- Regardless of IC conflicts with the crew, unless they're a neutral role threatened with complete annihilation or an antagonist role, ghost roles may not cause any major, round-ending damage to the station.
Ghost role policy suggestion
-
- Github User
- Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 2:27 pm
- Byond Username: Slignerd
- Github Username: Slignerd
Ghost role policy suggestion
The current ghost role policy seems somewhat vague, so I would like to suggest a following addition to the ghost role policy.
Last edited by Slignerd on Sat Feb 24, 2018 12:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
It would appear that I'm a high RP weeb who hates roleplay and anime.
- Pascal125
- Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2016 7:48 am
- Byond Username: Pascal123
- Location: Your closet
Re: Ghost role policy suggestion
You would think this would be common sense to people and not need to be specifically stated.
-
- Github User
- Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 2:27 pm
- Byond Username: Slignerd
- Github Username: Slignerd
Re: Ghost role policy suggestion
It wouldn't be. Ghost roles have no loyalty to the station whatsoever, which is why it is not at all obvious how far they can go when retaliating against hostilities. Plenty things that should be "common sense" will see different interpretations depending on who you ask.
The point of the rules is to have clear, understandable boundaries set in place to prevent such misunderstandings from happening.
The point of the rules is to have clear, understandable boundaries set in place to prevent such misunderstandings from happening.
It would appear that I'm a high RP weeb who hates roleplay and anime.
- Pascal125
- Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2016 7:48 am
- Byond Username: Pascal123
- Location: Your closet
Re: Ghost role policy suggestion
The more rules and clauses you introduce for situations like this, the more people will search for loopholes or say "Oh well it's not in the rules. I didn't know."
Regarding situations that really aren't that difficult to understand shouldn't be done on flimsy reasoning to begin with.
Regarding situations that really aren't that difficult to understand shouldn't be done on flimsy reasoning to begin with.
-
- Github User
- Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 2:27 pm
- Byond Username: Slignerd
- Github Username: Slignerd
Re: Ghost role policy suggestion
So, it's better to ban people when they do something they didn't know they couldn't do?
It would appear that I'm a high RP weeb who hates roleplay and anime.
- Nilons
- Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2016 5:38 pm
- Byond Username: NIlons
- Location: Canada
Re: Ghost role policy suggestion
This would be good, Ive had golems BoH bomb me before
-
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2016 6:19 am
- Byond Username: Reondin
Re: Ghost role policy suggestion
Policy is clear as day on the wiki.
Friendly Roles
These roles are typically expected to be either friendly towards Miners and other non-monster entities, outside of self defense.
Seed Vault Dwellers
Free Golems
Animal Hospital
Beach Bums
You BoH bombed over theft. Not self defense. You wouldn't have been in the right even if a miner killed you because you would have killed tons of other innocents.
What you did was the exact same as a roboticist BoH bombing sec for destroying a mech.
Friendly Roles
These roles are typically expected to be either friendly towards Miners and other non-monster entities, outside of self defense.
Seed Vault Dwellers
Free Golems
Animal Hospital
Beach Bums
You BoH bombed over theft. Not self defense. You wouldn't have been in the right even if a miner killed you because you would have killed tons of other innocents.
What you did was the exact same as a roboticist BoH bombing sec for destroying a mech.
-
- Github User
- Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 2:27 pm
- Byond Username: Slignerd
- Github Username: Slignerd
Re: Ghost role policy suggestion
Sweets wrote:What you did was the exact same as a roboticist BoH bombing sec for destroying a mech.
I agree that BoH bombing is overkill. But it is not made clear by policy at all. Being "friendly unless provoked" loses meaning as a guideline when the role is provoked.Slignerd wrote:Ghost roles have no loyalty to the station whatsoever, which is why it is not at all obvious how far they can go when retaliating against hostilities.
Last edited by Slignerd on Sat Feb 24, 2018 2:28 pm, edited 2 times in total.
It would appear that I'm a high RP weeb who hates roleplay and anime.
-
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2016 6:19 am
- Byond Username: Reondin
Re: Ghost role policy suggestion
https://tgstation13.org/wiki/Lavaland/Space_Role
Don't ignore the rest of my post.
It's clear as day. If you had BoH bombed as an ash ligger you would be fine.
Don't ignore the rest of my post.
It's clear as day. If you had BoH bombed as an ash ligger you would be fine.
-
- Github User
- Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 2:27 pm
- Byond Username: Slignerd
- Github Username: Slignerd
Re: Ghost role policy suggestion
That's a page intended as a basic introduction, on a wiki that anyone can edit, not server policy. And this line of discussion relies too heavily on personal interpretations of what entails "provocation" or "self-defense".
Last edited by Slignerd on Sat Feb 24, 2018 2:09 pm, edited 2 times in total.
It would appear that I'm a high RP weeb who hates roleplay and anime.
-
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2016 6:19 am
- Byond Username: Reondin
Re: Ghost role policy suggestion
It's still a better guideline than nothing at all.
In addition, you have to think about this in terms of equal retribution. Sure you have no loyalty to the station, but neither did the space bartender and hotel staff when they were in game. Do you really think if a greyshit teleported to the space bar/hotel and trashed it, you would beb allowed to teleport to the station and release their singularity or something?
One person wronged you and you took it out on the entire server's population. It's like a scientist maxcapping cargo because the QM won't give him mats.
In addition, you have to think about this in terms of equal retribution. Sure you have no loyalty to the station, but neither did the space bartender and hotel staff when they were in game. Do you really think if a greyshit teleported to the space bar/hotel and trashed it, you would beb allowed to teleport to the station and release their singularity or something?
One person wronged you and you took it out on the entire server's population. It's like a scientist maxcapping cargo because the QM won't give him mats.
-
- Github User
- Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 2:27 pm
- Byond Username: Slignerd
- Github Username: Slignerd
Re: Ghost role policy suggestion
Sweets wrote:What you did was the exact same as a roboticist BoH bombing sec for destroying a mech.
Can you quit making loaded statements such as "it's the same as a crewmember doing this" while it's exactly the fact that it's not a crewmember that is the cause for confusion?Sweets wrote:It's like a scientist maxcapping cargo because the QM won't give him mats.
Don't you understand the problem here? The problem is that being a non-crewmember role and entering hostilities with the crew results in a number of players, including myself, being confused on the boundaries of how far these hostilities are allowed to escalate. I was operating under the impression that free golems are a neutral faction that is allowed to turn hostile when antagonized, and I can assure you that there are other players who think the same.
This solutions seeks to resolve this, by adding a clear statement to the policy, a statement that is not currently there.
It would appear that I'm a high RP weeb who hates roleplay and anime.
- RandomMarine
- Github User
- Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 8:50 am
- Byond Username: RandomMarine
- Github Username: RandomMarine
Re: Ghost role policy suggestion
Creating a loose singularity is already a rule 1 violation. Nothing more really has to be said about it.
- Nilons
- Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2016 5:38 pm
- Byond Username: NIlons
- Location: Canada
Re: Ghost role policy suggestion
calling me mean names is a rule 1 violation, this is not helpfulRandomMarine wrote:Creating a loose singularity is already a rule 1 violation. Nothing more really has to be said about it.
-
- Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2014 10:13 pm
- Byond Username: Feemjmeem
- Github Username: feemjmeem
- Contact:
-
- Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 10:26 pm
- Byond Username: KorPhaeron
Re: Ghost role policy suggestion
Free Golems have been a thing for like 2 years and largely functioned smoothly for thousands of rounds now, why do we need to add an extra paragraph to an already bloated ruleset reiterating that using your recreational nukes on a bunch of innocent people because someone stole your easily replaceable property is overkill?
- Cobby
- Code Maintainer
- Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2014 7:19 pm
- Byond Username: ExcessiveUseOfCobby
- Github Username: ExcessiveUseOfCobblestone
Re: Ghost role policy suggestion
You can retaliate against a miner who steals your stuff.
You can retaliate against the station if they collectively (see Captain orders or something) try to antagonize you. If the station agreed to not have your stuff returned and there were unique items (like boss loot) then I could probs sympathize a bit more with the boh bomb.
You can NOT retaliate against the station (boh bombing) against a single miner who steals your easily replaceable stuff.
Think of it like a purged ai, you can lmao those that wrong you and sometimes broad brush that to the entire station depending on the circumstances. Until that point you still have to ultimately obey rule 1 even though you are a non-allied faction.
You can retaliate against the station if they collectively (see Captain orders or something) try to antagonize you. If the station agreed to not have your stuff returned and there were unique items (like boss loot) then I could probs sympathize a bit more with the boh bomb.
You can NOT retaliate against the station (boh bombing) against a single miner who steals your easily replaceable stuff.
Think of it like a purged ai, you can lmao those that wrong you and sometimes broad brush that to the entire station depending on the circumstances. Until that point you still have to ultimately obey rule 1 even though you are a non-allied faction.
Voted best trap in /tg/ 2014-current
- cedarbridge
- Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 12:24 am
- Byond Username: Cedarbridge
Re: Ghost role policy suggestion
It should be fairly obvious that ghost roles should not take minor confrontations with one person as justification for genociding the station.
-
- Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 5:23 am
- Byond Username: EagleWiz
Re: Ghost role policy suggestion
now when you say ghost roles you mean like beach bums and golems right? Because I like being able to try and bring the glorious champions of the lavalands to the station so they can smite the unbelievers, and the old round end chair tendril is hilariouscedarbridge wrote:It should be fairly obvious that ghost roles should not take minor confrontations with one person as justification for genociding the station.
- cedarbridge
- Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 12:24 am
- Byond Username: Cedarbridge
Re: Ghost role policy suggestion
The roles that spawn without explicit hostile instructions, yes.EagleWiz wrote:now when you say ghost roles you mean like beach bums and golems right? Because I like being able to try and bring the glorious champions of the lavalands to the station so they can smite the unbelievers, and the old round end chair tendril is hilariouscedarbridge wrote:It should be fairly obvious that ghost roles should not take minor confrontations with one person as justification for genociding the station.
- Saegrimr
- Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2014 4:39 pm
- Byond Username: Saegrimr
Re: Ghost role policy suggestion
Probably because someone used recreational nukes on a bunch of innocent people.Kor wrote:Free Golems have been a thing for like 2 years and largely functioned smoothly for thousands of rounds now, why do we need to add an extra paragraph to an already bloated ruleset reiterating that using your recreational nukes on a bunch of innocent people because someone stole your easily replaceable property is overkill?
I've slowly learned that this is never the case. Nothing is obvious, and if it really truly is obvious someone will play stupid long enough to be believed on it. That's how our rules got to where they are in the first place.cedarbridge wrote:It should be fairly obvious
tedward1337 wrote:Sae is like the racist grandad who everyone laughs at for being racist, but deep down we all know he's right.
- bandit
- Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 7:35 pm
- Byond Username: Bgobandit
Re: Ghost role policy suggestion
it's another "ban/warning appeal disguised as policy thread" episode man I love this happening every week
the thing about adding new policies is that it only makes sense if something is a recurring problem. ghost rules deciding to ALL HAIL LORD SINGULO the station is not, so far, a recurring problem. it's just one dude getting a bomb boner and trying to retroactively justify it with RP reasons that don't make sense (because how the fuck is a free golem going to know what putting two bags of holding together does)
the thing about adding new policies is that it only makes sense if something is a recurring problem. ghost rules deciding to ALL HAIL LORD SINGULO the station is not, so far, a recurring problem. it's just one dude getting a bomb boner and trying to retroactively justify it with RP reasons that don't make sense (because how the fuck is a free golem going to know what putting two bags of holding together does)
-
- Github User
- Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 2:27 pm
- Byond Username: Slignerd
- Github Username: Slignerd
Re: Ghost role policy suggestion
Actually, Nilons' post indicates that it is. I talked with him, and he was BoH bombed by the golems three times, neither of which was the incident involving me. It reassured me that it wasn't just me who was confused about the boundaries of ghost role escalation.bandit wrote:the thing about adding new policies is that it only makes sense if something is a recurring problem.
Why would they not?bandit wrote:(because how the fuck is a free golem going to know what putting two bags of holding together does)
Last edited by Slignerd on Sun Feb 25, 2018 10:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
It would appear that I'm a high RP weeb who hates roleplay and anime.
-
- Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2014 10:13 pm
- Byond Username: Feemjmeem
- Github Username: feemjmeem
- Contact:
Re: Ghost role policy suggestion
i'm extraordinarily disappointed that the position you're presenting is that you need a new, special rule not to release the ultimate weapon of destruction on the station as a non-player role
- bandit
- Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 7:35 pm
- Byond Username: Bgobandit
Re: Ghost role policy suggestion
this; the only possible reasoning for jumping straight to BoH bombing as escalation is "how can I be the biggest dick possible?"feem wrote:i'm extraordinarily disappointed that the position you're presenting is that you need a new, special rule not to release the ultimate weapon of destruction on the station as a non-player role
now if only we had a rule against that
-
- Github User
- Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 2:27 pm
- Byond Username: Slignerd
- Github Username: Slignerd
Re: Ghost role policy suggestion
I have no problem agreeing that such actions taken in response to one guy's actions is overkill, but I do believe that it's a grey area in the rules that would be better cleared up.
- Regardless of IC conflicts with the crew, unless they're a neutral role threatened with complete annihilation or an antagonist role, ghost roles may not cause any major, round-ending damage to the station.
It would appear that I'm a high RP weeb who hates roleplay and anime.
-
- Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 10:26 pm
- Byond Username: KorPhaeron
Re: Ghost role policy suggestion
Because we dont want to double the length of our rules page adding "dont end the round when X minor thing happens to you" to various places when 99.9% of our players already understand that isnt okay.
-
- Github User
- Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 2:27 pm
- Byond Username: Slignerd
- Github Username: Slignerd
Re: Ghost role policy suggestion
Actually, it could be "I want to punish the crew for stealing from us, and I have no means of chasing down a guy thrice as fast as me." And the desire to punish others for such misgivings, occasionally including their entire faction, is certainly not something that's rare for the players to have.bandit wrote:this; the only possible reasoning for jumping straight to BoH bombing as escalation is "how can I be the biggest dick possible?"
I really wouldn't be so sure about that percentage, especially considering that you made it up on the spot.Kor wrote:Because we dont want to double the length of our rules page adding "dont end the round when X minor thing happens to you" to various places when 99.9% of our players already understand that isnt okay.
And to quote myself from earlier,
I guess to confirm this, we'd have to wait for another such incident, caused by a player who doesn't read the forums.Slignerd wrote:I was operating under the impression that free golems are a neutral faction that is allowed to turn hostile when antagonized, and I can assure you that there are other players who think the same.
It would appear that I'm a high RP weeb who hates roleplay and anime.
-
- Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2014 10:13 pm
- Byond Username: Feemjmeem
- Github Username: feemjmeem
- Contact:
Re: Ghost role policy suggestion
As a crewmember on the station, do you typically sabotage the supermatter because an engineer took your chainsaw?Slignerd wrote:Actually, it could be "I want to punish the crew for stealing from us, and I have no means of chasing down a guy thrice as fast as me."
Do you generally boh bomb science when they take away your corgi artifact?
Are you in the habit of clf3 bombing security when they take the monkey you were using to make synthflesh?
Since the obvious answer to all of those is 'no,' why do you think that level of behavior is remotely acceptable for a fluff role, if it's not acceptable for an actual player role?
-
- Github User
- Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 2:27 pm
- Byond Username: Slignerd
- Github Username: Slignerd
Re: Ghost role policy suggestion
Now that I'm aware it isn't, I do not.
But before I did, I was operating under the impression that free golems are a neutral faction that is allowed to turn hostile when antagonized.
But before I did, I was operating under the impression that free golems are a neutral faction that is allowed to turn hostile when antagonized.
It would appear that I'm a high RP weeb who hates roleplay and anime.
- BeeSting12
- Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2016 1:11 am
- Byond Username: BeeSting12
- Github Username: BeeSting12
- Location: 'Murica
Re: Ghost role policy suggestion
If kors percentage isnt right then once I'm done banning then it will be.
- cedarbridge
- Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 12:24 am
- Byond Username: Cedarbridge
Re: Ghost role policy suggestion
It should be fairly obvious that admins should not take minor dumb policy threads with one person as justification for genociding the playerbase.BeeSting12 wrote:If kors percentage isnt right then once I'm done banning then it will be.
Spoiler:
- BeeSting12
- Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2016 1:11 am
- Byond Username: BeeSting12
- Github Username: BeeSting12
- Location: 'Murica
Re: Ghost role policy suggestion
What I'm saying is the minority that do not get that mass destruction over one small thing is a violation of rule one then they wont last long.
- oranges
- Code Maintainer
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 9:16 pm
- Byond Username: Optimumtact
- Github Username: optimumtact
- Location: #CHATSHITGETBANGED
Re: Ghost role policy suggestion
whoSaegrimr wrote:Probably because someone used recreational nukes on a bunch of innocent people.Kor wrote:Free Golems have been a thing for like 2 years and largely functioned smoothly for thousands of rounds now, why do we need to add an extra paragraph to an already bloated ruleset reiterating that using your recreational nukes on a bunch of innocent people because someone stole your easily replaceable property is overkill?
- Saegrimr
- Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2014 4:39 pm
- Byond Username: Saegrimr
Re: Ghost role policy suggestion
Judging by the rest of this thread, my guess would be Slig?oranges wrote:who
tedward1337 wrote:Sae is like the racist grandad who everyone laughs at for being racist, but deep down we all know he's right.
- kevinz000
- Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2014 8:41 am
- Byond Username: Kevinz000
- Github Username: kevinz000
- Location: Dorm Room 3
Re: Ghost role policy suggestion
d'oh
Local catgirl scratching post - Shezza
Usually seen as Skylar Lineman/Mekhi Anderson.
Commissions way too much art...
https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic ... 7&p=239075 - IN GAME ADMINISTRATOR
Usually seen as Skylar Lineman/Mekhi Anderson.
Commissions way too much art...
https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic ... 7&p=239075 - IN GAME ADMINISTRATOR
NSFW:
-
- Github User
- Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 2:27 pm
- Byond Username: Slignerd
- Github Username: Slignerd
Re: Ghost role policy suggestion
I guess admin stance on this is that we don't want to clear up grey areas within the rules, and that we want to keep them around as ban traps.
And as Nilons said,
And as Nilons said,
It's silly to dismiss this with "it's obvious that they can't do this" or "they're just being a dick if they do this", while we allow roboticists to follow people around, beat them into crit and eventually debrain them over a spare toolbelt. Overescalation and ruining people's rounds over petty quarrels is the bread and butter of /tg/, and if you intend to enforce certain boundaries, then these boundaries should not be invisible.Nilons wrote:calling me mean names is a rule 1 violation, this is not helpful
It would appear that I'm a high RP weeb who hates roleplay and anime.
- Limski
- Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 5:07 pm
- Byond Username: Limski
- Location: Israel
Re: Ghost role policy suggestion
The players have this:
- brain
- admins that can help them
- Unnecessary amount of rules that restrict gameplay
- Linear gameplay dictated by policy
-
- Github User
- Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 2:27 pm
- Byond Username: Slignerd
- Github Username: Slignerd
Re: Ghost role policy suggestion
It's already an enforced, unwritten policy that dictates gameplay. I'm simply suggesting to make it written.
It would appear that I'm a high RP weeb who hates roleplay and anime.
- bandit
- Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 7:35 pm
- Byond Username: Bgobandit
Re: Ghost role policy suggestion
it... really isn't famSlignerd wrote:Overescalation and ruining people's rounds over petty quarrels is the bread and butter of /tg/
-
- Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2014 10:13 pm
- Byond Username: Feemjmeem
- Github Username: feemjmeem
- Contact:
Re: Ghost role policy suggestion
After looking over the rules again, and with the caveat that we really shouldn't have to tell you not to boh bomb the station, Slig is right that there really isn't a good direction on that page for ghost roles to have limited interactions with the station.
In fact, there's an explicit call-out that escalation rules are relaxed bidirectionally.
It might be good to rewrite the lavaland/ghost role policy to describe which ghost roles are actually allowed to be antagonistic to people beyond lavaland, or to update flavor text.
That having been said, this is still an enormous and misplaced overescalation on par with any of the many other comparisons made in this thread. In this particular instance, I feel like the ambiguity about ghost roles was abused to do something disruptive, but we should probably clear up the ambiguity too.
In fact, there's an explicit call-out that escalation rules are relaxed bidirectionally.
It might be good to rewrite the lavaland/ghost role policy to describe which ghost roles are actually allowed to be antagonistic to people beyond lavaland, or to update flavor text.
That having been said, this is still an enormous and misplaced overescalation on par with any of the many other comparisons made in this thread. In this particular instance, I feel like the ambiguity about ghost roles was abused to do something disruptive, but we should probably clear up the ambiguity too.
- BeeSting12
- Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2016 1:11 am
- Byond Username: BeeSting12
- Github Username: BeeSting12
- Location: 'Murica
Re: Ghost role policy suggestion
Yeah sure it's a little ambiguous. My preference would be to divide the ghost roles into Friendly, Neutral, and Hostile and put it in a chart on the rules page and then note that escalation is highly relaxxed against ghost roles.
It should be common sense to not "Singulobomb the station as a golem because somebody stole his BoH and KA."
Putting extra rules because one player can't act like they have common sense like a normal adult is bad, the most we need is a chart showing which ones are friendly/unfriendly/neutral.
It should be common sense to not "Singulobomb the station as a golem because somebody stole his BoH and KA."
Putting extra rules because one player can't act like they have common sense like a normal adult is bad, the most we need is a chart showing which ones are friendly/unfriendly/neutral.
-
- Github User
- Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 2:27 pm
- Byond Username: Slignerd
- Github Username: Slignerd
Re: Ghost role policy suggestion
I believe your mistake here is in trying to turn a policy suggestion into a witch hunt against an already banned player. Claiming it's just about "one player", after it's been already established that it's not, is counter-productive to policy discussion.
It would appear that I'm a high RP weeb who hates roleplay and anime.
- cedarbridge
- Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 12:24 am
- Byond Username: Cedarbridge
Re: Ghost role policy suggestion
This is not a ban trap.Slignerd wrote:as ban traps
- BeeSting12
- Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2016 1:11 am
- Byond Username: BeeSting12
- Github Username: BeeSting12
- Location: 'Murica
Re: Ghost role policy suggestion
No I'm pretty sure it's a very small minority of players that don't understand this.Slignerd wrote:I believe your mistake here is in trying to turn a policy suggestion into a witch hunt against an already banned player. Claiming it's just about "one player", after it's been already established that it's not, is counter-productive to policy discussion.
Spoiler:
Not quite sure why you're comparing those situations to using weapons of mass destruction on the station.
- Nilons
- Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2016 5:38 pm
- Byond Username: NIlons
- Location: Canada
Re: Ghost role policy suggestion
Almost unanimous agreement against and 1 headmin has showed up can 1 more show up and finish this thread it's becoming a shitfest
- BeeSting12
- Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2016 1:11 am
- Byond Username: BeeSting12
- Github Username: BeeSting12
- Location: 'Murica
Re: Ghost role policy suggestion
Last edited by Slignerd on Mon Feb 26, 2018 9:47 am, edited 18 times in total. View post history.
-
- Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2014 10:13 pm
- Byond Username: Feemjmeem
- Github Username: feemjmeem
- Contact:
Re: Ghost role policy suggestion
As I said, I don't think there's enough ambiguity in the rules to justify BoH bombing the station as a golem, but I do think that Slig has a point regarding there being some ambiguity as to whether or not ghost roles are allowed to engage the station at all, and there IS a statement saying that escalation rules are relaxed in both directions.
Ban appeal disguised as policy discussion notwithstanding, I think there may be some benefit, NOT in creating a special rule regarding this situation, but in clarifying the general position regarding ghost roles and gameplay, because while I haven't seen such ridiculous overcompensation myself often in the past, I've definitely often seen people misunderstanding what ghost roles are for.
Ban appeal disguised as policy discussion notwithstanding, I think there may be some benefit, NOT in creating a special rule regarding this situation, but in clarifying the general position regarding ghost roles and gameplay, because while I haven't seen such ridiculous overcompensation myself often in the past, I've definitely often seen people misunderstanding what ghost roles are for.
- Rustledjimm
- Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2017 9:07 pm
- Byond Username: Rustledjimm
Re: Ghost role policy suggestion
I remember a recent incident where the golems set up an A.I.
This AI proceeded to antagonise the crew, specifically security, by closing and bolting doors, shocking them etc. etc. So much so that security ended up raiding the free golems who then, in self-defence to what they saw as a raid unknowing it was because of their AI, set off a singulo bomb on their own ship in their final defence as security overran them. Promptly killing much of the security force too.
Now in this situation you can see the escalation, it upset a lot of folk however. Personally I said that the Golem A.I. was to blame and I merely warned them to not randomly fuck with the crew in this situation in the future. They were even quite remorseful (they themselves had been eaten by the singulo), for some reason not realising that security would come for the Golems as a whole. A lot of misconception and miscommunication which is what happens in this game, it's meant to happen. However I still warned the Golem AI player to not antagonise the crew without prior reason beforehand.
This happens rarely enough I don't think we need stringent policy on it. It can be done fairly easily case by case.
This AI proceeded to antagonise the crew, specifically security, by closing and bolting doors, shocking them etc. etc. So much so that security ended up raiding the free golems who then, in self-defence to what they saw as a raid unknowing it was because of their AI, set off a singulo bomb on their own ship in their final defence as security overran them. Promptly killing much of the security force too.
Now in this situation you can see the escalation, it upset a lot of folk however. Personally I said that the Golem A.I. was to blame and I merely warned them to not randomly fuck with the crew in this situation in the future. They were even quite remorseful (they themselves had been eaten by the singulo), for some reason not realising that security would come for the Golems as a whole. A lot of misconception and miscommunication which is what happens in this game, it's meant to happen. However I still warned the Golem AI player to not antagonise the crew without prior reason beforehand.
This happens rarely enough I don't think we need stringent policy on it. It can be done fairly easily case by case.
So uhh, I'm an admin. Please leave feedback! Oops took me a while to strike that through.
Will Baker
Suzu Suzaku
TBC
Personal Ban Length Record: 2.1024e+006 minutes
Will Baker
Suzu Suzaku
TBC
Spoiler:
- BeeSting12
- Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2016 1:11 am
- Byond Username: BeeSting12
- Github Username: BeeSting12
- Location: 'Murica
Re: Ghost role policy suggestion
That sounds like one of those interesting situations created by conflict and player interaction. The AI was likely "at fault" for terrorizing the humans, but if it was within or encouraged by its laws then I'd call everything that happens there valid just because it was cool/funny.
It's a huge leap from guy took my two easily replaceable objects, let me BoH bomb the station.
It's a huge leap from guy took my two easily replaceable objects, let me BoH bomb the station.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot]