Tainavaa

I haven't read the thread and I don't intend to but I'm fairly certain it was only for loyalty implanted people, and for a sensible reason. Blatantly hurting NanoTrasen's image.

You don't need to defend yourselves. Unless it's breaking the rules or worthy of a threat of that species strip, then its only an issue for people who don't like thing. Which isn't an issue at all, they're just making it an issue when they have the option to simply not watch. "But Tina, its GETTING CLOSE TO ERP." Tell me when it IS ERP, then there'll be a real issue.

Well, I mean. Its not my favorite thing but. Well I can't find the video but I was going to link "Learn this ONE WEIRD TRICK to NOT GET MAD!!! (The first tip will SHOCK YOU!!!)" but I guess I can't find it on my phone. sorry meowy

I know. It's very unfortunate and I don't like it at all myself, but. Whatever.

The hilarious thing about security is that their job is security. They aren't a police force, they're internal security. If they legitimately believe someone is a danger to the crew and productivity they have every right to keep them under watch and in the brig until they're cleared. That's their job.

Hi, I was the one that attended. I wasn't quite finished speaking with you at the time but I was quiet for a while because I was thinking and conferring with the other staff. By the time I was getting back to you with more to discuss (I don't even remember what it was at this point) you were gone, so when I knew I had support from the other staff to back up my decision I decided to go through with it. What pegged me on the intent to win the round was that when you went around to flank: Your team mates already disengaged by the time you left You did not coordinate with your team whatsoever about it, as confirmed by an officer I spoke to about it. What that told me was that you just wanted some booty. I understand that you were talking to the HoS over PDA to keep things confidential afterward but you were essentially telling the HoS what orders to give you so you could roam freely under the guise of "I was told to". I didn't take into account the meta with C4 because it was a high intensity situation and you more than likely just didn't think about it, so I decided to leave it as a casual reminder about that.

Hoi, chummer.

I have a pretty firm belief that people get angry and therefore bitch and moan about rounds because they have no empathy and don't consider the other side. They immediately jump to the worst case scenario instead of thinking "You know what? This might have been roleplayed. Maybe I should play along and see how this turns out." However considering the generally shitty mentality people have adopted a lot of tension has risen in the community between each other and Cake's projection seems not unlike what I expect it to become. Unless it was heavily regulated - while I see some good coming from it - I can only see the same, if not more, bad also coming from it.

I'm going to focus on this little bit right here. They seemed like some religious people with extra edgy tendencies, nothing more. Could it have been, perhaps, that your judgment of them was wrong? Could they have deceived your character for sympathy and taken advantage of your character when they could? Or do you think people shouldn't be allowed to do that?

It's very difficult to argue with a player for 15-20 minutes every time they're angry about something. Every time we decide what people are doing is fine, despite our investigations no matter how thorough, is always deeply questioned. Often times it ends up in some sort of in depth conversation or argument over whether or not this is "technically" against the rules by semantics or some very specific circumstance which validates or invalidates their actions. To put it simply, it's draining on the staff to know that in order to explain it to the player it would take back and forth. And that leads back to what I was saying about just, rolling with what's thrown at you. Is this small, semantic detail what really makes it against the rules? Maybe but if it's that fine line in an ambiguous situation which is often a high intensity situation that makes it against the rules SORT OF, should we really reprimand them for that? And I don't want to argue with a player EVERY TIME it's deemed alright for one reason or another. Like if people just decided to roleplay whatever happened instead of immediately jumping to accusations of rulebreaking and anger I'm sure they'd have a lot of fun with it, even if it WAS rulebreaking. And I commend certain players for doing that. They ahelp a situation (sometimes) but instead of getting angry at it, they roleplay it out and have fun with it. And that's something I admire in some players. They realize it's a game and roll with it. Shit happens, let's face it.

I wish more people had that line of thinking. And just, rolled with whatever was thrown at them instead of immediately taking it to OOC. Bad things happening to your character can be fun. I know it's difficult to wrap your head around but. Bad things can be good. Just, shit. It's a game, have fun with it. I've had fun with being on the shitty end of situations. And if I can, a jaded person who loves telling people their opinions are wrong, then I'm sure others can to. Like, it can't be that hard... Can it?

In regardds to the Church of the Great Pizza Surprise Pack and allowing that to continue. While that was silly, everyone enjoyed it and it was roleplayed well. Your character seems to be 2-dimensional with the simple concept of "PASTA." When very silly things are what pushes you over to be overly offensive then just how well thought out, or sell played, is that character? When you're walking around being as offensive as possible for the sake of being offensive then there's no fun in that. When everybody is having fun and when it is well roleplayed, we can let things go. I don't mean to attack you but when tings are poorly thought through and everyone's fun is being ruined because of it, that sounds like a situation where staff needs to tell you to reconsider your character's behaviors inbwhat circumstances. Note that I said character behaviors. What that means is not changing the character itself but adding more reason to their actions and making it more believable. If pasta is what makes you a roving woman hater then there's an issue with believability and character quality. If you're an antagonist, as Skull said, frothing at the mouth for everyone's pasta and being ready to get in a gang war to get it sounds perfectly fine. But otherwise, your character needs to tone it down a notch or two.

When I say standards for roleplay, I do partially mean that it being within our rules. However I also mean it in terms of quality. People often look for excuses to kill, or to chucklefuck, or to generally be a nuissance giving the excuse that "That's what my character would do". This is generally (or at least in my opinion) regarded as low quality and even still, "low roleplay". If you have a problem with how command handled it, that's still an IC issue. Things are going to happen you don't like. That's life. Was it unethical? It looks unethical. Was it illegal? It sure as hell seems illegal. But unethical and shady characters are pretty IC, especially in controversial situations. But all this controversy is IC, taking it out of character is just no fun at all. Controversy is what makes FUN. We won't police peoples characters, that's just wrong and basically being RP police. And why would you being a normal crew member make the RD's decision any less valid from an RP standpoint?

That isn't how being a head of staff works. We expect heads of staff to understand roleplay and our OOC standards for roleplay. Heads of staff are still just people in a job, they have their own minds with their own goals and own interests. Not mindless slaves. Expecting us to railroad head of staff play is just utterly ridiculous. I wouldn't restrict a head of staff any more than a whitelisted person playing a non-head of staff. In fact I wouldn't restrict any head of staff more than I would a normal player, the idea is that the standard is uniform. What Killerhurtz did was perfectly fine roleplay, and it meets our standards just fine. There was nothing wrong with it, what I'm seeing here is that someone didn't like that they died. But once again, them's the breaks.

Here's what it is to my understanding, Killer. It acts like a valve until the output pressure is higher than the input pressure and then it starts using energy to pump. The greater the delta between output and input, the more power it has to use to keep the pump going. I think that's what the load meter is for, and gives you a measurement of watts. To show how much power it's using to pump. KEEP IN MIND that I am NO expert and this is just from my observations. That's how I think it works. That's what makes sense to me, anyway.

Callabaddie, that sounds like you're trying to police peoples' roleplay here. The nature of roleplay is, shit happens. There are going to be shitty situations for yourself and people aren't going to make the best decisions. Do bad decisions necessarily mean bad OOC decisions? Not really, you also can't keep OOC and the meta in mind at all times. I personally prefer not to anyway. In fact I like to forget the meta/OOC exists. It kind of just sounds like a shitty situation more than anything. These things happen and I would argue it isn't a bad thing on an OOC level.

Please refer to cinematic situation #1. It doesn't matter if we're all human. Emotion had nothing to do with my decision or any of my convictions. We'll see what Skull has to say.

It's clear you have and had no faith in me as a staffmember before and during my dealing with you, especially in your evident conviction in my inability to control my emotions. Moreover I'm a person of principle, not emotion. Me liking you or not has nothing to do with this decision and my emotions had nothing to do with this decision because I'm going to say it outright; I don't give a fuck. I like certain people and have a particular distaste for certain people but I would never go so far as to judge someone's worthiness to play on the server over a personal difference. That's petty and childish. And like last night both in OOC and in PM's you continue to try and assert yourself on a level above the people you're opposing. In this particular case it's me, it's fairly obvious ad hominem is coming into play even here. Your past had nothing to do with this decision because: One; I don't know it beyond what little details I've been told about the gambit. And two; As far as it seems to me, it's irrelevant. The only relevance it has in this situation is that it acted as a catalyst for this whole dilemma. So to Delta and Frances (whose post I will admit I didn't read), their past has very little to do with this other than to provide context. It's a completely different situation conceptually, this appeal is disputing the validity of my ban in the first place. If that had any relevance, chances are he would have already been banned by now. Alright, so let's get down to it. The Problem Sadistic Nightmare sends Meowy an ominous and foreboding message over BYOND pager. The message is sent after a dispute with Meowy, and I said that we've had enough of the topic. The discussion promptly ends in OOC. Sadistic Nightmare even instructs Meowykins to work on getting rid of as much of their digital footprint as they can. Issues with the claim of innocence The claim is informing Meowy of vague and nondescript people who will dox Meowy. Why would they dox him? The only dispute here was with Sadistic Nightmare and his past. From this, I can deduce that who would dox Meowy regarding this particular situation is a specific person or a particular group; that is Sadistic Nightmare himself, or anyone willing to protect Sadistic Nightmare. It's very ambiguous. CINEMATIC SITUATION #1 The Principles We should not have players on the server blackmailing other players. We should not have players fearing retaliation from other players. It does not matter if another tells you to gather information on them or not. What matters is that you are essentially attempting to terrorize the player, regardless of whether you've carried out their requests or not. [*]It does not matter what personal information people have left available on the internet about themselves. It has nothing to do with you being able to find this information. It has to do with you feeling the need to tell this particular person that there will be people seeking to release their personal information. The Discussion During it, Sadistic Nightmare questioned the validity of considering the ban for something that happened off server. I let him know, yes, I am very seriously considering this ban and I have precedent to do so. See: Cassie incident, dick picks incident. I said something very closely along those lines and I thought it was clear that they were only brought up to validate my considerations. I've asked him to judge my assessment and he danced around it, focusing on my bringing up the cassie and dick picks incident. I've told him several times to not regard that when judging my assessment but he was pretty adamant in making them all too relevant in this particular situation. Unless there was some profound miscommunication over my several attempts at explaining that they are not related to the details I was asking to be judged, I can only judge that he is either avoiding answering it or seeking any way to put me in a bad light. Or both, as he was constantly asking how it was relevant to him; trying to make a point that they have nothing to do with him. It was a pretty fruitless discussion to be honest. Itching for the Banhammer If I am itching for the banhammer, it is because I believe wholeheartedly that what is being done is wrong and against the rules. Not because of some ultimately petty disagreement. Why it took a while for me to respond is trying to articulate and refactor my sentences so you could better understand as I'm sure you remember, I've had to repeat myself several times. You can not use the time I've spent trying to think of how I could reword my messages to make more sense to you, then claim it as evidence I'm angry. Not only that, but two particularly long pauses were waiting to get a response from any admin on the staff skype chat. Seen below. That message alone, in my opinion, was enough for me to make a call on permabanning. In fact, when I told the mod/admin chat, I didn't even mention you being a dick to me or undermining me. As seen in the previous image above. A threat to dox directly or by proxy I think is enough for a permaban. Those additional charges were supplementary. I even told Scopes personally not long after the banning (by copying and pasting what I posted in the staff chat even though he's in it by recommendation of another admin). I had a short discussion with him the next day (today) about it, and I only included the details relevant to the charge that led to the decision of a permaban. I did not mention you being a dick, I did not mention undermining me, I did not mention any of that. Proof below. I decided I needed advice and confirmation because you had me questioning the validity myself but in lieu of an available admin for guidance, I went with my gut and asked Scopes about it when I could. Finally, I've discussed it with Scopes a bit after he's read the logs and I've accepted the possibility of the ban being invalid for the sole reason of Sadistic Nightmare not actually doxing Meowykins. Which is a different reason altogether than the reason Sadistic Nightmare has given. And that's fine if that's found to be the case to the extent that them's just the breaks and I've gotta deal with you pulling these stunts. Either way, I can only see it as attempting to terrorize another player. Which is zero tolerance in my eyes. We'll see what Skull has to say.

Yes. It is way too easy to be a shitter and get a free kill with the LWAP. It's overpowered basically guaranteeing a free kill secure once a shot gets off. I have personally been a shitter with the LWAP before and it is just too easy to do. I'd like it to have a longer fire delay specifically, to allow for someone to recover. The long stun period I think is fine since you can use the LWAP tactically to neutralize and move in on a target or have someone else move in on them once they're down pretty swiftly.

Once again, these are character things. If Nikov himself is judged to be a good enough roleplayer with the right mentality to be a head of staff then what does it matter if Manfred himself is unable to be a CE? You know what could be said? Sure, but Manfred can't be CE. With him just being an unlikeable character that only plays right into my popularity contest point because if you're saying it just to say it then it's clearly an irrelevant detail. So why mention it in the first place? If it's relevant, I have to ask. So what? Your answer to this question is very important. Moreover, the head of staff whitelist is for all head positions. I got my head whitelist only knowing medical. Yet I was able to play CE, RD, Captain, and HoS despite my knowledge being strictly medical. You're questioning his ability to apply his knowledge but how many chief engineers took a standardized aptitude test to be approved? I started playing CE because I wanted to build shit, should I have my whitelist stripped? I mean, I haven't proven my knowledge in engineering well enough to prove I'm able to play it. Now you are straying from the point. Nowhere in my post did it suggest nor imply that their opinions or views are malicious. It's an objective observation of chief engineers who regularly practice nepotism. Those who do that have a certain type of mentality. Why would they speak highly of someone they're not going to trust with jobs? There's no reason to, I know I wouldn't speak highly or positively of someone I don't trust or like well enough to do a job. Would you? Them's just the breaks, Nibbles. UPDATE: I let this mull over and I thought of some tacked on points to what I've already stated. Nibbles: Some chief engineers don't know anything about atmospherics. This is perfectly okay. I'm ASSUMING that you also think it's okay. Honestly I'm kind of tired of all the heads that can "do it all" in their entire field. It's boring, I'd like more heads that are restricted. If you agree with me, then why is his lack of proven worth relevant? If you rdisagree, then how do you expect him to prove himself with leaders that don't allow the opportunity?

Yeah, going to have to agree with Baka because I have personally witnessed consistent shit stirring from you. I remember one particular incident where we told you three times in OOC to cut the shit, but you continued. Forcing us to poke you with a PM to tell you one on one, to cut the shit. You may not have noticed your habits but we certainly have.

I didn't plan on posting here but I have to say to Nibbles and Nightmare; I think you're both a bit misguided. Nightmare, being a good head DOES mean you have to be a good leader yes, but is the leadership cap capped at Manfred's ability to lead, or Nikov's ability to lead? And is it so low (as this is a game and we're not expecting actual managers to be playing the managerial roles) that he should be barred from it? Nibbles though. I find some "discrepancies" in your points against him. Namely in conferring with "best engineers" and the like. When you confer with the best engineers you confer with people who have memorized step-by-step guides. So what does that really mean? Not much, to be honest. It takes a short while to learn engineering and wiring and anything you can't do is easily found on the wiki. What is the one section of engineering you can't find a step-by-guide guide on? Atmospherics. If Manfred knows one thing, it's atmospherics. Is it more or less than any of the "best engineers"? I don't know really, but that's not relevant. What matters is that he knows it. We don't expect heads of staff to know a bunch of secrets of the department; especially not right off the bat. There are also people who simply don't give a fuck about the secrets. Do you think every research director should know how to powergame research and development to be a research director? I don't, I expect a research director to be able to RP managing a research team and essentially being the supervisor, stepping in wherever they're needed. We expect heads of staff to facilitate fun and roleplay, ultimately. I think the two head positions that are the most difficult to qualify for are Research Director and Chief Engineer for the simple virtue of the atmospherics learning curve; for both the atmospherics department, and toxins. If competence is your concern, then the one thing you need to worry about is his knowledge in atmospherics. If he's got a grasp on atmospherics then he can probably learn the rest of engineering fairly easily. Another thing that rubs me the wrong way is "best engineers". It isn't difficult to be a good engineer (assuming a good engineer is one that simply knows their job's mechanics very well). I do see your point on heads having a "I'm the boss that means I can boss you around" mentality but something very common I see that ruins rounds for people, is nepotism. Engineering has, by far, the most camaraderie of any department I've seen but I've also seen where that strong camaraderie can end up. Chief engineers relying only on their favorites for jobs, leaving everyone else in the dust. I feel that some of your "best engineers" are guilty of this and I can only ask; are they, then, not worthy of their whitelist? If these "best engineers" ARE guilty of this, then their opinions and views very well could be skewed vastly by virtue of their mentality. That means that these best engineer sources are unreliable and should not be used because then it's a simple matter of popularity. After all, these aren't popularity contests.

I disagree with this. You're supposed to get any additional supplies and anything you want from your department; that's why storage is there, that's why chemistry is there. You're trivializing peoples jobs with it.

I still think it should just be in the admin armory as a dear memory. Spot was a mistake.

Just stopping by to say that, as a career CMO, SSD's are NOT medical's issue to deal with. It is not medical's responsibility to do anything more than mark them on the records and that alone is enough for people to drop SSD's off saying "Handle it." If you do that you are only reinforcing the terrible and false belief that medical handles them. Fuck no. However I do like the original suggestion. Fuck yes. Also Jboy, you can cryo people without ahelping. The official standard last time I checked was, 20-30 minutes then cryo.