Ornias

We have a piano, we have a bar stool, we have a full kitchen with Chefs, we have a collection of wooden tables, we have candles, we have a stage, we have a charger (and before that an Eftpos machine and ATM). It definitely appears to be built with the potential to act as a restaurant. This restriction of the diner to one specific thing from which people should not deviate destroys people's ability to be creative in their individual designs. I don't think people should have to charge for food, because I think you can do that in believable and interesting ways, and I think any attempts to impose a status quo on character design in this way is very dangerous. But while it may be true that it's cheaper and faster to get it from a vending machine, it's down to each individual character to assess whether they'll make a purchase. Perhaps I misunderstood you, but I don't think your statement that "I'll go to the cheapest available source" is a desirable one, unless you're talking specifically about one/a selection of your characters.

This is a remarkably good point. While I tend to detest the status quo, it is unavoidable that we need something to ground us all to. Generally, I consider this to be the lore (and just the innate human condition I guess). If I had to express why I don't entirely agree off the top of my head, I'd say that these social norms are imposed by a select few no matter what, whom the community comes to mimic. By removing all forms of unquestionable centralization (aka. mechanical optimization), we would remove the starting point that most social norms are built around, and thus make it much harder to chain the community to them. A social norm of "do things the best according to the mechanics" people are naturally going to feel is a fair assessment, because, like you say, we are in part a game. In terms of charging for food and drink and how it applys to this greater economics idea, I feel like economics could definitely have it's benefits, so long as we strive to eliminate any kind of perfectionist culture that develop around them. This, in my eyes, will take more work, but I think you're right when you suggest it could create more interesting scenarios. I'll need to consider your response.

A strong +1. We can do this in a non-silly way. I'm just as anxious as anyone about the unathi being played by the non-whitelisted, which is my only drawback. While you say roleplaying as a knight should be enough, I'd tend to disagree. I believe your average unathi should be playing with much, much more complexity than that. But, I'm willing to put that aside. I think it will be manageable, and that minor transgressions can be easily corrected. I kind of don't want them to have energy weapons. That doesn't make them stand out, to me. Give them something no-one else has: special energy armor, special/customizable regular melee weapons, some kind of crash-docking system, gear specifically designed for hunting space monsters, anything like that. Stuff that really emphasises their dramatic flare, their purpose, and the traditional Unathi ramming tactics. It would be nice is they weren't expected to be as efficient as the TCFL/ERT were, for a mix of both speciesism and allowing them to actually interact with crew to gather information before their response.

The burger that Andrew Flynn makes is not the same burger that Sophie Hitchins makes. Different chefs produce different food, even if they use the same in-game recipe. Charging different prices between chefs helps to demonstrate an aspect of how highly NT/the chef/the chefs boss values their skills. 'People don't interact with in-game economics because they don't have an in-game reason to.' The correct response to this isn't to ask how we can give them an in-game reason, but as to why they need an in-game reason. The more we gamify this system, such as by making things about optimizing supply and demand, the more we're going to have an emphasis on doing things the RIGHT way. I don't consider this a desirable outcome. Instead, I think that the correct response is to enforce the idea that you don't need an in-game reason to pursue your characters goals and interests. The fact that your character is on a budget, or is a lavish spender, should be enough to inform your decisions. If it's not, you're not roleplaying. I invite anyone to challenge me on that. These are deeply upsetting arguments. Do you guys ever eat out in real life? Ever? Or do you rely in vending machines and homemade lunches for all your dietary needs? The point of in-game hunger is not to serve as an obstacle in the course of you completing your activities. It is meant to serve as another medium by which you can express (and justify expressing) your character. This kind of optimization above character argument is exactly what stifles creativity in how characters interact with the game. And, finally, this. Complaining about the cook (as a person) charging for food, outside of the "let me speak to your manager!" kind of way, should be ahelpable. You know the player behind the chef/cook/bartender sets the prices, but that's not what's portrayed. Anyone who treats the chef as an ass for charging needs to examine why their character would do that.

this is basically the entire gamestate rn

Reporting Personnel: Troy Bora Job Title of Reporting Personnel: Roboticist (Hepht.) Game ID: b2u-aV82 Personnel Involved: - Thi Mai Linh, NSS Aurora Security Officer, Offender - Unity, NSS Aurora IPC Warden, Offender - "Flotsam", NSS Aurora IPC Roboticist, Witness - Muhawir Nawfal, NSS Aurora Assistant, Other Time of Incident: 12:00 PM, 30/07/61 Real Time: ~7:00 PM NZT, 30/07/19 Location of Incident: Robotics Laboratory, Research Department, NSS Aurora Nature of Incident: [ ] - Workplace Hazard [ ] - Accident/Injury [ ] - Destruction of Property [ ] - Neglect of Duty [ x ] - Harassment [ ] - Assault [ x ] - Misconduct [ ] - Other Overview of the Incident: My name is Troy Bora, and I am a contracting roboticist via Hephaestus Industries. I was arrested on the grounds of Neglect of Duty after a radiation storm irradiated a tajaran in my laboratory. I cannot be reasonably held accountable for the irradiation of a tajaran, whom I did not invite in, through a radiation storm, which I had no control over. The humiliation of being arrested in front of my peers was entirely unwarranted. Of everyone in the laboratory at the time of the storm, including my peers and and an IPC roboticist, I was the only one charged with such crimes. Further, at the hands of the Warden, I was pushed about, a shotgun was brought to my cell and used to intimidate me, and my demands for a supervisor were never granted. Did you report it to a Head of Department or IAA? If so, who?: My demands for a Head of Department were never accepted. Actions taken: None. Additional Notes: I do not wish for this to reflect poorly on my company. Therefore, I wish for these charges to be struck from my record, and my peers to be informed of my innocence.

plus One . i love Joseph

stellar argument tend to agree w/ you on this. any kinda 'crutch' doesn't really seem advantageous to me, disincentivising thoughtful play and lowering the stakes of whatever situation it applies to.

this isn't feedback

to me these seem like the positions least suited for deaf or mute people. do you mean supply?

im not interested thank you

I'm not tryna 'gotcha!!' here, but again, these are literally contradictory. It feels like you're trying really, really hard not to admit any cases where I have a point, to the point that even when you acknowledge something I say is right you insist that you don't. So it violated the rules, right?????? If I'm supposed to 'know that it violated the rules', then why is TELLING me that it is or isn't against the rules an invasion of privacy? This is knowledge that, in your model, I already have. That's jumping through hoops to justify not explaining stuff which is important for me, as a player, to know. That's literally the only bit of info I needed- whether it was or wasn't against the rules. I didn't need to see him command-banned, or even warned. I just wanted to know that it was against the rules, and that's not based on ANYTHING to do with the CE in question outside of them being the one to act as an exemplar for the ruling. I want someone to say 'what the CE did was against the rules/obligations to remain a head of staff, and repeating said action is unacceptable'. Someone say that in this thread. Otherwise Goret/Prate didn't 'tell him' to do shit, they just advised it. F.A. means 'fuck all'. My issue was not resolved to a satisfactory degree, because the staff member did not properly analyse the information provided and made subjective judgement calls and refused to provide information as to whether or not their behaviour was against the rules. This is exactly what complaints are for. And that's the thing. Despite the fact that you seem to be objectively acknowledging that Goret was flawed over the course of the ahelp, the language and way you're framing your decision makes it seem like you view this complaint to be erroneous and unnecessary.

I think the broadness of my complaint is being taken for a lack of specificity. I have an issue with a large number of things, all of which I cover in my complaint, but do not mistake that for being uncertain in where my issues lie. To clarify: I am unsatisfied because I feel that his attitude towards me and my issue was extremely poor, and your post implied that he had commited no wrongdoing through this. I have admitted my own was sub-par, but I am not staff, and I feel that my own was not as bad as his. I am unsatisfied because I feel that the action was clearly against the requirements for a head of staff, and an example of play in bad faith, yet it was not ruled as being a failure to uphold the standards of a head of staff. I am unsatisfied because I feel that the idea that I should just say "ok" instead of seeking more information when I feel my issue has not been resolved defeats the purpose of staff, and is an unfaithful use of the 'staff rulings are final' rule. I am unsatisfied because I feel that the claim that he is 'innocent' means that this is not being taken as a serious issue, which I feel it absolutely is. This is silly to me. Staff aren't just here to silently remove people from play if they violate rules, and making sure that players understand what's allowed and what isn't is vital. If something is or isn't against the rules, as a staff member, you have a practical obligation to inform me as to why or why not. I did the same when I was trial mod, and I have never seen a staff member not take the time to inform me of the reason behind their ruling. If you don't inform me there and then, you're literally necessitating a staff complaint if I want to get any more information as to why something does or does not violate the rules, and placing the onus on me, as a player, to try to dig through to understand the ruling and put you on blast. Staff aren't really "obligated" to do sweet F.A. But they absolutely should, and failure to do so is incredibly subpar staffing. This doesn't follow for me. Staff complaints have ALWAYS been the medium for contesting staff rulings, and I have a problem with his decision as well as his conduct. I don't see why I should need to go through three separate channels in order to get someone to be told that something is against the rules (or, in the case of it NOT being against the rules, go through three separate channels to have a rule EXPLAINED to me). That's not being vague. These are literally contradictory. I'm running into exactly the same issue that I ran into in that ahelp. If something is, or isn't, allowed; tell me. You're saying he'll be spoken to about his attitude, but how can you expect me to believe you to any meaningful degree if in the same breath you're calling him innocent and saying they did 'nothing wrong'? Note: I've spoken to Prate privately about the ticket being passed off, just so it doesn't feel like I'm doing shady under-the-table DMing lol

he didn't 'sought after' anything. it was only after i insisted for one, and showed that his ruling depended on flawed and incredibly subjective statements. i don't think having to fight for additional input indemnifies him of anything. How can you simultaneously say you're going to be speaking to him about his attitude, and also say that he's innocent of wrongdoing? I wasn't asking for a ban-length, or anything. I didn't even need to know whether he was punished for it or not. I wanted to know that my issue was actually addressed. There is a huge difference between asking for specifics on a case and wanting to know the actual outcome of the ruling, which I was unhappy with and if I had not pursued to find out would not have the grounds to make a staff complaint. 'if another player was dealt with' is a pretty silly standard to keep, but I suppose this must be something to do with antags and not spoiling the round or whatever. We have a precedent that staff complaints are to be used when the matter was 'dealt with' by staff, but we were unhappy with the outcome. In addition, the validity of the CE's actions are pretty important here regardless. I don't think it's reasonable to completely ignore that facet of the issue, and change that precedent. You didn't even "personally speak" to me as one of the involved parties, as you said you were going to. I am unhappy with this, and would ask you to investigate further.

it's simple, which makes it blend in while still having presence in the characters presentation. and it looks decent

neat! because your workplace asks you too, right? i haven't met anyone that carries around a radio at all times if they weren't made to by their company. if we remove the common radio, people creating their own would be unjustified (as it doesn't happen IRL). i place a level of trust in our community not to forgo how people act to powergame a better defense against antags.

do you carry a radio around your work at all times irl?

they get 2 keep wearing backpacks. i don't understand. i like how backpacks look. you can't just make everyone conform to your preferred style by removing the alternatives

This.

Ok. Sorry for assuming ill-intent on your LOOC comment. I didn't want this to be a public matter, but the nature of a staff complaint kind of necessitates that this thing be brought out into the open. Sorry for putting you on blast like this. Cheers, but you kicking me out (previously established as acceptable) wasn't the issue. Just because you can do something as a head of staff doesn't mean you should. It's not a realistic, it doesn't make sense, to call security immediately. If someone was to walk into a room they weren't supposed to be in at your work, you wouldn't immediately call the police, you'd ask them to leave. Or, hell, maybe you wouldn't even do that, because people have reasons to be in areas all the time, and you shouldn't be treating your coworkers like criminals-in-waiting. This is the mindset problem. Players shouldn't need to convince you they're fun to be around before they earn interaction. I feel like this mirrors the issue I had with your interaction with your employees, too. You've got a responsibility to interact with people, especially as a head of staff. A character can be more interested in their own tasks than helping others, most certainly, and that's not a bad thing, but there's a degree of interaction necessitated by playing and a degree necessitated by being the Chief Engineer. I don't feel like I bashed you in Dsay repeatedly. I'm sorry if it came across that way, but while I did complain about your play, I feel it was very brief.

I misstated. My character is a weirdo. But these are the three lines, from the start of the round to calling sec. Your claims that the CE called sec on my character for acting like a weirdo are pretty clearly false unless you want to claim that these three lines- the one thing I said- are acting like a weirdo, and sufficiently acting like a weirdo for a CE as an individual and a Head of Staff player to immediately call for security. Would have loved to live that dream of being talked to/acknowledged beyond being treated as an immediate annoyance on virtue of existing in the Chief Engineer's lobby. I had absolutely no idea what you told them. I still don't, really. You tried to end the ticket incredibly dismissively, saying "I'm done with this". Of course I'm not going to think you necessarily resolved my issue. If he was to do that again, I was told expressly he wouldn't be breaking any rules by doing so. While that wouldn't be desirable, he'd be allowed to do it again. That's not resolved to me, and I had to really FIGHT to get that info, so clearly I was right to 'keep you from playing' a little longer. Either we both screwed up, or neither of us screwed up.

I appreciate and accept your apology. I do still want to leave this complaint open. I had to fight to find out that what he did 'wasn't against the rules', and I only found out because I noticed how Prate was being very careful about how worded things. It only takes one incident like this to lose a player. I do not feel comfortable seeing you on the staff team. I think I kept my calm until you were said "thegoret -> ornias: Then give them?", which I think is a fair reason to get frustrated. You made comments about my character acting like a "weirdo" which were baseless, and the logs that we were both looking at showed this. This kind of stuff adds up when I feel like I've got a significant problem that's being ignored. The player got spoken too, but apparently got told what he did wasn't against the rules. That's not resolved to me. You're a staff member. I didn't feel the matter was clearly over, and I wanted more information- information I clearly needed, because, as noted, Prate told me that what it did was not against the rules. Telling me someone's been spoken to implies they were told that what they did was against the rules. "I got frustrated because I wanted to play" is not a defense for acting like this.

BYOND Key:: Ornias Staff BYOND Key: TheGoret Game ID: b1F-bwjQ Reason for complaint: I ahelped over an issue I had with the CE. Logs for the full ahelp are attached. Crux of the issue was, 30 seconds into the round (literally), I ran from the Journalist's Office to Engineering to catch the engineering team before they got into the swing of setting up the engine. The Corporate Reporter has access to the engineering lobby. I enter, and the following transpires (trimmed to only relevant logs): I feel like this is unacceptable play. I did not end up getting charged for trespass, as it changed its mind. However, it didn't speak to me before trying to lambaste my character over the common radio, as a head of staff, for trespassing into an area I have access to. This is poor form, so poor that it falls into rulebreaking. You need to interact with people, and though I'd have no issue if they were to kick me out of the department, immediately calling for security on a false charge 30 seconds into the round without talking to me goes far too far, especially for a head of staff. Throughout my ahelp, details were constantly confused and gotten wrong, and I got the feeling the TheGoret had made up his mind early on. Logs are available below. The following was specifically notable: Prate eventually took over the ticket, but it had been nearly an hour by that point, and I do not feel like I could have relayed all the information sufficiently a second time over ahelps. I provided quite reasoned arguments, and The Goret acted as if I was somehow being vitriolic. I capitalized one sentence because I was frustrated that something literally and identifiably untrue was said- This really, really frustrates me. I'm not God's gift to earth in terms of how I acted, but I acted like most players are going to in an ahelp like this. I got frustrated when easily identifiable untrue statements were put forward, got frustrated when what I perceive to be unsubstantiated claims were made to refute my grievances. I typed one sentence in all capitals. Being told to 'calm down' in a condescending way like that doesn't really make me any calmer, especially when I feel like the logs show he was being just as if not more vitriolic than I was. Evidence/logs/etc: https://pastebin.com/ExaV1WUc https://pastebin.com/gfEGz3aF Additional remarks: Other issues were raised with Prate, but I feel like those were resolved. I still stand by the "If I, a CMO, 15 seconds in, accused someone of petty theft because I didn't like the color of their hair, and told security to arrest them when they hadn't violated any regs, ANY different from this scenario?" argument. We don't allow Heads of Staff to call security on their coworkers for their convenience without any kind of interaction with the person they don't like. That's vindictive, strongly clique-boosting behavior, when we say it's acceptable for Heads of Staff to try to use public channels and call security to embarrass and threaten players they haven't interacted with. If I was a new player, that could be enough to get people to quit outright. Any questions pls ask

idk man You were kind of mean-spirited recently in dsay when I expressed frustration that someone didn't fall into a trap I thought their character should have, immediately assuming that I was the antag and saying you thought that I was "just mad I didn't kill anyone". I mean, I'm whiny too sometimes, but the fact that you didn't see why I had an issue, combined with the fact that you immediately discredited what I was saying as 'you're just mad that someone didn't want to die', kinda puts a sour taste in my mouth. Just a couple weeks ago, I ahelped your aut'akh going around in full clown gear as a bartender, picking out joke books from the library, etc. Your character didn't give any reason why they would do that, but I can think of several, several reasons why they wouldn't, just by nature of being an aut'akh and an employee of NanoTrasen. I don't know whether I feel comfortable with you recieving another whitelist so soon after that. Your character is really generic, as you've stated. That's not always bad, I guess, but your genericism comes from a lack of place within the world. Your characters personality is: 'likes their job, likes people being happy, likes making friends'. This is an incredibly overdone and uninteresting set of traits for a character, because it's tied to what's 'beneficial' in a given round. Try to give your character vices, flaws, interests, something that stands out. Finally, I get you're jokin around when you say "I'm uncreative lol" but that doesn't really excuse laziness. You don't need to be creative to make up names for places, you just need to take the time to do it. The fact that you needed to be poked by the lore dev with the most powerful ":/" in the galaxy to take that effort in your whitelist, perhaps the character you can least afford to be lazy on, also makes me feel uncomfortable about the effort we'll see in your actual play. -1