Scheveningen

Feel free to remove them from the officer lockers if you want, but they're getting nerfed quite substantially in this PR here. https://github.com/Aurorastation/Aurora.3/pull/6679

This is the wrong way to go about this. Balance decisions should never be in the manner of "delaying the inevitable", but rather in ensuring entirely that the frustrations in dealing with a contentious tool stop being as prevalent as they are. Moving them to the armory especially delays the inevitable, so you will find certain officers end up getting passed those batons on blue and red, and then there is no downside to them rushing down a guy with a machinegun. This particular worst-case scenario is the situation we want to append with balance changes, and removing batons from officer closets doesn't stop cumbrain shitcurity officers from doing that. 1. Stun batons have a lot of frontloaded agonyforce, clocking in at 120. Faceshots multiply this by a fair deal. 2. Stun baton capacity is quite ridiculous, because baton prods only consume 1/10th of their capacitor. 3. Harmbatonning in any circumstance is almost always suboptimal compared to disarm stunning, but agony from wounds lasts until treated. I intend on treating 1 and 2, which will end up softening the impact of #3. Officers may end up being required to combo their taser into their stun baton just to neutralize one person. If they want to up their baton's sustainability, they will need to interact with science. Moving the batons out of the officer lockers don't really help things, it is removing tools due to frustration being aimed in the wrong direction and for the wrong reasons. I nerfed the revolver and retooled it to work differently in its functionality and intended purpose, rather than outright removing it from availability. I will do the same with the stun baton. While this may be a roleplay server and many people here are used to theatrics in interaction being over-the-top on purpose, getting owned in combat is meant to be dissatisfying, quick and without a lot of the typical hero-movie romanticism when you actually die. This emulates how gritty, dark and shitty death is in real life. Although I should probably ask a lich on how death actually feels to better amend that statement, that's probably not happening anytime soon. Either way, I'm outright nerfing their stats instead to make them less oppressive and less flexible. The most notable intent of my changes is to outright make it impossible or far below suboptimal to rush a gun-wielding antagonist in armor, with a stun baton.

Kyres for president indeed. I'd influence any political process with campaign contributions for kyres' purposes, any day of the week. For reasons already covered in the OP, there's a substantial amount of credibility for this application, they're one of the best contributors of content to this server.

I appreciate you gave this more thought and took responsibility where it was due. I admit there were some in-the-process things where I went wrong, and thus didn't really give you an opportunity to do anything other than put you on the defensive. This doesn't make what you did OK, but either way I'm wanting the complaint to be dropped for now. If there are issues I have with you in the future they'll be handled more tactfully.

Type (e.g. Planet, Faction, System): Faction Describe this proposal in a single sentence (12 word maximum): Rogue cyber-ninjas with penchant for organ-harvesting victims, streamlining their self-augmentations. How will this be reflected on-station?: They're an alternative off-shoot faction from the more honorable Spider Clan. Rather than hardsuit modules doing most of the work for them, the Matsuta Nashi are augmented with implants and strong substitutes for their more fleshy original bits, and they have strong specialization in such modifications. Because of their affiliation with the Spider Clan, their augmentation is intended to be more severe and radical than that of the Aut'akh. Does this faction/etc do anything not achieved by what already exists?: I do not believe there are mainstream factions who outright commit murders and essentially defile bodies for their own augmentation and medical benefit, in rather literal ways. Why should this be given to lore developers rather than remain player created lore?: Story development from an antagonist standpoint is mostly outright impossible to develop given the rules regarding antagonist actions not carrying over into the next round as existing character knowledge. Do you understand that if this is submitted, you are signing it away to the lore team, and that it's possible that it will change over time in ways that you may not forsee?: Yes, if the shoe fits. Long Description: There are no concise historical accounts on the Matsuta Nashi in the general public, similar to the Spider Clan, any crime that could be attributed to the Matsuta Nashi couldn't be directly traced to them by any traditional law enforcement agency. But even the highest echelons of the Spider Clan whisper about the disturbing nature of their crimes, and then demand silence/ignorance from the greener members of the Clan, when news of specific kinds of assassinations make its way back through the large informant network the Spider Clan has implemented throughout the galaxy. Though their numbers may never match that of its parent organization, the Matsuta Nashi and the Spider Clan are engaged in bitter rivalry - if not war - and often fight one another in the rare fateful encounter where they meet.

It isn't practical. If any active tickets are being marked by a staff member, the round will not end until all marked tickets are closed. Unmarked tickets don't count for the round delaying.

I didn't tell you to drink bleach. False equivalency.

I'm waiting for other staff members to address it.

Telling people to kill themselves is not banter, nor is it harmless banter. Someone telling another person to drink bleach is engaging in harassment. I refuse to believe that suggestions to suicide are passable as jokes. Precedent has been set that players have been banned under similar pretenses. Staff members have responsibility, not privilege and exemption from the very same rules they're expected to abide by and enforce. Adding more wheels to the cart does not compel the horse to do its job and pull the cart (especially if said horse is pulling the cart for four years straight and decides all of a sudden to tell people to drink bleach). Replacing the horse fixes the problem if the issue isn't with the cart. Giving leniency to someone for doing the exact same thing that many others have been banned for (rusty_shackleford's case is an example) is not fairness, it does not show that the rules actually protect you from harassment in the case of a staff member doing it. "but perhaps we just need to be more conscious of others." This is already the standard. You do not tell people to drink bleach, kill themselves or do harm to themselves in any fashion.

to allow people to board the shuttle who are lagging behind due to conditions of their job? It makes sense ICly and the OOC tradeoff is really not that bad.

https://github.com/Aurorastation/Aurora.3/pull/6654

I suppose it is, I feel the only unrealistic bit is how some of them very quickly cure after a few brief ticks rather than just gradually treating the symptoms over time. That's asking for a lot on the code side of things, though.

Public testimony from a former head admin regarding not-so-distant policy in terms of conduct of what is expected from the community. Staff are part of the community and as such, are beholden to the same standards, if not moreso egregious given their high standing, importance and source of inspiration to other members of the community.

I like the current methods psychs use to cure people. I admit it is not common knowledge enough though. I will try to make a really brief guide on how to easily interact with said machines as a psych to help fix people. Likewise, there are chemical treatments that fix certain traumas caused by cloning, bypassing the need for the psych in (80% of) dire situations. Said chemical treatments expend a lot of reagents, though.

Maybe I said something that gave people the wrong impression; if you were not here for the situation I am outlining, do not fucking post, please. If you only have something marginally relevant because Garn spanked you once and you have a grudge to carry out, do not fucking post, please. I use the word 'fucking' because that's the first thing that catches people's eye to read, in addition to the bold text. The intent is to be respectful, but serious. It is not every day an admin tells someone else to "go commit die" and this is a heavily polarizing and easily frustrating issue. It is very easy to be tempted into wanting to post a very hot take that has little to do with the core bit of this complaint, but please restrain yourselves. Thank you.

I'm back early, apparently. Sorry if you were expecting 24 hours, everyone. @DRagO I did not ask for @LorenLuke to chip in per se, but everything they've posted so far is pretty on-board to what I would've said as a rebuttal regarding the acceptability of telling people to kill/do harm to themselves. I'd argue their posts as of now should stay up, as they've said their fair say, though if they wish to comment on other facets of the future complaint they should consider holding their piece and talking to me on discord if they have things to say or suggest as salient points. I still think Loren was far more constructive in his response than Garn was, which is a little disappointing but I'll take what I can get. I understand that dog-piling is a problem, but if you were here for that discussion round-about 8ish hours ago, I encourage you to say your fair say as well. I believe @Doc, @Kryostro, @SHODAN, and @Coalf were the notable individuals present that witnessed this unfold in public, and I would personally value any of their piece they have to say here, if they want. I generally do not divulge personal information of things that happen in my life, nor do I find the value of allegorical evidence to be very high, but I find that this will contextualize my motivations better, and why I responded in the "nuclear fashion". I had a friend who dealt with a lot of relentless bullying in high school because they were an innately nervous person who stuttered a lot. They didn't have many friends and the amount of relentless "teasing" or "joking" eventually got to them. They chose bleach because it was the most common thing suggested to them. They never made alive to the hospital, despite the paramedics' best efforts. As mentioned prior, it only takes 3 oz to almost irreparably destroy your internal organs. It was described to me that it's incredibly painful and a relatively slow death in the perspective of the victim. I think the worst part about it was how the majority of people who were responsible for driving my friend into an incredible depression and eventually their suicide, was that they claimed they were making "off-color jokes" and nobody was "meant" to take them seriously. Some of them even lied and insinuated that they were friends with them. I don't care if you didn't know, Garn, considering how it isn't an excuse, and the expectation for you as an admin and representative of the server (if not a person who values civil discourse) is to, at the very least, not downplay or joke about suicide, if we are only referring to what to takeaway from this situation. I'm aware there are many other said and unsaid expectations and standards, but I find it unlikely that "don't tell people to drink bleach" is difficult to grasp in your role as an admin. Not even a player would get away with that whether it was a """joke""" or not, all things considered, if that helps contextualize why this is being taken to the degree it has. I think you should stop character assassinating and attempting to gaslight me. You're really quick to characterize me as the crazy person here, I don't know if this is your meltdown where you intentionally are acting abrasive and ultra-defensive on purpose, but it's genuinely not wanted. I think the viewers of this thread and the staff reviewing it should be the ones to decide who or what is exactly crazy, considering you were the one who DMed me first. I will respect the rules of the forums, discord and overall community here, even if you will not. I also care about transparency, responsibility and accountability, even if you do not. I will post the DM logs between us. You initially reached out to me prior to me deciding I wanted to go get my errands for the week done early. "Sorry" was only mentioned once, straight after the accusation that I am "so bipolar", which is a ad hominem, psychoanalysis and attempted gaslighting balled up into one. I'm curious as to how you think you have a better understanding of my mental state than I do. I certainly could've handled that discussion better, but my priority at the time was getting away from my phone/computer in addition to you. The way you chose to handle the discussion in DMs made me think you were only reaching out to me simply to harass, especially considering your first thing you had to say was "Why didn't you do this or that, why are you refusing to debate me?" I didn't ask you to reach out to me, for example, I made this complaint for a reason. I know how discussing issues works with you, in that the winning move is to never directly talk to you because of your extreme tendency to get defensive, deflect responsibility and accept little to no fault for anything you're involved in. You are often more interested in arguing for the fun of it rather than arguing to resolve and fix issues. To digress, there is a pretty clear and self-evident difference between light-hearted banter, and then full out aggressive statements inciting people to do harm to themselves, and as a staff member of 4 years running you should probably know better by now. There was a line, and rather than skirting it like you think you did, you kangaroo jumped straight over it and hollered all the way down. I view it that you broke a very important rule as a staff member, and you should be held accountable for it. The server rule specifically: The discord rule from which is inspired from the server rule: I personally view it that you should not be the head admin. I can imagine that dealing with the worst of the community starts to take its toll on people, but it's just kind of jarring and weird to see you behave in a manner that the server rules try to discourage. But my opinion's worth as much as people are willing to take it, the other head staff's opinions and views on this issue are generally far worth more than mine while we're on this topic, though. I'd be seriously disappointed if you got a slap on the wrist, considering your recent complaints and the things you've said in deadchat/OOC/discord/the forums prove that there's a consistent problem going on here.

So, this complaint about a staff member's misconduct is "not being an adult"? That's legitimately the only take-away you can take from this, it's what I did, and not what you did? I'll be back tomorrow when some more salient points and acknowledgement about your behavior is raised.

BYOND Key: Scheveningen (0188 over discord, same username) Staff BYOND Key: Garnascus, (7459 over discord, same username) Game ID: Not applicable, this happened over discord. Reason for complaint: Telling me to drink bleach over discord. Evidence/logs/etc: Additional remarks: I don't have a lot to say about this. This is awful behavior for a head admin to be doing. I do not care if it was meant to be a joke, absolutely nobody found it funny and it came completely out of left field and unexpectedly. I do not think I deserved that comment. I do not think anyone at all should be suggesting harm or suicide as an option to anyone, whether a joke or not. There's plenty of other scenarios in staff complaints regarding Garnascus' conduct and attitude when he finds himself disagreeable with the positions of others, so this isn't the first time that his attitude has become a problem.

How do you know giving someone a gun won't generate interesting roleplay? Traitors can be given guns by the uplink through their TC, so what's wrong with that? So will guns when everyone has them (for a round). You're an American, I don't get how you do not understand the joy of this. I mean if you get one, and everyone has one, nobody's gonna want to shoot each other and will be hesitant for it. Maybe security will pull a huge fash-ism, go ape-shit over everyone having guns and end up creating a revolution round out of improperly handling the gun issue. That sounds like a lot of potential for different branching paths of interaction. Imagine if a clown got a gun...

I was talking to Garn, as well. He also gave his approval for the clown/entertainer PR, so... shrugemoji.

I mean, there's a PR up for clowns. If that's ok, this is OK.

I will make MSpaint dakimakuras of your characters. I will not promise quality. But I will do it for fucking giggles. Send me your reference pics of your characters and I will make dakimakura MS paint mock-ups for them. For those who think I am a liar, this is proof that I am an artistic genius.

AKA, Wizard: Manmode No Traces Final Destination Ironman Mode Enabled Autosave Disabled Hotel Trivago Premise: Wizard takes the "Summon Guns" challenge contract, which refunds a spell slot and grants 2 additional spell slots to the Wizard's total. "Summon Guns" may only be taken once as a spell contract. Upon taking the contract, a random firearm from a list of valid firearms (meaning no BFG9000, if the BFG9000 were to spawn it'd need to be weighted very low chance) spawns at every single player mob's feet in the game, including the wizard. Dude, why?: Wizard is already a very unserious game mode and greatly shatters the typical immersion of gameplay, moreso than cult does. I don't think it'd change too much if wizards could suddenly spawn a ton of guns (once) to add a little spice to the round and a bit of challenge to themselves, considering they'd arm the entire crew with a means to kill them if necessary. Wizards tend to be moreso intended to make the crew laugh and cry, so I think Summon Guns would greatly influence that factor by about twice as much if everyone suddenly has a gun at their feet.

It's not just noise, you're legitimately picking and choosing who you want to listen to. You're choosing not to listen. You're choosing not to implement any feedback you've received to order to change. Therefore, people are changing their approach in how they want you dealt with. It's how it works. It's how this has always worked. You've been unpleasant ICly, OOCly, and towards staff on top of that. You barely acknowledge that, you barely acknowledge whether you're trying to change, you barely even show that you want to treat people better. Why shouldn't you be banned?

3.6 roentgens.