Difference between revisions of "Talk:Ghostdrone"
Noah Buttes (talk | contribs) (→Dubious example of law 3 violation?: new section) |
Noah Buttes (talk | contribs) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Under law 3, it says "Disarming traps or fighting fires would be a violation of both this law and law 1." It's obvious how disarming traps would be a violation, but how would fighting fires violate the law? That seems less like preventing damage and more like repairing damage already caused. | Under law 3, it says "Disarming traps or fighting fires would be a violation of both this law and law 1." It's obvious how disarming traps would be a violation, but how would fighting fires violate the law? That seems less like preventing damage and more like repairing damage already caused. | ||
--[[User:Noah Buttes|Noah Buttes]] ([[User talk:Noah Buttes|talk]]) 12:50, 30 June 2016 (GMT) | --[[User:Noah Buttes|Noah Buttes]] ([[User talk:Noah Buttes|talk]]) 12:50, 30 June 2016 (GMT) | ||
This boils down to law 1 as well. Fires are normally put with intent to destroy the station. You can repair the damage after the fire is out but fucking with the fire in anyway would be actively messing with an antagonists round. | |||
Think of this from the antag's perspective: You've done the effort, you've started a fire. | |||
Then suddenly your fire is put out by a little drone, whose prime objective is to repair, not fight fires. You'd feel a bit cheated wouldn't you? | |||
From wires mouth: ''"Just...fuckin anything that isn't repairing or building a sick bar in space.''" | |||
Fighting fires isn't repairing. It's actively by proxy fighting an antagonist. | |||
I'll probably expand "well what else can drones do other than fixing?" which includes examples such as cleaning, 1 on 1 other drones, etc. --[[User:Sundance|Sundance]] ([[User talk:Sundance|talk]]) 13:40, 30 June 2016 (GMT) | |||
I suppose I wasn't thinking in terms of a plasma fire in medbay and more of an accidental fire in toxins. Either way, I can see your point.--[[User:Noah Buttes|Noah Buttes]] ([[User talk:Noah Buttes|talk]]) 14:36, 30 June 2016 (GMT) | |||
Latest revision as of 14:36, 30 June 2016
Dubious example of law 3 violation?
Under law 3, it says "Disarming traps or fighting fires would be a violation of both this law and law 1." It's obvious how disarming traps would be a violation, but how would fighting fires violate the law? That seems less like preventing damage and more like repairing damage already caused. --Noah Buttes (talk) 12:50, 30 June 2016 (GMT)
This boils down to law 1 as well. Fires are normally put with intent to destroy the station. You can repair the damage after the fire is out but fucking with the fire in anyway would be actively messing with an antagonists round. Think of this from the antag's perspective: You've done the effort, you've started a fire. Then suddenly your fire is put out by a little drone, whose prime objective is to repair, not fight fires. You'd feel a bit cheated wouldn't you? From wires mouth: "Just...fuckin anything that isn't repairing or building a sick bar in space." Fighting fires isn't repairing. It's actively by proxy fighting an antagonist. I'll probably expand "well what else can drones do other than fixing?" which includes examples such as cleaning, 1 on 1 other drones, etc. --Sundance (talk) 13:40, 30 June 2016 (GMT)
I suppose I wasn't thinking in terms of a plasma fire in medbay and more of an accidental fire in toxins. Either way, I can see your point.--Noah Buttes (talk) 14:36, 30 June 2016 (GMT)