Change background image
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Blacklisting MAA, HoS and Warden from Traitor.

Discussion in 'Fulfilled Items' started by Loaf, Aug 3, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Loaf

    Loaf THE SIGNAL THE SIGNAL THE SIGNAL Developer Ascent Species Maintainer Deputy Vox Maintainer

    Link to PR: here.

    Summary of changes: This PR blacklists all Security roles other than Forensic Technician (Warden, MAA, HoS) from being traitors.

    Why these changes should be made: To quote the PR author:
    As the response on the PR itself is perfectly split and valid arguments have been presented on both sides, I am deferring the PR to this thread for more in-depth discussion. Please be aware of and follow the rules for this forum.
    SgtManGuy and Rowtree like this.
  2. mikomyazaki2

    mikomyazaki2 Petty Officer First Class

    Reposting the stuff I put in #feedback here about why I don't think this change should go in.

    In my opinion, it's a moderation / RP issue with sec not policing themselves. I don't think they necessarily have more power than command antags / other antags high up in departments, guns / combat equipment are not hard to find.

    I make ahelps all the time about MAAs that don't follow laws properly where they apply to themselves (e.g. dealing with brutality as an MAA, properly following the laws, properly following procedure for prisoners/arrests). This is an thing that applies to non-traitor MAAs as well as traitor MAAs, and this PR does not address that issue.

    I'd rather see it corrected by better moderation for Rules 2 (play a sane character that wouldn't be instantly fired) & 14 (do your job - MAAs are police not soldiers, understand the laws and don't beat people up, make sure the other MAAs are acting properly), 15 (don't self-antagonize as an overly brutal MAA). Or by security removing MAAs equipment and access and firing them more frequently if they're acting up. If antagonists are playing MAA and manage to hide their antagonism while appearing to be a perfectly legit MAA, then good for them.

    Removing roles from traitor will just cause metagaming in the direction of "we can trust the other MAAs always" which increases the "us against them" feeling of sec vs. the crew/antags. I'm not against CoS being non-traitorable I guess. Since they're there to watch security is doing their jobs properly.
    TL;DR - I like traitor because it is so freeform. I don't want it to become sec vs. the rest of the ship. If people are playing terrible MAAs, and the other MAAs aren't policing them, to the point that a traitor MAA is not distinguishable from a normal MAA, then that is a moderation issue.

    This is also more of a problem on low-pop than high-pop - Which is true of a lot of things, since we can't balance the game around low-pop really. Perhaps it could be dealt with partially by adding some sort of weighting system to make security less likely to be antagonists, and less likely if there are already security antagonists, rather than blacklisting them from traitor all together.
    thebest_player757 likes this.
  3. Spookerton

    Spookerton Public Kohai № 1 Head Administrator Manager Senior Administrator Community Moderator IPC Species Maintainer Donator

    I don't like it. Traitor MAs are fun. Some traitor MAs are not fun. The not fun ones are unfortunate, but are far from the rule, excepting in that all roles that can be traitor get good traitors and bad traitors. Traitor MAs are far from "free to do what they want", and are usually treated harshly compared to other traitors when handled. The only situation where the scenario mentioned in the PR OP is only superficially realistic at best, and is where they are a traitor and also the only MA - in which case they are most usually mobbed.

    If we stopped all "privileged" roles from being traitor candidates, not many roles would be traitor candidates. Deck can order anything they want, science can print the best gun by the handful and make more powerful bombs, weapons, and utilities than are available to other traitors, and bridge crew have the helm, a shuttle, and as big an armory available with fewer checks and paranoia than MAs.
    Publius, Imienny, Blue_Bit and 4 others like this.
  4. Deadmon_Wonderland

    Deadmon_Wonderland Laser Tag 2019 Participant

    The issue is with firing MAs is that you're only given 4. With the removal of sec borgs, the number of security that is primarily response (COS, FT, and Brig Chief should be more secondary responses or support staff due to the nature of their roles). Effectively, you have 4 people to deal with situations give or take.

    The issue especially with a bad traitor MA is that you lose 25% of your response team. Security especially is big on communication and coordination, so having one MA that doesn't do what they're being told or whatever is effectively removing a good portion of the response. This applies doubly so if you have a bad traitor COS or Brig Chief, since these two roles are supposed to coordinate the MAs, so having a Brig Chief or COS that's too busy running around doing traitor things to properly coordinate can be extremely debilitating for a security team to do anything, especially if you don't have veteran MAs who have the experience in MA to take the reigns when things go down.

    I gotta handle something but I'll add on or post later.
    Schwann likes this.
  5. CubecsMelody

    CubecsMelody Bartender

    Blacklisting the CoS would be favourable, since the CoS role is very important in security matters and could ruin security operations as hard as a CO traitor or a XO traitor, wich as far as we are aware, both jobs are blacklisted from becoming tators.
    its hard, i would even say IMPOSSIBLE to deal with a traitor CoS as an MAA. i mean, what are you going to do little MAA? write a warrent? coordinate with sec over your channel? oh wait, i the fabulous CoS pretty much control thoose things and also can shittalk you to command.

    there are a maximum of 4 MaA's at a time,no more no less, if multiple traitors at once decide to go loud, taking hostages, shooting up the place, doing bomb threats it can already be overwhelming for security. if suddenly 1 of your buddies backstabbes you its pretty much impossible to deal with theese threats.
    wich isnt a bad thing perse, since its good to see traitors "WIN" sometimes, even though one could argue that creating chaos without proper escelation isnt how a traitor wins, thats just how your ruin a round, wich most of the time theese kind of rounds are.

    we have had pretty much only good traitor MaA experiences and a lot of bad non-antag MaA experiences, where one could argue that security should learn how to sec before playing.

    in our eye a job should only be blacklisted from being an antag, if them being an antag gives them such an advantage that the crew wouldnt have a fighting chance anymore, wich makes the server no longer fun to play and we want it to be fun so people can waste their life away, wich makes:
    CoS a blacklistable job, since they can fuck over everything sec does.
    MaA/Brig Chief not a blacklistable job, since them being a traitor doesnt give that much of an advantage compared to non-sec antags, see spookertons argument, the only way where they could is if it where low pop or half of sec is already an antag, to wich i would agree to having some eternal internal system that doesnt put to many antags in security at once.

    the bad-sec issue is something for another thread.
  6. thebest_player757

    thebest_player757 Bartender

    Right, time to dump my opinions here. Now, I can say first hand that I have personally not had many good experiences playing against traitor MAs, but I am personally of the opinion that that is more based on the antags rather than the role itself. I definitely think there is a lot of creative stuff you can do as an antag MA to make the game fun, but it is sort of an unspoken rule to never antag as an MA, or sec in general amongst most people, so we don't really see many good antags there. Most antag MAs that I encounter are one offs and they do something shitty and I never see em again. This could be solved by just making the role antag proof, but I do not know if that is the correct course of action.
  7. Imienny

    Imienny Laser Tag 2019 Participant

    im against blacklisting MAs from traitor because it would make crew blindly trust them because hey, they cant be bad!
    i heard there was similar situation when one well known MA main got antag banned and peoples were blindly trusting him because of that he cant be bad.
    Publius and Spookerton like this.
  8. Toybasher

    Toybasher Research Director

    I'm against blacklisting ANY roles from antag besides maybe AI. (Which we've already done. AI can't be traitor anymore but it can be the Malf antag. I never had anything against Tater Tot AI though)

    I was against the CO and XO antag blacklisting (WIsh it'd be reverted) because a CO antag had SERIOUS potential for fun gimmicks like keeping the explorers and XO in the dark as you send them out to hostile planets and possibly even maroon them, or you use bureaucracy and fine print to your advantage and get people in serious trouble via framing.

    There was also the self-destruct but that A: Required two people, and B: Was a round ending thing and you probably wouldn't be able to set it off without admin permission (and even then probably only under absolutely dire circumstances like as part of a threat if demands are not met in an hour and a half, and if they fail you could set it with a long timer of like 30 minutes so there's tons of time to disarm it or build tension)

    Traitor XO also had some cool concepts for traitor like financial fraud (if we still have that anymore. Think the ship's finances are no longer XO stuff?) or trying to overthrow the CO etc.

    In terms of Security antags, I am also against blacklisting them. Some of my favorite moments on the Exodus were swapping the fingerprint records around so after murdering someone, it looked like some other guy did it. Or investigate your own crime and pin it on someone else. You also have access to ways to easily kidnap people (Handcuffs, non-lethal weaponry, etc.) which gives you MUCH more flexibility in your ways of antagonism, be it to steal their ID card or tie them up to a chair with an emitter pointed at them if you want to be more supervillain-y if you want to kill them. You can release other antags out of the brig by "Accident" etc. If you want to just play corrupt and rule with an iron fist, beating the heck out of people for trivial infractions you can, which was something I used to do.

    As others have mentioned exempting roles from antag causes a "Metagamey" situation where these roles are "Always trustworthy". In terms of "Power" it is true security antags are powerful but as another poster mentioned, Science can make explosives and weapons. Medical, ESPECIALLY surgeons can EASILY rob or kidnap people. (I.E. when people go in for a possibly unneeded surgical procedure, you can simply steal their items, or sedate them, put them in a bodybag, and kidnap them, implant them with explosives, etc.). Engineering has access to the supermatter engine which is DEVASTATING and round ending if blown up. Even bridge staff can do something like deliberately fly through asteroid belts and electrical storms, etc. The possibilities are endless.

    I do agree security antags can be powerful and annoying but I'm against removing them. I find the gimmicks and antics you can pull way too much fun to be worth removing.
    Spookerton likes this.
  9. Emmanuel Bassil

    Emmanuel Bassil Senior Enlisted Advisor

    "its hard, i would even say IMPOSSIBLE to deal with a traitor CoS as an MAA. i mean, what are you going to do little MAA? write a warrent? coordinate with sec over your channel? oh wait, i the fabulous CoS pretty much control thoose things and also can shittalk you to command."

    As someone who's played CoS traitor and as someone who was victim to CoS traitor as CO (many times); this is not remotely true.

    Also, others have covered all the main points, the most important being: The last thing we need is an irreproachable Security department. Already the word of the CO/XO is sacrosanct when it comes to having anyone arrested. Moving that privilege to MAAs will mean tripling the valid hunting we already have.

    "MAA Apprentice says he saw X do that! There's no evidence but he's an MAA *wink wink*, so it must be true!"

    I say this as someone who mains CO: Our immunity to traitoring gives us alot of meta-legitimacy. Is it ideal? No. But it works since CO is the top-dog role and whatnot. But extending that to MAAs and the CoS? Heavens no.
    Spookerton and Tristan63 like this.
  10. Roland410

    Roland410 Petty Officer First Class

    I think that traitor sec can be fun, but at the same time, only saw a handful of people pull it off successfully, and as such, I am on the side of blacklisting them from traitor (do note that they can still be cultist etc.) because a traitor sec is usually subtle enough by itself and hard to go up against without breaking any server rules unless the situation already permits it.
    Security has more power than some people even in this thread think of, but they just don't want to admit it, and yes, the fact that they have easy access to equipment IS one of those thing, because while deck can order weapons (I think only on red anyways, and need an emitter to break the crate) or sci can print it, it means they can be immediately arrested on the spot if they leave science with it or find them in a random search, unlike if you are security and seen with an AEG or any other gun, people will instantly think they are fine having that, even if the gun was acquired from the uplink or through illegal methods.

    All in all, command antags can be a problem, but usually nothing will come as close to any member of security being an antag, and I think that says a lot.
    Schwann likes this.
  11. Publius

    Publius Bartender

    The use of weasel words here makes me inclined to think this is basically a salt PR. Since when is traitor sec "incredibly" hard to deal with? Only COS actually has a material advantage over any other form of traitor (who themselves often have material advantages over a traitor COS). The equipment access that MAAs and the Brig Chief have isn't anywhere near as useful as what every traitor already can bring to the table, and they both have more regulations to prevent them from abusing their power than any other job on the ship. I just think it's easy to dismiss out of hand the idea that traitor sec is "incredibly" hard to deal with, and no one else here seems to be able to justify the position either. It needs to be understood that whether or not you or anyone else enjoyed playing with a traitor MAA, Brig Chief, or COS is mostly irrelevant. Fun comes from the antag's ability as a roleplayer, not the particular job they rolled traitor on. What matters is whether or not when rolling this particular job they have some sort of mechanical advantage that unbalances gameplay. The fact that the PR doesn't even address anything in particular is a bit of a joke. They had a bad time against traitor sec, maybe multiple bad times, and despite not even being able to figure out why they had a bad time they want to blacklist the entire department.

    I'm against hitting COS specifically with an antag blacklist as well, and only because the slope is getting slippery. First CO, XO, AI, now COS? When it becomes faddish for CE's to delam the supermatter in six months, will we just blacklist all line officers? The more roles that can be traitor, the more potential there is for good RP. Blacklisting COS as a misguided compromise with a terrible salt PR is a mistake.
  12. afterthought

    afterthought Head Developer Developer

    OK, this has been resolved. Locking thread. COS will be banned from traitor for the time being; we can reassess in a few weeks how it went.

    Do not insult the PR author's intention in this thread again. This is a formal warning.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.