Jump to content


Regular Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined


About Scheveningen

  • Rank
    Artificial Intelligence
  • Birthday 21/12/1996

Personal Information

  • Location
    getting wi-fi out of a cornfield

Linked Accounts

  • Byond CKey

Recent Profile Visitors

6,590 profile views
  1. As above, I'm against tasking admins/mods to have to deal with inconsequential issues. Mute LOOC if you're irritable, I do it all the time.
  2. Supporting. If this is part of your job unofficially atm, you should be signed on to make things easier to do officially.
  3. In essence: "To draw, show or exhibit a weapon to another person in a threatening or aggressive display." The details: A 'weapon' in this context is any dangerous tool that is designed to cause lethal or serious bodily harm - even tasers count . Mouse-guns are not weapons, and therefore cannot be brandished. It doesn't matter if a handgun or energy gun is unloaded or empty. Why?: Basically I'm really tired of seeing security officers draw their .45s and tasers when they do not have to - likewise I'm sure that everyone else that has to deal with security in this kind of situation is also rather tired of it, because without an explicit regulation to deal with this kind of behavior it's extremely hard to deal with it when the majority of our rounds where this regulation could be relevant would be non-canon. Same deal with cargonians openly brandishing self-made swords that they made and trying to be vigilante badasses instead of responsible weapon holders. Weapons are not really meant for taking the law into your own hands (yes, looking at you, security, this counts for you too), they're meant primarily for giving certain people the right to defend their own lives or the lives of others with deadly force. Yet I've seen many such cases where this doesn't happen and a firearm gets brandished and later set off because there's an anxiety connotation for when a deadly weapon gets drawn and someone gets threatened with it, and both parties freak out over it and someone gets hurt unnecessarily because this kind of behavior isn't regulated or necessarily given a punishment in the first place. Yes, this really is a situation that doesn't have flat out charges barring this kind of behavior. "Gross negligence" is far too vague and any head of security worth their salt still has to inevitably half-ass various other vague charges just to get issues like this tied up properly just to police their own department. "Contraband" would not easily count either because a weapon doesn't have to be legally owned to be brandished - security is the case example of who does this the most anyway, and there are plenty of code red cases where I allow emergency weapons to be made by the crew so long as they use them for self-defense and not aggression. But then how am I supposed to deal with them if there isn't an explicit charge to deal with the people who abuse the right I give them to have the means to protect their own life, or the lives of others? Therefore, implement this charge as an orange level offense, since brandishing a dangerous weapon is a rather different threat of bodily harm and can't necessarily be construed as assault either. This shouldn't be a yellow charge since regulation of weapons use is not a mild issue, it's pretty serious.
  4. Five would be fine. No more than that. Make sure crossfire ignores this rule and stays at 4-4 for each side, imo. I'd actually argue it's high time mercs and heisters both get their bases overhauled, but that may not be relevant to this thread.
  5. Flip side of this suggestion: If a bunch of people who ready up for security roles also have antag roles switched on, the entire security department is vacant while mercs/heisters get 5-6 heads to bash into the station.
  6. What's being planned specifically to trim the bloat back? I figure that enforcing an embargo for an indeterminate period of time while we already have some offensive loadout items in place won't exactly fix the problem, even if it does stop it from growing for now. There's also the issue of how in-game equipment lockers have spare alternative outfits which lead to issues with visual fidelity and being able to pick out a security/engineering/medical/science team member from a crowd easily. What's going to be the fate of those? I don't mind taking the middle road approach because it's a balance between two issues of 1. stealing the visual identity of other servers to incoherently mesh with our own and 2. still trying to make the game and its characters look good with a reasonable influx of content over time.
  7. It hurts to have to read over what was posted already in this thread, and equally hurts just as much for what I'm to post. The sentiments already posted here are on justified grounds, in my opinion. I don't personally think jade is unqualified for lore writing, but rather her qualifications as a staffmember are questionable from how she seems to treat people, from hot/warm/cold flashes of emotion to outright unpredictable outbursts towards people she disagrees with. Assuming whatever happened on Hestia did indeed happen, I'm sorry you had to go through with that. But I'm rather skeptical about your sudden change of heart about this server, considering how you seemed rather happy to get away from (and also harshly criticize) Aurora when you signed on with Hestia initially. And prior to that, I have recollection of past tensions between the two of us before we mended that divide and became better friends after having overcome our issues before. But then that didn't last, either, because I experienced a rather vile outburst by you not too long ago to the point where I had to rethink things. I don't think anyone can really get a read on you for the most part, I'm really skeptical as to whether anything you've posted here is actually what you think, because not a few months ago you had a very different opinion on things. You can contribute in other ways, jade, but I don't think stepping up to the plate of staff this soon is what's best for you or the rest of the lore team.
  8. This seems like a good idea. The various species (and department, arguably) discords fracture the community a bit too much which leads to activity issues when the smaller groups' numbers start to dwindle. This'll likely have the positive consequence of bringing lore-invested community members a bit closer together and away from their lore bubbles. People with different interests interacting with each other may lead to interesting discussions and much more interesting interaction in-game as a result of it.
  9. You and your character are both pretty interesting conversationally. I haven't quite seen how you fare under pressure as command but RD is not a particularly stressful role compared to the others - you don't really strike me as someone who cracks under pressure, though. You seem to be pretty interested on the OOC side of things contributing to the server's code development as well, which indicates that you're really attempting to commit. I'd say +1 on my end. I don't usually give feedback, I'm quite bad at it, frankly. If I think of anything else to bring up, I probably will, but as mentioned my impression of you + your character was pretty positive overall.
  10. I'd have to agree with Nienna's conclusion. An extended round may start somewhat unpopulated but it almost always fills with additional players as time goes on, just like any other game mode. As I've observed, though, there is still a population of folks that cryo when 1. they don't get antag 2. they don't see or hear of an antag within the first hour. Extended doesn't seem to hemorrhage players in the same fashion, since most who connect to an extended round choose to stay because it is extended.
  11. fake news, I never called Lupo a hoe, it was just sort of implied...
  12. I am not supportive of this. It is difficult enough to get an entire lobby convinced that extended is the desired game mode. Extended is often only voted when the majority of carry-over players have no intention of doing yet another antagonist round after a very chaotic and stressful round prior to that. If people want a different game mode, they have to vote a different thing to get their thing, as Coalf already mentioned.
  13. #serious_discussion could be a discussion channel, similar to how #general_discussion is meant for discussing literally anything under the sun barring a few inappropriate topics, the same deal can be attributed for the former case but with the caveat of being as serious in tone as possible, with all participants at least being expected to present their points seriously and honestly. At least in terms of how I think it'd work, ideally... But I think there'd be some divisiveness over a channel that would inevitably create stigma as yet another debate channel, except this time officiated as one. I'm not expecting the hypothetical #serious_discussion channel to be particularly political, but I feel it could recreate some of the same problems #political_thunderdome did in being incredibly coin-flippy in terms of who you may end up seeing discussing things there, what you may end up seeing discussed there, etc. Most people tend to shy away from conflict as well, and I am not entirely confident that #serious_discussion's uses would be entirely benign for the community in, say, a year from now and further on.
  14. Imagining atmos works a lot like that one crazy american pastor trying to blow away covid-19 with his breath is a very workable way to see how gas moves through pipes.

  • Create New...