Scheveningen

This seems mathematically fair and sound, for the most part. Not to mention balance-wise it also makes a load of sense, so I'm onboard with yonnimer's suggestion here. The nerfs as posed in the OP seem a little excessive, but if fine-tuned to yonni's post here would be perfect.

Ensuring quality and propriety standards exist in surveying/polling and allowing those standards to persevere through time is never a dumb thing to codify. We don't need the Ten Commandments to agree that there should be good reasons for doing anything. Assume for a moment that polls are of course created by individual humans with their own individual wants, that make them ever so slightly different from other humans with their own wants. The matter of surveys face the constant issue of matching question wording with concepts being measured and the population being studied. The ideal survey recognizes that the most vital stage of posing surveys is the initial format of planning the question(naire) - but it is not the question only that is important, it is the answers you get. It stands to reason that the issue is not the matter of formatting questions to be appropriate and precise in what they're asking, but rather that formulating potential answers/solutions should not throw off a community from being able to precisely answer a survey. Such as with adding multiple-choice answers inappropriately to certain questions polling for opinions. In questionnaires formatted for academic testing purposes, multiple-choice questions are designed to make it more likely to compel a test-taker to fill in the incorrect answer should they not know the correct way to solve a problem, whether mathematical or otherwise. The query fills you in with several factual details and implications as to what the formula might be and what the methodology involved might also be. Because, simply, if you don't know how to solve a formulaic problem, it should be left roughly to chance that the test format should penalize you for not having read the material necessary to pass the test. In essence, with questionnaires like that, there is one right answer and every other answer is wrong, and those who don't know how to problem-solve and get the right answer should have to deal with the stacked odds of getting a wrong answer. This is ultimately quite a different thing from polling for opinion, however, where multiple choices of answers can serve to be harmful when polling for population preference. As mentioned, it is the inverse situation with polling matters of opinion, particularly to gather what a population might prefer. In regards to surveying preference of a population, the right or wrong answer simply does not matter, it is not the objective of the question - the goal is ultimately to find what the overall population prefers or doesn't prefer. Whatever decisions are made with that information is as a basis doesn't really matter since I imagine there's trust in people to do what they're asked to and have results come of that. Now, I actually wasn't entirely accurate with saying the right or wrong answer doesn't matter. There exist wrong answers, and those are "unrealistic/unfeasible scenarios". Such as waxing hopefuls what could be but would never actually happen due to a variety of reasons, or just one. Those are "wrong" answers in my mind, and have no place in the question or answer part of a poll. Polling forms a basis of "doing things" versus "not doing things", empirically truthful as what is the reason for doing something about something if no one is to suggest improvement of a thing, or when there is no complaining about said thing? Fixing what is not broken (or that which does not need improvement) often leads to wasted time and energy expenditure. A simple complaint lodged through a staff member's private messaging, or that of an official complaint, is of grain-of-salt sample size and reliability feedback - yet can still be considered 'polled' of a single sample size of one person. An additional vote of confidence - or lackthereof, which is not entirely useless even if it just 'one more' or 'one less'. Combine this with other prior information based on the subject of what is being reported. Dependent on the process that comes after having received said feedback, action is either taken in some way or not at all, dependent on how reliable the information from said feedback was. Indirectly, these are all methods of polling and when collectivized become very useful bits and pieces of information together. Time to digress. Speaking of things that are broken. I do not believe multiple-choice to necessarily be the devil, but posing questions with their related answer possibilities with the format of, "Yes, do the thing", "No, don't do the thing", "Do this entirely unfeasible/unrealistic thing", or "How about this other entirely unfeasible/unrealistic thing" - is pretty much 'doing evil as if.' In essence, the population should not be fed the possibility of answering in such categorical ways that aren't something the decision-maker(s) is/are at all willing to do - or, something that simply isn't physically possible, such as hosting the Aurora server on the moon. Likewise, introducing too many necessary variables (i.e., unfeasible answers to a poll) makes a situation more complex than it needs to be. Remember the 'stacked odds' thing? It plays a role here. Another example, the "rework, not remove" issue. Despite that the overall population of the community tends to vote for reworking things instead of removing them (due to the stigma involved of removing things, even if said things are bad as they stand), what if the decision-maker wants nothing to do with 'reworking' something they dislike and would rather spend their time on more perceivably useful endeavors? Therefore, why would the decision-maker even put in "do a thing I would never personally be motivated to do" as an option to poll the community for anyway? It makes no sense. Thus, my suggestion to make polls as binary as possible - but I am not discounting the possibility of third or perhaps fourth choices. Not every possible scenario one can think up is either realistic, or is anything that anyone wants to go through with on their part. I genuinely believe polls can be made more meaningful if the polling choices are condensed to minimum of 2 technically and equally feasible choices - because that is obvious. I am not against the idea of having three or perhaps even four different routes to diverge from on a single particular issue, but all of the possible decisions should be as equally valid and feasible as the others to execute. And that is the point of the policy suggestion, to ask that we gravitate far away from unrealistic theoretical outcomes being posed in community polls as options to vote for. Non-answers should simply not exist in said polls. I can think of a fair number of people who wouldn't fall for 'trap answers' that are so clearly unfeasible and unrealistic, such as 'rework, don't remove', but it still doesn't stop the possibility that at least someone will anyway.

Several community polls have been made in the past where they present several options/adjustments to an issue with only marginal difference between the vote options, or there are more options than needed. This does not make for very good community feedback (in the sense that it cannot be relied upon as easily) when the overall votes are spread out across several different vote categories. In most cases this makes certain voted decisions look more or less invalid than the others depending on who voted for them, due to the bloat of decisions you can make in a single poll. This shouldn't be the standard. A simple "yes" or "no" with a given subject should do. No "yes, but" option or its cousin "no, but" either, because that's stupid, and most questions pertaining to polls should be framed in such a way that they're not open-ended past "yes we should have this" or "no we shouldn't have it." Common ground based on vote results end up being figured out by the trusty staff anyway, but binary decision-making with polls makes it feel like it actually makes a difference to contribute in said community poll. There should not be a neutral vote either, as personal indifference to an issue should be marked by not voting in the poll. If you don't vote in any meaningful way, you shouldn't be counted.

Literally remove malf AI as a game mode. There is no developer here that will bother to fix it for the better. The other antagonists -- vampire for instance -- work because their playstyle is not centered around bashing people's face into the wall plating. They have abilities to defend themselves and then make roleplay through other creative narrative means. Almost everything the malf has in terms of abilities is connected to it doing violence. Violence = killing people = 1 or more characters who are put out of the round and thus reducing the variety/amount of roleplayers in the round. Why have a game mode in the rotation that isn't being actively maintained and changed by a developer who cares about the game mode being a good fit for the server? APC overloading is OP as shit and cannot be counterplayed if the crew is forced to siege the AI core. Gravity overloading is also OP as shit and can be spammed constantly for free maiming and damage. For those who deal with lag on a daily basis (i.e., anyone who isn't next door to the German Hetzner server), they cannot type or hit the "rest" button in time to escape that. Magboots also aren't common. It's extremely easy to render the initial AI foyer uninhabitable, since all that is needed is to break the glass and then - haha only EVA dudes allowed. In cases where there is a skeleton crew, very little security or etc., the only resort a wily chief engineer has to deal with the AI is to zoop down to the AI core from above after cutting through an amount of walls and then either targeting the main AI core APC or going straight for the kill in the regards of the AI. Depends on how pressed for time one is. The point, of course, is that the AI is overloaded with extremely powerful tools that permits them to powergame to achieve their mechanical end goal of nuking the station (inversely, the crew has to powergame even harder to kill them, such as with the 'drill through the ceiling' strat. Because that is literally all anyone does, they go straight for code delta tech path because???? Well, who knows. If I had to guess, my strongest hunch would be that not even antag mains like malf very much and they want to end the round too. Comes at the cost of making for a very shit round for everyone else, though. The fact malf and cult still have abilities to end the round in hardly over 5 minutes is a very dated feature that needs to go, to be honest, but malf going with it to be on hiatus while a developer fixes it would be really nice. I'd rather deal with ninja getting old than how malf is right now.

The last time sleepy disappeared was awhile ago, so it doesn't seem too much like it'll be a problem. I could personally go on about how sleepy's positively influenced the lore through creative writing and also through their art to support said writing developments, but then I'd end up with a giant novella of a post which is something I'm attempting to avoid from now on. In essence, I think sleepy's a really good fit for this, and I can personally trust sleepy to communicate if their time management goes wonky all of a sudden.

Renegade doesn't really offer a lot of opportunities for certain character types (since it forces paranoia upon you for the most part and then gives you immediate license to counter-kill traitors that don't get replenished in round), so I pretty much keep it off.

I'm Commander Schev and this is my favorite application on the forum. Seriously, Borya is incredibly constructive and wholesome of an individual. Borya's too good-intentioned to let any semblance of responsibility go to their head. Easiest endorsement of my life.

snoooooooooooof

Holding shift possibly already conflicts with an existing hotkey for examine, plus it conflicts with macros that use Shift-WASD.

This seems kinda overblown, judging from what brainos had to say on the matter. Grain of salt from me: I'd prefer if the hypo looks like a medical tool and not like a science tool, but the current appearance is passable enough that I don't mind if it's changed or not, so long as it still looks like a medical tool.

Side note, to justify why 2 phoron canisters should go into the hot loop instead of 2 into cold. Basically, everything mentioned in the engine set-up ties into each other. Having a large amount of gas moles in the hot loop means there's more gas to store heat in. Therefore, the TEGs harness more of this gas and output greater power. The downside is, the engine room will increase temperate at a quicker rate than if there were 2 phoron canisters put into the cold loop. In the cold loop, that gas is not really going anywhere, it's not being harnessed in any capacity as much as the hot loop. There is a potential benefit to putting 2 canisters into the cold loop and that is when you expect the supermatter to delaminate, so that you can open the emergency valves and then a flood of cooled gas equalizes with the heated gas in the hot loop - inevitably creating a state where the hot loop cools more than it once did. But this is pointless to do, because you still have a safe and more efficient gas set-up. The engine should never be set-up with the expectation it will fail, the supermatter is meant to be exploited, and there already exist several ways to save it from certain doom. It is still important to have phoron in the cold loop, but a single canister does well enough for the entire shift. Eventually in the case of the hot loop, as the pressure climbs to 1500kpa+ in the chamber, the heat gain of the supermatter begins to stabilize to a slow crawl, if not fluctuating at a particular number outright. Further, 2 cans in the hot loop means that the TEGs are outputting their power to transmit to the main grid SMES very fast. That power being transmitted needs to go straight to the department SMESes, for all intents and purposes, for that is what the main grid SMES is set-up to do with the checklist format. Primarily it is a power transmitter, it doesn't store energy very effectively, but it does it well enough so that it's an okay back-up to output power to the substations when the engine has to be ejected. If it delaminates, the main grid SMES is likely going to be gone to the massive implosion+explosion. I do recommend setting up the solars, by the way. It's an excellent fallback and supplementary measure to the main grid. I can't stress enough to disable the bypasses, as the station departments should be dependent on their respective SMES.

This is a checklist I utilize when I play engineering to not only get the station set-up to a passable degree but also optimize anything that's worth the effort. What counts as being worth the effort - If what you did has immediate pay-off either in a 'fair' degree or an 'absolutely must-do because doing it gives so much strength to the station' degree. After the checklist we'll go over all the steps in detail to justify why the steps are taken. Engine Setup 1. Move a supermagnetic transmission coil and a supermagnetic standard coil to the main grid SMES room. 2. Turn off the input of the main grid SMES, max out its output. 3. Move four phoron canisters to the engine room - !ENSURE RADIATION PROTECTION! - don't screw them in yet. 4. Turn on all the pumps in the room, max out their pressure transfer. Don't touch the emergency valves! 5. Go to the filters in the north part of the engine room. 6. Set all the filters gas selection to 'phoron'. Required to maintain engine stability! 7. Raise the shutters and turn on + max out the pumps in engine waste. Ignore the coolers. Also ignore the connector port close to the filters. 8. Screw in one phoron canister each to the connector ports in the south part of the engine room. The northmost connector port is connected to the hot loop, the southmost connector port is connected to the cold loop. 9. Once both phoron canisters are depleted of gas, screw in one phoron canister to the northmost connector port for the hot loop. 10. Once that third canister is depleted, turn off the pump to the hot loop, install another phoron canister. Never turn on that pump again unless in a delamination event. 11. Enter the monitoring room, enable the emitter through what looks like a shutter button. Don't press any of the actual shutter buttons, they are labelled! If you do, press that button again if you did so by accident! 12. Count emitter shots to 25, then disable the emitter through the button. Consider unwelding the emitter. 13. Close all the shutters, then go to the main grid SMES room. 14. If SMES is empty, turn off its output. If not, wait. 15. Screwdriver the SMES to open its maintenance panel, then put in the two coils mentioned in step 1. 16. Screwdriver the SMES closed, then max out the SMES' input and output. 17. Go back to the monitoring room and find a console with an RCON. 18. Enable the input for every substation and set its in/out wattage to 100,000. Exceptions are Atmospherics, Science Main Level, Science Sublevel and Civilian Main Level. Set all these to 150,000 in/out wattage. The shields are another exception, set these to 200,000 in/out. 19. Disable every bypass to every substation. Yes, all of them. 20. Wire the solars if you want, max their in/out for the SMESes as well. You're done with the main engine. Click spoiler for detailed explanation of each step below for the engine set-up category: Shields Setup 1. Max out the shields SMES in/out, assuming the engine is set-up. 2. Wrench down the generators and capacitors. 3. Maximize the settings on the capacitors adjusted to the generators. Not the generators themselves. 4. Set field strength for bubble generator to 3 renwick, 5 renwick for the hull shield. 5. Set generation rate for both generators to 0.5 renwick/s. 6. Set field radius to 100m (max) for both generators. 7. Turn on the bubble shield for asteroids, turn on the hull shield when there are carp/drones/etc. This only affects the surface level. 8. Consider buying more hull shield generators + shield capacitors to cover the main level and the sub-level. RnD can also help you. Click spoiler for detailed explanation of each step below for the shields set-up category: Atmos checklist soon to come. It's quite complex and I need additional images to screenshot later to finish it.

That's also not what I said. Don't put words into my mouth.

No, you're right. This ban request was made on an invalid premise and I didn't realize it until now. I apologize.

He was referring to me, Burger, not you. He quoted your name for some reason.

Then, sorry, unless you find someone to do it for you, your ideas will probably be gone with the wind. Spriting clothing/items is not easy just for a single item. It becomes more complex and difficult when uniform variations are involved, and development/lore already has spoken out countless times against different kinds of bloat. Clothing sprites are very repetitive and un-fun to do, considering how meticulous the process is for a single uniform variant.

Itani's post aside - Marlon, do it yourself, at this rate. Development lives and dies on personal desire to fulfill their own vision. Amory's vision isn't yours, Marlon, I can already predict that he's going to go with what he wants to mold merc outfit concepts into.

I do not think good intentions are enough. You are not a bad person, Burger, in fact you are at your core a good person. It is nonetheless frustrating to see things turn out the way they do.

This was what was posted. I was not aware it was deleted until now. I stand by what I said. It is a disservice to harassment victims to compare the two things, as it diminishes the impact of said harassment to bring it up in a situation where it did not happen in OOC. It is wrong to make that comparison. I don't know who this concerned user is, and I do not care at this rate. I will not trust the claim that you speak for someone else, and even if they do exist it is an extremely underhanded way to have a conversation through proxies. Some other people in this forum have already done this, and it is a bad faith attempt to refer to someone as an additional 'concerned individual' who will not identify themselves or make their fair say. I do not engage in 'rat hunts'. I will not blame them for speaking up against me, but I cannot possibly imagine who this 'mysterious concerned individual' is, so I will call your bluff here, respectfully.

um, no

Burger, you are flat out wrong on several accounts. - Was because you were accusing people, of OOC sexual harassment/'deviancy', in addition to the recent month and a half of crap that several other community members and staff have to put up with in regards to you. Despite that nothing in the air showed that accounted for said sexual harassment or 'deviancy'. Such claims are extremely damaging regardless of whether they're true or not. I think I have the right to take issue with someone spreading incorrect information about a peer here. Not to mention whatever was your conversation with Lupo when you attempted to get Marlon/Lupo both in trouble for not taking the video game as seriously as you do when playing engineering. Citation/proof needed. I made no such heated reply. I made a rather long post and decided it was too long, decided to cut it to brevity in an edit. Further, if you can't remember specifically what was said in relations to content, how do you know exactly what the tone involved was? It strikes me as a bit strange to not recall content of a post yet characterize its tone as hostile. I was a student for about a year (so, close, but still wrong) until I realized the tuition I'd have to pay would be financial and literal suicide. As for the rest, I've genuinely no idea where you decided to invent this characterization of me. You're using rumor/conjecture for a defense in a ban request. Okay, please don't do this. I have made this request because you do not seem to act on a good faith basis - or rather that you do not seem to put your best forward when trying to address issues, which ends up leading to very frustrating conversations that should not have ended the way they did. I can only speak for what others have told me in this thread and out of the thread; You do not seem to act in an appropriate way, you do not seem to speak with others in an appropriate way, it is in general difficult to de-escalate you to calm down. When a staff member tells you, "It's not that serious, don't get too worked up over this, this is just confusing and it is okay to be confused", you end up writing several paragraphs in response. And this isn't about me or what anyone else does, the question is particularly focused to how you contribute to the social gaffs. I feel very bad about how I treated you in the past, however, as there were certainly other things that I did wrong in treating you with courtesy. If I had a time machine - simplified: It would've been different, and I would've been far more responsible, understanding and mature with you. I had left you alone for a long while because I thought there would be no trust between us, and that things would be better if you were left alone. You were left alone and you did pretty well, but this last month or so has not been particularly great. But you're counter-attacking right now, probably for good reason as you really do not want to be removed from the game space. Which is why I want to change my mind on a couple things, based off these facts: 1. You do not grief on the main server. 2. You do not metagrudge on the main server. 3. You roleplay perfectly well on the main server. 4. You play the assigned jobs pretty well without making the experience of antags really bad. I'd far prefer you be forum banned over being community-wide banned, at this point. Someone spoke to me about this issue and they convinced me to think differently, since you do not actually screw around in-game in matters of roleplay. Your IC conduct is fine, your OOC conduct leaves a lot to be desired. I apologize for putting you on the defensive by requesting the community-wide ban. It was clearly too drastic.

The jumpsuits are simply not woodland camouflage, they are jumpsuits with the color pallet of urban camouflage. They are not necessarily camouflage pattern (it is almost impossible atm to sprite convincing enough camouflage since it ends up in an awkward shading mess), the jumpsuits fit pretty well for their intended function and purpose. I think they look perfectly fine.

Can you implement something that checks their internals level too? That way you're sure if they're close to huffing a vacuum or not.

Norepinephrine is easy to learn and understand. It's essentially a stabilizer and its other name is well known as noradrenalin. Inaprovaline is a Star Trek reference. The more we distance ourselves from said references, the better, imo. Atropine is 25% more effective than tricordrazine when injected into a critical patient. It's amazing to give to EMTs. Adipemcina is cheaper than peridaxon. It is budget heart treatment on demand. Peridaxon can't always be made in surplus amounts. Calomel is a synthesized dialysis chemical. It should not be confused with dylovene because calomel can also poison, especially since calomel has an overdose limit that has very nasty effects. Deltamivir and Thetamycin shouldn't be changed and we shouldn't do redundant changes. Renaming a chemical to an existing IRL medicine brand name is a bad idea.