Jump to content


Regular Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Ornias

  • Rank
    Head of Security
  • Birthday 24/02/2001

Personal Information

  • Occupation

Linked Accounts

  • Byond CKey

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. "We" as a community, Xander. I know comprehension's pretty hard for you. Yes, they should be. If your custom item exists solely to draw attention to you, then you're unfairly taking attention away from other people for no reason other than to stand out (not that DasFox is trying to achieve that). If you, and another Necropolis contractor, are in the same department, and everyone goes around asking you about your cool custom outfit rather than the guy with the classic outfit, then that person has been disadvantaged because he didn't commit himself even more severely to the community and create a visually capturing item of his own. It's just not fair to other players. We shouldn't expect them to be making custom items in order to compete with other players for attention. I didn't see your earlier custom item, and I'd have made exactly the same comments. The number is just an issue because it draws attention to the primarily visual aspect of it. These are cool, but need to be refined and/or justified, in my opinion.
  2. I'm don't think that custom items should really be used for this. Your argument for how it will boost roleplay is entirely based off standing out visually, and that's one of the tenants we strive to avoid in custom items. The datagloves are a cool concept, but you should really extrapolate what you plan to accomplish with them, and why your character has them when no-one else on station does. I don't believe your statement that your character is higher-ranked than other Necropolis staff really satisfies here. Among the questions it raises: Why do no high-ranking NanoTrasen personnel have this equipment?, Why do other high-ranking Necropolis staff not have this equipment?, What function do they perform that is useful on-station?. If you were to include all of your items, the question becomes even harsher- why do you have a special identification at work when no other Necropolis employee does? Finally, you state they're a CFO (which you should probably change the initialism to avoid confusion with 'Chief Financial Officer'). Why would someone in that kind of position be contracted to NanoTrasen? Are they contracted as a Captain, as a scientist, as a research director? -1. I'd advise refining these to a single item that will be useful in defining your character and their personality.
  3. I've delayed giving my +1 until post-acceptance, but I guess it's better late than never. Nikit is a fantastically developed character with understated depth that makes him a joy to interact with. I've run into very few other players who are willing to take a step back from the action and enjoy a moment of literally nothing, which is a testament not only to your commitment to remain in character but your ability to enjoy and make the best of whatever you're presented with. I've not heard a bad word about you in almost a year now. I had a couple questions about the application, but after speaking with Simon, it seems clear that he's thought through why his character is being promoted to the position he is and what that will mean for his development and play. I wish you the best.
  4. As exemplars, these are the only things we have to go off as to what kind of jobs would be included. The issue is they don't seem too excellent as a concept (even if the specifics are changed). The 'miscreant' class provides roles that you can already perform as a normal character and will result in prevalent and repeating archetypes without well-fleshed-out characters who would make sense within the universe. I do not see the benefit of limiting the above job additions to being daily roles, but I see several issues that could arise, specifically with less effort being put into characters because of it.
  5. All of these suggestions, bar Test Subject and Prisoner (and OSHA Inspector if command staff are being unfun), can already be played as a regular character. I feel like making these archetypes into mechanical representations will place the emphasis more on the 'jobs' than of the characters. I might support prisoner or test subject roles, depending, but I cannot support the others.
  6. why do you feel this way Jack Boot
  7. Hi! This looks incredibly detailed, and I love the amount of passion that's gone into it. I would like to address, though: There are zero mentions of Vaurca or the Lii'dra. I believe the attack in August of last year should be addressed. The issue with redoing or establishing lore for a group that's been around for a while (like New Gibson) means that established characters from New Gibson will need to retroactively change their characters and their experiences to tailor the new lore. I think that it's therefore dangerous to give them such a strong and individual culture without providing some sort of 'out'- like specifying that this is only half the arcology, or similar. I don't like it when a nation or peoples traits are wholly positive. Obviously you mention that there is a criminal underbelly, but as a whole, it seems that individuals from New Gibson are better than your average person: hardworking, conscientious, ethical, honest, willing to improve, family-oriented, skilled, xenophilic and cooperative. This, unfortunately, will create very flat characters. There's no harm in saying that a culture values a specific positive trait- but I believe you should narrow the valued traits to something that can be used to create more interesting characters. For example; focusing on the 'cooperative' trait, which means that characters from New Gibson can show how they no longer attempt to stick out because of fear of being labelled uncooperative, or perhaps they are so happy to have the new cultural freedom that they end up coming across as overly ambitious and impolite. In a similar vain, you note that their food and architecture are both simple and excellent, which reveals a kind of pattern in this rugged cultural superiority. THe flag is cool as fuck This is clearly a passion project, and is superb. But I think you should focus on giving them flaws. A society like this will spring a lot of 'I stand up for my friends no matter what, I'm anti-authority, and I have no personality flaws' characters, who are not interesting to interact with. This is still stellar, though, and I look forward to seeing how you develop your ideas.
  8. I don't like the implication that I am trying to be dishonest. I'm not. I posted a brief snippet because I'm not trying to make this a public roast. That's not what it's about, but it was necessary to remind you of the scene and draw attention to the issues I had with it. But, seeing as you want them posted, I will oblige, so it's clear I'm not trying to mislead the public (who are, by the way, not the intended audience of this post). Georgene Harris says, "This man says he was threatened with a shotgun." Lin Dyslioth asks, "By who?" Drew Ashby folds his arms tightly to his chest, "Don't know his fucking name." Lin Dyslioth says, "Then can't help you." Drew Ashby asks, "What?" Drew Ashby asks, "The fuck does that mean?" Drew Ashby stresses, "He pointed a shotgun at me." Lin Dyslioth asks, "I can't just go and confront some one that I don't know anything about?" Lin Dyslioth says, "You JUST SAID you don't know WHO did it." Drew Ashby raises his voice, "Don't know his fucking name, you straight-" Drew Ashby says, "He was in the bar. Behind the counter. He hasn't left those fuckin' doors." Lin Dyslioth asks, "Can you point them out?" Drew Ashby rubs his face, "Yeah, I'll just walk in there with the guy who pointed a fuckin' gun at me." Drew Ashby says, "Real good fuckin' idea." Lin Dyslioth says, "He can't hurt you with me there." Drew Ashby asks, "What, are you magnetic? Will you reverse the fuckin' poles to push his god-damn shell away?" Drew Ashby says, "But you stay in front of me, right? Not taking a bullet over this shit." <-- I think that one of my messages was eaten by the logs, or didn't go through here. Lin Dyslioth says, "If you are going to be a dick, I can leave. Or we can go in there and you point him out and if they have a shot gun, I'll get them arrested for threatening with an intent to harm." Drew Ashby says, "A dick-" Drew Ashby rubs his face, "Get me another fuckin' officer, straight up." Drew Ashby shouts, "He pointed a fuckin' shotgun at me, yeah? I ain't exactly in a customer-service-ass mood, yeah?" Lin Dyslioth says, "They are all at the brig dealing with a psychopath. Drew Ashby says, "At the brig? So he's fuckin' arrested? So get someone who's not on their period down here." Lin Dyslioth shouts, "EXCUSE ME?!" I believe that the nonchalant attitude towards the situation was the issue with your character. They did not, as a security officer (maybe warden? sorry, as I said, don't have logs) take a situation seriously, and so I struggled to take the situation seriously. I do not want to turn this into a character complaint; I'm just presenting the issues that I've had. I have no vendetta against you. But I believe that if your character is quick to abandon any attempts at keeping the crew safe because an individual is objectionable, I do not believe they should be a head of staff. I believe that (particularly for a security head of staff) even if the outcome is not positive for me, there should be a degree of a serious reaction, even to those who are objectionable within realistic bounds. How would someone react to having a shotgun pointed at them? You talk in our application about desiring realistic reactions to scenarios outside of the one that's most advantageous to you or your character at the time. I believe I do this here, but you do not take the situation as the life-threatening scenario my character presented it to be. By extension, if you believe that character is fit to be head of staff, then I do not believe you have a strong enough grasp of what a head of staff entails to be one. This is how normal ass people are gonna act if someone pulled a shotgun on them
  9. The existence of worse characters does not make actions valid. It is the right and conscientious thing to do to address this; either defending it or indicating that this behavior was out-of-line and you don't intend to repeat it. I don't want to drag anything that's IC into this, because I firmly believe that Incident Reports are and should remain entirely in-character, and even someone who's violated no Out-Of-Character statutes and perhaps even played in an exemplary manner should potentially face repercussions at the hands of CCIA when it would be story appropriate. That said, that does not mean that the two can never overlap: I believe that what I have seen of your playstyle has contained both significant pros and significant cons, that I want to address. First, on the pros, I have a couple of logs (particuarly from mid last-year) where I praise certain lines in private messages. My favorite one is this: Which addresses the existence of a wider world beyond the Aurora. I like this kind of unnecessary but ultimately positive addition to standard play. These exist in a couple of way, shapes, and forms, and I regret that I did not catalog them all when I saw them, because that will make them seem to waver in comparison to the rest of my feedback, which is not the case at all. These have very much endeared me to your character when I have seen them performed, and have helped to immerse me in the Aurora Universe. I also like how you answer several of the questions; "I like to give antags a chance especially if I find them very early in the round and play naive often. My character doesn't expect to get jumped, and is roleplayed as such", "I like to rp shock after experiencing heavily traumatic experiences. If my character is dealing with personal issues she may stray from her daily routine and in whole making her appear real. A lot of people disagree with this and don't like when my character drops her job and breaks down in tears after watching all of sec get wiped out by mercs but how can you say that's not what would really happen?". These are two stellar answers, and a lot of what you write mimics this sentiment. However, I do have my grievances as well. To preface, I do not believe I allow my characters' emotions to cloud my OOC judgment, so I feel somewhat comfortable making comments on actions which are in the process of being resolved ICly. The issue I hold with the above is not my IC inconvenience but the fact that a man threatening someone with a shotgun was less important to your character than being told that she was on her period. I do not believe this to be believable play. For that matter, I do not believe that refusing to arrest act on a gun-wielding assailant because my character was unable to provide a name is all that believable either, but I'm trying to be careful not to focus on my character or their emotions here. I have seen second-hand similar misplacing of priorities ICly, but I do not have the logs to back that up. Ultimately, -1. I believe that unless there is some reason that this is not representative of your overall play, that I cannot support your application, although I believe that is a temporary disavowal rather than an indefinite one. You clearly have the capacity to be a Head of Staff, but I think you should consider more intricately how these emotions your character feels interact with the wider world.
  10. Do you think that player elitism and character elitism are identical Jack Boot?
  11. I'd tend to agree with Munks, despite his presentation. The benefits of being a human are roleplay-oriented; you're far, far more trusted than anyone else bar Skrell, whom you are naturally physically dominant over. I think it is quite upsetting to hear that there's no level of bias in CCIA - though I think, again, it comes from no-one really being clear what it is CCIA is meant to do. The original suggestion feels WEIRD. Yes, humans can survive a lot of shit, but they don't cover from it over the course of an hour naturally. Just lower their death point to -150 if you want to represent that kinda thing mechanically. Also, This is upsetting and indicative that we have an issue. We need to fix this; not try to make up for it mechanically. There are still people out there discriminating, and it should be more low-key as a rule of thumb, but we should encourage people not to white-knight, if only because of how unrealistic it would be in our setting considering how commonplace xenophobia is.
  12. Despite the fact that this suggestion is over a year old, I'm still rooting for it hard. Please consider it.
  13. While I'm not directly involved, I just want to add on as well: you might have done it as part of a running gag, but I believe that it is genuinely and unquestionably best that things like the questions asked are discovered ICly. It's compelling, provides a reason to interact with people, and we shouldn't treat all knowledge as universal. Not knowing things OOCly means that you can actually learn and have the joy of finding new things- exactly like Secret Chems are supposed to be. Saying 'find out ICly' in response to questions like 'how do I move' and 'how do I talk' is one thing (the acceptability of which can be debated), but about things specifically related to private equipment- research upgrades for cyborgs and violent uses for kinetic accelerators- is completely fair. Unless someone is able to say why it's wrong to encourage people to find out answers to IC questions ICly, then I will continue to do so unless a ruling is placed specifically against it.
  14. Reporting Personnel: Drew Ashby Job Title of Reporting Personnel: NanoTrasen Entertainment Musician/DJ. Game ID: bZH-ajaj Personnel Involved: - Lin Dyslioth, Security Officer: Offender - Flint Styles, Bartender: Offender Location of incident: Bar Nature of Incident: [ ] - Workplace Hazard [ ] - Accident/Injury [ ] - Destruction of Property [X] - Neglect of Duty [X] - Harassment [X] - Assault [ ] - Misconduct [ ] - Other _____ Overview: One of your fucking employees (bartender) pointed a mfing shotgun @ me. Called one of your fuckin private security cunts and she refused 2 do shit + called me a dick. A literal fucking shotgun, yeah? Like a fucking thing that kills people, and your private sec was too far into parting her red sea to do fuck all about it. Get her on some fucking birth control or some shit & fire her. The moment my fucking contracts up this shit is done, SORT IT OUT. Was it reported? Actions taken? Reported 2 the fkn captain who 'talked' to the bartender. Additional notes: lucky i dont fucking sue.
  15. -1. I've only really seen Flamel, but that sets off several red flags. I'm gonna go full roast on this, but this is only about your roleplay, and I have no ill will against you as a player. I've gone out of my way to interact with them before, and you were VERY begrudging to accept any roleplay cues I sent your way, even when I went so far down as to hunt you down at roundstart as a Corporate Reporter. I play incredibly reclusive and antisocial characters, and I get that sometimes you need to cut loose from roleplay situations because it wouldn't make sense for your character. But through speaking to them, I didn't get any sense of character from you. I got a constant feeling that you didn't really know WHY your character was there, besides being a chemist IPC for the NSS Aurora. You didn't know why your character did what they did, and it played into a sense of feeling very OOC. I don't have logs of the specific evidence, so I'm afraid I can't back that up with logs or anything, and it was a small while ago. In addition, I don't really see you talking like an IPC, nor a human, just a player. Flamel was recently barred from job-hopping after being seen as a variety of roles (at the very least, in one round, Chemistry, Research, and Robotics). This was far too recent for me to be entirely comfortable with giving you a head whitelist; the fact you needed to be spoken to about it means you didn't understand of your own volition why jobhopping to that degree, even as an IPC, is wrong. I think that if you can't interpret that even without knowing the ruling directly, then you aren't ready for a Head of Staff position. In that same round, I saw several other red flags: a very simplified view of research, for one, which is very harmful to a roleplay environment. I get it; research is, in game terms, categorized into a variety of things that can be mechanically finished 'finished'. But it's damaging to roleplay to rush research at round-start and then say Flamel (Scientist) says, "Research is completely done." . An AI at the time attempted to roleplay with you by talking about your research, to which you were VERY laconic and mechanical, and I don't think it was solely for the characterization. This tendency to look at rounds in terms of a game rather than a shift at work is prevalent in all interactions I've had with you, and ties into Cactus' analysis of your playstyle. You try to do everything, and thus don't view what you're doing as roleplay but something to check off a list. This leaves you, and others, with nothing to do, because you've done it all as efficiently as possible. And that, in turn, leaves people feeling bored, and forces people to chairRP or start getting silly. As well, your character, an IPC, did not seem to have any understanding of how serious many of their actions were. An IPC is slightly alien, yes, and can be held to a different regard than a human. But this power comes with the responsibility to use it for the greater good; of your character and the round. Handing out circuit printers to anyone and everyone, talking about 'illegal research' without any regard for the fact that it's LITERALLY ILLEGAL within Tau Ceti, and thus shouldn't be exactly publicized. What falls within the grounds of 'illegal research'? Why is your character so interested in pursuing it? These are questions that I don't think you, as a player, would have been able to answer at the time. One of your lines, after being asked to be careful, was "Chamleon kits are harmless by the way.". What does this mean as a statement that a character is making? It's 'illegal', by your own admission. You're assuming other people will know what chameleon kits are, ICly, because they're a mechanically well-known item. You could have said anything, made up any kind of excuse to talk about and roleplay with it ICly, but you fell back on mechanical terms and playstyle again. The same attitude came up when you literally broke into the AI's private binary channel, and you didn't treat it with any degree of significance. Literally being able to break into the private communications of the omnipresent artificial intelligence should have been huge, and worthy of tonnes of reaction. Instead, it was treated as 'huh, neat' and glossed over. I prompted you in LOOC to take it more seriously, and you said, "I am". Even stuff like upgrading machines is a facet for roleplay, that can and should be encouraged. This playstyle is hazardous because, as Cactus noted, you encourage other players to follow suit through your IC actions as well- which tears down the experience for others even while you're not there. As a head of staff, you'll be a role model, and that will only further encourage people to pursue this. Finally, you're planning to upgrade SEVERAL of your characters here. Why? What does that add to their arcs, to their characters? It feels like you view this as another mechanical step, as evidenced by statements like "I wish to be on the whitelist as I am confident in my skills to lead and manage departments I am head of". Competency is not a reason to be a head of staff. It's another tool that should be used to promote roleplay. And with that huge roast out of the way, I think you can and will massively improve. I just think you need to think about your playstyle and work to improve it. Any questions, feel free to PM me on Discord.
  • Create New...