HouseOfSynth

Hi again! You've gathered some more feedback and none of it is really negative at all. I see no issue in giving you a trial. Your trial begins today (31/05/2019) and will end in 7 days (07/06/2019) Remember to gather as much feedback as you can during your trial, have fun!

Hi there! I'll be overseeing this command application. Your responses are really well written and detailed, I've no issues there. I'll be back in 48 hours to pass a judgement. During this time see if you can get some more feedback from the playerbase. Until then!

Hey there! Apologies for taking so long to reply to this, things have been real hectic for me recently. I'm going to go through the main body of your complaint and the evidence spoiler seperately and give my thoughts on each of them. Firstly, the main body. I'd say we were pretty thorough in looking into what happened. We didn't take issue with you siding with Thea, it was how you responded to security that we took issue with among other things outlined a bit later on below. As for judgement, you've been temp-banned for, essentially, a similar issue as a result of a complaint in the past. We decided that, instead of escalating that ban, we would give you a warning and an indication that you really needed to change how you play Willow. I have no argument against this since I'm totally at fault here. And I'm very sorry that is the case. Regarding the scenario, one issue we had was you dragging Thea away from security. You essentially cut off the RP by physically pulling them away. There were also other instances in that round where you disregarded any fear for the situations you were presented. The screenshots of those can be found on the player complaint resi made. I think the primary thing you should take away from this is that you should really think about the consequences for Willow's actions. For example, you confirmed you had punched a head of staff as they weren't listening to you right? That's something you could totally lose your job over. Would Willow really want to risk her job just because they weren't listening to her? Could she not have found another Head of Staff or at least someone else to ask? I lack exact context on that situation so I can't say for sure, but I believe that's the main issue we had with Willow. However, recently, I've heard no complaints against her. I wouldn't say it breaks Willow at all, really. As I said above, our primary issue was Willow's consistant lack of thought for the consequences of her actions. I can't speak for other staff members, but the issue between your other character and Moira seems reasonable as it seems there was escalation and reason there. Had you done it as Willow and it was still within reason, I see no reason as to why you'd be banned. I don't really get this. Simply because two parties think it's fine, doesn't really make it fine. Resi evidently didn't think it was OK, myself and Read collectively decided the situation had some flaws. ShesTrying, the player of Thea even mentioned that it didn't make much sense from an OOC standpoint on the original complaint. I checked all of Dyslioth's warnings and none of them bare any relevance to the warning and/or the situation described in the previous complaint. Alrighty, now I'm gonna go through what you've said in the evidence section of the complaint and give my thoughts there. This wasn't taken into account on the previous complaint, we wouldn't have taken it as canon so you're fine there. I'm happy with it being considered non-canon I went through the round logs, looking at everything said by you, about you and to you. Coupled with the information given in the complaint, there wasn't really any need to reach out to others for more information. As for the cargo team backing Willow up, fair enough that'd make Willow feel a lot safer in that situation but then on the flip side of that, the cargo team are wielding weapons against a security team that having to deal with a "Terrifying" serial killer. Is that really a good idea? Again, our issue is with how Willow disregards severe consequences that can come from her actions. Fair enough, however the HoS had also threatened you with their baton so Willow knew the HoS had other tools at his disposal to subdue her. And, alright you obeyed the order eventually, but this is after the situation outlined in the previous complaint. It doesn't really void the actions you took to attempt to avoid arrest. As I said before, that doesn't 100% gaurantee that the scenario was valid. I don't have much knowledge in terms of Aspergers and it's symptoms beyond what you've outlined in the spoiler. I have no issue with Willow having this condition, but it does beg the question as to why she isn't retrieving treatment. I'd think NT would likely do some form of medical lookup and psychiatric examinations due to how much of a closed environment a space station is. The rules state characters must be believable, well-rounded and realistic. Willow having this condition, as I said, is totally fine and fits within the rules. However, if it's causing her to become emotionally unstable in such a way that she becomes a danger to herself and those around her, I think it's pushing it a bit. Especially if that's it's driving her to put herself into these situations. All I can say here is that you should ahelp these situations. If Resi is breaking the rules then you should tell us. We try our best to but we really cant see and notice everything. I believe I've pretty much covered this point above. Your FearRP and, as stated, the lack of thought for consequences is the main issue. I'm really sorry that you feel this way, and it's primarily on me due to not getting back to your PMs due to IRL issues. I take responsibility for that. Yes, I said that. But I read a lot of info on a daily basis, server-side and IRL-side. It'd been some time since the complaint was marked resolved before you asked if I recalled looking at the logs. As I said, I looked at everything said to, about, and by you as well as all your interactions. I believe that I looked through them thoroughly enough. As for the situation with the Captain, I covered that earlier. We didn't focus on their remark about you supposedly leading mutinies because there wasn't really anything to back that up at all. Not even an anecdote. In conclusion: Our issue with Willow is this. There are multiple situations outlined in your complaints that show a lack of FearRP from Willow, you admitted this in your complaint, stating that an issue, OOC at that, may have been FearRP. In addition to this, Willow has a tendency to ignore the consequences of her actions, even when they could be quite severe. These two things are why we gave you the warning, perhaps with our wording, that wasn't conveyed very well and if that is the case I apologise. I've no hard feelings from this complaint, if you have any questions in terms of my responses or Willow's playstyle, feel free to mention me in a reply.

Complaint resolved. Locking and Archiving

Hey there! Myself and @Yonnimer have discussed what's been brought up since our last reply. We still believe that a note suffices in this case. @TheOrleans has no other staff entries pertaining to this kind of issue and seems to understand that they were wrong, and they have stated they will be ensuring they avoid this kind of mistake again in future. However we have edited the note to include the information that no previous rounds were shared between the second character @TheOrleans joined as and Abo's HoS and to keep an eye out for metagrudging behaviour between Orleans and Abo in future. Hopefully both parties find this to be a agreeable outcome. We'll be leaving this open for another 24 hours like before, incase anything else needs to be said. Thanks for your patience!

Alrighty, I've looked through what's been said here again and I've also trundled through Nat's logs as well as the whole round's logs. I've concluded that there was not enough escalation/RP on calions behalf before shooting the warden with the mech. From what I gathered in the logs, Calion had not been openly antagonistic at all prior to this. I get that the warden is a pretty dangerous adversary as an antagonist, but that doesn't really excuse killing them without much in terms of previous escalation. In terms of roleplay, being disgruntled at security also doesn't really make it alright to shoot 'em without saying much. Where the idea behind the killing was valid, the execution of it was not. As an antagonist, you should aim to make the round fun and/or interesting for your victims. For example, you could have emoted holding them at 'gun-point' with the mech, getting some conversation and roleplay out of 'em before offing them. I'm going to be giving @calion12 a severe warning for this. Specifically for not providing enough escalation or roleplay for killing the warden without much prior interaction. I've also ran all this past Tailson and he has no objection. Of course, if you wish to contest the warning I invite you to make a staff complaint. But for now, I'm going to be marking this as resolved. Locking and Archiving.

Hey! I'm so sorry this slipped through the cracks in terms of my evergrowing list of stuff to do. I'll have this marked as resolved within the next 24 hours. Thanks for your patience, apologies for the long wait.

Hey there! Thanks for your patience while myself and Prate went through this complaint. We've come to the conclusion that no rules were really broken here. We can't really force crewmembers to comply with IC investigations. @Crozarius could have been more tactful on the discord, but judging by his reply he seems to understand this. Other than that the rest of the issues outlined in this complaint appear to be more toward IC issues than OOC ones. Impeding an IAAs investigation falls more-so into IR territory. On that note I'll leave this open for another 24 hours to before marking it as resolved.

Hey there! Myself and @Tailson will be taking this complaint. Please allow us some time to go through the logs and form a response. Thanks for your patience.

I can see that you understand what you did wrong, and although it has been a while since the ban I'm going to be denying this appeal. You have had numerous chances to follow the rules, we are not prepared to give you another chance due to your history. If you wish to contest my ruling here, please take it to the staff complaints forum. Appeal denied.

Alright, I'm going to lift this ban. HOWEVER, keep in mind you'll be on rather thin ice because of your past rulebreaks. It's also unlikely another appeal will be accepted. Remember to re-read the rules! Appeal Accepted.

Hi there! I'll be taking this since Schev is not on the moderation team anymore. I'm sure you can understand that we're a little skeptical of unban requests when it's for a 3rd permaban. The ban was applied over a year ago now and so I don't doubt you've probably changed. Before I make a judgement, I'd like to know a few things. Have you been playing on other servers in the meantime? Why do you want to come back to aurora specifically? I'll make a decision after your reply. Until then!

Hi! Sorry for taking a while to get around to this. Let's get straight into it shall we? Looking through the logs for the round I didn't really see this. Sure they were often responding to potential cases but I see no issue with that. In fact the logs show raven did infact analyse a lot of data. There was a constant back-and-forth between him and the forensic technician. He took multiple interviews and went to different departments to carry out interviews. I didn't see any logs regarding him attempting arrests or anything. There was a lot of RP generated by Raven this round, what with the interviews and such. As I said above, I didn't really see Raven engage in any physical action. There's also no evidence to suggest this within the logs you showed in terms of "physicality." I saw no arrests. You state they're inspectors, well inspectors are in charge of their own case. I see no issue with a detective stepping up and taking charge of an investigation like this so long as they do not overstep the chain of command. I'll get onto where the CMO plays into this in a moment. As for a heirarchy within security itself, Officers and detectives are not above eachother. So technically neither has the authority to give out orders. But in terms of an investigation the detective is able to call on security for their help and vice versa. They're part of the same department and have the same end goal. Therefore coorperation is the best way to get things done. As stated I disagree. The logs show a structured investigation. A CMO doesn't really have the qualification to command a security team, so he wasn't really your direct superior at all. Unless they took captainship which would make things a little different. But they do have the authority to tell someone to stop overstepping their boundaries. Gonzales did not do this. It is not like Raven ordered arrests that did not relate to his investigations and the like, or told you to patrol. His requests were only to do with his investigations. Resi, the player of the CMO said this in the original complaint: "I don't take issue with raven not telling me things. He said that he kept a lot from me that round and while, sure, ICly, that's not very by the books, it was entirely IC and made sense." I agree here, it is IC behaviour. Such behaviour would have been more IR worthy than complaint worthy. So I see no issue I can deal with here. So.. He excluded your character because they had not met before, right? He found your character untrustworthy as you hadn't met. Which is what I said; it's not explicitly against the rules, but it's not great to do either. Now in my response on the original complaint, I outlined this and said that Cadets would be trusted members of the team unless proven otherwise. So I'd say this fact is resolved. Perhaps my wording was a little off here. I wouldn't say it's prohibited to exclude people based on the fact you haven't really met them before. It's not technically against the rules, but it cuts off someone's RP. I told Raven that this wasn't ok in my response in the original post. As for him using meta knowledge, this may be the first time they met and interacted, but he may have been around in other rounds as the same character, and simply heard you. I can't really say for sure whether he's metagaming or not here. Again, covered in my response. A cadet should be deemed trustworthy enough, and Raven was told to keep that in mind for the future when dealing with investigations. So in truth, his defence in the context of keeping you out of the loop wasn't good enough, which is why I told him that he should not exclude cadets simply because they are cadets. In my opinion, keeping someone out of the loop in this case is... Well a dick move. It's not against the rules OOCly, nor is it against regulations. But it's just not a nice thing to do. So in conclusion I found Raven's detective-play to be fine. He only gave orders relevant to his investigation, he did not overstep the chain of command as the CMO didn't tell him to stop at any time. And he carried out a well structured investigation that generated RP for many players. My only issue was his exclusion of the cadets, which I resolved in the previous complaint.

Alright, that's fair enough. I'll lift the ban. But do keep in mind that you're on rather thin ice in terms of AFKing without telling us, not including this incident. Appeal accepted. Have a nice day.

Hello, Hello! I apologise for the delay in dealing with this, I've been pretty busy IRL. However you will be glad to know I have come to a conclusion regarding this complaint. I've decided that Raven's actions in this round do not break the rules. A detective taking charge of an investigation isn't really an issue if there's no overruling authority, such as a HoS or at a stretch a Captain. It makes sense for them to do this. All I can really say is that excluding people, even though it's not against the rules to do so, is kind of a dick move. So I'll leave it at this. @LordRaven001, in future investigations you should include the rest of security. Your co-workers and even cadets would know not to leak internal info before they started their actual on-station cadet training, so usually, they should be trustworthy. However, If a cadet does prove to leak information when you give it to them, then on future investigations you could possibly hold back on the facts with them a little, but don't just shut them out, build some RP around it so they're not completely cut off from the round's ongoings. But excluding someone because your characters haven't met is a little iffy if you ask me. That's basically my verdict on this. I'm considering this resolved and will be locking and archiving this complaint. If you wish to contest my ruling, feel free to take it to the staff complaints forum. Again, apologies for letting this run on for so long.

Myself and [mention]ShameOnTurtles[/mention] will be handling this complaint. We will be formulating a response soon. In the meantime I urge [mention]Kaed[/mention] to make a response here with his side of the story.

Excuse ME?! I said I was taking it...........................................................

You keep saying chefs can't find interaction on their own. I provided multiple ways to spark interaction within my reply.

Hi there! I'll be taking over this complaint. Give me some time to gather some information and I will respond fully

I feel you're not addressing the constructive feedback you're getting from people. I don't see how you're going to reach a conclusion with this without doing so. I'm not really seeing sarcastic responses here.

I thought I'd come on by and throw some opinions on this. So here we are. You're probably right. But you only get as much value out of a roll as you make. What I mean here is, sitting around in a kitchen doing the same stuff is going to drive people away from the role. Being a chef doesn't stop you running mini events in the bar and catering for them. Nor does it stop you exiting the kitchen and taking orders from departments, delivering them the food when it's ready which is, if you think about it, much more convenient. My point is you decide whether your round is boring or interesting. Relying on other people to do it for you all the time is a flawed tactic in some roles, such as chef. Then make it convenient. Advertise! People are spending their money on vendors. If they're too lazy to come down to the kitchen then bring your product to them. Lunchboxes don't really go a long way for nutrient., You'll still go hungry with a lunchbox. You're not going to die of hunger in any work environment. Be it two hours or eight. But people do seek out food when they're hungry in game, most likely from the nearest and most reliable source. Since there's barely ever a chef, it's usually vending machines. Then take the business to them! You may not have people visit the kitchen, but at some point they will go back to their department. If people can't be bothered to eat your food because of distance and you're that hung up about it, then you should take it to them. That way you get some fulfillment. AND some interaction. It's a two way street. We now move on to proposed solutions I think you're getting your words mixed up a bit here. Metagaming is using OOC knowledge to influence your IC actions. Taking lunch to work is not metagaming. If you really want to pin a word on it you could pin powergaming on it. But in my opinion that would be hyperbole. I don't see why you shouldn't be allowed to bring lunch to work. I do it IRL because it's much more beneficial than eating McDonalds on every break. Some people just have preference of eating their own prepared food than someone elses. Besides, you'll still go hungry even if you eat a lunchbox. Removing lunchboxes won't really solve your issue. I get this, I get that it's annoying to cook stuff for the crew and they go eat a meat pie for 30 credits. So, as I said, make your product easier to reach. Make deliveries, take requests. This is all down to interaction. You can walk into the bar and take orders for people. These things can help to change this. If you sit in the kitchen silent then people will just go to a vendor because either they don't realise there's a chef or they don't see the point of going the extra mile to get something they might not like. As I said you need to interact with people too. You can't just sit there and expect the RP to flow to you just like that. The round is only as fun as you make it really. I'll be honest, this isn't a bad idea and could actually work well. I'd actually support this one. Since it doesn't complicate the whole ordeal all that much. Eeeeh, this opens routes for powergaming and such. I don't think buffing in this case would really work. It's like making a B-line for tea when you get bitten by a spider. Could work. However you don't starve to death on a 2 hour shift. Or even an 8 hour shift. Which kind of makes it redundant. Buffing the damages of hunger will just be an inconvenience more than anything. Some department heads already do this for their underlings. Crewmembers also sometimes ask for breaks aswell. But usually they're free to go and get food any time. So my conclusion? You claim people avoid the chef and simply don't interact with them beyond "Can I eat this"? Here are my proposed solutions: 1) Find your own interaction. Stop relying on people to bring it to you. 2) Make deliveries to departments, they'll appreciate this and will more than likely eat it. 3) Take personal orders. This shows you, A: care for the crew's needs on a personal level and B: Will generate RP 4) Host mini events, or at least propose them to the heads of staff. Cater for them and such. Needless to say, this will generate RP and give you and the crew something interesting to do. The game is only as fun as you make it. Remember that rounds are driven by other player's actions. So add to that yourself, be that chef who always comes around with food when we need it. Who takes our orders and cooks the food we like. Give it a go, see how much more fun it is than sitting in the kitchen all shift. Well that's my opinion on the matter, I'll be happy to reply to any response you direct at me.

[mention]BurgerBB[/mention] Gonna just mention before we break the record for quotes in quotes :^) I see your point. For clarity's sake, I was the borer inside the captain. Most of the round we were trying to help the other borers but the crew instantly saying "Kill the brain slugs" made that difficult. As to why the CC team killed everyone I have no idea there. Myself and the captain entered diplomatic discussion, which I made the other borers aware of. I get that the admins could do more, and the person hosting it took in the feedback and sees where they went wrong, being the ultimatum. But in this case, the crew really did make it difficult to further the story aswell. I went in originally planning to weave a story of our "race" being endangered and eventually gaining sympathy, turning on them in an instant and taking over. However because the crew were so hostile upon discovering us (Muh FCP for sentient shit) we were forced to shift the dynamic a little bit. Which resulted in the former being the gimmick. A race seeking peace and survival. As much as I don't like peace antags, I didn't really like the idea of people being trapped in containment. [mention]Scheveningen[/mention] (Why tf are there so many spellings of schev on the forums , you better be the right one) can confirm that we did try and get the other borers freed. But there was only so much we could push without getting shot at by the HAPT. Which wouldn't accomplish much. I can't speak for all the borers, but myself and schev did try and make the round interesting for others, engaging in some of the best RP I've had in a while at the same time. I'm sorry you didn't enjoy it, and I can only hope that the next event is more interesting for you. But what's done is done, feedback was given, positive and negative. And the negative has not gone ignored. We can't promise all events will be good, but we can try to improve them for the future. For a first event, I'd say the host did alright. It's so easy for events to crash and burn and be shut down quickly, be it the fault of the crew or admin.

How would you have run it, out of curiosity? We value all feedback and it's needless to say that we're always open to ideas for events.

Trying to run an event everyone likes is near impossible. Not only that, but those hosting can only lay out the ground work. The crew and antags make the rest of the round interesting. A person running the event cannot tell the crew to "Act like this", "Oh by the way, they take over the brains of your friends but ayylmao it's fine we allow it" I'm sorry your hosts weren't as you liked them, but at the end of the day that isn't our problem. Having events that are set on railroads leads to them being stale, the crew cannot shape the future and so it all ends up rather pointless if it all just leads to one ending. Blaming this on the event hosts is pointless if the event hosts are not where most of the problem lies. People complain that they don't see enough of the action, then when they get the action they complain it's too much action? Finding a middle-ground when you're catering for over 50 people is just not going to happen. The event is only as good as you make it. The event was, overall, received positively. To me that is a success.

I'd say the simplest way to do this is to make it so neck grabbing some one who is in the floor brings them on their feet to use as a shield. And make it so that a neck grab is needed for them to be recognised as a human shield and increasee the chances of them being hit instead of you