ShameOnTurtles

With the addition of the feature that automatically puts a full stop at the end of the sentence when using the Say verb, people (myself included) who frequently use audio emotes to speak now get a full stop put after quotation marks. It would be nice if the system recognised that ending with a quotation mark is valid.

Please do not reference this stuff and strawman it. I contacted you about calling another user, and furries in general, retarded paedophiles. It was only after I contacted you said it was justified because they'd made remarks about suicide towards you. I reiterate, you did not report this until I was already talking to you. The 'lecture' was telling you to stop the toxicity, and I have already described the result of that. There was no assumption that what you said provoked them to say what they said, even if that was the case both your conduct would still be unacceptable. Secondly, It is pretty vague, it is intentionally this way. This rule is a sort of 'catch-all' for bad behavior. It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to make a set of rules that covered every situation, and additionally it would be too bloated to be easily understood. In regards to solution 1, our policy is to disclose details of punishment to the reporter(s), and those otherwise directly involved. I may not have understood but are you suggesting adding a public punishment list on discord? As for solution 2, this is naturally going to happen regardless of what we do. We can't account for every situation and the 'Don't be a dick' and other OOC rules are our standards. In cases where you report something and it's deemed as breaking rules, or you get punished for something you don't believe is breaking rules, we have a chain to go up, whether that be through complaints or for smaller stuff private conversations.

I will be handling this complaint. As I understand it the focus of this complaint is that Garnascus, and administration as a whole, do not care enough about issues to properly investigate them and instead resort to a 'token' equal punishments in times where there are two people at fault? Please correct me if that is wrong.

Having the ability to rip out all of someone's hair is a bit ridiculous, doubly so if it's probability based. I'm not really a fan of adding more chance mechanics of this nature, I'm not sure how you would implement it otherwise though. As of now I would not like to see this PR merged.

The issue with Ziy was handled by me. I received messages from two people, including Ziy, that people were getting heated and starting to deliver personal attacks in a discussion about furries. I spoke with everyone involved where past offences, such as the messages that Ziy sent about suicide, were brought up. I instructed them to report this stuff at the time so we don't have to go digging down a 'rabbit hole.' As for punishment, that was communicated both reporters and all involved people, as is standard. Staff do not support or tolerate toxicity or harassment. I want people to stop jumping to that conclusion, and go through the proper channels to report something, instead of waiting to bring it up as justification when a different wrong is committed. Reminder that any posts by people not involved or without something vital to contribute will be removed and the authors warned. This includes back and forth without meaningful development.

Ban lifted. Let me know if there are any issues.

Okay, thank you. It's been a long time since your ban. I am willing to unban you but I need you to acknowledge some things first: This appeal forum is for recognizing that what you did was wrong, the punishment was fair, and asking for another chance. What you did wasn't acceptable, no 'buts.' Any issues with staff members gets properly reported or dropped. I do not want to see claims that X staff member has a prior grudge if you are not willing to report it properly and have it investigated. You abide by the rules, which includes not making unbelievable joke characters. It is very possible to make engaging, and fun characters that fall within the rules. Sound good?

Apologies, I have left this open far longer than intended. We are currently in the final stages of working out a definition for Gank, @Bygonehero do you have anything to add on the subject of this complaint?

Report retracted and archived at the request of poster.

Hi, apologies for the long delay on your appeal. One question before we get into it; have you tried to evade your original ban?

I want to clarify the situation that this was based off. A visitor was breaking into the vault using EVA gear, they broke a reinforced wall and then fell down a hole and died. The paramedic who found them brought them back to medical and described the situation, put it together, and said they should probably be DNC. An officer tracking the vault break in agreed. Medical proceeded to not clone them. They were not following an officer's orders, and I strongly doubt they do this in practice considering the general attitude towards security authority. I could be wrong, but I don't believe a policy revision is necessary. As a couple people have said, anyone is free to say basically anything, so long as they are not OOCly negligent in their job duties, it is not fair or reasonable for admins to restrict characters to only saying stuff they have the authority to say, for lack of a better phrase. If medical doesn't want to clone someone, as long as they are following OOC rules to do their job to a reasonable degree, it is perfectly valid for them to not clone someone. If a CMO comes into the picture, that perhaps changes, but that's getting a bit too deep into a hypothetical. DNC authority is held by the Captain and CMO. This should be made more clear, considering that it isn't on the wiki for the guide to medicine, station directives, or either the medical doctor/CMO page.

Sorry about the delay on this. To start, I want to clear up a misunderstanding here. Context is absolutely integral when determining if a rule was broken, and if so, what punishment to give. Playing a paranoid and trigger happy character that punches people when startled is a lot more reasonable at the end of a hectic traitor round than when nothing has happened. One situation is violating the sane, believable character rule, and one is not. With that said, I know this may be an unsatisfying answer, but what is acceptable or not really depends on the context of the situation. I do not think Garn's interpretation of the rules is incorrect here. Antagonists have instructed to not kill without a clear purpose that promotes roleplay. There are many circumstances in which escalating to killing someone if you're about to get caught and outed is a valid path to take. It may not seem conductive to roleplay, but there are great stories that can be made from a sudden character death and the subsequent consequences and escalation. On the other side of the coin, security and the crew as a whole have to be responsible in how they approach antagonists. You describe that being part of an antagonist team gives security an fair advantage. I would disagree. It is believable and reasonable for security to figure that what one member of the team does, the others condone and/or helped them, unless it is otherwise made clear. This is where, as Garn said, antagonist teams need to be on the same page. This thread does indicate to me that we, as a staff team, need to get off our backsides and come up with a definition in the rules for gank, though, so you can expect that coming relatively soon.

I will be handling this complaint. @Bygonehero, to clarify, you aren't contesting a specific ruling, but Garn's interpretation of the rules?

Alright, thank you. One last question, how will the Hegemony react to NanoTrasen and the general galactic community accepting Aut'akh? If you would rather save this to develop in news articles and/or events that's cool, let me know.

How will other Unathi (not Aut'akh) be expected to react to them? How centralized is the cult? Do they have a clear leadership? Sort of leading on from the last questions, what kind of official status do they have on Moghes/Ouerea? If they have no official status, how open is the persecution of their cult, if any? Are Aut'akh generally reserved or, as I would presume, the complete opposite of an orthodox and 'family values' Unathi? EDIT: Can their limbs be removed by people other than themselves? This is something I would really like to see, and I think it would help even out their strengths.