ShameOnTurtles

Aboshehab has asked me to handle this unban request so I will be reviewing the appeal. This doesn't seem to be the case? It has been 17 days since you posted your last appeal; much less than a month. With that said, you have taken what Aboshehab said to heart and have been playing a lot of rounds as your main character in the civilian department. That is good to see. However. You acknowledge here that you were contacted by staff, and you have a note from that interaction. On the one hand, you say you've realized the problems with your previous playstyle, but on the other you acquire another note for powergamey behavior, in the same vein as the type of thing you were banned for. Why should you be given another chance at playing security, after having multiple, when basic rules are still seeming to be an issue?

Hi. I will be taking this complaint. EDIT: [mention]AmoryBlaine[/mention], after the hostage was downed, did you see for sure what they were actually holding?

I'm late. Marking as resolved and archiving.

So, I've had a look at the PM logs and the situation, and there are two main points I'd like to address. [mention]CampinKiller[/mention], your attitude in PMs is not acceptable. If you are busy IC and cannot answer an administrator, tell them you need a moment and resolve whatever immediately needs resolving. That can be done by either separating yourself from the situation, LOOCing people to pause because you're in an admin sit, or otherwise. Additionally, it is not your job to determine what is an IC or OOC issue. If staff contact you it is to determine potential OOC misconduct. Once they have completed their investigation they will either deem it IC or OOC. The more you cooperate with the admin bwoinking you the faster the process becomes. [mention]Drakogova[/mention], while stuns were an option, lethals were justified in this scenario. A suspect/prisoner stabbing another person's eyes is extreme enough to be considered lethal force. CampinKiller is right, in that when lethal force is used security is allowed to respond with lethal force. His use of stuns or not in this scenario is IC. On the subject of using the weapon to bash instead of shoot, there could be concerns of friendly fire or him just not wanting to point blank the person to death. Regardless, that part of the situation is IC. The warning will be removed, and in its place a note about cooperating with staff will be placed on your account [mention]CampinKiller[/mention]. I will leave this open for 24 hours in case anyone has anything to add.

I'll be handling this complaint. Waiting on [mention]Drakogova[/mention] to post their side.

Hello, Due to how long ago this ban was I don't have an issue with removing it. Please have a thorough read-through of our rules before playing again though. Hope to see you on server.

Forgive me if it was said earlier, but is this suggestion referring to giving round-based injunction power to IAA or multi-round injunction power such as CCIA have?

https://www.cprconsultants.com/is-it-true-that-ribs-can-break-during-cpr/ 30% is a large number That's an interesting read. I don't think the 'natural' movement and pop/cracking sounds of the bones can be very easily mechanically replicated, though. Chest fractures in this game aren't like fractured bones, due to them dicing up every organ inside the part they fracture, and causing internal bleeding. I don't think it's necessary to add rib breaking chance to CPR. If anything, make it give local flavor messages of "You hear popping/cracking sounds coming from X's chest!" with additional pain messages, on a percentage chance.

Hi! Welcome back to Space Station 13. I've never played on Hypatia but, I dunno, best way to find out if our server is for you is to head on and play, I'd say. We're heavy RP too but obviously different servers will have different environments, even if they're the same sect. Hopefully it all starts coming back to you; it's like riding a bike, isn't it?

That's factually incorrect ._." The definition of giving something a 10% chance is that it will occur in 1 out of every 10 instances. Your observation just suggests that the chance for the "near miss" is greater than this. Though it could also just be true that you've had bad luck in that regard (or good luck! if the bullets were nearly missing you). Just because something has a 1 in 10 chance doesn't mean it will always occur every 1 in 10 shots. Just because I roll a die 6 times doesn't mean I'll only get the number 1 once. The usage of the example of 'near-miss' was to highlight that despite a relatively low chance of occurring, in the small sample size of a firefight it would happen a lot, and it [near missing] does happen a lot.

Errors would be either mechanical or research wise. Current Ideas: Compile errors, requires a quick interaction to solve on the research server. Computer errors, requires someone to travel to the server room and do a quick interaction. And you can skip research stages. If you're at level 3 materials, and you introduce a level 6 materials item, then the research will instantly jump to level 5 materials. Thanks for the quick answer. Possibly another error could be that it needs a certain item or chemical. Would emags have any interaction with the research machine? Edit: would it breaking be locked to once every 10 or so minutes at most? I feel like it would be like this to prevent RNG really being annoying, because it's bound to happen.

Not sure how I feel about this, but I'd be very interested in seeing how it plays out on server. What kind of errors were you thinking of when you say the process can encounter a problem? Would you be able to skip researching stages? For example, researching straight from level 4 to level 6, taking 25 minutes, instead of separately going to 5 then 6?

I really like the idea of poisoned lipstick; perhaps when it is applied your next 'hug' (help intent clicking on a person) will instead act as a kiss. Single-use, for a couple reasons: Any meaningful amount of toxin is going to probably need the entire application. You're smearing your lips over and in someone's mouth (jeez that sounds bad). There's not much room for limited application. Might be too strong if it was multiple use. I don't, however, support the addition of kiss marks. Yes, a peck on the cheek is not innately erotic. However, what can be accomplished here can be easily accomplished with a quick emote+pose. With this, a peck on the cheek is fairly sexual, and definitely making a lipstick mark makes it sexualised. It's not consistent with the setting or atmosphere we've created to add mechanics that are sexualised in nature just because they 'aren't quite ERP'.

Auto injectors can already be filled with custom reagents. Use a syringe on the injector and it will take out the content, and fill it with whatever you want using another syringe. I would support being able to order empty auto injectors. I don't support reusable injectors, on the basis of what others have said.

That mechanic still exists, as well as it is present in ablative vests/helmets. I like it, it's neat. Well that's the point of making it only happen based on a relatively slim chance. If a laser only has a 10% chance of splitting, you can still shoot through a window without any problem 9 times out of 10. And that's really significant. Considering how few shots you generally take in a firefight to begin with, I'd say that figure is just enough to keep you on your toes and not so much that it'll force you to adapt your strategy. I don't know how I feel about introducing more RNG to shooting. Take, for example, the 'near missing' mechanic. It's a pretty slim chance, although I don't know the exact number, yet it comes up A LOT. If this were given a 10% chance, then we'd be seeing it a lot more than 1 in 10. I think I cautiously support this mechanic, as long as the initial beam keeps it's direction and maybe just with a slight decrease in power and additional low power diffracted beams, if that makes sense. It also might be cool to consider the difference between reinforced and non-reinforced glass, but considering how almost the entire map is made from reinforced glass, probably isn't that meaningful.

On this note, I was wondering how this would work IC. Would it be acceptable to put an OOC note in your flavor text for any Dominians, that they would recognize you as an Edict Breaker? If not, how are Edict Breakers intended to be recognized?

Let me start off by saying I love defibrillators in this game. One of my first medical experiences was reviving someone with a defibrillator and healing them back to full health- something that was extremely rewarding and I still think back on fondly. With that said, I don't think I support it's implementation in its current suggested state. This is what I'm going off of: I want to raise a question here. The focus from the initial OP mainly seems to be restricting the capability of the defibrillator, which I am fine with. It's implementation on other servers is extremely strong. However, the above quoted post really just makes me question why defibrillators would ever be used over cloning? If implemented, they should still be viable, just not dominant. On that note, I don't know if it was intended as this but this suggestion seems to be wandering towards "Let's brainstorm replacements for cloning". I don't think the defibrillator should/should not be added purely on the status of cloning. Save that for a separate thread. The lore reasoning for this also seems a bit shaky, but that's an easily corrected issue. If the technology is experimental, not certified for use by medical professionals, and prone to failure, why would it be standard medical equipment on our station? An option here is to change the lore description to make it more of an experimental prototype and gate it behind R&D levels, which I would also be in support of. I will say I do really like Zundy's idea.

What gimmick? We hadn't even decided upon a gimmick at that point! Actually I didn't. I asked a hypothetical in OOC, which could have easily stayed a hypothetical if you hadn't started telling me to stop. It was a legitimate question too, and not one that you've answered yet. What you said in OOC was not a hypothetical. It was continuing the argument we were having in adminPMs before I shut it down. Doing that is against the rules, end of story. The question you asked was how could I determine whether you were targeting or not, and I have given you an answer. I gave one to you in adminPMs, and an answer here in this thread. That answer is this: Not once have I said if you took antagonist actions towards Katheryn Linerbord during that round, would you be banned. I said that you would be punished if you targeted them, which I feel I have explained what that means and how I would determine it. I feel it's also worth it to note that I am not the one handling this complaint, that would be down to another admin. Which one, I am not sure. I could not handle this appeal objectively, and am merely posting my side of the situation.

Firstly, what caught my attention was the cultist communicate you made specifically targeting Katheryn Linerbord, the security officer that had recently arrived on station, and designating them as a kill target. On it's own, this is acceptable. However, when taking into account the language and justification used in the communicate, the recent complaint you made against a staff ruling and by extension Linerbord, and the fact that this targeting strayed from the accepted gimmick that you yourself proposed, I saw this as metagrudging. For reference, that gimmick was as follows: The communicate you made clearly violates the gimmick. This, among the other reasons I've mentioned, convinced me that this was indeed the result of metagrudge. Frankly, filling this ban appeal with insults towards Katheryn Linerbord- when the ban has very little to do with them- doesn't convince me that you aren't metagrudging them. Also, I thought I was clear in the adminPMs, but someone else also raised a concern over my usage of the word 'targeting' and how that applies to any IC antagonistic action. Let me clear that up now: targeting ≠ attacking Going after someone due to OOC motivations to kill/harass/otherwise impede their character regardless of IC circumstances = targeting Killing the security officer that discovered you converting someone in maintenance ≠ targeting To put this in more context of the round, going after Katheryn outside of your gimmick or general cultist duties would, in general, be a no-go. Killing them/converting them due to IC circumstances or as part of your gimmick would have been acceptable. Yes, you are correct in that it is impossible for me to read your mind to discover your intent. However, I can use the information available to me and my judgement to form the most likely reason for your behavior, in the context of the situation. I told you to accept the ruling and let it go, or make a complaint if you still disagreed, and then I closed the ticket after that last adminPM you post. You immediately took it to OOC, which is in direct violation of our server rules. For reference: On a last note, You think?

What do you mean by this? Is this another way of saying 'clunky'? I would disagree that this system should be categorized under that word. Of course the system will feel strange compared to our current one, but that's due to needing to learn a new system. When learning space station 13 for the first time, I thought stuff was clunky too. Stuff like the movement penalties detailed is a good counter for this. But hey, if you want your character to act perpetually on edge, then you have to- as a player- also be perpetually on edge. That's a play-style you could utilize. Fair point. 4v4 security vs mercenary fights would be a PITA. I'm honestly not sure how this could be handled. I don't think an issue like this is worth throwing out the entire system for, however, because really these don't happen that often. ...And our current combat system doesn't reward these styles of play?

I like the idea of utilizing unused assets in the form of gamemodes (I still think shadowling would be cool >:C) and I like this idea, but I think that borers should be able to communicate to the host without needing to reveal themselves, similar to how it works currently. In some event rounds with borers that has been used to very interesting effect.

Research and Development is sorely lacking in information and accuracy at the moment. That could use an update. I wouldn't say it's high priority though.

Maybe it'd be possible to have it cycle, but also you can just select someone particular by right clicking, and having it be an option there (for when there is a crowd or something on screen.) I'm not sure if middle clicking on someone does anything currently but perhaps that? To be honest this is a problem easily solved by someone familiar with the capabilities of the code. I'm in full support of this overhaul.

The issue with the second suggestion is it's very hard to deal with a menu in the heat of combat, but cycling between them seems good, unless you're versing 3+ opponents or there are spectators.

I'm not sure how toggling between people would work, or the mechanics behind selecting who you actually aim at, but I'm sure it's possible to code something that suits this purpose.