Tainavaa

Doesn't it already tell you that you remember nothing about your dark master or whatever when decultified? I'm pretty certain it does.

I'm still pushing for the lecture idea, Skull.

I'm telling you. Death by PowerPoint and lecture. Mandate it. It will be good training.

Except when you do get thrown in a cell. You're all equally scum once you enter my brig.

I wholeheartedly agree with Rusty here. If there are no guns for everyone, I will likely riot.

Gonna have to agree with Invy here. That's why I like playing warden. Everyone is just a prisoner until they're released from custody. You can't change people. You can only try and make them want to change.

It's going to keep happening unless we police behavior more heavily. But in doing that we will also be restricting people who legitimately have a reason for robusting. If it isn't actual restriction, then people look at those who have been reprimanded in some way that are in a similar (but not identical) situation and think "I don't want to get in trouble for this..." I've seen it several times and I have been guilty of that myself. And despite explaining to these particular players why their original decision would have been a perfectly sound one I'm met, in response, with "Yeah but just in case..." and it frustrated me to no end. Valid hunting, I've noticed, has become more prevalent since we've started laxing on behavior. Right about the same time people have been doing things much more actively that I personally wouldn't say was fitting for a heavy roleplay server. And with that, I can't help but think that if you give people an inch they will desperately grasp for a mile. Validhunting is an issue. But I don't think it's a particularly easy one to solve without inadvertently punishing people with roleplay in mind. Also, what EvilBrage said. Sometimes, people need to die.

LOGIN>@%#3∆7 PASSWORD>*********************** ACCESS LEVEL>OPERATOR NET ACCESS GRANTED

I feel like you completely missed the point of my message. I'll reiterate using statements only directly relevant to my point. I couldn't give a shit about space lesbians. What I do give a shit about is that you intentionally interrupted any sort of roleplay from people you don't like. This is not the thread for it, though. As a matter of fact, I will make a separate thread.

I haven't seen Lauren Blade on much since ... the accident... but I myself am not too sure what to think of Rivette/McGrath's quarrels. Personally I don't think it was nearly warranted the level of force that was used; I thought it was blown way out of proportion and had a higher profile than was ever necessary. However I do remember a certain bartender, Zubari Akenzua, inconspicuously moving from one part of the bar to another; just in sight of a certain pair of people having a conversation in a relatively remote part of the bar, where only a maximum of two other people saw - one of them being said bartender, and another being an engineer who for some reason showed a particular interest - and seemed to butt in at his earlier convenience to bitch about not wanting them in the bar and some rant about 'sssspace lesssbiansss'... I don't remember exactly. To my knowledge, Filfthyfrankster plays Zubari Akenzua, said bartender. A form of metagaming, perhaps? Should this be addressed in another complaint thread? Because I know a number of players who hate it when people run off into a dark corner of the station and completely isolate themselves from everyone else but this is something that only encourages it. However annoyed I was with your interruption, I thought I'd leave it alone but then I read the last paragraph of this complaint and only supports my original hypothesis in that you're just doing what you can to interrupt other peoples roleplay IC because you don't like thing.

That's one way of justifying it. I do believe there is no issue still. What issue remains is a personal issue regarding this thread specifically. Keinto thinks there's absolutely no justification and is only used for metagaming purposes. You're asking for reasons why people would to prove you wrong about your metagaming claim but here's the thing, Keinto. You don't know. You don't know that character's story. And that's what I like. People don't know unless they're involved. Just like in real life. I don't want anyone to explain their character's story in this thread because someone doesn't like thing. In order to make a claim for metagaming, the burden of evidence isn't on the accused, it's on the accuser. So unless there is clear evidence such as someone not naming themselves until they look at the crew manifest from the military PDA or such, I'd say it was just jumping to the worst conclusion because "I don't like thing".

Reporting Personnel: Tina Kaekel Rank of Reporting Personnel: Botanist Personnel Involved: Tina Kaekel, Botanist; Terrence Frank, Internal Affairs Agent; Szilvia Kalashnikova, Engineering Apprentice Time of Incident: ~1400 hrs Location of Incident: Hydroponics Nature of Incident: []Workplace Hazard []Accident/Injury []Destruction of Property []Neglect of Duty [X]Harassment []Assault [X]Misconduct []Other _____ (Place an x in the box that applies. If other, replace line and specify.) Overview of the Incident: Terrence Frank has been hounding me over the course of many shifts to interview me for an investigation. I have spoken with him several times, and has given me no real reason to force an interview upon me. Every time I speak to him he's making backhanded comments. He's explicitly told me that he doesn't think I should be on the station in front of Vira De Santos. Time and time again whenever I talk to him he's always trying to make himself a part of my personal life rather than actually solving any internal affairs issues. Attached is the complaint report I filed when I decided I've had it with his verbal assault. Did you report it to a Head of Staff or IAA? If so, who?: No Additional notes: I feel that Terrence Frank is extremely biased against me based on previous encounters with him in addition to this one. I believe he's intentionally trying to stir up trouble in my life in an attempt to provoke me.

Okay. I'm going to try and spell out the difference between your originally addressed complaint, and what Bokaza is bringing up again. I will also try my best to explain the similarities, and why they're irrelevant to each other in this specific thread. Right. Original supposed issue addressed People are using established characters names for nuke ops Said characters are boarding the station to fool others into a sense of comfort Said characters are abusing their trust Keinto sees this as metagaming for abusing their friends' trust to achieve their goals Keinto sees this as completely inconceivable from an IC perspective, and people would only abuse their friends trust from an OOC metagaming perspective, rather than these be the actual characters being played with their own motives and agendas Bokaza's supposed issue addressed (to my understanding) Characters are canonically operatives doing self-antaggy things Behavior like this is becoming accepted and is facilitated by doing nothing about it Bokaza and Keinto are concerned that canon antags will become prevalent How these issues are similar Both of these addresses are founded in established characters affiliated with antagonists Both of these addresses are founded on the idea that people are metagaming How these issues are different Keinto's address is founded in the idea people are only taking character names in nuclear emergency as a form of metagame to abuse character popularity Bokaza's address is founded in the idea that we are facilitating literal 'self-antags' on several levels One of these methods of facilitation is the metagamey behavior of people ignoring self-antagonistic actions and ideals How one address is irrelevant to the other in this particular thread Keinto's address deals with people choosing names during nuke ops Nuclear Emergency is a game mode that is 'self-enclosed canon' that is, has no relevance outside of the round once it is finished That is to say, it never happened. This does not mean that characters wouldn't have a reason to say "FUCK this station." Nuclear Emergency is not necessarily hostile ops... However it usually ends up being it, no matter the intention. That's a story for a different thread, though. [*]Bokaza's address deals with canon self-antags This includes extended, cult, traitor, nuclear emergency, wizard, mutiny, revolution, etc. That is, no matter the round, this person is an [insert antag role here] Why I am stripping OOC from Keinto's address To put it simply; OOC is only being taken into consideration with this address, disregarding IC entirely. Keinto is accusing those who use established characters are metagaming. Metagaming, by nature, is an OOC thing. The theory is, if you strip all OOC consideration when dealing with a metagaming accusation and you find that it would still reasonably be done; then chances are, it isn't metagaming. Additionally... Keinto's view on the situation might be fairly short-sighted Why? Keinto seems to deflect any notion that any established character might reasonably be a nuke op at some point, even non-canonically [*]Keinto might just have bad faith toward other players Why? Keinto does not seem to have considered the idea that maybe the players might just want to play their established character during that round Keinto does not seem to acknowledge that established characters made nukes might be done for RP purposes seems to have just jumped straight to "because I wanna win" Does that mean the two addresses are unrelated? No, they definitely have some correlation however conceptually they're at opposite ends of the spectrum. So why is it irrelevant to this thread? Because it's a different supposed issue. But you said they were related! Yes, and they definitely are related, however, Bokaza's address holds no relevance to Keinto's original complaint. But Keinto agrees! That doesn't mean it doesn't belong in a different thread. But why post it in a different thread if they're related and the OP agrees? Organizational reasons. This discussion is already becoming very scattered and disorganized. A lot of my points were just reiterations of what I've said before in previous posts; HOWEVER since the discussion is already very disorganized as is and it is very difficult to maintain as is and I have a feeling a LOT of what I've said before this post has gone out the window, I feel that it's best if I restated them. So basically... To keep the thread (and forums) organized. It makes it much easier to navigate and manage. Any questions?

You have the wrong idea entirely. The world isn't black and white, and what irks me a lot about a lot of people in this game is that they only deal in absolutes. In fact, what Keinto is talking about is an absolute. However I'm digging down to the very root of the supposed issue. It isn't an issue with the server. It is an issue with the player because "I DON'T LIKE THING." Basically, it's what I like to call, a personal problem. If people end up ignoring Carton's antaggy-actions in other rounds because of what he's done then that is metagaming on their part. Not Carton's. Deal with the problem at its root. The cause of the metagaming behavior (positive or negative) isn't that Carton is a semi-canon antag. The source is definitely not it because it doesn't stem from Carton's behaviors. It stems on the stigma and fear of being accused of meta/powergaming despite it being a logical course of action. You can consider me childish if you want. But, like anyone with a results-driven mind, I don't want to deal in bullshit. And the idea that Carton's actions are what causes their behavior is utter bullshit. The truth is that Carton's behavior has only served to accentuate their metagamey behaviors. Carton isn't the only example of this, and it isn't always to facilitate more antaggy behavior by the players. And I'll repeat that. Carton isn't the only example of this. Carton is not the first example of this. Ergo, Carton isn't the source of the problem. Ergo, neither Carton nor his player can be blamed. Is he a problem in another regard? Maybe, I don't know. I don't really care. But not in this regard and therefore, it is irrelevant to this conversation. With that, I stick by my claim. Strip the entire idea of anything OOC existing and you'll find that there is no issue, because it is a thing that will potentially happen and reasonably so. The whole thread is about the idea that using an established character is metagaming. Keinto is approaching it from a strictly OOC perspective. I'm taking away that OOC perspective. What you're doing is adding on unnecessary detail that is for the most part, irrelevant. To reinforce the idea of dealing with problems at the root rather than the surface, let me re-cap what I believe is Keinto's issue. People are using established characters names for nukes Said characters are boarding the station to fool others into a sense of comfort Said characters are abusing their trust Keinto sees this as metagaming for abusing their friends' trust to achieve their goals Keinto sees this as completely inconceivable from an IC perspective, and people would only abuse their friends trust from an OOC metagaming perspective, rather than these be the actual characters being played with their own motives and agendas If I'm wrong Keinto, then correct me. Otherwise, Bokaza, don't add what doesn't need to be added.

People would be counting on their popularity IC to get by to go on unnoticed. It isn't an OOC issue; in fact, it isn't an issue period. This is something that would be abused in real life. It is something that HAS been abused in real life in regards to politics of ancient societies and even things of a more domestic nature such as walking into work on a day that you're off and taking thing from someone else's desk unnoticed. It gives them an advantage. But it isn't metagaming. What you are literally asking everyone to do is to completely disregard the human psyche when playing, which has the potential to severely inhibit roleplaying possibilities. What is happening now, is an attempt at policing antag behavior. And Carton's situation being an officer during nuke rounds is entirely irrelevant to the topic at hand anyway. In fact, that is quite the opposite. With Carton being an officer during nuke rounds you can't do anything about it IC because nothing has happened IC to make you do it. However with a normal person being a nuke, there is plenty of IC reason to pretend it's a normal work day to accomplish your goals. It's something that would happen IC if you completely stripped any sort of OOC from the situation. You have to ask yourself. "In this situation, and given their goals and intents, and given the circumstances. Would this person rely on their popularity to get by?" My bet is, hell fucking yes they would. I sure as hell would.

She's a warden. It's a job. Her job is to manage prisoners, and to manage the brig. People have their own story and their motivations behind their characters. Anna has her own motivations and her own backstory, none of which is forced on anyone else and so very rarely gets shown but you automatically think she's a "PROTECT AND SERVE" overzealous officer. And this, I think, is an issue in itself because I don't throw my characters' stories out there to grab a spotlight or get attention. I let the stories unfold and those who are involved, are involved, and those who want to be involved will be involved. Those who are not involved, do not get involved and are very uninformed. I don't like the archetypes people fit others in and automatically expect others to assume. Everybody expects the Head of Security to be some super robust, ever-vigilant supersoldier that's ready to respond to anything at a moment's notice. Have people stopped to think that maybe this person has a life outside of work? Maybe there are things that aren't just thrown out to everyone? What if that head of security just got hired on because he was some normal forensic tech that got offered the job or had his application accepted because he seemed like he was fit for the position? What if that guy just wanted to get through the work day so he can go home to his wife and kids, or go to the bar with his buddies and drink and have a good time? You talk about Anna Lee, Warden as if you know the entirety of her character. But if I asked anything about her, I'm certain you wouldn't be able to tell me very much about her. But that's the thing, Keinto. You don't know. So yes, I am one of these people. And as one of these people, I fail to see the issue other than "I don't like thing" on several accounts.

Yes.

And you didn't even choke. Keinto, there are numerous ways for justification. When I play Anna as an op, she just happened to get a contract and is like, okay, fuck this station anyway. It's worthless. It's not canon outside of the round but it is for the duration of that round. Afterwards, literally nobody gives a fuck about it and it's completely forgotten. I don't see any real issue other than, as Delta said, "I don't like thing."

People come up with some interesting justification. Not to attack you, but are you saying this because you yourself have been fooled and felt personally offended from it? Or do you think there is just literally no justification? What you're proposing yourself is from a metagaming perspective. There have been peace ops that have come by and were legitimately peaceful operators with no intent to harm the station or crew yet they spawn with tactical jumpsuits and SMG's because that's how the round starts no matter what you have in mind.

Well, Keinto, if I were someone trying to infiltrate a station, I would probably abuse my familiarity and the trust as well. It isn't metagaming if that's something you might logically do. I've seen nukes infiltrate using some weird off-the-wall name and infiltrate successfully and blend in perfectly without being noticed. It isn't different when you use your established character. You're going to use the trust other people have in you to get what you want, one way or another. It isn't metagaming, if I were an operator in real life, I'd try and abuse the hell out of that. It only hurts worse when you realize you were just being used and that feeling of betrayal just makes more drama. It's great. So instead of taking off the mask and being like "IT'S MY BEST FRIEND? WHAT THE FUCK." it's seeing them disappear afterwards or in cuffs saying "I WAS BEING USED BY MY BEST FRIEND? WHAT THE FUCK." Much, much more interesting.

Dreamix, I've promoted a qualified Head of Security that happened to be an assistant that round to Head of Security before. The amount of booty bumbling literally could not be quantified by standard human measurement techniques. I don't think that would work at all due to people being, well, entitled. After seeing how they responded to that though, I wouldn't have promoted any damn one of them. It's like a highschool, I swear.

Which are, to my knowledge, normal names. So I maintain my counter-demand and say use normal names more. Which established characters (usually) fall under. Much, MUCH more interesting to take off that mask and find out "IT'S MY BEST FRIEND? WHAT THE FUCK."

I honestly don't know why more people don't use normal names for their ops. It's much, much more interesting to see 'who's behind the mask' to find out that xXx420n0sC0p3xXx is "Fuckface McGee" under the mask instead of seeing "The REAL criminal is.... *gasp*! xXx420n0sC0p3xXx?!?!" I never did like it when ops used their operator alias as their 'face'. So I will actively oppose this demand and say you should do it MORE. Stealth or not, it's just much more fun that way.

The military can do briefings and such outside because they designate an area that will not clog the hallways where people will get in the way of each other. No matter where the military does it, I can guarantee you it will not be in a hallway where everyone will step on eachother's toes. They will be told to gather in an organized area to be briefed.