SomeoneOutTher3

Thank you for the answer. What about the "exceptional" cases in the other 20%? Yeah, my question was primarily meant to be about using firearms in-game for self-defense, not actively pursuing someone. In the game, it seems that every non-security character I encountered suddenly lost the ability to use a gun whenever a situation arose that might have needed it for defense against whatever was on the station (Almost never did),so I asked if gun use really needed as much training as people made it out to.

Wouldn't the AEG be essentially the same as an energy gun, with the only difference being that the AEG is larger due to a reactor inside it recharging the gun by itself, and therefore not /that/ hard to handle? As for the lawgivers, the only people who usually have access to them are either knowledgeable enough to carry out testing, are trained in firearms, or antags. Yes, it will take some time to figure out that the guns are voice-activated. But do the lawgivers actually have recoil in the game? If not,refer to the part about E-weapons. Gat lasers don't have recoil or any safety switch, they should be easier to handle because of that. LWAPS also have no recoil or switch, look down the scope and pull the trigger.

This is a question that I had in the back of my mind for some time and have asked over OOC a few times. Does using a gun ICly REALLY require training? I have been to a shooting range for quite a few times and fired a 9mm. The only issues that I've had when doing so is accuracy going down at longer range and recoil (Well, that and the pistol slide hitting my thumb once because it was in the way). Now, the typical distance that one would have to shoot from in the game is 7 (or 14, depending on who you ask) meters or less. At that distance, neither of those pose a problem when shooting. Heavier ballistic weapons like automatics and assault rifles may or may not actually be harder to use (Never fired a rifle or full automatic), I agree. However, people typically use either energy weapons or pistols most of the time in the game. Shooting at a target from 7-14 meters with a 9mm is not that hard, provided you take aim. A crew-shaped target in the game would be even easier to hit since it is larger. The safety switch and the button to take the magazine out of the gun aren't even hard to locate (Do safeties even exist on in-game firearms?). As for energy weapons, handling them should be even easier. Energy weapons would have no noticeable (key word there) recoil, as they essentially shoot beams of light, so the problem of the bullet dropping and recoil messing up accuracy is nonexistent, so the lasers should travel in a straight line, making the laser guns in the game easier to shoot than ballistic weaponry. This statement is supported by game mechanics, since the lasers in the game travel in straight lines and the laser weapons have no recoil. Not to mention laser weapons having no safeties or need to reload. As for changing settings, I would presume that IC laser weapons have a setting switch that would be located where the safety switch is. Those things considered, does handling a gun in-game require as much training as people make it out to? Discuss.

Yes, now please stop derailing the thread. We are not claiming that the admins are conspiring against the playerbase.

Yes, that's where the "For continuing a discussion even after being told to stop" warning came from after I posted a link to an....unusual music video, saying "Let's all shut up and enjoy the music" after the discussion was shut down. That's the Nanako one. But I was not continuing a discussion after being told to stop. Post the PMs where I said to you that I was going to make a complaint please More than once 2 days ago?That's the day (Or was it the day after?) the warning for "Circumvention of game mechanics", I don't recall being told to stop "Shitstirring" more than once. I would like to see the logs of THAT. Sounds like you are starting to put your own spin on the story. Ah,my bad. The wording of the post suggested that you were talking about WARNINGS (The ones that can be read with the my-warnings verb), not notes.

Context matters. What happened was that I asked why a certain nerf was put in place (Though,yes, I used all caps to make what I said more noticeable), and he/she responded with "I'm sorry, you filthy heretic, did something interrupt your validhunting?". He/she must have logged shortly after. Yes, there was sarcasm in that reply,but how do you expect someone not so say anything when met with a reply that reeks of baseless personal grudges? Where did you get that number from? The only warnings I have active are the one about "circumventing mechanics"(Not really OOC drama), "For continuing a discussion after being told to stop",and one for mishandling a hostage situation (Which I acknowledged a long time after it was placed). As for the note number, I am pretty sure most of those were relating to gameplay issues, not OOC attitude.

Tell us more about that. Tell us about the DSay part. And how is that relevant when arguing about whether or not the warning, for an unrelated reason and which has been placed before the event, was warranted? Now,for anyone reading. What happened was that someone( I think it was Complete Garbage) said "Kill yourself" over OOC (wew) to me. The staff said to "Stop with the kill yourself shit". I thought it meant just stop with TELLING people to do it,not discussing the topic in general. I replied with "I am not so sensitive as to require protection" (Or something along those lines), then the rest happened. Is that shit-stirring to you? How rude.

And my opening argument for why the system should be reverted has been neatly let slide and ignored, wew.

Tell us more about that.

Whether or not I actually believe that does not matter. Staff usually insist on being objective when deciding whether or not someone broke a server rule (Like that one time with a former mod and drones that killed mice.....) and objectivity seems to be a selling point for some of the mod applications, with one of the interview questions being asked specifically to judge that. So if the staff try to be objective when looking for violations, whether or not it goes against the "Spirit of the server", why can't players be objective when arguing that, at first glance, a rule was broken, but objectively, it wasn't? Seems like a figurative hole in staff's objectivity. Seems a bit hypocritical,with all due respect. So staff have said that the mouse thing is not a bug, and the rules say: Which would mean that the rule implicitly says that non-bugs do not apply.

the issue here is that you've already known where the blob is. there's usually a minute for the blob to grow in, and it can take anywhere from 2 more or even 7 minutes to locate the blob, this issue is even worse when there's no AI or if it's dead hour. even if you manage to effectively take it down, by the time you've setup. the damage is already done. That is why we have engineering to fix that damage. Then beg engineering to fix the damage, or provide weapons and bombs for the crew to fight off the blob before that happens. Very few things are actually irreplaceable in the game, and the ones that are irreplaceable and are of any value are a good distance away from maintenance. 1: It seems that you want blobs to be worse at breaking things. That is the whole point of a blob: To eat the station and cause havoc, and it is the job of engineers and security to deal with it. This adds urgency to the blob threat. If a blob was suddenly worse at doing those things,then it isn't as urgent of a threat, which ruins the point of the blob. 2:Seems arbitrary. Refer to point one. 3: That removes the decompression hazard of blobs. It seems that what people find issues with is the blob venting areas of the station. I have a simple solution to that issue: Get the fuck out before you get vented. The whole point of the blob is that it is a hazard that the crew must deal with, lest they suffer the effects. The only people that get affected by blobs venting areas of the station are incompetent crew and civilians.If you are not wearing a suit when you got something to do during a blob outbreak,you can't blame anyone but yourself for getting royally fucked. If you are a civilian with no access to a suit, you get a warning in advance in the form of sounds coming from maintenance,shutters dropping, and walls beginning to crack. If you don't get out of the way when those warning signs are present,you can't blame anyone but yourself. thus what will happen is blobs will become very stronk in maintenance, growing to a respectable size before crew can gank it, but won't deal that much damage, Yes please.

And is that relevant regarding the validity of the argument? I will gladly change my view regarding this if my argument is addressed instead of us trading blows back and forth. And this relates to the issue of whether or not the current voting system that got implemented a while ago should be reverted how,exactly? This thread is getting derailed, as such,I would like to refer 1138 to my previous post so that this can be discussed without talking about things other than those within this thread.

If you want to look at it that way. I also said why, IMO, my actions did not violate the rules. Seems like your interpretation of what is dickish and what isn't is different from mine, this is going to get faaaar..... I was not using the CT function for any benefit to myself. I explained, using the only concrete source I had at the time, why unintended features are not bugs.

And in this thread,I am saying why I think that should not be the case. Sounds like the exact same pretense under which the "No vote influencing11111" rule was put into place last year (it did get removed, but still....). By your logic, non-ghosts calling CT votes also add peer pressure. If you took time to read what I wrote (Seemingly,you didn't), you would see that I am saying that ghosts should be able to call and vote for CT because they generally have the most information about the round, more so than any given character, even the AI. Discussion about this is more suitable for the other thread. Nice use of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well .

BYOND Key: SomeoneOutThere Staff BYOND Key: OneOneThreeEight Game ID: Don't know, but the time was 2017-03-25 02:23:22 Reason for complaint: Issuing a warning despite me not breaking any server rules at the time. Not only that,but a SEVERE warning. Evidence/logs/etc: Additional remarks: What happened was that I joined the round, became a mouse, ghosted, and then started a CT vote. It did not pass, but 1138 still bwoinked me about it, and "Circumventing game mechanics". When I asked which rules specifically forebode it, he/she cited "Don't be a dick". How doing that is even remotely dickish and fun-removing compared to any other method of starting a CT vote is beyond me. What starting a CT vote did was give the option to reboot the server to those currently playing or those that have played. One vote is not going to change the outcome of that. The option to reboot the server still lies with the majority of the playerbase. If it would have went through, that would mean that the majority of people wanted it. What would have been dickish is if a CT actually commenced without a 2/3rds majority agreeing on it. The next rule that was cited was "Abuse of bugs, regardless of intent, is a punishable offence. All bugs should be reported on GitHub. If they are immediately gamebreaking, please contact server staff via adminhelp, in an attempt to find a temporary resolution." IMO, the use of game mechanics which were coded without errors (Code-wise) does not constitute a bug, but rather using game mechanics "legally" for some purpose. Since various people/sources will offer different interpretations of it, I have to use a concrete source, Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_exploits Taking advantage of the systems that make up the gameplay. A game mechanics exploit is not a bug—it is working as designed, but at the same time is not working as intended. An example is the "wavedash" in Super Smash Bros. Melee, where the momentum gained from using a directional aerial dodge could be retained on landing; with proper timing this allows characters to use a stationary attack while sliding across the ground. The CT vote thing was not made possible by an error in the code: The mechanic is still working as designed (Which makes it a non-bug). As for the "Intended purpose", the rules do not address that.