[2 Dismissals] Telecommunications Destruction Policy

[Worthy]

I'd personally like it if destroying telecommunications with no proper reasoning behind it was punished and considered similarly to engine grief.

I've noticed a bit of a trend where antagonists make it their sole goal of destroying telecommunications and doing nothing else. I believe this adds very little to the round as it prevents all antagonists, including the one griefing telecomms to begin with, from effectively communicating with crew members, and thus furthering a story or gimmick. It is incredibly infuriating when you want to taunt somebody into despair via PDA's and communications but you are unable to since a fellow auto-traitor has already made it their goal of screwdrivering, crowbarring and wrenching the whole of telecomms to an ugly mess. Destroying telecomms is effectively the same as saying ''we don't want to negotiate or open up any dialogue at all'' which is fine at a certain point, but should not be your opening move or even worse, sole move, as an antagonist.

Hence why my suggestion is to monitor traitors destroying telecomms a tad bit heavier, and make it punishable if no valid reason in the context of the round is given for it, as I do not believe this currently has a lot of overwatch. Do correct me if I'm wrong on that.

[LanceLynxx]

I don't think this is valid enough reason to justify an OOC ban on messing with comms.

It just removes communication, does not mean antags are not saying they won't negotiate or anything of the sort. It won't ruin a round like an engine grief or phoron leak, which affects the entire station with lethal problems.

Lack of comms is just an annoyance, and anyone with two brain cells can go to Cargo or Sci for station-bounced radios, or use intercomms. And Engineering/Science can fix the issue.

[Worthy]

I don't think this is valid enough reason to justify an OOC ban on messing with comms.

It just removes communication, does not mean antags are not saying they won't negotiate or anything of the sort. It won't ruin a round like an engine grief or phoron leak, which affects the entire station with lethal problems.

Lack of comms is just an annoyance, and anyone with two brain cells can go to Cargo or Sci for station-bounced radios, or use intercomms. And Engineering/Science can fix the issue.

 

I am not suggesting an OOC ban on it. I'm suggesting it's given more overwatch and to make it punishable if it is done without valid reasoning or if it contributes nothing to the round. Because that is what removing telecomms does, contributing very little to the overall round other than being an annoyance and removing two easily accessible communication methods which can be used to further other gimmicks unrelated to your own.

Destroying the engine is allowed within certain circumstances and if you ahelp it beforehand. I am suggesting to give destroying telecomms a similar treatment.

[Scheveningen]

Sabotaging a station system and then doing nothing else for the round as an antagonist is not only a waste of the antagonist slot that someone else could be using to actively interact with other players, but it can just as easily be argued as a case of grief.

Back when ballistic drop pods were being actively used and I was a moderator, someone summoned one of them through a beacon hardly 3 minutes as the round started and they did nothing else for the round. When I asked them what their motivation was, they claimed it was because they wanted to give engineering something to do.

At the time this wasn't acceptable because they dropped the equivalent of a bomb at departures and didn't really do anything else. The pod was so expensive on their TC budget that they literally could do nothing else. 3 minutes into the round with an instant escalation.

Likewise, sabotaging a very critical means of communication without intending to escalate off of that is supposedly an antag no-no. You're never meant to deliberately plunge the round into an unplayable, unenjoyable and tedious limbo as an antagonist.

Unless this has changed, I do believe this is part of current staff policy to consider 0 to 100 escalations for antagonists to be very poor play as an antagonist, which at the very least is deserving of a warning or at the very most an antagonist ban.

But, unfortunately, asking staff to be on reactive overwatch for things that are not explicitly combat-logged spam/obvious grief is an untenable proposition. The staff have always tried to meddle as little as humanly possible to allow for the round to progress organically. There are situations where this is not true, but as far as I can recall the standard is usually set to wait for people to adminhelp before looking into issues.

Another philosophy I learned as staff is that something that happens in-game is not an issue until it is adminhelped. This is meant to be interpreted as if administrators/moderators are reactive enforcers of the rules and for edge cases that have to be dealt with, rather than individuals that jump on issues and stop people to answer questions without having prior player provocation to be asking around as to why something progressed in-game.

This also means that an issue a player neglects to mention over adminhelps is, as far as the administrators are concerned, not an issue at all because they don't know that you personally take issue with it.

It's important for people to understand that adminhelping is also a means to convince a staff member that someone is breaking the rules if you feel like it's one of those edge cases that you feel strongly would be a bad influence on the overall roleplay quality if it were commonly accepted as an "okay thing to do" just because it's not strictly against the rules. Don't be obnoxious about this, obviously.

 

Destroying the engine is allowed within certain circumstances and if you ahelp it beforehand. I am suggesting to give destroying telecomms a similar treatment.

 

I believe this is already policy, but not unlike destroying the engine, destroying communication can lead to some interesting escalation on the part of the round antagonist. It's obviously annoying for everyone else, though, because it is the means of communicating across the station. But because of this present risk that the antagonist could be acting well within their rights to be causing chaos, I don't think staff are very interested in interrogating every single player that dares try to sabotage telecommunications.

After all, it's incredibly difficult to get into telecommunications without an emag to disable all of the turrets and needing the necessary access/tools to get inside. It's a very convoluted process to enter telecommunications. If someone is willing to invest that much effort, tools and time to shut down comms, maybe they do have a plan on what to be doing for the course of the round? Staff can't really make assumptions without a really good case for it.

[BurgerBB]

Destroying telecommunications is the least RP thing you could do, honestly, as it removes the ability for crewmembers to know what's going on. It serves nothing to further RP.

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

It has its uses. It should be something you ahelp for permission to do due to its importance.

[Bauser]

@Burger: It doesn't remove the ability for crewmembers to know what's going on. At all. It just makes them have to work for it, actually TRYING to find out what's going on, instead of having it constantly poured into their ear.

[Skull132]

What is this thread.

Can someone explain to me why removing communications works to stifle RP? Or rather, how it does so. At worst, all it does is mean you get to wander around the station alone, or continue sitting behind your desk because you're too disinterested to give a damn. But realistically communications suddenly going down for a prolonged period of time would be something your character would want to respond to. Ergo, it serves as a platform to create roleplay. Whether or not you see to grasp said roleplay is somewhat irrelevant. Further, putting it on requiring admin approval would basically be the same as banning it. As no one ever asks for permission on those things and it's a relatively bad way to handle administration.

What's requested in the OP,

and make it punishable if no valid reason in the context of the round is given for it,

is already a given with the rules we have in place. If you destroy TComms because someone pissed in your cornflakes, you're getting warned or banned. If you consistently destroy TComms for the keks, you're probably getting warned (there's precedence for this). Adding explicit mentions of X, Y, and Z to the rules is something which should be done extremely sparring, usually only in cases requiring absolute clarity. This is already covered by a myriad of rules and we would not gain anything from adding an explicit mention.

[Asheram]

@Burger: It doesn't remove the ability for crewmembers to know what's going on. At all. It just makes them have to work for it, actually TRYING to find out what's going on, instead of having it constantly poured into their ear.

Thus, in a way, you could consider taking out Telecomms the most RP they can do as it suddenly makes -everyone- involved.

[Scheveningen]

Telecommunications is incredibly difficult to repair if a central bus frame is taken out. It will take a half hour to an hour to fix.

[Scheveningen]

As no one ever asks for permission on those things and it's a relatively bad way to handle administration.

 

Local server host does not recall that their own server has rules that require people to ask permission before sabotaging the engine, releasing a singularity or bombing the shuttle. Oh, and the malf AI/anyone else is not allowed to cancel a crew transfer through IC means, despite for the former it is most certainly mechanically possible and I'm only half sure if it is for the latter.

Removing telecommunications usage for the round as an antagonist as part of an immediate non-escalated measure acts against any standard that antagonists are supposed to abide to in terms of creating interesting conflict. Communications (not unlike the power and air systems) is a very vital part of gameflow. I shouldn't have to explain why, the effects of comms being down for a permanent reason can throw a round into a nearly unfixable limbo that cannot be dealt with short of calling the shuttle or hoping someone knows how to set-up the telecommunications servers again. Anyone who's played a round where the round antagonist chose to bomb telecommunications at the start knows how much of a very un-fun experience a round can be without communications for almost the whole round

It's fine if antagonists escalate to this degree, and also super good if they tell the admins through the adminhelp function as provided so that there's no awkward surprises and investigation that needs to be opened over it. It's not fine if said antagonists are doing it for clearly stupid reasons.

[Bauser]

I don't know where you get this idea that public radio communication is necessary for the round to take place. You say it's a "vital part of gameflow," but cutting comms doesn't stop the round - it just changes it. It doesn't stop people from coordinating, it doesn't lock anybody in place, it just makes it so you can't take for granted the frankly overpowered ability to be in constant unfettered communication with every single player on the station. It makes you find handheld radios, it makes you talk to people in person. What it doesn't do is stop the "gameflow."

You say you're concerned that antagonists are cutting comms for "clearly stupid reasons," but what reason to disable the station's radio communication could possibly be stupid for someone trying to subvert that station or accomplish any kind of crime on it? Obviously it's extremely beneficial for antagonists to slow down people's ability to track and report their activities, so it makes perfect sense in-character, in a way that blowing up the station's power supply, exposing themselves to extreme danger, or disabling the only shuttle that can help them escape clearly do not. (Or, at least don't make sense unilaterally)

Turning off the radio only makes for a boring round if the player is choosing not to engage with it. Things are still happening. Everywhere. It doesn't slow down people from acting on whatever they're doing, even slightly. It just means that if you want to coordinate some effort, like a security operation, or engineers performing repairs, it's going to take a little longer to get everyone on the same page. But it most certainly does not stop any of these things from happening.

And regarding the attitude you display towards suggestions like this...

I get you people get hard at the idea of slowly diluting available information from the game if not suggesting the newest idea on how to remove common comms from the game on a monthly basis, just because other people using information provided to them effectively ends up causing your antag round to go sideways

This tactic of yours, accusing people of only wanting to skew the game in their favor mechanically, is both rude and embarrassingly transparent considering you play Head Of Security - and your suggestions (in each case, here and in that thread) do the exact same thing in your favor - ensuring the game doesn't get changed in any way that might inconvenience security.

[Asheram]

As an aside to this argument, but also part of it,

What would folk say if we introduced signal jammers that either jam signals completely or makes any attempts at sending anything over the radio in the vicinity scrambled,

Personal (5m range, pocket sized, chargable/battery powered)),

Local (20-40m range, will fit in a backpack, battery powered) and

Station wide (has to be constructed like machinery and connected to the power grid).

This would help in that you can shut down Telecomms, but in a more controlled fashion which doesn't require the destruction of the entire array.

Of course, the details would have to be discussed and worked out for balance.

Slightly edited.

[Skull132]

As no one ever asks for permission on those things and it's a relatively bad way to handle administration.

 

Local server host does not recall that their own server has rules that require people to ask permission before sabotaging the engine, releasing a singularity or bombing the shuttle. Oh, and the malf AI/anyone else is not allowed to cancel a crew transfer through IC means, despite for the former it is most certainly mechanically possible and I'm only half sure if it is for the latter.

 

Where do you think I got the basis of my claim from? From my experience with dealing with people around this issue. I'm fully aware of the exceptions involved, have enforced them as I was actively working as an administrator. That doesn't mean that it's good policy and it doesn't mean that it should be expanded to include TComms.

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

As an aside to this argument, but also part of it,

What would folk say if we introduced signal jammers that either jam signals completely or makes any attempts at sending anything over the radio in the vicinity scrambled,

Personal (5m range, pocket sized, chargable/battery powered)),

Local (20-40m range, will fit in a backpack, battery powered) and

Station wide (has to be constructed like machinery and connected to the power grid).

This would help in that you can shut down Telecomms, but in a more controlled fashion which doesn't require the destruction of the entire array.

Of course, the details would have to be discussed and worked out for balance.

Slightly edited.

 

We already have radio jammers.

[Asheram]

We already have radio jammers.

 

Really? My apologies then, I haven't ever seen one.

[Scheveningen]

This tactic of yours, accusing people of only wanting to skew the game in their favor mechanically, is both rude and embarrassingly transparent considering you play Head Of Security - and your suggestions (in each case, here and in that thread) do the exact same thing in your favor - ensuring the game doesn't get changed in any way that might inconvenience security.

 

Well not just inconveniencing security, it massively changes the game for everyone else. I can think beyond the scope that doesn't apply to me. Out of curiosity, why do you think how I conduct myself personally is a.) Any of your goddamn business or b.) At all related to my points? You don't have to personally attack me because you can't argue my points as well as taking time out of your day to attack me personally. Those argumentative tactics got you banned from discord, as I'm sure you recall.

 

Where do you think I got the basis of my claim from? From my experience with dealing with people around this issue. I'm fully aware of the exceptions involved, have enforced them as I was actively working as an administrator. That doesn't mean that it's good policy and it doesn't mean that it should be expanded to include TComms.

 

So, what, rather than placing rightful blame on people not doing as the rules tell them to and telling yourself, as part of the administration, "We can escalate more seriously against these people", you say the rule is dumb because... actually, you didn't even clarify why, you just said it wasn't necessarily good policy without saying why it's flawed.

Why shouldn't it be expanded to include Telecomms? There are multiple mediums of interaction covered under the branch of telecommunications and the map is absolutely huge now. There is a ton of ground to cover on this map compared to the good ol' reliable Boxstation in which it was super easy to navigate and find people. The map is no longer that compartmentalized. You have to navigate through effective mazes to take maintenance shortcuts into departments now. It's arguably quicker to just take a hallway route into a department now. Telecommunications is required to communicate with other crewmembers to get them onboard with understanding where they need to be positioned and moved towards. Without it, there's very significantly less chance to coordinate departments in a reasonable and comprehensive fashion. Not everyone is a mechanical god at this game either and probably won't chase after a bounce radio or even think to do so.

This doesn't really seem consistent with your previous philosophy on how you treat policy. You're arguing administrators should be generally hands-off anytime an antagonist at any point of the round decides to permanently sabotage telecommunications, right? Or are you just stating personal perspective without taking a side on the issue? I'm really confused as to where you're coming from here.

[Skull132]

Where do you think I got the basis of my claim from? From my experience with dealing with people around this issue. I'm fully aware of the exceptions involved, have enforced them as I was actively working as an administrator. That doesn't mean that it's good policy and it doesn't mean that it should be expanded to include TComms.

 

So, what, rather than placing rightful blame on people not doing as the rules tell them to and telling yourself, as part of the administration, "We can escalate more seriously against these people", you claim the rule is broken because nobody's following it/it's not enforced consistently enough?

This doesn't really seem consistent with your previous philosophy on how you treat policy. You're arguing administrators should be hands-off anytime an antagonist at any point of the round decides to permanently sabotage telecommunications, right? Or are you just stating personal perspective without taking a side on the issue? I'm really confused as to where you're coming from here.

 

wat.

Okay, first, it's not a matter of people not following the rules and me not wanting to enforce the rule in question. It's a matter of, this rule being present resulting in the action never being undertaken not because there was no valid reason for it, but because people loathe confrontation, and would rather miss their opportunity than ask. A similar thing applies to the suicide rule, and is the exact reason why the rule was changed to no longer require people explicitly asking for permission to suicide. In fact, our experience with both rules is why the suicide rule was loosened: no one wants to bother asking, so no one asks, so you lose out on some avenues of roleplay which would otherwise take place. There are also logic issues involved, eg. is an admin really involved with antagonists enough to actually be informed enough to make a call?

Which is why I would rather leave things as they are: all antagonist actions are reviewed after the fact, and punishment applied retroactively. This is the default attitude we have towards all rules, and I see no reason to add an exception for TComms.

[Scheveningen]

That's far more reasonable considering how you put it, thank you. There was definitely a misunderstanding on my part of what you were saying. Although there is one thing.

 

There are also logic issues involved, eg. is an admin really involved with antagonists enough to actually be informed enough to make a call?

 

Does it matter? If they're able to read context in terms of logs and what people have testified (and hopefully there's little contradictions to avoid making the whole affair confusing), isn't that more important than having followed along actively as to what the antagonists have been doing over the course of the round? It's a welcome measure to be sure but I'm sure admins + mods often have other things to pay attention to and, as you said, they're usually just there to look into things that already happened and need verified in terms of being valid or not.

[Arrow768]

Please keep the thread on topic. It is about having to ask for permission before tampering with tcoms.

I strongly support this due to the difficulty to repair if it is done "properly".

It also makes it almost impossible to negotiate with the hostiles if it is taken out.

I´d say if they have a good reason to do so and no intent to use it afterwards anymore then let them tamper with it after they ahelped.

[Garnascus]

Definitely voting for dismissal. The less things you need to pass a speech check with a staff member to be able to do the better. I think our rules on playing an antagonist already cover the situation well enough.

[Faris]

This sat for a while and I've observed the rounds since then. I've seen more people request permission to delaminate the engine and get it approved than those that sabotaged communications without permission.

Anything extremely spamming and annoying that is not supportive of a high-roleplay environment is interfered with.

Seconding Garns dismissal. Locking and archiving.