Goonhub
08-05-2024, 02:08 PM
As this discussion goes on and on.
I keep noticing things in the debate on both sides that makes me go... Makes sense but I seen opposites happen.
For one.. if security didn't had AA, I would have once been killed as an antagonist by vigilante staffies cause... I was clown bullied inside science who was also a vampire. I just used my antag powers to stun them and stuff into a spot as revenge. Not killing them, just pranking them hard.
AI even came in to saw me to the face.
Security dragged me out and brigged me, but since I haven't commited any murders and just used vamp powers for pranks. It was considered "No reason to kill or keep em brigged"
Yes vigilantism is against the rules.
Infact whenever I play wich is rarely as of late.. I keep seeing extreme cases of vigilantism where when I see it as a security officer, I arrest both parties. And I go: "You can't just go kill someone cause they did a crazy trick."
The reason I bring this up... is because of the "But classic has it like--" being brought up a lot as a strong point. But... that is the worst way of thinking things.
That said... security officer being bored? Staffies are bored too since I seen some extreme vigilantism almost everytime I play.
And while I am okay with security losing access so antags can antag easier. The reason I mention it is because there are too many vigilante/watchful types around like the AI for example or the staffy who is hunting for antags for some reason since they got nothing to do. I don't know why so many people keep going to the throat of antags being obivious antags that want you to engage with em in fun ways that don't involve murder. (And yes I ahelp it)
But this post just shows an argument on both sides and the right way of fixing things is impossible to see. Restricting access may give antags the boost they need to do something in those areas. But removing it.. may end up hurting the culture or even antag play style.
Eitherway I am fine with no change or a change.
I keep noticing things in the debate on both sides that makes me go... Makes sense but I seen opposites happen.
For one.. if security didn't had AA, I would have once been killed as an antagonist by vigilante staffies cause... I was clown bullied inside science who was also a vampire. I just used my antag powers to stun them and stuff into a spot as revenge. Not killing them, just pranking them hard.
AI even came in to saw me to the face.
Security dragged me out and brigged me, but since I haven't commited any murders and just used vamp powers for pranks. It was considered "No reason to kill or keep em brigged"
Yes vigilantism is against the rules.
Infact whenever I play wich is rarely as of late.. I keep seeing extreme cases of vigilantism where when I see it as a security officer, I arrest both parties. And I go: "You can't just go kill someone cause they did a crazy trick."
The reason I bring this up... is because of the "But classic has it like--" being brought up a lot as a strong point. But... that is the worst way of thinking things.
That said... security officer being bored? Staffies are bored too since I seen some extreme vigilantism almost everytime I play.
And while I am okay with security losing access so antags can antag easier. The reason I mention it is because there are too many vigilante/watchful types around like the AI for example or the staffy who is hunting for antags for some reason since they got nothing to do. I don't know why so many people keep going to the throat of antags being obivious antags that want you to engage with em in fun ways that don't involve murder. (And yes I ahelp it)
But this post just shows an argument on both sides and the right way of fixing things is impossible to see. Restricting access may give antags the boost they need to do something in those areas. But removing it.. may end up hurting the culture or even antag play style.
Eitherway I am fine with no change or a change.