Eliot Clef

No, thanks. Not at all serious counter-response: Only if we completely remove Nuclear, Heist, and Cult from the voting options and have a scheduled Secret rotation that only includes those three once per day as well.

No, thanks. Not at all serious counter-response: Only if we completely remove Nuclear, Heist, and Cult from the voting options and have a scheduled Secret rotation that only includes those three once per day as well.

So, I'm going to be pretty blunt about this. Having to get paperwork in order to leave the Genetics lab with superpowers is essentially a rules-sanctioned form of meta metagrudging against Geneticists. This sounds ridiculous, but think about it: The kinds of Geneticists the paperwork is attempting to select against are the kinds who inject themselves with Hulk/whatever else and go rampaging through the station, causing problems and going SSD when caught. These people will do this no matter what. It happens routinely, even since these rules went in. The paperwork exists only to offer a chance for an "off" switch to be flipped, but the only people that switch will be flipped against are going to be the kind of people who wouldn't go on an unmitigated rampage with Hulk in the first place. The paperwork doesn't solve a problem, and takes an OOC cultural bias IC.

So, I'm going to be pretty blunt about this. Having to get paperwork in order to leave the Genetics lab with superpowers is essentially a rules-sanctioned form of meta metagrudging against Geneticists. This sounds ridiculous, but think about it: The kinds of Geneticists the paperwork is attempting to select against are the kinds who inject themselves with Hulk/whatever else and go rampaging through the station, causing problems and going SSD when caught. These people will do this no matter what. It happens routinely, even since these rules went in. The paperwork exists only to offer a chance for an "off" switch to be flipped, but the only people that switch will be flipped against are going to be the kind of people who wouldn't go on an unmitigated rampage with Hulk in the first place. The paperwork doesn't solve a problem, and takes an OOC cultural bias IC.

Cat's pretty much out of the bag on this one. There are a bunch of IPCs in Security because a lot of us got our start playing Security Cyborgs and eventually decided we wanted to play unslaved synthetics. It didn't have anything to do with them being OP, it had everything to do with us playing beep boop robots and both wanting and having the opportunity to take it farther. You'd be getting rid of some of the best people on the IPC whitelist if you denied them these roles, and the overall solutions you present strike mas a pretty spiteful. I've been one of the people in this thread who pointed out that IPCs, in light of relatively recent changes, do have a bit too much in the way of resistance to being messed up. Especially now that Robotics can reassemble them, same as a human can be cloned. While my contribution to this discussion is biased in the positive direction, I think yours is more so in a negative one, as your rant is ultimately heavily influenced from being cornered and apprehended by an IPC before you could pull out a revolver and blast him to bits. And I guess, maybe other instances of having a real hard time dealing with IPCs? I don't think it's unreasonable that maybe different race types require different approaches, and I don't think it's unreasonable that a Psychiatrist maybe doesn't have the gear to silently take down a robot when he gets cornered by one.

Cat's pretty much out of the bag on this one. There are a bunch of IPCs in Security because a lot of us got our start playing Security Cyborgs and eventually decided we wanted to play unslaved synthetics. It didn't have anything to do with them being OP, it had everything to do with us playing beep boop robots and both wanting and having the opportunity to take it farther. You'd be getting rid of some of the best people on the IPC whitelist if you denied them these roles, and the overall solutions you present strike mas a pretty spiteful. I've been one of the people in this thread who pointed out that IPCs, in light of relatively recent changes, do have a bit too much in the way of resistance to being messed up. Especially now that Robotics can reassemble them, same as a human can be cloned. While my contribution to this discussion is biased in the positive direction, I think yours is more so in a negative one, as your rant is ultimately heavily influenced from being cornered and apprehended by an IPC before you could pull out a revolver and blast him to bits. And I guess, maybe other instances of having a real hard time dealing with IPCs? I don't think it's unreasonable that maybe different race types require different approaches, and I don't think it's unreasonable that a Psychiatrist maybe doesn't have the gear to silently take down a robot when he gets cornered by one.

I've seen otherwise barely-sapient IPCs become highly attached to other characters and cling very closely to them as their only real outwardly "human-seeming" characteristic. Some of the most emotional IPCs I've seen are the most emotional when their job/role is endangered or maligned in some way. Centurion, for instance, has serious problems with unjust actions being carried out by Security. It's perfectly natural to me, though, that AI would be based on a human mental template that CAN be emotionally-inclined, even if emotions are optional. Early synthetics outright used human brains, after all. I think it depends a lot on purpose, manufacturer, and specific creator. Karima Mo'Taki is an example of a Roboticist who wouldn't make a soulless husk of a robot if she had any choice about it. I think, though, that even "emotional" robots probably wouldn't be too terribly inclined to the kinds of irrational outbursts that humans are unless there was something wrong with them.

I've seen otherwise barely-sapient IPCs become highly attached to other characters and cling very closely to them as their only real outwardly "human-seeming" characteristic. Some of the most emotional IPCs I've seen are the most emotional when their job/role is endangered or maligned in some way. Centurion, for instance, has serious problems with unjust actions being carried out by Security. It's perfectly natural to me, though, that AI would be based on a human mental template that CAN be emotionally-inclined, even if emotions are optional. Early synthetics outright used human brains, after all. I think it depends a lot on purpose, manufacturer, and specific creator. Karima Mo'Taki is an example of a Roboticist who wouldn't make a soulless husk of a robot if she had any choice about it. I think, though, that even "emotional" robots probably wouldn't be too terribly inclined to the kinds of irrational outbursts that humans are unless there was something wrong with them.

I've seen this discussed very briefly, and the short of it is: I'm 99% certain you're not supposed to do this and that being a robot is not an excuse to be universally competent. You can absolutely be a very 'young' synthetic who is qualified to and is in fact in a Head position, because that's how Synthetics work, but being omni-competent isn't really ok. The long answer: As in real life, a robot is going to be made to perform a particular task. Our robots are sapient, and therefore can learn. They probably even learn dramatically faster than non-robots do, since they can literally be programmed to do a task expertly. My take on this is that a synthetic has effectively one "department" that they're going to be excellent at (their intended purpose when manufactured) and usually not much else. The problem is, yeah, they can still learn, and they can probably learn way faster than anybody else. So, for instance, IAM is Trained in all skills relevant to any Security post. (This includes Anatomy, for performing autopsies during investigations and also for more effective take-downs in theory.) Why? Because that's his role. If some minor thing is absolutely needed but not available, I have him faff around a bit while he downloads some relevant drivers. Minor construction, etc. For more major things, I think you really do need to just sit on your hands and let other people deal with it. Or not deal with it at all, as the case may be. As for occupation qualifications, I'm pretty sure Synthetics just bypass them categorically. If they're made for X post, they're assumed to be competent at X post.

I've seen this discussed very briefly, and the short of it is: I'm 99% certain you're not supposed to do this and that being a robot is not an excuse to be universally competent. You can absolutely be a very 'young' synthetic who is qualified to and is in fact in a Head position, because that's how Synthetics work, but being omni-competent isn't really ok. The long answer: As in real life, a robot is going to be made to perform a particular task. Our robots are sapient, and therefore can learn. They probably even learn dramatically faster than non-robots do, since they can literally be programmed to do a task expertly. My take on this is that a synthetic has effectively one "department" that they're going to be excellent at (their intended purpose when manufactured) and usually not much else. The problem is, yeah, they can still learn, and they can probably learn way faster than anybody else. So, for instance, IAM is Trained in all skills relevant to any Security post. (This includes Anatomy, for performing autopsies during investigations and also for more effective take-downs in theory.) Why? Because that's his role. If some minor thing is absolutely needed but not available, I have him faff around a bit while he downloads some relevant drivers. Minor construction, etc. For more major things, I think you really do need to just sit on your hands and let other people deal with it. Or not deal with it at all, as the case may be. As for occupation qualifications, I'm pretty sure Synthetics just bypass them categorically. If they're made for X post, they're assumed to be competent at X post.

I'm not inclined to support IPCs being super OP against everything in practice. However, I do want to address this argument. Robots who are made to do a thing are better at doing the thing than humans are. Now, in real life, with admittedly no real intellect to speak of but all the same, when you make a machine to do a thing that thing is exponentially more capable than a human in most circumstances. See: Assembly line robots, self-driving cars, robotically assisted surgery, etc. An IPC that is made for fighting for whatever reason is not going to have specs that would give a human chance to do anything to defeat them, realistically. It'd be like fighting a drone without an operator, or in fictional terms, a Terminator. Getting punched by one would cause massive injuries. SHOULD IPCs be categorically better? Nah. That sucks for gameplay purposes. Would it be REALISTIC for IPCs to be categorically superior to a human at whatever task they're designed for? Yes, and we already have non-sapient robots that do their job better than their human equivalents. This is why creating a true artificial intelligence in the vein of the kinds of machines we build leads to ideas like SkyNet. If I'm not misremembering, in our lore the Skrell even stopped messing with AI technology exactly because it can expand out of control. EDIT: While I do think it makes sense that punching a robot wouldn't be very effective, IPCs no longer suffer simply being removed from the round if they "die", so it'd probably be fair to make their overwhelming resilience less overbearing. That said, punching a robot probably shouldn't ever be a good idea.

I'm not inclined to support IPCs being super OP against everything in practice. However, I do want to address this argument. Robots who are made to do a thing are better at doing the thing than humans are. Now, in real life, with admittedly no real intellect to speak of but all the same, when you make a machine to do a thing that thing is exponentially more capable than a human in most circumstances. See: Assembly line robots, self-driving cars, robotically assisted surgery, etc. An IPC that is made for fighting for whatever reason is not going to have specs that would give a human chance to do anything to defeat them, realistically. It'd be like fighting a drone without an operator, or in fictional terms, a Terminator. Getting punched by one would cause massive injuries. SHOULD IPCs be categorically better? Nah. That sucks for gameplay purposes. Would it be REALISTIC for IPCs to be categorically superior to a human at whatever task they're designed for? Yes, and we already have non-sapient robots that do their job better than their human equivalents. This is why creating a true artificial intelligence in the vein of the kinds of machines we build leads to ideas like SkyNet. If I'm not misremembering, in our lore the Skrell even stopped messing with AI technology exactly because it can expand out of control. EDIT: While I do think it makes sense that punching a robot wouldn't be very effective, IPCs no longer suffer simply being removed from the round if they "die", so it'd probably be fair to make their overwhelming resilience less overbearing. That said, punching a robot probably shouldn't ever be a good idea.

I was under the impression that tradeband is simply a stand-in until a unique language is implemented in the code. Is this not correct?

I was under the impression that tradeband is simply a stand-in until a unique language is implemented in the code. Is this not correct?

As you've pointed out, the premise that ghosts don't really exist is explicitly false in Space Station 13. Souls and the lingering dead are an actual fact of the setting. (Or at least, they are in Cult rounds.) All "player characters", including synthetics of all kinds*, leave behind ghosts when slain, can be soulstoned (except borgs/slaved synths), etc. Insulating slaved synthetics against the supernatural is pretty arbitrary. It's half-supported, half-arbitrary as-is, and I don't really see a great benefit to doing it further than is already the case. * Slaved Synthetics and the AI can't be soulstoned, implying they don't have souls as unslaved synthetics and others do, marking an exception to this rule. However, as slaved synthetics can be free synthetics choosing to work as slaved synthetics, this distinction doesn't have a meaningful line in our lore. Especially since they can be manifested ghosts regardless.

As you've pointed out, the premise that ghosts don't really exist is explicitly false in Space Station 13. Souls and the lingering dead are an actual fact of the setting. (Or at least, they are in Cult rounds.) All "player characters", including synthetics of all kinds*, leave behind ghosts when slain, can be soulstoned (except borgs/slaved synths), etc. Insulating slaved synthetics against the supernatural is pretty arbitrary. It's half-supported, half-arbitrary as-is, and I don't really see a great benefit to doing it further than is already the case. * Slaved Synthetics and the AI can't be soulstoned, implying they don't have souls as unslaved synthetics and others do, marking an exception to this rule. However, as slaved synthetics can be free synthetics choosing to work as slaved synthetics, this distinction doesn't have a meaningful line in our lore. Especially since they can be manifested ghosts regardless.

We understand what you're suggesting and it doesn't really change the problem with the suggestion. The game is balanced under the assumption that death is cheap and re-entering play is easy. Limiting access to cheap methods of coming back from death is almost as bad as simply removing coming back from death. This is irreconcilable with the foundation of SS13's game balance. There's not really anything you can say about the perks of it that don't massively outweigh the problems with it as a basic premise. This is why you got a few replies that just boiled down to, "Nooooooo.", and a quote from another long dead iteration of this same argument. There's nothing new we can say about it, and adding additional conditions/reasons for the argument doesn't really change how bad an idea it is.

We understand what you're suggesting and it doesn't really change the problem with the suggestion. The game is balanced under the assumption that death is cheap and re-entering play is easy. Limiting access to cheap methods of coming back from death is almost as bad as simply removing coming back from death. This is irreconcilable with the foundation of SS13's game balance. There's not really anything you can say about the perks of it that don't massively outweigh the problems with it as a basic premise. This is why you got a few replies that just boiled down to, "Nooooooo.", and a quote from another long dead iteration of this same argument. There's nothing new we can say about it, and adding additional conditions/reasons for the argument doesn't really change how bad an idea it is.

The evidence lockup room is accessible to Security Officers and the Warden through maintenance, but not through the interior security doors. It's pretty obvious why this is silly and inconvenient. If you want to lock officers out of evidence lockup, lock them out of the maintenance door. If you don't, please remove their lack of access from the brig side of the room. (Honestly, I don't see why Officers wouldn't have access to this area and up until recently I'm 100% sure they did, so I'd favor just lifting the access restrictions on the brig door.)

The evidence lockup room is accessible to Security Officers and the Warden through maintenance, but not through the interior security doors. It's pretty obvious why this is silly and inconvenient. If you want to lock officers out of evidence lockup, lock them out of the maintenance door. If you don't, please remove their lack of access from the brig side of the room. (Honestly, I don't see why Officers wouldn't have access to this area and up until recently I'm 100% sure they did, so I'd favor just lifting the access restrictions on the brig door.)

Making cloning more difficult: Nooooooo, for reasons already long discussed to death. Making medical equipment charge people: Nooooooo, for very similar reasons. Worse, you'd legitimize the, 'Fuck it, just let them die and clone them, it'll be easier.' attitude that some people still somehow manage to have.

Making cloning more difficult: Nooooooo, for reasons already long discussed to death. Making medical equipment charge people: Nooooooo, for very similar reasons. Worse, you'd legitimize the, 'Fuck it, just let them die and clone them, it'll be easier.' attitude that some people still somehow manage to have.

Nah. There's really no reason to exclude technology from perceiving literal sorcery. Robots can produce ghosts -- visible ghosts -- as well, although it's rare for them to end up manifested since there's usually few of them in a given round. It's making an arbitrary divide between the natural and the artificial which doesn't exist, except in our minds. Being natural-born and made of meat isn't really special.

Nah. There's really no reason to exclude technology from perceiving literal sorcery. Robots can produce ghosts -- visible ghosts -- as well, although it's rare for them to end up manifested since there's usually few of them in a given round. It's making an arbitrary divide between the natural and the artificial which doesn't exist, except in our minds. Being natural-born and made of meat isn't really special.

Second verse, same as the first. Lock and archive as you please!