Bottom post of the previous page:
I'm starting to think this whole matter needs another discussion at length before being fully implemented.New antagonist policy - repealed
- Vekter
- In-Game Admin
- Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 10:25 pm
- Byond Username: Vekter
- Location: Fucking around with the engine.
- Luke Cox
- Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2014 8:52 am
- Byond Username: NocturnalQuill
- Location: Prisoner Transfer Room
Re: New antagonist policy
Agreed. I don't think it's a stretch to say that this is a very unpopular rule change. Anything this big needs to be discussed with the community first.Vekter wrote:I'm starting to think this whole matter needs another discussion at length before being fully implemented.
- Loonikus
- Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2014 2:20 am
- Byond Username: Loonicus
Re: New antagonist policy
The issue is that the server belongs to SoS, so SoS can rightfully make any decision he wants regardless of any discussion that takes place. If the points presented in this thread fail to change his mind, I fail to see what other discussions will.Luke Cox wrote:Agreed. I don't think it's a stretch to say that this is a very unpopular rule change. Anything this big needs to be discussed with the community first.Vekter wrote:I'm starting to think this whole matter needs another discussion at length before being fully implemented.
- Vekter
- In-Game Admin
- Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 10:25 pm
- Byond Username: Vekter
- Location: Fucking around with the engine.
Re: New antagonist policy
This is a toxic line of thought. You're basically saying it's not worth discussing because you assume Scaredy won't listen to anyone's concerns.Loonikus wrote:The issue is that the server belongs to SoS, so SoS can rightfully make any decision he wants regardless of any discussion that takes place. If the points presented in this thread fail to change his mind, I fail to see what other discussions will.Luke Cox wrote:Agreed. I don't think it's a stretch to say that this is a very unpopular rule change. Anything this big needs to be discussed with the community first.Vekter wrote:I'm starting to think this whole matter needs another discussion at length before being fully implemented.
-
- Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 5:09 pm
Re: New antagonist policy
But is he wrong?Vekter wrote:This is a toxic line of thought. You're basically saying it's not worth discussing because you assume Scaredy won't listen to anyone's concerns.Loonikus wrote:The issue is that the server belongs to SoS, so SoS can rightfully make any decision he wants regardless of any discussion that takes place. If the points presented in this thread fail to change his mind, I fail to see what other discussions will.Luke Cox wrote:Agreed. I don't think it's a stretch to say that this is a very unpopular rule change. Anything this big needs to be discussed with the community first.Vekter wrote:I'm starting to think this whole matter needs another discussion at length before being fully implemented.
- Loonikus
- Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2014 2:20 am
- Byond Username: Loonicus
Re: New antagonist policy
I'm not really assuming anything. If Scaredy doesn't want to change his mind and doesn't want to listen to peoples concerns, he has every right in the world to do so. If he does want to listen to other peoples concerns and is open to changing his mind, he has over 6 pages of discussion right here in this thread to come to a conclusion on.Vekter wrote: This is a toxic line of thought. You're basically saying it's not worth discussing because you assume Scaredy won't listen to anyone's concerns.
I just don't want policy limbo. In my mind, "further discussion" means we lock this thread and ignore the problem for a while until we eventually feel like talking about it again or it creates a massive shitstorm and we have to talk about it. I'm just saying that there is no point to "further discussion" when we can discuss this issue here and now.
- Vekter
- In-Game Admin
- Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 10:25 pm
- Byond Username: Vekter
- Location: Fucking around with the engine.
Re: New antagonist policy
What I've been told, officially, is that the only point of this change is to stop the worst from the worst from being, well, the worst. SoS doesn't want a huge emphasis on people getting objectives they don't like and just buying an esword and going apeshit on the station.
My personal interpretation? Unless you've managed to kill 2/3rd of the station's population and STILL haven't completed your objectives, I probably won't even take a second glance. Even THEN, worst you'll probably get from me is a note.
E: [10:18pm] <Vekter> My interpretation is still that I'm probably never going to apply one of these bans unless someone does something like gets antag, with notes, and murders 2/3rd of the station without even trying to get their objective.
[10:18pm] <~scaredofshadows> pretty much exactly that
My personal interpretation? Unless you've managed to kill 2/3rd of the station's population and STILL haven't completed your objectives, I probably won't even take a second glance. Even THEN, worst you'll probably get from me is a note.
E: [10:18pm] <Vekter> My interpretation is still that I'm probably never going to apply one of these bans unless someone does something like gets antag, with notes, and murders 2/3rd of the station without even trying to get their objective.
[10:18pm] <~scaredofshadows> pretty much exactly that
-
- Github User
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 11:41 pm
- Byond Username: Incoming
- Github Username: Incoming5643
Re: New antagonist policy
Alright so I don't come around much anymore, and I don't play much anymore. But as the guy who was kind of spearheading a lot of wizard stuff, including summon magic, I just want to say three things real quick.
1. It fucking sucks that this happened. I did wizard stuff because it was refreshing not to have to worry so much about the restrictions of balance, and yet here we are anyways.
2. I have a suggestion on how to resolve this without "losing the spirit" of anything. Check https://github.com/tgstation/-tg-station/pull/6387 .
3. Is there anything else I can say or do at this point to fix any of this nonsense? If so please show me where/how.
1. It fucking sucks that this happened. I did wizard stuff because it was refreshing not to have to worry so much about the restrictions of balance, and yet here we are anyways.
2. I have a suggestion on how to resolve this without "losing the spirit" of anything. Check https://github.com/tgstation/-tg-station/pull/6387 .
3. Is there anything else I can say or do at this point to fix any of this nonsense? If so please show me where/how.
Developer - Datum Antags: Feburary 2016
Poly the Parrot - All Seeing Bird Transcends Universe, Joins Twitter.
Kofi - Make A Poor Life Choice
Good ideas backed by cruddy code since 2012!™
Poly the Parrot - All Seeing Bird Transcends Universe, Joins Twitter.
Kofi - Make A Poor Life Choice
Good ideas backed by cruddy code since 2012!™
- Luke Cox
- Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2014 8:52 am
- Byond Username: NocturnalQuill
- Location: Prisoner Transfer Room
Re: New antagonist policy
Being able to do something doesn't make it a good idea. Sure, he can ignore us, but people can also play on other servers, of which there are plenty. I believe that this rule change is very detrimental to the community as a whole. I believe that it's in both his and our best interest to seriously reconsider what is in my opinion a very damaging policy change. TG station occupies a perfect niche between Goon and Bay, and SoS is attempting to treat a rash by amputating the limb.Loonikus wrote:The issue is that the server belongs to SoS, so SoS can rightfully make any decision he wants regardless of any discussion that takes place. If the points presented in this thread fail to change his mind, I fail to see what other discussions will.Luke Cox wrote:Agreed. I don't think it's a stretch to say that this is a very unpopular rule change. Anything this big needs to be discussed with the community first.Vekter wrote:I'm starting to think this whole matter needs another discussion at length before being fully implemented.
- Steelpoint
- Github User
- Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 6:37 pm
- Byond Username: Steelpoint
- Github Username: Steelpoint
- Location: The Armoury
Re: New antagonist policy
If the point of this rule is just to warn people who indulge in excess, then why did we have to go through this massively contraversial, and poorly handled, rule change?
Why do you even need a ruling on something that admins can just easily warn someone about.
The ruling affects almost virtually no one, yet the way it's being handled and shown implies it will effect everyone.
Why do you even need a ruling on something that admins can just easily warn someone about.
The ruling affects almost virtually no one, yet the way it's being handled and shown implies it will effect everyone.
- Sum Ting Wong
- Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2014 12:40 pm
Re: New antagonist policy
He is listening but not responding. This thread isn't so much an open discussion about the current policy as it is a box to hold our complaints. If he insists on keeping this new policy then I won't mind, but stonewalling the community is torture.Vekter wrote:You're basically saying it's not worth discussing because you assume Scaredy won't listen to anyone's concerns.
- Phalanx300
- Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2014 7:26 pm
- Byond Username: Phalanx300
Re: New antagonist policy
SoS, don't play dictator but let the community decide things. If multiple discussions had the conclusion "don't change" then don't be a dick and change it anyways without any form of vote or discussion.
-
- Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2014 12:23 am
- Byond Username: Kromgar
Re: New antagonist policy
How about you stop making some objectives so insanely hard?
I mean changeling objectives are insane. Steal a brain? Its hard to get surgery tools. I mean changelings get like 5 objectives meanwhile most antags just get 2.
I mean changeling objectives are insane. Steal a brain? Its hard to get surgery tools. I mean changelings get like 5 objectives meanwhile most antags just get 2.
Planet Station Best Station
Vote Planetstation and Kor Phaeron 2017
Vote Planetstation and Kor Phaeron 2017
-
- Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2014 12:23 am
- Byond Username: Kromgar
Re: New antagonist policy
Also is it fine to release the singularity after your objective is done and you want to get the shuttle called?
Planet Station Best Station
Vote Planetstation and Kor Phaeron 2017
Vote Planetstation and Kor Phaeron 2017
- Rafigdoost
- Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 3:18 am
-
- Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 3:29 am
- Byond Username: Amelius
Re: New antagonist policy
Ling objectives are quite easy, even the steal-a-brain ones (unless you're the unlucky sap who ended up with a ling as your assassinate objective). Protip: your armblade can be used like a saw, and with some cable, tools, and a bedsheet from the dorms you can do makeshift brain surgery without surgical tools.Bombadil wrote:How about you stop making some objectives so insanely hard?
I mean changeling objectives are insane. Steal a brain? Its hard to get surgery tools. I mean changelings get like 5 objectives meanwhile most antags just get 2.
- bandit
- Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 7:35 pm
- Byond Username: Bgobandit
Re: New antagonist policy
Update
scaredofshadows, on singulo.io wrote:'Escape alone' will still be enabled on the servers. Wizard will be re-enabled, with possibly even survivors coming back (with a message about not murdering people unless necessary to survive).
-
- Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:05 pm
- Byond Username: Dazbuzz
Re: New antagonist policy
This is what shouldve happened in the first place. Now we just need this policy to disappear until the community agrees to it.bandit wrote:Update
scaredofshadows, on singulo.io wrote:'Escape alone' will still be enabled on the servers. Wizard will be re-enabled, with possibly even survivors coming back (with a message about not murdering people unless necessary to survive).
- youngbuckliontiger
- Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2014 6:56 am
Re: New antagonist policy
Phalanx300 wrote:SoS, don't play dictator but let the community decide things. If multiple discussions had the conclusion "don't change" then don't be a dick and change it anyways without any form of vote or discussion.
Spoiler:
Player name: Rob Ust
Lets have fun in SS13!
I don't play anymore though.
Lets have fun in SS13!
I don't play anymore though.
-
- Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 3:29 am
- Byond Username: Amelius
Re: New antagonist policy
Here's a question. Why doesn't SoS post in the thread directly instead of telling other people to post for him? Why hasn't anyone rebuffed all these very-legitimate concerns and arguments if this policy is defensible? Why was this implemented ignoring community feedback thrice?
All these admins are coming out of the woodwork and not addressing this nor the earlier concerns. They've been sidestepping comments and trying to make it seem more minor than it is, appealing to a lack of applicability to 'most people'. We know that the new rule applies to antags throwing polyacid grenades on the shuttle - that is nowhere near not 'most people'. I mean fuck, Rob Ust was banned for being too robust.
Come on guys. Answer the hard questions. How do you expect rounds to progress if antagonists cannot antagonize the crew to the point where the shuttle must be called? How do you expect low-quantity antag rounds (ling) to function beyond 'extended' if they cannot mass-murder? How do you expect construct cultists to function without mass-murder and sacrifice? How do you expect the community will react to being ignored three times over? Why hasn't SoS said a single thing in this thread? Why are you tossing rule 2 out the window? Why would you provide functionality for the crew to release the singularity and plasma to be flooded if you don't want people to use them? Why aren't you solving this 'issue' in a far lighter fashion instead, by incentivizing robust players to play security by making antag rolls after job rolls? With more robust security, surely these mass-murderers with not a hint of inconspicuousity would be caught quickly. Why have you, of late, been ignoring community feedback when it comes to changes, yet asking for it all the same?
There's plenty more 'hardball' questions that you folks have outright ignored. This is simply a complaint thread where our words will go unheeded, regardless of logical soundness or debate. Please, do not pretend this policy is defensible, do not pretend that you are not defending SoS simply because he is the server owner, and do not pretend that these concessions (wizard re-added, 'escape alone' still an objective) are not a usual salesman psychological tactic - to make outrageous demands, then demand something still outrageous but 'better' than the last. I will not accept these rules, and I will not abide by these new rules. If I wind up banned, then so be it - but I simply do not see this new policy lasting long, and I do not see any reason for it's existence.
All these admins are coming out of the woodwork and not addressing this nor the earlier concerns. They've been sidestepping comments and trying to make it seem more minor than it is, appealing to a lack of applicability to 'most people'. We know that the new rule applies to antags throwing polyacid grenades on the shuttle - that is nowhere near not 'most people'. I mean fuck, Rob Ust was banned for being too robust.
Come on guys. Answer the hard questions. How do you expect rounds to progress if antagonists cannot antagonize the crew to the point where the shuttle must be called? How do you expect low-quantity antag rounds (ling) to function beyond 'extended' if they cannot mass-murder? How do you expect construct cultists to function without mass-murder and sacrifice? How do you expect the community will react to being ignored three times over? Why hasn't SoS said a single thing in this thread? Why are you tossing rule 2 out the window? Why would you provide functionality for the crew to release the singularity and plasma to be flooded if you don't want people to use them? Why aren't you solving this 'issue' in a far lighter fashion instead, by incentivizing robust players to play security by making antag rolls after job rolls? With more robust security, surely these mass-murderers with not a hint of inconspicuousity would be caught quickly. Why have you, of late, been ignoring community feedback when it comes to changes, yet asking for it all the same?
There's plenty more 'hardball' questions that you folks have outright ignored. This is simply a complaint thread where our words will go unheeded, regardless of logical soundness or debate. Please, do not pretend this policy is defensible, do not pretend that you are not defending SoS simply because he is the server owner, and do not pretend that these concessions (wizard re-added, 'escape alone' still an objective) are not a usual salesman psychological tactic - to make outrageous demands, then demand something still outrageous but 'better' than the last. I will not accept these rules, and I will not abide by these new rules. If I wind up banned, then so be it - but I simply do not see this new policy lasting long, and I do not see any reason for it's existence.
- fleure
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 2:50 pm
- Byond Username: Fleure
- Wyzack
- Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 11:32 pm
- Byond Username: Wyzack
Re: New antagonist policy
Amelius makes a good point, pretty much all of our admins sans ikky have ignored most of our concerns with a "lets just see what happens" statement. In my opinion we already had, a guy got warned for pacid grenadeing the shuttle. As an antag. That seems really not okay and i wish our admins would address it.
Arthur Thomson says, "Since there are no admins I would loging with another account and kill you"
Caleb Robinson laughs.
Arthur Thomson catches fire!
certified good poster
Caleb Robinson laughs.
Arthur Thomson catches fire!
tusterman11 wrote:Can you stop lying? I just asked you and you are was a piece of shiit on me!!!
EngamerAzari's real number one fangirl <3Kor wrote:I wish Wyzack was still an admin.
certified good poster
- Stickymayhem
- Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2014 6:13 pm
- Byond Username: Stickymayhem
Re: New antagonist policy
He wasn't an antag.Wyzack wrote:Amelius makes a good point, pretty much all of our admins sans ikky have ignored most of our concerns with a "lets just see what happens" statement. In my opinion we already had, a guy got warned for pacid grenadeing the shuttle. As an antag. That seems really not okay and i wish our admins would address it.
Boris wrote:Sticky is a jackass who has worms where his brain should be, but he also gets exactly what SS13 should be
- Sum Ting Wong
- Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2014 12:40 pm
Re: New antagonist policy
Four years ago SoS had offered to host these servers in place of TLE, but this was on the condition that he would only assume the role of the host and not enforce administrative policies.
We are now currently in a position where he is making sweeping changes to server legislation without consulting the playerbase. This change in policy has been discussed several times in the past, each time shot down, until it was forced by SoS recently. He is now enforcing this new policy by actively banning players who break these nebulous new rules which as of posting have not been properly announced to the playerbase at large. Discussion of this policy has been scattered over several unofficial community channels, but the majority is coming from behind the closed doors of the admin IRC. We have heard varying clarifications about the true purpose of this policy and who it is really aimed at from the admins in this thread, but not from the server owner himself.
SNAFU
We are now currently in a position where he is making sweeping changes to server legislation without consulting the playerbase. This change in policy has been discussed several times in the past, each time shot down, until it was forced by SoS recently. He is now enforcing this new policy by actively banning players who break these nebulous new rules which as of posting have not been properly announced to the playerbase at large. Discussion of this policy has been scattered over several unofficial community channels, but the majority is coming from behind the closed doors of the admin IRC. We have heard varying clarifications about the true purpose of this policy and who it is really aimed at from the admins in this thread, but not from the server owner himself.
SNAFU
- Wyzack
- Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 11:32 pm
- Byond Username: Wyzack
Re: New antagonist policy
Wait really? If it was a clearcut nonantag killing then what does it even have to do with this policy?Stickymayhem wrote:He wasn't an antag.Wyzack wrote:Amelius makes a good point, pretty much all of our admins sans ikky have ignored most of our concerns with a "lets just see what happens" statement. In my opinion we already had, a guy got warned for pacid grenadeing the shuttle. As an antag. That seems really not okay and i wish our admins would address it.
Arthur Thomson says, "Since there are no admins I would loging with another account and kill you"
Caleb Robinson laughs.
Arthur Thomson catches fire!
certified good poster
Caleb Robinson laughs.
Arthur Thomson catches fire!
tusterman11 wrote:Can you stop lying? I just asked you and you are was a piece of shiit on me!!!
EngamerAzari's real number one fangirl <3Kor wrote:I wish Wyzack was still an admin.
certified good poster
-
- Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2014 8:27 pm
- Byond Username: Pybro
Re: New antagonist policy
Who precisely are we referring to? I was an antag two nights ago and got warned for polyacid+plasma+lube smoking the shuttle. Double Agent, specifically.Stickymayhem wrote:He wasn't an antag.Wyzack wrote:Amelius makes a good point, pretty much all of our admins sans ikky have ignored most of our concerns with a "lets just see what happens" statement. In my opinion we already had, a guy got warned for pacid grenadeing the shuttle. As an antag. That seems really not okay and i wish our admins would address it.
-
- Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 3:29 am
- Byond Username: Amelius
Re: New antagonist policy
And if you're warned for a behaviour, that directly means it is bannable. You shouldn't even get boinked for that in the first place, unless they needed to confirm that it was you throwing PAcid and not anyone else.Pybro wrote:Who precisely are we referring to? I was an antag two nights ago and got warned for polyacid+plasma+lube smoking the shuttle. Double Agent, specifically.Stickymayhem wrote:He wasn't an antag.Wyzack wrote:Amelius makes a good point, pretty much all of our admins sans ikky have ignored most of our concerns with a "lets just see what happens" statement. In my opinion we already had, a guy got warned for pacid grenadeing the shuttle. As an antag. That seems really not okay and i wish our admins would address it.
It's bullshit.
- Jimthebob123
- Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2014 1:09 am
- Byond Username: Jimthebob123
Re: New antagonist policy
On sybil Scared said and i quote
Just putting this out thereOOC: Scaredofshadows: if you guys feel this strongly about it, we should do a townhall meeting
-
- Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:05 pm
- Byond Username: Dazbuzz
Re: New antagonist policy
So this 8 page topic and the policy discussion poll isnt enough? ok then, lets make ANOTHER topic so we can all argue and get absolutely nothing changed.Jimthebob123 wrote:On sybil Scared said and i quoteJust putting this out thereOOC: Scaredofshadows: if you guys feel this strongly about it, we should do a townhall meeting
- Kraso
- Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 3:46 pm
- Byond Username: S0ldi3rKr4s0
- Github Username: Kraseo
Re: New antagonist policy
I hope you're all familiar with the saying "today's leak is tomorrow's flood"
- ShadowDimentio
- Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 3:15 am
- Byond Username: David273
Re: New antagonist policy
If this is true holy fuckSum Ting Wong wrote:Four years ago SoS had offered to host these servers in place of TLE, but this was on the condition that he would only assume the role of the host and not enforce administrative policies.
We are now currently in a position where he is making sweeping changes to server legislation without consulting the playerbase. This change in policy has been discussed several times in the past, each time shot down, until it was forced by SoS recently. He is now enforcing this new policy by actively banning players who break these nebulous new rules which as of posting have not been properly announced to the playerbase at large. Discussion of this policy has been scattered over several unofficial community channels, but the majority is coming from behind the closed doors of the admin IRC. We have heard varying clarifications about the true purpose of this policy and who it is really aimed at from the admins in this thread, but not from the server owner himself.
SNAFU
But seriously, let's talk about murderboning. Murderboning is bad. It's uncreative, unfun, and boring to pretty much everyone. But is it an issue that requires admin intervention?
FUCK. NO.
Banning people over a turbulent-as-fuck rule that can mean basically whatever the admin wants it to mean is fucking terrible, especially with how the decision for a new rule seemed to basically come out of fucking nowhere and had no players actually commenting on it until now, where basically everyone's reaction has been one of disgust for the new rule and wanting it revoked, only to be promptly ignored.
tl;dr Banning murderboning is like nuking a anthill. Sure, it'll probably kill the ants, but more than a few people are going to inevitably get caught in the crossfire.
Spoiler:
-
- Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2014 1:55 am
- Byond Username: Tsaricide
Re: New antagonist policy
When there are certain people who do the exact same murderboning over and over again then yes admin intervention can become necessary.ShadowDimentio wrote:But is it an issue that requires admin intervention?
-
- Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 5:09 pm
Re: New antagonist policy
Admin intervention was never the issue. In fact, I think that is how most players would prefer to handle this. When a murderboner goes too far, admins start pressing buttons. Send in a mech, mega spess carp, aliens, an ops team or a deathsquad. Or boink the offender and say, "you have three minutes to call the shuttle and end this or you explode."Tsaricide wrote:When there are certain people who do the exact same murderboning over and over again then yes admin intervention can become necessary.ShadowDimentio wrote:But is it an issue that requires admin intervention?
But what if no admins are on/don't want to press buttons? Ok then tough shit. There's a second server for a reason.
This is a simple and easy way to deal with this and how it should be handled. Murderboners don't care about their green text.
This new policy has tons of people running scared now. We keep getting vague and deflective answers about how, "its only for a few people, I'm gonna enforce it x way", but the best example we have of this being implemented was the poly acid grenade warning. Yes I keep going back to it. Yes its a small sample size. Still doesn't make it any less worrisome.
-
- Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 6:53 pm
- Byond Username: Cheimon
Re: New antagonist policy
I'm not quite sure how to feel about this. Initially I was really supportive: I hate it when someone spends their entire round attempting to kill off the whole crew of the station, often in a routine and pretty dull way. Whether it's an EI NATH wizard, a gibbing ninja, or a stun and saw traitor that sort of thing gets boring very fast, especially if they've done a few things that make it super hard to counter them without powergaming up to 11. It's not that fun to be a part of, it's not the sort of thing the station can automatically deal with after a point, and it makes for a pretty shit round.
But on the other hand, I'm seeing this used kind of harsher than I would expect. I was a traitor doctor a couple of rounds ago and my target wandered into medbay, so I did the decent thing and killed him, then hid his body. Afterwards I was a bit bored, so I thought I might work on sabotaging the medical treatment of the station: basically, taking advantage of injured people's state and making them 'disappear' with classic traitor tools like emagged medbots and a radioactive health scanner, maybe thinning out the number of doctors or trying to make sure a couple of critical people didn't get cloned or whatever. Just trying to make the round interesting, harder for everyone else, the sort of stuff that would have made sense previous to this policy change.
Now, however, I wasn't sure. So I adminhelped it just to check and go the response "I'd rather you didn't just murder people for no reason". I thought being a traitor was a reason to murder people before, at least a few people, to spice up the round and keep things interesting. If that's stopping, it's going to make certain rounds (traitor particularly: ling gives you full license to murder whichever randoms you want in the name of genomes, team based modes speak for themselves, etc) far more quiet and dull. If it's going to be enforced in this way. I feel like a policy which enforces just sticking to the greentext and not going beyond that if you've succeeded is going to be...kind of dull.
But on the other hand, I'm seeing this used kind of harsher than I would expect. I was a traitor doctor a couple of rounds ago and my target wandered into medbay, so I did the decent thing and killed him, then hid his body. Afterwards I was a bit bored, so I thought I might work on sabotaging the medical treatment of the station: basically, taking advantage of injured people's state and making them 'disappear' with classic traitor tools like emagged medbots and a radioactive health scanner, maybe thinning out the number of doctors or trying to make sure a couple of critical people didn't get cloned or whatever. Just trying to make the round interesting, harder for everyone else, the sort of stuff that would have made sense previous to this policy change.
Now, however, I wasn't sure. So I adminhelped it just to check and go the response "I'd rather you didn't just murder people for no reason". I thought being a traitor was a reason to murder people before, at least a few people, to spice up the round and keep things interesting. If that's stopping, it's going to make certain rounds (traitor particularly: ling gives you full license to murder whichever randoms you want in the name of genomes, team based modes speak for themselves, etc) far more quiet and dull. If it's going to be enforced in this way. I feel like a policy which enforces just sticking to the greentext and not going beyond that if you've succeeded is going to be...kind of dull.
- ExplosiveCrate
- Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 8:04 pm
- Byond Username: ExplosiveCrate
Re: New antagonist policy
Right now it seems less like a "Don't be shitty" policy and more of a "Don't kill anyone except your target when SoS or Quartz is on" policy.
i dont even know what the context for my signature was
- Steelpoint
- Github User
- Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 6:37 pm
- Byond Username: Steelpoint
- Github Username: Steelpoint
- Location: The Armoury
Re: New antagonist policy
That's actually pretty accurate.ExplosiveCrate wrote:Right now it seems less like a "Don't be shitty" policy and more of a "Don't kill anyone except your target when SoS or Quartz is on" policy.
A lot of people, even admins, tell me they simply don't play Security roles, or any authority role, when SoS is on the server.
- Wyzack
- Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 11:32 pm
- Byond Username: Wyzack
Re: New antagonist policy
That is a real problem. Playing security is already fucking stressful enough
Arthur Thomson says, "Since there are no admins I would loging with another account and kill you"
Caleb Robinson laughs.
Arthur Thomson catches fire!
certified good poster
Caleb Robinson laughs.
Arthur Thomson catches fire!
tusterman11 wrote:Can you stop lying? I just asked you and you are was a piece of shiit on me!!!
EngamerAzari's real number one fangirl <3Kor wrote:I wish Wyzack was still an admin.
certified good poster
- paprika
- Rarely plays
- Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 10:20 pm
- Byond Username: Paprka
- Location: in down bad
Re: New antagonist policy
I'll summarize what really happened:
>Scaredy says he wants to put admins in place to administrate and keep the server and the /tg/ spirit alive
>Scaredy works and barely pays attention to the server besides keeping it running awesome as fuck and better than pretty much any server out there, really great and free updates to support our bolstering community
>Administration drama (mostly because scaredy isn't around), they prove ineffective at keeping /tg/ sane and using rule 0 to weed out shitters, a lot of bad apple admins intentionally don't enforce rules and policies like the ones for powergaming we've had forever to turn the server into a shitty nox 2.0 garbo fest
>SoS quits his job, steps in to help the administration by making new policy changes, getting new headmins, etc
>People say he is making SWEEPING CHANGES to 'legislation' even though these policies on powergaming and not being a dick to ruin people's fun have ALWAYS BEEN FUCKING RULES
Really though you can leave if you don't like it, your boogyman conspiracy theories about how SoS is ruining the server are fucking laughable and you need to go anyway.

BTFO
T
F
O
>Scaredy says he wants to put admins in place to administrate and keep the server and the /tg/ spirit alive
>Scaredy works and barely pays attention to the server besides keeping it running awesome as fuck and better than pretty much any server out there, really great and free updates to support our bolstering community
>Administration drama (mostly because scaredy isn't around), they prove ineffective at keeping /tg/ sane and using rule 0 to weed out shitters, a lot of bad apple admins intentionally don't enforce rules and policies like the ones for powergaming we've had forever to turn the server into a shitty nox 2.0 garbo fest
>SoS quits his job, steps in to help the administration by making new policy changes, getting new headmins, etc
>People say he is making SWEEPING CHANGES to 'legislation' even though these policies on powergaming and not being a dick to ruin people's fun have ALWAYS BEEN FUCKING RULES
Really though you can leave if you don't like it, your boogyman conspiracy theories about how SoS is ruining the server are fucking laughable and you need to go anyway.

BTFO
T
F
O
Oldman Robustin wrote:It's an established meme that coders don't play this game.
-
- Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2014 1:18 am
- Byond Username: Ninja137
Re: New antagonist policy
What's even the point? Antagonists are supposed to be antagonistic, how they do that is up to them, not your autistic baystation definition. When you start trying to tell players how to have fun, you've lost as an admin.Maccus wrote:If I had to guess, snap judgement after some bad rounds.
See that quote? That's a damn good point on this.
I've been on the /tg/ servers since they started waaaaaay back with TLE and CommisarFuklaw and the rest. You know what /tg/ has always had going for it? That it didn't fuck it's players for doing what they wanted to do, outside of things like rape or forced ERP, and that it managed to have good code while doing it.
We shouldn't have a policy that does this. Hell, we shouldn't even be needing to have the damn discussion about putting in a policy like this. Not to even mention shit like this: https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=1508
You made a vote-thread on this, got a RESOUNDINGLY LOUD answer of "No we do not want this. Stop." and then put the policy in place anyway. I'm actually surprised that this is even getting discussed in the first place. The game isn't meant to be a hugbox, don't let it become one.
-
- Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 5:09 pm
Re: New antagonist policy
This is very revealing and extremely concerning. So despite the many vague reassurances from the admins on this thread that this is simply for a select few outlier cases, the way this is actually being applied is worse than we thought. This is very disappointing.Cheimon wrote:I'm not quite sure how to feel about this. Initially I was really supportive: I hate it when someone spends their entire round attempting to kill off the whole crew of the station, often in a routine and pretty dull way. Whether it's an EI NATH wizard, a gibbing ninja, or a stun and saw traitor that sort of thing gets boring very fast, especially if they've done a few things that make it super hard to counter them without powergaming up to 11. It's not that fun to be a part of, it's not the sort of thing the station can automatically deal with after a point, and it makes for a pretty shit round.
But on the other hand, I'm seeing this used kind of harsher than I would expect. I was a traitor doctor a couple of rounds ago and my target wandered into medbay, so I did the decent thing and killed him, then hid his body. Afterwards I was a bit bored, so I thought I might work on sabotaging the medical treatment of the station: basically, taking advantage of injured people's state and making them 'disappear' with classic traitor tools like emagged medbots and a radioactive health scanner, maybe thinning out the number of doctors or trying to make sure a couple of critical people didn't get cloned or whatever. Just trying to make the round interesting, harder for everyone else, the sort of stuff that would have made sense previous to this policy change.
Now, however, I wasn't sure. So I adminhelped it just to check and go the response "I'd rather you didn't just murder people for no reason". I thought being a traitor was a reason to murder people before, at least a few people, to spice up the round and keep things interesting. If that's stopping, it's going to make certain rounds (traitor particularly: ling gives you full license to murder whichever randoms you want in the name of genomes, team based modes speak for themselves, etc) far more quiet and dull. If it's going to be enforced in this way. I feel like a policy which enforces just sticking to the greentext and not going beyond that if you've succeeded is going to be...kind of dull.
Even worse is the varied responses that we have been getting. So are the admins not on the same page or are their responses in this thread just damage control? If its the former, why would you enact a policy without having a unified stance on it? If its the latter, then its only gonna fool people for so long.
The actions are speaking much more than the words in this case.
Edit: Would you mind saying which admin that it was the PM'd you?
- Saegrimr
- Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2014 4:39 pm
- Byond Username: Saegrimr
Re: New antagonist policy
You can enforce a policy without actually agreeing with it.walket wrote:Even worse is the varied responses that we have been getting. So are the admins not on the same page or are their responses in this thread just damage control? If its the former, why would you enact a policy without having a unified stance on it? If its the latter, then its only gonna fool people for so long.
tedward1337 wrote:Sae is like the racist grandad who everyone laughs at for being racist, but deep down we all know he's right.
-
- Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 9:02 am
- Byond Username: Miggles
- Contact:
Re: New antagonist policy
you kind of have to if you want to be an admin
dezzmont wrote:I am one of sawrge's alt accounts
dezzmont wrote:sawrge has it right.
Connor wrote:miggles is correct though
-
- Joined: Fri May 02, 2014 3:01 am
- Byond Username: Incomptinence
Re: New antagonist policy
Some people want murderboners banned, that is reasonable. One person wants most of the station population to leave out of spite due to their changes being disliked, that's Paprika.
-
- Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:05 pm
- Byond Username: Dazbuzz
Re: New antagonist policy
There is it guys. Thats the answer you can expect if you try to argue with any changes SoS makes. Yeah your right, this isnt NoX, this is worse than NoX.paprika wrote:Really though you can leave if you don't like it
-
- Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2014 6:07 pm
Re: New antagonist policy
Um, I'd like to put in my experience with murderboning.
1: Generally any time I die to someone from a gun/bow/sword in such a way that I can't even type 'say; help' (Especially with most forms of assault interrupting your radio transmissions.) I feel... disappointed. A little frustrated, salty, if you will.
2: This salt turns into raw anger if I learn the person who did it, did it for no reason. (Either an Ahelp or round end objectives listing.) No reason being: I have no association with the target in any real way. I understand if I'm chilling in the escape arm, and I get pewpewed by a guy with escape alone. If I Ahelp it and it's valid (for whatever reason), I just take a deep breath and grab a munchy, maybe play something else if I'm still 'fired up'.
3: I get outright infuriated if the person who killed me went out of his way to make sure the only way I can return to the round is either as a drone or as an event, aka: Permanent disposal of the corpse, either by spacing, or the various forms of gibbing. Valid or not, that could easily mean 50 minutes of me not being in the game.
4: I don't find myself all that bothered if I'm killed from more creative means, an Emagged Medibot, invisible toxic gases from Atmos, heck, even releasing the singu and me getting caught in it is a 'minor' offense, such slow, deliberate methods of murder are avoidable, and at least feel (Mostly) unique, deaths, deaths that make me go 'Wow, I can't believe he managed to set that up.'
4 addendum: Exception being One HUmaning the AI and telling it to kill non humans. (Corporate/Paladin AIs ftw...) There might be some bias here as I am practically a professional robotocist, but a one humaned AI is just as bad as an Emah/Esword on my rage inducer.
What's the point I'm getting at? None really, just a community member stating his opinions on when being Antagonized stops being fun.
1: Generally any time I die to someone from a gun/bow/sword in such a way that I can't even type 'say; help' (Especially with most forms of assault interrupting your radio transmissions.) I feel... disappointed. A little frustrated, salty, if you will.
2: This salt turns into raw anger if I learn the person who did it, did it for no reason. (Either an Ahelp or round end objectives listing.) No reason being: I have no association with the target in any real way. I understand if I'm chilling in the escape arm, and I get pewpewed by a guy with escape alone. If I Ahelp it and it's valid (for whatever reason), I just take a deep breath and grab a munchy, maybe play something else if I'm still 'fired up'.
3: I get outright infuriated if the person who killed me went out of his way to make sure the only way I can return to the round is either as a drone or as an event, aka: Permanent disposal of the corpse, either by spacing, or the various forms of gibbing. Valid or not, that could easily mean 50 minutes of me not being in the game.
4: I don't find myself all that bothered if I'm killed from more creative means, an Emagged Medibot, invisible toxic gases from Atmos, heck, even releasing the singu and me getting caught in it is a 'minor' offense, such slow, deliberate methods of murder are avoidable, and at least feel (Mostly) unique, deaths, deaths that make me go 'Wow, I can't believe he managed to set that up.'
4 addendum: Exception being One HUmaning the AI and telling it to kill non humans. (Corporate/Paladin AIs ftw...) There might be some bias here as I am practically a professional robotocist, but a one humaned AI is just as bad as an Emah/Esword on my rage inducer.
What's the point I'm getting at? None really, just a community member stating his opinions on when being Antagonized stops being fun.
- Phalanx300
- Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2014 7:26 pm
- Byond Username: Phalanx300
Re: New antagonist policy
If we give him Sudentenland now he will be taking Poland tomorrow.paprika wrote:I'll summarize what really happened:
>Scaredy says he wants to put admins in place to administrate and keep the server and the /tg/ spirit alive
>Scaredy works and barely pays attention to the server besides keeping it running awesome as fuck and better than pretty much any server out there, really great and free updates to support our bolstering community
>Administration drama (mostly because scaredy isn't around), they prove ineffective at keeping /tg/ sane and using rule 0 to weed out shitters, a lot of bad apple admins intentionally don't enforce rules and policies like the ones for powergaming we've had forever to turn the server into a shitty nox 2.0 garbo fest
>SoS quits his job, steps in to help the administration by making new policy changes, getting new headmins, etc
>People say he is making SWEEPING CHANGES to 'legislation' even though these policies on powergaming and not being a dick to ruin people's fun have ALWAYS BEEN FUCKING RULES
Really though you can leave if you don't like it, your boogyman conspiracy theories about how SoS is ruining the server are fucking laughable and you need to go anyway.
BTFO
T
F
O
- Spacemanspark
- Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 7:45 pm
- Byond Username: Spacemanspark
- Location: Paradise
Re: New antagonist policy
I love how people are saying this is worse than NoX, considering this rule is literally supposed to keep us from becoming it. I agree whole heatedly with everything Paprika stated.
If you want /tg/station without these rules, go play on Hippie station.
Oh, wait, that actually IS NoX 2.0.
If you want /tg/station without these rules, go play on Hippie station.
Oh, wait, that actually IS NoX 2.0.
:^)
-
- Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:05 pm
- Byond Username: Dazbuzz
Re: New antagonist policy
Worse than NoX in the sense that atleast NoX never used to ban things against the wishes of the community.Spacemanspark wrote:I love how people are saying this is worse than NoX, considering this rule is literally supposed to keep us from becoming it. I agree whole heatedly with everything Paprika stated.
If you want /tg/station without these rules, go play on Hippie station.
Oh, wait, that actually IS NoX 2.0.
- Spacemanspark
- Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 7:45 pm
- Byond Username: Spacemanspark
- Location: Paradise
Re: New antagonist policy
Ah, I see. Well, this certainly seems familiar...Alex Crimson wrote:Worse than NoX in the sense that atleast NoX never used to ban things against the wishes of the community.Spacemanspark wrote:I love how people are saying this is worse than NoX, considering this rule is literally supposed to keep us from becoming it. I agree whole heatedly with everything Paprika stated.
If you want /tg/station without these rules, go play on Hippie station.
Oh, wait, that actually IS NoX 2.0.
Well, I can still say I agree with the new rules, at the very least.
:^)
- Phalanx300
- Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2014 7:26 pm
- Byond Username: Phalanx300
Re: New antagonist policy
So how does it feel to be part of the minority?Spacemanspark wrote:Ah, I see. Well, this certainly seems familiar...Alex Crimson wrote:Worse than NoX in the sense that atleast NoX never used to ban things against the wishes of the community.Spacemanspark wrote:I love how people are saying this is worse than NoX, considering this rule is literally supposed to keep us from becoming it. I agree whole heatedly with everything Paprika stated.
If you want /tg/station without these rules, go play on Hippie station.
Oh, wait, that actually IS NoX 2.0.
Well, I can still say I agree with the new rules, at the very least.
- Jimthebob123
- Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2014 1:09 am
- Byond Username: Jimthebob123
Re: New antagonist policy
The whole
"go play on another server argument" is dumb
if the tables were reversed anyone saying "go play on hippe station" wouldnt like the people against the new policy going
"go play on bay"
"go play on another server argument" is dumb
if the tables were reversed anyone saying "go play on hippe station" wouldnt like the people against the new policy going
"go play on bay"
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users