Korinra

Ok but what you're missing is, the casual players won't be getting more than a single token every other day, meanwhile multiple people will be getting one to two tokens a day. There will always be SOMEONE using a token, so the casual player is now guaranteed NOT to get a high-choice role but once every three days MAXIMUM, assuming they won the token roll against others using tokens. You seem to be thinking of it like only one person will be collecting and using tokens vs a casual player, but there are tons of regulars who play 2+ rounds a day, all of them will be collecting and using tokens against the casual player who plays one or fewer times a day. That casual player will never get the role they want.

This sounds like a good way to make sure casual people still don't get the roles they want while people playing 2+ shifts a day will almost always get them. No I think it should be 100% random who gets it, just preventing people from getting it too regularly to avoid issue. -1 from me

For the same reason you don't need an arrest warrant to arrest someone you saw breaking into an area, you'd just be able to issue a fine rather than making it a big deal. See someone drawing graffiti? Fine them and call the janitor. See someone sneaking over the counter to get into the bar? Fine them and send them on their way. Things that don't really involve an investigation. Another good instance, if someone turns themselves in for a minor infraction or admits to it. "Hey I did this and I feel bad about it", have them sign a confession and fine them. Now how a warrant would play into it. If you get a search warrant and find minor contraband (bottle of pills, etc...) confiscate the contraband and issue a fine. A fine isn't technically "like an arrest" it's an alternative to an arrest. A good example of this, if you're speeding, the police are allowed to arrest you and take you to jail. However, as an alternative, they're also allowed to issue you a fine since it's such a minor infraction that going to jail over it is stupid. This is one of those kinds of cases. You'd need a warrant any time you didn't witness the crime first hand during code green like normal, but if you saw the crime in action, fine and go. If a warrant is issued for a minor infraction, the arresting officer would have the option of fining or bringing in to the brig, for especially small infractions a fine would be suggested unless the victim resisted arrest or is a repeat offender.

Have things changed where half of a round reads a newscaster? I thought fewer than two to three people would often read them at best.

I most certainly was not, and I'd prefer if you stopped saying I was. When I was bwoinked I was in the armory. Ok so this is meant to show where I blamed you? Let me bold the part where I explicitly blame someone else within the very quote you are quoting. That "nameless faceless accuser" would be the person who ahelped. I don't know who they are, so to me they are nameless and faceless, but you're relaying information on their behalf so to reiterate what I said; "I don't want to hear what they told you, I want you to tell me if you're accusing me of something so I can either accept or defend myself." There, does that make my sentence a little easier to understand? Your right, I don't know the full extent. I asked you many times to get the full extent of the claim against me so I could either defend or accept the claims, but you constantly refused to tell me the claims. Again though, as for the "multiple people", ok let me re-state; I don't care who my accusers are if I'm not allowed to discuss it with them. Get their whole claim in a nice envelope so you and I can discuss it. You acting as a middle man to accuse me on their behalf is not doing anything for keeping the situation calm. Get ALL of their complaints together on a notepad, thank them for giving you ALL of their complaints, then bwoink me. I didn't refuse to discuss the situation, and I encouraged using logs to back up my story. Did you yet look at the logs of what happened after the HoP told me to stop searching? Did you yet see that I never once lied about how I stated the situation went down? You're still defending them, and I'm still telling you I don't care who they are or what they told you. I care what you tell me and whether or not I agree or not with what you tell me. If you want this to be about them too, then invite them into the discussion, if not keep them anonymous and address me on behalf of YOURSELF and STAFF. I would assume you're supposed to be impartial and not side with anyone or speak on behalf of them to me, right? That is most certainly not how the ticket was going. You kept reverting back to "they're saying this" and "they're saying that". OK I get it, they hate my guts, tell me my charges so I can plea innocent or guilty. The whole ticket could have been resolved without even talking to me if you pulled up the logs first. "He didn't do a search" *checks logs, see an attempted search cut off by Command member* "He refused to listen to Command!" *see in chat logs where Command told me to stop and I did*. As far as I'm concerned, it sounds like they lied or at least twisted their story to make me out to be a bad guy. I told my story and I would like you to confirm or deny if what I said I did before you bwoinked me is true or false. If what I said it true, you no longer have a reason to defend the ticketer, do you? As a side note, the HoP has no authority to tell the Warden how to run the brig. As the highest acting command on station however, I respected the instruction to stop my search. Ironically, the person had contraband on them that walked out of the brig thanks to the HoP demanding the search end. The suspect had several pieces of Armory gear, the suspect was violent toward a Command member (which WARRANTS requiring them to wear orange jumpsuits specifically in SOPs), and the brig is the Warden's jurisdiction, only overruled by the Captain or the HoS. Again though, since no Captain nor HoS was present, I obeyed the HoP as an acting Captain. So since there's not a single SOP saying I can't do a strip search on a violent suspect, an HoP being upset that I do one falls under Exceeding Official Powers (i214), right? Though I chose not to open that whole can of worms. It is NOT what you did. You kept asking me questions, then going back to them with the answer to give them a chance TO CHANGE THEIR STORY. This is why you get THEIR ENTIRE STORY, and ask, "IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE?". When they say no that's all of it, THAT'S when you address the other party. Doing it the way you did kept getting the question changed; "They told me you were refusing to do anything as a Warden" "Oh? May I ask what I refused to do?" "They told me that you were being obstructive" "I tried to do a search and got yelled at by Command not to, so I gave the prisoner uniform I was holding to a volunteer officer and stepped back for her to do it" "They told me you were refusing to do a search" "I did do the search until I was told not to." "They told me you refused to do ANOTHER search" "It was the same person I was yelled at for searching before, and it's not the job of the Warden to do searches anyway" "They told me you refused to listen to Command" "Why did you think I stopped the search before? Because Command told me to stop." Do you see how this back and forth is infuriating? Just get ALL of their claims against me and come to me to get my side, then look at the logs and punish the liar. Why would you even bother doing it any other way?

Thanks for the full log Arrow. There IS a significant reason I wanted the full log, first of all. You keep talking about where I was when we started talking but you know how I know you weren't on top of me? Because you're wrong about where I was. In fact I know when you aghosted to me and the log shows it too. PM: Roostercat12->Korinra: Hi. Got a minute? PM: Korinra->Roostercat12: Sure PM: Korinra->Roostercat12: Roostercat? Did you still need me? See here in the first three lines? I finished my look in the armory, didn't hear back from you, then went back to my office and sat down to ask if you still needed me. I never once insinuated that you were the reasong I was Ahelped and don't put words into my mouth thank you very much. Sorry if you don't understand all that's been said in this ticket, but it very much does make sense, I just feel like you can't or won't look at it from my perspective. 1) I got bwoinked because someone said I "refused to do anything a warden is tasked to do". PM: Roostercat12->Korinra: There are some concerns with your Warden play. Namely that you are being very obstructive, and not listening to anyone, including command. Some examples given were not searching a detainee and flipping out when it was suggested that someone else should search a prisoner because of sex related issues. Is this true? I DID search until Command told me to stop, at which end I DID stop. So I DID listen to Command, I TRIED to search. All I said about the sex issue is that I don't care about gender if the officer dumps an inmate on me and leaves, I'm going to search them. The fact is, it's up to the OFFICER to do the search according to the Wiki, so it's not my job in the first place. Me going out of my way to do an Officer's job then getting Bwoinked because a Command member yelled at me for doing it... REALLY think about that from my perspective. 2) The only accusations I've made against you were poor behavior like myself, falsely calling me a liar, and calling me a dick. 3) PM: Roostercat12->Korinra: Im being told that you have refused to do all other aspects of being a Warden as a result of this, though. PM: Korinra->Roostercat12: What aspect of being a warden did I refuse to do? I asked multiple times what aspects I wasn't doing and never got an answer. Want to annoy someone very quickly, make a vague accusation against them and then refuse to specify. Here's how you properly handle that as an admin; Ticketer; Hi, Korinra isn't performing his duties as a Warden Staff: Which duties is he not performing Ticketer: He didn't search an inmate and he didn't listen to Command Staff: Ok, did he refuse to do anything else? Ticketer: Everything Staff: Can you give another example? Ticketer: Nope (I read the logs of what they said, the ONLY specific they gave was the search and listening to Command). Staff: What did Command tell him to do? Ticketer: Not to search the inmate because of gender. Staff: Did he stop? Ticketer: Yes and he had a huge attitude about it. Staff -> Korinra: Hey did you refuse to do your job? Korinra: Nope, I did the Officer's job of searching until Command told me to stop, then I stopped and let a volunteering Officer take over. Staff: Were you obstructive or rude? Korinra: Obstructive no, I provided the items I was holding in front of the officer (the orange jumpsuit and shoes). I was rude in character, yes, because it isn't my job to do it in the first place. Staff: OK I'm going to check the logs, but as long as everything was how you said it then everything's fine. See? Take both sides, find the contradictions in the story, then end the conversation and look to the logs. If one party lies the logs will tell the story. Here is the full story; 1: Officer reported over the radio a crew member (Aimee) tried to bite the HoP (turns out it was a Vampire round). I call out that I'll update a warrant and her file. I set her to arrest and set out an arrest warrant. 2: Officer notes the suspect only had one arm and opted to use a straight jacket since we couldn't use handcuffs. I comment that is a good idea. 3: Suspect was brought in and sat in a chair, the officer began to leave. I asked, "Just assault against a Command member?" 4: Officer answered "And resisting arrest" then begins to vacate Security. [Officer shouldn't have left, it's their responsibility to search/book the inmate.] 5: I put in the charges and collect the encrypted incident report. 6: Inmate asked if the straight jacket could be removed, and I said "Once you're in a cell". Inmate is passive for the most part after this, only making a verbal complaint that she'd rather have it removed earlier. 7: Inmate suddenly passes out, arresting officer calls for medical. They have a spat about how the medical borg apparently already treated the inmate, I interrupt the spat to tell the borg to just worry about treating her now. Inmate is rushed off to medical, I instruct that I want an officer escorting her at all times, and start her brig timer (as it's policy that medical needs are still part of the timer). 8: I walked the inmate over to the locker in the cell to remove and search the gear. 9: HoP suddenly shows up and starts yelling at me for doing a search against an opposite gender. 10: All of the Officers show up, a female Officer volunteers to take over the search. I step out of the cell, place the clothes down on the ground and say, "I want her wearing prison oranges." (on grounds that she was violent per the wiki). 11: I walk off to my office to check the record, and note that an officer had already set her to Incarcerated. 12: Argument ensues, I make my stance known and the argument trails off. Someone mentions something about the Visitor having 2 flashbangs, so I go into the armory to check, box is full, I get bwoinked. I search the remaining boxes while I'm waiting for the question/complaint to be told to me, then eventually go back to my office where I pinged back if I was still needed. That's where the logs begin. Does this sound like someone who refused to do their job? You never once actually asked my side of it, just kept saying, "I've been told you refused to do your job, did you?". So I ask again, since I stand before you accused of not doing Warden duties before you bwoinked me; What duties did I miss exactly? Oh and the reason I say "you" accused me isn't that I'm claiming you started the bwoink, it's because you have power to look at logs and after I told you they were lying to you, you still didn't check the logs. I did my job AND the officer's job, so by that logic you should have been getting on to them for not doing THEIR job. I didn't press that issue because I took it as an IC thing that maybe the character was just lazy, maybe I shouldn't make that assumption anymore if it's this big of a deal.

To add a little more context to my claim, this is ALSO written in the SECURITY OFFICER guide; The Brig For more detailed instructions, see Standard Security Procedures. For a summary read below. The Warden runs this within this area. He has authority over Security Officers within this area. The Brig itself has cells and cell timers. As the arresting officer, you have certain responsibilities. As always, following the protocol will keep you safe, the station secure, and the criminals in line. Follow it closely. 1. While the prisoner is still handcuffed, search them. Repeat offenders or those charged with extremely serious crimes should be stripped and redressed in the prison orange. Inform the prisoner and the other security personnel what is happening, and what the prisoner's charges are. Evidence goes in the evidence locker, hazardous chemicals should be stored to later be spaced, and all other materials go in the brig locker with the prisoner. The headset should only be taken if the prisoner is using it to incite rebellion, harassing other crew members, or as an additional punishment for repeat offences. 2. Lock the Locker with your identification, remove your prisoner's handcuffs, and stand in the doorway to prevent escape while you set the time. The doors will not close and lock if a time has not been set in. Consult Corporate Regulations for proper sentencing. If the prisoner makes to escape, flash them with the brig's flash controls. They will even reach to just outside the cell doors. Remember that escape attempts are an additional crime under Corporate Regulations. Do NOT leave the prisoner handcuffed in his cell, unless you have very good reason to believe they are dangerous. 3. Never open the cell door when the prisoner is standing right on the other side. Require them to step back to the bed. This will allow you to react if they attack or attempt to escape. Even trustworthy prisoners may turn at any second. When in doubt, flash the cell. 4. You must be there when the prisoner's time is up to return their gear and escort them out of the brig. Failure to do this may in some cases result in your dismissal or attack. The problem is, with how old the server is, people have just slowly stopped following SOPs entirely for Security and since the Wiki isn't being updated, I don't see how it's my fault for not knowing unwritten rules. Either the Wiki is incorrect and I'm being unfairly expected to know unwritten rules, or the Wiki is right and thus so am I for following it.

First, that's not the whole ticket, you can see we're mid-conversation on the first post where I'm asking you a question. Where's the rest of the ticket and why isn't that included? I feel like the logs show OUR horrid attitude. As I stated in the ticket, I acknowledge that I was being abrasive both IC and in the ticket. When people call me a liar with no evidence when evidence exists to back up my claim, I feel justified in being upset that the person refuses to do due diligence before making a bold faced libelous claim about me. I never once went on a tangent like you're trying to pose, you made a claim about me, I called BS on it and explained where I was and justified why I was there. That's not a tangent, that's a response to an accusation. I call shenanigans. I was in the armory when you pinged me. Someone mentioned that a Visitor threw two flashbangs so I went to check if the flashbang spares in the armory got raided since originally I stated only armor was taken. I found the box was full, checked the other boxes for missing gear then went back to my desk. But answer me something. You kept accusing me of "not doing my job", but you also state that after checking you DO in fact see that I was doing my job. In fact while we were talking I also got the recovered armor and put it BACK in the armory, something tells me you didn't account for that while siding with the person who accused me of not doing my job. Here's the problem, I'm being accused for not doing my job because I stopped searching someone after a Command member told me not to. I'm going to quote from the SECURITY job (not the Warden) what to do after an arrest is made); ====================== Processing Ensure Warden is aware of the incoming prisoner. Bring prisoner to processing/booking room. Leave secured if violent/repeat offender. Check prisoner’s pockets (coat/jumpsuit), pack, and any containers within the pack. Confiscate any contraband/evidence found. Note: Evidence must have pertinence to the case. If there is no direct correlation, evidence should be returned to the person or respective department. Inform the prisoner's superior of the arrest. Use the sentencing console with the id-card of the prisoner to generate an "Incident Summary" which is used to set the cell timers. If the prisoner is lacking an id-card, inform the warden so they can use one of their blank id-cards to imprint their biometrics on them and sentence them accordingly. Proceed to ‘Jailing’. ====================== So since it's the job of the arresting officer to notify the Warden, then process the inmate, why are you even bothering to accuse me of not doing my job when the whole thing started with me ALSO doing the Security Officer's job, and only stopping when a member of COMMAND told me not to. The officer volunteered to take over, I stepped out of the cell, dropped the prisoner uniform, and stated that I wanted the inmate to be wearing prison gear (because even if they escape it has the uniform tracking on it locked to full). To quote what Warden's job is with regard to prisoners; Half of your job is to look after the prisoners; make sure they aren't abused or given unfair sentences and that they don't escape. The other half of your job is to arm security with weapons in emergencies. You are not a Security Officer and should not leave the brig if possible. However, you may operate as an officer shall the need arise, under the permission of your HoS. The reason it says the underlined part is that I'm not supposed to be sentencing and processing inmates, I'm supposed to be overseeing it as a third party with interest of fairness to the law and the inmate respectively. If you're going to come at me for not doing my job, let me ask you again since you never answered me in the ticket, what aspect of my job did I not do? Obviously I was doing rounds on the armory to notice there was a break in. Obviously I was keeping up with paperwork since I was the one who put in the arrest warrant for Aimee. I was also walking the halls to make sure Aimee didn't escape because at one point I popped on cameras and saw her suspiciously standing up against the Windoor. I'm probably the only Warden on the station who even equipped the Warden bot for the inmate mining station in case someone ended up mining there. So tell me, what did I not do as the Warden?

Sorry, I've adjusted the format.

BYOND Key: Korinra Staff BYOND Key: Roostercat12 Game ID: ceW-atkB Reason for complaint: During the round he pinged me to tell me what someone was accusing me of. I denied it as it was untrue. Roostercat12 then called me a liar (even though I didn't once lie), and proceeded to label me as being a dick for daring to be upset about being called a liar by someone who refused to look at logs to confirm the situation. I challenged him to look at the logs and confirm my story, which he refused to do and told me I'd be issued a warning. Evidence/logs/etc: I don't have access to the logs, but I assume all the evidence you'd need is there since I remained completely honest. Additional remarks: Officers arrested someone in game, then dumped them on me (warden) to process. The processing steps are in the Officer wiki, so it seems to me that it's the job of the Officer to follow the steps on their job page. I went ahead and did the processing until a Command member yelled at me for doing a strip search (I was changing the suspect into prison oranges). I stepped aside and allowed a volunteering officer finish where I left off. Turns out the suspect had contraband so everyone blamed me for not taking it, and I said I couldn't since a command member told me to stop, and I was obeying command.

No I mean more that players who read the stories are rare. There aren't enough people reading the stories to justify all this extra work in publishing them. Edit: To be clear, not enough people who read the newscasters during the round. There are lore-wise stories posted out of game that people read, the newscasters really are just for during-the-round kind of stories.

So on the surface I really do like this idea, but in practice it's a lot of effort for a feature that very few people actually use. The problem is, the journalist role is supposed to be mostly a faff about role meant to have just enough integrity to ask personal questions without being yelled at for doing so, as it's their job after all. The journalist role is great for people who like to stick their nose in and be involved in other people's RP'ed drama, but the newscasters simply aren't a frequently used thing, and it's not for lack of good articles being printed. Some journalists write some really impressive pieces, but the fact is, not enough people want to take the time to sit down and just read it. The idea of expecting multiple people to read and approve/deny every article just doesn't sound like a good use of time, as only a few people would likely read it anyway. It's sad, but true. There might be a good way to make the journalist a more engaging role for the crew to get involved with, but I just don't think this is the right route to go with the current system. It's a cool idea, and I give you props for really thinking it out and making it well written, but realistically it just is a lot of work for almost no reward. -1 from me.

I appreciate the feedback. While I don't agree with it being overpowered as written, if that's how people view it then I can understand the disinterest. Ultimately there would be a lot of ways to avoid it, for instance I'd add that any kind of armor (vest, hardsuit, etc...) would prevent the darts from sticking, making it effectively a weaker version of the stun baton with less charge. Further, I'd say that the 1-shot and 4-tile range means that bringing it into a gun fight would be a silly choice as you'd be gunned down while trying to get into range. Passive resistance (stepping away from an officer who's trying to cuff you for instance) would have a use for it, aim and declare that resisting further would result in being tazed. Or if someone grabs a fire extinguisher and rushes a Command member they could pop a melee taze on them and run (similar to the flash's intended functionality). A smart attacker would account that a command member has a tazer and would opt for a fast disarm, such as an Energy Crossbow or Paralysis Pen to stun before the Command member could even draw the weapon. It's effectively like a flash (which instant stuns), but grants a few tiles for a single-shot attempt as well. Failing to hit that dart or going up against a target that can't be darted (IPCs, Borgs, armored individuals, etc...) would make it effectively only good at melee, and even then it's no better than a flash would have been anyway. Where a flash exploits some weaknesses, this actually gives Command a reason to ask for Security involvement. If the borgs are being subverted, for instance, it shouldn't be a Command head flashing them down, rather security should be getting involved to protect the crew while the Science team preps to repair the subverted borgs. Ultimately it is more powerful than a flash, sure, but valid hunting with a one-shot 4-tile range weapon just seems like a recipe for getting clapped very quickly by anyone who thinks quickly. It is very much only really strong against regular crew who take things too far. Though, if it's still considered "overpowered", then by all means I understand the -1's. I hope you'll reconsider that, but like I said I appreciate the feedback all the same.

Frankly don't see any reason not to, and it adds new RP options. +1 from me.

Command members and Security start with a handheld flash. As we all know, this is the most worthless tool on the station. These relics were useful in older code, but nowadays they're just a worthless piece of kit. That said, I think they should be removed in favor of something more readily useful. Say hello to the proper Taser. Item: Taser Description: A short range (4 tile) one-shot stunner that has no lethal options, requires ammunition, and can be used to detain someone long enough for proper Security to arrive. As a self-defense weapon for Command, it allows an effective (if used properly) means to keep oneself safe. The taser would be a one-time use ranged tool, and a melee tool in one. Unlike traditional non-lethal options on the station, the taser will not have a lethal option (unless e-magged), and will only be able to fire one time before needing to be reloaded. While more versatile than the stun baton, the taser only holds about half as much charge as the baton, and requires ammo for each fired pin. As a strictly non-lethal option for Security, it is appropriate to be utilized during Code Green. Like other firearms, the taser would be able to holstered in any regular holster (which could allow a cool look for Command to walk around strapped with a taser). A dart can be safely removed (30 seconds, easily done after cuffing) by using the Grab, then the Help intent on the affected limb. The victim can use the "Struggle" verb to remove their own (if not restrained otherwise). Removing a dart in this fashion does not cause a wound, and will not need additional medical. If a taser is reloaded, the victim will still have the dart in them (which will show when someone looks at them in red text: "He has a taser dart and wire coming from his chest!"). Tasers can be recharged at any weapon charger or regular recharger. Taser darts should be near immediate (bullet speed), making them useful for aiming at a target and auto-firing if they flee, but not as useful in a firefight due to the short range. Different Uses: Stun - While within 1 block of someone and in the Help/Grab/Push, the taser will stun the victim, dropping them to the ground for a few moments (a little less than a stun baton). Dart - At a range with any intent, the taser will fire a dart that connects to the victim and stun for a bit longer (the same as a stun baton). Once connected, attempting to fire the taser again will cause the victim to be shocked again, allowing multiple shocks for non-compliant victims. The victim may attempt to run away, but doing so will rip the darts out, causing a bleeding wound which might leave a blood trail. The darts are re-usable, but must be re-packed after each shot and can be stacked up to 3 shots. Pistol Whip - Harm intent within 1 block, bash someone's face with the handle of the taser for slightly more damage than an unarmed strike, and a chance to knock them down briefly. Lethal (Shhh) - When e-magged, the taser will use it's entire battery on a successful shock, enough to put someone into critical. This will however, make a loud, zapping sound that might draw unwanted attention. Purpose: This gives Command a more proper means of self-defense, something that isn't overpowered but is still effective. Meanwhile, it also gives Security an alternative means of handling less chaotic situations. If someone is avoiding being cuffed a taser might be a lot less alarming than a full on energy weapon. "Sir, you're about to be tazed, stop resisting." The taser also has built in accountability, requiring the darts to be removed (which would of course put notes up for witnesses to see). "John Doe is attempting to remove taser darts from Jane Doe's Chest!". For added drama it could even show up in photographs for "evidence" purposes (or for the local tabloid reporter). "You see a photo. John Doe is in the photo, he's holding a Taser. Jane Doe is in the photo, she has taser darts in her chest!". This would allow for scandalous fake news, evidence, and something for the shooter to laugh at later when reveling over the photo of their victim darted on the ground.