Scheveningen

I will consider this resolved at this point. I'll give it 24 hours before I end up closing this report.

The ban reason outlined in the appeal does not accurately reflect the actual ban reason, verbatim, as to what an administrator issued to you last night. 2017-08-09 13:58:41 || incognitojesus || incognitojesus has banned rabbittabbit. - Reason: Self antagging on a consistent basis, breaking into areas and not roleplaying a believable character since no one in their right mind comes to work and decides to break into a chemistry lab to fuel their newfound oxy addiction. - This will be removed in 10080 minutes. According to the administrator that I spoke to briefly over this, you broke into the chemistry lab in order to make oxycodone for yourself. It was in doubt as to whether your character had skills to pull off the ability to mix oxycodone, which requires a few preliminary reagents in addition to liquidized phoron. But otherwise, characters are not expected to, as a standard, possess sudden addictions or reliance on strong painkillers at a moment's notice. It is not practical or believable for a character to suddenly summon a dependency on such things and then proceed to break and enter into a department as a result of a whim rather than natural character/roleplay progression. You also have a brief amount of notes pointing to this kind of consistent behavior and only just this Saturday did you have a weekban previously lifted. There's not really much I am willing to do here in terms of influencing staff member's decisions or opinions after the fact in this particular case, as I think the weekban is fair at this time. We do encourage you to read over the rules we have. https://aurorastation.org/rules.html

That was the intention of the short discussion we had with Sleepy before this complaint arose. Personally I've not had issues seeing Bloke Two after the changes. The only initial issue I had with Bloke Two was that their image merely personified the greytide archetype, and that their behavior almost delved into similar territory, and I brought this up with sleepy pre-emptively since I had a feeling that it could create issues for the future.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy It is not a faulty in logic to discredit a point you made, do not act like you did not just do it in your initial post by presenting your points in a belittling manner. It is a faulty sense of logic to assume that another person has a weak argument because they presented forward your own words in a way that you did not like. There is no reason why a HoS should be called Commander, a Head of Security is called the Head of Security as per the manifest. The current security culture is adjusted to act like cardboard cut-out milsim characters rather than fairly believable security characters who have their own goals, hopes and dreams that don't include adhering to an unnecessary degree of discipline that often devalues what makes a good character. Yes, they can. If they refuse to they can be arrested for failing to execute an order and neglect of duty, such as officers can if they refuse orders. You are implying the other heads of staff have no more powerful over their department and the staff in it than the head of security is, and that is incorrect. That aside, I don't appreciate your rudeness.

This is a commander. Head of security, left. Note the difference? Why don't we call the Research Director a Research Commander, if they command the research department? Why don't we call the CMO a Medical Commander, if they command Medical? How about Personnel Commander, or Engineer Commander? I like the ring of Captain Commander better, that sounds hilariously respectful and someone should make it their gimmick just to call every head of staff a variation of "Commander" to piss people off. Internal Affairs Commander, no longer shall they be disenfranchised for wielding pen and paper to resolve the clerical oversights of the station, for they are reborn anew with purpose. I could go on but snark is only funny to read the first time. Attaching these arbitrary and also incorrect labels that are non-specific and vague do no credit to the head of security being called that. It is improper terminology, disrespectful and unappreciative to what the Head of Security does. Image is a lot, people say it's meaningless but it is quite the opposite. The post was to ensure people understand that the term is incorrect and that they should not use it to refer to the head of security. It is a terrible habit that Baystation up and produced one day and made it a terrible habit. I'm not threatening anyone, as that'd be unprofessional. "Commander" is simply not the way to refer to the head of security.

While I hate flipping complaints from the original focus, I'm mostly going to outline why I think the complaint is not really valid in the course of attempting to pursue OOC change beyond what was already done. 1.) The OP has a reputation for sending adminhelps and reports that "cry wolf", to explain the idiom, the OP has effectively not been able to step back and view the larger picture of something they take issue with, and approach it as objectively, unbiased and hopefully avoiding using emotionally charged language to challenge the issue. 2.) The OP has been told almost countless times to stop complaining in deadchat over what could be considered OOC issues and actually present them in a productive format such as on the forums. 3.) The OP has also been witnessed DMing staff members over the singular issue of Bloke Two and generally just complaining unerringly about it. The OP seemingly has not relented in this case and I am just out of patience when it comes to dealing with someone who just seems to be hell-bent on doing nothing other than focusing on this issue alone with such a massive amount of emotionally-charged investment. Any meme-like activity from Bloke Two has been curbed and Sleepy has been issued a "would you kindly" to better roleplay their new IPC character as a serious character concept rather than an unserious character archetype. In time such concerns may be dismissed over whether Bloke Two is still a meme character. But taking into consideration any other complaints on the same subject but on different facets of Bloke Two, I'm taking with a minuscule molecule of sodium when it is coming from the OP, because it has proven very difficult to trust testimony from Reyntime due to the issues I outlined above.

So that you can at least aim a gun at someone who isn't in the middle of radioing a message and end up shooting them for what seems like no reason? It is up to the player to discern what their intent is on the spot, it should be default to the lowest possible degree of force necessary, which is aiming a weapon at someone.

They should set that in their hostage intent HUD parts then if they intend to do so.

Currently aim intent works to do the following things: a.) Acts as a very generous aim assist. Not only has +10% to-hit ratio for those being targeted, but burst-fire weapons uncharacteristically act in a way that follows the position of the person being targeted for each shot, otherwise giving those with automatic weapons a larger edge than those who are firing normally with semi-automatic weapons. Only way to break being targeted down like this is by breaking line of sight. In which case, you are being shot already and you suffer immense slowdown from taking the first shot. b.) Each shot triggers on movement or interaction when aim permissions are default, which causes other issues when legitimately hostage taking, such as shooting too early when someone changes their face direction, chats normally or interacts with their inventory. Is effectively extremely punishing and favors the shooter. c.) Does not favor skill with shooting and properly leading with your shots, trivializing the purpose of learning how gunplay works in-game and putting it into practice, instead shoehorning the necessity for dexterity by putting everything you could want from gunplay into a single mechanic that requires zero effort to be successful with in ranged combat. Here's what should be done to remedy this: 1.) Upon one of the permissions for movement being violated for someone being targeted, the targeter will take one reflex shot and then will not be able to take aim again if the target moves for another three seconds, and their aim will be dropped and defaulted to free-shooting intent. This allows proper gunplay to take place if both subjects happen to be armed and not completely snowball advantage in favor of the person using the target intent, while also permitting the person being shot to react and fight back instead of being hopelessly rolled over by an overpowered mechanic that often is not even used for the purpose of hostage-taking but rather to use it as an aimbot to win gunfights effortlessly. 2.) Remove the to-hit bonus from targeting. The bonus makes no sense, gunplay is more interesting when missed shots happen. Missing rarely happens when someone is being targeted. 3.) Default all permissions to allow most forms of movement except running (sprinting) away. Anything else can be adjusted from their defaults rather than having everyone have an extremely itchy trigger finger by default. This immediately solves the issue with hostage taking while not completely screwing the chances of a hostage, allowing them to perhaps escape if they have an out. I consider this a high priority issue considering how the current state of the aim intent screws over combat, making gunfights way less interesting because of how it throws favorability in confrontations to the guy with a laser rifle abusing aim intent in order to straight up win conflicts without the need for skilled aiming. It seriously destroys a sense of immersion to make humanoids walking aimbots just because of this feature.

I already asked sleepy to reconsider changing Bloke Two's appearance from typical greytide to something less offensive to the ruleset. Any concerns relating to that are null considering I brought this up to him and other staff members before this complaint was put up.

Re #1: I tend to see head of security as it's seen in the second series of Deus Ex with Adam Jensen, wherein Jensen himself is a head of security at Sarif Industries. If you talk with the SI Security NPC employees you can kind of see how slightly laid back some of the beat patrol guards are yet still respectful and professional in front of their boss, using simple terms such as "chief," "boss", et cetera. Despite that the entire background of Deus Ex is pretty ridiculous to begin with as it's dark conspiratorial cyberpunk, There are some parallels that can be drawn a bit evenly between SISD and NTISD. At least in terms of how slightly laid back I think it *should* be. That aside, I don't like particularly like the stigma that the HoS is equated to a police commander. It's not quite close, as the relationship between the HoS and the crew really varies based on who is the HoS, and the HoS is largely an operating figure of the company's interests. I've been called upon to do kidnappings before as the HoS even if it wasn't strictly legal yet also not illegal, if it was ordered by CCIAA, I'd grab the tranq rifle, sneak around maintenance and use my laptop to track down a specific someone through suit sensors, then nab them and tag them. Very Deus Ex-ish. Anyway, dunno. Security seems both a far cry away from police work and even military work given the corporate element. It's a thematic of its own accord rather than of another.

Loh has offered solutions. /mob/living/carbon/human/say(things) . = ..() if (findtext(things, "commander")) gib() If we want to discriminate: /mob/living/carbon/human/say(things) . = ..() if (findtext(things, "commander") && (job in list("Security Officer", "Detective", "Warden"))) gib()

No. I sentence you to burn in heck.

This is such a stupid stigma that I hate with a burning passion and it is time I spoke out against it. 1.) The head of security is not a military officer. The head of security is the foremost dignitary and authority in relation to handling things that resemble protecting the company agenda, company assets and company personnel. In that particular order, generally. The head of security, however, is still a civilian such as the captain is. Such as "Captain" is merely only a title (with considerable distinction, however), as is "Head of Security." If your character has any respect for actual military, however, they will refrain from referring to the head of security as a misnomer title that does not accurately represent what the head of security actually does. A naval commander has much differing responsibilities than what a chief of security does in the military. Often the CoS in the navy may be a mid-grade officer, and thus may be called Commander on occasion, but this is not the corporate fleet, this is the Internal Security Division, not part of the NT Fleet Security Force. FSF is far beyond ISD as well, your character sounds not only uneducated and ignorant when they call a ISD HoS "Commander" but they are also being disrespectful to the rank held by those in the FSF and other actual naval forces. You would get seriously NJPed for failing to respect the rank by being unaware of such things and referring to a superior's rank incorrectly in the actual military. That is something you can and will be sentenced to scrub toilets for a week for. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander_(United_States) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander_(Royal_Navy) <-- More apt equivalent since even the Bay Naval ranks are for some reason based on the Royal Navy. 2.) The security department stigma will never resemble anything close to a military force. Stop trying. The Internal Security Division may not pay amazingly, but it has different responsibilities than what MPs would do. ISD has more of an overarching duty to protect things belonging to NanoTrasen in terms of intrinsic property of right of contract. Security officers should take their job seriously, yes, and hold themselves to a high standard as people expect them to be, but do not mistake them as anything close to military. I don't care if your security officer is a military veteran. Your character is trained specifically to conduct themselves in a manner resembling civilian private security. Previous military experience is not erased by being a security officer, true, and they can put combat experience into practice for certain situations, but it is highly unlikely that NT would give someone an immediate pass if they weren't sure that a candidate that was mentally or socially stable to be a protector of people and company assets. If you don't pass employment requirements, YOU DON'T GET THE JOB. Best case scenario, you're a security guard on private property. Worst case scenario, you are a corporate thug if the situation calls for you to be one. Sometimes the job is more important than upholding a personal sense of ethics and morals, but unlike the military this is not strictly enforced to the point where you can be executed for treason on the field for refusing an order. Granted, I'm being funny here as that's a violation of the Geneva Convention, no thanks to the Russians and Germans. 3.) There is a huge difference between a security guard and a military grunt/officer. That aside, less than 10% of military veterans actually see combat modern-day. That number would not change much RPly as there has not been a major war since before 2300 during the First Interstellar War. Nobody RPly is alive to see that, not even the Skrell who were not discovered yet. Piracy is an issue on the frontier yes but the Alliance and Ceti Republic do not mount huge campaigns against it. In addition, the stigma between what a military veteran would learn versus what a security guard would learn through years of employment are two almost giant things. The military learns how to eliminate the enemy for God, King and Country and how best to also survive so they can continue doing so. Security protects the security interests of the corporation, as well as their business interests or personal ones if they actually arise. A combat vet is gonna need to go through a ton of courses that everyone else does to adjust well to internal security, but it's variably harder because such courses do not drill security candidates as hard as military grunts are straight into boot camp. Many concepts will be missed when attempting to be taught, because of the raw conditioning military vets went through. This is largely one of the main reasons why they're actually pretty hard to adjust back into society nowadays in terms of combat veterans. 4. You sound pompous and actually not-smart calling the HoS that. Just because you think calling a HoS a "hoss" is unprofessional doesn't mean calling them commander makes it any better. It is actually less cultured and informed to call them that because you have actually no idea who or what you're talking about when you call them that. It is a misuse of the title and the station. It is poor use of available language, and internal security is meant to be more relaxed on purpose, it is a civilian job first and foremost. Nobody is stopping you from making a military vet security, but expect to be called ridiculous for calling the HoS that. This is covered earlier anyway but I still need to reiterate this. 5.) 'Chief', 'security chief', 'HoS', 'Security head', or even 'Head of security' still all work out well. If you can't take the time to type out 'head of security' I don't get how you're able to call them "commander." It is a convoluted and also absolutely incorrect title. It is lazy to not type out their actual job title or equivalent. "Commander" relates to security in an ABSOLUTELY ZIP capacity. If you're a security officer you can even call them "Boss" for that cool Metal Gear Solid soft-reference. Do that. Anything but Commander, please. It is so stupid that people are still falling for this meme. If the Head of Security was meant to be called Commander we would have code change for that by now. Stop this trend, "security chief" sounds way better than """"commander"""". Burn in heck if you don't change your ways smh

Bumping this for visibility. I cannot stress enough how important it is to follow the points laid out in the OP when playing as a head of staff, they function as a basis for how most heads of staff would be trained and it's a great mindset to adapt to. If your subordinates are not listening to you, 80% of the time it is 100% a problem with the leader not being effective enough.

If anything that snippet is more reason than anything else to appeal it. If I were in your position, I mean, I am not, so maybe I don't know anything. I admit I got a little emotional in saying that but I did mean what I said, even though your attitude was an issue, you weren't that bad of a guy and I probably should've seen that. I do urge you to try and appeal. Brightdawn's not coming back again after what they tried to pull last time.

That sucks. I imagine refactoring them isn't high priority either, even for a meme tool. You can close this then if it's not that fathomable for the foreseeable future.

Someone mentioned we should do an XCOM-ish event in the near future and I had the hilarious realization that snake people would be great for this specific niche. Do it do it do it.

We need slightly conservative girly clothing that doesn't necessarily constitute as anything close to a dress but is still casual enough for a civilian to wear and still look nice. like this https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/39/Boho_Chic_Cocoa_Blouse.jpg or that http://modablusas.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Blusas-camel-2015-2.jpg wow much tasteful fashion. The more coloration variants the better. I only sprite guns and tools, don't look at me, I'm bad at spriting clothes.

Makes more sense, in my opinion. There's not a lot of synergy between revolutionaries and cultists, if you're a rev-cultist your priorities are to Nar'sie first and foremost. Which ends up just being a large-scale cult round and not an actual revolution.

I didn't mean to seem hostile with saying the whole "learn to code and do it yourself" thing, but coding things and ensuring the idea implemented doesn't suck to begin with... is not necessarily a very easy thing to do, otherwise genetics would've been dealt with an issue awhile ago. It's just a very frank way of putting it, because unless you can coerce a coder with free time to help you work out how to do such a thing, it's nothing that anyone wants to work on right now. I can't say I speak for the dev team but I'm sure they all got their hands full doing stuff.

It's just pizza. Yes, it is a lot of pizza. But it's just pizza. Limit it to one box per purchase, fine. It's not really a complex issue beyond that, though, no need to make it something that it isn't.

if someone else can magically conjure up knowledge on how to use DM and they have a desire to do some change to bring back genetics so that it isn't wholly just a grief subdepartment, and it is an interesting system that can be used for roleplay reasons and thus taken seriously as a result, then go ahead and do it. Presenting solutions that none of the devs currently have as a priority will unsurprisingly go unheard and put on the backburner. Genetics won't be coming back until significant change is done to it. Being an Iᴅᴇᴀs guy isn't necessarily productive if it requires a lot of work for one or two devs to be doing when they already have a full plate of bugs to fix, features to implement and projects to plan out for the coming months. If you want genetics back with your own solution, learn how to code and present PRs with your own work on how to fix genetics and make it great again.

I didn't vote for this head admin but if I did I would've voted twice.

"Abrasive" is not how I would put it, especially considering how I, and a few others, took the time to respond to you point-by-point and you seem content to dismiss them by claiming their sole arguments are "why does it matter" and "tl;dr". Then you just say this entire endeavor of facilitating a conversation was pointless, without attempting to engage anyone else in this thread after a fair deal of people invest variable amounts of time to actually reply to you. Alright, sure. Make your own impressions at this point, no one will change your outlook on things, right or wrong. Hope your next thread goes better next time.