Nikov Posted March 25, 2016 Author Posted March 25, 2016 Goldtext was asking what the laws might be. Here's a horribly belated reply. 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 and Corporate Regulations. This shoehorns no-one into being a goody two shoes, which is a valid concern.
Shadow Posted March 25, 2016 Posted March 25, 2016 Implant all heads of staff. Bad idea. Why? It would ruin any chance of heads being antags/converted/thralled/etc.
K0NFL1QT Posted March 25, 2016 Posted March 25, 2016 Because these people are chosen specifically by Nanotrasen to run an entire department of their employees, with access to multiple means of causing havoc, death, destruction or simple espionage and corporate losses for Nanotrasen. It makes no IC sense for them not to be implanted. OOCly, it's too easy for antagged heads to do as they please without legal recourse and it forces non-antags to obey antag orders. Should heads still be able to antag? Yes, sure, but it should be difficult and not a round-start default considering the lynchpin they perform in regular operations.
CampinKiller Posted March 26, 2016 Posted March 26, 2016 Would any scientist work at NanoTrasen knowing they'd have to get a chip in their brain to advance? Hell no. I honestly think loyalty implants should be removed, full stop. All they do is stifle roleplay, or invent convenient excuses for the HoS/Captain to do stupid shit in the name of 'I thought it was in the interest of NanoTrasen.'
Nikov Posted March 28, 2016 Author Posted March 28, 2016 Since the majority have voted to define the laws, I'm offering my definition. I think it is sufficiently undefined enough to allow good or bad motives to leak in under the "best interests" clause. It is also good to be able to explicitly trust the Captain, and these laws let him go beyond or even against corporate regs and actual law if he has a compelling reason. Furthermore it legally protects him to make illegal decisions on behalf of the company; responsibility lies upon the company that implanted him. Said company can fire him if he runs up legal bills, so it isn't a blank check. Being selected for the implanted posts, then, is a matter of having sound enough judgement to determine the company's best interest with sound judgement and not go lawful stupid. In theory, anyone passing NT's vigorous screening for such high rank won't get the idea to shove the whole crew into the gibber and make a NT fortune on hot dog sales. I should hope HR catches such people before making them chefs, say nothing of Captains. And while on one hand it does stifle the full range of roleplay, it does allow roleplay with the mechanic in their head, just as the AI has to internally roleplay with its laws. It might not be external, but it is there, and putting laws on a human personality makes those internal conflicts even more interesting. As far as implanting heads, why stop there? Implant everyone. Or, only implant the people with enough power and authority to compromise the entire ship. Consider the rank of Captain in the age of sail. The captain of a warship, say a frigate, in colonial waters was expected to operate completely autonomously from his country for as long as his ship was at sea, with news of European wars and politics not reaching them save months late, if at all. Entire wars were declared, fought, concluded and brought to treaty in the time it took for a Captain to signal to his admiralty that he had opened fire on a foreign ship. By the time a reprimand could reach the captain, he might already have captured every French port in the Caribbean or caused the loss of every ship in the Pacific. The level of trust placed in a ship's Captain was equal to that of an ambassador, if England's ambassador to France had seventy-two cannon in the embassy pointed at Versailles. Now that we are in space light-years from our superiors, a communications black-out leaves a captain in the same basic position. Absolute freedom of action, absolute responsibility for that action, consequences which may engulf the galaxy. Our Captain is regularly visited by alien ambassadors or tempted by foreign powers, with the ability to start interstellar wars or sell the whole station out to slavers. It makes perfect sense that the company would loyalty implant the Captain, and then implant the man who could physically check an error on his judgement, the Hoss, and implant their legal counsel, the IAA. This makes a three-party balance of power. If one of their implants goes haywire, the other two can take notice and take steps to check their actions. Speaking of which, wouldn't it be interesting to have a game mode called Barratry, in which either the Captain or Hoss's implant breaks and their laws compel them to act in their own interests against Nanotrasen's, ignore the chain of command, and disregard space law? Complete trust in the Captain and Hoss creates a metagame understanding they can't be antags, but if they could be antags, we have something interesting and another layer of paranoia. Maybe a low-odds occurrence in Traitor. If the laws are carefully crafted (and I think I've done that), then implants with laws can be more engaging and even freeing than implants without laws.
Nikov Posted October 5, 2016 Author Posted October 5, 2016 I attempted to play a loyalty implanted role and very unfortunate things happened because, surprise surprise, loyalty implants were never reformed. Fortunately I see Garnasus was in favor of change, and I hope he applies new leadership to this initiative. Come to think of it, move this thread to Suggestions. The Heads of Staff board has a history of languishing on consensus.
Garnascus Posted October 8, 2016 Posted October 8, 2016 moving as requested. My opinion on these fucking things hasnt changed in my staff tenure. I hate hate HATE them. I would remove them entirely if i could. Far far too often a captain or a HoS cannot take advantage of an interesting RP scenario because of that chip in his brain telling him not. Sure it should not happen every other round that a HoS is feeding permabrigged people to a changeling but i would love the possibility to be there and the barrier for entry being "really good RP" and not "abduct him to surgery and remove his implant and hope hes chill about it". That being said, its unlikely they will ever be removed. which isnt a bad thing. I would be all for adding LI directives that you can view just like an AI. at the very top and taking priority over all else i would add "serve nanotrasen's interests at all costs". This can be interpreted in many ways. Its clear from that wording that so long as you can justify that what you're doing is for the greater good of nanotrasen then you're alright from an OOC standpoint. The exact directives i dont really have a strong opinion on past that, just so long as it fixes a lot of the issues we have with them now. So many staff arguments have centered around "can a loyalty implanted head do X when Y happens?"
Mofo1995 Posted October 8, 2016 Posted October 8, 2016 I feel like we should remove implants, but keep some of the mechanical effects for certain positions. Let's say you've been an extremely loyal NanoTrasen employee, and after years of hard work and company loyalty, you become an IAA/HoS/Captain. Someone who is a company person. You're likely already all kinds of loyal to NanoTrasen without having to have a chip put in your brain. I would imagine the bar for entry to these positions would necessarily require company loyalty in the first place. Therefore, we could remove the implants, but keep implanted people from spawning in as non-changeling crew antags. Naturally, there would be some enforcement of having to be loyal to the company, but I think it would provide more freedom and options than the loyalty implant while serving as some barrier against blatant abuse of position.
Alberyk Posted October 8, 2016 Posted October 8, 2016 I feel like we should remove implants, but keep some of the mechanical effects for certain positions. Let's say you've been an extremely loyal NanoTrasen employee, and after years of hard work and company loyalty, you become an IAA/HoS/Captain. Someone who is a company person. You're likely already all kinds of loyal to NanoTrasen without having to have a chip put in your brain. I would imagine the bar for entry to these positions would necessarily require company loyalty in the first place. Therefore, we could remove the implants, but keep implanted people from spawning in as non-changeling crew antags. Naturally, there would be some enforcement of having to be loyal to the company, but I think it would provide more freedom and options than the loyalty implant while serving as some barrier against blatant abuse of position. Except that the captain, IAA and hos not being antag, code-wise, is not based on them being implanted or not, but in a blacklist of jobs. So, removal of implant from the game won't mean they will start being antags.
Mofo1995 Posted October 8, 2016 Posted October 8, 2016 Except that the captain, IAA and hos not being antag, code-wise, is not based on them being implanted or not, but in a blacklist of jobs. So, removal of implant from the game won't mean they will start being antags. Oh. Neat.
Nikov Posted October 8, 2016 Author Posted October 8, 2016 Here's a proposed roll-out. 1. Add loyalty implant laws "de-facto". All it takes is an announcement on the forums, or a random CCIA reminder, or IC notes. Start simple and move from there. 2. Get some feedback on the proposed laws. I think they're perfect, I mean, hey, I came up with them and all. But maybe I can make them better still. 3. Make loyalty implants optional on the character setup screen. Let many different players experiment with being LI'd or not in various Head roles and see if it brings about any unexpected consequences to have a Captain not LI'd. Players might keep LI's so they're considered more trustworthy, or get rid of their LI for more freedom. The sec hud reports LIs, correct? Security records can include a loyalty implant or not as well. 4. Decide if loyalty implants need remain, if the lawed implants solve most of the problems, and generally reassess after we've experimented with some new ways of doing things. 5. In the event of an unexpected shitshow persisting for more than a few months, return to the endless and poorly understood shitshow that is play with inexplicable loyalty implants. And... entirely as an aside? When you suspect a character is violating his loyalty implant, try using 'voice in your head' rather than bwoinks and see if that gets some traction. Then inflict some haloss damage if they keep disobeying Nanotrasen God. I'd like to see some more Captains blow their brains out on the bridge to kill the throbbing electric parasite in their heads.
Nikov Posted October 17, 2016 Author Posted October 17, 2016 Following a period of open voting, it is found 13% of the voting playerbase want to keep loyalty implants as they are, while 87% want some change to the status quo and 57% of those seeking change want the implant to be a set of defined laws. This is what some might call a mandate.
Nanako Posted October 18, 2016 Posted October 18, 2016 nikov's ideas pretty much align with how i'd like to see it done too
VileFault Posted October 18, 2016 Posted October 18, 2016 Heyo - that thar be moral ambiguity crestin' tha horizon. "Am I any better than a lawed machine?" "Do I still have free will - did I ever?" "How much of my individuality and autonomy must I sacrifice in the pursuit of power?" I can taste the clumsy pseudophilosophy now, and it is delicious.
Guest Posted October 18, 2016 Posted October 18, 2016 Heyo - that thar be moral ambiguity crestin' tha horizon. "Am I any better than a lawed machine?" "Do I still have free will - did I ever?" "How much of my individuality and autonomy must I sacrifice in the pursuit of power?" I can taste the clumsy pseudophilosophy now, and it is delicious. A loyalty implanted individual would never arrive to those conclusions. The loyalty implant (better known as a mindshield) is designed to suppress ideas, suggestions or vague hints at the idea of subverting against NanoTrasen. The brainwashing is very 1984 in style, to control the "right" and "wrong" kind of thoughts or ideas being processed in a mindshielded brain. Effectively, it sets the bar for logical/moral extremes to exist and be actively manipulated by the implant, and regulates controversial or problematic ideas through a data pipeline into the wet drive. That data is stored for further examination after an implanted fellow's shift is said and done.
Nikov Posted October 18, 2016 Author Posted October 18, 2016 No, an implanted person by these implant laws will arrive at those questions, and be free to pursue them, and be free to hate Nanotrasen. Their actions are regulated, not their thoughts. These laws even allow you to violate orders from Nanotrasen under extreme circumstances.
VileFault Posted October 18, 2016 Posted October 18, 2016 Delta and I had a long conversation about this in Discord. Both ways of thinking about things are plausible alternatives - we would need a statement from the lore people to really confirm it either way. And since, if I recall correctly, Delta is the current curator of our favorite featherless bipeds, I am inclined to go with him here. Think classical conditioning, and behavioral reinforcement.
Nikov Posted October 18, 2016 Author Posted October 18, 2016 No, the problem is that if we put things like conditioning and behavior reinforcement into the brain of characters, then we have the same nightmare enforcing this we ever did. With three rules, we have a clear boundary. That was the point of reforming loyalty implants; a clear boundry, a defined common understanding. Instead, with 'mindshield' and other soft, undefinable terms, we get the same mess of "your character wouldn't think that" mod micromanaging that led us to this problem. I will also point out all of this voting occurred before Delta made any suggestion, their suggestion hasn't been discussed beyond you two, and if you want to make your own suggestion thread, be my guest. But don't hijack this poll and discussion to shoehorn something in at the very tail end of discussion that was not discussed for months.
VileFault Posted October 19, 2016 Posted October 19, 2016 Ah, sorry for hijacking your poll to discuss one of the options on that same poll? Such hostility. I just made a vaguely amusing anticipatory comment, and Delta effectively said that the loyalty implants do not (and presumably will not) work in the same way as synthetic laws. If that doesn't sit right with you, fine. Take it up with Delta. I would point out, though, that a 52% "mandate" is of limited usefulness if you don't convince the lore people. I really have a very limited amount of interest in this particular spat. I just thought the laws would lead to some clumsy conversations, which could well be fun.
Nikov Posted October 19, 2016 Author Posted October 19, 2016 Yeah, five-tenths of the voters want laws, and the four-tenths want loyalty implants removed or entirely un-policed by moderators. Neither of which jive with reinforcing the status quo. I've moved this to suggestions because it is now a proposal based on the discussion we had for half a year. You're late.
Recommended Posts