Loyalty Implants

[Nikov]

I want to get a conversation going about this, but will refrain from any specifics in this post for the sake of a "scientific" poll. I have seen some talk, however, and would like to see where whitelisted players fall.

Edited January 30, 2016 by Guest

[Jboy2000000]

First things first. Since when could normies make polls?

Second things now. I like implants how they are. We need something to keep people in check. I really don't know how I feel about the the 'lawed' implants people seem to want. It's basically "don't do something stupid and make the company look bad" which is something captain's/HoS'/IA's should already know to do. Why even have them if thats what you want to turn them into? Thats just in normal play. I /REALLY/ don't like the prospect of not being able to not de-antag people.

[Nikov]

So they exist to de-antag people? Is that all?

[Jboy2000000]

They exist to keep the station's rulers/most important people in line and in check. So stuff like that thing that happened with Hive and Farcry don't happen. Hopefully.

[Owen]

The thing is, characters that are in roles where they are implanted and have the capacity to bring harm to the Nanotrasen should know right from wrong without the needing of a forced implant that pulls them to do one thing over another. I would think that Nanotrasen would trust their staff, especially a Captain that has been through extensive training and knows what they should be doing, to not go and do shit that would fuck up their name. I just don't feel they would be necessary honestly.

[Guest]

I believe that the implants are not inherently necessary; they do grant leeway however in certain situations. If a Captain has to make a tough decision that results in somebody dying for the sake of the crew, then him allowing that person to die was the implant influencing him to make a decision that would benefit NanoTrasen over that now dead persons life, without the implant a lot of my Captain characters would not be so fervently protective; they'd surrender to armed terrorists more often and would be less likely to make the split-second decisions that Captain's and Heads of Security sometimes have to make because they have no logical reason to make those decisions anymore.

I do support removal of the implant from the HoS, and perhaps the Captain; but I would like to see it stay in Internal Affairs.

[Owen]

In response to Xander, it shouldn't change characters THAT drastically as the Captain and Head of Security should be constantly doing their best to keep Corporate interests in mind and working to do their best for the company. I can see where the issue may come in during a nuclear round buuuuut. If you could make the argument that it is in Nanotrasen's best interests if you surrender as it keeps the NSS Aurora still in working condition and costs less than the entire crew dying and the station destroyed.

I am too, against loyalty implants for the Captain and Head of Security. The more I think, Internal Affairs probably should have it because as far as I know, they do not go through as much training as the Heads of Staff do and they have access to quite a bit of sensitive information along with a direct line to Central Command. At this time, I think Internal Affairs should be loyalty implanted of some sort.

[Nikov]

To me it seems the loyalty implant only exists to ramrod behaviors and provide a reason for OOC punishments. It concerns me that the implant's influence is not clear, that its only directive is nebulous, and that enormous amounts of interpretation exist. A captain might feel his loyalty implant would drive him to violate space law, but a moderator could punish him because they interpret it differently. It seems needless. Furthermore, we have the whitelist and plenty of IC meta-mechanisms to straighten out rogue heads of staff.

In a perfect world, a loyalty implant would only exist for code Delta, ERT, and de-antag emergencies, possibly as an IA guardrail. Less implants mean more high-ranking persons could be compromised, bent, bribed, or pursuaded. More flexibility mean more roleplay. As it stands, we can't argue the Captain to disobey Central Command orders to commit some criminal act, or otherwise persuade him to act against Nanotrasen. The Captain and the HoS both have their character's hands tied.

I had speculated on defined laws. While I'd prefer the implant removed, here's more food for thought.

1. Serve the best interest of Nanotrasen.

2. If the best interest of Nanotrasen is unclear, serve the Chain of Command.

3. In the absence of higher directives, obey Space Law.

If you think those laws are flawed, open to personal interpretation, or contain loopholes; you're right. Remarkably, defining the loyalty implant can free characters to broader action as you learn where the guardrails actually are.

Ultimately, though... what are they for? There aren't brainwashing microchips in the nuclear missile silo operators. Why should the Captain of this space station, someone groomed for the job for twenty years, need a loyalty implant? Its kind of insulting and degrading for a commanding officer to get something you'd otherwise reserve for a convicted felon.

[Guest]

Generally mixed. On one hand, it's the excuse shitters use in an attempt to get out of additional discipline or to nitpick decisions the head of security/captain will make. I mean, if you want mercy, why not just ask for it instead of being a sarcastic diphead?

On the other hand, I've been able to use it in a way that created certain amounts of strife, caution and paranoia amongst non-implanted company. I've created interesting roleplay with it, so I'm not really sure if right now I'd be onboard with a change.

[Garnascus]

I fucking hate these stupid things. Mostly for OOC reasons though. Lots of arguments have been had between staff on punishing someone implanted and then we have to have a thing "why would An implanted person do this" and then they say "no he would because raisins".

It happens in complaints too, people use the implant to justify their said. Said implanted person counters and says "Haha I was following it the whole time". They are nebulous, annoying, and I hate em

[FinalVerdict3]

Personally I like how it is setup as of now. As others have said i serves to prevent the Heads becoming Antag. I believe the implant also cuts down the amount of people who try to go corrupt because 'trainin day mofokua!'. But thats the mechanic.

I feel like it could be alot less ambigeous and more specific otherwise you will have a certain situation you cant handle because of unwritten ambigeous rules of the implant. Thats my only gripe: rules concerning how strong it is.

For example; I might think executing a prisoner who had killed two security officers and canniblised the Research Director is a good idea, because they are fucking crazy. And they would make NT look bad when press gets ahold of such information. And to eliminate immediate or more damage, put them down and leave them buried. And yet I have a nagging feeling saying if I were to do this, I'll get poked, told off by Mods, end up with a butthurt shitter and I'll be confused.

Thats my view on this. A set of examplew to follow by or rules of how strong and what the loyalty implant does. We can even add a Fallout theme to it, like a training scenario on a TV with film or something. Heh

[SierraKomodo]

I honestly can't vote on this because, currently, staff have yet to come to a consistant consensus on what exactly a loyalty implant does ICly and OOCly

[Garnascus]

I honestly can't vote on this because, currently, staff have yet to come to a consistant consensus on what exactly a loyalty implant does ICly and OOCly

 

This 100x. I really think we need SOME sort of directive list. Mostly along the .ones of what jackboot has suggested.

[Xelnagahunter]

While I agree that causing dissent amongst the staff is an issue for an item like this, I can't help but love what an implant is designed to do. It prevents high powered ranks from being an antag as a number one. Imagine. Traitor McCaptain is traitor. "Whelp. I guess I go to the armory and clear it out before sec can stop me." Secondly it generates a required thought that what you are doing is best for the company. Modern history has seen ship captains bribed and gone rogue. It stands to reason that a captain here would be able to be rogue (and it's probably happened in the past). This is perfect reason for the implant to exist. Can we give it directives for less wiggle room? Sure, but then we cut away bits of potential RP.

[Garnascus]

Yeah, i definitely think they are better than not having em. I think its an overall positive that you can always count on the HoS and the captain to not be traitor/whatever. I just wish they where less frustrating to moderate.

[Guest]

Personally, I feel the implant has served me more than it has hindered me. Infact I don't think I've ever had an issue with the implant.

- For starters it means we don't have General El Hitler Captonia Juan Bob Maximus III. Because I don't want to see a captain (or HoS) like that and I'm sure none of you (seriously) want to either. The point of an implant is in its name. Loyalty. I don't think of it as much else because then you have all this discussion. Penus Maximus says, "So I have to be loyal to NT. Which means I have to follow all their rules and regulations as best I can. Which means I should know what I am doing. Which means if I'm confused, I contact Central (or staff in moment of action)". To me that's pretty simple to follow. Just follow the rules and be a good little pompadour.

- Does it serve for rp? YES. It might be a bit difficult to rp with if you don't have a grasp of loyalty implanted roles. Many a time my character/s has/have internal thought conflict because of the implant. I show this to others by making my character have pain in their head. This shows that the implant is working and making me not want to do as I originally intended. Because it was probably breaking a reg or not good for NT. It has done some wonders. Created quality rp and made people, in those rounds, realise that there's more to a HoS than banging their subordinates or the CMO. People start to react when I rp clearly that the implant is doing its thing. It works beautifully in rev rounds too. Make it have conflict with your character. Seriously. It's fun.

- Dragons and shit.

- Admin/Mod problems? Nope. Never. Not heard of it. It's simple. Ahelp and see what reply you get. Interoperate that reply as the implant saying yes or no to what you're about to do. Go from there

- Can't antag? The point of the implant is you can't antag. It provides a challenge to those who want to subvert you. This relates to the previous point of rp. BOY have I seen some good antag vs implant rp. Do you want to know something? The implant isn't perfect. You can loophole it with some clever word work. Make the implanted believe they're not breaking the regs or being disloyal to NT and done. The great thing about this is the following: SyndiKate says, "Insert stuff about doing indirectly bad things but being loyal here." SecYourTie says, "I'll be convinced in 2 years, but sure!." SecYourTie does things SyndiKate says. SyndiKate laughs as SecYourTie has an Abyss of internal conflict as the implant kicks in after action and punishes SecYourTie.

TL;DR: Don't change the implant. Change yourself.

[Guest]

I honestly can't vote on this because, currently, staff have yet to come to a consistant consensus on what exactly a loyalty implant does ICly and OOCly

Sorta same. Mixed feelings. But I'll honestly say, staff are being fucking lazy at this point. It's not even the implant itself that causes arguments and complaining, it's the consistent ambiguety that they have. Staff should either make up their fucking mind or leave the decision to the general consensus of players.

As for my personal experience, the implants help. They automatically give me as HoS and Captain a sense of trustworthiness, a assurance that I will keep the best interest of the station in mind. It's how I view it. What my character does, or how, is not a concern of the implant, as long as it isn't clearly illegal or self-serving to full extent.

Sadly, many a HoS and Captain have their MO questioned through the lense of the LI. As such, this arbitrary tool for keeping order at those two roles has caused much argument, more often bad than good.

And no, for fucks sake. Once and for all, this thing doesn't turn you into a robot or install several hundred regulation textbooks into your head. It just makes you loyal. You can still fuck up and get away with it.

[Nikov]

So far I see 11/15 as "mixed" or worse, suggesting there are problems to address. I also see 10/15 saying they're somewhat good, suggesting outright removal isn't the solution to those problems. I agree, being able to trust the HoS or Captain is great; is the rest of the implant's effects needed for this? It seems to be like painting the room in blood because you like the color red; there are other ways to get that result. I am against the implants as they are, however, and would like them gone.

Barring that, I do want to see their effect clearly defined. A rule or two in the IC Notes window would be a good method in my own view. The scenario Garnasus describes where actions are weighed against an unwritten and undefined rule in which a player's reputation hangs in the balance of which staff member makes the most persuasive argument in a fact-free setting? That's really my nightmare with these implants not having a clear, simple explanation of their effect. "It makes you do the best thing for Nanotrasen" is a horribly subjective statement. Say your character was convinced to do something Central disagreed with. Who's the authority on Nanotrasen's best interest? Your own loyalty-implanted head, or that two-bit schlub with a fax machine on the Odin? Can you do what appears to not be in Nanotrasen's best interest, because Nanotrasen told you what it wanted? I mean, I serve my wife's best interest, but that doesn't mean everything she tells me to do is a good idea.

[Guest]

If Central told you to do something, you'd do that thing. If Central is telling you to do something then your loyalty implant will click and tell you to follow that order, probably because it might be in the best interest of NT, since you know, central is your superiors. Wether the action is good or bad by morale standards isn't what the implant is there for. If killing the crew is in the best interest of NT and you've been ordered to do it, then you do it. It's why I said you should try and make your characters in such a way that they have internal thought conflict. It's not something you really need to contact staff about either if you've been given orders to do so, because it's generally staff who do centcomm announces.

Since so many people have issues with the implants, there just needs to be a simple rule set in regards to how you should act with an implant. Nothing that's a law set to make you a robot, but nothing that's a hole in the fence level open to interpretation.

Again the implant itself isn't the problem. It's how people are interpreting it. There's no need to remove the implant.

[Nikov]

1. Serve the best interest of Nanotrasen.

2. If the best interest of Nanotrasen is unclear, serve the Chain of Command.

3. In the absence of higher directives, obey Space Law.

"Serve" being a deliberately chosen word in contrast to obey, Nanotrasen's interest and your interpretation of it being prioritized above Space Law. If one cannot determine NT's best interest, law 2 prompts seeking the input of higher authority (CentComm, Captain). Then by default, unless Nanotrasen's percieved interest or Command's orders direct otherwise, obey Space Law (serving Nanotrasen's interest by preventing criminal acts by high officials). However, Nanotrasen makes clear their interests are above the law and their orders may violate the law, which is exactly the sort of dystopian corruption Nanotrasen embodies.

I think this strike a good balance between individual initative and obedience to higher authority. It isn't iron-clad like Asimov's laws of robotics, and leaves free will and the character's judgement. Do the others who find problems with the implant agree?

[Guest]

Just remember one thing. Corporate Regulations are the Regulations NanoTrasen has set on its station. They're a guideline for you to follow. That I'm sure you all know. Now the main point I want to say is; Since NanoTrasen made these regulations, by all means they can order you to break them. (at least I hope they can otherwise I just look dumb now, HEU)

Example: A well known pirate/prisoner/dfgkjhwsrjigtn is on the run and has been located in Aurora's sector of space. Said person has a bounty on their head, is wanted by local authorities (Not NT) and was supposed to play a role in Magic Mike XXIV. Said person also has a set of snowflakey skills. Let's say they can turn into an anti-nar'sie and can literally excrete money. Now NT has an interest in this person and wants to exploit their skills for their own benefit.

Does NT have allies? Yes. Do they tell EVERYTHING to their allies? Probably not because their a corrupt mega-corporation. "But Pump! NT would never do anything against their all-" No. Shush. Just sit down right now.

Now Corporate Regulations would obviously not allow you to have this person on board. That makes sense, right? Right. But then Central messages the heads of staff (obviously not the crew) to capture this person and bring them for NT's use. Huh? But Corp Regs say this person's bad... and that's where the loyalty implant comes in. Since corp regs are a guideline for you to follow, the loyalty implant isn't going to internally print out a list of reasons you should arrest this person. It's going to push you to do what Central ordered, which is to capture this majestic unicorn. Or it's going to keep pushing you until you literally die from a life long migraine. You get the idea.

Whilst your character can question Central's orders, the loyalty implant wont allow you to take action against Central's orders. In terms of the other heads of staff, Central can deal with them. For those who have not broken the bubble of "What is the real world?" In a world of corruption, the one with the money talks and NT certainly has money.

TL;DR: The Implant is a very effective tool of persuasion and possibly manipulation. Makes sense since it cuts out external persuading factors like cult and rev.

[Nikov]

Pumpkin, I hate to do this, but citation needed. You can say all that with certainty, but what makes you think the loyalty implant would direct anyone to do anything under any circumstances, since it is literally a black-box into which a moderator pours their interpretation of its decision? It is like having a calculator you put an input into, press enter, and someone next to you tells you what the answer is based on what they think the button does. You can tell me entering 42 gets me 6, but when you come in after I wrote down my guess of eight and you say its six, we are going to invariably argue. What would court be like if the judge heard the case, looked at the invisible laws written in invisible ink on his magic stone tablet, and then told you the judgement?

[SierraKomodo]

Pumpkin, I hate to do this, but citation needed. You can say all that with certainty, but what makes you think the loyalty implant would direct anyone to do anything under any circumstances, since it is literally a black-box into which a moderator pours their interpretation of its decision? It is like having a calculator you put an input into, press enter, and someone next to you tells you what the answer is based on what they think the button does. You can tell me entering 42 gets me 6, but when you come in after I wrote down my guess of eight and you say its six, we are going to invariably argue. What would court be like if the judge heard the case, looked at the invisible laws written in invisible ink on his magic stone tablet, and then told you the judgement?

 

That's the thing. Nothing's really set in stone. It's all about how the implanted player interprets it, and what the currently active modmins decide is bad for an aimplanted person to do.

[Guest]

Well if it's a case of Staff need to come to an agreement for Loyalty implants... then let's make them do some shit? I'll see if I can poke skull enough to ban me but also pay attention to this thread.

[Skull132]

Oh. This is where this topic was hidden.

I have three proposals:

• Remove loyalty implants from HoS/Captain. Maybe IAA, though that's less critical. And keep them around the armoury and as tools for wouldbe people to use them. Aaaas simple as that. If you really need an excuse to not have your immersihuns broken due to Captain and HoS not being allowed as traitor or certain other antags, then just wave it with the fact that NT would actually keep an eye on their higher ranking command staff.
• Keep loyalty implants in heads of staff, but have admins and mods cease enforcing loyalty implant standards beyond instances where the head of staff's actions are very clearly against the interests of NT. The thing is, 90% of the cases I've seen about player started LI bickering and staff involvement fall back to the argument of, "It's not in NT's interests because it's bad PR!" Ugh, fuck that excuse. (Hint: NT doesn't give a shit about PR unless it's actually like, a massive issue. And a few people dead really isn't. Reference today's world for citation.) So we'd literally only shitslap people if they like, steal from NT, break NT's shit, kill people for no reason, etcetera. If it's questionable, we'd let it roll. This would result in certain players getting antsy in their pantsy because they think everyone must adhere to laws and shit, while completely missing the actual point of a roleplay game. But we can suffer through them.
  
• ....Is it bad that I forgot the third one while folding paper at work? I guess it's the directives one that was already outlined above. Just, not a fan of it, as it would still result ruleslawyering, and wouldn't really solve anything.

 

Onions?