Not an actual complaint but a request for clarification.

[poirate]

 

admin key HereticChurch (at least he's the one I talked to)

 

Complaint: not really a complaint just a request for clarification.

 

Today 10/26/15 round ending approximately 1:50 am EST.

 

So in this round I was a traitor with the objectives to steal a jetpack and hijack the shuttle.

 

Me and an other traitor teamed up to complete this goal, specifically he made a cloner and backed up my mind and built a telepad targeting the escape pods in arrivals.

 

In order to prevent anyone escaping alive I went to the escape shuttle and used 2 bags of holding to form a singularity, then my partner cloned me and teleported me and him to an escape pod. mission accomplished.

 

This is actually similar to something I saw two syndicates do in do in a previous round that day, basically one guy sing bombed the escape for him so he could get his hijack objective.

 

None of the admins on that round had any problems with it and ooc was full of vibrant discussion of hijack tactics, both passive and aggressive. Tully even commented how surprising it was that an aggressive tactic actually worked.

 

After I sing bombed the shuttle this admin messaged me saying that this was unacceptable, even though others have done it and been showered with karma as far as I could see no players complained.

 

I'm very confused. the wording of the objective is to ensure no loyalist crew escape alive. A singularity is one hell of a deterrent to keep people off the shuttle, and kills any foolish enough to try.

 

I don't see how this is outside of the bounds of my objective in any way given the wording thereof, if this is not what is expected then perhaps the objective should be reworded.

 

I'm just looking for clarification on this matter.

 

[Earthdivine]

The hijack objective is specifically: "Hijack the emergency shuttle so no loyalist crew can escape." Please note it specifically states the shuttle. This objective is meant solely for the escape shuttle and completing it on a pod is a bug if it's do able. Now why this is bad is because it looks more like you were singlo bombing things to do it rather then your objective, since the singlo ate it and this invalidates it.

[DeletedUser]

 

I know I shouldnt post here, but since nobody else replied and I can provide the clarification you ask for (or part of it), I will just try to explain it briefly. Zog ye Regins.

 

EDIT: Earth posted just as i was typing this dagnabbit, oh well whatevs.

 

Definition of "hijack"

 

"To seize control of (a vehicle such as an airplane or bus) by use of force, especially as a way of reaching an alternate destination or as an act of terrorism."

 

"To take control of (something) without permission or authorization and use it for one's own purposes"

 

The idea behind the hijack objective is to take over the shuttle and fly it to the syndicate base (this last thing doesnt happen because of limitations of the source code), because the syndicate wants it for whatever dark and evil reason. It's not hard to guess how destroying the shuttle conflicts with the objective of capturing it.

 

However, the wording of the objective and the code itself only cares about nobody else but the traitor escaping alive on the shuttle, so destroying it and escaping on a pod, or even not escaping at all, is a valid tactic according to the mechanics of the game, as long as nobody makes it to the shuttle alive.

 

With this in mind, some people only care about the actual mechanics of the game, while others care more about the spirit of the game (which can also be interpreted differently depending of the person), hence why some people would praise such tactic as you described, while others would despise it.

Personally I wouldnt destroy the shuttle to complete a hijack objective, though I've chosen to disable all my antagonist candidancies so my preferences aren't very revelant.

 

Of course, if anything I say conflicts with what the current admins say, their version is correct and mine is to be considered null.

 

[poirate]

 

"To take control of (something) without permission or authorization and use it for one's own purposes"

 

By the definition of the word one's one presence is not required to hijack, merely the sizing of control and making use for one's own purpose.

 

For example you can hijack a train simply by diverting it to a different track, without ever being on said train, even putting an unexpected payload on a train is considered a hijacking.

 

All that is required for the use of the word hijack to be valid is action and intent and both of those criteria are met.

 

You guys have 100% access to the source code and can easily change the wording of the objective or requisites of the code, It's difficult for me as a player to determine that you want something you could easily ask for but have not done so.

 

As for taking control of the shuttle, that's not at all something that's even possible, however the wording of the objective is that the goal of the hijacking is to ensure that no loyalist crew escape alive.

 

That wording is important as it means dead is an option, and that the goal is NOT the hijacking but rather the prevention of loyalists escaping, and the hijacking is merely a means to that ends.

 

In short you have asked the player to perform these actions, if they are not what you want you can simply reword the objective.

 

[Earthdivine]

 

I don't even understand where you are coming from with Hijack also meaning destroy, honestly. You don't Hijack a train by blowing it up. You don't Hijack an armored truck by driving it into the ocean to submerge it. The act of Hijacking is to steal.

 

Though yes I will completely admit the wording is incredibly vague and I even said that when it was changed. I'll try to bug someone to change it to "Hijack the Escape shuttle and ensure no Loyalist crew is on board." I would do it myself if I could make heads or tails of how the Git works.

 

[poirate]

 

Just to clarify hijacking means to divert or use for your own purposes. by definition it does not require your presence on a shuttle to hijack it, only that you either divert or use it for your own purposes.

 

As the stated goal is to "hijack the shuttle TO ENSURE NO LOYALIST NANOTRASEN CEW ESCAPE ALIVE" then by the conventions of the English language my purpose is to prevent the escape of nanotrasen crew, and my method of doing so is to hijack the shuttle.

 

Placing a hazard on the shuttle to deter crew from entering it and killing those that do fits the English definition of hijacking the shuttle to prevent the escape of loyal crew.

 

The way the objective is worded doesn't even make it seem like I need to be alive or escape, I just did so out of a reasonable ic desire to be alive and not trapped alone on an abandoned station.

 

That's where I'm coming from on this.

 

[TullyBBurnalot]

 

Right, just pushing my way in here for a little comment:

 

None of the admins on that round had any problems with it and ooc was full of vibrant discussion of hijack tactics, both passive and aggressive. Tully even commented how surprising it was that an aggressive tactic actually worked.

 

When was this? I can assure you, if I said anything like this, I would be talking about the ESCAPE WING, and the reason I was surprised was because it very rarely works. I most certainly do not think this is a good way of hijacking the shuttle.

 

[poirate]

 

A few days ago now.

 

I certainly can't speak to your personal opinions on efficacy, and as they are irrelevant to the matter I wouldn't even try.

 

I just know you expressed surprise that an aggressive tactic had worked.

 

[TullyBBurnalot]

I should also point out that there's a great big difference between singlo bombing Escape and singlo bombing the shuttle. I should also that you cannot, by definition, hijack something by destroying it. Those are mutually conflicting.

[TullyBBurnalot]

No replies in nearly a month, leaving this open for another 24 hours before moving to Resolved.

[alexpkeaton]

 

I saw this because Tully bumped it. And I have no pony in this race besides a philosophy degree that has only been good for getting me in trouble like this.

 

That said. The objective is badly worded.

 

"Hijack the emergency shuttle SO no loyalist nanotrasen crew can escape."

 

A strict reading of the objective leaves several unanswered questions. Strictly worded, it does NOT provide any requirement that the traitor:

a. Be on the shuttle at all (though some element of control over the shuttle would be required and I can't think of any offhand that could be done without any traitor setting foot on the shuttle. Perhaps erecting a huge shield around escape, but since the shuttle will launch on autopilot, that's questionable.)

b. Escape the station.

and/or

c. Survive until the end of the round.

 

And why "so"? "...SO no loyalist nanotrasen crew can escape." What if the whole crew piles into one escape pod? They escaped, just not on the shuttle. Traitor still gets greentext. Don't get me wrong, it's a damn accomplishment when no one from the crew makes it on the shuttle during a traitor round. I would curse myself if I got that objective. But the "so" instead of a clear objective or at least an "and."

 

So, my horse in the race I guess is clarification. There's too much back and forth about what's acceptable and what isn't with this minor case. So here's my suggestion:

 

Adjust the objective to the following format:

 

"Ensure no loyalist Nanotrasen crew escape alive on the emergency shuttle..."

a. "...and escape alive on the emergency shuttle."

b. "...and escape alive on the emergency shuttle or an escape pod."

c. "...by any means necessary."

 

That would solve this issue. And, about this particular case, I think the solution was innovative but too meta in terms of planning with cloning already in mind. But I personally think this is an opportunity to learn and not to criticize.