ShameOnTurtles

Nope, never, so my feedback is coming from a place of somewhat ignorance. I assumed they were just really tough mobs that have one ability or so to make it trickier to kill them like teleporting or going invisible or spawning fake copies of themselves around them. Is there a PR up where I can look at them in detail? Alternatively, could you detail their abilities in this thread?

How would these protocols be easily accessible and implemented? If they were to be added to the official directives sheet, how would that be accomplished without making it incredibly long? I like the idea of clarifying official protocols. There are a couple issues I have with this specific suggest implementation though. 'Crisis' or 'Emergency' could be clarified to say 'Code Red situation.' Furthermore, it's unclear whether this is referring to physical or software modification. I may just be dumb but what is the objective of the Captain being allowed to vote twice? Is that if there's only a captain and 1 other command member aboard, it won't be a tie? If that's the case I think it would be better to say that the Captain can do it unless command unanimously vetos them, or if there is no Captain, a Command majority vote. These three protocols can all be condensed. I am of the mind that if command aren't available the station should be SOL, as to fulfill protocol 4 you'd have to break regulations and other directives to get into the vault without command authority.

I like the idea of adding this to the ‘monster manual’ that wizards already have access to, as long as they have some utility apart from just attacking. Alternatively Cult Powercreep or Fuck You Burger >:C

The consequences of hunger are being made worse, and the time til you get those negative effects is being halved, if I understand it correctly. In addition to that, many more negative effects are being added with the thirst feature, on top of hunger. As for the shift length, I do not pretend to be the voice of authority on this but I believe it's two hours, because accelerating time each round leads to very weird things to keep canon consistency I feel. Even if it's 8 hours, that's not enough time to be believably crippled by hunger/thirst. [mention]BurgerBB[/mention]: I say the consequences 'cripple' characters due to this description on the github: I do not think that adding another statistic about their character that people have to micromanage to just be 'normal' is something that will promote good gameplay. I explained why particularly I feel this isn't a good change in my previous post. Mechanics does not always equal RP, but sometimes it can. I do not think this mechanic will promote meaningful roleplay, as vague a phrase that is. That is getting on a bit of a tangent though so I would appreciate it if you focused on my main points in this post.

The only reason non-security aren't included in that is because ICly non-security aren't expected to be out searching for threats. This could be made clearer in the alert messages or elsewhere, but civilians, even command, should not be reacting proactively to threats (in the sense that they are physically combating it.) The issue posed by weapons being visible vs holstered is not one of powergaming, or how practical it is to strip someone of their weapon, or even how easy it is to draw the weapon. It's not a matter of powergaming, but, as Skull said, an IC regulation based on a believable internal policy of companies to not make an uncomfortable work environment. The closest policy I can relate it to is about uniform regulations: it is a policy that any company in NanoTrasen's position would feasibly have. Now, a command member, barring in some cases the HoS, who is actively searching for threats with a gun on their hip? That can be construed as validhunting. That is an OOC issue and irrespective of IC policy on gun visibility that will be looked at by an administrator. As for heads of staff carrying self-defense weapons from their locker; whether they do or not is primarily up to their individual character. It is expected of them, however, ICly that they would follow policy and have the weapon tucked away unless it was absolutely necessary, and OOCly that they are not validhunting. A head of staff carrying a self-defense weapon on station when there are no reported threats should not be expecting to use their weapon. I don't think IC or OOC policy on weapon carry rules needs to change.

I would not mind an AI law rework to be more in line of how we expect AIs to be played. An example of this is that technically AIs should open any door for anyone unless someone of higher rank orders them not to, but that is not considered good AI play for the most part. Directives are pretty easy to find for those looking for it, but I have nothing against further accessibility. A bulletin board to each department would be a nice implementation, such as Chada suggested, and potentially for the AI a verb.

I will start off by saying I don't think this feature should be added. I think the points raised about SS13 not being a survival simulator are very important to consider and outline the issue I have with the proposed feature. I disagree that this mechanic will improve immersion for a few reasons. It is not realistic or believable that someone would be crippled with thirst over a two hour shift. This goes for hunger as well, but I am moderately more tolerant of hunger. As Coalf said, being forced to take a drink every X minutes to prevent crippling effects happening to your character is not going to promote roleplay or interaction. It will force players to put their current situation on hold until they can complete the task. Therefore, people will find ways to game the system. You may call this an administrative issue at this point, but I do not believe it will promote good RP at all. Hunger is a mechanic that is supported by a job on station, with a lot of depth to make what they want, but it is not debilitating and nor should it be. People should not be primarily RPing through mechanics, but through their own impetus. If someone's character is thirsty, they can RP that. If they are hungry, the mechanics allow them enough leeway that they are mostly not forced to solve that immediately. Making the effects of these two mechanics worse just forces players onto a single avenue of action for their character.

I don't know if I like restricting stuff mechanically based on this, that can perhaps be saved for another discussion.

I tried Persistence Station a while ago and saw they had this neat feature where once you selected a faction is would come up with a brief description outlining it, in character setup. I think this would be a good feature to implement to make faction/system backstory at a glance more accessible, with the possibility of hooking players to read more about it on the wiki. This would be implemented in Character Setup so that when a faction was selected a short blurb about it would pop up just below the option For example if NanoTrasen was selected as Faction it would come up with "A megacorporation primarily based in Tau Ceti, that specializes in phoron mining, processing, research, and sale..." and would continue for a couple more lines maybe. The same type of idea would apply to Home System and other factions.

As long as both of you abide by the verbal warnings and notes in here, we'll be all good. With both of these in mind, locking and archiving.

Alright. [mention]HouseOfSynth[/mention] and I have taken a look at everything to do with this situation. Getting right into it; The wiki recommends a playstyle that gives antagonists some extra time to get out of sticky situations, and counteract metagaming. This is a good idea, however AIs employing this need to be careful of being too pedantic. You were ordered to inference more in the future, and I did not see any cases of you disobeying that. We have no OOC concern here, but I can see where the IC annoyance came from. There are a few examples of behavior I would see as possibly objectionable for an AI to have. AIs should not be overtly insensitive, or 'baiting' certain crewmembers (in the case of the Skrell comment). I would like to hear back from you [mention]Scheveningen[/mention] on your thoughts on these comments. These were the ones I thought were over the line. I am not saying your AI has to be likeable, it just shouldn't be confrontational. Moving on: An AIs laws should almost never be changed under standard circumstances. I would go as far as to say they should never be, even. Especially without attempting anything to do with ordering them to curb their behavior when it occurred. In the future further intermediary steps should be taken to stop ICly objectionable AI behavior, or if it's bad enough, you should adminhelp them. On the note of law changes, here are the full logs of the conversation between the Captain and the AI when their laws were changed: The main issue I see here is with the stalling by the AI. As long as directives/AI laws are being fulfilled, an AI does not need any reason for someone doing anything on station, especially the Captain. The initial question was fine but once they said it was authorized by all heads of staff you should have let them in regardless. I don't see a need to address anything further in here, because it all stemmed from that misunderstanding. During PMs with Tailson, Scheveningen did say they were mistaken about the directive, so even there I am not overly concerned. Now you know what should have happened. Make sure to check up on things such as this to make sure your understanding is correct when using them in game. Overall, the issues I see here: Some AI behavior bordering on OOCly objectionable. No communication between the Captain and the AI between when the issues were presented and the law change. Our proposed resolution to this is that [mention]Scheveningen[/mention] will receive a note regarding their AI play. [mention]Kaed[/mention] has already received a note about the overescalation, so no additional punishment will be given. Is this acceptable?

If it’s an issue of improper escalation then I don’t think we should nerf the baton for that. That’s an administrative issue. Otherwise, while it sucks to get beaten in a way that’s not that cool, that’s how it is sometimes. I do think it would be a good idea to make shields have an 80% or very high chance to block it though.

This will be resolved likely tonight or tomorrow. Unless you have something new to add please do not post.

The stunning ability of the baton is based on the armour values of the target and the area targeted, I believe (but that also ties into the first one). Stun batons are not always an instant KO. I would not support removing/lowering the stun on the baton because it already has drawbacks and is one of the few (if not the only) reliable longer duration stunning tool security has.

Locking and archiving.

I have spoken with the subject of this complaint. They have agreed to be civil to you from now on. That goes both ways, however. I am marking this as resolved and will be locking/archiving in approximately 24 hours.

Voting for dismissal. I think this would be a great idea for a General thread, but I don't think something that's meant to be optional should be implemented as official policy. The point of it being made concrete policy would be to enforce guidelines.

I will be taking this complaint.

Alright. I have looked through logs of everything you said up until you got warned, the PM conversation itself, and the warning wording. Juani is on break at the moment so unfortunately they are not available to clarify the note. However, I see it as primarily regarding memey behavior by your cyborg- which then caps are a consequence of. Looking through the logs, a solid majority of your messages are containing critical information, and in caps. However, that said, there are also many messages that aren't but still are capslocked. Generally, speaking in all-caps is discouraged because it is not a believable speech pattern; even for a cyborg/android/robot. You are free to use caps, but do not just engage capslock for the rest of the round. Use capitals to convey important information only. Capslock is an OOC internet speech pattern, where as utilizing capitals to 'shout' ICly isn't. If people see you constantly using capitals, they are going to ignore you the same way they will ignore you if you speak with no urgency. It's a balance. With that said, I will be retaining the warning, however changing the wording of it. I will be locking and archiving this in 24 hours.

I will be handling this complaint.

It's been roughly 24 hours, give or take. Locking and archiving.

Alright. Marking this as resolved, locking and archiving. I will be unbanning you shortly after this post because since making it you've already been banned basically a week, so... In regards to your closing comment, context in notes can sometimes be an issue. I can only promise that we are constantly improving how we operate.

Apologies for the delay on resolving this. I went log diving and read through the replies to this thread. In my opinion, AmoryBlaine's responses to the situation as it developed, such as deciding not to go through with the trade, were justified and not punishable OOCly. The main point of error here was the shooting of the hostage, who was brought into the room in a neckgrab of another raider, so in the dark and NVG screen it could have been mistaken that it was just one person who had walked in the room. However, effort should have been made to verify whether this was a viable hostile contact to engage immediately or not. To clarify one minor point, energy glaives are still blue in the NVG overlay. For some reason it doesn't change their color. As for your history: The last one of these notes posted is from a long time ago, but this behavior shows a trend of going overboard. I believe this is one of the main factors contributing to your ban. I have thought about this for a while and I am going to lower this ban to a three day security ban. Your history is still a factor in this, and will be taken into account if there are any future punishments that need to be applied. The lead-up to the situation was acceptable, however more care should have been taken to avoid the loss of the hostage. I will lock and archive this in around 24 hours, to give time for closing comments.

Hi, so, due to NursieKitty resigning this report will be archived and locked. To clear some things up: Yes, the Vaurca did say "Zzuffer, bot." as you were being hit. The Vaurca and Ivan were both revolutionaries, Ivan being converted during that encounter. It's hard for them to know exactly when you joined and keep track of every player, so they fact they killed you 5 minutes into your round is largely just unfortunate, not rule breaking. With that said, the escalation present in regards to your cyborg seems lacking. I will be speaking to the player of the Vaurca about it, and why they should not have blocked you in with the other rev without further reason to. EDIT: I will be locking and archiving this in 24 hours.

Alright, I'm willing to unban you. Thank you for the explanation over that note, I hope to see you around with that new playstyle you've been developing. Leaving this open for roughly 24 hours before it's archived.