Banning bad CO's hard and fast.

[Dyne]

Dear adminsitration.
Big request.
If a CO is clearly incompetent and causes trouble- please band him hard and fast, as whole rounds depend on it.
Thank you for reading, off to work on some simple CO white-listing form, as its just too much bad CO's last month.

[TR-BlackDragon]

+1 to this statement

[Mycroft Macarthur]

since its a necessary role im not sure white listing would necessarily be a great idea, even if someone is usually GREAT CO they may not want to do it all the time and whitelisted CO players wont likely be around all the time.

perhaps if CO had like a priority list, white listed players are more likely to get CO first and if no white listers are on then it will randomly pick from one of the available marines who has it on their job preferences (ideal if it could further try to sort them based upon better roleplayers or players first but that would also require a similar list to be created and i cant imagine favoritism NOT showing up in a list of that kind)

i can see your point, shitty CO's are something we wanna reduce and people who are horrible at it should get job bans at the very least (following all the same procedures as any other job ban) but im not sure we can realistically do more beyond that.

[Dyne]

If a CO is not there- XO takes over. But whitelisted CO ensure a standard of quality, so marines can trust their CO, as characters and players.

I'll detail out the proposed form, and will post it closer to the weekend.

[Edgelord]

-1, whitelisting would only increase commander-less rounds. Some commanders will be competent and others will not. Success isn't always in their hands, and I think you could do with a little empathy. The only way to get better is to play. Should a well meaning player get banned because he's not up to a marine's standards? And cmon its an RP server, losing is fun.

[Gamerofthegame]

We don't need whitelisting.

This server has quite a few players on it, you can get a bit more ban-happy when people are being shitty. Maintain your shrub-bush, etc.

[Mycroft Macarthur]

losing is fun.

SOMEONE has been playing Dwarf Fortress.

moving on from that though while i can see your point of view the issue is that the CO isn't like most of the roles, they have the most power onboard the ship in regards to what they (and by extension, those who obey him) are allowed to do on the server, they are so central to the operations and coordination of the marine forces on the planet that n00bs cannot be afforded in the CO role (as differing from newbies who might just be abit slow or need things better explained)

[ChickenShizNit8]

You want my opinion? Course you don't! But i'll give it anyways! For me? If Admins are on and you got an awful CO, the CL should send a fax to ye 'ol Command, W-Y, WHATEVER, and have him demoted. Or, if there are NO admins on, MP's should be able to make a judgment call on it, and decide to detain,demote,de-crown. I've done it before! Bad CO's happen, A LOT, and we just gotta deal with it, you know? I do think a white-list may be good, but it also may not. Bad, TERRIBLE CO's deserve a job-ban, yes. But, that is just my opinion ;P I agree with Dyne on this, /SLIGHTLY/. There are some good points for both sides really. I just thought I would give my side c:

[TR-BlackDragon]

I think a play time should be put on this role to give players time to learn how things are done before allowing them to become that rank. Similar to how other ss13 games run. That would weed out new players to the server getting g the role

[GingerCultLeader]

That would be the best alternative, however on the flipside, it is exploitable. Someone can join one day, leave for a month or so and then come back. But that seems to be the most viable alternative to whitelisting or just dealing with inexperienced COs.

[TR-BlackDragon]

This is true but it's the best option I can see for the moment

[Gamerofthegame]

I think a play time should be put on this role to give players time to learn how things are done before allowing them to become that rank. Similar to how other ss13 games run. That would weed out new players to the server getting g the role

That's the Age variable, optional. Whenever a player joins the server (Or round? I forget. Unimportant.) for the first time it tracks their date. Roles can be restricted to however many days after that date.

It'd actually be probably be a good fit for everything, actually. CO/XO can be a week, then perhaps everything else could just be a day for a very draconian way of having every new player be a bog standard marine for their first go around. At the very least, CO/XO.

[TR-BlackDragon]

I'd do 2 weeks for Co 1 week for xo, cmo, and sl, 3 days for everything else cept basic marine

[Tetsip]

The issue is where do we draw the line? If any person in any job is clearly not doing their job in such a way that it negatively impacts the game and the intent is there, they're discinplined. However, we have to take into account and give players the benefit of the doubt when it comes to this because they very well may be new to command in general, or new to command in Colonial Marines. Ignorance is not against the rules, it's how we learn. We were all shit players once, so instead of crucifying them and lighting the cross on fire why not try forwarding them to the mentors or here's a good idea, try mentoring them.

TL;DR we punish griefers, not newbies.

[Gentlefood]

You can set job restrictions to not just byond account creation date but how long they have played on the server. This prevents players who have never joined before from grabbing command roles. Just make it a few hours.

There could be some issues when it first is implemented but they will pass quickly and are minor.

[Tetsip]

You could put in a suggestion about that, but I'm sure it's been suggested before. We've had staff discussions about whitelisting certain command positions but I believe we decided against it.

[Gentlefood]

Eh. Its not really a whitelist. Its a "Play a round or two before picking command role" list. Personally I'm neutral, I just wanted to make sure people were aware that is an option in the code.

[Tetsip]

I personally believe that we shouldn't be restricting positions. I mean no matter how much you play you'll always have a rough time your first time in a position. Sure playing a round or two beforehand will prepare you far more to get in the saddle of command, but by no means should it be a requirement. After all, some of us like to learn through a trial by fire. Sure, maybe the round will drag or suffer slightly on the marine side, but that creates an opportunity for you as a player to help a member of the community become better and to befriend them.

Then again, I'm just a nice guy.

[Edgelord]

My biggest worry is punishing experienced players who are newcomers to the CO job. Even if you've played lots of CM the only way to gain command experience is by doing it. And I can tell you as an XO who has had multiple round where I've been boosted to CO that it can be HARD.

[Astralenigma]

Honestly I'm in support of an age restriction but only to positions that can really fuck up a round like CO.
In my opinion noone should join the most important position right of the bat without even knowing what game is it playing.

[northcote4]

My biggest worry is punishing experienced players who are newcomers to the CO job. Even if you've played lots of CM the only way to gain command experience is by doing it. And I can tell you as an XO who has had multiple round where I've been boosted to CO that it can be HARD.[/quote

I largely agree with these sentiments.

Just because a person might perform poorly doesn't necessarily mean they're a bad player, as such.

A person could be a fantastic marine, but not do well in a Command role simply because they found it not to their abilities. Banning them, or even punishing them, because of that wouldn't really be appropriate as long as they were actually TRYING to do a good job.

Just because someone fails doesn't mean they didn't try their best.

There also seem to be some issues with the fact that no matter how well a player might perform a certain role, they are unable to succeed due to the player around them.

This may be due to being outplayed by an enemy, or due to a lack of cooperation from their allies, for example. And let us not forget those who immediately criticize another player for the smallest things, even if they're not the wrong decision to make (hurrdurr you did the thing i don't like ban he).

But that's just my two cents. I think people should only be banned if they're willfully malicious. If someone repeatedly makes poor decisions in an important role? Perhaps a suggestion that they try a less-vital position (or a job-ban if absolutely warranted) might be in order.

[Gamerofthegame]

I think there's a slippery slope being shoved around, here.

You can't accidentally be a bad anything. No, you really can't. A bad role is tentamount to griefing, someone actually going out of their way to be shitty. Like the hordes of psychologically challenged marines, some commander who just comes in acting drunk and tells everyone to bum rush some caves and stupid shit like that. Which there's quite a bit of, there's a reason CAPTAINS A CONDOM became a thing. COMMANDERS A GREEN WEINY is just another.

ps make that a thing

Everyone else is just mediocre. And, tbh, commander plays itself, so even that shouldn't be to much of an issue.

[Edgelord]

I think there's a slippery slope being shoved around, here.

You can't accidentally be a bad anything. No, you really can't. A bad role is tentamount to griefing, someone actually going out of their way to be shitty. Like the hordes of psychologically challenged marines, some commander who just comes in acting drunk and tells everyone to bum rush some caves and stupid shit like that. Which there's quite a bit of, there's a reason CAPTAINS A CONDOM became a thing. COMMANDERS A GREEN WEINY is just another.

ps make that a thing

Everyone else is just mediocre. And, tbh, commander plays itself, so even that shouldn't be to much of an issue.

Mutiny done right is a viable option.

[Gamerofthegame]

Mutiny is still usually played well, however.

[Kreydis]

I just wonder how many of the people complaning about bad commanders have actually tried their hands at command when 3/4 BO's go SSD 10 mins in, your XO has to become MP because there's no MP or various of other staffing issues while you guys just want to shoot guns.

Being a *Bad* Commander is very easy to make possible on the simple basis of "You have no one supporting you. And 50 fuckers on the ground depending on you"