We need to have a proper discussion about Antagonism and Roleplay

[Korinra]

It would be nice, if for a week, antags were allowed to do ANYTHING they wanted without repercussion. I'm not saying that is the BEST way it should be, but at least for that week, we'd be able to see DEFINITIVELY, how that changes the game. THEN rules could be set to determine what constitutes TOO far. They should, for that week, be encouraged to be as crazy as they want! Let's just see how that molds the game, so we know where the real lines are.

I agree with this last part, hell Aurora is even known for being snowflaky when it comes to what antags can and can't do. It would be interesting to have a week where antags can go all out and see how it goes from there.

I also think we should start pulling in the reigns on security, I try my best when I play inround as sec but it's hard to do when it feels like everyone that play sec officers have the hugest hard-on for validing everything. It irks me when sec are the first on location when atmos alerts are called, it should not be this way.

 

"My solution to this problem on an HRP server is that antags should be allowed to act as LRP as they want but nobody else."

This is hippocritical, you're criticizing security for acting too LRP and Validhunting and then in the same breath you say that antags should be allowed to act that way but security shouldn't.

Also we do have reigns on security, it's called Heads, you see we like to let players deal with their issues instead of needlesly stepping in and punching down on them.

You have ahelps, you have character complaints, you have IR's, you have staff complaints, you yourselves can put feedback on others heads or report to us that heads aren't acting properly and their head whitelists should be stripped.

None of this has happened, instead we always get informed through some third party ranposting in discord or Forum and whenever we ask for specific names and situations we suddenly get the "Oh I don't remember, I don't know, It was so long agoooooo"

If you want to solve a problem you need to put effort into solving it instead of throwing your opinions in unreletead threads.

Please don't change what I said.

I said, "Security are allowed to run in without RP, why aren't Antags allowed to?", I'm saying it's hypocritical to say it's OK for Security to run in without a word, but if an antag does it then it's "bad rp". If you hold one person to a standard you should ALL people to that standard. If you say antags need to try to RP out to draw a story, then why are officers not being required to try to REASON with the dangerous antag. THAT could be an interesting negotiation style RP where Security and the criminal yell at each other, the antag shouts demands, the officers try to get him to lay down his gun. How tense and amazing would that be? But no, Officer McGunnin has all the leeway to fire without a word despite that being against the Corporate procedures of ATTEMPTING a peaceful arrest first, which WOULD be good RP. Even if it was something like, "Hey you! Stop! Lay down your weapon!", then the standoff. That in itself is acceptable, but no, not enforced. Fire away wordlessly, you're an officer, not an antag.

[Coalf]

I said, "Security are allowed to run in without RP, why aren't Antags allowed to?", I'm saying it's hypocritical to say it's OK for Security to run in without a word, but if an antag does it then it's "bad rp". If you hold one person to a standard you should ALL people to that standard. If you say antags need to try to RP out to draw a story, then why are officers not being required to try to REASON with the dangerous antag. THAT could be an interesting negotiation style RP where Security and the criminal yell at each other, the antag shouts demands, the officers try to get him to lay down his gun. How tense and amazing would that be? But no, Officer McGunnin has all the leeway to fire without a word despite that being against the Corporate procedures of ATTEMPTING a peaceful arrest first, which WOULD be good RP. Even if it was something like, "Hey you! Stop! Lay down your weapon!", then the standoff. That in itself is acceptable, but no, not enforced. Fire away wordlessly, you're an officer, not an antag.

 

Security are a reactive force.

You do something, security goes against you.

They do negotiate, why do you think every single hostage situation actually turns into a negotiation for the life of the hostages. Literally yesterday the Captain played by Xander Dox has had a discussion with the Traitorous AI and ALLOWED IT to be a Head of Synthetics and keep itself unlawed as long as it doesn't overstep its boundaries! That is negotiation, security does talk to people they do negotiate! Maybe you should gather more experience!

Everything you described as "Good sec RP" indeed DOES HAPPEN, maybe you wwere right in your first post. You didn't notice because you do not play antagonists enough.

YES we have shitty officers! Does anyone ahelp them? No, they just complain in threads like these 2 months after the incidents happens.

[Korinra]

I said, "Security are allowed to run in without RP, why aren't Antags allowed to?", I'm saying it's hypocritical to say it's OK for Security to run in without a word, but if an antag does it then it's "bad rp". If you hold one person to a standard you should ALL people to that standard. If you say antags need to try to RP out to draw a story, then why are officers not being required to try to REASON with the dangerous antag. THAT could be an interesting negotiation style RP where Security and the criminal yell at each other, the antag shouts demands, the officers try to get him to lay down his gun. How tense and amazing would that be? But no, Officer McGunnin has all the leeway to fire without a word despite that being against the Corporate procedures of ATTEMPTING a peaceful arrest first, which WOULD be good RP. Even if it was something like, "Hey you! Stop! Lay down your weapon!", then the standoff. That in itself is acceptable, but no, not enforced. Fire away wordlessly, you're an officer, not an antag.

 

Security are a reactive force.

You do something, security goes against you.

They do negotiate, why do you think every single hostage situation actually turns into a negotiation for the life of the hostages. Literally yesterday the Captain played by Xander Dox has had a discussion with the Traitorous AI and ALLOWED IT to be a Head of Synthetics and keep itself unlawed as long as it doesn't overstep its boundaries! That is negotiation, security does talk to people they do negotiate! Maybe you should gather more experience!

Everything you described as "Good sec RP" indeed DOES HAPPEN, maybe you wwere right in your first post. You didn't notice because you do not play antagonists enough.

YES we have shitty officers! Does anyone ahelp them? No, they just complain in threads like these 2 months after the incidents happens.

 

I love how you're trying to call me ignorant in a really cute way.

I play CSI often, and I know how often I've seen Officers rush in guns blazing without a single word. Know what I've never seen? An officer say, "Halt!", or "Stop!" or "Lay down your weapon!" to an antag. Never seen it. I have seen it where they talk over comms sure, but you can't shoot someone you haven't found yet.

I also know how many times I've seen code red and armory up for small suspicions because people know OOCly that it's an antag. "The roboticist has a weird thing? CODE RED! SCAN THE AI!", ok so metagaming is good RP then? Sure I guess at least they're RPing their metagame in those situations. Frankly I see it so often that I don't blame the good-guy antags for trying to trick the playerbase into thinking it's a strange event sometimes. I've seen exactly one gimmick sort of work in a Crossfire round, where me as a pAI calling a guy "hostile" caused an all out gunfight that nobody could explain afterwards. The first person who shot couldn't explain why he shot other than, "Well they came in after you said "hostile". I called him hostile because he threw a helmet at me. From a personal perspective that's a hostile action. Didn't mean bring in the Calvary. I was given the order, "Find hostiles and report their location", he threw a helmet (hostile) I said where he was... gunfight broke out because he was a Merc (who up till that point the crew trusted to be NT reps). No words were said between them, and the Mercs all died. No one got Bwoinked because we chatted about it after the round. I wonder if the mercs would have gotten bwoinked if they decided to fire first without any interaction or RP.

[Coalf]

I know your notes, from those I have gauged you don't have favorble standing with security.

I know when you did or did not ahelp things, none of the things you described have been ahelped as far as I know of and further none of the officers have received an IR or a Character complaint.

I know that you, yourself, said that you don't play antags as often.

I am not calling you ignorant in a cute way, I am just calling you ignorant.

Right now we've reached a point where it's just your word against my word, I think our security does what is right from everything I've seen and you think security is bad and doesn't do enough shot calls.

In this way we've at an impasse.

[Coalf]

Also none of this is even related to the topic anymore.

[Korinra]

First off, it's not my word verse your word, you are changing my word to account for your claim of my ignorance. However I never claimed I ahelped any of this. My stance on SOME security is unfavorable, some I find quite well RPed. Take Noir for instance, I've not a single complaint about him. I'm not great with names, but there are a few that I rather like (can't think of his first name, but Officer Carmichael also comes to mind as favorable). My point has nothing to do with personal feelings toward Security or Antagonism. My point is that Security has no standard for how they must interact with confirmed antagonists. They can shoot to stun/kill depending on situation, and not bother saying a single word.

This isn't how they're expected to deal with regular crew. For instance, if a Quartermaster is found to be stealing a growing tray from botany, officers will come out, ask him to return it, and peacefully try to arrest him (good officers anyway, there might be a few who wouldn't do it that way). My point is, why is there a standard difference between how they're expected to deal with a law breaker verses a confirmed antagonist? If I get arrested as a crew member, I expect the whole thing to be resolved verbally. I don't expect to see a weapon at all, and depending on how the whole thing happens, maybe not even cuffs. But antagonists have to be ready for a shootout against armory-level Security. Why is there this gap in policy? You keep talking about me personally, but why aren't you addressing the question?

As for the topic:

We need to have a proper discussion about Antagonism and Roleplay

I'm addressing a conversation about antagonism and roleplay. Antagonism includes the resolution to it does it not?

[K0NFL1QT]

To answer you in one word; escalation.

As a Quartermaster who steals a growing tray, Security can assume you're not packing lethal weapons and thus not liable to go on a murder rampage at any moment so they will approach that criminal accordingly. Can you say the same about any antags? Ling, vamp, ninja, wizard, traitors, raiders, mercs, malf; all have lethal options available to them at a moments notice, and the OOC permission to use them. When a threat appears, Security will try to leverage their capability up to meet/exceed the threat, because your standard Code Green officer has little/no armor, no EVA capability, with a baton, pepperspray and .45 rubbers offensively; easily outclassed, overwhelmed and murdered by just about any antag type.

[Korinra]

To answer you in one word; escalation.

As a Quartermaster who steals a growing tray, Security can assume you're not packing lethal weapons and thus not liable to go on a murder rampage at any moment so they will approach that criminal accordingly. Can you say the same about any antags? Ling, vamp, ninja, wizard, traitors, raiders, mercs, malf; all have lethal options available to them at a moments notice, and the OOC permission to use them. When a threat appears, Security will try to leverage their capability up to meet/exceed the threat, because your standard Code Green officer has little/no armor, no EVA capability, with a baton, pepperspray and .45 rubbers offensively; easily outclassed, overwhelmed and murdered by just about any antag type.

 

What's the difference between a Quartermaster who steals a growth tray and a Roboticist with a weird ID? That weird ID is an agent ID, but from the character's perspective it could easily have been an error. "Mr. McRobotmaker, we saw that weird ID on your person, the Captain/HoP would like a word with you if you have a moment."

I've seen that exact scenario lead to a shoot-first ask later situation that even the officer who DID it was laughing in LOOC with me about 'yeah I probably shouldn't have done that'. He didn't get a bwoink for shooting without a word, and he shot a roboticist who did not run or hide or anything.

Officer ran into Robotics and shot twice.

Roboticist yelled, "Ow!"

Officer shot a third time which stunned.

Officer cuffed and began walking away.

It wasn't until AFTER that he said something IC to me, the posibrain that was just in the backpack of the Roboticist.

See the thing is, I have no problem with this from an OOC standpoint. I think yes, the officer should be reprimanded IC for firing on a non-aggressive target who was unarmed, but that's 100% IC. I think an antag should be able to do this too though. If a situation calls for a quick and quiet kill, why is that bad? If the antag does it to silence a potential whistle blower, it only makes sense if he's quick and efficient. However, that's not to say I don't think antagonsits should TRY to encourage RP. How many Ninjas have I seen hold up a bomb and wave it at me if I started asking who he was? I run away from the bomb, and the ninja silently moves on. Problem is, now I'm reporting it to Security and the Captain. A smart ninja would have either stayed hidden, or when that fails, kill the person who saw them silently. The ninja on Aurora CAN'T because then it's just 'murderboning', rather than stealth preservation. A dead man who's brain is in a backpack somewhere can't very well tell you what killed him. Additionally, lore wise, an antagonist ninja is going to know the station has a cloner, or could safely assume it would.

[Bygonehero]

I involve people in malf by being as sadistic as possible and getting the crew to kill each other or themselves. Generally my malf or traitor ai rounds bring the station to its knees. The problem with malf is that it's risk and power level is all out of wack. One tech tree is infinitely better than all others in reducing risk. I believe of you wanted different antag rp from ais then you need to reduce the risk of the role. This is why people like picking lich wizards it has less risk than the other types of wiz