[2 Dismissals] Remove or heavily revise cyborgification as a punishment

WIth the status of the game as it is right now, cyborgification is used as a punishment for certain crimes, like murder (or even attempted murder, which is apparently treated as exactly the same charge instead of assault for unexplained reasons) or terrorism. It's really kind of weird because execution is supposedly illegal, but for some arbitrary reason it still exists in the form of cyborgification.

This particular clause goes back a very long way in the IC game and to an extent on the meta, and there was a time where you just cut out someone's brain and put it in an MMI. But it doesn't work that way anymore. You have to lobotomize the person's brain first, which let me emphasize - it's drilling a whole into their brain until all their memories and personality are gone and they are just a blank mass of nerve tissue.

This is murder under the meta veneer of 'letting the antag stay in the round'. Most of the time, it's just used as an excuse to deal with an antagonist that security and the command staff don't want to handle, so instead of locking them in a cell and giving some chance for them to formulate a plan (or roleplay as a prisoner) they call for cyborgification just to 'deal with the problem'. Very rarely is it even treated as an escalation for a prisoner who keeps escaping or attacking people. It's just straight to drilling out their brain and putting them in a machine so you don't have to think about it anymore.

It's horrifying, disgusting, and yet, people just sort of handwave it aside, either because either they don't really understand the process, or because they've been trained through long OOC association with it existing to not care. I just went through a round where I spend several minutes screaming over comms about being lobotomized and shot at for resisting, and the most serious reaction I got was someone questioning the legality of it and if I was even telling the truth.

Either remove it as a sentence, or put serious limitations on it, so it can't just be used as a first option for people who happened to have blown something up or shanked a person to death, or done something scary and supernatural that you don't understand how to deal with. Perhaps even require the prisoner to sign a waiver saying that they submit to this process instead of being HuT and sentenced in an out of round court, instead of just forcing it on them as a punitive measure, so that the people who actually WANT to be a borg instead of spending the rest of the round in a cell get it, and the people who had a legitimate plan don't just get shoved on a table and lobotomized summarily while they scream and everyone ignores them (because being murdered on comms is just hunky dory and no one will bat an eye.)

All other factions in our setting consider cyborgification a capital punishment. Tau Ceti is the only major faction in the game that subverts this legal definition. Their legal arguments are that the brain does not literally die and the person continues to exist, ergo, they were not put to death. It's an arbitrary decision yes but it is intentionally arbitrary. The use of cyborgification for major crimes is not meant to be super common - I can count how many times I've seen it happen to antagonists on one hand even counting last month.

The messy business of Tau Ceti's consideration of cyborgification just another form of life imprisonment is an intentional decision. It makes Tau Ceti have a major moral flaw in its character and ethics.

Every time cyborgification happens, there is a roleplay issue between all parties involved in regards to "Do you support this? Do you not support this?"

That's great. I love it. Keep it.

Furthermore cyborgification canonically has always involved some form of lobotomization. Cyborgs have never recalled their past life - this change is not recent, it is only just recently reflected in game.

All other factions in our setting consider cyborgification a capital punishment. Tau Ceti is the only major faction in the game that subverts this legal definition. Their legal arguments are that the brain does not literally die and the person continues to exist, ergo, they were not put to death. It's an arbitrary decision yes but it is intentionally arbitrary. The use of cyborgification for major crimes is not meant to be super common - I can count how many times I've seen it happen to antagonists on one hand even counting last month.

The messy business of Tau Ceti's consideration of cyborgification just another form of life imprisonment is an intentional decision. It makes Tau Ceti have a major moral flaw in its character and ethics.

They have plenty of governmental flaws already, they don't need this one too just for the sake of showing that they're flawed. The way they treat synths, their behavior in regards to xeno races, their conflict with Sol. That argument that the brain doesn't die also made more sense when a lobotomy was not required first, which, in game, literally tells you all your memories are gone and you are a blank slate. You are dead. You're not coming back. The implied lobotomy being a thing you're just supposed to know happened before it actually became a mechanic is not the same. I've seen people in the past roleplaying as a robot version of themselves because this was not clear, [mention]LordFowl[/mention]

Legally speaking, right now, you are required to sign a waiver to willingly cyborgify yourself. The process exists in a way where it is acknowledged as something you need to agree to do. The fact that all other factions consider it to be a capital punishment but Tau Ceti does not 'because gotta have flaws' is itself kind of a snowflakery in lore design, and there are better ways to do this. I strongly suspect that a major reason it's like this is to justify the current regulations that I am trying to change.

In summary, lore is something that should follow gameplay aspects, not be just be used to justify it. It's a government decision that could easily be overturned.

Every time cyborgification happens, there is a roleplay issue between all parties involved in regards to "Do you support this? Do you not support this?"

That's great. I love it. Keep it.

Actually, what happens is the heads all vote on it, and then the prisoner has the result happen. They have little say in the matter, despite being a very relevant party to it.

One one hand, I disagree because ordinary executions are a waste of resources and it's neat and tidy for NT to simply repurpose any hostile elements towards the corporation into useful resources.

On the other hand I do agree because metawise, it's damn triggerworthy to have your character lobotomized.

Suggesting that it's meta-shoehorned in that any prisoner who is up for execution gets to chose between straight up execution, cyborgification, permabrig (For execution back on Odin), or when permabrig is unavailable, cryptosleeping out of the round (for effectively the same thing).

Every time cyborgification happens, there is a roleplay issue between all parties involved in regards to "Do you support this? Do you not support this?"

That's great. I love it. Keep it.

 

Actually, what happens is the heads all vote on it, and then the prisoner has the result happen. They have little say in the matter, despite being a very relevant party to it.

oh boi i sure love this misconception.

You are playing in an interactive environment where decisions made by others will affect your character. You are not required to have a direct say in those decisions. This is the entire point of this game. What's more, not having a say in such a decision does not mean that there's no roleplay involved. Inevitability and things outside of your control can be fantastic sources of roleplay.

oh boi i sure love this misconception.

You are playing in an interactive environment where decisions made by others will affect your character. You are not required to have a direct say in those decisions. This is the entire point of this game. What's more, not having a say in such a decision does not mean that there's no roleplay involved. Inevitability and things outside of your control can be fantastic sources of roleplay.

In principle, I'd agree with you, but in practice, it's used as a lever to remove antagonists from antagonizing, and from my on the field experience, very little roleplay is to be gotten.

I tried to make something out of it, but people just ignore your plight and you're batonned and shot repeatedly until you can be put under and debrained. It is literally treated like an execution, because it is. Being attacked until you can't take any further action, while people nearby look on in silence while completely disregarding the situation in any interactive way, then killed is not a 'fantastic source of roleplay', it's awful and frustrating. At least if you try to murder someone in the middle of a crowd as an antagonist, people freak out and scream or otherwise REACT to the situation presented to them. Here, it's just *shrug* guess the antag got what's coming to them.

Are you really getting more out of making the round more interesting for everyone by being quietly lobotomized and shoved in a robot, or by making some kind of attempt to escape or alternate plan, possibly even going down in a blaze of glory? If the player has no further things to contribute to the round as an antagonist, then sure, let them agree to be a robot.

But cutting off any further antics by forcibly executing them under the pretense that it's a life sentence doesn't really create interesting roleplay, it just ends the roleplay there. Because they are dead, and possibly a robot slave now, with no personality. Some antagonists die in fights with security, yes, but usually those are exciting to the people in the fight. Almost always, the ones who get cyborged are the ones who couldn't put up enough of a fight to justify killing them in self defense, or are smart enough to have some kind of plan to escape, so they find an alternate reason to kill them anyway.

or even attempted murder, which is apparently treated as exactly the same charge instead of assault for unexplained reasons

Which is as it should be. Just because I failed to kill someone, doesn't mean it should be assault. I feel this is pretty self explanatory, but I'll go ahead and clarify this. Failure in an attempt doesn't really mean you should lower the charge. I can shoot a person with the intent to kill but security/medical interference saves their life, them ultimately surviving doesn't change the aspect. The intent is very important as cited by the regulation itself.

Murder To kill someone, or attempt to kill someone, with premeditated malicious intent.

Assault To cause severe injury to another employee.

It's really kind of weird because execution is supposedly illegal, but for some arbitrary reason it still exists in the form of cyborgification.

Cyborgification isn't deemed a method of execution. An execution is a death sentence, and cyborgification doesn't actually kill as brain functions are retained.

Most of the time, it's just used as an excuse to deal with an antagonist that security and the command staff don't want to handle, so instead of locking them in a cell and giving some chance for them to formulate a plan (or roleplay as a prisoner) they call for cyborgification just to 'deal with the problem'. Very rarely is it even treated as an escalation for a prisoner who keeps escaping or attacking people.

They're alternatives. The players/character are given a number of options to deal with situations. Only the highest level of infractions and even then, only some of these infractions do provide you with a direct access to this action. Just because the person that will undergo this procedure in terms of corporate regulation has little to no say to it, doesn't just nullify the fact it is roleplay in itself. There's a moral dilemma that I see is often used by people, those that want it to pass and those that vote against it.

It's horrifying, disgusting, and yet, people just sort of handwave it aside, either because either they don't really understand the process, or because they've been trained through long OOC association with it existing to not care. I just went through a round where I spend several minutes screaming over comms about being lobotomized and shot at for resisting, and the most serious reaction I got was someone questioning the legality of it and if I was even telling the truth.

Different backgrounds. It's a normal phenomena to some, unnatural to others, disgusting to the rest and so on. The fact you don't see/hear peoples reaction doesn't also void that people may be reacting to it independently.

put serious limitations on it

There are already limitations to it from an in-character standpoint.

1) Resource wise. You do need resources to sustain this production.

2) Manpower and morality. I have seen roboticists refusing to conduct the procedure to their own ethical reasoning.

3) Regulations and votes. It doesn't always pass, I can push a motion as a HoS and still have it denied. It has happened before, it will happen in the future.

Perhaps even require the prisoner to sign a waiver saying that they submit to this process.

They already can if they want the process to be done. However, it can still be applied as a punishment.

A few other points raised by people here as well.

I'm voting for dismissal.

I've seen people in the past roleplaying as a robot version of themselves because this was not clear, @LordFowl

 

Yes. Hence why we made it so the mechanics reflected it. People misunderstanding the lore does mean the lore changes to suit their misinterpretations. Nor does people being ignorant of the lore mean the lore did not previously exist. No lore has changed regarding this.

While I laid out the justifications within our setting for forced cyborgification, testimony and arugments in this thread have started to change my mind.

Every other faction calls it murder except Tau Ceti. that is by design. It is a capital punishment for a capital crime, kept alive by legal technicalities. Forced cyborgification is a dark stain on humanity's history in our setting; Mars is built on the backs of a lot of cyborgified prisoners before people decided to put a stop to that.

Gameplay-wise, the distinction between 'attempted murder' and 'a rather nasty assault' can be rather arbitrary. Whether or not you are charged with either or tends to depend on whether or not anyone argues with the warden or arresting officer about it.

I would be fine restricting it behind confirmed murder. It seems that requiring a full command vote is not enough to create the sort of ethical or moral conversations that requirement was meant to create. There should not be instances where people are dragged, kicking and screaming, to be forcefully cyborgified to what amount to collective shrugs. If this is the trend, then cyborgification has lots its intent.

A private corporation being allowed to execute people in its custody is not something we want to lean in on. OOC'ly we have to acknowledge that cyborgification is a capital punishment.

My current stance is moving forced cyborgification behind murder charges. If someone wants to be cyborgified to continue playing in a round, they should have a waiver or a signature somewhere. We have cryogenic storage in the communual brig for people who want to neither become a robot or wait around in the brig all round.

Brief thoughts re: murder versus attempted murder:

It would make sense to leave the punishment strictly to murder in a truer legal environment, as most legal systems take consequences of an action into account as well as the intent and action itself. However, I think cyborgification already serves a purpose in its current role, as a charge that can be 'legitimately' abused for an in-round roleplay purpose. It is an outrageous thing to condemn someone to, and authorizing it under questionable circumstances (as traitorous or Loyalist command, etc.) is almost guaranteed to provoke some sort of conflict. It's already rare in the first place, and I don't think it really needs to be harder to do at the moment. The issues of security applying 'attempted murder' when they should not, or non-antag Command pushing hard for it to be used needlessly seems a little separated from the issue of the punishment itself.

If I were to make a change at all, I would consider making the command vote for cyborgification required to be unanimous, letting any objecting head veto it. This would define it as the more severe of the two possibilities and require all senior staff members to agree to proceed, without making it less applicable to regulations than it already is.

Currently as it is, cyborgification is worse than execution.

Not only are you killed, your brain is harvested by a corporation for profits.

ICly it makes no sense to exist as a form of punishment in the "liberal" system of Tau and i don't think the populace is stupid enough to overlook something so outrages.

Tau Ceti isn't "liberal" in the socalist-equal rights-workers unite sense. It's liberal in the anarcho-capitalist sense. Playing someone from Tau Ceti who views cyborgification as monstrous or abhorrent means you're playing a character who is going against the grain of the general Tau Ceti populace which is fine, but just remember that about the character. People in Tau Ceti are majority ok with this, that's part of their general faction traits.

I'd concur with Synnono in making it need unanimous command authority if it is such a big issue in game, but is it really? Do we always have instances of antags getting borged at the drop of a hat?

tau ceti law states that you are entitled to a fair trial.

you can't face a fair trial if you're fucking lobotomized.

if we keep cyborgification for crimes, we need to change this

tau ceti law states that you are entitled to a fair trial.

you can't face a fair trial if you're fucking lobotomized.

if we keep cyborgification for crimes, we need to change this

That's a good point though. That'll need looking at. [mention]Senpai Jackboot[/mention]

Tau Ceti isn't "liberal" in the socalist-equal rights-workers unite sense. It's liberal in the anarcho-capitalist sense. Playing someone from Tau Ceti who views cyborgification as monstrous or abhorrent means you're playing a character who is going against the grain of the general Tau Ceti populace which is fine, but just remember that about the character. People in Tau Ceti are majority ok with this, that's part of their general faction traits.

I'd concur with Synnono in making it need unanimous command authority if it is such a big issue in game, but is it really? Do we always have instances of antags getting borged at the drop of a hat?

If you want to call Tau ceti anarcho capitalist, then they would be completely opposed to cyborgification as a punishment with consent or not, regardless Its not believable that most of the system don't care about how horrific it is and allow it to happen. Outside of antags It should be left as an voluntary alternative to HuT

In the "private enterprise is king" sense. Why do you think it doesn't fit?

Becoming a slave Borg wiping all memories of who you are and what you were = going to prison for ten years after transfer.

As jackboot said its a dark part of human history, how does TC manage to ignore it?

It's not something to ignore, they're a different people who are ok with borgification like some countries are ok with cutting off heads in real life right now.

It's not something to ignore, they're a different people who are ok with borgification like some countries are ok with cutting off heads in real life right now.

Countries who engage in beheading treat it as execution instead of unaccountably engaging in legal sophistry to claim people are still technically alive without their heads because they can still detect some brain activity when they do a scan on the severed head 30 seconds later.

The problem here is not that they are 'okay with cyborgification' it's that they arbitrarily decided that it's not execution because the brain is still functioning, even if its been lobotomized. Why is there no oversight or reaction to this legal decision? When every other civilized nation TC speaks with considers it murder, why do they still have this legal decision? Where is the international backlash, the pressure to change it? Why are the Skrell working on a station where they oversee this happening and sometimes actively participating in the process when they are super anti synth and would probably be horrified by the process?

I keep hearing it is what makes Tau Ceti different and flawed, but being 'different' because you commit atrocities is not something that just happens without reaction from your neighbors, xeno allies, or your own people. You can't have your legal system exist in a vacuum when there is no such vacuum.

You're opening up a massive can of worms off the back of what appears to be a non issue. The only thing that needs to be clarified is the law around it which we can do and it'd be good to put some info on the wiki regarding other nations thoughts on this.

You're opening up a massive can of worms off the back of what appears to be a non issue. The only thing that needs to be clarified is the law around it which we can do and it'd be good to put some info on the wiki regarding other nations thoughts on this.

Then don't use real life precedent to try and justify it being in the game if you just want to hand wave it and look the other direction.

Sure thing bud.