Rythen
-
Posts
302 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Posts posted by Rythen
-
-
8 hours ago, Kyet said:
I still feel like this update doesn't cover what should be done if a prisoner sentenced to Permanent Imprisonment escapes custody during processing or during transport. The new updated one says "Permabrig" prisoners are to be executed if they escape. Does this now mean that someone who has been sentenced to Permanent Imprisonment but who escapes before they are placed into permabrig is free from execution? That seems like a very odd distinction to have in my opinion but if that is the intended distinction, could it be said more explicitly that this only applies after they are placed into the perma brig?
-
This change in SoP would have an impact on balance in favor of the cult by slowing down processing times and leading to more releases of cultists. Because of this I think it'd be a good idea to ask whether or not there's currently a balance problem in cult rounds before deciding if this is worth doing. And if the answer is yes then it should also be asked, is this the best way to fix the balance problem? I'm not going to give an opinion on whether or not I think cult needs balance changes or not because I'm honestly not sure. I just wanted to bring up some impacts that this change would have on balance as a topic of discussion and to play devil's advocate.
Processing is already super chaotic on cult rounds due to the number of people who end up as suspects, especially if the cult has been doing a lot of converting. This change would increase the complexity of processing suspected cultists and slow things down. Right now you're just able to test anyone who is brought in, which makes things simple, but time consuming. If you need to first evaluate whether or not each person who is brought in has enough evidence to be tested then this will slow things down and also increase the number of cultists who get released. Both things give an advantage to cult with this change.
Also, when cult has gotten to the point of being out of hand, it's already valid in SoP to authorize security to use lethals against cult and then revive and deconvert. If that's allowed to be an option then I think testing of suspects as long as it's not "mass testing" should be allowed. You should NOT be allowed to set up a checkpoint and test every single person who goes by with holy water. You should be allowed to test Joe if Joe was seen working closely with Bob and Bob was confirmed to be a cultist. If Joe turns out not to be a cultist, should the security officer be charged for this mistake since they were acting based off of evidence? If officers are charged for each mistake that is made when testing cultists this will even further reduce security's capacity to deal with the cult and will have another impact on balance.
In summary this would give three main advantages to the cult:
1. Slow down processing. This increases the amount of security's resources that need to be spent on processing vs bringing in more suspects.2. More released cultists. Less testing means less deconversions which means it will be harder to chip down cult numbers.
3. Officers arrested for incorrect tests. Security's capacity for handling cult goes down for each mistake they make.
-
3
-
-
I like the first condition, I think that's very clear.
I think the second one needs to be broadened slightly though. Consider this example: if a prisoner needed to be transported out of brig and was able to escape custody because for example a clown slipped the officer, they didn't do either of the two things you just mentioned but they did certainly escape custody. Did they cause the opportunity to escape? No, but they did however make the conscious choice to use that as an opportunity to run away. They could have also made the choice to remain in custody knowing that they could be executed if they flee.
-
2
-
1
-
-
Just going to add my opinion onto this because I think my interpretation has been wrong up until this point as well. In my round today as the HoS we had a case where a vampire escaped from custody multiple times while they were being processed into perma (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). But through this they escaped custody while being processed into perma. Captain ordered them executed for this and I oversaw the execution being carried out. I was boinked because they escaped but weren't actually in perma yet when they escaped so they said that this is not an escape from perma. The admin later said that it was justified in this case though. However from this I realized that the admin was interpreting "escaping perma" to refer to escaping the location and not the sentence. But up until this point I'd been interpreting it differently.
In the SoP itself it says "Any prisoners that escape Permanent Imprisonment or Exile may be detained, executed or killed on sight at the discretion of Security."
Permanent imprisonment to me sounds like the sentence and not the location. That would mean that escaping from custody if you've been sentenced to permanent imprisonment would fall under this, even if they haven't been put into the permanent prison itself. If they are sentenced to perma but are being brought to medbay for treatment and escape, this still sounds like an escape from permanent improsonment to me, even though they aren't in perma jail at the time.
If that's not the meaning then I think it should be reworded to say something along the lines of "ANy prisoners that escape from the perma prison" or something along those lines to make it clear that it's referring to the location would be better. The way it is right now sounds very much like it's referring to the sentence and not the location.
This is further supported by the fact that the line below, and 3 lines above are also referring to sentences and not locations. It says "Any prisoners that escape from an execution sentence are to be killed on sight". It does not say "Any prisoners that escape from he execution ROOM are to be killed on sight". To me it sounds like the intention of the permanent imprisonment one is the same.
-
2
-
-
I disagree with the passive preference based polling and think it would cause things to become stale. Expecting people to keep their favourite round type list preferences up to date is just extra effort and people would likely just set it and forget it.
I feel like right now we get a really good variety in round types. My concern with this would be that we get less variety if people don't frequently update their preference rankings. Say when the feature comes out a bunch of people set up their preferences. It works out to 75% of people ranking traitor as their favourite round type. Traitor starts coming up more often which is the intended effect. People enjoy the more frequent traitor rounds initially but start to slowly get bored of the repetition. We now rely on a majority of these people to actually update their preferences to reflect this fact otherwise nothing changes.It creates a situation where, if what you enjoy is variety, you are forced to keep updating your preferences constantly and hoping that other people do as well.
My preference would be no polling at all but if we were to have polling I'd prefer it be active. With active polling you are given the opportunity to think to yourself, what types of rounds have just come up, what am I sick of, how am I feeling right now, do I currently feel like a calm round or a chaotic one, etc. These preferences (for me anyway) change on a round to round basis and there's no way I'd want to be updating this rank list constantly after every round. If you just polled what my current preference is though, I wouldn't mind telling you.
oh sh!t he's on the forums now (long overdue introduction)
in Introductions
Posted
Maybe if you replace forum with mailing list though...