Scheveningen

It's a slippery slope to assume player rights relating to voting are suddenly going to be steadily stripped one-by-one off of your dislike of how the distinction of "2/3rds of server pop actually playing" versus "2/3rds of the entire server pop including observers" is being divided so that only the former case will allow folks to vote on whether they think the round is worth prolonging. This is probably only the second adjustment made to the voting system for awhile. This is not indicative of any malevolent-intentioned pattern you're harping on about. You and SOT are the only ones claiming this is an infringement on player rights. If anyone is led to believe this is part of a grand admin conspiracy they also would've said so by now, so you're sort of alone in this regard. Relax. It is not as big of a deal as you are making it out to be. Besides, you had every chance prior to complain about the 2/3rds requirement decision when the thread so long ago was put up. If you said anything then it was overwhelmingly drowned out because people wanted a chance for longer rounds. Given a shift to more action-centric playstyles folks decided to key up at 2 hours every round if nothing happens. Especially prevalent with observers or anyone with attention-deficit issues.

Remember when Alberyk warned you over the shitstorm you tried to start over OOC? Remember when I muted you from OOC for a large portion of the round to which you logged out for because you were starting another shitstorm, on the 26th of February? You conveniently forget that, as you told me in PMs you were gonna make a complaint about it, which you never did over? Remember two days ago when you had to be told in OOC to stop the shitstirring more than once, prior to eventually being banned? That's 3.

I'm a trial mod, for one. I cannot summon logs on a whim, only when I make the effort to take them. Such notable examples when I warned you over talking shit about nanako when they weren't even on the server. So are you denying these charges? My point is that your modus operandi as of recent is to be as much of a dick on the server as you can while avoiding catching a perma with your face. Based on your recent conduct, is this not your intention when you log onto the server? If so, how do you excuse the behavior in defying 3 serious warnings all related to the same issue of cutting the OOC drama BS out of OOC, in the past month? Because it's entirely relevant when I'm calling into question your attitude, behavior on the server and your long-winded history of notes to rival another person who also had a stick up his butt and holds the record amount of most notes on the server. Like, yo, why do you get to talk about someone being "rude" to you when you have 27 notes relating to you acting like moreso of an ass? You honestly think the severe warning among all of the warnings you've received recently wasn't justified? Because a big red warning that never expires definitely gets the message across that you need to fix your attitude and your behavior when you get unbanned in 5 days. But I've made my point, really, if you don't understand that I really cannot help you.

how about petty bullshit display #1 Furthermore, by the looks of it you got week banned for ignoring two warnings about shit-stirring in OOC. aimlessanalyst has banned someoneoutthere. - Reason: Once again starting shit in OOC, and continuing after staff told everyone to cease. Given note history, you have been week-banned. Next time it will not be a week, shape up. - This will be removed in 10080 minutes. Any further questions, mate? My advice: Stop using OOC as your personal blog. Dislodge your head from your bum while you're at it and maybe you won't be so confused as to why staff doesn't get along with you.

Sounds more like a personal problem of not being able to adjust in being a latejoining crewmember rather than everyone else's fault in having roundstart joining. Wishful thinking.

I believe it was warranted, if SOT had no prior behavior regarding hostile behavior patterns aimed at anyone he could attempt to bait into an argument, an OOC tendency to rage in dsay beyond lines that were barely acceptable, and a consistent attitude where he's often convinced he can get off from rule violations off of written technicalities and thus goes out of his way to cross lines wherever possible, then the encounter would've ended with a "don't do that" and a note, at most a mild-mannered warning. Conditions were not ideal, however, so the severe warning was applied instead.

As it stands, those who died in the round after joining as any job may participate in and start votes. They can wait their turn. The game centers around the people actually playing, not the ones who aren't playing. How is it harmful to the "long term health and playability", exactly? No one is forcing you to play on the server. If you wish to quit at any given time you can simply close the window to the game and come back later when the serverstatus bot has updated with the round ending. I honestly find your frustration at a very simple OOC mechanic absurd and this is not what I expected the next Aurora Moral Forum Outrage to be about. Yes, all for the same answer. They're willfully seeking ways to abuse a system rather than use it properly as it is intended. It is wrong. There has only been one instance so far of someone getting caught for abusing it. They were severely warned and told to cut it out, especially considering breaking the rules is not a good way to protest in-game features. We kind of signed up to deal with situations like this. Not explicitly, but it comes with the job, and this is rarely something that admins complain about openly because the entire job is focused around dealing with people causing problems. So far it's been working fine and the only two openly complaining about the system in-place is yourself and someone who recently got a disciplinary measure for intentionally seeking to break the intended use of the voting mechanic. Like I said. Of all of the things one can have a moral outrage about I'm really surprised this is one of them. Over-exaggeration and false equivalency. Round durations have probably increased on average by about a half hour depending if the round has interest and not many over the 2/3rds margin want to leave.

You have a habit of butting heads with others and stretching arguments out beyond what's considered appropriate, speaking from a non-antagonist point of view. Sometimes interactions with Humblin get a tad bit too silly, especially when witnessing it. Another common thing I tend to see in the roundstart log-out report is that you often cryo at the start, and generally when you're not an antagonist. Some other folks I've talked to have made the comment that you don't normally stick around in the round unless you're already an antagonist. While not necessarily a by-and-large problem by itself, it does bring up a possibility of you readying as a head of staff and then suddenly being off to cryo which makes the slot you joined as unavailable for a little more than 15 minutes. Unlike if you're a scientist where nobody will really mind if you depart and log out without warning, there's a different expectation when playing as a head of staff. Communication is important. And I can't understate another thing that's also important, how you communicate. 100 methods to do something a certain way, most of them are wrong, that kind of deal. Using your headset and existing is one thing, but being able to avoid wasting unnecessary amounts of time when the situation demands critical thinking and good displays of effective problem solving, is a mark of a head of staff that can ensure their team gets work done. It's one thing to be a boss, but only roleplaying sitting at a desk, yelling at your co-workers for internet ego points, ruthlessly demanding vague expectations of subordinates and pretending your not-real job is boring, is just a mediocre way to play as command. But it is another to be a leader that inspires their colleagues--not just subordinates-- to work together and compete with one another instead of against one another. To be compassionate. To work on addressing and making up for team failings rather than belittling and humiliating the team for those failures. To be able to recognize that the department is in fact, a team, and to make the point that everyone must endeavor to pull their weight for everyone as best as they can, and not divide and conquer the entire staff structure to "cull the weak". You get the gist. Reply to any or all, I don't mind selective discussions, nor do I judge if minor stuff isn't given attention to.

Unfortunately, flamethrowers are the only goddamn solid counter to the blob right now. Roasts blob growth to shit and if you get sucked in, you can annihilate more growth at once with absolutely no risk. I'd rather not permit the stigma that engineering needs a flamethrower on standby every round. As effective that would be to have a blob fucking murdered 5 seconds after it spawns, it's kind of stupid to shoehorn a blob's only absolute weakness into a ghetto weapon literally no one uses because it's worthless for weaponization as an antagonist thanks to ZAS coding and flames interaction.

Couldn't have put it more perfectly myself.

Unintended features are not bugs? Do you really believe that? So, what, you think purposefully hopping onto the server within a short time period just to join as a mouse, call a vote for transfer and then ghost immediately after isn't a sign that you were looking to start trouble and exploit loopholes? Even if you had all well and good intentions (such as looking for bugs), it does not excuse the way you went about it. There's 100 ways to do something but a lot of them are wrong. But I really can't be given the impression that you had good intentions as two logs in deadchat were all I needed to realize you were doing what you did to try and carry out what you wanted, and that was to get folks to vote for transfer. We have a rule that bars you from being able to do the unofficial bugtesting stuff for whatever intent. It doesn't matter if you're looking for bugs, for one, you are not a dev, you are a player, it would be nice for anyone to make github contributions but it's not within your rights or bestowed staff perms to do bugtesting on the server. Two, the github is open and you can open your own test server by downloading the recent master .zip and check out what's bugged without bothering the active server population focusing on trying to play a game, not help you unofficially debug. And the "unintentional feature" argument doesn't stick because there's a difference between stuff like when you were able to shoot projectiles around corners which was an ss13 physics stigma that's existed for awhile, and in this case where you tried to exploit a new OOC feature that was supposed to help prolong rounds a bit by cutting out an unnecessary middle man in influencing the vote. It's a false equivalency. You should never do that on the server. Bug/issue reports go on the github. You do not go onto the live server to test it out while everyone else is still playing the game.

It is not "poisoning the well" to point out you have a specific stake and bias in maintaining the position you have because you were recently warned for intentionally seeking to exploit unintentional features in order to call a vote as an observer. It is very simple, you objectively broke very objective rules and you're upset about it because it doesn't fit your subjective viewpoint on how the rule should be enforced. But I never attempted to discredit your character. I said very simply, you broke a rule recently on the subject, and there is a conflict of interest in relation to you entering this discussion because you perhaps feel you're a victim due to my impression that you were willfully crossing the line and exploiting vote mechanics. Did it not cross your mind that perhaps joining as a mouse within the first few minutes of logging on, calling a vote, ghosting and then going on to brag about you being so clever to work around a rather simple security measure based off of a very simple idea that was realized recently. I didn't really understand what it was worth bragging about, really. Saying smart-ass things sometimes can be cute because it's for the sake of banter, but carrying out a smart-ass action followed by a one-liner shockingly doesn't win you any points in the cool guy department. Does the opposite effect, actually. We trust players to not go out of their way to abuse features. If they do, they're probably going to get spoken to and the value of trusting a specific individual to carry out actions in good faith is going to end up degrading steadily. The only thing I am discrediting is whether your stake, in particular from practically anyone else who might have an opinion on this subject, is completely honest and not without its own malicious intent to countermand staff rulings on the server. You only started opposing this when you got warned over it, in case you're missing my point here.

So because there's no explicit precedence for this case, you believe you did not break the rules in willfully taking advantage of a loophole during deadhour extended with the intent of bragging about having found the loophole to get a round restarted in the next 15 minutes? This is exploiting mechanics for personal benefit and it's dickish. I followed the expectations set by Skull in that thread. Abusing unintended features (also known as bugs) can and will get you bwoinked.

Observers have no say being able to participate in CT votes to end the round. This also extends to calling the vote in the first place because it adds peer pressure that someone wants to prematurely end the round for whatever reason. Especially when someone does this on deadhour extended by joining as a mouse, calling for a vote, ghosting again, and then bragging in deadchat about having found a loophole.

My mistake for not clarifying, really, in fact, I only just learned the Law 4 was changed to exclude "AI units are expensive, not expendable." So technically they are expendable now. Moreso than previous at least.

Please read the exact context of my post, UM. I just made my case why I didn't handle that case.

RIGHT. I remember. Okay, yes, I did attempt to contact them on that incident but they were logged out by the time the next round came along. 5 seconds after I realized it, Mister Janitor ban evader using proxies from LA was on the server throwing mouse traps at people again. I apologize for not getting around to it, I made a massive mistake in not noting it down but by the time I dealt with the griefing ban evader the case about Epsilon had left my mind. Sorry about that.

And why do you think that?

I'd need more specifics on what happened in the round. Details would help jog my memory.

Not supporting it. It's a legacy feature to begin with, and the security channel access is to provide middle-man information access. As the HoP doubles as HR, the HoP not only has business in employee misbehavior but security often needs to turn to the HoP to ensure demotion-centric punishments are doled out. The HoP's security channel access keeps things streamlined. It should stay. If there are reports of HoPs not following the line leading protocol then they should be reported either using IC or OOC channels. If possible, go through IC first. If it's utterly retarded what they are doing, then adminhelp.

How long ago was it adminhelped? My name was invoked here, but I cannot say I recall the specific situation where it was brought to my attention. And it feels weird to me that I didn't apparently handle it, especially since I've been aware that the Epsilon character has been one of two longstanding "issue characters", but never had a case where I was present for such reported behavior.

I am referencing the Asimov'd Syndicate law that requires syndicate borgs protect their own existence so long as it does not conflict with 2 and 1.

title. Ninjas are sneaky bastards and their footsteps undermine their stealth a bit, if someone is smart and is tracking an invisible person through the sounds they make. Ninjas specifically should be deathly silent. Maybe it's a bit of a stretch to permit the stealth suit available to heists to also do this but it's worth considering.

In most cases the laws AND server rules are what prevent borgs from going too nuts. Naturally I can see the issue in combat cyborgs willfully tanking hits because they know they can take it OOCly and ICly, which creates issues regarding if this is considered meta and a violation of the Protect Own Existence law. I'd be fine if past a certain point of threshold damage to the chassis that internal parts can get damaged, but the first shot such as from a single piece of shrapnel (yes i actually experienced this, I was 100% integrity and repaired beforehand with my own armor still working) can actually disable a borg's radio which is incredibly ridiculous.

Title. Cyborgs can become crippled for the tiniest amounts of damage for absolutely no good reason, leading up to their power cell becoming inoperable from one shot due to RNG. Hull armor should never be able to break so that it's doable for antag-based cyborgs to find repairs (particularly syndie borgs) without getting practically oneshotted because a lucky shot took out a power cell. Especially shouldn't be the case for combat-oriented modules because they should have a hell of a lot of armor to be able to take massive amounts of punishment, so that they actually have a purpose in functioning rather than seeking module replacements every living second because a lucky laser incapped the power cell and made a borg helpless. For station-side borgs nothing needs to change because at least robotics has their job in fixing standard borgs. It should take way more than a single lucky shot to completely disable a borg.