Objectiveless antags?

If I can butt in, I think that people focus too much on greentexting (getting their objectives), and that if people were really told that the point of being an antag was to make the round interesting, and not win (and as an admin, I really get the sense that a /lot/ of antags still don't understand that), it would cut down a lot on boring, cookie-cutter antags who make no attempts at RP, while pushing people to be a little bit more creative since, you know, they'd have to come up with something on their own rather than just be like "syndicate sent me to kill u kthxbye".

I also don't think that the Bay-to-Aurora comparison is apples to oranges. We're both heavy-RP servers, and Aurora has a fairly large playerbase. It's no guarantee it'll work, but it's an indication it can.

Anyway, a question for you: would you be willing to try it out, and see what the results are?

There exist things known as antag jobbans. Someone fucks up their permit to do cool stuff and create conflict, write them up and have staff strip them of that permit. As simple as that.

Limiting the good antags we have, no, fuck it, not rewarding them with this because we will always have people who do not get the role of a well played antag is a rather bad way of going about this. Even with the objectives, we have good roleplayers resorting to horrible antag play (god knows why, but they do), and you will always have McChucklefuck who's hellbent on ruining someone's day, whether it be in the form of atmos grief, toxins grief, antag grief, you name it.

A closed objective should be looked at as a guiding light for how you should roleplay, what you should do, not a wall which magically stops idiots from being idiots (which it doesn't, even now). If we expand the area the light envelops, then people will actually think, and maybe generate more interesting results. If not, then they'll either do nothing, or simply resort to "I'm going to steal stuff" or what have you, which might also cause conflict to take place.

---

My two cents: hell yes? We literally have nothing to lose from this, and everything (including antag bans) to gain from this.

You mangle my opinion, or maybe I showcased it wrong. The light isn't removed, it's spread further. It envelopes more with this.

But the baseline doesn't do anything. There is a wide count of people who ignore said baseline for whatever reason. So, removing it, again, wouldn't serve as a loss at all.

And again, the benefits. People are horrible at communication, so me smashing my head against the desk, trying to get them to actually ask for custom objectives has never bore fruit. This may, as it does it removes one link which is often enough, unfortunately, avoided.

So.  Snipping to avoid wordwalls. 

The current system doesn't prevent the approach we want antags to take, it's true.  And you caught me red handed on appealing to ethos and pathos.  I figured Sue had logos covered.  Alright, then.  Never let it be said I don't appreciate observant people, even if they do result in walls.

The current system doesn't prevent the approach we want antags to take.  And it's true, the reason antags don't do anything else is that there's no reason to do anything else.

Because they're done.  Antag behaviors and objectives are absolutely linked, and it's great that you have a high-minded view that this Shouldn't Be The Way, and I agree completely, but it is.  You can look to almost any given non-event non-extended round to see that.

Removing objectives is the difference between the carrot and the stick.  You can set a goal and enforce it with the threat of redtext for failure.  When you finish a set goal, do you do more because you feel like it?  If so, how often and in what areas.  Is this behavior consistent in areas you do not enjoy.

Stopping when you're done is extremely basic human nature.  Not only that, but it is one of the most basic and most fundamental aspects of human nature.  Actually, it's a basic tenet of Pavlovian conditioning, which applies to a startlingly large amount of lifeforms.  Not just humans.  Maybe it's just a really familiar idea to me, but I don't understand how you can call something like that 'bollocks.'  The stick has stopped pushing you, so it's time to stop.  You say it's because they're bad antagonists.  I say it's because the system is flawed.  When the majority of the participants of a system 'don't fully understand what it takes to be an antagonist,'  chances are it's the system's fault.

So.

How does removing objectives encourage creativity.  Have you ever done something you liked, and then after being rewarded for it, it just wasn't as great?  Kind of like that.  I could cite the research done on it if you want.  The best example would be the I think it was called Sudbury Valley School system.  Turns out that if you put out an expectation to learn and then leave children to it, they really do learn.  I can actually quote this stuff at you only because I used to read a lot about psych.  Then took the class and read the entire textbook about a month in, and it was great and I kept looking up stuff with no expectations in place.  Just for fun.  Later, I took AP psych and it was just different.  It was a chore.  Much more in-depth.  I learned stuff, yes.  But I was reading just to meet deadlines (Sound familiar?) and I didn't enjoy any of it.  Walked out with an A.  Few points shy of a perfect score.  Hated it.  It's like that.  Look up the Sudbury school experiments if you want a real life model.  Actually.  Here's a link.  Not sure if it's the right one.  Have not read this particular article.  Looks appropriate at a glance, though.  www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/200808/children-educate-themselves-iv-lessons-sudbury-valley

You give people a limit and they'll try to reach it.  You give people an expectation and they'll very often surprise you.  Now, the people here being uncreative.  I know you weren't the one to say that, but that's what's bollocks.  I know these people and I know just how occasionally brilliant they can be.  But the path to the good stuff is paved with risks and riddled with failure.  It is much, much simpler to take the easy road and get the greentext.  I don't doubt these people, or any people, honestly.  I've seen what they can do.  But the circumstances have to be right.  Everyone keeps going to the griefing.  That's silly.

'Why did you blow up half the station.'
-'I felt like it and didn't have anything else to do.'  Antagban,
-'I wanted to kill this one guy who kind of annoyed me.'  Antagban.
-'I blew up research, xenobio, and viro/the lower end of medbay as well as the chapel because they're low-population noncritical areas and I wanted legitimate credit as a station threat.'  Good to go.

Standards don't drop just because you get more breathing space.  You already aren't allowed to blow up the station for no good reason as an antag.  Where did everyone get the idea it's suddenly okay because your new objective is 'to make the round interesting?'  That's a false, completely unbacked assumption.  There will always be weasels and lawyer-wannabes.  There will always be people who justify the things they do despite knowing they're breaking the spirit of the law.  Always.  I have dealt with hundreds.  And you know how I dealt with everyone who said, 'But it's technically not grief because of this little clause right here!', right?  Bans.

The law isn't written in stone.  There's no supreme high admin court except in real law and on /tg/, and I hear both of those are hellholes.  Admins always have their good sense and discretion and not just the letter of the law to follow.  Anyone that doesn't shouldn't be an admin.  If anything, it'll make it more obvious when someone's hunting for validkills with the objectiveless system.  If someone could do anything to antagonize the station and chooses to murder the entire station, odds are that person should probably be antagbanned.

Y'know.  Kind of just like right now. 

I've cut stuff because... well, walls of text are bad for everyone.

My issue with all of this is basically that the problem you're trying to address is a misunderstanding of how being an antag works. That's what needs to be addressed. I agree there's a problem with how antags currently operate at the moment, I also agree that something should be done about it. I don't think that the solution to this is to remove objectives and somehow expect that this will create a better class of antag. You're talking here about the community's expectations of antags, and that's quite right - that's what we need to get across.

What might do that is encouraging good antags and pointing out where poorer antags have gone wrong. This is why we have things like guides, rules, and, ironically enough, greentext.

Removing greentext, and expanding on the limits Antags can break the rules,* without first ensuring that people understand the expectation of how an antag is meant to work, is a recipe for disaster.


* I understand that you're not asking for the standards of antagging to be changed as a result of this change. However, antags are basically players given permission to break server rules. As an antag you can kill someone if it's your objective. You're expected to do it in a certain way, but it's allowed no matter how you do it. By removing a very clear-cut objective a kill by any antag will be far harder for the admin team to deal with, regardless of how they handle it the player killed will know that the antag didn't have to kill him. That leads to a whole bunch of questions and trouble that can easily be avoided.

Perfectly reasonable. I'll try to be brief, although I'm awful and this is the most fun I've had in weeks and I thank you for that.

To clarify, objectives aren't exactly being removed. There should be a message that pops up every time you become an antag. Comes with the package, I think. Paraphrasing: 'You're an antagonist! You are exempt from usual rules regarding murder, but try not to be awful about it. Your goal is to try and make the round interesting. How you decide to go about this is up to you. Your uplink is blah, blah.' It's not a straight blank removing of all objectives with nothing to replace. Code already exists.

Another problem is that antagging is damned hard. I honestly only turn mine on when I build up a buffer of cool ideas. The idea behind the change is to have the system encourage and reward creativity (No greentext but if you did amazing, the people will cheer for you in place of the system.)

Re: *. Also true. I personally feel antags should be able to kill as many people as they can adequately RP killing. Some nice setup. Some stalking. Some creeping. Luring, a monologue. These things take a while. And it only takes one person to scream for help over the universally-owned headset before you have one million officers breathing down your neck. Antags should full well be allowed to murder people. But. Quality standards. We have no serial killers on Aurora, and it's a little upsetting. One of my more memorable deaths was being captured by a tunnel clown and taken to a little room. It was just straight filled with dead, mutilated bodies. I soon joined them. It was pretty great just for the shock of it.

That's what I've said. I think a restructuring would be beneficial if we can come up with a model that works. I still have no idea if this one will, though I'm hopeful, but hey, it's an idea and seems decent, so that's why I'm for trying it out. And if it fails, then we can concentrate on finding other solutions after the fact.

You don't know how refreshing it is to be called out on the rubbish I spout sometimes. People cave too often before we get down to brass tacks.

There's a million people in sec, but that's just kind of a thing that happens. I think when I was active a few months ago it was medbay that was crowded, with decent sci and low sec populations. Engineering is always mostly empty because they get nothing nice and exist only to fix other peoples' mistakes. But there is usually one. One wonderful person who will put up with being an engie so everyone else can have power.

The good news is that this stuff is actually already in our code, so I don't even have to steal it. Skull can just flip a 0 to a 1 and it's in. Flip back to 0 and it's out. I thought I'd have to steal it, but this is pretty great.

As for cycling. I do that personally, with all the groups from: www.ss13.eu/wiki/index.php/The_Syndicate . I am really looking forward to the round where I work for the Animal Rights Consortium. But really, that stuff I like left up to the player. Maybe make the resource available to them at round start. A list of background suggestions. Stuff. I really encourage people to pick their own stuff, though. More thinking is always better.