Meta-protected entities and initiating conflict
- NamelessFairy
- In-Game Game Master
- Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2020 8:40 pm
- Byond Username: NamelessFairy
Meta-protected entities and initiating conflict
This concerns the AI, Security and the Captain. And this thread is being created in response to something brought up in policy-bus on discord earlier today.
Initiating conflict is commonplace in SS13 and is usually an IC issue unless very severe. If someone attacks you, you can attack them back and etc. You shouldn't be going out of your way to destroy someones rounds unprovoked but through proper escalation this option becomes available.
However, an issue becomes present when one of the 3 above listed roles initiates conflict. In general, attacking sec, the captain or the AI over IC squabbles will 9/10 times get you killed by other members of the crew. This leaves many players who are abused by these roles unable to resist their abuse without a near certain chance of death.
A point that should be brought up is that with meta-protection, if you are going out of your way to initiate conflict your meta-protection will not protect you administratively but ICly people will almost always side with the Captain/Sec/The AI over a random member of the crew outside of cases where there are full blown mutinies (or malf AIs), either out of trust for a normally non-antagonist role. Or out of fear of administrative action for attacking a meta-protected role.
Currently these cases are as with other roles, ruled as IC issues. Despite generally being situations where your given two options. Die and likely get round removed for trying to escalate conflict, or live with the abuse unless it reaches the point where other rules are being broken.
What I'd like to have a discussion about is, is this fair that some jobs can initiate conflict with almost no risk to their own wellbeing due to their status. And should these roles be viewed as different to admins when looking at conflict escalation.
Initiating conflict is commonplace in SS13 and is usually an IC issue unless very severe. If someone attacks you, you can attack them back and etc. You shouldn't be going out of your way to destroy someones rounds unprovoked but through proper escalation this option becomes available.
However, an issue becomes present when one of the 3 above listed roles initiates conflict. In general, attacking sec, the captain or the AI over IC squabbles will 9/10 times get you killed by other members of the crew. This leaves many players who are abused by these roles unable to resist their abuse without a near certain chance of death.
A point that should be brought up is that with meta-protection, if you are going out of your way to initiate conflict your meta-protection will not protect you administratively but ICly people will almost always side with the Captain/Sec/The AI over a random member of the crew outside of cases where there are full blown mutinies (or malf AIs), either out of trust for a normally non-antagonist role. Or out of fear of administrative action for attacking a meta-protected role.
Currently these cases are as with other roles, ruled as IC issues. Despite generally being situations where your given two options. Die and likely get round removed for trying to escalate conflict, or live with the abuse unless it reaches the point where other rules are being broken.
What I'd like to have a discussion about is, is this fair that some jobs can initiate conflict with almost no risk to their own wellbeing due to their status. And should these roles be viewed as different to admins when looking at conflict escalation.
- sinfulbliss
- Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2019 8:53 am
- Byond Username: SinfulBliss
- Location: prisoner re-education chamber
Re: Meta-protected entities and initiating conflict
Speaking for security in particular, sec should have no reason to initiate conflict with players that have done virtually nothing bad/antagonistic. They're there to respond to conflict, mainly. False arrests and other abuses of sec can be handled administratively, but otherwise there exists no excuse to retaliate against sec as nonantag ICly*.
Because of this I don't think there should be extra protections for crew that create conflicts against sec.
The risk I see is this situation happening:
- Crew member gets arrested for some valid reason by sec
- Crew member bitches and complains screaming "shitsec"
- Other crew side with the tider, over sec, because that's just what they do
- Sec gets assaulted by nonantag crew under the guise of responding IC to "conflict escalation" by sec
*EDIT: I do think sec should have the flexibility to operate outside of spacelaw sometimes, and consequently crew should have the flexibility to retaliate against sec for doing so. That said, these cases should always be cases where crew started the conflict, and therefore do not get administrative help in resolving the conflict.
Because of this I don't think there should be extra protections for crew that create conflicts against sec.
The risk I see is this situation happening:
- Crew member gets arrested for some valid reason by sec
- Crew member bitches and complains screaming "shitsec"
- Other crew side with the tider, over sec, because that's just what they do
- Sec gets assaulted by nonantag crew under the guise of responding IC to "conflict escalation" by sec
*EDIT: I do think sec should have the flexibility to operate outside of spacelaw sometimes, and consequently crew should have the flexibility to retaliate against sec for doing so. That said, these cases should always be cases where crew started the conflict, and therefore do not get administrative help in resolving the conflict.
Spoiler:
- Cobby
- Code Maintainer
- Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2014 7:19 pm
- Byond Username: ExcessiveUseOfCobby
- Github Username: ExcessiveUseOfCobblestone
Re: Meta-protected entities and initiating conflict
I think there isn’t real metaprotection administratively, it’s entirely player mindset.
We clarify that you can only NOT escalate against security when you’re fairly arrested, and in completely wild scenarios like lynch lizard captain gimmick #1000 we have rules around that already (no one is going to blame you for killing the captain if they’re doing this garbage). There are 0 rules/policies/etc. where you can’t btfo someone being shit based on their role.
The issue imo is that antags are too obvious when they’re antags, and therefore you don’t ever really buy the one time that someone is acting as a traitor. This is doubly true when we have things that make pretending as these individuals quite difficult (specifically implant and easy access for security to see who has the implants and not). Let’s take cult for instance as the most obvious offender, why would you ever suspect anyone who doesn’t have a huge massive halo on their head if you know the mechanic exists that outs them?
When we look at things like traitors who don’t have huge obvious tells, we still have a lot of players forego the subtlety (not trying to argue the “morality” of it) and just straight up out themselves as antag. Why would you bother being suspicious of people who aren’t decked out in syndicate gear when that’s the norm?
As for if admins should treat them differently, I don’t think so too much. Again it’s not guaranteed you are who you say you are in the game, so people can naturally be suspecting. It’s a player rooted issue that they blindly trust these individuals, and it’s a player (partially game) issue that people don’t disrupt that more often. Admins shouldn’t say punish people for that mindset unless they’re explicitly use it to be malicious.
We clarify that you can only NOT escalate against security when you’re fairly arrested, and in completely wild scenarios like lynch lizard captain gimmick #1000 we have rules around that already (no one is going to blame you for killing the captain if they’re doing this garbage). There are 0 rules/policies/etc. where you can’t btfo someone being shit based on their role.
The issue imo is that antags are too obvious when they’re antags, and therefore you don’t ever really buy the one time that someone is acting as a traitor. This is doubly true when we have things that make pretending as these individuals quite difficult (specifically implant and easy access for security to see who has the implants and not). Let’s take cult for instance as the most obvious offender, why would you ever suspect anyone who doesn’t have a huge massive halo on their head if you know the mechanic exists that outs them?
When we look at things like traitors who don’t have huge obvious tells, we still have a lot of players forego the subtlety (not trying to argue the “morality” of it) and just straight up out themselves as antag. Why would you bother being suspicious of people who aren’t decked out in syndicate gear when that’s the norm?
As for if admins should treat them differently, I don’t think so too much. Again it’s not guaranteed you are who you say you are in the game, so people can naturally be suspecting. It’s a player rooted issue that they blindly trust these individuals, and it’s a player (partially game) issue that people don’t disrupt that more often. Admins shouldn’t say punish people for that mindset unless they’re explicitly use it to be malicious.
Last edited by Cobby on Wed Jul 14, 2021 8:05 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Voted best trap in /tg/ 2014-current
- wesoda25
- Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 9:32 pm
- Byond Username: Wesoda25
Re: Meta-protected entities and initiating conflict
Meta-protections are a necessary evil that only work if those who are given them are held to a certain standard of play. If you abuse the meta-protections of a role, you should get banned from that role. Frankly this was how I always enforced it so the assertion that these things are just ruled as IC issues surprises me, because if that’s the case for most admins then there’s really nothing stopping players from taking these roles and being assholes without consequence.
- Cobby
- Code Maintainer
- Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2014 7:19 pm
- Byond Username: ExcessiveUseOfCobby
- Github Username: ExcessiveUseOfCobblestone
Re: Meta-protected entities and initiating conflict
Being a dick repeatedly is a rule 1 offense unless you’re an antag anyways though, that is regardless of if you’re a captain or if you’re an assistant which is where I’m curious why these roles are supposed to be treated differently during F1 based on third party responses. If security arrests me every round as captain when I do my shitmick then I’d be okay? I don’t think so.
The method changes, but the endpoint is the same (a doodoo round for the affected people).
The method changes, but the endpoint is the same (a doodoo round for the affected people).
Voted best trap in /tg/ 2014-current
- sinfulbliss
- Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2019 8:53 am
- Byond Username: SinfulBliss
- Location: prisoner re-education chamber
Re: Meta-protected entities and initiating conflict
Well you have two cases:wesoda25 wrote:Meta-protections are a necessary evil that only work if those who are given them are held to a certain standard of play. If you abuse the meta-protections of a role, you should get banned from that role. Frankly this was how I always enforced it so the assertion that these things are just ruled as IC issues surprises me, because if that’s the case for most admins then there’s really nothing stopping players from taking these roles and being assholes without consequence.
1) Sec player initiates a conflict (say, starts harmbatoning) a random crew member FNR. That's just a bwoink, probably, since the crew member can't retaliate. Sec loses their right to start random conflicts FNR due to their meta-protection.
2) Crew member initiates a conflict against a sec officer FNR. IMO the sec player now has two options: treat it as a spacelaw 3XX offense and arrest, or just validly engage in the conflict as a normal player would. If they choose the latter route, they can't ahelp if they die. The crew member also can't ahelp if they lose the conflict, obviously, because instigators don't have admin protection in escalation.
So for example, if someone assaults you as sec, you can cuff them and bring them to brig to serve a 3 minute sentence. Or you can just harmbaton them a few times to get them to leave. Sometimes the latter option is actually more effective and preferable for both players. But when you act outside of spacelaw, you lose the metaprotection, and the player can retaliate via rules of escalation. This seems like a good solution to me.
Spoiler:
- wesoda25
- Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 9:32 pm
- Byond Username: Wesoda25
Re: Meta-protected entities and initiating conflict
Cobby I was more thinking of situations where a player abuses the inherent privileges of their job (gear, status, authority) and the victim is left with little ability for IC retaliation. Ex: sec officer uses their gear to steal equipment from a crewmember - crewmember doesn’t have much of a choice but to ahelp, since most means of ic retaliation end poorly for them. I don’t think there’s really any disagreement between us other than how we see the situation though, since I imagine you would probably sec ban someone for this just as I would have.
Also sinful your second point isn’t relevant to what I said or the thread in general, the OP lays out that this is regarding cases where those in positions of power are the instigators.
Also sinful your second point isn’t relevant to what I said or the thread in general, the OP lays out that this is regarding cases where those in positions of power are the instigators.
- sinfulbliss
- Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2019 8:53 am
- Byond Username: SinfulBliss
- Location: prisoner re-education chamber
Re: Meta-protected entities and initiating conflict
I still think it is an interesting case that could use some clarification on the ruling. Strictly speaking, the rules probably forbid any escalation from sec: "Exceptions: Security is expected not to retaliate with random abuse or violence unless the person in question is otherwise eligible for execution." So sec is actually forbidden from participating in a conflict that escalates to violence whatsoever, whether they are the instigators or not, unless the person is valid. Yet practically I think most admins are accepting of a sec officer harmbatoning someone a couple times for assaulting them instead of wasting time brigging them.wesoda25 wrote: Also sinful your second point isn’t relevant to what I said or the thread in general, the OP lays out that this is regarding cases where those in positions of power are the instigators.
Clearly if sec is the instigator of a conflict FNR then that's just an abuse of power and could be ahelped. The issue I have is in the suggestion of a "culture shift": it was suggested in policy discussion that meta-protected players shouldn't be seen as "unwavering good guys," to encourage crew to help out someone who was abused by these players. This doesn't seem like a great idea applied to sec.
Players are not omniscient and won't be able to judge adequately whether the meta-protected player was abusing his power or not. Probably 80% of arrests you make as sec involve the arrested player claiming it was an abuse of power and shitsec. This potentially gives other players adequate reason to retaliate against sec for abusing their power, if meta-protections are no longer seen as guaranteeing the player is operating under good faith. You can assume bad faith and retaliate validly, because you thought they were acting in bad faith.
Spoiler:
- Agux909
- Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2019 11:26 pm
- Byond Username: Agux909
- Location: My own head
Re: Meta-protected entities and initiating conflict
Responding to OP:
I've been shown that some of your points lose merit by personal recent experience. Might just be a particular, super exceptional case situation but here it goes anyway:
A few days ago, my unrobustness got me fully stripped and pretty much round removed, (no ID gulagged) as a sec officer, for trying to detain a non-antag assistant who broke into bridge to make himself Captain (which he succeeded at), by said shitter.
Situation fully escalated from this initial self-antagging action from them, and during the whole thing, noone sided with nor defended me.
The admin response (not a particularly shitty nor newish admin by the way) when ahelped (after I was left on lavaland fully stripped and with no access) was basically: "IC issue can't help ya" and "with some patience and effort you might be able to get outta there".
Response from said assistant when I told him "gods will get furious at you" was "they'll only get angry if I kill you".
Based right? I agree.
But let me just fix some of your debatable preestablished points:
I've been shown that some of your points lose merit by personal recent experience. Might just be a particular, super exceptional case situation but here it goes anyway:
A few days ago, my unrobustness got me fully stripped and pretty much round removed, (no ID gulagged) as a sec officer, for trying to detain a non-antag assistant who broke into bridge to make himself Captain (which he succeeded at), by said shitter.
Situation fully escalated from this initial self-antagging action from them, and during the whole thing, noone sided with nor defended me.
The admin response (not a particularly shitty nor newish admin by the way) when ahelped (after I was left on lavaland fully stripped and with no access) was basically: "IC issue can't help ya" and "with some patience and effort you might be able to get outta there".
Response from said assistant when I told him "gods will get furious at you" was "they'll only get angry if I kill you".
Based right? I agree.
But let me just fix some of your debatable preestablished points:
There, half final cope, half throwing my cent, now you can continue with the discussion, hopefully taking into account my recent experience about dealing with a self-antag as an officer.NamelessFairy wrote: A point that should be brought up is that with meta-protection, if you are going out of your way to initiate conflict you're just doing your job your meta-protection will not protect you administratively but ICly people will almost always sometimes side with the Captain/Sec/The AI over a random member of the crew outside of cases where there are full blown mutinies (or malf AIs), either out of trust for a normally non-antagonist role. Or out of fear of administrative action for attacking a meta-protected role.
-
- Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2017 12:16 am
- Byond Username: Tlaltecuhtli
Re: Meta-protected entities and initiating conflict
if the conflict is in good faith, example: officer forces arrested prisoner to wear maid outfit while he is in cuffed or captain forces woman to wear burka for religious reasons, its ok as it generates abuse rp and action.
if its used in bad faith, like ai going full cop and reporting petty crimes to sec, and similars then i have all the rights to icly kill the ai for abuse of power
if its used in bad faith, like ai going full cop and reporting petty crimes to sec, and similars then i have all the rights to icly kill the ai for abuse of power
- Omega_DarkPotato
- In-Game Admin Trainer
- Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2020 12:05 am
- Byond Username: Omega_DarkPotato
- Location: Former Hell, Gensokyo
Re: Meta-protected entities and initiating conflict
I've seen enough deranged takes recently that I had to seriously wonder whether you actually believed what you wrote for a few secondsTlaltecuhtli wrote:if the conflict is in good faith, example: officer forces arrested prisoner to wear maid outfit while he is in cuffed or captain forces woman to wear burka for religious reasons, its ok as it generates abuse rp and action.
if its used in bad faith, like ai going full cop and reporting petty crimes to sec, and similars then i have all the rights to icly kill the ai for abuse of power
play opus: echo of starsongSuper Aggro Crag wrote:This is what u get when u let people into your community
I'm an admin, typically on /tg/station Sybil. If you've got anything you'd like to say about me, my adminning, or my decisions, please comment in my admin feedback thread!
- kieth4
- Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2020 6:17 pm
- Byond Username: Kieth4
Re: Meta-protected entities and initiating conflict
If it's marked ic issue it's a popularity game and you need to use your charisma to get the shitter lynched. If you're well known and they're not this is easy. Otherwise it's an uphill battle.
- Yenwodyah
- Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2018 10:47 pm
- Byond Username: Yenwodyah
- Github Username: Yenwodyah
Re: Meta-protected entities and initiating conflict
This but unironicallyTlaltecuhtli wrote:if the conflict is in good faith, example: officer forces arrested prisoner to wear maid outfit while he is in cuffed or captain forces woman to wear burka for religious reasons, its ok as it generates abuse rp and action.
if its used in bad faith, like ai going full cop and reporting petty crimes to sec, and similars then i have all the rights to icly kill the ai for abuse of power
- Pandarsenic
- Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 11:56 pm
- Byond Username: Pandarsenic
- Location: AI Upload
Re: Meta-protected entities and initiating conflict
Or, commit to being the baddest motherfucker in the room. Ambush and thoroughly round-remove them before their popularity has a chance to factor in, then accept your own death.kieth4 wrote:If it's marked ic issue it's a popularity game and you need to use your charisma to get the shitter lynched. If you're well known and they're not this is easy. Otherwise it's an uphill battle.
The baddest-ass way to do this that I can think of offhand is to come prepared with a circular saw and a cake. Ambush, decapitate, debrain, and braincake them before help can arrive.
(2:53:35 AM) scaredofshadows: how about head of robutts
I once wrote a guide to fixing telecomms woohoo
I once wrote a guide to fixing telecomms woohoo
- dragomagol
- Code Maintainer
- Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2020 11:04 pm
- Byond Username: Dragomagol
Re: Meta-protected entities and initiating conflict
Bump
AKA tattle
Sometimes also called Dragaomol, Dragomel, Dragamol, Dragomal
Help improve my neural network by giving me feedback!
Beta is now closed!
Sometimes also called Dragaomol, Dragomel, Dragamol, Dragomal
Help improve my neural network by giving me feedback!
Beta is now closed!
Spoiler:
-
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2021 7:31 pm
- Byond Username: Kubisopplay
Re: Meta-protected entities and initiating conflict
I just want to point out that AIs and silicons can get freely destroyed under premise "it could be malf" and most of the time it will be ic, even if its a round removal for them.
Silicon main, enough said
Tell me how badly I fucked up here: viewtopic.php?f=37&t=32575
Tell me how badly I fucked up here: viewtopic.php?f=37&t=32575
- Qbmax32
- Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2017 4:05 am
- Byond Username: Qbmax32
- Github Username: qbmax32
- Location: in your walls
Re: Meta-protected entities and initiating conflict
if you kill the ai or blow the borgs and dont have a reasonable explanation for it beyond "it could be rogue" i will note/ban you
-
- Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2020 12:27 am
- Byond Username: Technokek
Re: Meta-protected entities and initiating conflict
this does not stop anyone from doing it as it keeps happing currently. People always make up bullshit excuses for silicons being rogue.
- Timberpoes
- In-Game Head Admin
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:54 pm
- Byond Username: Timberpoes
Re: Meta-protected entities and initiating conflict
Let's pick apart bits of the OP I think the discussion was about.
Admins can still step in if they see shittery, but the reality will remain that these things can and will still be handled ICly by players as well.
Ultimately once a matter gets to ahelps admins should consider all the relevant context before deciding to IC issue these conflicts. And if admins can't give satisfying ticket resolutions (like hitting IC issue when you don't feel you have any IC options), players aren't going to ahelp in the first place.
So here's a little guidance we've come up with:
Admins should take into account meta-status any time it is relevant. If one player can't reasonably be an antag, that's a meta-protection which can make people more likely to side with them in conflict. Being a department head may be another meta-protection if their department moves to defend them in any fight. There are more ways meta-status can come into play.
When a meta-protected player initiaties a conflict, admins should keep in mind before IC issuing it what realistic IC actions the player can take to resolve it. Be cautious if your decision is indirectly forcing them to just suck up and take the meta-protected player's behaviour because the only reasonable alternatives lead to death.
This means an admin should handle a similar scenario differently when it's an assistant being a bit of a shitter versus the cap or a sec officer being a bit of a shitter.
If an admin can't think of anything that isn't tit-for-tat violence when dealing with meta-protected players, this could be resolved better through OOC means such as mediating conflicts between the parties or telling one/both to cut their shittery out. And you can always suggest ways to help players resolve things ICly if you think it should still stay an IC issue.
Timberpoes: Wrote above, would prefer ahelping against shitters but a good compromise is to nudge admins to consider more satisfying ways to conclude these ahelps so ahelping becomes more attractive.
Kieth4: Chill with the above.
This is all handled IC or ahelped depending on the victim in question and how they want to deal with it. While we'd prefer shitty players to be ahelped, we're not going to force it to happen.NamelessFairy wrote: ↑Wed Jul 14, 2021 6:45 pm ...
Currently these cases are as with other roles, ruled as IC issues. Despite generally being situations where your given two options. Die and likely get round removed for trying to escalate conflict, or live with the abuse unless it reaches the point where other rules are being broken.
What I'd like to have a discussion about is, is this fair that some jobs can initiate conflict with almost no risk to their own wellbeing due to their status. And should these roles be viewed as different to admins when looking at conflict escalation.
Admins can still step in if they see shittery, but the reality will remain that these things can and will still be handled ICly by players as well.
Ultimately once a matter gets to ahelps admins should consider all the relevant context before deciding to IC issue these conflicts. And if admins can't give satisfying ticket resolutions (like hitting IC issue when you don't feel you have any IC options), players aren't going to ahelp in the first place.
So here's a little guidance we've come up with:
Admins should take into account meta-status any time it is relevant. If one player can't reasonably be an antag, that's a meta-protection which can make people more likely to side with them in conflict. Being a department head may be another meta-protection if their department moves to defend them in any fight. There are more ways meta-status can come into play.
When a meta-protected player initiaties a conflict, admins should keep in mind before IC issuing it what realistic IC actions the player can take to resolve it. Be cautious if your decision is indirectly forcing them to just suck up and take the meta-protected player's behaviour because the only reasonable alternatives lead to death.
This means an admin should handle a similar scenario differently when it's an assistant being a bit of a shitter versus the cap or a sec officer being a bit of a shitter.
If an admin can't think of anything that isn't tit-for-tat violence when dealing with meta-protected players, this could be resolved better through OOC means such as mediating conflicts between the parties or telling one/both to cut their shittery out. And you can always suggest ways to help players resolve things ICly if you think it should still stay an IC issue.
Timberpoes: Wrote above, would prefer ahelping against shitters but a good compromise is to nudge admins to consider more satisfying ways to conclude these ahelps so ahelping becomes more attractive.
Kieth4: Chill with the above.
/tg/station Codebase Maintainer
/tg/station Game Master/Discord Jannie: Feed me back in my thread.
/tg/station Admin Trainer: Service guarantees citizenship. Would you like to know more?
Feb 2022-Sep 2022 Host Vote Headmin
Mar 2023-Sep 2023 Admin Vote Headmin
Sep 2024 Player and Admin Vote Headmin
/tg/station Game Master/Discord Jannie: Feed me back in my thread.
/tg/station Admin Trainer: Service guarantees citizenship. Would you like to know more?
Feb 2022-Sep 2022 Host Vote Headmin
Mar 2023-Sep 2023 Admin Vote Headmin
Sep 2024 Player and Admin Vote Headmin
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users