Scheveningen

BYOND Key: Scheveningen Staff BYOND Key: NanakoAC, Coder Game ID: Inapplicable. Reason for complaint: Juvenile belligerence as a member of the development team, extreme social incompetence and behavior unfitting of the image of a staff member, a completely uncooperative, self-serving and nonconstructive attitude as a member of the dev staff team as a whole, forum/in-game/discord/github pettiness displayed through swathes of paragraphs of unsubstantiated unrelated crap in addition to consistent injections of unnecessary, unrelated political crap into concurrent server development issues at-large, I could go on but I'd be stretching even a paragraph long. There are many things that are wrong with Nanako being invested with the power as a dev staff member than there is anything right with them being on staff, they are a very unpleasant individual to deal with and that would be grossly undercutting the issue here. Evidence/logs/etc: This argument created by Nanako is a fucking amazing example of everything I will bring up here, fair chunk of notes that can also be gleaned from the account of the individual, in addition to past behavior on discord, forums, server, any medium they've come into contact with. Additional remarks: This is going to be prefaced with the fact that this is going to be a lengthy post in spite of any possible efforts I will make in keeping things brief. I am not proud of having to post this. Rule number one: Don't be a dick, especially to the people who you work in tandem with as a team, with very little exception to this rule. Awhile ago when I took my hiatus I learned this rule and would later apply it to be an established credo of utmost importance over any other priority in a work setting. Whether for money or no, there is effectively no reason to ever purposefully undermine other members of the team you work with. This diminishes the value of the work that the team as a whole is doing, greatly impacts the overall morale of the team and their desire to keep working, and overall makes a job that people come to do and make people enjoy the fruits of their labor, into a nigh-unbearable chore that people have to be persuaded to do any work for, just because there's someone who will undermine the character and humanity of almost each and every member on the team. Coding is already tedious work, especially for the spaghetti code folks have to work with. It should not have to be made even worse because of constant server politics and that other associated BS. This is especially applicable to Nanako. It is one thing to have an argument with another person. It is okay to disagree. Not all people will get along 100% of the time. Disagreement among other individuals is healthy in most cases, but the issue with Nanako is that she never ceases to be a 0% agreeable person. She will go out of their way to execute one form or another of verbal OOC conflict with not just other players over menial issues and commit many logical errors in judgement when it comes to argumentation. They pull sweeping generalizations and thinly veiled ad hominems from a sleeve and weaponize it in order to push a personal agenda in the server's development that often drives in the complete opposite direction in which either the development staff or the community at large want to go. This is absolutely not someone that should be trusted with development staff permissions on-server, or any say on what direction development should be going in. I am invested within the belief that Nanako was definitely a solid choice as a coder back in the day prior to their uplifting into dev staff. They developed meaningful changes and used to be pleasant in their dealings with other community members. It was otherwise fun to engage with them OOCly and nobody needed to argue about what the intention of certain changes was about. They were a good choice especially since we were rather low on supply in terms of devs. That probably hasn't changed a ton since then but the difference is still considerable than from back then. As to now, I am still baffled as to the person that Nanako has developed into and have wondered constantly what exactly went wrong that made their attitude skew from being such a decent, likable person (with mild controversy about their characters but this detail matters little as it was months ago), into a form of character that is spiteful, antagonizing, arrogant and virulent to deal with. But I would not focus any attention on what caused that. Because it is clear that the only instrument of individual change of any person is the very person themselves. I will attribute to unfortunate happenstance before malice first, though. This does not mean Nanako should be treated like the victim she thinks she is. She must be held responsible once and for all. A slap on the wrist would not be proper justice for the vitriolic, vile and utterly reprehensible behavior that comes from them. I am fairly certain they've been warned more than one, twice, or three times in relation to their terrible behavior as to the past 4 months minus one month of technical issue hiatus. Lemme add another point. There was a present risk I would fail during my two month trial as a moderator. For my one chance that I was given to prove folks wrong and that I'd make at least a decent moderator, even with more than a fair few of folks who thought I'd fail, I chugged through and made it, having made a mistake or a few along the way, one notable one that comes to mind I have atoned for and have adopted to memory to never repeat. I was effectively put on a tighter leash than other moderator candidates because, as I will admit, my past behavior was just as reprehensible, toxic and unhealthy for the server if not worse. I forced upon myself that hiatus and I did my damnedest to go out and learn a thing or two about treating others like human beings in a couple months time. Regardless. If I or anyone else had treated any person like they were subhuman garbage like Nanako has displayed in their interactions with other community members, we would be gone from the staff roster forever and shamed for it. Such an early precedent may or may not exist. I will not invoke any more names. It is not fair for anyone who has put up with the bullshit of Nanako to continue putting up with them for all this time they've been like this. I do feel like some of the staff have not motioned to remove this person from any stature of responsibility because it's become a font of amusement for the lot of us that enjoy petty drama from people who supply a great degree of endless entertainment, as part of the old time tradition for staff to "bait the dummy until they go beserk". That game is a dangerous one to play especially if the other person being used for it actually intends to stay and hold back the worst of their words. It is a mistake I will admit in having previously antagonized Nanako for their own antagonism and pettiness in the past. Even without my own meddling Nanako still finds ways to pick fights with others on their own and they actually get even snippier than if I stepped in to poke fun at them. I would have no problem with Nanako being able to submit pull requests and have player-submitted opinions on certain development suggestions, but I do not believe Nanako is either deserving enough or responsible enough to continue holding their position as a member of the Aurorastation staff. If I had it my way I'd boot them from the dev team, tell them to screw their head on tight, permit them to stick around as a player, submit suggestion threats and have their own personal PRs set-up to be approved on the basis of whether the rest of the dev team finds the changes appropriate for merging. I am not that person, but I still believe that would be a better case-scenario than blanket banning them from the server in addition to stripping their rank and disgracing them. I think for the sake of Nanako, however, they should be subjected to a degree of humility and brought down a peg or two to remind them that they are not so above the folks they tend to shame and ridicule on a regular basis.

The pasture is on the surface level floor.

Accusations of bias require proof that I'm pushing an agenda serverside that isn't the agenda that a staff member should be following. It is not inherent bias when I actually choose to do my job, versus situations where it is not necessary to intervene. I didn't sign up to be complacent and permit people to do things all willy-nilly, but I also did not sign up to wantonly lecture every single person on how things should be roleplayed, because that would break continuity and fluidity of both gameplay and roleplay. Either way: A sensible standard of a roleplay atmosphere must be maintained as per the rules. If it is not followed, the person responsible for their lapse in judgement should not be surprised if they end up disciplined or warned as a result of the issue. Likewise, if someone decides to take matters into their own hands ICly after reporting something OOC, they should expect to see IC consequences rather than OOC ones. It is absurd to assume of us that we will step in to scold people who have done you wrong from a roleplay perspective. You are not obligated to have scenarios where the staff help you "win" or "gain an edge" over other characters in-game. We will not supply that, that would be a mistake.

Surely no sillier than APCs exploding for no real reason.

Voidsuit slowdown should be increased and it should take about as much time as it takes to initialize a hardsuit to put a voidsuit on.

I should stress the last point he made. We cannot take action against people breaking the rules or acting aggressively in order to protect their clique ICly. It's not Uwasv's fault that these people are acting this way. If they cross the line of decency that we expect non-antagonists to avoid toelining, you should say something. There is no shame in wanting roleplay quality to be better. Since Jackboot posted his resolution I'll assume it's fine to close this. Complaint resolved.

Alright, I believe you. The ban has been lifted. 2 tips, if you would please. 1.) Please do not blow up on us for a mistake I made. 2.) Please do not harass me or other users over the BYOND pager over your appeal. We will get around to it whenever possible, within 24 hours of a response.

The admin who froze you and myself both made the concerted effort to try and message you. We could not message you, and that was because you were logged out of the client. There is next to no reason other than that, as to why we couldn't message you. You went unconscious because an admin froze you for priming three of the pepperspray grenades on the shuttle. It wasn't the brain damage, I promise you.

Please use the format: https://forums.aurorastation.org/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=15 You threw about two or three pepperspray grenades onto the emergency shuttle at the end of the round. As soon as you were OOC-paralyzed/slept by another admin for doing so, you logged off immediately. As per our rules on EOR conflict, it states: Regarding End of Round Grief: ◦Attacking people on Central Command, the escape shuttle, the escape pods, or the escape pod ship, without legitimate roleplay and IC reason is not allowed. If you have questions about this clause, please contact a member of staff via adminhelp! ◦Security is allowed to conduct legitimate arrests during End of Round procedures. This includes performing arrests on the escape shuttle. ◦Conflict is permitted to continue elsewhere on the station, and in the escape-arm/shuttle if there's prior roleplay involved. ◦If at the end of round a member of staff requests that all attacks be stopped, please do so. Our goal at the end of each round is to tidy up any staff business as soon as possible, so the round may restart, and being flooded with attack-logs will make this more difficult, thus creating longer delays. In the case of throwing grenades onto the shuttle, you overstepped your bounds quite. There was no good reason (not even insanity at this point) to be throwing pepperspray grenades onto the shuttle at the end of the round. It is quite literally griefy as pepperspray is incredibly painful to characters that get caught in the cloud and it's really not a good way to be approaching conflict. It might've been mildly escalated but no one knew of your plans to pepperspray gas bomb the emergency shuttle. If it wasn't done on the shuttle it would've been dealt with perhaps ICly, but the shuttle is generally off-limits for an antagonist and especially so for a non-antagonist, even if you have a concussion it's probably a bigger lapse in judgement than what a concussion could bring if you just gas bomb the shuttle and make your co-workers suffer. You logged off immediately after you got winded by another admin which led us to assume you did that for malicious reasons. I'm willing to lift the ban early if you can recite exactly what you did wrong here, though.

Yes, but you'd be a criminal at that point forward, with no chance of going back without retconning the story development significantly. Do note outside antagonists have no records to speak of. So once they board the station you're unrecognizable except by maybe a few characters that knew yours before. If that was made canon. I suppose. It's a bit of a grey area. You sort of can. It really depends, but we have some of the rules to avoid people jumping to immediate conclusions about antagonists and otherwise ruining potential gimmicks or etc.

Locking, etc etc.

Replacing it with Tramadol is fine. It goes against the core values and effectively speaking the laws of a cyborg to be sedating people because it does constitute as a form of harm to forcibly put someone to sleep. No good reason to give a borg soporific anyway.

this is a lot of circular discussion over nerfing robot hyposprays, never knew such a topic could be so controversial.

I should note they were already AI banned. They were not banned from anything as a result of this complaint.

Complaint resolved upon being able to work out terms for Hunnewle to follow. Exact terms being laid out: . Effectively, he has been warned as a resolution of this complaint. He will likely not get another if worse comes to pass. He has agreed to these terms and he effectively has a final chance to prove himself, and if the terms are broken and the same behavior as a synthetic continues that led to his AI ban (note, not borg ban). If I'm able to get on later I'll attach a warning to his account. If things go without incident, the warning will wear off in due time and the issue will cease to be relevant. If behavior and roleplay as a station-bound unit improves, it is certainly possible the AI ban can be successfully appealed. Hunnewle has been recommended to mind their position as a synthetic and to remain humble OOCly and ICly, in doing so prevents frustrating situations with synthetic units disobeying orders when they shouldn't really be doing so. It's important for borgs/androids/robots to obey their laws and obey commands from heads of staff when it is sensible, and only to disobey an order when there is a clear law conflict. Objectivity is important for borg roleplay, it is a defining attribute of playing one. The complaint will be marked as resolved tomorrow and moved to the archive unless someone else has anything else to put forward that would convince me to push further than the current resolution that has been come up with. Which is unlikely.

well i didn't vote for him, its totally not my fault i let globalists rule the fake universe. #notmytaucetipresident #scorndorn

There's something wrong with a game mode when it inevitably causes the round to end with an emergency shuttle rather abruptly before two hours even hits the mark rather than permitting the entire server to at least pitch a vote on whether they want to reboot the server. Crossfire is effectively only a few steps away from calamity in terms of expected station destruction. Consider: Mercenaries get three near-max-yield explosives roundstart as well as access to a plethora of equally deadly weapons whose sole purpose is to take people out of the round. Ditto with heisters, except they can be Vox with ammo-regenerating spike cannons or have access to broadswords that decapitate in barely a few swings, high-power guns such as mind flayers that kill people instantly in a few shots through armor due to interactions with brain damage, a guaranteed stealth suit that never breaks stealth in combat, a guaranteed sniper rifle to spawn in the skipjack, and other such tools that only exist Wanting to mix the two most potentially action-intensive game modes into one results in the obvious: pointless death and wanton destruction. Even cult and vampire on their own have better opportunities for victims of antagonism. Pure action does not guarantee roleplay. And it rarely ever delivers on that mark, the only exceptions being when either the entire mercenary team happens to have a solid gimmick and decent players in those roles on interacting with the entirety of the station without sweeping it with fully automatic weapons. Not exactly worth gambling on since the antagonist drafting system doesn't pick the best people for the role. Especially with the new map being tested, you have a greater guarantee of half your team falling into holes because none of them knew how to play with the hazards of the new map. Reread my post. There was no vote on this to be implemented in the first place. This is a big change to be making in terms of game mode lineup and the feedback stage was bypassed in order to add flex game modes. Correct me if I'm wrong, skull, but it is probably better practice to be seeking feedback on bigger stuff like this from the community to see if they actually want it before deciding to merge it. Bugfixes, QOL changes and other small !fun! additions doesn't mandate its own forum post, but adding crisscross game modes is not exactly an insignificant change to be making. People will vote for crossfire because it's a significantly higher chance of getting put on either antagonist team contrasting with mercenary. 5 people get put on each team, out of the 25 required. That's 10 out of 25. 40% solid chance. Compare with mercenary by itself, which varies depending on existing server pop, at least 3 at most 5. That is up to a 33% chance during a mercenary round if we're assuming the people who ready up are the exact amount needed. Regardless, there's still a 7% margin which is much more significant in terms of weighing chance. That's pretty amazing. It doesn't, though, because if it was wizard and cult combined in conflux you already know there will be a wizard and a cult in that round. It is not a random roll thing and people will more proactively take borderline actions to account for both. A round is not fun when you don't have to make substantiated guesses on what the round type is and who the bad guy is. With wizards, it's more blatantly obvious, and with cultists, not so much until they decide to act characteristically suspicious in the form of a cultist. Secret antagonists still have the element of surprise ranging from as soon as they spoil it 10 minutes in to an extremely long time where they keep on their toes and avoid making critical mistakes. This is more of a boon to the antagonist than it is to the crew, but normal players generally are more able to ease into doing their jobs rather than focusing on chasing an antagonist up until that starts to be a relevant course of action. Ideally if you wanted to crush most chances of passive metagaming we'd only permit voting for secret or extended (assuming we exclude extended from ever being in the secret rotation), and we'd roll every game-mode including cross-fire (bleh) into the rotation, slightly under the other game modes simply because it'd be fair.

The purpose of the secret game mode is to prevent conscious or subconscious metagame about what to expect from the gamemode in taking place. If it is a secret no one knows, people will be surprised as soon as they encounter the antagonist, certainly moreso than if it was voted specific game modes in particular. This goes against the spirit of fluid and organic roleplay when everyone on the server can easily type Check-Round-Info and immediately judge whether or not they should join the round. The combined game modes exacerbate this problem, as very few people want to join halfway into a round of a Malf+traitor+ling round. If the combined game modes are to be kept, they had best be rolled into secret weighted below the other game modes due to their frequency in causing rounds to close out before two hours due to the wanton destruction that takes place. They would be better off actually being removed altogether especially since nobody voted to have this, whether it's for experimental purposes or not this kind of change should've been reviewed with the community first.

Closing upon request.

.

Merging multiple antagonist types into singular game modes was definitely a mistake in its making. Combining gamemodes such as Conflux, Crossfire and Paranoia together do nothing more than actively create horrible situations for the station that they cannot deal with without shifting to a specific meta-mindset that involves ruthlessly murdering and annihilating the antagonists from those factions. The security department is not adequately equipped roundstart to face off a mercenary team and a heist team with random chances for different assortments of highly lethal weaponry such as broadswords that decapitate in barely a few swings. These game modes would be fine by themselves as they ought to be, but they otherwise do not create interesting roleplay beyond pointless instantaneous murder and effectively pushing /tg/ gamemodes onto a heavy roleplay server. This does not push the example we wish to be making when we advertise ourselves as a server that emphasizes dialogue and deeper interaction between characters and antagonists. It is the problem of the game mode when two forces are granted the free means and ability to overpower the general station populace without much fighting back due to our rigid ruleset on fear roleplay and ensuring characters stay balanced. Unlike on /tg/, doctors aren't expected to shove over mercenaries, grab their gun and ruthlessly gun down the hapless idiot that let someone get close to them. So unless we plan to revise the rules based on who can conflict with whom and relax restrictions greatly, the multiple game mode types need to be removed. Autotraitor already fulfills the purpose in keeping conflict constant by adding new folks into the traitor roster over time. As for the other game modes, the antagonists simply need to not die and work together if they are a team-based unit. Otherwise if they're lone wolves they obviously just need to definitely not die if they want to continue RPing as a spacey wizzer or a sneaky ninja.

Rule of Cool + Entertainment Value > realism arguments. The concept of vending machines uprooting themselves to chase after people is funny and interesting, and it fulfills the SS13 minimum quota of silliness quite well. It can have wheels, sure, but in order for this suggestion to be any good the machines need to be rabid in their marketing strategies and should pose a physical threat to people in terms of uprooting themselves and wheeling around running into people.

If they have at least one arm to pop their own joint back, yes, they can.

Firstly, I will admit a mistake, the game ID that was edited into the main OP was not the game in which Hunnewle was playing as CUBIE. I assumed that from the testimony of the OP that was the right game, but Hunnewle was on playing a different character at the time. As such, it is regrettable, but the main OP game will not be directly addressed for context. Someone else will need to cite that round's gameID for us to review that one directly as well. However, as for the second gameID, I've scoured enough of the logs for the second portion of the malfunction round to get an idea on what exactly has gone amiss. This should be enough for a review basis. The general gist of it was that the main malf AI was doing malf things, and as such CUBIE was doing malf borg things as a result. This led to the murder of the captain, which is all well and good, par for the course during such a game mode. Interestingly enough, however, CUBIE recalls this in their second chance at synthetic unlife rather perfectly, and with a staggering amount of emotional reaction to their revelation to it as an android: Curious, at most. This is recalled with rather specific detail in other lines. And a tad more. CUBIE was very remorseful from this chain of events, when they were reassembled. It should be noted that they were quick to also recall other details of their previous AI's malicious intent, going back to prior to their reassembly. Revisiting the captain's death in detail: Now let's get onto the cargo tug problem. Other evidence is shown in the logs Datberry supplied. But if I might also note, there was only three mentions of the cargo tug, and none of them had any prior indication CUBIE had orders to remove the cargo tug and get the person off of it. So one can infer CUBIE took it upon themselves to remove Hardin from the tug, in spite of being ordered by a crewmember (an assistant, yes, but it was a reasonable request) to leave the QM alone. There was pretty much no reason to be bullying a crewmember off the tug. The option to ask the person nicely to step off would've been doable, for common sense's purpose, but CUBIE had no invested authority to be exerting any attempt at force whatsoever. Whether by barking verbal orders, etc. Now let's introduce something slightly new. Manfred Hayden earlier ordered CUBIE to make way outside of the shuttle cockpit. CUBIE would ramble on about having murdered the captain and harmed the CE personally, seemingly stalling on purpose. At some point, Manfred Hayden screams. Perhaps this is due to attack logs and attempting to flash CUBIE. CUBIE defends themselves with tasering or a baton, I assume? Alright. What a show this has been. Allow me to make a neutral observation of the situation. CUBIE indeed does almost get flashed, but they fight back and TASE A HEAD OF STAFF of all people. They ignore orders made by that head of staff who wants the cyborg outside of the main cockpit and into the supply closet section of the shuttle, and also proceed to bullshit out excuses as per law conflicts or whatever. I should note, Law Four no longer prioritizes the safety of a station-bound unit. As such, a unit's personal safety is not a priority, although they may not permit unauthorized personnel to do law changes. The research director and other heads of staff are technically the only ones invested by law that can do so. A roboticist maybe if they have the personal presence vote, as well as being an escort from a head of staff. Likewise, Hayden was a tad wrong but still right in the instance that CUBIE needed to obey the command to move to the general food storage area. Any reason CUBIE had to disobey it was definitely not a valid course of reasoning. CUBIE's existence was not threatened on the shuttle, and that being said, it would not be a major priority anyway. Hunnewle shall be pointed to this thread momentarily. The major issues being presented at this time: Extreme emotional display from a synthetic station-bound unit. Having immediately recollected moments prior to their death as a synthetic and recalling previous state of subverted antagonism so as to further pile on the things the main antagonist did. I will dispute whether this is valid or not with staff, but I still believe the CMD principle can and should apply for cases of synthetics, especially when antagonism is involved. No antag should have to have their run ruined by some kark tipping off crewmembers that they're subverted. And we should not make it a point for synthetics to banter about who subverted them last. That's not how robots work. Disobeying orders from high-ranking command staff, as well as assaulting said command staff. Disobeying an order from a crewmember to stop harassing another crewmember, having also gone out of their own way to have harassed the latter, despite not having been given an order by anyone with a higher rank to get them off the tug. I will also review this with staff in the next day or two, and hopefully come to a decision. Hunnewle will be permitted a chance to defend their case within that time frame of at most a couple days after being pointed to the complaint. If they do not, we will take immediate action relating to synthetic behavior.

You were not warned or issued disciplinary action. You were merely spoken to and asked to roleplay a sensible character and to avoid vehemently heckling antagonists alongside five-to-six other people who were also spoken to and doing it. Your defense was that your character was a high-functioning sociopath and that he does not care for the issues of other people and if they get killed, too bad. This is not acceptable. Firstly, I have a friend that is clinically graded as a high-functioning sociopath, and I've never seen him pick verbal confrontations with other people that could reasonably kick their ass in a fight, or potentially kill them. Sociopathy and psychopathy are constantly confused by social media to the point where it undermines actual solid psychology findings that determine what sociopathy is. But not all sociopaths act under every single sociopathic tendency. Most sociopaths lie, yes, but they would not lie purposefully if it meant they would get hurt doing it. They may act impulsively, but the risk of outcome scares a sociopath more than it does for any other person, because sociopaths tends to be selectively selfish and self-serving. Even then, with our rule set, NanoTrasen would not employ an extremely reckless and impulsive sociopath with no concern for lives or consequence. Extreme sociopaths are dangerous manipulative people, and unlike lowkey psychopaths, they do not blend in very well. According to your definition, however, this is not acceptable character behavior or decent character design. All characters must be reasonably well-rounded, physically fit to at least do their job and able to pass psychological examinations to discern whether they are socially well-adjusted or not. Incompetents, psychopaths, overcompetents and unstable characters are not allowed. These provides for an even playing field without resorting to granting the freedom for every player to roleplay cliche personality archetypes that do nothing beyond making the roleplay atmosphere worse and unenjoyable. Heavy roleplay means heavier standards for roleplay. It is not practical nor realistic for a character to be fearlessly mocking a group of armed terrorists who have proven their intent and murdered several people. It is highly advised to take RPing conflict much more seriously than what was done. You were not the only person I had to speak to about this, one among at least six.