Jump to content

The Union Contradiction


Aligote
 Share

Recommended Posts

Ok so i believe there is an inherent contradiction with how Union activity is done on the station OOC and IC. In game it is acknowledged that union activity and whatnot (protest, riots, and mutiny) do exist and justify sec repression of such activity, however, OOC it is stated by admins and rules that union members can't really do anything when sec does repress them. This leads to a common practice of someone organizing a demonstration, maybe one light tube is broken, sec arrests everyone as no one can really fight back without getting in trouble, and the movement just falls apart. I think there is an inherent issue with this due to the RP potential that is squandered, there is no stakes as security never really faces any reparations and command never really takes movements like protests or unions seriously (to negotiate with). 

There are several potential solutions, perhaps there should be a process with admins where an ahelp that directly addresses a violent response to potential sec repression can lead to a CC or admin announcement about a movement that has the potential to go violent (and be allowed to).

Or perhaps potentially bringing back a certain game mode like revolutionary with a more RP lense. I remember getting an admin response about how there are antag revolutionary roles that exist for this.... which there isn't. I think everyone agrees when I state how nobody really RPed with organizing during rev rounds, just flashing people like cultists. Perhaps a more union organizing-based system mentioned before would be better.

And finally, i dont know, just rejecting all of this and steering people away to booking potentially violent union events on forums or something?

All of this could be done through editing rules or advanced rules, perhaps space law entry or a wikipage about unionizing as well. I just think there is an inherent contradiction with how unions usually go on paradise and suggest any change at all to be discussed and perhaps implemented.

Edited by Aligote
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Aligote said:

Ok so i believe there is an inherent contradiction with how Union activity is done on the station OOC and IC. In game it is acknowledged that union activity and whatnot (protest, riots, and mutiny) do exist and justify sec repression of such activity, however, OOC it is stated by admins and rules that union members can't really do anything when sec does repress them.

Unions don't really make sense ICly. Nanotrasen is a big bad evil corporation, you think they'll support that kind of stuff?

OOCly it's far simpler, unions are used almost exclusively for self-antagging and are probably the most overplayed gimmick in the game. There's basically no situation where going around trying to organize a mob to beat down a department isn't going to be antagonistic, as you are causing security to focus on you rather than antagonists. 

8 minutes ago, Aligote said:

This leads to a common practice of someone organizing a demonstration, maybe one light tube is broken, sec arrests everyone as no one can really fight back without getting in trouble, and the movement just falls apart. I think there is an inherent issue with this due to the RP potential that is squandered, there is no stakes as security never really faces any reparations and command never really takes movements like protests or unions seriously (to negotiate with). 

Generally, this is due to the union gathering a bunch of spears together and sitting in the front of the bridge. Distracting security as a non-antagonist is kind of a big common sense no-no. And uh, generally unfun for anyone not part of the union in round. Antagonist roles are in game for a reason.

14 minutes ago, Aligote said:

There are several potential solutions, perhaps there should be a process with admins where an ahelp that directly addresses a violent response to potential sec repression can lead to a CC or admin announcement about a movement that has the potential to go violent.

There is actually a simple solution to this, ahelp and ask to form a union. If they say yes (no response is a response, it means no), Generally, when people are given event roles, this goes far smoother as an admin will actually want to play along, and other people will also want to play along. Security isn't gonna get flack for doing it's job.
 

18 minutes ago, Aligote said:

Or perhaps potentially bringing back a certain game mode like revolutionary with a more RP lense. I remember getting an admin response about how there are antag revolutionary roles that exist for this.... which there isn't. I think everyone agrees when I state how nobody really RPed with organizing during rev rounds, just flashing people like cultists. Perhaps a more union-based system mentioned before would be better.

Para did actually have an RP revolution gamemode, and it was removed in this PR: https://github.com/ParadiseSS13/Paradise/pull/4255
I do think this is more suited for adminbus stuff, however. 

19 minutes ago, Aligote said:

And finally, i dont know, just rejecting all of this and steering people away to booking potentially violent union events on forums or something?

People are already steered away from doing this stuff due to self antagging rules, cargonia is a good example of what unions often cause. 
 

20 minutes ago, Aligote said:

All of this could be done through editing rules or advanced rules, perhaps space law entry or a wikipage about unionizing as well. I just think there is an inherent contradiction with how unions usually go on paradise and suggest any change at all to be discussed and perhaps implemented.

Self Antaging: Antagonizing without being an Antag - Self Antaging refers to players who decide to do actions that normally only a Antagonist would do, i.e; Murdering other players, heavily damaging the station or causing chaos on a mass scale.
Unions will cause chaos on a major scale, I'd talk with neca about adding something more specific to the advanced rules as they maintain that page

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had half a reply written up but @Generaldonothing said basically everything.

Small non violent talks of unions before have had NT stealth ops come in and kneecap people before, however.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Unions don't really make sense ICly. Nanotrasen is a big bad evil corporation, you think they'll support that kind of stuff?

OOCly it's far simpler, unions are used almost exclusively for self-antagging and are probably the most overplayed gimmick in the game. There's basically no situation where going around trying to organize a mob to beat down a department isn't going to be antagonistic, as you are causing security to focus on you rather than antagonists. 

Unions do make sense ICly. NT is a big bad evil corporation who will fight tooth and nail to keep their crew's lives terrible, that's why UNIONS DO MAKE SENSE TO EXIST and why them being violent would make them more so. OOCly, of course the situation on the station does matter when someone tries to form a union, but it ussually should be due to an actual reason and when it's possible, players should put these into consideration. Moreover, gimmicks and being "overplayed"(as if any good gimmick isn't) shouldn't completely write it off, again it's a very flawed system that repeats itself because it isn't renovated. Still, it is kinda integral to Paradise lore, you're working for an evil megacorporation of course people would want to RP resisting it.

11 hours ago, Generaldonothing said:

Generally, this is due to the union gathering a bunch of spears together and sitting in the front of the bridge. Distracting security as a non-antagonist is kind of a big common sense no-no. And uh, generally unfun for anyone not part of the union in round. Antagonist roles are in game for a reason.

This goes the same for peaceful protests most of the time as well, in most of my encounters its sec who mindlessly arrests everyone without consideration to actual roleplay and them or command should be given flack for it. I don't know about you but demonstrations and such were never so "unfun" to the extent you say. Also, the presence of antags shouldn't prohibit conflict, it's one of the factors that make RP fun.

11 hours ago, Generaldonothing said:
11 hours ago, Aligote said:

There are several potential solutions, perhaps there should be a process with admins where an ahelp that directly addresses a violent response to potential sec repression can lead to a CC or admin announcement about a movement that has the potential to go violent.

There is actually a simple solution to this, ahelp and ask to form a union. If they say yes (no response is a response, it means no), Generally, when people are given event roles, this goes far smoother as an admin will actually want to play along, and other people will also want to play along. Security isn't gonna get flack for doing it's job.

I dont know how this contradicts the suggestion/solution, the ahelp is to get an admin in on it. And if there is no response I dont believe that prohibits unionizing altogether.

Quote

Para did actually have an RP revolution gamemode, and it was removed in this PR: https://github.com/ParadiseSS13/Paradise/pull/4255
I do think this is more suited for adminbus stuff, however. 

Apparently, the former RP rev game mode had you sign up when a popup came up? I don't know what adminbus refers to....but um that's great, it could be renovated into a more consensual and bureaucratic process by perhaps joining through signature? Any solution and suggestion is welcome.

Quote

People are already steered away from doing this stuff due to self antagging rules, cargonia is a good example of what unions often cause. 
 

Exactly, due to self antagging laws, solutions like giving unionists some antag status due to IC occurrences is a solution. Cargonia is likely one of the most loved gimmicks out there to some. Interesting scenarios can arise and shouldn't be entirely wiped away. Anything that goes against NT interests are essentially antags, that doesn't mean they should be wiped away as binarily antithetic to what paradise should strive for. Not all unionists are self-antaging tiders and those interested in complex RP scenerios may never get their chance.

11 hours ago, Generaldonothing said:

Self Antaging: Antagonizing without being an Antag - Self Antaging refers to players who decide to do actions that normally only a Antagonist would do, i.e; Murdering other players, heavily damaging the station or causing chaos on a mass scale.
Unions will cause chaos on a major scale, I'd talk with neca about adding something more specific to the advanced rules as they maintain that page

Appreciate this suggestion to make things clearer. Still I believe there’s a more RP oriented and nuanced solution.

11 hours ago, necaladun said:

Small non violent talks of unions before have had NT stealth ops come in and kneecap people before, however.

Ye it's kinda sad how often restrained union activity is and what NT can do without any real resistance.

Edited by Aligote
Misunderstood a point by generaldonothing about advanced rule changes, modified point.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part of the rules say you have to do the role you signed up for. Protesting and striking is the opposite of that. 

Giving people "Some antag status" for starting a union will mean people will do it constantly for a free antag role. 

This is something the staff have 0 interest in for the server. It's only fun for the people doing it, not for everyone else trying to do their jobs.

You can Ahelp for permission to do it, but there's no way this will be allowed automatically. It gets very old very fast.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, necaladun said:

 It's only fun for the people doing it, not for everyone else trying to do their jobs.

I don't believe protesting automatically affects engineers, cargo, rnd, or medbay to its detriment. Unionists should take their immediate surroundings into account, like no protesting when cultists are rampant. Moreover, unionists still get the short end of the stick most of the time with how handicapped they are when sec "does their job" and busts the movement for the 5000th time. Also, why should a player doing the same procedures of a monotonous job validate repressing others attempts at a more interesting RP experience? I just don't believe in the validity of that statement.

4 hours ago, necaladun said:

Giving people "Some antag status" for starting a union will mean people will do it constantly for a free antag role. 

This hasn't been proved; unions don't just sprout out of nowhere. Moreover, a system of asking admins still allows them to vet who just wants to antag and who wants to rp. A good ahelp detailing the reasons and goals for a union and why it can go violent if push comes to shove should be given more weight than a lazy ahelp that says their bored. It's not the only solution either, advising people to book union events pre-round or vouch for an RP rev mode is also in question.

4 hours ago, necaladun said:

Part of the rules say you have to do the role you signed up for. Protesting and striking is the opposite of that. 

Valid, but unions have never really been a detriment to station workings, that's the thing with unions that don't sprout immediately to harm "the station". An engineer finishing the SM and standing with a picket sign for a higher wage isn't as bad as an engineer forcefully converted into a rev by flash and not setting up the engine to attack his CE. Doing your obligation so the round runs smoothly isn't contradictory to protesting or "striking" afterwards, in my opinion. Thats the spirit of the rule right? What's more in line with the rule then to vouch for your working conditions as well?

4 hours ago, necaladun said:

You can Ahelp for permission to do it, but there's no way this will be allowed automatically. It gets very old very fast.

I understand that you can ahelp but to what extent? Can violence to defend against sec oppression ever be proposed?

4 hours ago, necaladun said:

This is something the staff have 0 interest in for the server.

Fine, I understand. I just thought there could’ve been more to this topic I genuinely believed can lead to more interesting RP scenarios and open command/sec eyes from monotonously union busting. 

Edited by Aligote
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm in a weird spot on this one, as I think RP wise antag mode like that would be fun I wasn't there to experience the thing @Generaldonothingmentioned tho. But I would expect people to just rush the objective and not do a single RP thing with it. At least some people would do this which would be louder (more noticable) overall than RP-ing people.
 

14 hours ago, Aligote said:

I don't believe protesting automatically affects engineers, cargo, rnd, or medbay to its detriment.

Inheritly no. But still if you have 3 engineers and 1 of them joins the protesting it makes engineering 33% less effective which may have big consequences if half of the station happens to explode and said engineer is too busy to notice or they just ignore radio. Same goes with medbay if people get hurt during protesting if they become understaffed.

The problem I see is that taking focus of securit off the antags (for which the game is balanced around), makes it easier to wreck havoc for said antags, which sometimes means collateral damage in station hull/machinery or/and dead bodies. 

 

 

I imagine you can RP that your character is in union and not make it a big fuss. For example bartender that requires people to pay for their drinks bcs nanotrasen doesn't pay them well enough. Or people constructing stuff without asking CE for permission (you have to IIRC, it's somewhere in the SoP), which you can be detained for. Like for example making a room somewhere and activelly do some shenanigans that are not really harmful (f.e. make room in maint but actively refuse to let heads and sec in). Maybe if you have RP buddies that you RP being in a union with you can make a meeting with them discuss some things, then go to NT Rep and demand higher pays from him. NT Rep is a role staright up for RP - f.e. mentioned situation.  Would love admin to say if that would be fine or not. Can't imagine why not.

Tho you have to remember the whole background of every character is that the NT gave you what like 2 000 pages long contract that you signed for a reason or two and they unofficially own you.



You see when people talk about the strikes and mutiny in game, what people see in their minds is bunch of people screaming "SHITCURITY" and "NT IS SHIT WHERE IS MY PAY" and generally just being dicks, while cultists get the upper hand over sec by using the disctraction you provided them to make new base, or convert more people. I don't see myself how bunch of loud people doing strike are beneficial RP-wise to the round. I agree that Unions make sense ICly. They would exist. I will argue tho that they would not get violent unless something serious happens that crosses the line, and that I would argue would be a situation when you make adminhelp. That being said I don't think this would happen very often.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BottomQuark said:

Inheritly no. But still if you have 3 engineers and 1 of them joins the protesting it makes engineering 33% less effective which may have big consequences if half of the station happens to explode and said engineer is too busy to notice or they just ignore radio. Same goes with medbay if people get hurt during protesting if they become understaffed.

The problem I see is that taking focus of securit off the antags (for which the game is balanced around), makes it easier to wreck havoc for said antags, which sometimes means collateral damage in station hull/machinery or/and dead bodies. 

Yes, unions shouldn't be organized when the station is under heavy pressure by antags and explosions. You shouldn't organize a strike when a cult or blob is present and this CAN be solved with some sort of admin cooperation. They can vet when a situation is good or bad enough for a union and how impactful(violent) it can be.

1 hour ago, BottomQuark said:

I imagine you can RP that your character is in union and not make it a big fuss. For example bartender that requires people to pay for their drinks bcs nanotrasen doesn't pay them well enough. Or people constructing stuff without asking CE for permission (you have to IIRC, it's somewhere in the SoP), which you can be detained for. Like for example making a room somewhere and activelly do some shenanigans that are not really harmful (f.e. make room in maint but actively refuse to let heads and sec in). Maybe if you have RP buddies that you RP being in a union with you can make a meeting with them discuss some things, then go to NT Rep and demand higher pays from him. NT Rep is a role staright up for RP - f.e. mentioned situation.  Would love admin to say if that would be fine or not. Can't imagine why not.

Tho you have to remember the whole background of every character is that the NT gave you what like 2 000 pages long contract that you signed for a reason or two and they unofficially own you.


You see when people talk about the strikes and mutiny in game, what people see in their minds is bunch of people screaming "SHITCURITY" and "NT IS SHIT WHERE IS MY PAY" and generally just being dicks, while cultists get the upper hand over sec by using the disctraction you provided them to make new base, or convert more people. I don't see myself how bunch of loud people doing strike are beneficial RP-wise to the round. I agree that Unions make sense ICly. They would exist. I will argue tho that they would not get violent unless something serious happens that crosses the line, and that I would argue would be a situation when you make adminhelp. That being said I don't think this would happen very often.

I can agree that perhaps some of these alternatives could be interesting (bullying NT rep), however, I feel theres a contradiction in not wanting the union to make an impact. The union should want to be known during the round and be a driving force for what happens. Also, why wouldn't it be benificial RP wise? Conflict is integral to what people find fun on paradise, allowing people to scream and shout against command or sec on a massive scale has its own aesthetic/charm/impressiveness thats adds to the overall round experience. Think what it could achieve if it wasn't handicapped ooc/ic wise and capable of forcing command to actually negotiate instead of be busted as they inevitably always ends.

Overall, I just believe there is some sort of optimum fun rp related activity revolving around rebellion and unions that can be replicated effectively under the right circumstances and design, perhaps you do too. A reformed union-esqe RP mode can surely work (even though this scope is large to ask for) as well, along with other potential solutions.

Edited by Aligote
Link to comment
Share on other sites

About unions making sense ICLY - If you had grievances with your evil company overlord, would you protest them somewhere safe from their reach with a large audience, or on board of their security-controlled, space-faring, nuclear-bomb-rigged, remote metal box ?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, PeakPerformance said:

About unions making sense ICLY - If you had grievances with your evil company overlord, would you protest them somewhere safe from their reach with a large audience, or on board of their security-controlled, space-faring, nuclear-bomb-rigged, remote metal box ?

Would you try to protest them outside of the workplace with no workers on a highly militarized pro-NT planet that implements martial law? COUGH COUGH Sol...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Terms of Use