[Policy] Punish Antags That Turn Themselves In For No Reason [Existing Policy - Binned]

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

I've become increasingly frustrated with antagonists that surrender themselves to medical/security/science before the 1 hour mark and confess to being an antagonist. Yesterday a vampire waltzed into medical and confessed to being a vampire before intentionally failing to drain a single doctor in a tinted locked examination room, resulting in them being restrained and locked away in isolation by security to never be seen again. I've also seen changelings turn themselves in to xenobiology.

It's worse than a peaceful antagonist because you took an antagonist role that someone else wanted and just wasted it for no good reason. At least a peaceful antagonist can wander around the station and do magic tricks or whatever.

An antagonist doesn't have to arbitrarily force EVERYONE on the station into their roleplay but it is VERY poor sportsmanship to just get locked away somewhere and only interact with a handful of people.

It is the same thing as raiders and mercenaries refusing to leave their starting base and just roleplaying in their respective HQ's, or boarding the station and immediately surrendering and walking into the brig cells to sit for the rest of the round. We shouldn't allow that, and we shouldn't allow people to do it with other roles, especially roles as coveted as vampire.

[Pacmandevil]

At least a peaceful antagonist can wander around the station and do magic tricks or whatever.

 

which is barely RP as is, at least in my opinion, and this is something mixed game-modes has helped a lot with.

But yes, I agree 100% on this, at the minimum like a day long antag ban? It's not something that's easy to do on accident.

[Snakebittenn]

genuinely can we just ban peace antags entirely

[CommanderXor]

I think it should be a thing, but, be realistic. It should depend on the situation. A entire security team decked out in heavy gear with rifles, along with ERT and mech support against like a lone wizard or traitor who is wounded? Should be able to surrender, might be if the odds are very much not in their favour, or they require medical aid like surgery or such. Not just willy nilly because they wanted to. Or, if it helps keep their cover. Cult surrendering so they can help people in communal, or a traitor taking a few minutes in the brig for contraband over a pistol instead of rushing off and opening fire and getting HuT'd.

[Zundy]

They can surrender if it's conducive to roleplaying with as many players as possible in my opinion.

If it's just to get out of the round or ruins roleplay then yeah.

Rambling aside I agree. Surrender should be something done as the last resort really.

[Scheveningen]

Jackboot neglected to mention the fact that the vampire in that round was initially locked into virology for the study of the disease they had. Said vampire dominated a doctor to attack another while they had hypnotized an officer to drain their blood from. The security team then had to blast Benny Hill for the duration of 30 minutes as they hunted down the vampire. It was only after they assaulted a head of staff and failed to sway someone with an implant that they were finally locked in isolation.

Barely constitutes as a peaceful antag. That vampire was anything but peaceful. They caused a lot of drama in that round that was particularly interesting but security still had to do their jobs in locking them up. So, not a good example of why we should apparently antagban people that roleplay anything resembling a non-violent antagonist.

You're not obligated interaction by the round antagonist.

[NoahKirchner]

On one hand, yes this is annoying.

On the other hand, I feel like tightening the reigns on antags is a step in the wrong direction. Every now and then, especially with mixed secret, one good antag fighting one bad one is alright. Occasional lings in xenobiology isn't bad, one of my favorite rounds had me talking to a psychologist about my new (mid round) ling shit and that ended (after some ramping up in mischief) in me stealing the HoS's garb in an attempt to escape alive. This would make anything like that impossible, and it'd be really sad to see a large number of gimmicks or possibilities be thrown out the window because a few antags did something minorly annoying.

Peaceful antags, also yes a bit annoying (especially because it seems to be all that's happened these past few days), but a reactionary set of rules to counter a rather recent problem, again, only serves to limit future possibilities. While antagonism and not-surrendering should be encouraged, making it required is something that I stand rather heavily against, and I say this as someone who only plays exclusively bad-antagonists (At least thus far) and who thinks that rounds where all of the antags are friendly are boring as hell.

[Butterrobber202]

genuinely can we just ban peace antags entirely

[Arrow768]

As pointed out, you are not obliged to be entertained by the antags / get to kill the antags on the station.

If someone thinks that it helps their roleplay to surrender themselfs to security / medical / science then let them.

I believe if someone has rolled antag, they should be given the chance to tell a story how they want to tell it.

If they want to play peace antag, then let them.

If they want to go nuts, raid the vault and battle security, they can do so aswell.

I dont really mind as long as it doesnt ruin other peoples rounds.

(And no, not getting to shoot a wizard / ninja/ whatever doesnt count as ruined round)

If I want to play a round where I can be sure I get to shoot / kill someone/something then I go to tg.

(I actually go there every other month for a round or two just for the fun of it)

Noone there is trying to tell a story.

Noone there is going to turn themselfs in to security / medical.

And they will be valided on sight.

I like Aurora, because people have the option to tell a story if they want.

That might or might not include turning themselfs in at some point.

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

Noah, what you are talking about is not what I am talking about. An antagonist joining forces with the crew to fight another antagonist is not what surrendering is. Surrendering after an actual conflict isn't what I'm talking about either.

What I am talking about are antagonists who immediately saunter up to someone and go "I'm a changeling, arrest me" before the half hour mark. I'm sure they had a lot of fun roleplaying tears and fears in the xenobiology cell they were locked in for 2 hours but the rest of the station had a very disappointing extended round with weird comments from command about "the changeling situation in xenobio."

Why would a changeling that killed a crew member to infiltrate the aurora just dead-ass turn themselves in and expose everything before the half hour mark? That's DUMB. Why would a vampire immediately confess and turn themselves in? It's not fair to the rest of the station that voted for that game mode. There are people that actually want to play these antagonists.

They are FORCING the round to become extended.

Edited August 24, 2017 by Marlon Phoenix

[NoahKirchner]

Noah, what you are talking about is not what I am talking about. An antagonist joining forces with the crew to fight another antagonist is not what surrendering is. Surrendering after an actual conflict isn't what I'm talking about either.

What I am talking about are antagonists who immediately saunter up to someone and go "I'm a changeling, arrest me" before the half hour mark. I'm sure they had a lot of fun roleplaying tears and fears in the xenobiology cell they were locked in for 2 hours but the rest of the station had a very disappointing extended round with weird comments from command about "the changeling situation in xenobio."

Why would a changeling that killed a crew member to infiltrate the aurora just dead-ass turn themselves in and expose everything before the half hour mark? That's DUMB. Why would a vampire immediately confess and turn themselves in? It's not fair to the rest of the station that voted for that game mode. There are people that actually want to play these antagonists.

In that case, yes it's kinda dumb, but there are other players with the role in this gamemode and unless I am oblivious it hardly seems common enough to change policy over.

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

It happened to me personally about once a round every other day. And sometimes it's a sole antagonist. Even if there are other antags, I really think these people should have their antag status removed to make them a normal person and a volunteer given the role. My loins are filled with burning passion to play as a vampire, so seeing vampires behave like this just kills me.

[Guest Complete Garbage]

This seems like it should be dealt with case-by-case. I don't see the need for an incredibly specific policy like this, when it can very very easily be dealt with by the admins without a really specific official policy addition.

[Scheveningen]

It happened to me personally about once a round every other day. And sometimes it's a sole antagonist. Even if there are other antags, I really think these people should have their antag status removed to make them a normal person and a volunteer given the role. My loins are filled with burning passion to play as a vampire, so seeing vampires behave like this just kills me.

 

That's nice and all honey but have you considered that you can't really force anyone to play specific ways and neither can we

[Kaed]

That's nice and all honey but have you considered that you can't really force anyone to play specific ways and neither can we

 

On the contrary, not only can you, but you honestly should be already.

Upon actually reviewing the rules for the server - which, lets be fair, are already pretty loose, I found this.

 

 

The fact that the staff team is so afraid to poke an antagonist and tell them to actually antagonize the crew shows me exactly how bad things have gotten. Turning yourself in immediately upon round start neither generates interaction nor is fun for anyone except yourself and the small group of security/scientists who happen to associate with you in your cell. You aren't really even creating much of a story, you're just halfassedly sliding in and making everyone else to make a story around you existing on the station. If you plan to break out of prison later and go on an authority-mocking rampage, sure. You've created a narrative there by pretending to let them catch you. Hell, you could even technically peace antag and just flit around being a snowflake, harming no one but at the same time still being a non-cooperative to security. I don't like it, but it still creates some kind of story.

But we're talking about the people who don't try. They put in the bare minimum of effort you possibly could and just go with the flow. Usually it is because they don't enjoy conflict, presumably, but then I ask: why are they choosing to be an antagonist? Don't pawn off all the work on the IC station staff because you're too lazy/timid to make something better up.

[Scheveningen]

Okay, Kaed. For all of the time you spend writing libel about this server, you have a serious problem with reading.

 

Jackboot neglected to mention the fact that the vampire in that round was initially locked into virology for the study of the disease they had. Said vampire dominated a doctor to attack another while they had hypnotized an officer to drain their blood from. The security team then had to blast Benny Hill for the duration of 30 minutes as they hunted down the vampire. It was only after they assaulted a head of staff and failed to sway someone with an implant that they were finally locked in isolation.

Barely constitutes as a peaceful antag. That vampire was anything but peaceful. They caused a lot of drama in that round that was particularly interesting but security still had to do their jobs in locking them up. So, not a good example of why we should apparently antagban people that roleplay anything resembling a non-violent antagonist.

You're not obligated interaction by the round antagonist.

 

Having witnessed this entire round start to finish as the head of security, this one vampire alone caused more than enough trouble than security had even bargained for from the game mode. Whoever that vampire was, kudos to them for actually attempting to roleplay a vampire properly and being deceptive and lying on purpose. It was just unfortunate that it only goes so far and for so long, and the vampire didn't have enough total blood points to be able to break through an implant. It was not as simple as "ok cuff me plx i'm syndicat", the vampire themselves adminhelped beforehand to ask if their gimmick would be fine and that them handing themselves in to medical to treat their condition was part of their larger plan.

We said it was okay. They executed it well enough, we don't regret okaying their gimmick. It doesn't matter if Garn says it, it doesn't matter if Jackboot says it. They are both entitled to their opinion but holding an opinion doesn't make you automatically right.

Damned if you do try to assume that the antagonist wasn't putting enough effort into their antagonism, because such a statement could've fooled me given I was the only one who could deal with the vampire from an unbiased and unaffected standpoint given the presence of someone with an implant generally making it difficult for the vampire to sway anyone.

Jackboot's raising a conniption because he's led to believe this one case that happened (and not even under the actual circumstances he thinks actually happened) automatically validates this apparent opinion that antagonists are going to make it a point of turning themselves in and turning the round into extended... even though he's online for two rounds out of the average of six to seven that run per day. He's also led to assume that antagonists are obligated to give him attention otherwise he's going to tout that the round sucked and it wasn't worth playing.

And you think it's hip and cool to hop on the bandwagon of waggling your digital fingers at everyone else because you think you know better. You weren't even present for this round. You barely play enough, Kaed, to formulate such an outlandish and ridiculous opinion that the server is going to hell because of whatever conspiratorial reasons you have cooked up for the week regarding the server staff. It is nothing short of insulting and I've had it.

You're both wrong that you think this needs immediate action. Yes, antagonists should endeavor to contribute to the enjoyment, but how they do it is not, up, to, you. You better learn to drop your expectations, and just play, because you will end up finding reasons to hate the game you play and hate the community you play with instead. I'm the foremost authority on this, and I've had to take a few breaks to remember what this server is all for.

We do not and will not advocate for an iron-fist approach in dealing with IC issues. They are, as we often say as a canned response to people who hate hearing any words that don't mimick their exact same opinion on the subject, IC issues, and should be treated as such. If you don't like it, get over it, everyone else has had to deal with IC pettiness for the past couple years. You and Jackboot ought to start.

Folks are wrong when they say Aurora's flow is about the antagonists. The round does not end when the antagonists die, it keeps on going with or without them. It goes on for however long the collective server pop wants it to go on and they make it count through a vote. If your enjoyment revolves around having your character being shot at or engaging in violence, you should check out the Hippiestation leather club three blocks down, it's got anything and everything you need in terms of conflict. It is immediate, self-gratifying to partake in and requires minimal effort in thought to enjoy.

If for any reason at all you believe a round isn't worth playing, stop playing SS13. Take a break. Take a permanent one if you're the kind of person that needs to have conflict revolve around them and involve them at every step and you're not satisfied when the present moment doesn't cater to your personal tastes of roleplay.

If you take this response with the interpretation that the server's standards have dropped and you yourself should provide nothing more than the bare minimum attempt of roleplay quality, then you should definitely take my advice of taking a break. Life is too short to get irrationally upset about how other people play a video game, and going outside usually helps people come to terms with their blown out of proportion perspective.

[Kaed]

A lot of stuff.

 

You seem to be prone to either create short, to the point declarations of opinion that you treat as fact, or long, in depth analysis of why you think someone is wrong. I don't see a lot of in between.

But to be frank, that's still what they are. Your opinion versus someone else. Just as much as you tell me, in complete truth, I have no right to order the server staff in a certain way, you do not particular have the right to order me or to lower my expectations and 'just play'. The argument ender you enjoy using here, that it's just a game, isn't as important to everyone as it seems to be to you.

And you are correct, I did not read that part that mentions Jackboot's round was not as he stated. I was neither in that round, nor is it particularly relevant to the point I was trying to make. In fact, that round would have actually fallen under the exact argument I made here:

 

If you plan to break out of prison later and go on an authority-mocking rampage, sure. You've created a narrative there by pretending to let them catch you.

 

So I guess I'm not the only one that doesn't read. We're on equal ground here, So let me reiterate here that whatever happened on this round jackboot was in has absolutely no bearing on the point I'm making. If there are actually no rounds where people just surrender to security and chill harmlessly in a cage for the rest of the round, hey fine. I'm a happy man, and I agree, this thread is pointless. If they do happen, and you are advocating that is okay, then I disagree with you definitively. It's also not libel to state that allowing antags to do that exact thing isn't living up to the server standards as they read and can be interpreted, it is, yet again, an opinion. I reserve my right to complain into the cold uncaring void of the internet just as much as you.

But you really need to relax a little, Scheveningen. As much as you tell me to treat this like a game, you yourself should take a few minutes to breathe deeply and consider once and a while whether this random guy on the internet is worth getting so steaming mad over that you need to write over three long paragraphs telling them why they are wrong.

[Garnascus]

This seems like it should be dealt with case-by-case. I don't see the need for an incredibly specific policy like this, when it can very very easily be dealt with by the admins without a really specific official policy addition.

 

Pretty much this. I think the key words to use when deciding your antag story are "opposing force". You're generally expected to create conflict in some way but there is no server against peaceful antags. You also have to consider different perspectives. Just because you personally had a negative experience with a round antag does not mean they are not trying. If we are talking about an individual who legitimately surrenders and then gets thrown into the brig for the rest of the round i can see that being an issue. This specific example seems to have other perspectives however.

In summary this specific issue must be dealt with case by case and with soft hands first. I am incredibly reluctant to tell people they have to play a certain way.

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

why are you being so dramatic delta.... it's a policy suggestion.... you don't need to call me honey and tell me i need a break from the server.... r e l a x

If the player ahelped about it then great. That's all I really wanted - we can ask that there is a general policy of discouraging the kind of behavior I have described, but handled in a case-by-case basis. Being given permission by admins to do whatever means they got the green light and it just becomes a matter of being dissatisfied with the gimmick - which is frustrating but at the end of the day I get over it.

Also you are very angry about the fact you have your own interpretation of the event. As someone who played hos. You know. The job where you are involved in the antag no matter what. Because you are the one that decides what to do about them. I do not think this helps your case because the point of this suggestion is to find a method of discouraging antagonists from solely interacting with security in a series of highly sealed, locked rooms. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Scheveningen]

Also you are very angry about the fact you have your own interpretation of the event. As someone who played hos. You know. The job where you are involved in the antag no matter what. Because you are the one that decides what to do about them. I do not think this helps your case because the point of this suggestion is to find a method of discouraging antagonists from solely interacting with security in a series of highly sealed, locked rooms. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

OK, jackboot? IC issue if antags decide to lock themselves wherever. Especially if you don't adminhelp to clarify what the issue really is and then take it to the forums to reinforce that opinion with other impressionable forum users. Don't be the guy who seethes at everything that happens in round and holds it over until the end just to make policy requests because either a character wronged theirs in IC or they weren't obligated enough attention in the round.

There's no need to be so hamfisted in preventing something that you didn't like from ever happening again. You have so little faith in people if that detail by itself frustrated you. More damage is done with a clenched fist than an open one, I assumed this was obvious.

If you want to do something that may actually help, shoot an adminhelp if you think an antagonist is not putting their best feet forward in contributing to the overall fun of the round. Opening a dialogue is something we can do, but it is something that can be shot in the general direction for the admin staff to deal with. We can provide perspective from other players who witnessed it and are not satisfied with the antag's performance and we can give advice to the antagonist if we find that there were things they could have done better.

I otherwise don't think we need to hold antagonists under more scrutiny than what is already covered by the rules. Bad antags will get antagbanned, I'm sure people are aware of that. It's just, jackboot, the way you try to define it, it is more subjective compared to our objective definition of a bad antagonist. An antagonist needs to hit more deadfalls either as a result of neglectful happenstance or on purpose, than they are actually accomplishing anything in the round to be considered a bad antagonist.

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

ok

[sonicgotnuked]

I was going to make a detailed post on why "sure lol, fuck peace antags," but I did some thinking and I am going to not support this.

First and foremost, you do not need antags to roleplay and roleplay isn't going to magicaly ride itself into your lap.

Most of these ideas are basically from why people hate extended. You do need need an antag in the round to roleplay. You ate not going to be banned if your IC attitude causes a bar fight as long as there was buildup.

[Zundy]

I was going to make a detailed post on why "sure lol, fuck peace antags," but I did some thinking and I am going to not support this.

First and foremost, you do not need antags to roleplay and roleplay isn't going to magicaly ride itself into your lap.

Most of these ideas are basically from why people hate extended. You do need need an antag in the round to roleplay. You ate not going to be banned if your IC attitude causes a bar fight as long as there was buildup.

 

Yeah except people voted to not have extended, so by virtue of the antags immediately handing themselves in (which is what we're talking about) they have made a joke of the voting system.

Further, the catalyst for this idea is irrelevant, let's talk about the actual suggestion not wax lyrical about why we think the suggestion was made.

[sonicgotnuked]

Yeah except people voted to not have extended, so by virtue of the antags immediately handing themselves in (which is what we're talking about) they have made a joke of the voting system.

 

Yeah, so? If you looked at the posts, you will see things that already explain the idea. They maybe handed themselves in to roleplay. I had some pretty good rounds when the antag hands themselves in, telling command of their problems and I almost made medical vampirism a thing as the CMO. You do not need antags to roleplay, not all antags need to be shooty shooty kill security. I don't see how "we voted for it" is relevant. The voting system is more of a swindle, if it turns into an extended round and you don't like it, don't play. Like people said, you do not have a obligation for antags to interact with you.

[Scheveningen]

When you vote secret you vote a random game mode. You don't vote specifically for antags. Alberyk has said something about this topic before.

 

.

Basically what he's saying that this is the standard all characters should be roleplaying as. ICly and OOCly you should not be anticipating antagonist action of any sort, that is not your priority as a player and the only thing it proves is that you're someone who subconsciously metagames and doesn't care if they do. The crew are supposed to act reactively to situations as they arise, but if they are bored and have nothing to do during a quiet moment there's nothing wrong with finding recreational activities in-game to occupy your attention with. Go to the kitchen, chat up the chef and have some food, compliment their cuisine. Walk around and find people to talk to, ask how they're doing, small talk with them. Ask over comms if anyone wants to box to blow off some steam and click dudes horizontally without killing them, it's great practice when an actual antag shows up!

You vote specifically for a random game mode. If the game mode is extended, that's too bad, but you had other options to vote for. You knew the risks, why are you complaining about it?

The solution is not to remove game modes that don't conform with how you think the game should be played. The solution is not to convince staff members they need to be banning people who honestly do not even deserve it. That's kinda the difference as to why certain people are not admin staff.

The solution is right there in front of you, but most people do not choose to go out of their way to make the round fun for themselves! Antagonists are a special role, but no antagonist can be expected to make the round fun for everyone, that is absolutely impossible. Not every antag is very good at being antag either, it requires practice and a lot of time on this server to be able to drive an interesting narrative as an antagonist, whether being violent or non-violent. In the same respect, much as every non-antag has the freedom to do as they wish without breaking the OOC rules, antags can do as they wish under the same standard but having more license than most to cause conflict. Non-antags don't decide to shoot up their workplace, antags can if they want to.

It's wrong to assume you have the right idea about things and there is no other solution to your problems beyond the iron-fisted one. There is always a better solution to one's problems. If Jackboot finds himself irritated by this, perhaps the issue is not that the antagonists are being irritatingly non-violent on purpose, but rather he's just being irritable about this.