All Activity

More slots doesn't equal more work stations, more gear, more anything so on and so forth to support those additional roles.

Either that, or make it so Command has to add them. (Even then, I'm unsure, since they'll probably be busy at the oddysey stuff) I don't think this'll mess with balance too much, since basically half or more of the ship's down on the away site. Kind of sucks to be locked out of a round because you missed roundstart. Also kind of sets a hard cap on the amount of players we can really have (because who the hell wants to play Off-duty?) Can't really top the server charts even though we literally are getting the most amount of players interested as possible.

I don't see an issue with adding a few more minutes to the lobby, since it gives more people to pile in and ready up for what's going to be a MINIMUM 2 hours and 15 minutes round, assuming they play the whole thing and the transfer is done exactly at 2 hours.

I will clarify this minor point. This is not entirely true. Per Chain of Command, if a Head of Staff is missing, other command members are permitted (sometimes expected in cases of emergencies) to take on leadership of the missing department regardless of an emergency or not. Signing an injunction for security when an HoS is missing is perfectly fine. The Chain of Command permits this. To what extent a command staff does this is subject to discretion and all that. With that being said, the rounds I've played with Wezzy's XO have been fine. They've done their job during the chaos, didn't step into my bounds (as investigator), and was helpful when their assistance was requested. Most of the issues I've seen discussed so far are the things many command trials fall into the trap of and learn out of. +1 from me.

3-5 minutes seems good IMO, yeah. I don't really care how long the loading time takes so long as we have that amount of time to ready up after the fact. Makes it easier to take a break, get food/water, etc.

Alright, so, please forgive me - it's literally my first few rounds, so I apologize if I overstep a bit while I try to figure out some gimmicks. Morgan's supposed to be a pencil-pushing, slightly overbearing manager that tries to do "efficiency" stuff. Actually, this is all connected, and it was a pretty confusing ordeal, so let me explain. - Morgan gets annoyed at a Security Officer for playing video games. Just body-languages frustration, but nothing more. - Officer pulls Morgan aside - "This is unbecoming of the PMCG. Allow me to correct this behaviour on your behalf" - Said officer files an injunction and other things on their own discretion. As there were no other command staff available, I felt it was some good paperwork RP, so I signed off on it. (And to be extra certain, I ahelped as well to double check if I had the authority to do so.) - Mid round, HOS joins and takes over. Afterwards we had a conversation about the injunction and then the problem was resolved. Apologies if my intentions weren't clear. I wasn't planning on hiring or firing anyone. I was trying to do a survey gimmick where I'd intervew someone for a moment, then give them a gold star/coupon as a fun side thing. There was only really Security (busy with Greimorians) and Medical, so I didn't have much choice in trying to get the gimmick going. There was no Bridge Crew, Service nor other Command staff for most of the round, so I had to fill in. As soon as the HoS joined, I immediately went hands-off.

I played and observed a round and a half with your XO and overall what I witnessed was lackluster. Firstly, within your own department, your character got onto the Chef for having the appliances on, despite the Chef being in the kitchen. Your reasoning was that they were not cooking a meal at that specific moment and because the ship needed to conserve power. ICly and OOCly, having to turn the appliances on and off is extremely frustrating as a Chef because they take a while to reheat and having to do that between every customer would have me ripping my hair out. Secondly, I observed your XO overstepping into the HoS's jurisdiction, writing an injunction at the spoken whim of a bully Security Officer against another Security Officer for simply playing on a game console during code green. Even if your XO is sole command, they should not be taking on other command staff's duties unless it is an emergency situation. Thirdly, I observed your XO overstepping into the CMOs jurisdiction (and even a Consular's/Representative's jurisdiction) when asking Medical crew to take surveys evaluating their coworkers, how often they work, and to rate their professionalism. When approached by the CMO about this, you described it as an 'evaluation' and claimed that employment and hiring fell under your control. This is not the case. XOs do not have hiring and firing power. Overall, it seemed like you were trying to play as the absolute authority over the ship and its crew rather than sticking to Service/Bridgecrew and assisting the other departments when needed, as it is outlined in the XO wiki guide. -1

-1 Kinda oversteps as XO and tries to command other departments over very minor things.

+1 engaged with me in some real suit asskissing and antics, good roleplayer and good character

I think it would be very nice if we added an account console (the thing that lets you access the bank records) back to the captain's office. There is one in the XO's office, and the captain used to have one, but it disappeared several remaps ago. A simple quality of life thing for captains rather than having to go to the XO's office to check the account records when it is needed. In a similar vein, adding at least one ATM to the inside of the bridge (if not in both the XO and captain's offices) would be very helpful in transferring money between accounts. As it stands now, you've gotta go out of the bridge and find an ATM to make any transfers between accounts. Time consuming!

Hyezzz... your vhriend... Hazzzzel....

Huge Fan of this idea, I really think that we need more time, I'd say at least three minutes, my true preference is five minutes.

I wouldn't mind a longer lobby timer at all. Maybe a minute or two longer than it is now would hit the sweet spot.

This topic has come up ingame and on the discord a few times now, so I figured I might as well make a thread for it! Right now, it looks like the timer after game mode voting is around 75-80 seconds. It doesn't allow much time for things like breaks, game crashes, Character Setup menus, or being able to respond to shoutouts in discord like "Hey, new round starting if you want in!" I don't know how long would be better for it, but I feel like the timer needs to be a little longer. Thoughts?

Hi. After careful consideration, myself, Owen, and Max have come to the conclusion to overturn this decision. While we understand the reason Noble initiated this ticket, we do not believe Arlo classifies as a reference name that would warrant a rename. If any of the parties involved wish to contest this decision, please file a staff complaint. This post will be locked and archived in 24 hours, thank you.

Unbanned.

I just don't see why this is a good thing. So sec throws scissors and then if the antag didn't save enough TC for the rock they just die, if they did, sec just dies. My issue is rock always beats scissors without a massive skill gap and that's not fun.

Hello, The issue here is that the name Arlo is used by a security camera company. Artificial intelligences down to their core are essentially surveillance for the crew, especially since their only vision is through Cameras. It was determined by me that this name and its associations are much to on-the-nose to be in compliance with our server rules about references. If the Arlo company was any other brand, say, cooking appliances, then this would no issue at all. However, the name Arlo is, as mentioned, a surveillance brand, and since it is such, it is 1:1 with what an AI can be interpreted as and is treated as a reference, which is in violation of server rules. I did not make my decision without consulting my fellow staff members. I went to the relevant team, the AI Whitelist team, who handles AI's regulation in the server, and it was unanimously agreed by the AI whitelist team that this name was crossing the line and was inappropriate for an AI to have. Here on Aurora, we have bwoinked people for making reference names and requested them to change it, whether the reference was accidental or not. We have always had the player change the name in regards to references. It is S.O.P. This is just another case of that. Additionally, players can break the rules and go unnoticed, but this does not excuse the rule-break. It does not matter how long the player has been breaking the rules, whether intentional or not, amount of time of play does not excuse disregard for the rules established on the server. Even moreso, when a name is on the line of acceptability, the moderation team turned and consulted the relevant whitelist team, such as the species lore teams, or the AI whitelist team, for their approval of the name. In this case, the relevant whitelist team is the AI whitelist team, which was consulted, and again all agreed the name is an issue. The rule violated in question is as follows: When Googling Arlo, the surveillance company is the first search option you receive: Arlo is a very popular surveillance company for homes, businesses, and smart-homes, and holds a place in many American households and businesses. The company has been around for 11 years, predating the character, providing no excuse for the reference name. Now, the name might've been unintentional, however, it is still very much on the nose in reference to this company. If Arlo could open doors (which it might have smart-locks, I'm not personally a consumer), then it would be almost exactly what an AI can do down to the letter. It has been agreed upon by the team in charge of AI's, the AI whitelist team, that this name is too far, and is in violation of our server rules and the wishes of the relevant whitelist team, and the team would like it changed. Our rules may have been different in 2017, I didn't play here in 2017, but now they are what they are, and no one is exempt from them.

Absolutely, I do apologize for not quite remembering. Work's sucked most of my time away.

I will be handling this with @maxspells and @Triogenix. We'll try to get to this later today. In the meantime, @Noble Row please go ahead and post your side of things.

Hello. That was me that banned you, and that was two years ago, not four. As long as you improve on your general play by listening to the rules, IE don't suicide, hitting cryogenics/living quarters and so on, I am happy to lift this ban. Do you agree with this?

BYOND Key: beastworm56 Total Ban Length: indefinite Banning staff member's Key: unknown Reason of Ban: Committed suicide in very low pop round as antag. Reason for Appeal: It has close to 4 years since I recieved the ban, I am not the same person I was prior. I do not remember the staff member's name, as the job ban is not in my notifications and warning tab. Text box for job ban is broken with formatting strewn through the text.

Morgan Slaughter on command? Dude's an excellent communicator, really competent, and manages to keep the whole crew up to date with stuff. Massive boon the round. Absolute massive +1

BYOND Key: Capesh Staff BYOND Key: Noble Row Game ID: cyP-aauS Reason for complaint: Attempted a test-drive run of Aurora after a long time of hiatus, utilizing my AI Arlo which I inducted into Aurora's fold around 2018, only to be blindsided by a demand to change the AI's name by Moderator Noble Row. Now, as they explicitly noted me to indeed file a complaint should I so desire, I have elected to do so. The demand for name change stems from Arlo also being the name of a surveillance security company originating from 2014. That is, as stated, the entire issue. I gently object to this decision on the grounds that A, such was not an issue before; B, an AI's name is quite substantially more important to their character's self (and reflection to others) given they are just a voice; and C, admitting 'this issue should have been caught sooner' is something I can certainly accept for fresh-made creations, but not one from 2018 with a prolific history and recognition. If we are indeed talking about erasing character identities, then a seven year gap between start to finish should at least - in my humble opinion - warrant a grandfathering-in. The name 'Arlo' is old-english for 'fortified hill,' or 'endless energy' - two perfectly applicable definitions for an AI. It is not as if I called the AI 'Amazon'. Or should we rename the SCCV Horizon something else, as there was a German cruiseship named Horizon for forty years between 1980 and 2020? Beyond this there was a remark made by Noble Row that sat oddly with me, if only because they stated their server titles as synth lore writer and a member of the AI whitelist team. The remark (also present in below image) went as follows: "It's just a name, my dude, it's not that bad." I find this remark considerably tone-deaf to the discussion's contents, especially as - stated above - looking beyond the sheer fact this is a 'legacy' character, it is also one without a body. The name of an AI is, next to their behavior, their most identifying characteristic; and to be part of both lore and whitelists while not seeming to understand that, alternatively doing just so and completely disregarding it, rubbed me very wrong. Images of round information and the ahelp in its entirety posted below. Additional remarks: - The ticket was closed by the Moderator after their last message.

On trial until 3 April 2025. Feel free to advertise your application once per round to gather feedback.