-
Posts
588 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Posts posted by SkyPing
-
-
Hello! Back in 2016, TullyBBurnalot started a project to centralize and codify SoP, making it so that everything is standardized and listed on a wiki page, instead of bits and pieces of SoP being isolated on individual job pages. I was one of the primary editors and contributors during that time, and while although that doesn't give me any special privileges or powers, I just so happen to really really like SoP and the ideas/contexts behind it.
I will be suggesting a few SoP changes that I feel should be included within certain jobs for the betterment of on station gameplay, and to address fringe but 'common' cases in every day job functionality. I'm starting with Chaplain because I played a bunch of chaplain and it is cool. It should be noted that not EVERY SINGLE piece of SoP needs to be interpreted and attacked, and everything should be up to scrutiny long after this thread becomes inactive: nothing about this is official and heads have final say.
Suggestion 1:
5. The Chaplain may, however, freely conduct funerals for non-cloneable/revivable personnel. All funerals must be concluded with the use of the Mass Driver or Crematorium.
to
5. The Chaplain may freely conduct funerals for non-cloneable/revivable personnel. All funerals may be concluded with the use of the Mass Driver or Crematorium, otherwise funerals are to end with delivery to the station Coroner to be placed in the Morgue. The Coroner should be made aware of funerals, should morguing be intended.
Why make these changes?: Expands on funeral policy and offers alternatives to how a funeral should take place. Funerals are uncommon due to lack of engagement, but this should enable a chaplain to have ideas sparked about how a funeral could take place. Sometimes these funerals will happen for dogs or pets or non-crew. Sometimes the funeral will only be attended by the chaplain and one active participant. This is fine: two player roleplay is still roleplay.
Suggestion 2:
6. The Chaplain should be made aware that security may require access to the station crematorium for removal of ‘unkillable’ threats. Any attempts to actively prevent security from the cremator may result in the relevant space law charges.
Why make these changes?: Loose wording should likely be examined and attacked. However, I do believe that due to how common changelings are during an average spurt of gameplay, and considering that NT knows OF the existence of changelings (even if IC, they are very very very rare), it would be beneficial for the chaplain to have some amount of instruction on what a procedure looks like. An average chaplain with no knowledge of changelings would find a full sec team raiding the chapel for body cremation 'confusing', and often the average sec officer answer of 'changeling' does not do much to answer questions.
This main document is up for edits and changes upon replies, and will likely be sitting around for a week until I consider any propositions to any headmins.
Questions: - Are SoP points 1-4 still relevant? Should they be reworded due to coding things? Reordered based off of importance?
- Should a SoP point be made about holy water distribution?
Edit history:
Edit 1 (Discord Edit - CodeLyoko): Removed any wording related to 'decapping' changelings as an alternative option to cremation. This is because you can't decap changelings to stop them for reviving.Edit 2 (Forum Edit - Robveelben): Changed the wording of SoP point 6; less harsh and less 'authoritarian', more 'informative'.
-
2
-
-
In an idealized world I could imagine a SoP line containing the following:
Detectives: Allowed to wear whatever 'drip' they choose to and allowed to be as undercover or non undercover as they'd like, which should be fine since 1. It's only one person going full undercover, 2. It's limited off to a single person doing it during regular gameplay, 3. Detectives tend to be a step down during actual arrest protocols on a good day.
Security Officers: Drip is cool, we like drip, but one piece of 'sec gear' should be visible on their sprite. By default, any outfit should work as long as the iconic sechud glasses are visible. If you're wearing a mask, maybe enforce wearing a helmet or red jumpsuit or anything else easily identifiable by a visual look at the sprite and not *JUST* a shift+click. Going any further undercover should be fine with express HoS or Captain permission.
Warden and HoS: Keep them easily identifiable. They're command, they're supposed to be easily reachable. No need to ever really go full undercover boss when you can ask IAA's to undercover boss for you.
Responses to others comments and points below
Carthusia: "As for undercover officers: Its a legitimate tactic", I agree, I think it's a legitimate tactic, and that there SHOULD be some leeway and there SHOULD be incidents where it comes up. That being said, more than one officer at the same time makes antag players more paranoid, and honestly antags and sec should be easily identifiable towards each other on a usual gameplay level. Antags have to account for a lot of things. They shouldn't have to account for more than one undercover officer since that would be mentally draining. I think that trying to trick each other in terms of 'who's an officer, who isn't' might be adding too much of an extra level of thought, especially for our more casual antag players.Landerlow: "I see no reason why this should be prohibited through SOP. If properly RP'd/played, it can add to the round. ", I believe that adding things into SoP enables RP and play, since SoP is usually kept to be an IC, roleplay thing in general. SoP aids roleplay. Other than that, the rest of the response is sort of catered around Landerlows suggestions with a couple compromises.
I believe every other response above me in the thread is taken into consideration?
-
2
-
-
Contractor is a fucking blessing.
.png.b1023696a7fe6a0969239cd57ac5d7f1.png)
-
6
-
-
I'm truly shocked and appalled at the words I'm reading right now. The fact that this has gone on for THIS long is truly abhorrent, and I pray for the victims and their families and their pets.
-
3
-
-
Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh three
:{
-
As it turns out, the correct answer was not to be. Whoever saw that coming.
-
7 hours ago, necaladun said:
If people can't play against each other in a competitive game without taking it personally, then fuck'm. We shouldn't change the server because some people can't handle getting killed in a video game.
I've never heard of Paradise, or in fact any ss13 server, be referred to as 'competitive' before. This is the first time I've heard of that. In fact, with arguments on removing the idea of greentext (which I myself am split on), the idea of ss13 being a competitive game is exactly the type of mentality that we want to avoid. Competitive games are generally toxic.
Regardless and more to the point, this isn't a change to the server; EoC's were paroleable before SoP was updated to disclude them specifically back in July 25th of this year. This simply changes it back to that standard.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, necaladun said:
This also assumes it's a bad thing. Imo, and Us vs Them mentality between the security for a corporation and a group of agents trying to destroy said corporation seems utterly appropriate to the setting and RP. I don't get why we'd want to remove this.
An Us vs Them mentality makes sense from an IC perspective. The problem is that it turns OOC. Way too often. People hold grudges, people salt about shitcurity in deadchat. An Us vs Them mentality between our actual players is shit, we are a community. Being able to RP in between these situations lessens the emotional impact of the round and reminds us that we're all here to have fun, instead of here to ruin peoples day.
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, Rebel0 said:
It sounds fair to give the Captain a say in it; though I don't know about the HoS. The whole reason the Magistrate is usually the one chosen to handle over-seeing sec is because he's 'removed' from security, thus expected to be un-biased and be able to combat any bias Sec has. Captain is the over-all administrator so it would make sense he'd get a say and be able to remain at least partially impartial. In fact I can only see many of them accepting it if it benefits them/the station in some way.
Currently parole can be given to a non-EoC exceptional criminal with only one approval. Depending how one interprets the regulations and the words 'should not' they already can with just one of them. Should just sounds.. passive and a 'suggestion' rather than a strong word like may only. Though the majority of people do play should not by the books.Maybe you're right. An alterative would be Magistrate plus either Captain or HoS approval. That way the HoS can still be overruled, or the Captain if he or she is out of touch with security ongoings.
-
Just now, Kyet said:
I don't think Magi+HoS+Captain=>Parole is a viable system. Its hard enough to convince even ONE of those people to grant parole, let alone ALL of them.
The reason for parole going off the Magi alone is that Magi is supposed to be the final authority on space law on station... and unlike the HOS, the magi is there to ensure justic/fairness for all, including prisoners. The HOS should in theory do this, but in practice they often fall into the "play 2 win" mentality whereby they'd just never grant parole to anyone ever.
It's not a viable system because parolling EoCs should truly be a once in a blue moon type of thing. While some HoS's have a play 2 win mentality, there's also the valid reason that they will get blamed and called shitcurity if parolling the Eoc was the wrong call. The fact they are completely evaded in the parole discussion is quite frankly ludicrous to me. These voices matter.
A rare opportunity of an EoC parole will come up one day, and it'll be reasonable enough that every single member of command will agree to it. Having only the Magistrate approve encourages more and more paroles, which is a step too far. What I want is the option to parole an EoC, instead of the current system which provides no option.
-
After a long discussion hidden within the admin design chat, I propose that EoCs may only be paroleable if the Magistrate, HoS, and Captain, UNANIMOUSLY agree to the parole of a prisoner. The system has a chance to be abused in terms of EoCs, and this change is to fix most of those issues (unless all of command happens to be bald or insane at the time, which should never happen).
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Kyet said:
Options for discouraging that include:
- ICly, specifically say that the EOC must have been caught to be eligible. EOCs that turn themselves in unprompted are not eligible for parole.
- OOCly, add an advanced rule that says EOCs who turn themselves in at shift start get antag-banned, since if they don't want to be an antag they should be ahelping to get the status removed, not turning themselves in roundstart and giving away the game mode instantly.
- Either way, it seems like a solvable problem.
The IC version doesn't make logical sense to me, but the OOC option I'd be down for. As long as the antags are doing something antaggy then it's fine and acting in character (even just the attempt), but otherwise you're literally just taking up a slot. Fortunately this isn't behavior I see often anymore.
Parroting Ansari, more flexibility is good.
-
Before the parole change there was the possibility for EoCs with little to no criminal activity to be placed on parole, mostly for EoCs that turned themselves in. I believe the reasoning was that it encouraged antags to go against their objectives, but I'm sensing a shifting attitude to wanting more sec/antag interaction on the RP level, which is always good. I would want EoCs to only be parole-able on crimes Major and below but exceptional crimes are also paroleable anyways. Overall a +1.
I know the argument for metafriending abuse is prevalent but it also goes all the way down the chain: a sec officer that would parole a friend would also most likely choose to just, not arrest the friend committing the crime in the first place
-
2
-
-
Without going to deep into it or thinking of any consequences, I like the idea. It's simple, useful, and doesn't require too much effort or thought. There have been security members that applied for medical bodyguard access, and dedicated janitors make sense for a department that gets blood everywhere. +1.
-
We did it boys, let's go home.
-
I think the second condition still applies because the prisoner would still be cuffed. An officer would still be able to catch up with the prisoner before they could remove the shackles, and if the prisoner is unable to retaliate then there's absolutely no logical way they the sec officer could respond with lethal force. If the clown slipped the officer MULTIPLE times and the prisoner could uncuff himself, that's a different problem and 100% an aiding and abetting charge.
Besides, I don't really see prisoner transport as important or significant enough to bloat modifier since, outside of round end transfer shuttle (or no BP and a medical emergency), perma prisoners rarely get escorted out of perma in practice. Great point, though.
-
A couple preludes real quick. In terms of:
4 hours ago, Rythen said:yeah yeah, we should have had blindfolds on hand so they couldn't glare, hindsight and all that, didn't realize we had none around until it was too late
We don't have blindfolds in sec by default. We really should. The current way to acquire blindfolds is by cutting up bedsheets or something, I don't even know how to do it myself since someone else was (fortunately) in sec to handle it, but the process of getting blindfolds is SUPER esoteric and very very dumb.
Now that that's off my chest, thanks for the thread. Judging by everything I've read, and based off of Rythen's extremely correct comments about perma being the SENTENCE, and not the actual act of being placed in the perma brig, I'd like to propose a more specific perma escape criteria. This will obviously have to be prettied up.
An attempted escape from a permanent sentence qualifies if one or more of the following is true:
1. The prisoner has breached their assigned cell, uncuffed. For permabrig, this means breaching through the the lobby. For solitary confinement or a standard issue cell set to 60 minutes (should perma be unavailable), this means being outside of the cell and in a hallway.
2. The prisoner is uncuffed and has the equipment necessary to reasonably stun and cuff an officer, or has demonstrated the capability of placing an officer into a critical position. (Beating an officer to death is an escape attempt. Slipping an officer and punching them a few times is not an escape attempt. Cuffing an officer is an escape attempt. Stealing a baton or a taser by itself is not necessarily an escape attempt unless they are also beating an officer to death with it?)
I believe this description sums up everyones concerns on the thread since we all seem to be on the same page here, but please offer opinions and copy/paste this to make it your own.
-
4
-
-
Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa is that a double digit number on my god damn forums excuse m-EXCUSE ME, SIR, THIS WILL NOT STAND, THE AUDACITY.
-
I don't remember the context of this one, I just woke up with it in my files.
Spoiler.thumb.png.a84ccd8ea0988d9b00785412308df416.png)
A maint dweller has developed his new home with a little help from his friends.
Spoiler.thumb.png.02f402ec3bab69d48cb3b712b4bdeb40.png)
Hey hey hey, it's faaaaaaaaaat Chailer!
Spoiler.thumb.png.07338cf8741ba4fac58914bb3302f510.png)
.thumb.png.568fbc832316f36e860ef33faabc4f47.png)
.png.a3e6848f26ac82431789a81182618ba9.png)
_LI.thumb.jpg.64f79f0b8f40569eac980553b6a04281.jpg)
.png.fb9d67c8d1a45624764d4ca70c0803e6.png)
-
2
-
-
Now wait 1 second....
-
I AM SHOCKED AND APPALLED BY THESE ACCUSATIONS TOWARDS MY CHARACTER. I WILL NOT HEAR IT, AND I WILL NOT RESPOND TO IT. HORRENDOUS. ME?! MY GOD.
SpoilerTry updating to the beta branch
-
Ahhh so many god damn wacky situations and I never screenshot NEARLY enough. Here are the few that I've remembered to capture, and I'll do my best to screenshot more.
_LI.jpg.b51eec63205736699c800aa120a9c61d.jpg)
THE COUNCIL
Spoiler.png.e90336670e10d56df43faee0627a3b51.png)
CONGRESS! We sold the station to the USSP this round, which is something I unfortunately forgot to capture.
Spoiler.png.3917d6b89b193de3e2917cf8502639c7.png)
PRAXIS CHAILER vs. THE NINJA! (Jury is out whether Praxis cheated by using the telebaton. He totally did.
)
Spoiler
Missing include Praxis's commissioned Tomb, and the time he became a USSP second in command, plus a few other great situations. I'll be sure to screen shot more so I don't miss em.
Good to be back fellas.
-
2
-
-
On 7/2/2019 at 1:20 PM, Allfd said:
I guess if you think I am being disingenuous....
I base my reasoning on a few things, but here are some fast ones.
1) Assuming both sides are balanced, this is just straight up prisoners dilemma. This is well established in conflicts (But requires us to assume both sides would be interested in role play, otherwise it becomes zero sum, and yeah, shoot first regardless.)2) This is a role playing game, claiming that role playing and game mechanics are not linked seems a stretch. I can't think of any of the major medium RP servers that use instastun.
That's fair. Let me elaborate on what I meant on my gameplay/roleplay comment.
I think that as a PR, discussions around instastuns should be based on it's gameplay merit alone. The reason I say that is because that, while I do agree with the idea that instastun changes will be beneficial to the server, pushing it as a roleplaying issue will just confuse people. This is ultimately a gameplay change we are attempting to make, we can't make roleplaying changes because we can't force people to roleplay.
Ss13 combines gameplay and roleplaying in an insane and convoluted way, and each of these two elements play off each other to make the server what it is. One important thing to remember that the line is crossed everywhere. There's a difference between roleplaying being mad because of player interaction, and actually being mad because you had zero time to react to an instastun. I'd just like to attack gameplay issues as gameplay issues and roleplay issues as roleplay issues, because as we attack problematic gameplay issues, we work towards creating a safer and less stressful environment where perhaps roleplay may flourish.
Now that THATS out of the way, I should probably let you guys know that I'm changing my position on the PR to against implementing. I've been playing sec rounds. Antags all have instastuns and removing the instastuns from solely security would, in my opinion, throw the balance of the game right out the window. Instastuns make it where you have to be thinking about fights way in advance. If a vampire is running up to you with no weapons drawn, and you are alone, he can stun, mute, and kill you. Your only options are to 1. Shoot or 2. Run or call for help. Shifting towards a less instastun focused meta would be beneficial, but we need to remember that we ended up in this meta because instastuns are easy to access for both sides. (Edit: I could have also just shot first I guess like a non-shitty sec officer, pardon my salt)I would love to see an overarching forum thread talking about security and antag meta. Changes can be made to remove instastuns from basic play but they do need to be removed from both sides. I would love to share my opinions and insights on such a thread.
Edit: Wait I changed my mind again. God damnit why does this game have to be so complicated. Put me back in for test implement.
-
1
-
-
My two cents.
- Treating this as an RP issue feels disingenuous. RP is entirely based off of server attitude. This is a power shift and meta issue.
- Taser insta stuns are strictly better and more effective for security in the long run. One click to stun versus four/five clicks to stun is a monumental difference for this kind of game.
- If tasers are to be removed, disablers may have to be buffed, examined, or at least have more shots that would make the weapon as efficient as a modern day taser.
- I don't think that this will change will make it harder to deal with greytide, and if the greytide becomes so out of control and nuts to handle that one click instastuns are needed to take care of greytide and it gets to the point that security literally can't function handling both greytide and antags, then perhaps that's when admin intervention needs to get involved for self antag.
- Every antagonist having some way of dealing with insta-stuns is not an argument that hold water for me (sorry @Da Dman234 I still love you) because that sounds more like a compromise to a problem instead of a fix to a problem.
- The PR comments are buzzing, emotions are high, but everything that's been said so far has been valid. While yes, I'd love to see a test change, it is true that we can't just pull out a PR that removes targeting security without seriously considering what kind of effect it would have on the antag game. People will not be satisfied if we do not sit down and deconstruct the current meta of the game. Else this change is just gonna be discarded (again) and brought up (again).
So yes, keep discussing, keep providing theories opinions and research, but don't just discard it or avoid taking it seriously. I'd just hate to see this thrown away for the umpteenth time without at least having it tested for a few rounds. Oh and also feel free to attack all of my points but please don't threaten my family.
-
2
-
.png.1d38718b1bf6c531c79cf66058da1893.png)
.png.48e2441fe79c0e619a3426ab0c1b17e8.png)
.png.5363ebe420aa8ab93e982f7130e5c920.png)
.png.39342f8a4018ccbbfb4734cbc42cfa59.png)
_LI.jpg.03eef95f75e2f08e47df132ccc71aad7.jpg)
Minor SoP Chaplain edits
in Wiki Development
Posted
As per @robveelben
Point 1: Valid, though I want to reiterate that the main reason FOR introducing this into SoP is NOT to override or conflict with any existing space law, but INSTEAD to inform any new chaplains of the possibility of it happening.
Point 2: In regards to ‘This implies if the chaplain is not helping they should be charged and send to perma breaking space law aswell.’, I can 1000% see the case of someone misinterpreting the wording and using the law to abuse power. That all being said, I am still in favor of having SOMETHING about cremator use in Standard Operating Procedure.
“Which in fairness is not their concern and they shouldn't be alert of when security use their crematorium and it might cause them to even be liable to the usage of it if security made a mistake.”
I believe that Chaplains unaware of space law nuance SHOULD have some awareness about changeling cremation procedure due to the fact that it is common during changeling shifts (even though canonically these shifts do not happen often, it happens often enough to have to be mentioned.) AI’s can activate cremation and aid in changeling work outside of the Chaplains help, but even then, Chaplains should be in the loop.
Therefore I will be changing the wording from:
6. The Chaplain should be ready to aid and assist security with removing dangerous and revivable/immortal hostile entities (IE: Changelings) via cremation in the crematorium. Chaplains actively resisting/getting in the way of security as they attempt to use the Crematorium makes you eligible for 'Aiding an EoC', with perma being the maximum possible charge.
To
6. The Chaplain should be made aware that security may require access to the station crematorium for removal of ‘unkillable’ threats. Any attempts to actively prevent security from the cremator may result in the relevant space law charges.