REVAMPED: Loyalty Implant Directives

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

Bringing this back.

We really need to cut through the vagueness of loyalty implants, if we aren't going to remove them. I'm utilizing my power as Loremaster to create a guideline on what the loyalty implant does, and what it makes you do/unable to do. I did this in the last suggestion, but it was just dropped by the head developer at the time when I was discussing implementation with him, so I'm bringing it back as a suggestion.

 

---

---

This is a standard Nantrasen issued loyalty implant. It is physically impossible to violate implant directives. Attempting to bypass the directives through any malicious means, indirectly or directly, may cause: twitching, nosebleeds, seizures, and or chronic nightmares. The implant does not cover situations where the implanted takes action with insufficient evidence. However, upon being given information that shows a violation has occurred, they are to immediately inform relevant station or Central Command authorities.

The directives would get a tab either in IC, or with a new tab, with "View directives" as a button where it would spell out the following, similar to AI law-set.

Implant Directives:

The following directives exist in order of priority. Higher priority directives override lower order directives when a conflict occurs.

1) Protect and ensure the profitability of Nanotrasen.

2) Always tell the truth to superiors and Nanotrasen officials.

3) Protect and ensure the confidentiality of Nanotrasen's corporate secrets.

4) Protect the public face and good name of Nanotrasen.

5) Protect the physical assets owned by Nanotrasen.

6) Follow the corporate chain of command.

7) Follow corporate regulations.

---

---

This will let complaints of problems with actions by loyalty implanted individuals be evaluated by how they followed specific directives, because currently there are literally no guidelines, only vague expectations that are interpreted differently between players and even admins.

So in certain situations, if the morality or legality gets really complex, LI'd individuals can simply ask themselves, "what would better protect corporate profits, our company secrets, assets, and public relations?"

[Skull132]

2) Always tell the truth to superiors and Nanotrasen officials.

6) Follow the corporate chain of command.

7) Follow corporate regulations.

 

These 3 would be too restrictive, and would effectively null the entire premise of LIs being fuckable. Not really up for a longer explanation right now, I'm afraid, as I'm exhausted.

[JKJudgeX]

I think of them as something that triggers only when the person considers doing something blatantly anti-NT, like killing a coworker or blowing up equipment... not something that gets involved with the regulations and everything... then you'll have people having arguments like "you couldn't have disabled the camera in that room because your loyalty implant wouldn't allow you, and your suspicion that the A.I. was evil isn't enough to validate your action of breaking your loyalty implant's 7th rule, since disabling that camera is vandalism"... etc etc etc.

Really, I'd like to see them relegated to their original purpose, which was to prevent/undo the effects of revolutionary conversion... and left purely for that purpose. Not as a general "I'm impossible to make into an antagonist"... but very specifically and carefully, logically chosen protections against one (revs) or two (maybe cult) types of conversion... especially since they are given for free at the beginning to some roles.

If you have to specifically implant them, and there are only one or two on board unless you order more, then I'd be okay with them coming along with borg-like directives... but as it stands, I'd like to see these relied upon far less than they are... their total removal except for in revolution rounds would be fine, too.

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

2) Always tell the truth to superiors and Nanotrasen officials.

6) Follow the corporate chain of command.

7) Follow corporate regulations.

 

These 3 would be too restrictive, and would effectively null the entire premise of LIs being fuckable. Not really up for a longer explanation right now, I'm afraid, as I'm exhausted.

 

1) Protect and ensure the profitability of Nanotrasen.

2) Protect and ensure the confidentiality of Nanotrasen's corporate secrets.

3) Protect the public face and good name of Nanotrasen.

4) Protect the physical assets owned by Nanotrasen.

How's a shorter list?

[Garnascus]

I cannot agree more with a list of directives. Currently its incredibly frustrating to draw arbitrary guidelines one what they actually do when complaints and ahelps come through.

1) Protect and ensure the profitability of Nanotrasen.

2) Protect and ensure the confidentiality of Nanotrasen's corporate secrets.

3) Protect the public face and good name of Nanotrasen.

4) Protect the physical assets owned by Nanotrasen.

I think this is a good set of directives here, personally id ere more on the original restrictive set but i can understand how making them TOO restrictive would just make it frustrating to play as a LIed person.

[Owen]

1) Protect and ensure the profitability of Nanotrasen.

2) Protect and ensure the confidentiality of Nanotrasen's corporate secrets.

3) Protect the public face and good name of Nanotrasen.

4) Protect the physical assets owned by NanotraseN

 

As a player of LI characters, I would be fine with having the 7 directives, as most of them seem reasonable since you are a trusted member of Nanotrasen. But, the four directives are also fine. Really, anything would be better than the no directives in my opinion.

[Skull132]

The thing with the 7 directives originally proposed is, it does not allow for good roleplay. Like, here's the cool shit you can do with a loyalty implant: the implant works on the image of NT that the wearer has. Ergo, no 2 LI-d people are going to act the same. If the person has a very jaded image of NT, then he's going to act very jaded and cold, for example. He may even ignore regulation and station directives, placing himself above those, as NT places itself above the law (which it does). He's still loyal to the corporation, but he puts his loyalty first and foremost, if you can see my point?

There's also the matter of hijacking a LI-d person. Through a great deal of RP, you can convince someone that acts of terrorism against NT are doing a service to NT, for example. And I think that's a great thing to be able to do! However, by simply locking everyone to follow corporate regulations, that opportunity would vanish :l

[Guest]

The thing with the 7 directives originally proposed is, it does not allow for good roleplay. Like, here's the cool shit you can do with a loyalty implant: the implant works on the image of NT that the wearer has. Ergo, no 2 LI-d people are going to act the same. If the person has a very jaded image of NT, then he's going to act very jaded and cold, for example. He may even ignore regulation and station directives, placing himself above those, as NT places itself above the law (which it does). He's still loyal to the corporation, but he puts his loyalty first and foremost, if you can see my point?

There's also the matter of hijacking a LI-d person. Through a great deal of RP, you can convince someone that acts of terrorism against NT are doing a service to NT, for example. And I think that's a great thing to be able to do! However, by simply locking everyone to follow corporate regulations, that opportunity would vanish :l

 

Why not something like:

"Abide by Corporate Regulations, Station Directives and the Chain of Command, except where doing such may damage the view of NanoTrasen, or the profitability of NanoTrasen's operations."

[Owen]

Yes, what Xander has said it probably the best. It is simple but clarifies it more. It has my approval.

[Zundy]

The thing with the 7 directives originally proposed is, it does not allow for good roleplay. Like, here's the cool shit you can do with a loyalty implant: the implant works on the image of NT that the wearer has. Ergo, no 2 LI-d people are going to act the same. If the person has a very jaded image of NT, then he's going to act very jaded and cold, for example. He may even ignore regulation and station directives, placing himself above those, as NT places itself above the law (which it does). He's still loyal to the corporation, but he puts his loyalty first and foremost, if you can see my point?

There's also the matter of hijacking a LI-d person. Through a great deal of RP, you can convince someone that acts of terrorism against NT are doing a service to NT, for example. And I think that's a great thing to be able to do! However, by simply locking everyone to follow corporate regulations, that opportunity would vanish :l

 

Why not something like:

"Abide by Corporate Regulations, Station Directives and the Chain of Command, except where doing such may damage the view of NanoTrasen, or the profitability of NanoTrasen's operations."

 

Replace 'view' with 'public perception' and we're gold bars baby.

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

The thing with the 7 directives originally proposed is, it does not allow for good roleplay. Like, here's the cool shit you can do with a loyalty implant: the implant works on the image of NT that the wearer has. Ergo, no 2 LI-d people are going to act the same. If the person has a very jaded image of NT, then he's going to act very jaded and cold, for example. He may even ignore regulation and station directives, placing himself above those, as NT places itself above the law (which it does). He's still loyal to the corporation, but he puts his loyalty first and foremost, if you can see my point?

There's also the matter of hijacking a LI-d person. Through a great deal of RP, you can convince someone that acts of terrorism against NT are doing a service to NT, for example. And I think that's a great thing to be able to do! However, by simply locking everyone to follow corporate regulations, that opportunity would vanish :l

 

The most overriding directive in implants would be the profit of the corporation. In both sets, 7 and 4, this overrides all others. Players can still break regulations when loyalty implanted but this provides the expectation that they need a darn good reason to.. The directives are still allowed to be interpreted and even broken as long as the implanted individual sincerely believes that what they're doing is for the greater good.

Having vague "it's different for everyone" is still possible but we also need a standard, baseline expectation for implanted players that isn't interpreted differently depending on what admin is online at the time. "You can't execute criminals under any circumstances." and "you can execute dangerous criminals if you can't detain them." are two specific admin statements I've seen directly. This by itself is juggled in acceptability every other round when new admins rotate in.

[Skull132]

I agree that we need a baseline, but even without the directives I noted, the baseline is established clearly enough. In my opinion, that is. (No directive to follow space law, ergo, not bound to follow space law.)

[Owen]

"Abide by Corporate Regulations, Station Directives and the Chain of Command, except where doing such may damage the public perception of NanoTrasen, or the profitability of NanoTrasen's operations."

 

What about this one? I think it still leaves it mostly up to interpretation.

[Guest Menown]

"Abide by Corporate Regulations, Station Directives and the Chain of Command, except where doing such may damage the public perception of NanoTrasen, or the profitability of NanoTrasen's operations."

 

What about this one? I think it still leaves it mostly up to interpretation.

 

>Group of people want to slander NT's image

>IAA dons security armor, raids the armory and murders them

>"B-b-but my Implant said it's coo'."

[Carver]

It makes less sense to me that these implants are put into the Commanding Officers, who should know better, instead of the people under said Commanding Officers such as the Security Guards. Infact the entire idea of the mind control/law computer chip suggested here seems pretty horrid and limiting of a thing to put in the Station's finest (The Captain/HoS, that is), who should already be briefed and trained in how to handle sensitive events, information, etcetera.

Overall I would say it would just make more sense if it was cut down and simplified to just be a plain 'Anti-Mind Control/Anti-Psychic Suggestions' Implant, and to make it sound sensible by giving traitors some sort of silly stealth item or implanter that acts as the whole reason for the existence of the implant.

Let me quote an old post from an old thread that sums up what I think of the implants as is and this current suggestion, thread link'll be below it.

I'd particularly like to have the option of 'Implant the antag, all the antags get outed cause lol loyalty implant is truth serum, permabrigged, and the rounds now extended' to be removed from the game.

http://aurorastation.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3090&p=30680#p30650

[Owen]

It makes less sense to me that these implants are put into the Commanding Officers, who should know better, instead of the people under said Commanding Officers such as the Security Guards. Infact the entire idea of the mind control/law computer chip suggested here seems pretty horrid and limiting of a thing to put in the Station's finest (The Captain/HoS, that is), who should already be briefed and trained in how to handle sensitive events, information, etcetera.

Overall I would say it would just make more sense if it was cut down and simplified to just be a plain 'Anti-Mind Control/Anti-Psychic Suggestions' Implant, and to make it sound sensible by giving traitors some sort of silly stealth item or implanter that acts as the whole reason for the existence of the implant.

Let me quote an old post from an old thread that sums up what I think of the implants as is and this current suggestion, thread link'll be below it.

I'd particularly like to have the option of 'Implant the antag, all the antags get outed cause lol loyalty implant is truth serum, permabrigged, and the rounds now extended' to be removed from the game.

http://aurorastation.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3090&p=30680#p30650

 

Yeah but, the counter to that is that the higher ranking officials have access to more secure information that would hurt quite a lot more if it got out or it they did something against Nanotrasen. But, I do get your point.

[Frances]

Who said we can't remove implants, though?

Name one thing good thing they do accomplish.

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

Who said we can't remove implants, though?

Name one thing good thing they do accomplish.

 

This suggestion isn't about removing them, it's about clarifying their porpoise and giving LI'd individuals a baseline expectation so we can put an end to the cherry-picking of the vague directives that don't actually exist.

[Frances]

They don't serve any purpose, though.

Like I get that Scopes added a "don't remove things" guideline because most features serve a purpose and it's better to fix kinks by improving than removing. But in this case, the improvement (of head roleplay) would be brought by the removal of the implants, because we don't gain anything by using them and being bent on keeping them in the code is just silly (has anyone argued for keeping them in, even? Nobody was against their removal in past suggestions

They're basically an obsolete remnant of the rev gamemode. Even Bay removed them. Their only purpose (to keep heads in line) is already accomplished by rules and our head whitelist. They stifle roleplay, while adding unnecessary complexity to the roles in a way that is unenjoyable. Players should be able to make their own decisions; if they want to play merciless heads that will make unpopular decisions to protect NT's interests, they don't need loyalty implants as an excuse to do so. The suggestions brought here don't answer a problem (other than the problem of loyalty implants being useless), they only serve to restrict head RP in an unnecessary fashion.

I'd like to see Skull give his thoughts on this.

[Lady_of_Ravens]

Actually, they do serve one purpose: they guarantee the loyalty of the people they're implanted in. That can be significant when there's evidence of a traitor on the station, but you don't know who it is.

I'm not sure if that's worth having them around, but it is something they do.

[Frances]

Actually, they do serve one purpose: they guarantee the loyalty of the people they're implanted in. That can be significant when there's evidence of a traitor on the station, but you don't know who it is.

I'm not sure if that's worth having them around, but it is something they do.

That's not something I had considered, actually. I'm not sure if that's good, really. The HoS and captain are roles people tend to naturally trust as long as their players show relative competence. I think it's a good dynamic to force heads have to inspire confidence rather than have it be given to them through magical plot devices.

Like, people getting suspicious of the HoS or captain sounds like fun. Captain or HoS having to work to earn the trust of their crew sounds like fun too. The implant wouldn't accomplish much, because most players disregard it when deciding whether to trust you or not (they'll just look at whether you're doing a crappy job or acting suspect, and will question whether your implant has been disabled or malfunctioned somehow.)

[Zundy]

I think it should still be in but solely as a device to prevent mind control. That's it.

[Lady_of_Ravens]

So, would we want to have actual traitor heads of security and captains, too? That seems like something which should be very rare, but could be interesting.

On the other hand, implanting mind control devices in it's employees is a very NT thing to do.

[Frances]

We don't need to have antag captains/HoSes, though I guess we could if there was any interest (could be about doing stuff like running the station badly, since they're unlikely to encounter much opposition doing "traditional" antagging. I sorta like the idea.

Last time the removal of loyalty implants was discussed, these ideas were brought up:

-HoS, Captain and IAA could still be antag-restricted via code

-Loyalty implants could be kept in the armory to give more RP opportunities with captured antags

I didn't realize this discussion was going to get complicated, so perhaps we should make another thread for it so people can still discuss Jackboot's idea here.

[Lady_of_Ravens]

An antag captain could make for an actual not-code-driven mutiny, which might be interesting. But, regardless, if loyalty implants are removed then perhaps a general mind control implant could be used in place of the loyalty implants for sticking in antags and miscreants. Perhaps with one directive which has to be set before implanting.

A new thread might be useful...