Paradox Clones and Metagaming

[PapaMichael]

In a round I played with Paradox Clones, security's response was to arrest both of us (before one of us had done anything), and check our IDs for bank accounts.
I could have set the code from memories into the ID and didn't, so this was a skill issue on my part, but the whole thing felt pretty gross, and there are numerous other ways to metagame deduce who is real between two clones; they could have seen that one of us had persistent scars but not the other, they could have seen that one of us hadn't been able to change out of the roundstart outfit, etc. So this thread is less about this specific mechanic, and more about security treating Paradox Clones in general, and how they should or shouldn't investigate them.

My questions:

1. Should security even care about there being a clone of somebody on the station, until/unless the clone does something antagonistic?
2. If so, should security even try to deduce the "real" one, or should it be something along the lines of "tracker them both, and see what happens"?
3. If security is allowed to preemptively try to deduce the real one, should they require stronger IC reasoning than these gamey mechanics? (Personally, I'd love making security ask the clone what they worked on this shift, and cross referencing that with the department head, or similar gameplay along these lines, but I understand that it can be kinda lame for security to already know who the clone is and have to do busywork to justify it)
4. What should security be allowed to do with a confirmed clone (who hasn't yet tried to kill the original)? Kill them for being valid? Chuck them in perma? Implant and release? (Mostly asking on MRP)

[Itseasytosee2me]

No personal thoughts just some relevant pre-existing policy

Characters are otherwise allowed to know everything about ingame mechanics or antagonists

Crewmembers may handle antagonists in any way they wish

Restricted antagonists (or crewmembers) should be handled in proportion to their committed crimes. The decision to execute an antagonist should have good in-character reasoning based on their crimes and the state of the shift. Punishments against antagonists that repeatedly commit minor crimes may be escalated. Only antagonists that have committed the most severe crimes may be met with immediate execution.

(paradox clone is not included in this section one way or another)

Code-exploit/oversight style antag tests are, have been and always will be against the rules. This includes killing players and putting their brain in an MMI to ling test them or the newer example of Paradox Clones not being given bank account numbers. Antag tests like this which require either killing the player or that are exceptionally metagamey to the point of destroying an antag type are basically never intended by the coding team and are strongly prohibited.

All other antag tests cannot be done to gather proof that a player is an antag. Server Rule 4 is clear on this matter: "... non-antagonists are not allowed to pre-emptively search for, hinder or otherwise seek conflict with antagonists without reasonable prior cause". If you don't have reasonable prior cause, pulling an antag test on a player is against the rules.

The crew is fully entitled to refuse all antags tests by default, whether they are an antag or not. Refusing an antag test is not acting like an antag and is not proof a player is an antag. This is true under all ordinary circumstances.

Exceptions - as always - exist where the antag testing is a mechanic a game mode or antag rulset. For example, mindshields during a revolution. Refusing to be mindshielded during a revolution can be used against you, since mindshielding is a core mechanic of how the ruleset's factions work. Refusing to drink holy water during a confirmed cult outbreak is the same, since holy water is a core deconversion mechanic within the cult ruleset.

[Imitates-The-Lizards]

Seems like an obvious violation of the antag testing policy mentioned in the previous post.

The skill issue here was you not ahelping the obvious antag testing, not failing to set your bank account.

[PapaMichael]

I did ahelp it. The (trial) admin was uncertain. It's not an obvious code-exploit test like, say, feeding the clone mutadone and watching their mutations not go away. I conceivably could have connected the account (although I bet >50% of players don't).

I'm still interested in the other questions in the OP since

• Even without exploits, it's still usually blatantly obvious that the one who didn't get a chance to make it to the vendrobe is the clone
• I think interacting with your clone is kinda an interesting and fun dynamic, I'd kinda rather sec not swoop in and ruin the chance of that before anything antagonistic has happened.
• "RPR 6: Deal with antagonists in proportion to their crimes." Does Paraclone's mere existence constitute a crime? I think the answer should be an obvious "no", but this seems to be contentious

[Itseasytosee2me]

RP rule 6 doesn’t make alot of sense at face value to be fair.

[Pandarsenic]

This seems to be the same sort of precedent as checking if you can borgo a changeling

[BonChoi]

The problem with paradox clones is that there's actually no way to check at all that wouldn't be breaking the rules, and in game if you're security suddenly you have two of the same person running around (usually in my experience the clone fucks up somehow and exposes themselves to the person they're supposed to kill in a hallway or something and then they both go "uhhh...")

Now Security has a dilemma on their hands. They know one of these people in front of them is going to try relentlessly to kill the other one, what can you do to stop it? How can you protect the real one? How can you even tell which one is the real one? It's a tough decision to make in the moment and given the circumstances that the decision is usually made.

In my opinion I think it's more of a code issue because the actual policy (as described by Itseasytosee2me above) is pretty cut and dry (but I would like to see a discussion on what is antag testing and what's not antag testing.) I think that there needs to be at least some way to more reliably out a paradox clone to avoid having more issues in the future.

[PapaMichael]

The problem with paradox clones is that there's actually no way to check at all that wouldn't be breaking the rules...

I fundamentally disagree with this take. It's rarely done, but it's as simple as "ask the suspected clone what they've been up to this shift, and ask a co-worker or head the same question".

[Jacquerel]

Now Security has a dilemma on their hands. They know one of these people in front of them is going to try relentlessly to kill the other one, what can you do to stop it? How can you protect the real one? How can you even tell which one is the real one? It's a tough decision to make in the moment and given the circumstances that the decision is usually made.

What you are describing here is the ideal and perfect outcome of the antagonist existing, to the extent that I am baffled that you seem to be describing this as if it is a negative. If this is happening even slightly as often as you are implying then this addition is much more successful than I expected it was.
Literally any action you can take here which isn't "use a reliable mechanical tool to determine which is the one I am allowed to kill" creates a great gameplay experience, so suggesting that we should add more ways to get out of this situation which aren't "use roleplaying" is very silly.

[Imitates-The-Lizards]

Now Security has a dilemma on their hands. They know one of these people in front of them is going to try relentlessly to kill the other one, what can you do to stop it? How can you protect the real one? How can you even tell which one is the real one? It's a tough decision to make in the moment and given the circumstances that the decision is usually made.

What you are describing here is the ideal and perfect outcome of the antagonist existing, to the extent that I am baffled that you seem to be describing this as if it is a negative. If this is happening even slightly as often as you are implying then this addition is much more successful than I expected it was.
Literally any action you can take here which isn't "use a reliable mechanical tool to determine which is the one I am allowed to kill" creates a great gameplay experience, so suggesting that we should add more ways to get out of this situation which aren't "use roleplaying" is very silly.

I agree with this. Arresting them both was fine. Checking their banks was not.

[BrianBackslide]

Even then, paradox clones don't *always* go straight for the throat. There's been times where they even team up because pressing issues of the station force them to put aside their differences. Either way, security should not have any reason to do anything at all until one tries to kill the other.

[mrmelbert]

The problem with paradox clones is that there's actually no way to check at all that wouldn't be breaking the rules

Yeah, that's the point of the antag

Now Security has a dilemma on their hands. They know one of these people in front of them is going to try relentlessly to kill the other one, what can you do to stop it? How can you protect the real one?

Once again, that's the point of the antag. Some may even call this "Roleplay"

[Vekter]

So this one's kind of weird, because the Paradox Clone is supposed to spawn with the memories of the person they're replacing.

https://github.com/tgstation/tgstation/pull/73988

This would mean that it's intended for clones to read their memories and copy the code to their ID. If that's the case, then this is kind of a skill issue - whoever the clone is should be doing this as part of trying to protect their identity. I think the ideal solution would be to make it so it automatically links the bank account with their ID, but that's a coding solution.

I'm not really sure how we would rule on this. On one hand, I don't think it's healthy to have something where an antag like Paradox Clones can just be revealed easily if the clone forgot to do a very simple and easy-to-forget thing as soon as they spawned. On the other, we don't note people for asking for someone's PDA and finding an unlocked uplink.

I think the solution here is to ban the concept of specifically asking for an ID for the purposes of this test. If someone's suspicious enough, bringing them into sec and searching them would naturally include checking their ID, and not finding a bank account attached would be suspicious enough to think they might be a clone. I don't think it should be treated as explicit evidence that they are one per rule 4, but it's a valid reason to start asking questions the clone won't have the answers to.

The ideal solution would be as above, to make the ID already have the bank info on it.

[Longestarmlonglaw]

I think they're posting this because they are worried that if they fuck up and wrongfully execute the other person and not the paradox clone, they'll get banned

[Jacquerel]

I think that's a very weird assumption to make when the OP is clearly written from the perspective of the person who was executed and whether that was a decision that we should uphold as desirable, not the perspective of someone who might be doing the executing
it's pretty transparently obvious that OP would not consider taking this course of action even if it was ruled as entirely acceptable

[vect0r]

I think that's a very weird assumption to make when the OP is clearly written from the perspective of the person who was executed and whether that was a decision that we should uphold as desirable, not the perspective of someone who might be doing the executing
it's pretty transparently obvious that OP would not consider taking this course of action even if it was ruled as entirely acceptable

I think they mean bonchoi

[Screemonster]

I still think it'd be funny if paradox clones from the good timeline showed up if the original is a traitor and weren't considered antagonists - except obviously they know their clone is an antagonist and can therefore rule 4 them or sic security on them.

That way being found to be the clone by some tell like missing bank account information or still having roundstart gear 20 minutes into the round wouldn't be a hard tell of being an antagonist

and of course security wouldn't be able to just go "the clone says their original is a traitor, valid the original" because the clone could very well be lying

[CMDR_Gungnir]

I think that's a very weird assumption to make when the OP is clearly written from the perspective of the person who was executed and whether that was a decision that we should uphold as desirable, not the perspective of someone who might be doing the executing
it's pretty transparently obvious that OP would not consider taking this course of action even if it was ruled as entirely acceptable

You have made the grievous mistake of taking LongestArmLongLaw at face value.

I don't think I've ever seen him post on the forums and not just be trying to troll.

[dendydoom]

I think they're posting this because they are worried that if they fuck up and wrongfully execute the other person and not the paradox clone, they'll get banned

please take discussions in this forum seriously, it isn't player's club

and if this is serious please try having takes that aren't this dumb cheers pal have a good one

[Constellado]

I still think it'd be funny if paradox clones from the good timeline showed up if the original is a traitor and weren't considered antagonists - except obviously they know their clone is an antagonist and can therefore rule 4 them or sic security on them.

That way being found to be the clone by some tell like missing bank account information or still having roundstart gear 20 minutes into the round wouldn't be a hard tell of being an antagonist

and of course security wouldn't be able to just go "the clone says their original is a traitor, valid the original" because the clone could very well be lying

Its great that paradox clones can see that the other is a traitor just by looking at memories. They dont get the other traitors' uplink by the way, till they steal it off the real version, so they are essentially the good guy. One time I got paradox clone and the other person was a syndicate. I kept telling him that "you are my evil twin" and that "you must be stopped". Sadly it was near the end of the round and he went into hiding so I couldnt kill him in the end. Was great either way.

It would be cool if sec prioritised which clone dies based not on the clone antag status, but on who is the evil one. The paradox clone is obviously less dangerous than the syndicate for example. I assume they will choose the lesser of two evils, even with the current policy.

Its just on the paradox clone to prove it to sec that the other clone is the bad guy. I dont think there needs to be any policy changed to be able to actually have that scenario play out as intended.

Checking a person's ID on whether a bank number exists sucks though. That is anti RP in my experience. It is much more fun asking questions instead of cheap tricks like that imho.

[Justice12354]

I think that's a very weird assumption to make when the OP is clearly written from the perspective of the person who was executed and whether that was a decision that we should uphold as desirable, not the perspective of someone who might be doing the executing
it's pretty transparently obvious that OP would not consider taking this course of action even if it was ruled as entirely acceptable

You have made the grievous mistake of taking LongestArmLongLaw at face value.

I don't think I've ever seen him post on the forums and not just be trying to troll.

The mindgames are INSANE

[NamelessFairy]

As Vekter has said, they should spawn with memories of the person they're replacing which should include their bank account ID and such its a skill issue if the paradox clone forgets to set their ID up. Would it be better for it to be set up by default, sure, but thats a code change and a policy ruling on this wouldn't matter if said change was made. Maybe something should be done to make it clearer to paradox clones that they need to set up their IDs themselves in the meantime.

[DaydreamIQ]

In my experience sec either don't take the existance of the clone seriously at all. Or they kill/Perma both to be sure. Much like dealing with lings, sec really can't be trusted to make a coherent decision in most cases

[RedBaronFlyer]

In my experience sec either don't take the existance of the clone seriously at all. Or they kill/Perma both to be sure. Much like dealing with lings, sec really can't be trusted to make a coherent decision in most cases

That or the paradox clone gets asked a question that only the original could know.

[TheBibleMelts]

i think it would be better if paradox clones didn't always explicitly have antagonistic objectives and could reasonably just be "this guy, but dropped in from another universe by mistake".

[PapaMichael]

i think it would be better if paradox clones didn't always explicitly have antagonistic objectives and could reasonably just be "this guy, but dropped in from another universe by mistake".

I really like this idea. Adding non-antagonist objectives kinda cuts the Gordian Knot, since the presence of the clone doesn't immediately prove they're an antag.

Things like "try to outperform your clone and win the favor of the crew" or "prove your loyalty to your clone and ride-or-die with them" (but still keep the murder objective occasionally as a treat) seem like they'd make really cool scenarios - is this clone trying to lull me into a sense of security to off me, or does he actually just want to goof around with a copy of himself?

More cool memorable RP scenarios, prevents cringe security play without making them memorize a page of policy... I am utterly sold that this is a far better solution than shoehorning in a policy here

[Justice12354]

i think it would be better if paradox clones didn't always explicitly have antagonistic objectives and could reasonably just be "this guy, but dropped in from another universe by mistake".

The word "valid" explains why that's not a thing in most cases

E: To elaborate, in most cases, you'll find that at least 1 player in Security (or the station overall) will try to kill le valid at all costs. If they find which one is the clone, it's death on the spot. While, yes, we do not prohibit antags from not following their objectives and going for a roleplay route, and sometimes you'll find that everyone is willing to ignore le valid to have a good time, it takes two to make a deal. This is something that'd be cool to see happen, but we cannot enforce/help through policy unfortunately

[TheBibleMelts]

i think it would be better if paradox clones didn't always explicitly have antagonistic objectives and could reasonably just be "this guy, but dropped in from another universe by mistake".

This is something that'd be cool to see happen, but we cannot enforce/help through policy unfortunately

totally would be. if this code change were to happen, all i would need to say is that the headmins 3/3 that paradox clones cannot be killed without reasonable suspicion of antagonist intent in this thread, link it in rulings, and have time sort out the rest.

[Justice12354]

i think it would be better if paradox clones didn't always explicitly have antagonistic objectives and could reasonably just be "this guy, but dropped in from another universe by mistake".

This is something that'd be cool to see happen, but we cannot enforce/help through policy unfortunately

totally would be. if this code change were to happen, all i would need to say is that the headmins 3/3 that paradox clones cannot be killed without reasonable suspicion of antagonist intent in this thread, link it in rulings, and have time sort out the rest.

Oh, when I first read your post I didn't interpret it as being a code suggestion... Yeah, if the paradox clone had the possibility of not having antag objectives (and thus not being allowed to kill their original self), it'd be reasonable to do that; but, in the current state, I don't think it's enforceable (I mean, it is, but it'd be silly imo)

[Screemonster]

i think it would be better if paradox clones didn't always explicitly have antagonistic objectives and could reasonably just be "this guy, but dropped in from another universe by mistake".

it would be very funny to have a bender/flexo situation where it's the original that's the evil one (may require some action to explicitly curb "no you fucking cro-magnon cunts you can't just execute both of them to be sure" behaviour)

[MooCow12]

Wouldn't it also be metagaming to know how the original behaves or to literally just check their inventories for round progress?

A chemist paradox clone for example is much less likely to have nearly as many beakers or pills in their inventory as the original

Just like makes-the-abomination lizard would have an array of circuits and a hidden base while the clone likely wouldnt know wtf they are looking at.


Then there becomes questions that the paradox clone wouldn't be able to answer like

"What was the first thing you said on radio during this shift?"

[TheBibleMelts]

not sure where else this thread can go without moving into coding feedback.

[kieth4]

viewtopic.php?p=689391#p689391 is the policy that we have for these meta antag checks.

Regarding the rest of your questions they are antagonists on LRP so can be dealt with under rule 4 and on MRP we expect people to roleplay it out.