Rule 2 precedent to require ghost roles to avoid interfering with their killer

[lizelive]

Request adding precedent to Rule 2

Code: Select all

People playing ghost roles are expected to privately use metaknowledge to avoid interfering with an antagonist's round, especially one who killed you.

This will avoid bad situations like:

• Got killed as the RD by a malf AI, returned as a posibrain and used the ai being rudely ordering them to be borg to convince the roboticist not to sync them. Outed the AI per law 3.
• when I was legally appointed QM ling and was lynched by a mob led by a space ling once despite their being no evidence whatsoever that I was a ling besides me talking in ling chat and the space ling claiming to be using the sniff ability.

edit : updated examples

[Jacquerel]

those things you listed are already against the rule, except for the middle one which just seems like people using IC information to find an antagonist

[MatrixOne]

isn't it kind of strange that an action that makes perfect sense IC (like alerting the station you have to protect as posibrain to a giant AI threat) has to be avoided to not draw potential accusations of metagrudge? it feels like you can be accused of breaking a rule no matter what you do:
>if you don't out the AI, you're breaking your laws to cover your ass from admins. which can draw the ire of admins.
>if you do out the AI, an admin can and will ban you if they decide you did it out of malice or metagrudge.

I think it's okay to be worried about situations like these and to hope for some clear answer on how one should act here. I don't know what I would do in this situation. I'd appreciate hearing some admins' opinions on it too. this genuinely looks like you can get punished no matter what you do.

And I don't even disagree with lorwp, I think they have done a giant amount of digging through logs in the appeal and seriously considered the case. they went way beyond what was expected of them to sort out the situation and I respect that. I'm less thrilled about the discord callout they made, and doubled down on...

edit: maybe that's obvious but we're talking in context of this ban

[lizelive]

isn't it kind of strange that an action that makes perfect sense IC (like alerting the station you have to protect as posibrain to a giant AI threat) has to be avoided to not draw potential accusations of metagrudge? it feels like you can be accused of breaking a rule no matter what you do:
>if you don't out the AI, you're breaking your laws to cover your ass from admins. which can draw the ire of admins.
>if you do out the AI, an admin can and will ban you if they decide you did it out of malice or metagrudge.

that's why it's important to have policy to avoid situations like that.

And I don't even disagree with lorwp, I think they have done a giant amount of digging through logs in the appeal and seriously considered the case. they went way beyond what was expected of them to sort out the situation and I respect that. I'm less thrilled about the discord callout they made, and doubled down on...

i appreciate the digging they did. it's a complicated situation, and they put the effort to gather the data. I don't like the callout. it also spawned a little hate club which is not great.

[Lacran]

Request adding precedent to Rule 2

Code: Select all

People playing ghost roles are expected to privately use metaknowledge to avoid interfering with an antagonist's round, especially one who killed you.

This will avoid bad situations like:

• shift 232503
• when I was legally appointed QM ling and was lynched by a mob led by a space ling once despite their being no evidence whatsoever that I was a ling besides me talking in ling chat and the space ling claiming to be using the sniff ability.
• when a posi borg instantly stated law 0 as revenge

the first example has nothing to do with metaknowledge, the second example is you, and you were punished for it, because that's clearly metagaming.

isn't it kind of strange that an action that makes perfect sense IC (like alerting the station you have to protect as posibrain to a giant AI threat) has to be avoided to not draw potential accusations of metagrudge? it feels like you can be accused of breaking a rule no matter what you do:
>if you don't out the AI, you're breaking your laws to cover your ass from admins. which can draw the ire of admins.
>if you do out the AI, an admin can and will ban you if they decide you did it out of malice or metagrudge.

The conundrum you are talking about doesn't reflect the content of the ban.

The Posibrain icly had absolutely no idea the A.I was bad, it had no responsibility to report anything. It knew nothing.

What was bad was doing everything in its power to be anything but a synced borg, despite the robo shooting down every alternative, and the A.I insisting they be a borg, including lying about threats that didn't exist. this situation only took place due to meta knowledge, which then lead to lizelive being in the position to out the a.i, something they threatened to do in ghost chat prior to doing it.

So in simple terms, witnessing something and reporting on it is fine. But you need to ask yourself how you came to be in a position to witness something, if metaknowledge played a factor, you broke the rules.

If you die to cult, spawn as a borg, wander in the exact section of main cult is and report them when you inevitably find them, high chance that was due to meta knowledge, unless you had a good and specific incharacter reason to beeline straight to that section of maint.

[dendydoom]

i'm still learning about what happened in the appeal, but my opinion from glancing at this thread on its own is that players should be aware of what situations they are entering into where their metaknowledge could have an impact on how they play. just taking the above as an example, if you know someone is an antagonist, then yes, it's probably better to find a way to not engage with them at all. the AI is a fairly powerful and active presence throughout the station, so when it becomes clear that they're malf and it's not outed to the entire crew, the onus is on the player to ensure that if they choose to re-enter the round under some other role, they don't position themselves in a way that could possibly interfere with that because of the knowledge they have from a previous life, or from observing as a ghost.

there are lots of limitations that means we have to place trust in players to make informed choices on their own in these situations. the alternative is that we have a situation where you either observe *or* take a ghost role, to separate out the risk of interference from a player gaining too much knowledge and then relying on that inappropriately when they re-enter the round as a new character. to have nice things, we choose to leave that responsibility with the player so that after dying they can observe and make informed choices about taking ghost roles.

[DaBoss]

Rule is fine as is. Players shouldn't be expected or encouraged to act on metainformation by the rules, it creates an unnecessary distinction between 'good' metagaming and 'bad' metagaming. Keep it clear: no acting on information gained out-of-character.

[Vekter]

I can't respond to this in depth because I worry that my words could be taken out of context/considered insulting, so I'll simply say "I think the rule is pretty self-evident and doesn't need to be expanded".

[Cheshify]

I don't think this needs to be made policy. If you're a new character you aren't allowed to know anything from your old life, this obvious and having extra policy to do something you shouldn't be doing in the first place is just bloat.

[DrAmazing343]

I agree with Chesh, here, we've got a pretty obvious precedent of some new-life no-info and I think tacking on a new precedent would just contribute to rules bloat that we don't need when it would fail to clarify things that are already pretty clear.