You can already demote someone, with OOC metaprotection, for not doing their job.

It kind of looks like the head of staff defines what that job is via the "dictate workflow" though, i dont like how ambiguous it is.

[Imitates-The-Lizards]

You can already demote someone, with OOC metaprotection, for not doing their job.

It kind of looks like the head of staff defines what that job is via the "dictate workflow" though, i dont like how ambiguous it is.

That is.... literally already the case. Right now, if you play even on LRP on Sybil or something, and your head of staff gives you a reasonable order, and you refuse or don't follow it, they can demote you, with OOC metaprotection.

Like, if you're a chemist, and there's a virus, and the CMO says "Hey, make us Anacea (the virus cure), while I work on people in the exam room room because there's no MDs.", and you fuck off to the Bar, you can be demoted, and Security can even arrest you for dereliction. If you don't know how to make Anacea, you just have to tell the CMO that, and he will have to decide to like teach you himself, or make it himself. He can't demote you for not being knowledgeable, and if he tries, frankly he should be command rolebanned.

This rule change literally changes nothing except for moving this from the headmin rulings section to the rules section. That's it. There are zero, 0, ZERO changes to actual or existing current policy or expectations.

If they tried to give you an unreasonable order (Read as: something which falls out of the obvious scope of your job, like ordering you to help them convert the medbay into a mech bay while you are a chemist), you can refuse the order and fuck off, and they cannot validly demote you.

[SkeletalElite]

I see one problem with "As a Head of Staff, you should be a reliable worker for your department, and are expected to perform the minimum duties of that role to the best of your ability."

This rule removes a lot of plausible deniability for head of staff antags because of the expectations that non antags are literally required to meet.

SM isn't setup? CE has to be an antag kill him.

[Imitates-The-Lizards]

SM isn't setup? CE has to be an antag kill him.

...I mean, I'm pretty sure everyone who isn't an incompetent first time CE player is fine with this.

Like how do you even unlock CE without learning SM? Picking Station Engineer and then doing Bar RP for 20 hours?

Also even if you ARE an antag CE, it's still smart to set up the SM because otherwise everyone will hate you and seek you out.

Literal non-issue except that a non-antag CE will get lynched once every 2 months for not doing the engine, which also isn't an issue if you ask me.

[SkeletalElite]

SM isn't setup? CE has to be an antag kill him.

...I mean, I'm pretty sure everyone who isn't an incompetent first time CE player is fine with this.

Like how do you even unlock CE without learning SM? Picking Station Engineer and then doing Bar RP for 20 hours?

Also even if you ARE an antag CE, it's still smart to set up the SM because otherwise everyone will hate you and seek you out.

Literal non-issue except that a non-antag CE will get lynched once every 2 months for not doing the engine, which also isn't an issue if you ask me.

It goes beyond just the CE and hte SM though. If the cargo shuttle isn't being called while there is departmental orders can you just lynch the QM. Can you lynch the RD because hes not building and scanning toilets. Can you lynch the CMO because there is no plastic. If you call the HoP to come to the line repeatedly and he doesn't can you kill him. Antags not having that plaussible deniability encoruages them to not be quiet about their antag status and instead to go loud, something that we try to avoid

[TheBibleMelts]

I see one problem with "As a Head of Staff, you should be a reliable worker for your department, and are expected to perform the minimum duties of that role to the best of your ability."

This rule removes a lot of plausible deniability for head of staff antags because of the expectations that non antags are literally required to meet.

SM isn't setup? CE has to be an antag kill him.

lynching a head of staff for not doing a 'minimum' because it must mean they're 100% an antagonist would be a dick move, and would run afoul of the powergaming rule. what you would be able to do, however, is request the captain to look into why one of their subordinates is not doing their job, and present an IC argument for why they're acting unfit. i still think an antag head role is still afforded more than enough freedom for intentional malpractice in their department to keep the round interesting/pursue their objectives. i'm not saying this isn't a valid concern that i'd like to have a better solution for, but i don't think it'll be as big a deal in practice as it seems on paper.

[Vekter]

You can already demote someone, with OOC metaprotection, for not doing their job.

It kind of looks like the head of staff defines what that job is via the "dictate workflow" though, i dont like how ambiguous it is.

If someone's being a dick and actively misrepresenting how the rule works, like they're demoting someone for not playing exactly how they want them to play, we will handle it. We're not just going to throw up our hands and go "Welp, he found a loophole, I literally cannot do anything about this situation".

[Fatal]

The rule 5 change is similar to my own proposed change regarding that so I'm all for it

For those people complaining about being targeted IC for not doing the bare minimum because they're antag I have two words for you

Skill issue

Seriously, if you can't be bothered to do the bare minimum and try and make it look like you aren't an antagonist, you deserve everything you get when security / captain come asking questions (but not assistant joe mcvalidhunter)

[sinfulbliss]

So, I’m not a fan of raising team antag requirements from “not actively harming” to “minimum contribution,” for reasons I’ve already mentioned in a prior policy thread about it — often times “doing nothing” is a fine action to take as a team antag, while the more active and combat inclined members go about making progress and converting people, it’s better to do nothing than to become a liability, and many players know this and that’s why they opt for it.

Likewise without any expressed “minimum contribution” we run into the same recurring issue of admins having different views and enforcing this differently, thus players not knowing what is expected of them. I would hate to see a more unconfident or passive player turning team antags off because they got bwoinked for not contributing enough, despite never harming their team.

I prefer the soulful “act like an antag get treated like an antag” wording at the bottom of rule 4. Rephrasing it as a “risk,” is strange for a rule. Obviously you open yourself up to a risk — the point of this portion is supposed to be to say that players are allowed to treat people acting like an antag, like an antag. Not as a sort of warning that people may do this, if that makes sense.

all the way to being threatened under pain of death by an antagonist to do something.

This should be made more extreme. It’s phrased as “from [minor thing] to [major thing],” showing the expanse of possible excusable actions, but instead of giving a major thing it just says “to do something.” Would be way more useful as something concrete. Under pain of death to commit murder, for instance.

As for the rule 5 rewording, the concerns about players metagaming heads not doing their minimum are valid and I suspect it will occur. However I am sort of with Anne in that it’s a skill issue. Head of Staff antags already have a massive advantage, so a little bit of a nerf in this regard isn’t a big deal.

[iwishforducks]

not a huge fan of the slip in for antag contribution. this was already discussed on a previous policy thread. and i guess it really doesnt matter since u guys are headmins and can pass anything yourself, but it still feels a little snakey here lol

edit: idk what the fuck im on this was already put in part of policy. i think i got it confused with the crewmember expectations thread? idk i was very tired when i first wrote this

“act like an antag, get treated like an antag” is an incredibly good and important tidbit imo. there’s a whole lotta words here that dont mean much. on the “helping antagonists” part it should just say

Assisting antagonists opens you up to being treated like an antagonist, without being able to retaliate back like an antagonist.

[iain0]

Largely sounds good, what sort of things do we have as minimum team antag contribution? There's always those people who are just hanging out on the shuttle having a chill party at the rev stalemates for example, I've never particularly cared about this as an admin or player and as admin we tend to wrap things up by pushing at the heads rather than the team. But any thoughts on these sort of scenarios and any others that are or aren't covered under the rule 4 team contribution stuff?

[TheBibleMelts]

Largely sounds good, what sort of things do we have as minimum team antag contribution? There's always those people who are just hanging out on the shuttle having a chill party at the rev stalemates for example, I've never particularly cared about this as an admin or player and as admin we tend to wrap things up by pushing at the heads rather than the team. But any thoughts on these sort of scenarios and any others that are or aren't covered under the rule 4 team contribution stuff?

as long as what they're doing can be said to be doing something that is aimed in some vague way toward their teams goals, that's the minimum i'd like hit. ex. botanists getting revved they could still choose not to engage directly, instead fucking back off to their department and growing plants that could benefit their comrades.

[Imitates-The-Lizards]

The more I read these changes, and as we discussed existing demotion metaprotections contained within headmin rulings in earlier posts, the more I've come to the following conclusion:

What these rule changes actually do is adding the CE set up the SM rule, and upping team antag contribution to minimum contribution.

When you boil it down and cover existing policy, that's the only thing these changes accomplish, unless as part of the "Enheadening", you're planning to bwoink people on LRP for not following orders from their departmental head, which I doubt.

So basically, I have re-discovered what wesoda put in the 2nd post in this thread.

In my defense, this wasn't really spelled out as the main point of the changes in the OP, the OP heavily implies this is supposed to be about empowering heads of staff, when actually, no, this doesn't empower heads of staff at all, as heads of staff could already demote people with arrest metaprotections, it actually LIMITS heads of staff by forcibly requiring them to meet minimum standards of contribution.

If I'm wrong here please let me know, but at current, it looks like you're proposing to nerf heads via policy while selling it as a buff.

[Vekter]

The more I read these changes, and as we discussed existing demotion metaprotections contained within headmin rulings in earlier posts, the more I've come to the following conclusion:

What these rule changes actually do is adding the CE set up the SM rule, and upping team antag contribution to minimum contribution.

When you boil it down and cover existing policy, that's the only thing these changes accomplish, unless as part of the "Enheadening", you're planning to bwoink people on LRP for not following orders from their departmental head, which I doubt.

So basically, I have re-discovered what wesoda put in the 2nd post in this thread.

In my defense, this wasn't really spelled out as the main point of the changes in the OP, the OP heavily implies this is supposed to be about empowering heads of staff, when actually, no, this doesn't empower heads of staff at all, as heads of staff could already demote people with arrest metaprotections, it actually LIMITS heads of staff by forcibly requiring them to meet minimum standards of contribution.

If I'm wrong here please let me know, but at current, it looks like you're proposing to nerf heads via policy while selling it as a buff.

Heads already have to meet minimum standards of contribution. We regularly role ban people under rule 5 for refusing to do their job as a head, for example, fucking off into space instead of playing Captain.

What this does change is it enshrines into rules that heads are allowed to demote members of their staff for refusing orders and gives them some metaprotections against retaliation.

[TheBibleMelts]

based on feedback here, changed the wording on the 'minimum effort' of team roles on rule 4. it now reads

4. Lone antagonists may follow their hearts desire.
With the exception of metagaming/comms, bug/exploit abuse, erotic/creepy stuff, OOC in IC or IC in OOC, or spawn-camping arrivals, shift antagonists may pursue any goals they wish, in any way they wish. Crewmembers may similarly handle antagonists in any way they wish, but are not allowed to pre-emptively search for, hinder or otherwise seek conflict with antagonists without reasonable cause to do so. Team antagonists can do as they wish as per lone antagonists, but their actions should neither harm their teams efforts, nor willingly allow harm to come to their team through inaction. Emulating an antagonist by action or outfit puts you at risk of being treated as one.

i went full-ass asimov on it and changed that part to

Team antagonists can do as they wish as per lone antagonists, but their actions should neither harm their teams efforts, nor willingly allow harm to come to their team through inaction.

any better?

[iwishforducks]

i get the vibe going there but i do worry that people will put team members' lives above the goals of the team. i think it should say specifically "nor willingly allow the goals of the team to be stopped through inaction."

i.e., you really shouldn't just sit there as a sec officer walks into the cult base and not stop them. unless you're doing some 4D chess and trying to pass off as a non-cultist- that would still be in the efforts of the goals of the team

[TheBibleMelts]

i get the vibe going there but i do worry that people will put team members' lives above the goals of the team. i think it should say specifically "nor willingly allow the goals of the team to be stopped through inaction."

i.e., you really shouldn't just sit there as a sec officer walks into the cult base and not stop them. unless you're doing some 4D chess and trying to pass off as a non-cultist- that would still be in the efforts of the goals of the team

sure, sounds good. adjusted it.

4. Lone antagonists may follow their hearts desire.
With the exception of metagaming/comms, bug/exploit abuse, erotic/creepy stuff, OOC in IC or IC in OOC, or spawn-camping arrivals, shift antagonists may pursue any goals they wish, in any way they wish. Crewmembers may similarly handle antagonists in any way they wish, but are not allowed to pre-emptively search for, hinder or otherwise seek conflict with antagonists without reasonable cause to do so. Team antagonists can do as they wish as per lone antagonists, but their actions should neither harm their teams efforts, nor willingly allow the goals of the team to be stopped through inaction. Emulating an antagonist by action or outfit puts you at risk of being treated as one.

[sinfulbliss]

Team antagonists can do as they wish as per lone antagonists, but their actions should neither harm their teams efforts, nor willingly allow the goals of the team to be stopped through inaction.

Not a fan of this, it reads like Asimov. I don’t like the idea of a team antag getting bwoinked for lack of action because there are lots of reasons not to take action especially for newer players, and it would be unfortunate if they had to explain themselves in a bwoink for simply walking around.

[TheBibleMelts]

Team antagonists can do as they wish as per lone antagonists, but their actions should neither harm their teams efforts, nor willingly allow the goals of the team to be stopped through inaction.

Not a fan of this, it reads like Asimov. I don’t like the idea of a team antag getting bwoinked for lack of action because there are lots of reasons not to take action especially for newer players, and it would be unfortunate if they had to explain themselves in a bwoink for simply walking around.

the scenario I would use as a baseline for triggering the bwoink via inaction would be something like watching your headrev get beaten to death 3 tiles away without lifting a finger.

[MooCow12]

Do revs actually get a clear objective to defend their own head revs and keep them in an arbitrary "alive" state (I say this because trying to transplant them into a security officers body would count towards revs losing) or is it just "help them kill heads of staff"

[oranges]

They are long ass rule changes but I support, people are not stupid and if they know that this person they're jailing for IC break and enter will just go back and do it over and over and over again they are not going to bother wasting their time with it.

giving sec and heads some OOC support via rule 5 would help counter that trend.

[sinfulbliss]

Team antagonists can do as they wish as per lone antagonists, but their actions should neither harm their teams efforts, nor willingly allow the goals of the team to be stopped through inaction.

Not a fan of this, it reads like Asimov. I don’t like the idea of a team antag getting bwoinked for lack of action because there are lots of reasons not to take action especially for newer players, and it would be unfortunate if they had to explain themselves in a bwoink for simply walking around.

the scenario I would use as a baseline for triggering the bwoink via inaction would be something like watching your headrev get beaten to death 3 tiles away without lifting a finger.

That makes sense, but I’m sure admins all have different baselines.

[datorangebottle]

I have two concerns about the rule changes regarding team antagonist effort.
A) A running policy of mine is, "If we weren't in a fight and you physically injure me when converting me and make no effort to get me healed, I will not actively help you." Instead of hunting down the objectives/etc, I'll fuck off to some dark corner of maintenance, building some sort of base/resources available only to teammates. If a teammate gets injured in my base, I'll assist them in recovering at minimum. Does this run afoul of the new rules?

B) Sometimes I just don't feel like playing cult/revs today. I don't want to be banned from the roles, I don't want to leave the round, but being in a team doesn't always fill me with joy. The rules don't seem to accommodate this.

[TheBibleMelts]

changed the wording on the team antag bit - i don't want people to feel like there's a sword of damocles hanging over their head when they get converted.

"Team antagonists can do as they wish as per lone antagonists, but their actions should neither harm their teams efforts, nor willingly allow the goals of the team to be stopped through inaction."

is now

"Team antagonists can do as they wish as per lone antagonists, but their actions should neither harm their teams efforts, nor intentionally harm it through inaction."

as long as your intentions aren't to harm your team by spitefully not participating at all, you should be able to act how you'd like.

A) A running policy of mine is, "If we weren't in a fight and you physically injure me when converting me and make no effort to get me healed, I will not actively help you." Instead of hunting down the objectives/etc, I'll fuck off to some dark corner of maintenance, building some sort of base/resources available only to teammates. If a teammate gets injured in my base, I'll assist them in recovering at minimum. Does this run afoul of the new rules?

nah that sounds pretty dope, and you're till doing something for the team.

[Pepper]

So ignoring annoying heads of staff is rulebreaking now?

[Vekter]

So ignoring annoying heads of staff is rulebreaking now?

No, but not doing what your head of staff orders you to opens you up to IC consequences. That hasn't changed - we've always supported heads firing/demoting people who refused to do their jobs. The metaprotections rule 5 refer to now are basically saying "as long as you're demoting someone for a valid reason, we will intervene if they retaliate outside of acceptable escalation".

In short, refusing to do your job is okay, but it might get you fired. If you try to kill the head that fired you or otherwise self-antag with that as justification, it could result in you being noted/banned.

This isn't that much different than how we've handled things for a while now.

Obviously you can adminhelp if the head in question is asking you to do things that violate the rules or are unnecessarily absurd and we'll help out in those cases.

[bean_sprout]

Question, in regard to the 'do not pre-emptively hinder antags' portion of rule 4.

Lets say I was a botanist(shocker, I know), with an interest in growing holymelons. For the purposes of the example there has yet to be an indication of a magical antag to use the holymelons against. Seeing as how holymelons are useful against antags, at what point in the following actions do the holymelons become a rule 4 violation for preemptive antag hinderance.

1. Not growing holymelons whatsoever without a magical antag being announced or a direct operational purpose(using holy water for the creation of strange reagent or grafting the glow effect).
2. Just growing holymelons without stockpiling them or anything else.
3. Growing holymelons and stockpiling them inside of botany.
4. Growing holymelons and stockpiling them inside of botany and telling sec that they are available in the event of a 'problem'.
5. Growing holymelons and physically bringing some to sec so that they are available in the event of a 'problem'.
6. Growing holymelons and stockpiling them in a public hallway so everyone can grab some.

Not trying to quibble, just want to get an idea of what the admins see as 'too much' in all this. Botany has a certain reputation for being shitters, and holymelons are one of the truly unique ways that botany can benefit the station, so I grow them somewhat often. Since rule 4 is being scrutinized, I just wanted to get a feel for how much is too much, while still providing benefit.

[Vekter]

Question, in regard to the 'do not pre-emptively hinder antags' portion of rule 4.

Lets say I was a botanist(shocker, I know), with an interest in growing holymelons. For the purposes of the example there has yet to be an indication of a magical antag to use the holymelons against. Seeing as how holymelons are useful against antags, at what point in the following actions do the holymelons become a rule 4 violation for preemptive antag hinderance.

1. Not growing holymelons whatsoever without a magical antag being announced or a direct operational purpose(using holy water for the creation of strange reagent or grafting the glow effect).
2. Just growing holymelons without stockpiling them or anything else.
3. Growing holymelons and stockpiling them inside of botany.
4. Growing holymelons and stockpiling them inside of botany and telling sec that they are available in the event of a 'problem'.
5. Growing holymelons and physically bringing some to sec so that they are available in the event of a 'problem'.
6. Growing holymelons and stockpiling them in a public hallway so everyone can grab some.

Not trying to quibble, just want to get an idea of what the admins see as 'too much' in all this. Botany has a certain reputation for being shitters, and holymelons are one of the truly unique ways that botany can benefit the station, so I grow them somewhat often. Since rule 4 is being scrutinized, I just wanted to get a feel for how much is too much, while still providing benefit.

It's always going to be difficult to be specific about "This is the EXACT POINT where you are breaking the rules", but I would say up to 2 would be acceptable if you have zero clue about there being a cult or not. If it starts looking shady, like you see runes or people are reporting there might be a cult, you can go up to around 3 or 4. Once there's red eyes and it's confirmed, go apeshit.

Please don't use this as a specific example if this situation comes up and another admin bwoinks you - I don't want to tell you "this is always going to be acceptable" because SS13 has so many factors and so many moving parts that it's hard to be that specific, but in general, growing them is fine. Ideally, if an admin asks you "Why are you growing holymelons?", you should be able to give them a reason, even if it's just "I wanna make stuff glow".

[sinfulbliss]

A botanist should not be getting bwoinked for simply growing holymelons and should not have to have any reason whatsoever. They are a botanist growing plants, that is your reason.

Up through (3) ought to be allowed, since they’re not yet being used to hinder any antags, and there is no powergaming rule on LRP. (4) should be allowed even with no sign of cult or heretics so long as it’s not done regularly. Beyond that IMO you’d need hard evidence of magic antags, although I could see even up to (6) being kosher if you don’t make it an every-round thing. Of course I’m not an admin and this is just how I think it ought to be treated

[Vekter]

A botanist should not be getting bwoinked for simply growing holymelons and should not have to have any reason whatsoever. They are a botanist growing plants, that is your reason.

Up through (3) ought to be allowed, since they’re not yet being used to hinder any antags, and there is no powergaming rule on LRP. (4) should be allowed even with no sign of cult or heretics so long as it’s not done regularly. Beyond that IMO you’d need hard evidence of magic antags, although I could see even up to (6) being kosher if you don’t make it an every-round thing. Of course I’m not an admin and this is just how I think it ought to be treated

I know you think it's tantamount to torture under the Geneva Convention to be contacted by an admin, but most players are reasonable and understand that sometimes we might have questions about something that's going on in the round.

I would appreciate your patience in matters like this.

[sinfulbliss]

A botanist should not be getting bwoinked for simply growing holymelons and should not have to have any reason whatsoever. They are a botanist growing plants, that is your reason.

Up through (3) ought to be allowed, since they’re not yet being used to hinder any antags, and there is no powergaming rule on LRP. (4) should be allowed even with no sign of cult or heretics so long as it’s not done regularly. Beyond that IMO you’d need hard evidence of magic antags, although I could see even up to (6) being kosher if you don’t make it an every-round thing. Of course I’m not an admin and this is just how I think it ought to be treated

I know you think it's tantamount to torture under the Geneva Convention to be contacted by an admin, but most players are reasonable and understand that sometimes we might have questions about something that's going on in the round.

I would appreciate your patience in matters like this.

Only if it’s you contacting me

But in all seriousness no it’s not a matter of it being annoying to get bwoinked, I’m asking why an admin would feel the need to ask a botanist why they’re making some particular plant to begin with. Botanists should have total freedom to plant what they wish and collect the fruits of whatever plants they wish. So I think it very strange that they should ever have to explain their planting decisions to an admin, especially when it doesn’t even involve hunting antags yet.

[NecromancerAnne]

You know holy water is also a great fertilizer, right?

[Vekter]

Only if it’s you contacting me

But in all seriousness no it’s not a matter of it being annoying to get bwoinked, I’m asking why an admin would feel the need to ask a botanist why they’re making some particular plant to begin with. Botanists should have total freedom to plant what they wish and collect the fruits of whatever plants they wish. So I think it very strange that they should ever have to explain their planting decisions to an admin, especially when it doesn’t even involve hunting antags yet.

Because if it's Cult and Botany has already produced a massive stockpile of holymelons, there's some concern as to why they're doing so without having a valid reason for it. If we look at what holymelons do, there's a handful of reasons to cultivate them:

1) Holy water makes good fertilizer.
2) I want to use the holy water to synthesize strange reagent.
3) I want to cross-breed the glow gene.
4) There's a cult or a wizard and holy water is helpful against both.

Reasons 1-3 all don't require a metric shit-ton of them to be grown, so if I see 1-2 plants being cultivated, I'm probably not going to blink an eye. If half of the trays in botany are full of holymelons and we're ten minutes into the shift without someone saying "there's a cult", then I'm going to be concerned that either the person growing them is stocking up on things to fight antags without actually knowing those antags exist (which is a rule 4 violation, even on LRP) or that they have meta knowledge about there being a cult.

This doesn't just apply to holymelons or botany, and I feel like limiting the discussion to them is unhelpful because it's easier to say "well, they're just doing their job" about growing a specific plant, whereas if Cargo is buying a shit-load of lasers and mindshields without knowing there's a revolution, that's very obviously an issue.

tl;dr The reason for the powergaming part of rule 4 is to make it fun for antags so they don't have to worry about some random assistant being armed to the gills and killing all of them before they can get off the ground. Sometimes we're gonna have to ask people what they're doing and why to enforce that rule. The rule is relatively minor and would result in a stern talking-to and being asked to stop at best and a note for a first offense at worst. Player freedom is important but this is a role-playing game first and a social deduction game second, so we want to make things fun for both sides while making things make sense from an RP standpoint.

[sinfulbliss]

The reason for the powergaming part of rule 4

Sorry what “powergaming part of rule 4”? There is no rule against powergaming on LRP, that’s the whole reason Timber has made a point of saying rule 12 isn’t against powergaming. Powergaming is RPR7.

This is all rule 4 says about the matter:

[Crewmembers] are not allowed to pre-emptively search for, hinder or otherwise seek conflict with antagonists

Stockpiling holymelons, or growing 6 trays of holymelons, does not meet any of these criteria. It’s not even hindering antagonists if they’re not being distributed. You’re jumping the gun by a long shot if you’ve actually bwoinked for simply growing them.

The four reasons you list leave out the most important reason #5: for the hell of it. There really does not need to be a reason for every single action everyone takes at all times. It’s unreasonable for players to be expected to have one. Sometimes people just do shit because they can. Holymelons are cool and useful, that should be enough.

[Vekter]

:words:

I'll respond to this when my blood sugar isn't low and I don't want to throttle you through the internet for existing.

E: Okay I've eaten, let's break this down.

1) You are correct in that just having them around probably wouldn't be an issue on LRP. I would still be concerned if I saw someone hoarding a lot of them during a Cult round if nobody knows there's a cult, since it could indicate they have knowledge they shouldn't, but unless they're handing them out like candy or actively taking them to sec, it's probably not a problem.
2) I strongly dislike the idea that any rule can be just completely invalidated by saying "players will just do things for no reason". People don't do things completely "for the hell of it"; even when someone says that, there's usually a base reason for having done it.
3) I maintain that there's nothing wrong with admins simply asking a player why they're doing something or what's going on to understand what's happening during the round. Admins can talk to players for reasons not related to active adminhelps or even to potential rule breaks.

[Pepper]

:words:

I'll respond to this when my blood sugar isn't low and I don't want to throttle you through the internet for existing.

Homer Simpson Declares He Won't Strangle Bart Anymore on The Simpsons: 'Times Have Changed!' - people.com

1) You are correct in that just having them around probably wouldn't be an issue on LRP. I would still be concerned if I saw someone hoarding a lot of them during a Cult round if nobody knows there's a cult, since it could indicate they have knowledge they shouldn't

Being coincidentally right is not against the rules. Losing is part of the game.

but unless they're handing them out like candy or actively taking them to sec, it's probably not a problem.

Hoarding station resources (produce) for little reason is against rule 12.

2) I strongly dislike the idea that any rule can be just completely invalidated by saying "players will just do things for no reason". People don't do things completely "for the hell of it"; even when someone says that, there's usually a base reason for having done it.

Usually when people say they're doing something "for the hell of it" just means that they're doing it because they find it fun. Players often do really stupid shit that gets them killed for no reason, but it only seems to be an issue for admins when they're goofing off and it happens to put them in a favorable situation.

3) I maintain that there's nothing wrong with admins simply asking a player why they're doing something or what's going on to understand what's happening during the round. Admins can talk to players for reasons not related to active adminhelps or even to potential rule breaks.

Players generally have the expectation not to ahelp for meaningless or frivolous reasons. It's not too absurd to expect that to go both ways. When you bwoink someone, they are required by the rules to respond lest they get banned. There's an implicit power dynamic when bwoinking someone - by doing so to ask about trivial things is forcing them to converse with you even if they might not want to, which definitely steps over some personal boundaries if you're not doing so for administrative purposes.

[Vekter]

Players generally have the expectation not to ahelp for meaningless or frivolous reasons. It's not too absurd to expect that to go both ways. When you bwoink someone, they are required by the rules to respond lest they get banned. There's an implicit power dynamic when bwoinking someone - by doing so to ask about trivial things is forcing them to converse with you even if they might not want to, which definitely steps over some personal boundaries if you're not doing so for administrative purposes.

Unless the head admins explicitly tell me we're not allowed to, I am going to continue to talk to players to gain an idea of what's going on in the round if I'm not able to do so using just logs, and nobody can stop me. If that bothers you, I don't know what to tell you. I'm not going to ban someone for not responding to a simple question if they haven't otherwise done anything wrong.

[Chadley]

but unless they're handing them out like candy or actively taking them to sec, it's probably not a problem.

Hoarding station resources (produce) for little reason is against rule 12.

Wack and uncool-pilled. Same way chefs can (and should) be allowed to cook whatever they want (permit they're not preventing people from making edible food) should be fine.

Hoarding or handing out your bullshit creations is half the fun.

The anti-civilian job Kabal will not topple us.

[kinnebian]

hoarding is really fucking annoying and unfun
rule 12 is against hoarding like grabbing all the medkits on station just in case you stub ur toe

[Higgin]

I said it in another thread, but I think balance-through-policy is sort of a cope. It's not necessarily bad if you can't deal with design issues, but it shouldn't be your go-to.

in a well-balanced competitive game, the choice to start anticipating and preparing against threats from the word 'go' is made meaningful by it being a trade-off. If I grow holymelons every round as a rule, and 1/20 rounds have magic mans in them, I should be forsaking things which would have a more meaningful impact in the other 19/20 rounds as the price for my very narrow-range preparedness and failure to be situationally-aware/read the conditions of the road.

The same should really apply with any other sort of prep. Under natural conditions, hoarding guns should make other people jump you, or make you more likely to still ultimately lose out because six guns have diminishing returns and can't be so easily bag-stacked like they were back in the day. The flipside of that is that sharing guns makes more people who can potentially shoot you and also be bad.

Part of the problem is that a lot of prep can amount to being a pretty hard counter. The other part of the problem is people don't think creatively about how to work around their counters and get salty about sunk costs when they find that they've been countered. I think you could approach these issues by adding more tradeoffs on different kinds of prep and adding more workarounds so it's not so binary. There's a lot of play that effectively gets shut off because it amounts to closing the barn door after the horses have escaped even if you'd have to spend half an hour to an hour doing it (i.e. disabling AI control or reinforcing certain doors, floodproofing atmos, making a high-resistance contagious virus - etc.)

e1: to be clear, it amounts to closing the barn door after the horses have escaped because if you wait until it's a confirmed issue to start doing it, you're very likely to get preempted as part of your opponent's opening moves. nukies see med making shitloads of healing chems and prepping fungal tb cures, they bomb med - they bomb med anyway, but if those cures and chems were around and distributed in some amount before the nukies were even known about, you'd probably be pushing up against the perception of prepping and shutting down antags. setting up floodlights and glass-paning APCs around critical infrastructure might be a good example of this too. it's stuff that makes sense to do if you think they're in the world and might be an issue. it's a matter of degree wherever it gets handled by policy because on skyrat, for instance, you ain't making combat mechs until shit is Really Bad. Here it's a natural part of the roboticist progression for a lot of folks, and we take that for granted.

[Cheshify]

in a well-balanced competitive game

TGstation is neither well balanced nor competitive, and should remain that way. This is a roleplaying funny space game, and policy is how we broadly direct roleplay.

Our goal is to broadly direct Roleplay away from people thinking this is supposed to be well balanced and competitive.