Does Security have an obligation to antags?

[jackfractal]

This has been rattling about in my head for a while, it's not in relation to a specific incident, but it occurred to me after ghosting and watching a changeling round a few nights ago.

In the rules, there's a BIG BLOCK TEXT in the section for Antagonist Guidelines about the primary goal for antagonists is to CONTRIBUTE TO OTHERS ENJOYMENT.

The other parts of that section fall naturally out of that one statement: don't gank, don't kill SSD characters, try not to murder the entire station with atmos or the singularity.

The question I have is this: Does the crew, and by extension the Security department, have a similar reciprocal obligation to people playing Antagonists?

[SilverTalismen]

Well, There HAVE been times were as a antag, instead of roleplaying with my antag, they stun baton, cuff and strip me and leave me in a cell until shift end, and if im a vampire or ling, I end up dead somewhere along the way, if its cult I end up in interrogation for a hour and a half after someone sees me write a rune, I would say yes, but thats not up to me to boss people around

[Guest]

Antags have a tendency to take their licence to make the round fun for others as a licence to be chucklefucks. Crew and security have no obligation to enable chucklefucking and the same tired, shitty "Roleplay" that serves as a couch for spouting one liners and killing other players for no justifiable reason.

Antags should always be held to a higher standard of roleplaying than other players when they are present, as it is their obligation to act as not just a generic "opposing force," but as the drivers of a narrative.

Tl;Dr, reform the behaviours of antagonists so they have a reputation where regular players are willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. Don't blame security for defending the crew.

[Killerhurtz]

What Baddie said. I've been in more than one round where antags were actually playful - and security WAS more lenient because of it. What do I mean by playful? Sure, they were sneaky. But they didn't gank. When presented with the front of a barrel, or simply spotted by an officer, they didn't shoot - they roleplayed. Hell, one particular group of stealth antags got spotted, talked for five minutes to a security officer which spotted them... then just fled and hid after it was revealed they were there.

Security does as security does because as it stands, antags mistake antags for chuckelfucks who need to win.

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

Talking isn't the only legitimate way to roleplay. Security has to be held to the same standard as anyone else. Being in the department with this philosophy makes for a very intense time because half my time is spent arresting or fighting officers when code blue hits and they throw all regulations out the window.

A cultist was in the locker room and I, the detective, was trying to negotiate with them while security was preparing a breach. Long story short the Warden ended up pulling a captured cultist away from me repeatedly while I was trying to treat him, and I had to mace and brig him myself. Yelling at him over security comms just got "Now isn't the time!!!!" from everyone else.

The thing about security is that they have all of the real power and we legitimize that power. Anything they do to antagonists is defended because it's realistic to let security handle all incidents. Their influence is overarching, and their power is absolute - it's very hard to fight this or participate as an antagonist because this is impossible to effectively counter. "I was locked in a cell for 2 hours" is completely 'realistic', even if it isn't any fun for anyone except the security officers who got a brief thrill in the capture.

If the roles were reversed and antagonists did this, we'd cry foul. Security should be expected to follow the same standard of sportsmanship.

Edited October 6, 2015 by Marlon Phoenix

[jackfractal]

Killer & Caddie: I get what you're both saying, but that's not really the question I'm asking about here.

It's not 'Why does security act the way it does?' it's "Does the regular crew, and by extension security, have an obligation to contribute to the enjoyment of people playing Antagonists in the same way that Antagonists have an obligation to contribute to the enjoyment of the rest of the crew?"

Maybe they don't, and maybe they shouldn't, SS13 is not a symmetrical game after all. I'm just wondering what everyone thinks.

[Frances]

Is security obliged to go out of their way to humor antags who make no effort to create interesting situations? No.

Should security try their best to remain open to RP opportunities and try to provide antags as a whole with the same quality of RP they come to expect from them? Yes.

[jackfractal]

@Frances

So the creation of interesting situations is entirely the domain of the antagonists and the crew should not attempt to do the same?

[Guest]

@Frances

So the creation of interesting situations is entirely the domain of the antagonists and the crew should not attempt to do the same?

Yes. It is the primary and over-reaching responsibility of antagonists to create interesting situations, and display excellent roleplaying skills. To create a unique narrative for the round.

If antagonists do not provide either, their usefulness is solely from a gameplay-related conflict perspective.

This is not Baystation where you get to hamstring the security department and crewmen from being able to take any form of punitive action. (Whether it be nonlethal or in extreme cases lethal). Against an almost always violent, baseless and bland, murdering bastard or group of bastards whose only goals appear to be being space assholes, without the threat of server bans.

[jackfractal]

@Callabaddie

I'm not suggesting we hamstring anyone, but I do find your perspective interesting. You believe the obligation to consider the enjoyment of others to be hamstringing?

If that's the case, aren't antagonists 'hamstrung' as well?

[Guest]

@Callabaddie

I'm not suggesting we hamstring anyone, but I do find your perspective interesting. You believe the obligation to consider the enjoyment of others to be hamstringing?

If that's the case, aren't antagonists 'hamstrung' as well?

Antagonists who have used their status and position for petty thrills (murderboning, blasting apart chunks of the station for no discernible reason beyond chaos) and forcing other players into very trashy, unentertaining RP (I'm kidnap you and sell you for slave :^^^)) ) do not deserve to be considered for "enjoyment."

To restate what I said here;

It is the primary and over-reaching responsibility of antagonists to create interesting situations, and display excellent roleplaying skills. To create a unique narrative for the round. If antagonists do not provide either, their usefulness is solely from a gameplay-related conflict perspective.

 

I, and no other member of the crew or security staff is under no obligation to humor unimaginative and unnecessarily violent RP or gameplay with anything less than more of the same.

[PigVomit]

There's a difference between OBSERVE and REPORT versus scouring maintenance shafts, searching every room of every department, and detaining and searching people on code green. Even if you've got the code blue, this is troubling for the round as a whole because it doesn't have a chance to develop. So people who go "Oh antagonist murderbone all the time so it's only fair". No. That's metagaming.

[Frances]

@Frances

So the creation of interesting situations is entirely the domain of the antagonists and the crew should not attempt to do the same?

Wat

No, I'm not saying that at all D:

I just mean that I understand the people who say that security is sometimes justified in locking antags (and even non-antag criminals) away and throwing away the key. This shouldn't be the default stance, however.

If you're playing sec and put some effort into giving your prisoners a good time I'll have a lot of respect for you. Same for every crewmember who chooses to play along with antags' plans - you see it so little, yet it's so cool when it happens and is well-executed!

[Guest]

Wat

No, I'm not saying that at all D:

This shouldn't come as a surprise, Fran. Jack's M.O. is making a thread to create an emotional response in players, then using sophistry and clever argumentation to keep the people in the thread spinning until it's locked. It's pretty fun to participate in if you've got a sharp eye and focus on the points, but it can be sometimes frustrating to read through.

[jackfractal]

@Francis

Ah, yeah. I totally read your previous post wrong. My bad. Reading comprehension errors. I thought you were saying pretty much the exact opposite of what you were actually saying.

@Callabaddie

OK, sure, but aren't antags who murderbone for no raisins already in violation of the server rules? Like, they are breaking the specific guideline I'm talking about.

@Everyone

In that case, I think we're all in agreement that those people can go screw themselves. I was asking more for people who weren't violating the rules, but it sounds like you're saying that this kinda thing is really common.

That bites! No lie.

I don't really get to interact with antags very often because of the character that I play, so this is news to me. Any idea why this happens so often? It sounds like we might have entered a degenerate spiral, where security plays hard because antags play hard, and vice versa.

[Frances]

This shouldn't come as a surprise, Fran. Jack's M.O. is making a thread to create an emotional response in players, then using sophistry and clever argumentation to keep the people in the thread spinning until it's locked. It's pretty fun to participate in if you've got a sharp eye and focus on the points, but it can be sometimes frustrating to read through.

u wot m8

[Guest]

I don't really get to interact with antags very often because of the character that I play, so this is news to me. Any idea why this happens so often? It sounds like we might have entered a degenerate spiral, where security plays hard because antags play hard, and vice versa.

 

This might be that you don't play very often or put yourself into situations in which you'll directly encounter conflict. First character I think of that comes to mind when I see your ckey is just TRIXIE. Engineers don't usually fight the danger, they clean right up after it and avoid the present danger. Borgs also need to consider self-preservation, considering they have laws.

Hardly a degenerate spiral, either. You can't really stop people from playing the metagame, and by this I mean how people play the game based on their prior experiences with game mechanics. They're more than likely going to do the same routine thing over and over again because it just works better than any unfamiliar and more potentially disastrous solution. It's completely natural the way people (sec, antagonists, engineers, etc) play the game, it's not some abnormal abomination that needs to die.

People will play so that they are having fun and finding themselves in a comfortable position. Unless they're horrifically bored, they're not about to try something new.

Security has an obligation to roleplay, as do antagonists. I'm pretty sure that's all that giant, mostly unnecessary OOC blurb at roundstart for antags is trying to get across.

It says, 'antags are not exempt from murderboning rules, not unlike security or any other position'.

People are just meant to be fair, that's all that OOC blurb asks. Don't read so much into it, it's really simple.

[jackfractal]

Which OOC blurb? I'm talking about the part of the rules called "Antagonists Guidelines" the actual text is:

"The primary goal of antangonists is to CONTRIBUTE TO OTHERS' ENJOYMENT."

Misspellings and emphasis theirs.

It's the second thing right under 'Being an antagonist does not exempt you from any server rules.'

And, yeah, I don't see much from antagonists because I play cyborg. That's why I said I was surprised to hear what appears to be the consensus: Antags aren't following this guideline.

What I meant by 'degenerate spiral' was to describe an escalating series of undesirable behaviors that reinforce each other. This creates a feedback loop where the undesirable behavior ping-pongs faster and faster between the two sides until you have complete dominance of the undesirable behaviors. If the metagame says to never give anyone an inch because they'll use it to stab a fork in your eye, then both sides will increase their play-to-win behavior because to do otherwise will result in an immediate loss.

I'm not sure if that's what is happening, but it does seem like the state of play on this server is pretty far from the ideal most people seem to want.

I mean, if I had to describe the theoretically ideal state of play for this server, it would be something like this:

"Antagonists always come up with clever and interesting ways of creating fun and exciting situations while simultaneously never 'ruining someone's round' by taking them out of the round. Security, for their part, plays joyfully into those scenarios, likewise never ruining the fun of the antagonists or taking THEM out of the round.

Both teams play hard, and their actions lead up to a satisfying crisis point involving the entire station in a dynamic final confrontation where one or the other team emerges victorious in a way that can only be described by the losing team as the other team playing better. Everyone involved understands clearly what is happening, and afterward, the losing team congratulates the victors in OOC for a job well done. Despite the highs and lows, it all wraps up in just a little under two hours leaving everyone satisfied and eager to do it all over again."

That might sound silly, and impossible, but it is what we're ultimately going for, right?

(Maybe not the two hours thing, that's probably just me.)

[Guest]

I have very little to contribute to this discussion. Most of it's already been said many, many times, but...

Yes. It is the primary and over-reaching responsibility of antagonists to create interesting situations, and display excellent roleplaying skills. To create a unique narrative for the round.

I'll just point out that this raises couple of questions. What is an interesting situation and what are excellent roleplaying skills? I will just subtly point out that a certain players had indulged in what was described as lulzy RP by some. Many people found it annoying and did not like it, yet, the people persisted that they were in the right. Of course, that does not qualify as RP skills, it's just difference in taste. Same players like action, some like talking, some like peaceful antags that joke around.

Now, who defines what's interesting and what goes towards that fabled High RP? Does security retain the right to make that judgement? According to the current standing, it is. If security is not amused, they just look for an excuse to lock you up or shoot you. Not to say I don't do it as well.

[Chaznoodles]

Security also had an obligation to make the round fun. Locking an antag away all round just turns it into extended. Slip up on purpose, take a bribe, do things to get the antagonist back to creating situations for roleplay. You got to give a little to get a little.

[Erik Tiber]

Maybe people should try to like, make the game fun for everyone. Including antags. Since it's a game. Antags ain't hired to do this shit, yo.

And Jackboot, stop making me like your posts. I'm supposed to hate you.

[Guest]

I haven't read any of this thread.

I just popped in to say

Everyone has an obligation to make the round fun and work on others enjoyment. Just like a doctor has an obligation to help a patient. If you are playing the game just for your own fun and ignoring others, something is wrong.

It's mentioned in the rules under antags because on other servers the general view of it is antags can do whatever they want and not get in trouble, this server you will get in trouble if rules are broken.

Everyone has an obligation to make the round fun.

[PigVomit]

Maybe I'm just non-robust and I'm letting all the salt do the talking, and maybe using a wi-fi connection is insufficient to handle the fast pace of 2D spessmen. But when I'm being targeted in the hallway during a pursuit and am put into crit while running away unarmed...there's a play to win attitude happening here. Lethal force should be a last resort. I mean for crying out loud. There's no enjoyment in the hunt when you straight up shoot your prey. That principle goes both ways. Both sec and antags should keep this in mind. Threat assessment and probable cause should be briefed by the HOS at the beginning of a shift. As for antagonists, when in doubt ahelp the question. Admins are more than willing to weigh in.