+- Goonstation Forums (https://forum.ss13.co)
+-- Forum: Server Appeals (https://forum.ss13.co/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Admin Feedback (https://forum.ss13.co/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Thread: Feedback Request for Clarification on RP Rule 1. (/showthread.php?tid=24739)
Request for Clarification on RP Rule 1. - chrisboidudeman - 12-05-2025
For full disclosure, my questions around this topic are at least partially related to an ongoing ban appeal. That being said, this would be useful information for the future as well to avoid any conflict with admins and rules. There are also some examples in here that I have had questions about for some time and now is a good time to ask.
Confusion:
Security is in an interesting spot RP wise, because while in lore they are there to enforce corporate interests, in practice they are the role that keeps antagonists in check. This is reinforced by the rules which give them a certain authority beyond just the RP and their ability to baton you. There are things you can do well within the rules and RP to everyone else that would simply get you banned if you did them to a security officer. As someone who recently got banned, primarily for not listening to orders from security, I'd like to get clarification on the line. I think the best way to do that would be to first address the rule in question and then go over some examples. Some obviously fine, some obviously too far, and some where it's not so clear.
- Make an effort to roleplay. Play a coherent, believable character. Playing a violent or racist character is not allowed. Play your character as though they wish to keep their job at Nanotrasen. This includes listening to security and the chain of command and, if you are a member of command, taking your job as a leader seriously in-character. Only minor crime is permitted for non-antagonists. Avoid memes (e.g. sus, pog, amogus), txt spk (e.g. lol, wtf), and out of game terminology when you are playing your character. LOOC is available if you need to communicate out of character. In addition, if you notice a character who is Afk/disconnected, please do not attack or mess with them beyond taking them to cryo.
The rule off the bat has a seeming contradiction. Minor crime is expressly permitted for non-antagonists, but not listening to security or command breaks the rules. This could mean you are permitted to do minor crime but if you continue after being caught then you are in breach of the rules. That doesn't seem to be in the spirit of the rule though. It's possible minor crime is meant to cover only things like hacking a door or illegally rigged gambling. There's a few interpretations, so let's go over some examples of things I've seen.
Example 1: A clown hides behind a bush and trips everyone they see with a banana peel. Security tickets and/or swirlies the clown, tells them no more tripping. The clown continues to trip people.
To me, this doesn't seem like rule breaking behavior. I'd also confidently state that most people probably wouldn't think this warrants admin intervention. Clowns are meant to do antics and tripping someone with a banana peel doesn't actually harm them. However, according to the wording of the rule, this clown is subject to a bwoink. Not only did security tell them to knock it off, but intentionally tripping people after a written warning not to do so is NOT the behavior of someone who wishes to keep their job.
Example 2: A member of the crew strips naked, breaks windows, makes weapons, and begins to "hunt" the beloved pets on station. The captain tells them to go get a job, a command which they ignore.
Of course here I am referring to the beloved Ug, a staple character of goon 4 that brings joy to many. Ug is not behaving in a way that indicates he wishes to remain employed with NanoTrasen and he directly defies an order from command in this example. Is this in breach of the rule? My gut instinct says "not really" but that is completely contradictory to the wording of the rule. Ug's gimmick makes for great roleplay and interaction, even when his desires clash with security's.
Example 3: An officer is behaving strangely and attempts to arrest someone without evidence or a stated crime. There is a known changeling on station. The arrestee flees arrest while being chased with baton and taser. When cornered, believing their life is at stake, they fight back.
Here's an interesting edge case scenario that I've witnessed multiple times. It is not impossible for security officers to be antagonists, and is certainly never clear when they are. Is the suspicion of an officer or member of command enough of a reason to ignore security or command? This example is especially important to clarify the rules on, as I've seen fear of admin retaliation used against the crew many times on classic by antagonists disguised as security officers. Nobody wants to get bwoinked just because they were wrong about who an antagonist was in their social deduction game. At the same time nobody wants to get their round ended because they were afraid to fight back.
Example 4: A clown is throwing pies in the faces of security officers during arrests and is ordered to stop. The clown continues to throw pies.
This seems like a clear example of breaking the rule. Not only is the clown simply disobeying security, but they are actively interfering with their ability to do their job. Is it the grief aspect that pushes it over the edge then? According to the wording of the rule, this is the same as the banana peel example.
Example 5: Staff assistants unionize and demand higher pay, forming a protest outside of the bridge. They do not disperse when threatened by security.
This is an example I have seen in some form multiple times, because what captain in their right mind would give in to the wage demands of staff assistants? In this example the staff assistants involved are directly opposing the commands of both security and command. They are also potentially distracting security from their duties by pulling them into politics RP. Most of the time this leads to arrests and such. One time the admins used admin tools to assist the protestors and further the roleplay. In another incident (related to the ban appeal) I was informed by an admin that defying security's demands to disband the union was rule breaking behavior. This seems like conflicting decisions by the admin team.
Example 6: The captain declares spacemas illegal, threatening to fire anyone who celebrates. The bartender hosts a spacemas party in the bar which does not disperse when threatened by security.
Here's a very similar example with one aspect changed. The captain drove the initial conflict instead of the crew. I've seen this play out a few times with both security being in on the anti-spacemas tyranny and times with security in support of spacemas. I don't believe any of the events required admin intervention, and yet according to the rules this too is rule-breaking behavior. Does the comical nature of the captain's request make the rule null and void? Is any situation that requires security to use teargas on the crew a situation that should be ahelped?
Example 7: A mime named "Crime Mime" goes around committing misdemeanors. Mugs people by pointing finger guns at them, vandalizes with his white crayon, and gets into multiple shove-fart fights with the clown. They continue their silent crime spree even after being brigged a couple times and talked to in character by security.
Clearly this character has a gimmick and is following it in an entertaining way. They are firmly protected by the "minor crimes allowed" part of the rule but are clearly continuing their actions even after being directly told to stop by security. They are also actively distracting security from more major crimes by being a reoccuring visitor of the brig. Is this person in breach of the rules? According to the wording, almost certainly. However, it's also an endearing gimmick that can be enjoyable all around.
Example 8: A non-antagonist spends the whole round doing very public and questionably legal get-rich-quick schemes, culminating in them holding a beloved pet "hostage" with a fake bomb in an attempt to gather ransom.
Bombs are always a big no-no, but honestly I'm curious about this one. Does this cross the line?
Example 9: A bartender is told they are serving too much alcohol and it is hurting the crew. They open a "secret menu" for people to order overly alcoholic beverages, while only publicly selling normal drinks.
I wanted to add this example because the bartender here is directly harming the crew by overserving them. They've also been warned by security and command to stop harming the crew. The harm, however, is consensual and within roleplay.
Summary:
This rule in particular seems VERY open to interpretation. Many of these examples I personally believe don't "cross the line" whilst very clearly being against the rule. All of these examples are from things I have seen personally in rounds, and when asking others, I have gotten conflicting answers on where "the line" is.
I'd love to hear the input of the admin team about when, if ever, it is acceptable to disobey a command from security or command in roleplay. Feel free to comment on any specific examples, or about none of them.
Oh god, I quoted the rule in black text. Here:
Make an effort to roleplay. Play a coherent, believable character. Playing a violent or racist character is not allowed. Play your character as though they wish to keep their job at Nanotrasen. This includes listening to security and the chain of command and, if you are a member of command, taking your job as a leader seriously in-character. Only minor crime is permitted for non-antagonists. Avoid memes (e.g. sus, pog, amogus), txt spk (e.g. lol, wtf), and out of game terminology when you are playing your character. LOOC is available if you need to communicate out of character. In addition, if you notice a character who is Afk/disconnected, please do not attack or mess with them beyond taking them to cryo.
RE: Request for Clarification on RP Rule 1. - Mordent - 12-05-2025
Gonna be real, I'm not reading all of that. But broadly: just because you see stuff in rounds so etines does not mean it's not breaking the rules. We are not omniscient and rely on people reporting when others break the rules. Players trying to define their own culture of rules that goes against the actual rules is historically utterly godawful, don't do that.
1: clown doing mischief is doing their job, provided they're not messing with security or whatever counts as helping an antag/griefing.
2: "gimmick" characters are not exempt from the rules
3: be able to explain and justify in admin PMs if we can't tell why you did it.
4: see 1. Don't help antags.
5: rule breaking
I'm going to go touch grass for a bit. Hope that helps.
RE: Request for Clarification on RP Rule 1. - chrisboidudeman - 12-05-2025
(12-05-2025, 05:51 PM)Mordent Wrote: Gonna be real, I'm not reading all of that. But broadly: just because you see stuff in rounds so etines does not mean it's not breaking the rules. We are not omniscient and rely on people reporting when others break the rules. Players trying to define their own culture of rules that goes against the actual rules is historically utterly godawful, don't do that.
1: clown doing mischief is doing their job, provided they're not messing with security or whatever counts as helping an antag/griefing.
2: "gimmick" characters are not exempt from the rules
3: be able to explain and justify in admin PMs if we can't tell why you did it.
4: see 1. Don't help antags.
5: rule breaking
I'm going to go touch grass for a bit. Hope that helps.
Thank you for your input, as condescendingly as it was given. For clarity, I'm not trying to define a different culture around rules. I'm directly asking the staff for clarity to avoid such a thing.
Could I ask for your input on example 6 since example 5 is considered rule breaking?
Lastly, can you provide any clarity on how "minor crime" can be allowed while simply "not listening to security" is rule breaking? These seem contradictory.
RE: Request for Clarification on RP Rule 1. - Mordent - 12-05-2025
Above were my takes, as is below, as an admin who attempts to enforce the rules. Other admins may differ in their opinions, this is normal by virtue of the subjectiveness of the context.
I'm not really looking to keep going into specific examples at this time, sorry. Another admin might.
Broadly: If you cannot be distinguished by a reasonable player from an antagonist, you have overstepped.
RE: Request for Clarification on RP Rule 1. - jan.antilles - 12-05-2025
Attention is the currency of roleplay. If you demand it from others in a way that falls under not acting like you want to keep your job, especially command/sec, by forcing them to ignore the other things happening in the round, you are taking on the role of an antagonist. If you're doing that without rolling antagonist, you're breaking the rules, because you're making the game harder and less fun for both Sec and the people who actually rolled antagonist.
My take regarding gimmick characters that are "so beloved" but against the rules: the rules are not there to impede your creativity, they are there to create an agreed-upon foundation for everyone to be creative and tell interesting stories. The setting is "you are all coworkers on a space station, but today something goes wrong" and it sets the stage for the people who actually roll antag to be that problem. If you break the setting, or break the rules, it's not cute or quirky. It takes away from the experience that the game is trying to facilitate.
RE: Request for Clarification on RP Rule 1. - chrisboidudeman - 12-05-2025
(12-05-2025, 06:15 PM)jan.antilles Wrote: Attention is the currency of roleplay. If you demand it from others in a way that falls under not acting like you want to keep your job, especially command/sec, by forcing them to ignore the other things happening in the round, you are taking on the role of an antagonist. If you're doing that without rolling antagonist, you're breaking the rules, because you're making the game harder and less fun for both Sec and the people who actually rolled antagonist.
My take regarding gimmick characters that are "so beloved" but against the rules: the rules are not there to impede your creativity, they are there to create an agreed-upon foundation for everyone to be creative and tell interesting stories. The setting is "you are all coworkers on a space station, but today something goes wrong" and it sets the stage for the people who actually roll antag to be that problem. If you break the setting, or break the rules, it's not cute or quirky. It takes away from the experience that the game is trying to facilitate.
That definitely clears things up regarding gimmick characters, but the first part of your reply causes more confusion for me, not less. I always assumed the difference between an antagonist and crew member was the ability grief and antagonisms against the crew. If the main difference is how much attention your roleplay asks for then that makes things more questionable.
I'd like to ask you about one instance specifically that may toe the line of the rules. Imagine a lawyer sues security multiple times, and a member of security is now attending a trial, preventing them from performing their duties. If nobody involved is an antagonist is this rule breaking behavior? This scenario pulls away from other avenues of roleplay and attention that the antagonist could be having. Yet, it's almost exclusively how the lawyer role is used in practice.
Thank you for replying, by the way. I really appreciate all the feedback on the topic I can get.
RE: Request for Clarification on RP Rule 1. - JORJ949 - 12-06-2025
I was the admin in both scenarios mentioned in example 5, the first scenario the assistants were just stood outside the bridge demanding higher pay and most importantly not committing other crimes, until I felt it had reached a good point, detonated a rev flashbang, and they all were then antagonists, importantly after being brigged and counterrev implanted, they knocked it off. In the second scenario several other crimes were taking place among the group and they did not stop after briggings. There was no conflicting decisions this was two differing scenarios in which one group stopped when told to (via brigging) and the other did not.
RE: Request for Clarification on RP Rule 1. - chrisboidudeman - 12-06-2025
(12-06-2025, 03:42 AM)JORJ949 Wrote: I was the admin in both scenarios mentioned in example 5, the first scenario the assistants were just stood outside the bridge demanding higher pay and most importantly not committing other crimes, until I felt it had reached a good point, detonated a rev flashbang, and they all were then antagonists, importantly after being brigged and counterrev implanted, they knocked it off. In the second scenario several other crimes were taking place among the group and they did not stop after briggings. There was no conflicting decisions this was two differing scenarios in which one group stopped when told to (via brigging) and the other did not.
I'm glad you chimed into this jorj, because my memory of the event is different. I witnessed multiple crimes, including security assistants getting pinned down and robbed of their flash, vandalism, and even a murder via poisoning took place before the flashbang went off during the first event. Comparable to the second event where nobody was injured. Security also demanded the staff assistants disperse multiple times during the first event which was ignored. According to Mordent this means the first protest was rule breaking but according to you it was not. Hence the need for clarification.
As the overseeing admin both times, is it your understanding that the level of crime or circumstance is largely irrelevant as long as they stop when asked? In that case I'd love for insight on example 6 specifically, another event I see in some form very frequently leading up to the holidays.
RE: Request for Clarification on RP Rule 1. - JORJ949 - 12-07-2025
(12-06-2025, 04:04 PM)chrisboidudeman Wrote: I'm glad you chimed into this jorj, because my memory of the event is different. I witnessed multiple crimes, including security assistants getting pinned down and robbed of their flash, vandalism, and even a murder via poisoning took place before the flashbang went off during the first event.
As the overseeing admin both times, is it your understanding that the level of crime or circumstance is largely irrelevant as long as they stop when asked? In that case I'd love for insight on example 6 specifically, another event I see in some form very frequently leading up to the holidays.
As mordent said, we're not omniscient and I was unaware of any murders or thefts that may have taken place there by non-antagonists. While the crime is relevant, not stopping after being brigged is the big turning point in my opinion because that's security saying "alright you've done enough now knock it off". Example 6 is fine, the captain started that gimmick with the expectation of some pushback and minor conflict over it and can notably security can just ignore it and go deal with actual crimes.
Context is very important so just running through examples isn't particularly effective, try to consider if security HAS to come deal with you vs can come rp with you if they want.
RE: Request for Clarification on RP Rule 1. - chrisboidudeman - 12-07-2025
I feel like I've gotten three different answers from three different people, but that last comment kind of merges things together and I think I understand now.
My general understanding from this is that the only people who should initiate time consuming roleplay with security or command are antagonists or security/command themselves. As a rule of thumb your roleplay should not overshadow the roleplay initiated by command or security, especially if they ask you to stop. So while organizing a large event against the captain's wishes (such as a protest) can be safely ignored without threat to the station, it is loud enough to draw attention of security and pulls attention away from other scenarios that are happening on the station, therefor breaking the rules.
Or as a more summarized version, if your roleplay asks for a lot of attention of security and command, you should be an antagonist, a member of security/command, or easily ignorable. If a member of security or command asks you to stop your roleplay then you should stop it.
I know there will be infinite nuance and staff interpretation, so I'll definitely be cautious and go with vibes of things, but would this be a good general rule of thumb?
RE: Request for Clarification on RP Rule 1. - jan.antilles - 12-07-2025
Quote:I'd like to ask you about one instance specifically that may toe the line of the rules. Imagine a lawyer sues security multiple times, and a member of security is now attending a trial, preventing them from performing their duties. If nobody involved is an antagonist is this rule breaking behavior? This scenario pulls away from other avenues of roleplay and attention that the antagonist could be having. Yet, it's almost exclusively how the lawyer role is used in practice.
Sec is not obligated to attend the trial: as in, people aren't going to die/the station isn't going to blow up if they don't go. The lawyer can yell over the radio and write strongly worded letters, but (unless they're an antag) they aren't going to start smashing windows and breaking people out of the brig if they don't get their way.
Quote:Or as a more summarized version, if your roleplay asks for a lot of attention of security and command, you should be an antagonist, a member of security/command, or easily ignorable. If a member of security or command asks you to stop your roleplay then you should stop it.
If your character's gimmmick demands that sec/command ignore the rest of the station to respond to you and is already not acting like you want to keep your job, then yes you'll get fussed at by the admins if you keep it going after your character has been asked to stop by their in-character boss and/or chain of command.
You can keep roleplaying after your character has been asked to stop doing a particular thing. Other people/characters are not telling you to stop your roleplay. Your roleplay should fit within the setting/rules.
Does that make sense?