Shadowrun
Shadowrun Play => Rules and such => Topic started by: olg707 on <12-14-13/1552:06>
-
I have a few question about the matrix in 5th edition.
1. Can a device [not a persona] invite marks? According to SR5 page 236 "Only personas may mark icons." It seems that marks are something shared by a persona ;A persona can only [invite marks] to icons they have access to. More importantly, only the owner may send "invite marks". Is a device the Owner of itself?
Lets look an an example. Lets's say the Street Sam had his trusted Decker register all of his gear except his Commlink. [for security purposes]. This means the Decker has Ownership of the devices. The Decker uses the matrix action Invite Mark[SR5 pg 240] to give the Street Sam access to the gear. The invitation is for a standing offer of 3 marks that never expires.
Now the Street Sam spends a free action to place marks to get access to his gear. He adds the gear to his own PAN, with his own Commlink as the Master. The Street Sam can now perform matrix actions that require marks, such as Control Device [eject smartgun clip] or Trace Icon [where did I lose my shoes last night?]
Now the Street Sam spends a simple action to use the matrix action Invite Mark to show off his goggles. Since the Street Sam is not the owner, he should not be able to perform the matrix action Invite Mark.
I think this example demonstrates both Ownership and marks if this example is correct. If I am wrong so far, please point it out. Lets look at the another example.
A matrix ganger spots the Street Sam, and decides to cause some havoc on his goggles. The matrix ganger manages to place 3 marks on the goggles and contemplates what to do next.
So far, both the Street Sam and the matrix ganger have 3 marks on the goggles, while the owner is not present currently.
The matrix ganger tries to share his marks on the goggles with a fellow ganger, by using the matrix action Invite Mark. The matrix ganger should fail because he is not the owner, and cannot perform that action [the ganger was a newb]
Realizing his mistake, he decides to use the matrix action Format Device and is successful. Next he performs the matrix action Reboot Device, leaving the goggles shut down for good. Now he reboots and sneaks off, hoping was not caught.
Both the Format Device and Reboot Device matrix actions require 3 marks, but not ownership.
This also demonstrates Ownership and marks, following the above logic.
Next, I look at Technomancers.
A Technomancer spots the Street Sam and decides to cause some trouble.[it's one of those days] She decides his persona would look better with cartoon dog ears and a tail and uses the complex form Puppeteer [SR5 pg 252] targeting the Street Sam's Commlink.
She is succesful in forcing the Commlink to perform the matrix action Change Icon[SR5 pg 238].
Can she cause this to happen to the Street Sams Commlink? The Street Sam and his persona are the owner of his Commlink so I think it should work.
Amused by the Street Sam's new look, the Technomancer decides to interfere with his Ares Predator V. She again uses the complex form Puppeteer and succeeds in forcing resonance commands into the gun.
What can this gun be forced to do? Can she force the gun to use the matrix action Change Icon on itself, since Change Icon requires Owner?
What about the matrix action Invite Marks? Since only personas can have marks, does the device "have marks to share"?
Clearly, she could have used Puppeteer and targeted the commlink, forcing the Commlink/Persona to Invite Marks, thus giving her marks over the pan and allowing control like she seeks.
Can the gun use the matrix action Invite marks?
-
Well puppeteer can also affect the device owners persona
P252 Each complex form entry has a Target describing
what it works on. A complex form with a Device target
can also be used to target a persona.
So in my understanding, she targets the gun, which then inadvertently targets the party rigger, and forces him to invite the marks. This could however lead to a rude awakening when the techno realizes this wasn't as easy as she first thought it was, but the end result is the same, she still has her marks
-
As soon as I saw the title I knew that Puppeteer was coming up. There are probably 3 or 4 recent if not active posts about this at the moment.
As Imveros has stated, Puppeteer can target a device's persona. If the persona is an owner it can invite marks.
-
"Well puppeteer can also affect the device owners persona"
I think I addressed this in my example. "Clearly, she could have used Puppeteer and targeted the commlink, forcing the Commlink/Persona to Invite Marks, thus giving her marks over the pan and allowing control like she seeks."
So I agree with you that Puppeteer can target a persona, but that does not answer the specific question.
"So in my understanding, she targets the gun, which then inadvertently targets the party rigger, and forces him to invite the marks. This could however lead to a rude awakening when the techno realizes this wasn't as easy as she first thought it was, but the end result is the same, she still has her marks"
The Street Sam has a trusted Decker, I never mentioned party rigger. While the trusted Decker has Ownership over the gun, it is a part of the Street Sams PAN, and he is the owner of his Commlink.
Lets forget all that, perhaps my example is poor.
A Technomancer is facing a Street Sam. The Street Sam is the owner of all his gear. He is running a Commlink as a master of his PAN. The Technomancer is hidden, and has already spotted the Street Sam.
The Technomancer uses Puppeteer targeting the Commlink/ Persona of the Street Sam. Succeeding with 3 net hits, she can force the Commlink/Persona to do any free, simple or complex action. She could Format Device or Reboot Device, as those just require marks. She could force a Change Icon, which required Owner. She could force Invite marks to her own persona, and have control over the PAN.
All of these seem pretty clear, and look valid.
Now, the Technomancer uses Puppeteer targeting the Ares Predator V of the Street Sam. Succeeding with 3 net hits, she can force the to do any free, simple or complex action.
Clearly, this could be used to control device, like making the gun eject clip, change mode, fire, or reboot.
Is a gun capable of taking its own matrix actions? Can she force the gun to perform matrix actions? If she can force the gun to take actions, are there restrictions on the kinds of matrix actions it can take?
My understanding is that personas take matrix actions, and not devices. I don't think devices make matrix actions, but rather have matrix actions performed on them.
If a persona has marks on a device, then it can control the device. These marks come from Ownership or being invited by someone with Ownership. Only personas can mark icons. Can a device make the Invite Mark icon?
Reading the Invite Mark action, it states
"If you’re the owner of a device, file, persona, host, or IC program, you can offer other icons the opportunity to put a mark on your device, file, etc."
So the real question is, is a device the owner of itself? Can the gun be forced to perform the matrix action Invite Marks?
-
As soon as I saw the title I knew that Puppeteer was coming up. There are probably 3 or 4 recent if not active posts about this at the moment.
Indeed there are.
As to the question at hands, no, devices cannot (normally) Invite Marks by themselves; only owners can. Puppeteer can probably make them do it because magic, but how exactly it does that is a bit unclear (I'd say it can't be via the owner's persona because that might not even exist at the moment). But read the discussion for more opinions and such (here (http://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=14045.0)).
-
I apologize i misspoke when i typed rigger i meant decker ~_~
In that context i think the gun itself is not the final target. When the techno targets the gun, it then targets the decker, who then ejects the clip, invites the marks ext and not the gun itself.
-
I apologize i misspoke when i typed rigger i meant decker ~_~
In that context i think the gun itself is not the final target. When the techno targets the gun, it then targets the decker, who then ejects the clip, invites the marks ext and not the gun itself.
But then what would happen if you target a (wirelessly active) gun who's owner happened to have his commlink turned off?
-
I apologize i misspoke when i typed rigger i meant decker ~_~
In that context i think the gun itself is not the final target. When the techno targets the gun, it then targets the decker, who then ejects the clip, invites the marks ext and not the gun itself.
But then what would happen if you target a (wirelessly active) gun who's owner happened to have his commlink turned off?
The better question would be 'Can the user invite marks on their own wireless device without his/her commlink?' If the answer were no then a requirement of placing/inviting marks would include a commlink as a master device in a PAN since it would be the most likely environment. Or even just posessing one not included in a PAN.
Since it is not a requirement either way, then placing/inviting marks is only requirement is 'wireless mode' that is assuming (rightly) the device has some ability to utilize wireless Matrix communications....
-
I apologize i misspoke when i typed rigger i meant decker ~_~
In that context i think the gun itself is not the final target. When the techno targets the gun, it then targets the decker, who then ejects the clip, invites the marks ext and not the gun itself.
But then what would happen if you target a (wirelessly active) gun who's owner happened to have his commlink turned off?
Hmm that is a good point. I would still assume you still get your three marks because of wuju resonance magic? I think we are all just over thinking. If they meant for their to be exceptions like this they would have mentioned something about it somewhere wouldn't they?
-
Hmm that is a good point. I would still assume you still get your three marks because of wuju resonance magic? I think we are all just over thinking. If they meant for their to be exceptions like this they would have mentioned something about it somewhere wouldn't they?
Overthinking is good, because it makes you consider the exact implications of how something works and it's effects. But, for game purposes, it's not always very practical. Within game rules, things get abstracted and unclear; at some point you have to say "Okay, maybe this isn't entirely inconsistent, but this is how it's probably supposed to work so it does that, and let logic be damned." I think that, for Puppeteer, we've reached that point.
-
Lets forget Puppeteer for the moment.
The street Sam has Ownership over all his gear. All his gear is slaved to his Commlink. The Street Sam wants to show off his new goggles. First he tries to control object his goggles, to make perform the matrix action Invite Mark.
Obviously, with the same simple action the Street Sam could instead just make the Invite Mark action himself, but this Street Sam is a little slow. Instead of having his persona make the Invite Mark action, he instructs his goggles to do it for him.
Would the goggles send invites? Are the goggles the owner of themselves? Since only personas have marks, and Ownership is like having 4 marks, I am inclined to say no.
I have seen several other threads about puppeteer, and matrix in general, but I made this post because of a specific question; Can the goggles from this example take the matrix action Invite Marks?
It seems to me that marks are a persona thing; only personas can mark icons and more importantly, only owners can invite icons to access their gear. In short, marks are like sharing access with someone else. So an owner can Invite Mark action to another icon, giving conditions like A) how many marks B) expiration date C) one time or standing offer D) what icon/s are being shared with others E) whom the invites are to be given to.
Is this example wrong?
What about my earlier examples, did they follow the rules of Ownership and marks?
-
I think a question that can be fleshed out more is does a persona own a device ?
"Every device, persona, host, and file has an owner". p236
If the persona is owned by Bob the shadowrunner , the persona does not have ownership. Bob is the owner of the persona, the persona does not own anything. The persona cannot make an action that requires ownership. Bob can make that action, through a persona, because Bob is the owner of the device.
"This is a special relationship that offers special privileges" p236
Ownership is not a clearly defined state, as the book doesn't specifically go into detail as to how the ownership is manifested, just that it is not a normal type of mark relationship. It acts like one, but is not specifically based on marks. This is shown if you power down a device. it will lose its marks, but you do not lose ownership.
An easy way to visualize this relationship is is look at ownership requirements as a password verification. You can take control of Bob's deck, but you can't invite marks without Bob entering his super secret code, or whatever the "special relationship" shadowrun equivalent is . If you want to do an owner necessary action, you need to control the owner.
-
I think a question that can be fleshed out more is does a persona own a device ?
"Every device, persona, host, and file has an owner". p236
If the persona is owned by Bob the shadowrunner , the persona does not have ownership. Bob is the owner of the persona, the persona does not own anything. The persona cannot make an action that requires ownership. Bob can make that action, through a persona, because Bob is the owner of the device.
"This is a special relationship that offers special privileges" p236
Ownership is not a clearly defined state, as the book doesn't specifically go into detail as to how the ownership is manifested, just that it is not a normal type of mark relationship. It acts like one, but is not specifically based on marks. This is shown if you power down a device. it will lose its marks, but you do not lose ownership.
An easy way to visualize this relationship is is look at ownership requirements as a password verification. You can take control of Bob's deck, but you can't invite marks without Bob entering his super secret code, or whatever the "special relationship" shadowrun equivalent is . If you want to do an owner necessary action, you need to control the owner.
I assume that any device that can be marked can invite that mark. And device that can be marked is already wireless-on...
Matrix actions seem simpler like that.
And don't forget Agents.
They should be able to invite marks too as an extension of a device's functionality as they can perform any matrix action. This, I assume extends to their own hardware not taking commands directly form the owner. Like their own, independent cyberdeck.....
-
There has to be *some* way to automate the process of inviting marks, otherwise the example on p.220 ("For example, the Seattle Public Library invites over 50,000 marks per day...") doesn't seem practical.
(Of course, this could just be an example of Hosts acting differently than other devices do, with the rules left out of the core book because the average PC isn't going to be in the position of caring about the administrative minutiae of Hosts.)
-
There has to be *some* way to automate the process of inviting marks, otherwise the example on p.220 ("For example, the Seattle Public Library invites over 50,000 marks per day...") doesn't seem practical.
I assume that an IC would authenticate SINs and pass approved library applications, and an agent running on the Owners deck would perform the invite mark action on all vetted personas. All performed autonomously, while the spider is watching the trideo.
-
There has to be *some* way to automate the process of inviting marks, otherwise the example on p.220 ("For example, the Seattle Public Library invites over 50,000 marks per day...") doesn't seem practical.
I assume that an IC would authenticate SINs and pass approved library applications, and an agent running on the Owners deck would perform the invite mark action on all vetted personas. All performed autonomously, while the spider is watching the trideo.
Except that agents and IC aren't the Owner (barring something that I've overlooked the bajillion times that I've read the Matrix chapter), so they can't by RAW they cannot Invite Mark.
-
The IC processes the library card requests, and passes validated SINs to the security spider. The spider is the owner, and has an agent running on his cyberdeck to perform invite mark to all personas that get referred by the IC. All automated, all while the spider is paying attention to other things.
OR it could be done once a day, where an owner checks on all the approved library cards requests and send out a mass invite [one action, many targets].
There are several ways to slice it, but it is still easy to automate.
-
The IC processes the library card requests, and passes validated SINs to the security spider. The spider is the owner, and has an agent running on his cyberdeck to perform invite mark to all personas that get referred by the IC. All automated, all while the spider is paying attention to other things.
OR it could be done once a day, where an owner checks on all the approved library cards requests and send out a mass invite [one action, many targets].
There are several ways to slice it, but it is still easy to automate.
I'm aware that there are any number of ways that the process *could* be automated; I was merely pointing out that there is no mechanism laid out in the rules to permit an Agent to take Owner-only Matrix Actions on behalf of the Owner. The argument could be made, I suppose, that the wording on p.246 ("You can have your agent perform Matrix Actions for you") permits it, but that seems unclear to me (and just muddies the waters about what can or cannot perform Owner actions).
-
People really think book should explain in detail how a public library keep track of it's users or how a library card request is processed...?
-
People really think book should explain in detail how a public library keep track of it's users or how a library card request is processed...?
When the main argument against being able to force a device to Invite Mark with Puppeteer is that the rules don't allow a device to take "Owner-only" actions, I think that the mechanics behind how specific examples in the book of devices appearing to Invite Mark independently of their Owner's direct involvement are extremely relevant.
-
People really think book should explain in detail how a public library keep track of it's users or how a library card request is processed...?
When the main argument against being able to force a device to Invite Mark with Puppeteer is that the rules don't allow a device to take "Owner-only" actions, I think that the mechanics behind how specific examples in the book of devices appearing to Invite Mark independently of their Owner's direct involvement are extremely relevant.
Any rule can have exceptions. In fact rules are expected to have exceptions applied to them if the circumstances warrent.
The exception is in this case is the assumption that a Technomancer can perform certain action independent of 'allowed' system standard in the Shadowrun world. The new applied rule to is among other simular rules, the one describing 'puppeteer'.
With this exceptional skill they can take actions that normal matrix users cannot. With normal matrix actions being described in the rulebook. With an exception to marks rules, devices rules, simular skill rules, etc....
Other than that the action works exactly the same intended way with the same intended results....
-
When the main argument against being able to force a device to Invite Mark with Puppeteer is that the rules don't allow a device to take "Owner-only" actions, I think...
My argument is not about ownership, but rather about personas.
SR5 pg 236 Only personas may mark icons.
It seems that marks are a form of access, one that can be shared only with other personas. In short, Invite Mark is a persona-to-persona action.
I believe that a persona could perform the invite mark action, but not a device. Puppeteer could be used to force a persona to make the Invite Mark action, but this does not answer MY QUESTION. Can my smartgun make the Invite Mark matrix action? Or any other device for that matter?
Please consider my thread question "[SR5] Can a device perform the matrix action Invite Marks?" because it DOES NOT mention puppeteer.
-
It is safe to assume that you don't become a "legit user" of a device "for all future" by using puppeteer on it.
Even if you have enough marks on a device (from brute force, hack on the fly or from using puppeteer on the owner's persona) you still need to either use control device, spoof commands in the name of the owner or puppeteer to control it.
Using puppeteer to just get marks on a device seems highly counter productive. You simply don't need them.
Just skip marks and use puppeteer on the device to make it do whatever you wanted it to do in the first place.
-
When the main argument against being able to force a device to Invite Mark with Puppeteer is that the rules don't allow a device to take "Owner-only" actions, I think...
My argument is not about ownership, but rather about personas.
SR5 pg 236 Only personas may mark icons.
It seems that marks are a form of access, one that can be shared only with other personas. In short, Invite Mark is a persona-to-persona action.
I believe that a persona could perform the invite mark action, but not a device. Puppeteer could be used to force a persona to make the Invite Mark action, but this does not answer MY QUESTION. Can my smartgun make the Invite Mark matrix action? Or any other device for that matter?
Please consider my thread question "[SR5] Can a device perform the matrix action Invite Marks?" because it DOES NOT mention puppeteer.
A wireless, Matrix capable device would in my opinion but 'would you need it to do so' would be need to be address before 'can it do so'....
Might you remote control lamp or stovetop need to be invite mark capable, or erase mark capable, or the even more unlikely crash program capable, or hop grid capable?
All associated with computers that reportedly everything has hooked up to it in Shadowrun as of 2075....
Maybe... :-X
-
I believe that a persona could perform the invite mark action, but not a device. Puppeteer could be used to force a persona to make the Invite Mark action, but this does not answer MY QUESTION. Can my smartgun make the Invite Mark matrix action? Or any other device for that matter?
Please consider my thread question "[SR5] Can a device perform the matrix action Invite Marks?" because it DOES NOT mention puppeteer.
From a purely "technological" standpoint: yes, clearly any Matrix-connected device is capable of inviting a persona to mark it, just as any current-day smartphone is capable of placing a phone call to 1-900-MIXALOT. Can they take the Invite Mark action? Not by RAW, despite there being numerous references to devices/hosts/icons inviting marks without an Owner taking the Invite Mark action.
Now, going to your specific example of the street samurai somehow derping it up and trying to use the Control Device action to tell his goggles to Invite Mark (rather than just taking the Invite Mark action himself): I think that you're over-complicating the issue and letting game terms get in the way of the "reality" of the Sixth World. If an Owner wants something that he owns to invite a persona to mark it, then the Owner is taking the Invite Mark action whether he knows it or not. Even if he's somehow connecting through some weird remote-control via his commlink or whatever, it still boils down to an Owner telling a device to Invite Marks. (That's my interpretation, anyways).
Now, with all that said, let's get back to the concept of icons taking the Invite Mark action independently of a specific command from their owner (such as the 50000 marks issued daily by the Seattle Public Library system). I can only think of a few circumstances when this might happen, with varying mechanical support for how they would actually work in-game:
1) Puppeteer: perhaps the gold standard of "can this Invite Mark or not debates. Strictly by RAW it doesn't work, though I personally would argue that it *should*.
2) Spoof Command: under the most stringent of interpretations of RAW it might not be kosher, but it certainly appears that it should work (since you are ultimately pretending to be the Owner of the device)
3) Some manner of automation (such as your IC/Agent examples): nothing concrete from a rules mechanic sense, though the argument could be made that Agents (who can "perform Matrix Actions for you") could do it.
4) Some manner of blanket Invite Mark command issued by the Owner ("Invite the next 25 Emerald City Grid users who come by to mark you for 30 minutes"): I think that it's a stretch, but the argument could be made that it falls under the Invite Mark action. Probably the "cleanest" way to assume that the mass Invites that the fluff seems to indicate occur actually work under the RAW.
5) Some manner of device malfunction: if the GM wants to say that some device or another just invites a persona to mark it for some technomalogical reason or another, then it does. Strictly handwavium of the highest order.
-
When the main argument against being able to force a device to Invite Mark with Puppeteer is that the rules don't allow a device to take "Owner-only" actions, I think...
My argument is not about ownership, but rather about personas.
SR5 pg 236 Only personas may mark icons.
It seems that marks are a form of access, one that can be shared only with other personas. In short, Invite Mark is a persona-to-persona action.
I believe that a persona could perform the invite mark action, but not a device. Puppeteer could be used to force a persona to make the Invite Mark action, but this does not answer MY QUESTION. Can my smartgun make the Invite Mark matrix action? Or any other device for that matter?
Please consider my thread question "[SR5] Can a device perform the matrix action Invite Marks?" because it DOES NOT mention puppeteer.
No.
Your smartgun is not an owner. Their is no reason to think it is. Only an owner may preform the action invite marks. The previous explanations were toexplain why, but to stay on point there is no reason to think your gun is an owner. Therefore it would fail to meet the requirement of the action. We can rest assured that our smartguns are not out making friends while we sleep.
-
I don't see why a device doesn't inherit the same permissions as what it is slaved to. Otherwise, the whole process of creating a PAN would be a nightmare. It seems reasonable to me that some of these tasks can be automated. If a device is commanded to invite marks, it should be able to handle that without any trouble.
-
@ Namikaze
I don't see why a device doesn't inherit the same permissions as what it is slaved to. Otherwise, the whole process of creating a PAN would be a nightmare. It seems reasonable to me that some of these tasks can be automated. If a device is commanded to invite marks, it should be able to handle that without any trouble.
I reason I believe that devices do not have permissions is from SR5 pg 236 "RECOGNITION KEYS" paragraph 2 Only personas may mark icons.
-
@ Namikaze
I don't see why a device doesn't inherit the same permissions as what it is slaved to. Otherwise, the whole process of creating a PAN would be a nightmare. It seems reasonable to me that some of these tasks can be automated. If a device is commanded to invite marks, it should be able to handle that without any trouble.
I reason I believe that devices do not have permissions is from SR5 pg 236 "RECOGNITION KEYS" paragraph 2 Only personas may mark icons.
Okay, but look at this from a realistic perspective, rather than from a rules-oriented perspective: in real life, when I log in to my network administrator account, I don't necessarily have to log in every single time that I want to do something. The account provides a degree of administrative freedom. In essence, the device that I'm connecting to sort of inherits my permissions. In terms of rules, this would be like having 3 marks just because I'm logged in to the network as an administrator. It makes sense in Shadowrun too - why should a network administrator have to essentially attack their own devices in order to put marks on them? They don't. Therefore, if you want a device to invite marks I don't see why not.
-
@ Namikaze
why should a network administrator have to essentially attack their own devices in order to put marks on them
A network admin should never have to attack a device to mark them. The marks would be invited by the owner. The owner would hire admins to administer the network, and invite marks to those who should have access. In this way, an admin would never have to make an attack, because access is provided. When marks are given, they are specified by A) how many marks B) how long they last C) who they are given too.
In sixth world terms, an Ares corporate administrator would be given owner status over an Ares host. This administrator would invite marks to corporate personnel so they can perform their job duties, such as security personnel would get marks over security devices. In no way would an administrator need to attack devices. Remember that the Control Devices matrix action is not the only way to operate a device; the Change Linked device Mode can be used to operate devices.
...in real life, when I log in to my network administrator account, I don't necessarily have to log in every single time that I want to do something...
As for the real world analogy; I would disagree. You DO have to provide authentication for EVERY action that requires elevated privileges. Usually your program will remember your credentials and provide them for you. Clicking on " keep me signed in" on Facebook tells your browser to keep your credentials on file, to provide them to this url when asked. Try administering a debian system without invoking the "sudo" command and see how far "not logging in" will get you.
@ Namikaze
...Therefore, if you want a device to invite marks I don't see why not...
[SR5 pg 263] RECOGNITION KEYS:Last paragraph "You can give other personas permission to mark devices you own with the Invite Mark action (p. 240)."
If you read this section from beginning to end, it seems clear that personas can place marks on icons, as well as personas can give other personas permissions to place marks. It does not say that devices can mark icons, or that devices can invite marks.
I am not trying to embellish, house rule, or "fix" the rules here, but just to "play it as it lands".
Let me put it this way. I can find sections in the RAW that allow personas to Invite Marks to other personas, sharing permissions of devices they own.
Can you show me where it states that devices can place marks, or invite marks?
-
Can you show me where it states that devices can place marks, or invite marks?
I can do better than that. I can wish you a Merry Christmas and go enjoy my time off. Fact is, I interpret the rules slightly differently. Arguing the semantics is a little silly honestly. Eventually it boils down to a difference of opinion, and results in something along the lines of a schism similar to that which occurred between the various sects of <insert religion here>.
As to your real world example of using Debian, you are correct. Debian is also 20 years old, and despite being consistently updated it still has some quirks. Every OS has quirks. When I log in to my Windows Server administration account, I don't have to provide credentials again because the system remembers who I am and uses my credentials. I bring that up as an example of what I suspect administering networks would be like in Shadowrun simply because it's easy. Obviously Windows and Debian don't exist in Shadowrun - presumably at some point developers learned how to make things even easier than how things are now.
Regardless, have a Merry Christmas or whatever you celebrate.
-
If we're discounting the use of Resonance, then no device may take any Matrix Action that requires marks. The rules clearly state that only personas may create a mark. Invite Marks requires Owner level permissions (essentially 4 marks). Under normal circumstances, only a device's owner's persona may use Invite Marks with that device as a subject. Even if the owner were to invite the device to mark itself it would be unable to do so because, not being a persona, it has no ability to accept the invitation.