Enforce Human Authority: 0

[britgrenadier1]

Bottom post of the previous page:

Kinda curious where we are at on this. It's a topic that has been done to death, but after taking a peak through resolved topics there hasn't been an official "I want this to be changed" policy thread made. So here we are, I want this to be changed. Specifically the config option, I don't care about expanding which jobs can or cannot be non human. This isn't a "I want a code solution" thread.

Expanding the pool of available head players is a net positive for the quality of the role, and I think it would extend the length of rounds if we let competent non human statics into head roles. A lot of people cite muh lore as a reason to keep this set to 1, however our current lore says jack and shit about what species are meant to be in what roles. Old lore did, I vaguely remember there being a tidbit about lizards being heads until people on earth complained and it being rescinded afterwards.

I also don't think that there are more interesting stories that happen out of being promoted. You either get a flat yes or no with nothing that happens afterwards unless the actual head shows up. Also can't we flip this and ask about all the stories that aren't being told when there just straight up isn't a head of staff around? You'll still have promotion stories too, even nonhuman ones, its not as though these stories won't happen if we flip it on.

Turn it on for a bit, see how it goes, config stuff changes like the tide and I say we run with it for a while.

[BonChoi]

Yes, let's remove human head of staff exclusivity, and then we'll make the AI start on crewsimov round start and... oops! No more upsides to playing humans like there are with other races!

For real though, NT is meant to be mildly specist and that's one of the things that sets it apart from the Syndicate, which is meant to be more egalitarian.

The purpose of this thread is to address human authority exclusively. Asimov is staying. Also no more upsides like other races? Lol. As if no temp vulnerability, normal brute damage intake, and normal flash vulnerability alongside infinite money and an AI lacky isn’t an upside.

My point is that it's a creep. Why have asimov anymore if we rewrite the lore to say that NT views non-humans and humans as equals by allowing them to hold positions that used to only be held by humans?

And in reference to my second comment, if I recall correctly (which it is very possible that I do not) in the character creation species select screen the two "Pros" for making a human are that they can 1. Hold command roles and 2. Are preferred by the AI due to the AI usually having the Asimov lawset.

If this policy thread is successful, what's gonna stop someone from making another one to get Asimov booted? What would the argument against that be? We already booted half of the human-preferential treatment that is set in place by the lore of the actual game, why not wipe it all?

[britgrenadier1]

I think you’re gonna need to read page 2 of the thread where we solidly put the whole “it’s in the lore” thing to bed. It isn’t written anywhere in current lore.

Also this slippery slope stuff is nonsense. Half of the people in this thread who have said they are for non human heads have also said that they want Asimov to stay. I like the challenge of fighting AIs. Being able to play a head isn’t what makes humans easy mode. It’s the infinite money, no drawbacks, and AI protection.

[Jacquerel]

It is impossible to put the lore thing to bed because the reason it's not going to be removed is "I think the world works this way and like it being represented by mechanics", people are going to continue posting that because it is the reason this thread is going to be closed with no action taken.

[britgrenadier1]

Well lore as written seems to support non human heads being enabled, and as has been brought up I think there are good gameplay reasons to have it too. Primarily more heads of staff, more stories to be told (without closing the door on existing ones like promotion stories), and generally improving a few rounds here and there by letting people who wouldn’t otherwise play the role give it a shot.

IDK, maybe I’m naive. I’m hopeful for the outcome. A brief look through discord comments shows that at least back in 2021 Chesh was in favor of the idea, Fikou has sent PRs through to enable a few heads to be non human, TBM I have no idea. All I can do is make my arguments in good faith and let the chips fall where they may.

[blackdav123]

the lore argument isnt about some document hidden away where 90% of players will never read it but instead about the lore we see implemented and actually present in the game itself which is the only thing that matters at all to those 90% of players

in the eyes of these players the lore in the game is canon and anything else is fanfiction that nobody has liked enough to code into the game

[TheLoLSwat]

TBM wasnt in support about 2 months ago, and Chesh was on the fence. Opinions can change though

[Redbert]

snip

My point is that it's a creep. Why have asimov anymore if we rewrite the lore to say that NT views non-humans and humans as equals by allowing them to hold positions that used to only be held by humans?

And in reference to my second comment, if I recall correctly (which it is very possible that I do not) in the character creation species select screen the two "Pros" for making a human are that they can 1. Hold command roles and 2. Are preferred by the AI due to the AI usually having the Asimov lawset.

If this policy thread is successful, what's gonna stop someone from making another one to get Asimov booted? What would the argument against that be? We already booted half of the human-preferential treatment that is set in place by the lore of the actual game, why not wipe it all?

Your slippery slope argument has no real leg to stand on here. Much of the support for non-human heads is also in support of asimov as it's a genuinely interesting part of the gameplay.
Your lore argument is kinda moot as well, the only thing that supports this is your own head canon. You can see this if you read more of pages 1 and 2 of the thread.

[CMDR_Gungnir]

Yes, let's remove human head of staff exclusivity, and then we'll make the AI start on crewsimov round start and... oops! No more upsides to playing humans like there are with other races!

For real though, NT is meant to be mildly specist and that's one of the things that sets it apart from the Syndicate, which is meant to be more egalitarian.

The purpose of this thread is to address human authority exclusively. Asimov is staying. Also no more upsides like other races? Lol. As if no temp vulnerability, normal brute damage intake, and normal flash vulnerability alongside infinite money and an AI lacky isn’t an upside.

My point is that it's a creep. Why have asimov anymore if we rewrite the lore to say that NT views non-humans and humans as equals by allowing them to hold positions that used to only be held by humans?

So ignoring that "The Syndicate is meant to be more egalitarian" is wrong (hint: half of the Syndicate factions are people who want to end NT so that they can make more money, 1/4 of them are Literal Terrorists, and the last 1/4 are two companies that NT kinda fucked over. They're not The Good Guys) who says anything about us needing to say that NT views them as equals? Ignoring that Central Command has non-humans, and it's backed up in the lore to allow Admins their non-humans when doing CC Stuff, the on-station Head of Staff roles aren't positions of prestige in that sense. They're the people leading a department. Why wouldn't they want the most capable person there? A gifted CMO who just happens to be a Felinid is better for the Humans they care more about, because they'll be able to receive better medical treatment. You can always phrase and angle it in a way that retains the speciesism. Plus, only having to pay a Head of Staff (who get paid more) 75% of their wage??? That's BIG savings.

And in reference to my second comment, if I recall correctly (which it is very possible that I do not) in the character creation species select screen the two "Pros" for making a human are that they can 1. Hold command roles and 2. Are preferred by the AI due to the AI usually having the Asimov lawset.

If this policy thread is successful, what's gonna stop someone from making another one to get Asimov booted? What would the argument against that be? We already booted half of the human-preferential treatment that is set in place by the lore of the actual game, why not wipe it all?

Sure, the non-humans have upsides to them, but they come with downsides too that usually make them worse. Ethereals can revive on death, but that comes with a permanent trauma and they take more damage. Sure, they can get their "food" from any APC, but if they don't eat they will actually die. Sure Felinids uhhh...can lick other peoples' bleeding wounds I guess, but good luck getting anyone to let you do it, also enjoy flashbangs and explosions fucking your ears up WAY worse than anyone else, and for longer. Lizards can...I don't even know what upsides Lizards get, but they get The Most Racism, they can't eat half the food on station, they fucking die to a cold breeze.

Humans wouldn't have any special advantages, but they also wouldn't have any weaknesses, which would, thus, be what makes them unique.

[oranges]

I'm against it and that is why it will not change.

to actually answer the question, it's about giving background depth to the world

as mothblocks said, NT is not a nice company and they exploit and abuse their workforce, it's important for us as head coders that this is communicated clearly to people and this is an easy way to give background depth to the type of world that ss13 inhabits.

I saw comments earlier mentioning that the split is not actually determined in the lore but that is false, the lore of tg is what is written in common core + what is mechanically enforced in game, NT discriminating against non human heads is definitively part of that lore.

Also I saw a rather silly point made earlier that player fun should come before all other points, that's obvious nonsense because taken to it's logical extreme it permits literally any change, such as antags having insta kill batons.

Game design is mostly about choosing where to apply restrictions to the set of actions players can do and where to give absolute freedom.

We've chosen in this case to place a very mild restriction, easily worked around by adding a character or slot, or trying to get promoted in game (for which there are no barriers but other players).

If you believe this totally ruins your fun, luckily ss13 is a very diverse game and there are plenty of downstreams that cater to your exact specific needs, and they will surely be quite enjoyable for you if you chafe so much at this restriction.

I'd be really ticked off if headadmins enabled this without our say so as well, because the configuration option exists soley for downstreams to make them not have to modularise that code, and is not ever intended to actually be changed without headcoders signing off on the change.

[britgrenadier1]

Lots of snips

Pardon my rebuttal, if this well and truly isn't going anywhere without your thumbs up then consider this my attempt to get you onto my side of the fence. We'll go line by line, though forum formatting is far from my strong suit as you can probably tell from my signature-less pfp-less account.

to actually answer the question, it's about giving background depth to the world

as mothblocks said, NT is not a nice company and they exploit and abuse their workforce, it's important for us as head coders that this is communicated clearly to people and this is an easy way to give background depth to the type of world that ss13 inhabits.

I'd agree, gameplay adds depth to the background of a world and helps with the immersion. I'd also agree that I wouldn't want to compromise it in the name of individual player fun. Flipping that 1 to a 0 does a lot for the background depth of the world. It enables the persona of the company man, someone who works for an organization that oppresses their people, perhaps out of a sense of morality, maybe they're just in it for the paycheck. For whatever reason you're in a privileged position few of your species ever get a chance to be in, and that is interesting. Personally? If I had my dream scenario, we'd be in code land rather than config land. Add the word 'Acting' to non human heads to add that flavor, prevent them from being captain. We're here because 1: it has obviously garnered your attention, and 2: it seems that code solutions to the issue have gotten nowhere. Oh and pre-emptively: I'd code it.

You're absolutely right. NT isn't a nice company. It's a company that would stick a moth into a CMO position, pay them however% less than their human counterparts, and then hide and shun them whenever they had the chance. You can't have that story without a moth CMO first, and you can't have that worldbuilding without a moth CMO first. You want to communicate those themes easily? Lets code a solution that does that while also enabling players to engage with those stories.

Also I saw a rather silly point made earlier that player fun should come before all other points, that's obvious nonsense because taken to it's logical extreme it permits literally any change, such as antags having insta kill batons.

Game design is mostly about choosing where to apply restrictions to the set of actions players can do and where to give absolute freedom.

I'd agree that point is silly, which is why I'd like to clarify what I was trying to get across. I was not implying that player fun trumps all, but rather that this change would enhance the gameplay experience for a lot of people without seriously impacting the gameplay of those opposed. If They don't want to see non human heads, then they can work to undermine them or ignore them (Thus creating some IC conflict). I'm not out here advocating for instakill batons, just to let some people play head of staff on hard mode. Player freedom is a neat thing to talk about. I won't pretend to know anything about game design. I'm an end user, I can't tell you how to make your hotel better, I can only say if I liked my 2 night stay or not. With that in mind I'd like to argue that this isn't an area in which we need to be thinking about player freedom vs restrictions. I already can (And do) play a human character when I want to scratch that itch. Swapping over isn't prohibitively difficult, but its not about that. There are stories I want to experience on my main, who is a non human, and I can only do so with them. More roleplay in my roleplay game, yes please.

If you believe this totally ruins your fun, luckily ss13 is a very diverse game and there are plenty of downstreams that cater to your exact specific needs, and they will surely be quite enjoyable for you if you chafe so much at this restriction.

Totally ruins my fun? Nah. TG is home. But hey, the sign on the door said they won't shoot me for trying so here I am. As an aside, "Go play somewhere else" is a yucky argument. I like it here, I like the mechanics, people, lore, codebase, servers, forum drama, all that jazz. I just think my home server can be better, and so I'm here trying to do what I think will improve it. Hopefully we can have a dialogue about it and I can convince you of some of the merits that have been discussed in the thread. If not? Oh well, atleast I can say I tried.

[Drag]

Imagine thinking an oppressive workforce wouldn't've put competent non human heads and human heads in charge and not just put their line of actual compensation on the floor.


Wait this sounds weirdly familiar.

Anyways, every argument I've seen here for or against is radically arbitrary in nature including my own. I've mentioned this before. It really dosen't matter if your head of staff is a catgirl or not, you're probably going to kill them anyways for the same ancient reasons as before. The primary change in this entire thing is if the asimov ai is going to gas the lizard hos in their own office for killing a human or not.

If we're going to argue about it, let's remember why we're arguing about it in the first place. The lore reasons isnt it, the gameplay reasons isnt it, its personal preference for or against.

[feaster]

Players are not going to go out of their way to keep space racism alive without codified backing. People here are not actually racist, they don't care to make their characters into trite caricatures of racists, because that is both boring and could be taken as veiled OOC bigotry, nor do players want to work at some sort of nuanced racist character, probably because there are many more fun things to do with your effort in SS13 than master the craft of pretending to be a space racist. Eroding the mechanical side of this WILL directly reduce its actual presence.

The frustration caused by the command glass ceiling, as seen in this thread, is a good example of the lore providing the intended flavor. If you are opting into a nonhuman you are choosing to experience this limitation, and limitations drive creativity.

[CMDR_Gungnir]

I'm against it and that is why it will not change.

[snip]

I'd be really ticked off if headadmins enabled this without our say so as well, because the configuration option exists soley for downstreams to make them not have to modularise that code, and is not ever intended to actually be changed without headcoders signing off on the change.

Then it's a fantastic thing we have a separation between codebase and server isn't it?

[Itseasytosee2me]

I'm against it and that is why it will not change.

[snip]

I'd be really ticked off if headadmins enabled this without our say so as well, because the configuration option exists soley for downstreams to make them not have to modularise that code, and is not ever intended to actually be changed without headcoders signing off on the change.

Then it's a fantastic thing we have a separation between codebase and server isn't it?

He’s threatening to rebel. Its the beemoji incident all over again.

[Higgin]

I'm against it and that is why it will not change.

to actually answer the question, it's about giving background depth to the world

as mothblocks said, NT is not a nice company and they exploit and abuse their workforce, it's important for us as head coders that this is communicated clearly to people and this is an easy way to give background depth to the type of world that ss13 inhabits.

I saw comments earlier mentioning that the split is not actually determined in the lore but that is false, the lore of tg is what is written in common core + what is mechanically enforced in game, NT discriminating against non human heads is definitively part of that lore.

Why here, and why this, then? What's your case for it other than "that's how I like it, if you don't - there's downstreams and the door?"

I think there are arguments here, and I've tried to be even-handed with them, but I'm curious - what's your vision with this?

Background depth that literally only operates in the background and has no hook into what players do might be fun for the writer and help them keep things straight where it does matter - it might be worldbuilding - but there's also an extent to which it might be superfluous or even spoil your game to try to shove it down players' throats contrary to the fantasy.

edit: to be clear, I don't think this is blatantly or offensively that - like you said, it's a mild restriction. it isn't just background. it does still admit of a lot of player choice and make some more meaningful (playing a nonhuman in the world)

Also I saw a rather silly point made earlier that player fun should come before all other points, that's obvious nonsense because taken to it's logical extreme it permits literally any change, such as antags having insta kill batons.

I think this is an uncharitable and nonsense read because giving somebody an instakill baton would go a long ways towards spoiling the fun of (one predominant expression of) the game - meaningful choice tested by competition and conflict - for both sides. It'd lose its luster quick. The point here is asking "how much do people really get out of the space racism and world it suggests?"

Much less obvious.

Game design is mostly about choosing where to apply restrictions to the set of actions players can do and where to give absolute freedom.

We've chosen in this case to place a very mild restriction, easily worked around by adding a character or slot, or trying to get promoted in game (for which there are no barriers but other players).

If you believe this totally ruins your fun, luckily ss13 is a very diverse game and there are plenty of downstreams that cater to your exact specific needs, and they will surely be quite enjoyable for you if you chafe so much at this restriction.

I'd be really ticked off if headadmins enabled this without our say so as well, because the configuration option exists soley for downstreams to make them not have to modularise that code, and is not ever intended to actually be changed without headcoders signing off on the change.

It's also not like admins typically step in to stop nonhumans becoming heads, either, which is harmonious with this setup letting more interesting stuff happen in-round (even if it might as well lose its meaning after you see it x many times.)

Enforcement is not strictly mechanical. The game is made somewhere between designers, players, and admins

Besides your sell, though, I'm curious what you'd do if it was moved 1 to 0, and if that understanding has ever been explicit - if not, should that be the outcome of this thread?

[Constellado]

I've been thinking on this for a while, and I am going to say my opinion here without reading any of the the new (page 3+) stuff that was posted here.

I am against this change personally.

Why? Because human superiority baby!! ((VERY LATE EDIT: I WAS EXXAGERATING FOR FUN HERE. This is probably what caused people to be so aggressive in response.))
Yup. I play human command a lot, and yes, part of me thinks maybe it is good idea to have more heads... but Maan It feels like I would lose a lot of the authority I would have because after the change every person I talk to can be a head the next round. I'm going to lose a bit of that power I feel. Being a human is a race with no special abilities but they are on a socially higher stand to everybody and that adds some confidence for me. Allowing everybody to be heads removes that.
Now... Part of me says that is greed, or something else not morally good, which is why I have been waiting on saying this for a while. I don't think I would mind reaaally per se because thinking about it makes me feel a bit icky but it does feel like I am losing something with this.
Which is why some people (probably human players) are so defensive about it. They are losing goddamn social status.

There will be way less humans around after the change over time because of it, and the station will feel very different. Is it a good thing? I cannot decide for you.

[britgrenadier1]

Snip

"Every one I talk to might be my boss next round, so therefore we shouldn't do this" is a wild take. I can't imagine how insecure you have to be about how well you're doing in a job for your takeaway from this thread to be that you don't want someone that is another species doing your job better than you. Thank god someone on the other side of the fence finally confirmed that the real argument here is that they don't want to lose their free head rolls because the pool of head players is so small. Oh the horror, someone else might take your role and be better at it? Stop the fucking madness

I think my human character is gonna become a CE out of spite

Edit: grammar and missing words

[oranges]

Why here, and why this, then? What's your case for it other than "that's how I like it, if you don't - there's downstreams and the door?"

Already been covered extensively by the thread

even spoil your game to try to shove it down players' throats contrary to the fantasy.

That's just unfair, it's been in the game since the beginning of non humans, which is why the idea that we're "imposing" this on anybody is nonsense.

I think this is an uncharitable and nonsense read because giving somebody an instakill baton would go a long ways towards spoiling the fun of (one predominant expression of) the game - meaningful choice tested by competition and conflict - for both sides. It'd lose its luster quick. The point here is asking "how much do people really get out of the space racism and world it suggests?"

That's a better argument but just drop the fun point entirely it adds nothing to the argument because it can be used to hold literally any position.

[oranges]

As an aside, "Go play somewhere else" is a yucky argument. I like it here, I like the mechanics, people, lore, codebase, servers, forum drama, all that jazz. I just think my home server can be better, and so I'm here trying to do what I think will improve it. Hopefully we can have a dialogue about it and I can convince you of some of the merits that have been discussed in the thread. If not? Oh well, atleast I can say I tried.

It's a totally valid argument for not making a change if someone can be catered to by plenty of other servers, part of liking a server is accepting that some parts of it you wont like, I agree you're within your rights to ask for change, but equally it's valid for people to point out that change is not necessary if there are other places that are literally identical in nearly every aspect and also cater to the thing you want.

[britgrenadier1]

As an aside, "Go play somewhere else" is a yucky argument. I like it here, I like the mechanics, people, lore, codebase, servers, forum drama, all that jazz. I just think my home server can be better, and so I'm here trying to do what I think will improve it. Hopefully we can have a dialogue about it and I can convince you of some of the merits that have been discussed in the thread. If not? Oh well, atleast I can say I tried.

It's a totally valid argument for not making a change if someone can be catered to by plenty of other servers, part of liking a server is accepting that some parts of it you wont like, I agree you're within your rights to ask for change, but equally it's valid for people to point out that change is not necessary if there are other places that are literally identical in nearly every aspect and also cater to the thing you want.

No where is like tg, first of all, and second. Any thoughts on the points I had brought up in my response?

[Constellado]

Snip

"Every one I talk to might be my boss next round, so therefore we shouldn't do this" is a wild take. I can't imagine how insecure you have to be about how well you're doing in a job for your takeaway from this thread to be that you don't want someone that is another species doing your job better than you. Thank god someone on the other side of the fence finally confirmed that the real argument here is that they don't want to lose their free head rolls because the pool of head players is so small. Oh the horror, someone else might take your role and be better at it? Stop the fucking madness

I think my human character is gonna become a CE out of spite

Edit: grammar and missing words

Lol that bit was just an attempt to explain it and the more important part was the social standing part of it.

Also that's a bit too aggressive... Looks like bait.

I'll add some clarifications anyhow. In a meritocracy, a person's social standing or whatnot should be all about merit, which I agree with. Thing is, we are in a game with lots of short rounds and rotating sets of players. A meritocracy is much more difficult to keep and maintain. As a result other ways of gaining authority is needed. Having a subconscious knowledge that only humans can be a the captain helps add to it. Yes, it is barely noticeable and probably isn't real but it does help with confidence even if it is very *very* small.

I am going to be honest here, I only dislike the potential change a little bit, and will not affect how I play. And the reason for not liking it is something I don't actually agree with oddly enough. But any person that loses any kind of social standing would not be happy about it even though they morally know the change is right.

Also I had a thought, an aside if you will...
I remember joining on April fools (when non humans can be head) as a late join CE and hearing people say: "oh finally a competent human head". And people being racist to all the non human heads it was something. There will be a LOT of growing pains at first when this gets implemented.
Emphasis on the human part on that quote. There was a lot of emphasis on it in game.

[Blacklist897]

The Real threat here is the rise in power the nonhuman metagangs will receive, as such before the config is changed, we must ban all lizards who do nothing but sit with metafriends all round.
(I can make bait as well!)

[Constellado]

Lol I changed one word thinking there was not a post after and now it says edited one time wuuuf

[LiarGG]

I would personnaly hate to see the human authority go. My reason is threefold.

First my main human char is a spaceist playing mostly head positions and removing the enforcement of human authority would most certainly have to lead to a change in the way I play this part of my char, as every time there would be a decision whether to promote a nonhuman to a position of power, my argument of "Hahaha, what is this nonsense about a promotion? Lizards cannot be a head of staff, silly." would be completely invalid. The in-universe reason for this to hold any water would be gone and baring someone based on this factor would be a mere assholery at that point. Still a valid way to play, but the decision to take a character this way would be taken in a different light and would not necessarily be the way I would like to take my character.

I can kinda get behind the idea that this change would not lower the amount of spaceist conflict, because it would probably increase in a short term, before the players ease into this change. But once the dust settles, I don't believe spaceism conflict would be present nearly as much, which sounds like a bummer.

Second I love the uniqueness aspect to this. Why should we cater to the crowd wanting to play non-human heads when there are servers that do this already? Why chisel the uniqueness out? Sacrificing the flavor of the server we have for people who just cannot change into a human char when they wanna play a head of staff just doesn't sound very paletable to me.

And third, I am an AI main and this change reeks of a switch to crewsimov down the line, which I would completely hate. I get that everyone of you would be reassuring me about this change having nothing to do with crewsimov, but my crystal ball clearly shows the crewsimov policy thread that would pop up in three months, should this change be accepted. And the argument for why would that be lame would be much weaker than it is now with human authority enabled.

This is what we get for letting non-human QM slide. Hell, enable the human authority for them too.

[Higgin]

Already been covered extensively by the thread

damn, I'd hoped to get a fuller statement from you since you're saying you'd be the one to block it - but fair enough

That's just unfair, it's been in the game since the beginning of non humans, which is why the idea that we're "imposing" this on anybody is nonsense.

yeah, and I hope the edit got it across not too late I don't think it's a new imposition or even a hamfisted bad one, it's just

That's a better argument but just drop the fun point entirely it adds nothing to the argument because it can be used to hold literally any position.

that's sort of the point because this is all about setting a position and who gets to do it

the location of the fantasy moving in the playerbase doesn't necessarily mean that the playerbase will or should have to shift elsewhere to get it -

if they could, they probably would, but there's a cost to enter and network effects are huge: is it worth playing on a server with shit staff, no pop, or dogborgs to be able to be a catgirl captain roundstart? is it worth leaving your friends and identity behind to move, or trying to drag them over, to get what you want? do you up and host your own server?

lotta folks the answer is no, but i suspect a lot of folks might also say "i'd still like to play a roundstart catgirl captain though..."

that's no big loss for me, but the possibility that it can happen is why we're here. if you're saying "not on my watch," i guess what i'd like to reiterate and ask for this thread to do is make that explicit between head administration and head coders if that's the agreement we're working with here

[Constellado]

People forget over time that QM was not a head at first and was added as a head later on as they might as well be a head anyway. If this goes through over time (two years I predict) people will definitely forget why AIs have Asimov like they do with QM being a head and will ask for crewsimov for sure. I personally am ok with crewsimov though but there are lots of players that hate it. Things might change over time though.

Communities like this change a lot over time, and what players want changes as well. Proposals like this are made from the changes that the slowly changing and rotating player base wants. This does feel like a crossroads where a poll would be useful to have I think.

And when two player bases within a community *REALLLY* butt heads, that's when a fork happens. I personally don't see a fork happening here but I wouldn't mind it, as long as I can keep playing with my friends and have the good TG admin team.

[dendydoom]

Snip

"Every one I talk to might be my boss next round, so therefore we shouldn't do this" is a wild take. I can't imagine how insecure you have to be about how well you're doing in a job for your takeaway from this thread to be that you don't want someone that is another species doing your job better than you. Thank god someone on the other side of the fence finally confirmed that the real argument here is that they don't want to lose their free head rolls because the pool of head players is so small. Oh the horror, someone else might take your role and be better at it? Stop the fucking madness

I think my human character is gonna become a CE out of spite

Edit: grammar and missing words

please, i know you are taking on all challengers in this thread and it's quite noble to see you respectfully engage each opinion, but this is unnecessary and not constructive.

the opinions you are engaging with are what the headmins are going to read and be considering. engaging with their arguments is healthy discussion and is helpful. the players who are providing their experiences and insights are not the ones that will be making the decision, so it is entirely pointless to attack them.

[Constellado]

Snip

"Every one I talk to might be my boss next round, so therefore we shouldn't do this" is a wild take. I can't imagine how insecure you have to be about how well you're doing in a job for your takeaway from this thread to be that you don't want someone that is another species doing your job better than you. Thank god someone on the other side of the fence finally confirmed that the real argument here is that they don't want to lose their free head rolls because the pool of head players is so small. Oh the horror, someone else might take your role and be better at it? Stop the fucking madness

I think my human character is gonna become a CE out of spite

Edit: grammar and missing words

please, i know you are taking on all challengers in this thread and it's quite noble to see you respectfully engage each opinion, but this is unnecessary and not constructive.

the opinions you are engaging with are what the headmins are going to read and be considering. engaging with their arguments is healthy discussion and is helpful. the players who are providing their experiences and insights are not the ones that will be making the decision, so it is entirely pointless to attack them.

It genuinely was an attack on my ability and confidence as CE. Filled with a lot of assumptions. I will say here for the record that I am very confident as a CE and allowing non humans as a CE will not really change that. I will simply feel like a high class person that just have the high class be dissolved. (But a lot less extreme idk how else to say it without sounding insane and pretentious)

They also asked me to put an opinion here.

[dendydoom]

It genuinely was an attack on my ability and confidence as CE. Filled with a lot of assumptions. I will say here for the record that I am very confident as a CE and allowing non humans as a CE will not really change that. I will simply feel like a high class person that just have the high class be dissolved. (But a lot less extreme idk how else to say it without sounding insane and pretentious)

They also asked me to put an opinion here.

i would rather just move past it and continue with the thread, the discussion has generally been very good and respectable, but sometimes people get frustrated and post things they might not mean. i wouldn't take it personally, and your opinion is just as valuable as anyone else's!

[britgrenadier1]

Snip

Snip

Snip

You'll have to excuse my aggressive tone, and I do apologize for the way I responded. That being said, the framing of your argument here could not be worse. What exactly is the implication? That head roles are so pure that you don't want them contaminated by non humans? That's... a really weird opinion to hold ooc. You aren't talking about your character or story here. What's more is that the example you bring up seems to insinuate that non humans are bad at command by virtue of being non human. Name dropping a static here briefly to say that you ought to look Elysius in the eye and tell him that you think the quality of the role would be diluted and made worse because he played it. Again, pardon my tone and vicious framing of your argument here, but it reeeeally sounds like you're saying that non human players wouldnt be good at command by virtue of being non human. I'd genuinely like to hear from you regarding that, because for the life of me after re-reading your post I cannot figure out what other framing there is.

You're gonna have to re-explain your point about meritocracies here. I didn't understand it at all. Nobody said that we ought to have or are in a meritocracy, just that if the company could get away with sticking a qualified person in a role and pay them less, they would.

I will simply feel like a high class person that just have the high class be dissolved. (But a lot less extreme idk how else to say it without sounding insane and pretentious)

There is no less extreme framing, and if there is and this isn't the message you're sending then I would implore you to re-read what you posted and clarify. I don't have permission to, nor do I think it would be productive to, drop names of current command players who are abysmal and talk about how much or how little they add to the role. So I'll re-iterate what I said previously and say that there are a great number of incredibly talented, skilled, good roleplayers who would pour their heart into the head of staff role if given the chance. You know who they are, and if you genuinely think the job would be made worse by their presence I would encourage you to tell them that to their face the next time you see them.

Again, pardon the aggressive tone, me personally the guy behind the monitor still cherishes the late night engineering department memories we've had and looks forward to more no matter the outcome of this argument or this thread. Also reading your lore thread has been very enjoyable, and I don't think I've ever expressed to you personally how much I enjoyed taking part in that story when I had the opportunity to. So thank you for that.

[KateAnbolho]

Second I love the uniqueness aspect to this. Why should we cater to the crowd wanting to play non-human heads when there are servers that do this already? Why chisel the uniqueness out? Sacrificing the flavor of the server we have for people who just cannot change into a human char when they wanna play a head of staff just doesn't sound very paletable to me.

There's a thousand more unique things that separate TG from any other downstream. For example, the relative control and balancing between threat is... alright. TG has the near perfect balance between threat and actual abilities to tell stories outside of "The hundreth nukie spawn, or an admin smacking "create antag""

I don't see any reason why removing non-human heads would remove something "Unique" from TG when it seems like it's arguably dragging the quality of staff down when there's people who want to play command roles as their nonhumans.

[Jacquerel]

You'll have to excuse my aggressive tone, and I do apologize for the way I responded. That being said, the framing of your argument here could not be worse. What exactly is the implication? That head roles are so pure that you don't want them contaminated by non humans? That's... a really weird opinion to hold ooc. You aren't talking about your character or story here. What's more is that the example you bring up seems to insinuate that non humans are bad at command by virtue of being non human. Name dropping a static here briefly to say that you ought to look Elysius in the eye and tell him that you think the quality of the role would be diluted and made worse because he played it. Again, pardon my tone and vicious framing of your argument here, but it reeeeally sounds like you're saying that non human players wouldnt be good at command by virtue of being non human. I'd genuinely like to hear from you regarding that, because for the life of me after re-reading your post I cannot figure out what other framing there is.

You're gonna have to re-explain your point about meritocracies here. I didn't understand it at all. Nobody said that we ought to have or are in a meritocracy, just that if the company could get away with sticking a qualified person in a role and pay them less, they would.

I will simply feel like a high class person that just have the high class be dissolved. (But a lot less extreme idk how else to say it without sounding insane and pretentious)

There is no less extreme framing, and if there is and this isn't the message you're sending then I would implore you to re-read what you posted and clarify. I don't have permission to, nor do I think it would be productive to, drop names of current command players who are abysmal and talk about how much or how little they add to the role. So I'll re-iterate what I said previously and say that there are a great number of incredibly talented, skilled, good roleplayers who would pour their heart into the head of staff role if given the chance. You know who they are, and if you genuinely think the job would be made worse by their presence I would encourage you to tell them that to their face the next time you see them.

Again, pardon the aggressive tone, me personally the guy behind the monitor still cherishes the late night engineering department memories we've had and looks forward to more no matter the outcome of this argument or this thread. Also reading your lore thread has been very enjoyable, and I don't think I've ever expressed to you personally how much I enjoyed taking part in that story when I had the opportunity to. So thank you for that.

I'll be honest man i think you are overinvested in this topic, the post doesn't even say these bizarrely personal things you are reading into it. There was literally no condemnation of the mechanical ability of non-human players to play the game at all. At this point I think your opinion is pretty clear and you aren't going to gain anything by continuing to restate it.

[britgrenadier1]

You don't think that his original post that literally says that human players would lose social status if this were to go through insinuates that they think the role would be made worse by non humans just existing in those roles?

I remember joining on April fools (when non humans can be head) as a late join CE and hearing people say: "oh finally a competent human head". And people being racist to all the non human heads it was something. There will be a LOT of growing pains at first when this gets implemented.

Emphasis on the human part on that quote. There was a lot of emphasis on it in game.

^The heck does this mean then?

I'll add some clarifications anyhow. In a meritocracy, a person's social standing or whatnot should be all about merit, which I agree with. Thing is, we are in a game with lots of short rounds and rotating sets of players. A meritocracy is much more difficult to keep and maintain. As a result other ways of gaining authority is needed. Having a subconscious knowledge that only humans can be a the captain helps add to it. Yes, it is barely noticeable and probably isn't real but it does help with confidence even if it is very *very* small.

Here they're talking about a meritocracy, and its vague which is why I asked for clarification, but it sounds like they're saying that humans are heads because they're better at it, and having that enshrined in mechanics helps with the confidence of the person playing the role because they're meant to be better at it.

In their original comment they say:

I'm going to lose a bit of that power I feel. Being a human is a race with no special abilities but they are on a socially higher stand to everybody and that adds some confidence for me. Allowing everybody to be heads removes that.

So either they don't think non humans should occupy the positions because they're worse at the job, or they don't like non humans being able to occupy the positions because they're non humans. Like Dreg said its all preference at the end of the day, but for the purpose of talking about the merits of an idea I'd kinda like to know where they stand.

Edit: Clarify and formatting. I should really hit preview somtimes.

[Jacquerel]

Yes you are completely misreading that entire thing.
He is saying that human characters will lose the social status that they have as sole owner of prestigious roles, which is self-evidently true.
This contains literally no judgment about whether human players are more capable whatsoever.

You should take a step back from replying to every post in this thread I think, it is affecting you in some way. Nobody was attacking you in those posts, or any other player.

[britgrenadier1]

Yes you are completely misreading that entire thing.
He is saying that humans will lose the social status that they have as sole owner of prestigious roles, which is self-evidently true.
This contains literally no judgment about whether human players are more capable whatsoever.

I will simply feel like a high class person that just have the high class be dissolved

We're talking about ourselves here, right? I don't think this comment, which is about the player themselves, is in character. Therefore, we're talking about the players, not the in character stuff.

[Jacquerel]

You're reading that wrong too, yes.
He is saying that losing the in-character status would, well, make him feel like he has lost social status. Because the character has in fact lost social status, fictionally. Again, it contains absolutely no judgement about anyone's game-playing ability, and frankly I am finding it very difficult to see how you are reading one into it. The words that would state that simply are not present.
In order to assist you in not replying to these posts in order to calm down, I will stop replying to you now.

[britgrenadier1]

You're reading that wrong too, yes.
He is saying that losing the in-character status would, well, make him feel like he has lost social status. Because the character has in fact lost social status, fictionally. Again, it contains absolutely no judgement about anyone's game-playing ability, and frankly I am finding it very difficult to see how you are reading one into it. The words that would state that simply are not present.
In order to assist you in not replying to these posts in order to calm down, I will stop replying to you now.

Right, I can see that, then my argument is just that he, fictionally, wouldn't lose any standing from being a head of staff alongside the fictional characters who would fill the roles. They are competent and smart individuals that he should be proud to call his fictional colleagues.

[Constellado]

Since I now know it is not bait I will go through each point one by one, as britgrenadier heavily misunderstood my points.

You don't think that his original post that literally says that human players would lose social status if this were to go through insinuates that they think the role would be made worse by non humans just existing in those roles?

I remember joining on April fools (when non humans can be head) as a late join CE and hearing people say: "oh finally a competent human head". And people being racist to all the non human heads it was something. There will be a LOT of growing pains at first when this gets implemented.

Emphasis on the human part on that quote. There was a lot of emphasis on it in game.

^The heck does this mean then?

I am saying that they are being speciest. And to not care about the competent part.

Here they're talking about a meritocracy, and its vague which is why I asked for clarification, but it sounds like they're saying that humans are heads because they're better at it, and having that enshrined in mechanics helps with the confidence of the person playing the role because they're meant to be better at it.

I mentioned a meritocracy because that's what I thought you believed in based on your response to me. as seen here: "Oh the horror, someone else might take your role and be better at it?." "that you don't want someone that is another species doing your job better than you.". I was saying I agree that people that is better at the job would have the job if it was a meritocracy, and I agree with that. I was explaining that, due to how the game is run, having people in roles based on merit alone is impossible. Therefore those points do not apply.

So either they don't think non humans should occupy the positions because they're worse at the job, or they don't like non humans being able to occupy the positions because they're non humans. Like Dreg said its all preference at the end of the day, but for the purpose of talking about the merits of an idea I'd kinda like to know where they stand.

Edit: Clarify and formatting. I should really hit preview somtimes.

Its the latter! It is nothing to do with worse at the job at all.
I am going to say this:
I did not say that non humans are worse at the job.
I am saying that humans will lose social standing, That's it. How good you are at the job does not matter here.

[Redbert]

Yup. I play human command a lot, and yes, part of me thinks maybe it is good idea to have more heads... but Maan It feels like I would lose a lot of the authority I would have because after the change every person I talk to can be a head the next round. I'm going to lose a bit of that power I feel.

It's kind of the point of the game to have different people above and below you each shift. if it hurts the story you're striving for, there is an option to return to lobby if your role is unavailable. This doesn't change whether non-human heads are enabled or not

I'll add some clarifications anyhow. In a meritocracy, a person's social standing or whatnot should be all about merit, which I agree with. Thing is, we are in a game with lots of short rounds and rotating sets of players. A meritocracy is much more difficult to keep and maintain. As a result other ways of gaining authority is needed. Having a subconscious knowledge that only humans can be a the captain helps add to it. Yes, it is barely noticeable and probably isn't real but it does help with confidence even if it is very *very* small.

I am going to be honest here, I only dislike the potential change a little bit, and will not affect how I play. And the reason for not liking it is something I don't actually agree with oddly enough. But any person that loses any kind of social standing would not be happy about it even though they morally know the change is right.

I think this is the basis for the most common argument here. People like their specisim, it does add a bit to the story, I just don't think you're losing more than other players can gain.

Also I had a thought, an aside if you will...
I remember joining on April fools (when non humans can be head) as a late join CE and hearing people say: "oh finally a competent human head". And people being racist to all the non human heads it was something. There will be a LOT of growing pains at first when this gets implemented.
Emphasis on the human part on that quote. There was a lot of emphasis on it in game.

I don't really know how to interpret this other than you view human heads to be more competent than non-human heads. You might be looking at command players through rose-tinted glasses. Regardless of whether it's human or non-human, there are players that should and shouldn't be in that position, this will not change regardless of the decision.

People forget over time that QM was not a head at first and was added as a head later on as they might as well be a head anyway. If this goes through over time (two years I predict) people will definitely forget why AIs have Asimov like they do with QM being a head and will ask for crewsimov for sure. I personally am ok with crewsimov though but there are lots of players that hate it. Things might change over time though.

The crewsimov argument continues to be made again and again, but it's a different topic all together. There is a lot of support for non-human heads because it allows them to add more to their story, have new experiences, experience revolutions as a head, etc. That support doesn't necessarily coincide with removing asimov from the default lawset. Personally I find asimov to be a lot of fun, it's a great obstacle to overcome in rounds. I am certain that I'm not the only one that feels this way. Crewsimov doesn't add anything, it's only serves as a way to remove content.

Communities like this change a lot over time, and what players want changes as well. Proposals like this are made from the changes that the slowly changing and rotating player base wants. This does feel like a crossroads where a poll would be useful to have I think.

I agree that an official poll would be good to see where players stand. I understand that splitting Sybil and Manuel is bad but I think keeping the polls separate would be a good way to gauge interest between the two. Manuel culture is significantly different than Sybil and it would interesting to see where the different servers stand.

And when two player bases within a community *REALLLY* butt heads, that's when a fork happens. I personally don't see a fork happening here but I wouldn't mind it, as long as I can keep playing with my friends and have the good TG admin team.

I'm certainly not in favor of a fork, even if it does get non-human heads enabled. The maintainers and coders do a lot for the community, game balance, and additional content. I don't know if it's possible, but I would like to try to get Mothblocks and Oranges to lighten their opposition a little bit and allow the head admins to adjust things as they like. I'm not necessarily asking them to change their opinions, just don't push to block something because they specifically disagree with it. The head admins are voted on by the community after all, surely that should give them some say over the config files?

[Constellado]

Also I had a thought, an aside if you will...
I remember joining on April fools (when non humans can be head) as a late join CE and hearing people say: "oh finally a competent human head". And people being racist to all the non human heads it was something. There will be a LOT of growing pains at first when this gets implemented.
Emphasis on the human part on that quote. There was a lot of emphasis on it in game.

I don't really know how to interpret this other than you view human heads to be more competent than non-human heads. You might be looking at command players through rose-tinted glasses. Regardless of whether it's human or non-human, there are players that should and shouldn't be in that position, this will not change regardless of the decision.

Thats why I said emphasis on the human part on the quote. I was saying an actual quote from memory and I did not want to delete the competent part of the sentence.


Ill reply to the rest but this needs to be said quickly.

[Redbert]

You're reading that wrong too, yes.
He is saying that losing the in-character status would, well, make him feel like he has lost social status. Because the character has in fact lost social status, fictionally. Again, it contains absolutely no judgement about anyone's game-playing ability, and frankly I am finding it very difficult to see how you are reading one into it. The words that would state that simply are not present.
In order to assist you in not replying to these posts in order to calm down, I will stop replying to you now.

I think they were referring to this comment, I interpreted it the same way.

Also I had a thought, an aside if you will...
I remember joining on April fools (when non humans can be head) as a late join CE and hearing people say: "oh finally a competent human head". And people being racist to all the non human heads it was something. There will be a LOT of growing pains at first when this gets implemented.
Emphasis on the human part on that quote. There was a lot of emphasis on it in game.

It was a side comment, but I think this is what they were referring to

[Jacquerel]

Then you also read it wrong in a frankly quite baffling way.

[Constellado]

Nevermind i'm getting too emotional I'll sit back and watch for a bit. I hope what I said and what Jacquerel said (they understood me very clearly) is enough.

[britgrenadier1]

Giga snip

That's my bad then, and sorry for that. I would just say that I'd like to think that the current roster of command mains would be glad to see non humans join their ranks and that the role itself and prestige of it would be enriched if it happened. The non human who sits in that post has to overcome a lot of stuff to be able to sit there, and in doing so would hopefully earn the respect of the old timers who had been there longer.

[Redbert]

Then you also read it wrong in a frankly quite baffling way.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Redbert]

Also I had a thought, an aside if you will...
I remember joining on April fools (when non humans can be head) as a late join CE and hearing people say: "oh finally a competent human head". And people being racist to all the non human heads it was something. There will be a LOT of growing pains at first when this gets implemented.
Emphasis on the human part on that quote. There was a lot of emphasis on it in game.

I don't really know how to interpret this other than you view human heads to be more competent than non-human heads. You might be looking at command players through rose-tinted glasses. Regardless of whether it's human or non-human, there are players that should and shouldn't be in that position, this will not change regardless of the decision.

Thats why I said emphasis on the human part on the quote. I was saying an actual quote from memory and I did not want to delete the competent part of the sentence.


Ill reply to the rest but this needs to be said quickly.

sorry there was a lot that was said while i was writing and i missed the clarification, i should have refreshed before posting. I didn't take offense, just saw it as another point to argue :>

[Constellado]

The non human who sits in that post has to overcome a lot of stuff to be able to sit there

Nevermind I have a thing to say with this point.

If its a swap from a 0 to a 1 it doesn't feel like that at all in an OOC and even in an IC perspective.
Its just now humans are the same as everybody else suddenly and that makes me a little sad even though I know its the right thing to do.
If there was some lore put into the game in about a big non-human revolt or something then I'd be all for it. Would make a bit more sense and actually give me a reason to latch on that would help explain the sudden loss of social standing for being a human.

As of right now it feels empty

[britgrenadier1]

The non human who sits in that post has to overcome a lot of stuff to be able to sit there

Nevermind I have a thing to say with this point.

If its a swap from a 0 to a 1 it doesn't feel like that at all in an OOC and even in an IC perspective.
Its just now humans are the same as everybody else suddenly and that makes me a little sad even though I know its the right thing to do.
If there was some lore put into the game in about a big non-human revolt or something then I'd be all for it. Would make a bit more sense and actually give me a reason to latch on that would help explain the sudden loss of social standing for being a human.

As of right now it feels empty

I'd say its up to the person playing the character to decide how they got there. Bribes, the last person dying in a horrific nukie attack, right place right time, whatever they choose. Gameplay and mechanics are there to set the stage for roleplay and story. I wouldn't want a "This thing happened, this is why you're a head now."

[Constellado]

[Fikou]

i don tlike it

[britgrenadier1]

i don tlike it

https://github.com/tgstation/tgstation/pull/77876 you liked it enough to do this. any expanded thoughts on the topic?