During Debriefing, do you ignore the rules about earlier clones' crimes?

Question

Given that when a clone dies its new model is a fresh citizen and cannot be held responsible for the crimes of its former model, how do you handle this challenge during Debriefing?

Until now I have just gone over every incident and allowed clones to bring up every little thing in order to throw their fellow clones under the bus. However, in my most recent session, just before the debrief started a particularly awkward clone declared himself a traitor, was shot, and then his new clone (5th one) proclaimed he could not be held responsible for any of the actions his former models had taken, including destruction of property, failure to return equipment, etc.

Now as a one-off it worked really well and he actually role-played himself into a corner where he didn't get any of the consequences but then also got none of the reward. But I want to make sure the group doesn't start doing this as standard operating procedure during each mission: it may (shock, horror) start leading to some cooperation between them.

Historically, have any of the Paranoia sourcebooks gone into any detail about debriefing sessions and clones being fully responsible for everything they and all other clones did each session? (I have already come up with one idea: I enter clone names on all equipment forms without the current clone number...

I didn't sign that form.
But your first name and sector are on it.
That was my former clone!
Can you prove that?

etc.)

Answer 1

... his new clone (5th one) proclaimed he could not be held responsible for any of the actions his former models had taken, such as destruction of property, failure to return equipment, etc.

"Only a despicable mutant traitor would suggest that the Computer can't do something! Execute him!"

The premise of Paranoia is that the troubleshooters can’t win through their own actions. The Computer is the font of all beneficence from which all good things flow and everything that flows from the Computer is good. Everything from elsewhere is bad. Even if they are the same thing!

The player has put forward a perfectly sane and rational argument that limits the capability of the Computer to take action. Therefore it is insane and irrational by definition.

Answer 2

This is often rather handwavy, because the whole notion of clones is so that you can be killed and put back in the action expediently. It absolutely makes sense for a six-pack of clones to have shared responsibilities, such as signing for equipment and being assigned to the mission. It's treason that gets reset for new clones.

I try to pick the top one or two mistakes per player during debrief, and let them start finger-pointing and accusing each other. Let them dredge up the minor mistakes and accuse the clone family of wrongdoing.

Answer 3

I've been trying to run Paranoia for a while, and it's my understanding that each clone has most of his previous memories with their own treasonous thoughts only being wiped during a brainscrub or repatterning. Technically, the computer might treat each individual as a renewed individual with more obedient inclinations, but if they have memories of their past treason and have not reported themselves, that must in itself be treason. If their treason is revealed, they themselves should be punished for the crimes of their past clone. The computer wouldn't let a crime go unpunished. I think that the Computer really just doesn't hold past (punished) treason against you, so you might have been terminated in your last clone bit the Computer trusts the new one. No matter how you run it, remember that the Computer's logic is skewed and it will not punished the same way every time. If you DO let players get away with clone #5's excuse, give them excessively hard punishments for whatever sticks, or terminate the other players for not subduing a known traitor.