Tainavaa

Just gonna drop by because I want to see the DO corps be a nice thing we have. This, along with a few choice words from you Gollee, is why I believe the DO Corps is a channel to fulfill peoples OOC agendas. I'm sure there are people in it strictly for the roleplay and nothing else (and that should be the standard) but I'm also sure there are DO's that use it to fulfill their OOC agenda. Regulate roleplay to their standards. Or as I like to put it, acting as IC admins. The way I see it, goes something along the lines of Obviously most cases are not in terms of firing but you get the idea.

This is something I've tried to explain to people before, but they don't seem to get it. There's shitcurity IC where it's fully an IC problem. The players know what's happening, they know how it's wrong and they understand (and usually expect) some sort of reprimand if found to be doing it. These are IC issues. Then there's the shitcurity where they believe they're doing the right thing. They're being upstanding, they're being a good officer. THESE players are the issues of the admins, not duty officers. If a player believes it's okay to tase passive people, they believe it's okay on an OOC level to have reason to believe someone is a terrorist because they wants their privacy. So the officer immediately beat them down, and search them and their work place because someone told them "No." Because that's their job. Also today I learned just how easy it is to almost edit someone else's post.

You said you were bored, that tells me that you're rather impulsive. I have two questions for you. 1. Do you understand what you did and how it was wrong? 2. Do you think you will do it again?

To my understanding, Invy was told to go and stay go. He spends the rest of his days ERPing as an eleven-dicked zombie on WoW. I voted for Haruspex.

There's nothing anime about it, it's cartoony and comic book-like. That's the whole theme.

Seems that nobody's responded in forever so I'll chime in. I was observing the conversation at the time and I thought it was kind of silly to give a warning over that. It was a bug, it was entirely unintentional, and I don't think NebulaFlare even knew it existed at the time. It didn't influence the round very much either either; as far as I remember, the antag was just upset that they couldn't unbuckle but I don't think it would have made so much of a difference. So, yeah. I kind of want it to disappear too.

Alright, he hasn't been on in fivever so I guess it's safe to mark this as inactive until he's seen again.

Doomberg is asleep at the moment so we'll have to wait until many radians have passed to see them. So we'll wait for Doomberg to post them.

Doomberg is asleep at the moment so we'll have to wait until many radians have passed to see them. So we'll wait for Doomberg to post them.

I don't know where you're getting the idea that we want them to, Sue. Hive wants OOC to stop being muted when people try to rile shit up. We mute because shit is riled up. Clearly, the solution involves preventing shit to be riled up. I am asking about Hive's solutions to preventing shit from being riled up so we don't have have issues that spawn this particular complaint. Hive has no solutions. I am personally for the mutes as well due to lack of a better solution. So unless there is a better solution, this entire complaint is moot and invalid. The purpose of me asking these questions is to prove that point, Sue. It's rhetoric.

I don't know where you're getting the idea that we want them to, Sue. Hive wants OOC to stop being muted when people try to rile shit up. We mute because shit is riled up. Clearly, the solution involves preventing shit to be riled up. I am asking about Hive's solutions to preventing shit from being riled up so we don't have have issues that spawn this particular complaint. Hive has no solutions. I am personally for the mutes as well due to lack of a better solution. So unless there is a better solution, this entire complaint is moot and invalid. The purpose of me asking these questions is to prove that point, Sue. It's rhetoric.

We're not going to ignore the shitfest. Please refer to my short "bad guys" scenario. If it's not us, it's gotta be someone. What I'm reading here is, you don't have a solution.

We're not going to ignore the shitfest. Please refer to my short "bad guys" scenario. If it's not us, it's gotta be someone. What I'm reading here is, you don't have a solution.

It gets muted because the subject always gets brought up and every time, someone's feelings get hurt and they get very defensive and start being aggressive to the offender. The original offender starts to get upset about that and retaliates and it always devolves into the same thing. It's a game. Seriously. If you don't want it to be hushed before it starts, then don't let it become a subject that reasonably leads the staff to believe "Okay, this is gonna be some shit." the second it comes up. In this case, there are two bad guys out of three and worst case scenario, three bad guys out of three: The one who brings up the topic, and the ones who get offended by said video game topic The ones who get offended by said video game topic, and the staff that try to prevent the hurt feelings The one who brings up the topic, and the administration that do nothing about their retaliations to the retaliation of hurt feelings The one who brings up the topic for hurting feelings, the people who get offended by said video game topic for taking thing too seriously, and the administration who does nothing about the shitfest that will almost indubitably ensue. So, I mean. If you've got a solution, I guess we're listening.

It gets muted because the subject always gets brought up and every time, someone's feelings get hurt and they get very defensive and start being aggressive to the offender. The original offender starts to get upset about that and retaliates and it always devolves into the same thing. It's a game. Seriously. If you don't want it to be hushed before it starts, then don't let it become a subject that reasonably leads the staff to believe "Okay, this is gonna be some shit." the second it comes up. In this case, there are two bad guys out of three and worst case scenario, three bad guys out of three: The one who brings up the topic, and the ones who get offended by said video game topic The ones who get offended by said video game topic, and the staff that try to prevent the hurt feelings The one who brings up the topic, and the administration that do nothing about their retaliations to the retaliation of hurt feelings The one who brings up the topic for hurting feelings, the people who get offended by said video game topic for taking thing too seriously, and the administration who does nothing about the shitfest that will almost indubitably ensue. So, I mean. If you've got a solution, I guess we're listening.

My reasons are explained in my complaint thread. You are cordially invited to refute me.

My reasons are explained in my complaint thread. You are cordially invited to refute me.

BYOND Key: Tainavaa Player Byond Key: Prospekt1559 Staff involved: Sound Scopes Reason for complaint: Gank Approximate Date/Time: ~10:10 AM UTC-05:00 The Rules Only escalate conflict in a realistic manner. Some characters might overreact, but you would not realistically go berserk or attempt to kill someone if they stole your prized pen, for instance. The primary goal of antagonists is to CONTRIBUTE TO OTHERS' ENJOYMENT. Be creative when coming up with objectives, and try to do things which will be fun for others, not only yourself. Only resort to killing if it makes sense. Randomly killing someone because you're a traitor will get you removed right quick. However, in certain situations, murder can serve as a tool, if none other applicable. If you're uncertain, ask for guidance via adminhelps. No ganking. While antags will sometimes kill, it is expected for you to provide interesting roleplay to your targets first, if your goal is assassination. Collateral damage is acceptable within reason, but this means you must use common sense, and avoiding creating scenarios with a lot of potential for collateral (setting bombs in high-traffic areas, etc.) The Story Fortuna tells Tina about things being drawn in the RD's office. Tina checks it out. Tina dislikes what she sees. Tina talks to Jeffrey about it. Jeffrey deflects the questions, gives excuses, and generally shuts Tina down about any hint of a cult existing or anything is happening besides him cutting himself and writing words. These are things he has been saying over the general radio, has told Tina over the command frequency, and said in Tina's face with Fortune nearby. Tina is disgusted, and expresses it. Tina wants to leave. Tina gets blinded by Jeffrey. Jeffrey proceeds to shoot Tina in the head four times. Why Jeffrey shoots Tina Tina has pointed out they are not simply drawings, but words. Jeffrey suspects Tina of suspecting he is in a cult. Why this breaks the rules Conflict was not escalated in a realistic manner. Resorted to killing when there was no purpose or higher goal. "She suspected me" is an excuse, as Fortune is present and is now eye witness not to just self harm and decorating the floor, but to murder. The purpose of murder under the guise of "She suspected me" should then, logically, be to eliminate witnesses that might hinder their progress so they may be free to do as they please. This is not the case as now instead of Tina walking away with a distaste and possible suspicion of his cult activity despite being completely shut down and given no room to peek into the world of the cult, Fortune is now an eye-witness to murder and makes Jeffrey public enemy number one and can no longer do as he pleases or anything at all that isn't try to get away from security. This is an excuse, not a reason. There was no purpose, there was no goal. [*]Gank The primary motivator of this complaint. Scound Scopes tells me that he did provide RP. To what extent? To the extent that I am completely blown off and shut down to anything antagonistic to the point where I just give up? Sure. It was short. Sweet. And lead nowhere. ADDENDUM: "She was suspicious" If Tina was suspicious, then so was everyone else because they were privy to the information Tina then had. Security would have learned nothing by letting Tina go. Security was already actively working against Jeffrey. Everyone in security is then a viable kill target. He did not take any opportunity against them. What this tells me as a player When someone suspects you of thing in any slightest way, it is okay to kill. EXAMPLE #1: Chaplain sees your rune. "I don't like thing. Thing is bad." It is now okay and completely within the rules to murder the chaplain even if he were say, doing a service in front of others in the chaplain. After all, he is suspicious. EXAMPLE #2: Someone sees you put a camo-projector or [insert overt antag item here]. It is now okay and completely within the rules to murder said person. Even in front of others. After all, he is suspicious. [*]It does not matter what RP happens between you and your target before you kill them. If it's RP, it's RP and they are now a viable target for murder. [*]Show no emotion or express a dislike to anyone or anything they do. If they happen to be an antagonist, expect to be murdered. How this affects the server It promotes powergaming, as everyone knows they're just going to do die otherwise. It promotes metagaming, as everyone knows that letting the antagonist know you're suspicious will lead to you getting murdered. It is better to not RP with the antag and stay alive to RP with someone else than RP something irrelevant with the antag and die. This does not mean Tina actually was suspicious, but that is irrelevant. We are assuming suspicion for the sake of rhetoric and rules. Frequently asked etc. etc. 1. But Tina! Do you expect a monologue before dying? Don't give me that shit, I play a character that RP's active combat scenarios as a non-antag as an antag. I don't expect more talking, I expect momentum; I expect relevant RP, and I expect logic in deciding to murder. This is the second instance of death I would consider gank. 2. But Tina! He DID talk to you beforehand! A total of less than a minute dialogue that showed nothing, hinted toward nothing, and has given me nothing to do after. Maybe go tell Security what he's already told people over comms or something they can observe themselves by taking a glance at the room he openly admitted to leaving in the medbay or his office. Entirely irrelevant bullshit that built zero momentum and ultimately left me with the IC decision of sitting in the medbay lobby again, and the OOC decision of trying to interact with other cultists to get in on that antag action. Great, so someone can point out that I'm holding the suspicious black and red toolbox. I tell them I brought it from home. I can now str8 murk them. Thanks. EDIT: Note that I invite anyone to come out and defend his decision, rather than Prospekt. I know he thinks what he did is fine. I want something done about it. I want my points refuted, and I want to be proven wrong. Most specifically, Sound Scopes. Do you think irrelevant RP proceeded by pointless murder is okay? I want these questions answered because if it's okay, as soon as the chaplain doesn't like thing then I know it's within the rules to get my homies, get some gats, and get in a lo-lo 'cause we finna ride up on the chapel to bust a cap in his ass. That's okay? That's RP?

BYOND Key: Tainavaa Player Byond Key: Prospekt1559 Staff involved: Sound Scopes Reason for complaint: Gank Approximate Date/Time: ~10:10 AM UTC-05:00 The Rules Only escalate conflict in a realistic manner. Some characters might overreact, but you would not realistically go berserk or attempt to kill someone if they stole your prized pen, for instance. The primary goal of antagonists is to CONTRIBUTE TO OTHERS' ENJOYMENT. Be creative when coming up with objectives, and try to do things which will be fun for others, not only yourself. Only resort to killing if it makes sense. Randomly killing someone because you're a traitor will get you removed right quick. However, in certain situations, murder can serve as a tool, if none other applicable. If you're uncertain, ask for guidance via adminhelps. No ganking. While antags will sometimes kill, it is expected for you to provide interesting roleplay to your targets first, if your goal is assassination. Collateral damage is acceptable within reason, but this means you must use common sense, and avoiding creating scenarios with a lot of potential for collateral (setting bombs in high-traffic areas, etc.) The Story Fortuna tells Tina about things being drawn in the RD's office. Tina checks it out. Tina dislikes what she sees. Tina talks to Jeffrey about it. Jeffrey deflects the questions, gives excuses, and generally shuts Tina down about any hint of a cult existing or anything is happening besides him cutting himself and writing words. These are things he has been saying over the general radio, has told Tina over the command frequency, and said in Tina's face with Fortune nearby. Tina is disgusted, and expresses it. Tina wants to leave. Tina gets blinded by Jeffrey. Jeffrey proceeds to shoot Tina in the head four times. Why Jeffrey shoots Tina Tina has pointed out they are not simply drawings, but words. Jeffrey suspects Tina of suspecting he is in a cult. Why this breaks the rules Conflict was not escalated in a realistic manner. Resorted to killing when there was no purpose or higher goal. "She suspected me" is an excuse, as Fortune is present and is now eye witness not to just self harm and decorating the floor, but to murder. The purpose of murder under the guise of "She suspected me" should then, logically, be to eliminate witnesses that might hinder their progress so they may be free to do as they please. This is not the case as now instead of Tina walking away with a distaste and possible suspicion of his cult activity despite being completely shut down and given no room to peek into the world of the cult, Fortune is now an eye-witness to murder and makes Jeffrey public enemy number one and can no longer do as he pleases or anything at all that isn't try to get away from security. This is an excuse, not a reason. There was no purpose, there was no goal. [*]Gank The primary motivator of this complaint. Scound Scopes tells me that he did provide RP. To what extent? To the extent that I am completely blown off and shut down to anything antagonistic to the point where I just give up? Sure. It was short. Sweet. And lead nowhere. ADDENDUM: "She was suspicious" If Tina was suspicious, then so was everyone else because they were privy to the information Tina then had. Security would have learned nothing by letting Tina go. Security was already actively working against Jeffrey. Everyone in security is then a viable kill target. He did not take any opportunity against them. What this tells me as a player When someone suspects you of thing in any slightest way, it is okay to kill. EXAMPLE #1: Chaplain sees your rune. "I don't like thing. Thing is bad." It is now okay and completely within the rules to murder the chaplain even if he were say, doing a service in front of others in the chaplain. After all, he is suspicious. EXAMPLE #2: Someone sees you put a camo-projector or [insert overt antag item here]. It is now okay and completely within the rules to murder said person. Even in front of others. After all, he is suspicious. [*]It does not matter what RP happens between you and your target before you kill them. If it's RP, it's RP and they are now a viable target for murder. [*]Show no emotion or express a dislike to anyone or anything they do. If they happen to be an antagonist, expect to be murdered. How this affects the server It promotes powergaming, as everyone knows they're just going to do die otherwise. It promotes metagaming, as everyone knows that letting the antagonist know you're suspicious will lead to you getting murdered. It is better to not RP with the antag and stay alive to RP with someone else than RP something irrelevant with the antag and die. This does not mean Tina actually was suspicious, but that is irrelevant. We are assuming suspicion for the sake of rhetoric and rules. Frequently asked etc. etc. 1. But Tina! Do you expect a monologue before dying? Don't give me that shit, I play a character that RP's active combat scenarios as a non-antag as an antag. I don't expect more talking, I expect momentum; I expect relevant RP, and I expect logic in deciding to murder. This is the second instance of death I would consider gank. 2. But Tina! He DID talk to you beforehand! A total of less than a minute dialogue that showed nothing, hinted toward nothing, and has given me nothing to do after. Maybe go tell Security what he's already told people over comms or something they can observe themselves by taking a glance at the room he openly admitted to leaving in the medbay or his office. Entirely irrelevant bullshit that built zero momentum and ultimately left me with the IC decision of sitting in the medbay lobby again, and the OOC decision of trying to interact with other cultists to get in on that antag action. Great, so someone can point out that I'm holding the suspicious black and red toolbox. I tell them I brought it from home. I can now str8 murk them. Thanks. EDIT: Note that I invite anyone to come out and defend his decision, rather than Prospekt. I know he thinks what he did is fine. I want something done about it. I want my points refuted, and I want to be proven wrong. Most specifically, Sound Scopes. Do you think irrelevant RP proceeded by pointless murder is okay? I want these questions answered because if it's okay, as soon as the chaplain doesn't like thing then I know it's within the rules to get my homies, get some gats, and get in a lo-lo 'cause we finna ride up on the chapel to bust a cap in his ass. That's okay? That's RP?

Hello. I've spoken to a neutral third about this, and got their opinion because I realized that you do raise a very strong argument. After a short discussion I found that I was in the wrong, and I had a lapse in judgment. So I support your unban.

Hello. I've spoken to a neutral third about this, and got their opinion because I realized that you do raise a very strong argument. After a short discussion I found that I was in the wrong, and I had a lapse in judgment. So I support your unban.

I learned that phrase a while ago and since then it's been been used for a wide variety of things. Hilarious for something so dramatic to be used for something so domestic, yes, but that's exactly why I use it. It's funny AND accurate. I don't see the issue with how it was worded. That's what happened.

I learned that phrase a while ago and since then it's been been used for a wide variety of things. Hilarious for something so dramatic to be used for something so domestic, yes, but that's exactly why I use it. It's funny AND accurate. I don't see the issue with how it was worded. That's what happened.

You're right, Frances. It doesn't. But what it does do is give me grounds to defend myself and I won't argue using disorganized thoughts, loosely related points, irrelevant information, talking in circles, and general spaghetti writing. I want to keep my points short, and I want to keep them simple. I am defending myself briefly, and concisely. I used objective facts and I stated them very straightforward. You'll find no personal attack in my messages; no mention or suggestion of the quality of his character or anything of the sort. Nothing personal about him. In doing so and shutting down everything I can, I am only doing what anyone should be doing; closing in, and destroying the enemy so to speak. And that's what I did. You might not like it, I'm very familiar with how you argue and discuss. That is not me. Do not go into philosophies and the like here, this is not the place for that. I have my philosophies, you have yours. My philosophies are very disciplinarian and straightforward. I don't know what yours are, I don't care; I'm not you, nor am I close to you. This is a very simple matter, with a very simply and short story. I've said all I can say on it. Awaiting admin decision.

You're right, Frances. It doesn't. But what it does do is give me grounds to defend myself and I won't argue using disorganized thoughts, loosely related points, irrelevant information, talking in circles, and general spaghetti writing. I want to keep my points short, and I want to keep them simple. I am defending myself briefly, and concisely. I used objective facts and I stated them very straightforward. You'll find no personal attack in my messages; no mention or suggestion of the quality of his character or anything of the sort. Nothing personal about him. In doing so and shutting down everything I can, I am only doing what anyone should be doing; closing in, and destroying the enemy so to speak. And that's what I did. You might not like it, I'm very familiar with how you argue and discuss. That is not me. Do not go into philosophies and the like here, this is not the place for that. I have my philosophies, you have yours. My philosophies are very disciplinarian and straightforward. I don't know what yours are, I don't care; I'm not you, nor am I close to you. This is a very simple matter, with a very simply and short story. I've said all I can say on it. Awaiting admin decision.