No starting antag for command

[Likteer]

I already put this in Ideas once, but this should've been the place for it.

This is not an ided scenario.
I want a good reason to trust command & obey their orders, as well as a change in the way people play them (LRP).
As it stands, they are [job name] plus, with a hint of validhunting.
Noone seems interested in their position, only their equipment & access (including the antagonists hunting them).

I don't think this will cause a shortage of command players.
I don't think this will enable more validhunting, than they do already.
They should still be able to become an antagonist through brainwashing, conversion, etc.
There should be a visible warning in the job preferences about them not being able to roll antag.

The situations where an evil head of staff is "good for the game"
can instead occur when antagonists manage to impersonate them.

[TheLoLSwat]

The reason you trust your commanding staff member (IC) is because they are the head of the department you work in. I don't think its a good idea to also have the OOC reason to trust them because of them not being able to be antag.

The reason people are often more interested in the equipment and access is because its the only thing consistently making the job different from just working elsewhere in the department. I cant really see how taking the roundstart antag away from CE, CMO, HOP, RD and QM would fix the issues you state

[vect0r]

I don't think this would be a good idea but it would be something I would be interested in trying for a week or two and see how people react to it.

[ItzRiumz]

Huge support for this. Heads of staff should not be able to roll for any roundstart antag at all. Them becoming antags basically just hands whatever antag they roll a free win and isn’t fun to deal with. Also, it would encourage people to trust and listen to their boss more if they know their boss isn’t going to be an antag of some sort roundstart.

We need more people who want to take these jobs to play as command staff and not just take them for the extra access and equipment for when they role antag. That will help in pushing people into respecting these roles as their bosses.

[RedBaronFlyer]

I feel torn because on one hand I'm against having heads of staff always be good boyos who don't do any antaging, but on the other hand, I have observed a player stereotype that mostly seems to gravitate towards command roles for the sole purpose of baton + easier antag stuff. Personally I'd prefer if heads of staff stayed as a job that can roll antags. There have been times where I've seen a head of staff (mostly in cargo tbh) intentionally cause issues or incite a workplace revolt against security so they can go do something.

I will say it sucks mega PP balls on lowpop though, not sure if it's still the case (haven't played lowpop in a few months) but it's basically a GG for the rest of the crew if the acting captain rolls traitor or something like that.

The issue of players not respecting command is down to a few issues, I think.

1. Command players often tend to be the least competent crew in their department from my observations. Like, back when I played cargo tech, it was practically a running joke that if I had a QM (barring a single QM main I knew), they had 0 idea how the department actually worked and used it more as a piggy bank for ordering/printing gear, baton, and bridge access.

2. There is no consequences for ignoring command in most situations. At worst, you might be batoned or whatever, but job revocation takes so long that no one really bothers. Security often can't take the time to arrest the guy and hand him over to the HOP to demote because they have to deal with actual antags running around that are potential station enders. I have seen two people be demoted EVER in all my time on TG and it was during a greenshift. It's the same with people tiding into your department, you could attack the guy and force him out but 9/10 it's easier to just sit there, let the guy grab whatever, then he'll be on his way.

[dendydoom]

i like the paranoia of heads being able to be antags (with captain and sec exempt for obvious reasons) but i have thought for a long time that the chances of it should be greatly reduced.

smilarly to a lot of other people i really don't like it when people choose a head role just to get access/gear because it'll make their antag round better and easier. you should obviously pick a head role because you want to run the department.

i also think that it's a bit of an unintended consequence that an antag head will be mostly absent from their duties (and probably their department) while they're committing evil deeds. this isn't really that big of a deal relatively speaking but i think it would reduce the amount that it happens by giving heads less of a chance vs normal crew members to roll antag.

you could reason that it's due to their increased corporate loyalty due to their elevated position or whatever.

[BrianBackslide]

As if we need another baton waving asshole on the side of "never antag." Paranoia is good, and never being sure if your QM is gonna stab you or save you is healthy for the game.

Why do you need an inbuilt mechanically enforced reason to trust a head of staff? Their RP should speak for itself.

[britgrenadier1]

seconding almost everything that has been said here: That the players who pick head just to fuck off with baton and loud mode really suck. I think the game would play better with heads acting as a stabilizing force for their department against the tides of chaos.

[EmpressMaia]

I don't want head starting antags to be totally gone. But I would like if they occurred less often, though that is likely a code issue

[Vekter]

No, because starting antags are interesting and any balance issues are code issues.

[NecromancerAnne]

I'm not sure I understand how you balance out head of staff starting antag.

[BrianBackslide]

I guess we have to define what makes them so much of a problem in the first place. Is it lowpop? Is it having slightly more access? Is it the free "I win stick"? Being able to speak with large text? Personally I don't think they are a problem.

Again I reiterate: Why do we need to have mechanically enforced trust for heads of staff? Why, in this paranoia-laden game would you WANT to have anyone be immediately trustworthy? (Other than sec/cap)

Antag heads make rounds much more interesting, it'd be foolish to make them sec-lite and would encourage further antag powercreep.

[Likteer]

I'm against having heads of staff always be good boyos who don't do any antaging (...)

i like the paranoia of heads being able to be antags (with captain and sec exempt for obvious reasons) but i have thought for a long time that the chances of it should be greatly reduced. (...)

Paranoia is good, and never being sure if your QM is gonna stab you or save you is healthy for the game. (...)

I don't want head starting antags to be totally gone. But I would like if they occurred less often, though that is likely a code issue

But couldn't the same be achieved by an antagonist (mostly changeling, sometimes traitor) properly impersonating the real command member?
Wouldn't that be cooler/more interesting, while still feasible to occur?
An antagonist using the command's now tangible status and immunity to sow chaos, while trying not to out themselves?

[warbluke]

Either remove acting captain from the game or remove heads as antagonists. I am thoroughly sick of what happens when these two things intermingle.

[BlitzArde]

Command antagonists in my opinion do not entirely remove my trust IC for them or wanting to obey their orders, but it really does sting when the more "powerful" command can screw everyone over so easily; Namely when said antag is Acting Captain. Never have I disliked playing Spy more than when my competitor has the entire armory and all access at their disposal. In a perfect scenario, the game would see who's Acting Captain and remove them from the antag list, but even that would cause issues with player retention on command roles.

[Vekter]

Having command end up working against the crew can make for some really interesting stories, ones that I don't want to sacrifice with this. I also like the idea of it making the crew not always 100% trust the command structure, because that paranoia can also drive some interesting conflict.

It's a weird situation, because I think the complaints are mostly coming from two different places:

1) The idea that command being an antag is a surprise, and thus most players end up treating command like they're security in that they can't be antags, so they get screwed over when the HoP ends up being bad.

2) Balance concerns, such as command generally being a more powerful role to have due to their heightened access and ability to get cooler stuff.

For point one, that's mostly a skill issue I think. You shouldn't be assuming that anyone on the station is explicitly on your side save for security. Having command end up working against the crew can make for some really interesting stories, ones that I don't want to sacrifice with this. I also like the idea of it making the crew not always 100% trust the command structure, because that paranoia can also drive some interesting conflict.

For point two, I don't really see it as any different from a role like chemist or scientist rolling antag and starting out with access to some of the strongest antag tools in the game. Sometimes you get lucky and you end up as a traitor with an entire pharmacy of dumb bullshit at your disposal. Sometimes you roll heretic as a janitor. It's just another aspect of the game itself, and I don't think this will change until we've decided only assistants can be antags.

If there are balance issues with command members being antags, we should be addressing those with code changes, but I really don't think it's that deep; this doesn't happen that often and I don't love the idea of narrowing down who can and can't be an antag on the meta end of things.

Either remove acting captain from the game or remove heads as antagonists. I am thoroughly sick of what happens when these two things intermingle.

I don't really know how you remove the concept of an "acting captain", unless you're talking about removing the all access ID the acting captain gets, in which case 1) code and 2) I could see this happening but it would also make the job way, WAY more annoying for non-antags so I don't think I agree.

This is a little off-topic, but I think the solution is to have the game automatically change the job title of whoever is acting captain to just "Captain", instead of having that kind of ambiguity that exists where you're not 100% certain if the HoP is actually just the HoP or has armory access.

[warbluke]

If there are balance issues with command members being antags, we should be addressing those with code changes, but I really don't think it's that deep; this doesn't happen that often and I don't love the idea of narrowing down who can and can't be an antag on the meta end of things.

It happens enough on lowpop that I've fully stopped trusting command members. Unfortunately, whether I trust them or not is irrelevant since one security officer has little to no hope of dealing with someone who has both command gear and antagonist gear.

[Vekter]

If there are balance issues with command members being antags, we should be addressing those with code changes, but I really don't think it's that deep; this doesn't happen that often and I don't love the idea of narrowing down who can and can't be an antag on the meta end of things.

It happens enough on lowpop that I've fully stopped trusting command members. Unfortunately, whether I trust them or not is irrelevant since one security officer has little to no hope of dealing with someone who has both command gear and antagonist gear.

I think this more speaks to the issues of dynamic breaking down at low pop counts than it does an issue with command being antags.

[ItzRiumz]

If there are balance issues with command members being antags, we should be addressing those with code changes, but I really don't think it's that deep; this doesn't happen that often and I don't love the idea of narrowing down who can and can't be an antag on the meta end of things.

It happens enough on lowpop that I've fully stopped trusting command members. Unfortunately, whether I trust them or not is irrelevant since one security officer has little to no hope of dealing with someone who has both command gear and antagonist gear.

I think this more speaks to the issues of dynamic breaking down at low pop counts than it does an issue with command being antags.

This isn't just a lowpop problem. Antag command are just in general too powerful. They get a free win stick, a flash, maint access, command access, command radio access, AND a remote to control all the doors in their department. Don't get me started on when an acting cap antag comes along. They have free access to anywhere now as well as access to a huge arsenal of weapons and the ability to wreak havoc with no one to stop them because of them having captain gear too. This also includes the ability to easily re-law the AI to do whatever they want.

[Likteer]

Having command end up working against the crew can make for some really interesting stories, ones that I don't want to sacrifice with this. I also like the idea of it making the crew not always 100% trust the command structure, because that paranoia can also drive some interesting conflict.

I know I didn't mention it before a reply & edit, but what's wrong with antagonists impersonating command members instead?

They would now do it to gain the status that comes with the position, instead of just batong and access.

[Vekter]

Having command end up working against the crew can make for some really interesting stories, ones that I don't want to sacrifice with this. I also like the idea of it making the crew not always 100% trust the command structure, because that paranoia can also drive some interesting conflict.

I know I didn't mention it before a reply & edit, but what's wrong with antagonists impersonating command members instead?

They would now do it to gain the status that comes with the position, instead of just batong and access.

I'm going to answer your question with another question: Do you actually want this change because you feel like commands being antags is too powerful, or do you want it because you want to further narrow down the possibilities of who can and can't be an antag to make it easier to tell who is and isn't one?

[Time-Green]

I personally dislike command being antagonists. Commands are supposed to be somewhat trustable not to be acting in bad faith, but they're as likely as any other person to just straight up murder you (but with cooler stuff). It also sucks that the guy being tasked with keeping order is the one causing disorder.
As long as command can just be antagonists, incentives to listen to them are pretty low. I also don't much like playing heads of staff antags, the gear is nice but you're kind of leaving your department to go to shit.

I don't think it'd be that hard to add like a 50% to get assigned another job if you roll antag as a head of staff (or have them only roll traitor and blood brother or something, since those antags make for more interesting job-combinations).

[RedBaronFlyer]

tbh I don't like any of the most commonly mentioned options, I do like the idea of head of staff antags so I wouldn't want to see them disabled, I don't like the idea of someone who primarily plays something like HOP or QM being punished with lower chances of being an antag so I don't like I'd like that either, but the issue rears it's head the strongest when it's an acting captain antag.

I could be reaching but I think it's kind of evident how powerful acting captains can be if regular captain's can't roll antag. I know that argument could be raised against security as well but I feel fairly confident in saying that if security could roll antag that (probably) literally everyone wouldn't listen to them, as opposed to how it currently is where it's simply that most people don't listen to them.

Acting captain antag is absurdly powerful even on midpop but especially lowpop. People underestimate how powerful the ability to get anywhere at anytime is let alone all the other stuff acting captains get.

All the options have some notable downsides to the point that I think I'd prefer it being as it is right now. Sort of a "this sucks but I think the alternatives are worse" sort of feeling.

[Likteer]

Do you actually want this change because you feel like commands being antags is too powerful, or do you want it because you want to further narrow down the possibilities of who can and can't be an antag to make it easier to tell who is and isn't one?

Neither.
I want:
- To filter some of the command players.
- Incentive for command to do more commanding, and for people to listen, even on LRP.
(that guy is here not just because of a gamble for [job but better], he did a trade-off, he wants to be here & possibly isn't bored out of his mind, possibly knows his stuff very well)
- To make strategic impersonating/converting of them worth it. For their loss to mean at least as much as a secoff.

I can't think of smaller changes that would nudge people towards this.

I want this to be tried for like 2 weeks (needs to be clearly announced) and see how people react.
Now please do say what you think of the impersonation.

[Timberpoes]

People don't ignore command members because they might be antags.

They ignore command members because the command member's interests don't align with the player's interests and, unlike real life, being fired isn't a real consequence due to the shift-based nature and is actually very difficult to do in-game as you generally have to be more robust than the player to do it.

Many years ago I played a ton of RD. I never had issues with people not listening to me because I wasn't trying to micromanage my department. I just enabled everyone around me - antags or otherwise. I earned a lot of respect because I didn't get in the way of my department except when absolutely necessary for the preservation of life on the station. And even then sometimes you can't progress science without a few corpses.

You want to see people listen to command? Give them a pref that's like a "you're fired" list where they can add like 3 ckeys then while they're a head of staff, those players can't roll in their department. You'll see players actually incentivised to listen to command roles and you'll probably see more people playing command even if it's just out of spite to add 3 people they hate to their shitlist.

[DrAmazing343]

Adding three people to a "DO NOT ROLL" shitlist is so mean girls but also funny as hell. I can foresee absolutely nothing going wrong ever with this.

[warbluke]

You want to see people listen to command? Give them a pref that's like a "you're fired" list where they can add like 3 ckeys then while they're a head of staff, those players can't roll in their department. You'll see players actually incentivised to listen to command roles and you'll probably see more people playing command even if it's just out of spite to add 3 people they hate to their shitlist.

Fuck, I was not going to vote for you again but if you pull this off then I'll have no choice.
Bonus points if captain can fire command members to purge HOPcurity players from their sight.

[ItzRiumz]

You want to see people listen to command? Give them a pref that's like a "you're fired" list where they can add like 3 ckeys then while they're a head of staff, those players can't roll in their department. You'll see players actually incentivised to listen to command roles and you'll probably see more people playing command even if it's just out of spite to add 3 people they hate to their shitlist.

So metagrudging?

[RedBaronFlyer]

People don't ignore command members because they might be antags.

They ignore command members because the command member's interests don't align with the player's interests and, unlike real life, being fired isn't a real consequence due to the shift-based nature and is actually very difficult to do in-game as you generally have to be more robust than the player to do it.

Many years ago I played a ton of RD. I never had issues with people not listening to me because I wasn't trying to micromanage my department. I just enabled everyone around me - antags or otherwise. I earned a lot of respect because I didn't get in the way of my department except when absolutely necessary for the preservation of life on the station. And even then sometimes you can't progress science without a few corpses.

You want to see people listen to command? Give them a pref that's like a "you're fired" list where they can add like 3 ckeys then while they're a head of staff, those players can't roll in their department. You'll see players actually incentivised to listen to command roles and you'll probably see more people playing command even if it's just out of spite to add 3 people they hate to their shitlist.

Yeah you put it really well. Command needs to give a good answer to the question of "why would I listen to you?" which "because I'm your boss" doesn't work. When the round ends everything is over, crewmembers don't have bills to pay, and getting fired is essentially just a temporary inconvenience. I've found the players who are really good at leading departments tend to have something that makes people follow them, an interesting personality, a project that sounds fun, an intricate understanding of the departments mechanic's, a reputation for standing up for your subordinates when outsiders/assistants or security are roughing your guys up, etc.

Adding three people to a "DO NOT ROLL" shitlist is so mean girls but also funny as hell. I can foresee absolutely nothing going wrong ever with this.

It's funny but I absolutely would not want to see it. I can already see so many ways to abuse it.

[bingusdingus]

You want to see people listen to command? Give them a pref that's like a "you're fired" list where they can add like 3 ckeys then while they're a head of staff, those players can't roll in their department. You'll see players actually incentivised to listen to command roles and you'll probably see more people playing command even if it's just out of spite to add 3 people they hate to their shitlist.

I wanted to log back in to seriouspost about how godawful of an idea that is. Especially considering there's only ever a small handful of people that play command, so some players would be locked out of a department for an entire session just because only one person wanted to play a particular command role. It would be hell, and you know players would abuse it just to be petty based on one bad experience, or imagine a command player using the blacklist as a weapon to get people to follow their orders. Nobody would want to play command even more, it would completely stifle any motivation to RP with command because people probably either suck up to you out of fear, or avoid you entirely so they don't get on the no-no list, making RP for command stale in the same way security is because the massive power dynamic creates fear and uncertainty with your interactions. It would deepen the love/hate dichotomy that already exists with command and staff, and reduce the chance that people would actually be sympathetic to command in general, when they can actively go out of their way to spite you even more. Someone that has difficulties getting the department they want is more likely to just go to another server where they can play what they want without having to play politics. It's one of those things that would just stratify the playerbase even more. It completely removes the dynamic that command is still just another cog in the system and still needs to go through the red tape to demote someone, it goes to a straight NRP solution that feels as if it only enables those that already play command to exclude players they personally don't like, as if that isn't a problem the community doesn't already have OOC.

[warbluke]

it would be very funny though. If you chose your targets right I bet you could turn a round into an instant deathmatch.

[WineAllWine]

You want to see people listen to command? Give them a pref that's like a "you're fired" list where they can add like 3 ckeys then while they're a head of staff, those players can't roll in their department. You'll see players actually incentivised to listen to command roles and you'll probably see more people playing command even if it's just out of spite to add 3 people they hate to their shitlist.

Based. I've long-wanted some way to make it easier for heads to fire people, like some sort of remote access-wipe but this sounds cooler.

[dendydoom]

demotions are already supposed to be metaprotected when they're for a "valid reason" ie "doing things that i don't like and you didn't listen to me when i told you to stop and i am the boss"

this is not even an rp rule:

As a Head of Staff, you should be a reliable worker for your department, and are expected to perform the minimum duties of that role to the best of your ability. As an upside, being THE BOSS allows you to dictate the workflow of your department as you like, so long as you are reasonable - and ***have the ability to demote staff who do not comply, with similar protections that security is afforded for valid arrests.*** Notify admins if you must leave near round start for Command or AI roles.

(emphasis mine)

itt characters can remember other characters and form friendships/hateships that can last across rounds, but actually retaliating to someone in a new round should obviously require a new altercation that's based in IC reasoning from that new round. i don't like the idea of shifting what is IC conflict into the OOC, where rather than instigating IC conflict and exploring the IC consequences, players can OOCly decide they don't like other players and can restrict their gameplay without any IC reasoning to incite it. feels weird. feels too personal.

if players constantly get fired then this is an administrative issue and they should be jobbanned if what they are doing is against the rules, eg shitting up their department for no IC reason, not listening to their boss for no IC reason and then retaliating against their boss for trying to demote them when that demotion is metaprotected.

like many other things in this social roleplaying game, this is a social aspect of the game which can't be fully controlled by a rigid ruleset, no matter how autistic we might all be. there will always be an element of needing to be able to navigate these social situations through intuition and, gasp, playing a role (in a roleplaying game?) to convince other people to listen to you.

[conrad]

Adding three people to a "DO NOT ROLL" shitlist is so mean girls but also funny as hell. I can foresee absolutely nothing going wrong ever with this.

Right?

"Why is this person in your CE shitlist?"
"Oh 'cos they said on Discord they like Touhou and I main CE so now they can't play their Lizard Engineer static"

I agree there's nothing wrong with this scenario I made up in my mind

Also can you imagine logging in midround and seeing your favourite role greyed out with a tooltip that says "the person in charge of this department fired you"

[DrAmazing343]

Yeah, naw, I do hope folks picked up on the sarcasm because it would be kinda horrific to play with in reality. As a thought experiment, though, it’s a neat idea. Something like a remote access wipe would be neat too but also would probably just be used when someone started antagging and would require them to murder another person for an ID.

ITT: Neat ideas, poor execution.

[DaBoss]

Prog tot doesn't work with heads of staff. It's pretty fucking awful when a traitor HoP or something ends the round because they can speedrun big point objectives with no effort. What are you supposed to do if the HoP hacks their own console in the bridge, which they have access to and you don't, and turns the round into a clusterfuck that ends with them summoning a black hole? It's rigged to a frustrating extent and with progressive antags it's now the entire server's problem, other antags included.

[bingusdingus]

Yeah, naw, I do hope folks picked up on the sarcasm

Friendly reminder that saying post-hoc "It was a joke, jeez, how did you not get that?" when pressed on something that isn't on it's face, interpreted as such, is emotionally manipulative behavior. It's something that I've seen a lot, not just on this forum but the Internet at large. It's such a strange tactic to use when its already difficult to judge someone's tone over text unless they explicitly say otherwise.

[TheLoLSwat]

Yeah, naw, I do hope folks picked up on the sarcasm

Friendly reminder that saying post-hoc "It was a joke, jeez, how did you not get that?" when pressed on something that isn't on it's face, interpreted as such, is emotionally manipulative behavior. It's something that I've seen a lot, not just on this forum but the Internet at large. It's such a strange tactic to use when its already difficult to judge someone's tone over text unless they explicitly say otherwise.

I don't think its manipulative because it was quite clearly a joke

[dendydoom]

Yeah, naw, I do hope folks picked up on the sarcasm

Friendly reminder that saying post-hoc "It was a joke, jeez, how did you not get that?" when pressed on something that isn't on it's face, interpreted as such, is emotionally manipulative behavior. It's something that I've seen a lot, not just on this forum but the Internet at large. It's such a strange tactic to use when its already difficult to judge someone's tone over text unless they explicitly say otherwise.

this may be the case but with everything i know and have experienced with jane she is not a manipulative person in this regard. another common thing i see a lot is people taking the absolute worst view possible of someone's intentions and then placing that burden on them, which i think you are doing here. i think you should try to view others more charitably when there's no indication of habitual or intentionally misleading behaviour.

[DrAmazing343]

-emotionally manipulative snip-

Friendly reminder that saying post-hoc "It was a joke, jeez, how did you not get that?" when pressed on something that isn't on it's face, interpreted as such, is emotionally manipulative behavior.

I can understand this point of view much more so when it’s the case that someone’s making fun of someone else and then saying “it’s just a joke lol,” but I was just joking about if we had another extraneous system. It wasn’t directed at anyone, and then I clarified afterwards when someone mentioned it.

In regards to the thread at large, we’ve had a lot of good discussion, but ultimately I think I’d like to see some code change instead of policy change to take away the “overpowered”-ness of Head of Staff antags. In that respect, I mean something along the lines of Spy objectives prohibiting you from bounties in your own department, or perhaps just a lot of the access-related stuff like Tcomms or the Blackbox axed from the HoP’s list of progtot objectives.

I’ll make another ping to the other Head Admins but I wouldn’t hold my breath about a policy change for the Stafftags.

[winterseasalt]

Yeah, naw, I do hope folks picked up on the sarcasm

Friendly reminder that saying post-hoc "It was a joke, jeez, how did you not get that?" when pressed on something that isn't on it's face, interpreted as such, is emotionally manipulative behavior. It's something that I've seen a lot, not just on this forum but the Internet at large. It's such a strange tactic to use when its already difficult to judge someone's tone over text unless they explicitly say otherwise.

how tf is this emotionally manipulative. she didnt go 'GEEZE it was a JOKE bro HOW DID YOU NOT GET THAT HAHA' she went 'i hope people picked up on the sarcasm' thats not meant as some sort of manipulation tactic?? thats just worrying that maybe you didnt get across the tone you wanted to over, you know, internet text? where tone is notoriously hard to convey, which you yourself have said!! i do stuff like this all the time.. its another way of trying to reaffirm that she didnt mean something seriously

anyways in relation to this topic so that im not just foaming at the mouth-- i kind of have mixed feelings about it, i can see the argument for not wanting it but at the same time its not like your higher ups irl for example are always good people (of course in ss13 this is more extreme since they will be MURDERERS POTENTIALLY)
i do wish that i could respect command staff more tho... but i feel like more so thats a playerbase problem for me rather than the problem of the role itself

[RedBaronFlyer]

It was clearly a joke but I do get how it's hard to communicate that through text without using something like /s or something afterwards saying something like "(to clarify this is a joke)"

[celularLAmp]

I get acting captain antag so fucking often it's not even funny. I get antag as command roles more than I do for non command roles and I have to say it's so easy to do whatever the fuck you want and have 3000 gazillon TC points.


Honestly i'd totally trade over people listening to my commands more rather then them just not obeying at all because they think im gonna kill them.

[DrAmazing343]

While we understand and I empathize with the concerns about this, we do not think it is healthy for the game to have yet another immutable "always salid" force in the game. You should not be able to trust your boss from the get just because the metagame tells us so. I do, however, think that the code could help with much more valid concerns about overpoweredness— such as progtot objectives being disabled contextually in the same way that Spy bounties from the same department are disabled. CE can't smash Tcomms for free TC? Sounds good to me. RD doesn't get to crowbar apart their own Research server room? That checks out, even if IC it's a bit strange. Regardless, we'll not be amending policy about this in any way, just more or less pushing this problem to the plate of coders.

Timber: Command antag is a progtot issue, in that progtot is poorly designed and clearly isn't intended to roll any objectives for power roles. Players that want to be respected as command need to earn that respect and taking away their antag possibility isn't going to do anything to progress that goal.
Burger: The more ooc oh this guy can't be antag we have the more boring it is, and people shouldn't be so valid brained. (paraphrased)