Scheveningen

Because of GMT. Nurses are expected to do surface-level stuff to keep someone alive, Physicians administer chemicals or other treatments to prepare someone's recovery for surgery. Surgeries will re-break limbs if someone's external organ is over a damage threshold.

Hence why I said "if". I'm not saying there is, not saying there isn't either.

Posting here was a mistake. My OP was way too pretentious and long. tl;dr I really think we should focus more on what other people have to say than what one person might already think is the case. Intent's one thing, so's what people do as part of their action. And yeah, "just ahelp it" is virtually all you can do. The alternative is doing nothing. You should not be comfortable doing nothing. I don't care if you have legitimate reasons for not wanting to ahelp it, that's part of the problem either way. Have the stones to at least talk to a staff member about something that happened, even if you don't think something will happen, you never know if you don't at least try. If there is a growing sexist behavior problem in this community, the worst thing you can do is do nothing.

fairly regularly during primetime when they're needed at least. im sure it hurts when they're needed when the other roles arent filled but yeah, point still remains.

cmo when the surgeon has their hands full require the cmo to know surgery bam, problem solved

oops double post

yes

agreed as above. don't be shitters to borers and there will be less shitter borers. please and thank you

agreed

In the interest of making the asteroid slightly more dangerous and mining marginally more hazardous/interesting, I have a proposal totally not ripped off from the same font of Slavic night terrors. Electrical anomalies, known by belters as 'dark stars' and accepted as the de facto layman's term. Essentially shrunk down tesla balls that are certainly no less meaner than their larger man-made compatriots, electrical anomalies are 'natural' formations of ball lightning that generally occur with notable frequency within the fields of the Romanovich Cloud. Dark stars, unlike their man-made sisters, are phenomena that are generated with an already substantial energy level and possess only one intent most foul: to release its destructive energy on everything and anything in sight that is either well grounded or not. Their only purpose is to burn off their energy slowly and then dissipate, though nearby radiation can not only sustain them but permit them to grow to a more potent threat. Dark stars may float over holes and pass through asteroid rock terrain, but are stopped by walls and solid airlocks. They may pass through glass, grilles and glass-based airlocks at their leisure, able to infiltrate maintenance and contribute electrical charge to any exposed wiring and thus the overall power grid. Incidentally, this also makes maintenance incredibly dangerous when a dark star has taken up residence. Dark stars have a preference for targeting essentially the same as the tesla, with a mild difference. Its damage scales inversely from its overall health. The more health it has, the more damage from an arc, but lightning arcs from a dark star should expend the dark star's 'health', the value at which it does so should be more or less random to mix things up. When arcing its energy, there should be a distinct blue tint matching the dark star's identifiable haze. Simply to match its flavor, doesn't really matter though. Unlike man-made tesla, dark stars have a large light source attached to them at all times with a light bluish-tint to indicate their presence, much more noticeable in the dark. Electrical shocks as audio cues to further indicate where they prefer to camp out. Dark stars cannot be fought, reasoned with or conventionally destroyed, running away from the suspected presence of a dark star is the only chance of surviving an encounter with one, with one exception. Tesla coils or grounding rods can harness and ground discharged energy, and dark stars will generally be compelled to be within the presence of tesla coils/grounding rods for the rest of their existence and can be considered defeated, as they will discharge their remaining energy to the coil/rod while being permanently stuck in place until it finally dissipates due to expending all its evil energy. Attempting to fight a dark star in virtually any other fashion, such as shooting at it with guns or lasers, is an ill-advised and 'scientifically dumb' move, it will simply power up the dark star by pissing it off (or, more accurately, potentially irradiating it/creating additional friction in the air that the anomaly can harness as angry energy). Unfortunately, when a dark star dissipates it should also disintegrate the first target it struck as a final note in its destructive song. In ideal cases, this should be a tesla coil or grounding rod. In worst-case scenario, this could be Ian or Bones. In other situations, it could be a hapless crewmember. Dark stars cannot disintegrate targets hit by a lesser lightning arc in the chain as part of its death throes. If no viable target can be found to disintegrate, the dark star will simply die out without taking anything with it. The frequency of dark star spawns should coincide with ion/electrical storms. At least two should spawn, at most 4 anywhere else. I mostly think dark stars should be in to also curb the massive carp waves that occur sometimes, as too many living hostile mobs can be a pretty silly proposition by itself. Letting nature take its course would add a level of intrigue and mystery when all of the carp you saw alive 5 minutes ago are now dead and charred.

Why not make Volunteers part-timers that aren't qualified to respond to space-related stuff, and instead are joined up with the Legion to respond to stuff Biesel-side? Legionaries can then be the career-driven TCFL members that deploy on the station in an emergency. Specialists are the ones that do things other than shoot guns, and Lead Legionary works to establish leadership. This is entirely not what Doc just said and I am totally not pretending this is an original statement.

Nuking the station made zero sense considering it was a transfer shuttle. I don't think it was keeping with character sanity to do that, to blow up an entire research station because of borers. The checkpoint sec could handle that.

I'm simultaneously very surprised and also disturbed that you took fairly old out of context quotes of people - including me - saying stuff and screenshotting them well in advance for something to develop like this, as if you're making a relevant point here. Spoiler alert, you're not. There's a difference between referencing a risque internet meme (which I, admittedly did as the cumbrain I am) and posting softcore porn (which you did - like, really?), too. Nobody told me they were made uncomfortable by the dumb joke comment I made and they did not call me on the issue either, so there was no need to apologize for the behavior if people understood it was posted with good faith and humor. If they did take issue with it I would've owned up to the issue and apologized, and would've sworn to contain myself better in present company. That's taking personal responsibility. For some people it's probably cringe to see that posted, in other situations it's humor for other people. Meh. Speaking of 'proportions', you know the degree of which people take issues seriously is based on their current attitudes and the pressing situations they're trying to address? It seems pretty unempathetic to call things "blown out of proportion" when you're the offender in a variety of these situations. Will you not be satisfied until you bring every single person who you think has ever wronged you, down to your level? If you have lost access to this community that you supposedly love so much that you're willing to go to certain lengths to express that love, I wonder what karmic retribution I 'ought' to 'get' in my current position of being a player trying to get back to minding their own business and balance having a stable life with my hobby and passion, which is Aurora. Penny for your thoughts, tho? Little thought experiment for you. Perhaps, despite my history here and the history of many others, that there is a salient reason why I am not permanently banned from this community in spite of my tendencies to get rather bitter and frustrated when things don't go too well. I'm just as surprised as everyone else, honestly, how did I make it so far? Still, it must also stand to reason, of course, that there is at least one salient reason why you were banned from several subsects of this community. Ponder on that. I believe, regardless of my personal motivations involved, that banning you from the NT relay and supporting your removal from the NT-ISD discord was in the best interest of the comfort and safety of the respective communities, as well as keeping the places overall fun and a place to consistently participate in without fear from imminent/toxic retribution from someone who very strongly disagrees with the idea that sometimes things should be left well enough alone. Sadly, I'm not the only one who thought this, unfortunately, otherwise I'd be in a pretty awkward position myself alone in this quandary, don't you think? And if, say for the sake of example, that an administrator noticed you screwing up again and otherwise exhibiting behavior that was essentially exactly the same as the last time you got in trouble with various server administration... well it looks like similar assessments of your ongoing behavior seem to be exhibiting the same, disfavorable-to-your-case kind of result. I apologize if I come off as smug though, as I usually aim to be proven wrong when I think someone's acting in bad faith, not right. The entire situation disappoints me, as I was hoping you'd make a heroic comeback in the name of self-progress. I'm not really convinced you're any different than my prior impressions of you at the moment. I regret I got heated in several instances in dealing with you and I certainly should've exercised a greater degree of serenity and control, but I don't regret my role in getting you banned, however, it seemed like the right thing to do at each of the associated times. People who don't speak up or stand up to issues don't get things done. Since I've pretty much made my case in defending myself at this point, I won't make additional replies. don't @ me bro

Yeah, that's fine, I don't really think it is that important either to look at the less affiliated discords over other stuff, but I don't think evidence of their behavior on other discords should be a total non-factor.

Your OOC behavior hasn't changed at all, Bauser. You're undoubtedly a good roleplayer when you want to be, but you seem to take everything far too seriously: to the point of not having enough control to prevent yourself from being as ruthless and crass as you've become known for. I was definitely not super cool in dealing with you on the NT relay, nor on the NT-ISD discord, or whatever else you've been banned from. Perhaps I should've seen consequences for my role in what happened and I would agree with that assessment. It's completely fair to characterize me as being an asshole to you in how I've dealt with you. But I personally cannot be convinced to treat someone with politeness and courtesy when they demonstrate to behave the way you did among/towards other adults. At the time and currently, you possess a very shock-and-awe way of expressing yourself. What I don't understand is your current attitude in being surprised when people respond with being "shocked" and "awed" and then they respond unreasonably. You cannot act emotionally and then be surprised when others respond emotionally. It isn't fair to try to get them in trouble for something you have equal or more involvement in causing. I admit I've taken personal issue with you, and it is not even because of the very first outburst you've subjected me to that I can remember. This is the case particularly because I have personally witnessed you verbally, and relentlessly, harassing people who I consider dear friends in this community, a fair few are people who I will not name already carry substantial burdens of depression and many other problems where they have difficulty making and keeping friends in real life. Everyone you affected that I know absolutely did not deserve or need the verbal lambasting they got from you, it made them feel unsafe here if your outburst was to be otherwise tolerated. To which, prior to the recent string of bans you've caught all around the community, you initially didn't catch anything for it - and that genuinely upset me, because I viewed that as a situation where you should've caught consequences, and that you should at least 'catch some' down the line to make up for your uncaught bad behavior before. Times have changed and there are different people on staff now who used to be players well aware of your propensity to harass or otherwise make specific individuals uncomfortable or feel unwelcome here. In fact, hey, it's not even a "u attked my frens grrr now i must delet u" issue, the principle remains that you should not relentlessly harass anyone to the point of making them feel unsafe or unworthy to be here. You've failed to understand this for countless amounts of times. What else can be done? Your behavior is harmful to the community, the way you approach heated issues kills meaningful discussion and also makes people super uncomfortable. The staff would look really bad tolerating your behavior here and not banning you for it. A permanent ban is totally in order to indefinitely stop you from behaving the same way over and over. I totally could've done things better in dealing with you in the areas of the community where I was addressing issues with your behavior, absolutely. I've learned a lot from it, toxicity to meet toxicity simply didn't work and doesn't work to de-escalate, but me going about it the wrong way honestly doesn't excuse you, at all - much as I regret treating you the way I did and escalating the issue further.

So, unforeseen side effect, ranged weapons have difficulty sustaining themselves in combat and people burn through magazines/capacitors like it's nothing at the moment, and often there isn't the "impact" or "reward" of having floored someone with certain weaponry, as some people are still standing up when your weapon goes empty. Burst weapons are king at the moment as they basically output so much damage and also have the highest capacity. But I think that's fine overall, it's just that the difference in capacity between burst-fire weapons and semi-auto is so disproportionate that you are essentially gimping yourself using a semi-auto for anything other than a hold-out weapon to shoot at an attacker and then run away. This makes weapon choice for antags especially problematic, as only a few options are particularly good. Basically, burst-fire weapons aren't OP, semiauto is just painfully underpowered in comparison. The question is, though, do people agree, disagree, or even care? Are things ok as-is or not really? Trying to gauge feedback first. Not asking for super specific feedback but rather whether or not it's a good idea to go along with this.

bedhead 5 gang rise up More seriously I still need to spend some time with a mirror in deciding which hairstyles to axe that aren't the proposed ones. Bedhead 5 will probably go not because it's not funny, but rather it's not practical for a heavy roleplay environment at all.

I don't think there's really anything wrong with the image that was posted, Unathi have built-in sexism attitudes that go one way or another. Doesn't seem relevant to command play.

That's not so much the issue, really - I don't personally mind if you disagree with my methods and I actually encourage people to approach me with suggestions or completely alternative solutions, but it's difficult to remain constructive when feedback to a bad plan is highly hostile, for instance. The overall lack of courtesy made the situation very frustrating to deal with, hence the "throwing arms up" response, because it was a serious situation that was undermined by bickering on both sides. It's difficult to muster motivation to want to be productive and strategize together when you're not sure if that's what the other side wants. It's also difficult to offer an olive branch/peace offering to mend the damage caused to overall trust between two people, too, because when someone already doesn't trust someone, one might be hesitant for any additional bad faith/deception. Oh, and, I only bring this situation up not because you broke any rules or anything, but rather the "how" of Jawdat handling that situation didn't seem like the best they could've done. Anyway, to summarize my point the above, is the "feedback loop", in that there's no right solution and all possible decisions end up with a less than ideal outcome if two people aren't willing to trust each other enough to be courteous and considerate of what the other has to say. I learned a lot from that round in terms of how productive hostility towards fellow command members actually is, just based off how I ended up participating in it and what the overall loss/gain was from it. I think it's really important, for the most part to recognize that the "how" is really important, because a general impression of attitude seemed to have made a lot of difference in what resulted in that chaotic dramafest of a round. No actual offense intended, sometimes rounds are just like that when things don't go as you expect. The problem with this was that there was a lot I still did that limited the options of the mercenaries to simply take whatever they wanted with no resistance. Whatever they wanted to do in terms of a morally incorrect action, they had to account for any possible reaction. While we couldn't guarantee the safety of the captain personally given his presence being locked in very deep into the vault, we did what we could to ensure the rest of the crew were in sufficient enough concentration and numbers that it'd be extremely difficult and risky for the mercenaries to harm others. So sure, it's fair to say we couldn't do very much for the captain, but it's unfair to criticize someone for factors outside of their control and claim they're doing a bad job because they aren't powerful enough. It's one thing to be questioned, because it still offers opportunity for self-review and what can be done better on the fly. It's another thing to be criticized, which tends to be a bit more harsh for the sake of impact as some people just don't get it when you try to drop hints at them. It's a completely different thing to be ruthless in criticism, however, as it devalues the person you're criticizing and kinda makes them feel really bad. It makes sense for antagonists to do this for the sake of drama and killing their morale/willingness to keep going. A round can be very chaotic and dramatic, but I feel like it shouldn't be unfun, and unfortunately command has the greatest capacity to make or break a round based on how they handle leadership. At the very least, what do you think could've been done better in that situation, even as you say it was still 'right' in your mind to do as you did?

This was some time ago, but there was a situation where Jawdat was putting people on blast over common comms regarding their verbal usage of comms. While it isn't wrong to call people on mistakes, there are wrong ways to do it, and contributing to a feedback loop of "gotchas" makes command look immature and ends up feeding into a lot of anti-fun interactions where everyone is calling each other shit and etc. There was another situation where it was mercs/pirates that pretty much overtook the station through sheer force and numbers, and I as the HOS was trying to mitigate damage where possible rather than attempting to remove them from the station which would've been suicidal to me and the very few officers I had, and since the captain got themselves kidnapped there was no option for an assault on them that could've been done. Jawdat was quite the unconstructive critic and wasn't very subtle about how they thought the HOS was ineffective/a failure, and then attempted to negotiate surrender terms by themselves. When the captain finally was given back, Jawdat took full credit for it and rubbed it in. Those are the sorts of things I don't want to see happen again, considering command shouldn't cause infighting or toxicity enough that it becomes really frustrating or toxic to deal with from an OOC standpoint. A character should not be so ICly overbearing that it comes to that.

All whitelist strips are manual, not automatic. Pretty sure of that, anyway. I'm not comfortable with you being whitelisted for command again, but this isn't to say it's a vote of no confidence from me. You have a method of problem solving similar to a hammer and anvil approach (i.e. sandwich whatever or whoever you're opposed to, and damn whoever gets in the way you getting what you want) while taking on a sassy and undiplomatic attitude should anyone criticize your methods, which makes you and your characters generally difficult if not impossible to deal with if they are in a position of power and influence. Your rhetoric leaves a lot to be desired, considering your propensity to intentionally box people into a corner to make them seem less convincing than you when participating in server policy/feature suggestion discussions. This gives the impression to me that you don't seem to care much for what people have to say unless they already agree with you. Broadly speaking the paper labelled "fragmentation grenade" being thrown at the security window is not an indictment of your command play in general, though it does indicate a lack of self-control to break character just to make an out-of-character reference joke. Using the rename-paper mechanic to do that is also not a good faith usage of renaming paper, it's an abuse of mechanics for a joke that should've stayed in LOOC as a funny haha that doesn't disrupt roleplay ICly. It breaks RP immersion and for someone less inexperienced in the game they'd look at the chat box and think you actually had a fragmentation grenade. I don't think the question should be "Why can't you be trusted with command whitelisting" but rather "Why should you be trusted with command whitelisting", as that's the same justification first-time appliers have to make, and re-apps should be under the same pretense tbh. What has changed, what will change and what are you going to be motivated to work on improving should you be whitelisted again? You're a good roleplayer when you want to be and nobody can or should dispute that, but can you be responsible for yourself?

-- we could review that rather than gimmicking an already bad feature would not make them any better and instead come to the collective realization that deleting the aesthetically bad hairstyles that do not have shading depth would not be a total loss to the codebase.

RED SPY IS IN THE BASE. yes please