Scheveningen

A concern to levy, not that anything I have to say is important; the removal of shell IPCs and zero-consequence MMI brained IPCs (largely in combination with each other) was removed less so for its issues of transhumanist themes as much as it was essentially for the issue of the true immortality such comforts provided, as MMIs even now can almost indefinitely preserve a brain, and if the shell is destroyed you just throw the MMI (which is a biological processor essentially, more so now) into a new shell and call it a day. That's gone, thankfully, so only synthetics are technically immortal. Or are they? The wiki does not seem to overtly mention whether or not the Aut'akh will be able to circumvent their own mortality, given the apparent transient nature of replacing the majority of someone's bodily functions into a bio-synthetic body. The wiki also doesn't mention any details about their lifespan being influenced in any way or another. I find these to be particular important details because they add certain levels of nuance to decision-making and consequence. Presently, security is essentially punished for taking acts that endanger themselves or other people if they think they can get away with "We can clone them" as an acceptable 'out' of a hostage-taking scenario. I'd hate to see the pitfall show up regarding this issue, because the effort to hold people accountable for their behavior and also hold people to an understanding that they must play their characters as if they are mortal and generally possess aversions to decisions that would likely kill them was a very painstaking effort to keep rooted in place for as long as it has. Sensible conjecture would indicate this kind of technology likely creates its own problems of maintenance for the new body, but assuming the stars line up and an Aut'akh keeps well-oiled (so to speak), they'd live up to 15 years over what their fleshier compatriots would live up to, but still mortal as their brain would likely contract conditions such as dementia, senility or Alzheimer's due to aging. Exact details would be greatly appreciated in addressing those issues since these are particularly important things to consider given how they will inevitably influence decision-making in the heat of a conflicted round.

ultimately, the issues I had(have? idk anymore) with Aut'akh were of the 'the promises changed' variety and in all honesty, I was of the 'tentatively pro-transhumanist' crowd roughly a year ago. It was sad to see it go (except for the xeno shells with MMI brains and psuedo immortality, screw that, it sucked), but it was for the better given the severity of shells at the time. I'm all for it, at the end of the day. Some concerns I held were already addressed in a brief discussion with JB and one could consider me utterly convinced that this is fine for the most part.

It depends on the antagonist type, butter. Some of them will be easily corruptible and can just as easily be turned on the entire department, making them an ideal henchman for a conversion-type antagonist. Other antagonists may struggle in attempting to pull off the perfect crime, but they can finally weigh in a risk involved that doesn't have to end in their definitive shut-down for the round, as the other departmental officers have neither access nor reason to respond to something out of their lane.

Just noticed Skull edited his post with the caveat it seems not to display whether he edited it or not, which is interesting. While it looks like he never said what I quoted, it was indeed part of the original response I was quoting him on as I was typing up a response to him initially. Just putting that out there. Furthermore, I'm not going to facilitate any kind of request from someone who has yet to answer for why they're choosing to so avidly defend and protect someone whose behavior in the cases where he was not solicited for his direct opinion or directly antagonized, was essentially very intentionally gross and needlessly hostile to fellow staff members and players. What's going on there, really? Seems pretty strange. Loren put my concerns brilliantly, as well.

Attributing staffmembers, their ideas and work as 'autistic' isn't targeted harassment to you? Especially when it's done more than once? I don't think this complaint would be here at 3 pages and roughly 50+ posts if this only happened once. The evidence and proofs provided are ultimately not of singular instances (such as you cited with the cloaks) but of several over time. Which proves something is going on there. I'm not the only person holding this banner. Nor am I going to simply drop this because you say so. Check the first two pages of this thread and count how many people were very much not a fan of how Fowl's conduct stood out compared to others, many of them have provided evidence, in fact, and very strong arguments on top of that, plenty of them you've not even chosen to address, how convenient. Whatever basis your evaluation was formed upon, it's clear that it is using a disproportionate measurement of judgement. Your argument's pretty weak if by addressing whether you have a double standard or not, it ends up in you accusing me of being the one with the double standard rather than addressing whether anything in your decision-making was flawed or not. Not exactly the road to self-improvement there. And yet I am not wrong. By rejecting that staff act disproportionately, you assert that staff perform their duties perfectly and without error. Until you code replacements for staff members, so far they are all substituted for by humans. People who think, feel, and do things not always in the best interest of others or themselves. It is recognition of these flaws that we can figure out how to fix those weaknesses and exemplify where we're all individually strong. You did once, actually: You can insist the context was different, but you + one another committed to that decision knowing well of the potential consequence of the matter. And it took you how long to admit that was a mistake? This complaint isn't at all about people who get heated in complaints like that. What people post on the forums often stays on the forums until moderated, and by itself it is super easy to judge alone. The problem being reported, something you seem fit to not make the distinction of, is what happens in real-time dynamic chatrooms regarding discussions on how to do certain things and how to get stuff done without the BS. The issue here is that BS gets into those situations, and scenario by scenario pops up over time, and you will not see all of them. The stuff you are likely to miss the context of while you're out in the real world, and thus not understand with a great deal of brevity as much as the people who are affected by it the most, do understand that. I can probably also understand why you don't have experience in this matter (and thus can't empathize nor give credit to people whose situation you don't understand), because people tend not to screw with folks who can actively remove others from an environment. A case like this but substituted with anyone who is neither a staffmember nor Fowl would likely result in the person's discipline, because it is easier to carry out discipline on a player than a staff member, clearly. Bans are not the only form of punishment that create pressure on an individual to behave better, either.

Yes, you're right. Tag this with [oops] and I'll reformat the thread for general discussion.

A small thing. December 6th, you said this. I think that the general premise, outside of word policing, is that you act in an overly dramatic or over-bearing fashion when presenting some of your critique. Which, when someone has to interact with you daily for weeks, months, years; tends to wear people down. This issue has surfaced with you before, I am certain that you remember. December 7th, Fowl replied, I see. I guess I won't do that, then. December 16th, Jackboot posts this - - that it really did not take long for Fowl to essentially renege on his word. And now we're here, some weeks later. Has Fowl made some sort of renewed guarantee he will not repeat what he was asked not to do? I am curiously mostly because were this a case with a player, they would not be given so many chances. I can cite very few cases where abrasive individuals with the rank of player were given such measures of mercy from consequences for their behavior. It's interesting that something like this instance in particular had a tarp of 'complexity' thrown over it, but give an administrator this case and they'd have - not only dealt with this in far less time -- but with a level of discipline based on the severity of the offense. Ask any administrator and each will tell you that one member of the community member harassing another or making the environment very unpleasant for everyone involved will likely get an individual doing that sorted and potentially banned very quickly. Not that I am asking for mercilessness, but I find it strange that things are dealt with so disproportionately at various levels of staff compared to when a player commits the same offense. And the notion that despite an act that was discouraged was still repeated anyway, but your resolution is still essentially, "Well, you all have to get along, and deal with it", while mostly ignoring that a myriad of breaking the rules still happened from Fowl's side, in addition to him, whether intentionally or not, fostering an unpleasant atmosphere to be in. I think you're cool, Skull, ultimately, and I can understand where you're coming from by trying to keep the entire team structure together as tentative as it may be at times. But it seems counter-intuitive and perhaps a bit hypocritical if we're far more willing to administer copious amounts of discipline to non-staff that break the rules and make the community unpleasant, yet setting an uneasy tone with the resolution of this complaint by taking no particular action short of a warning. It just does not seem honest to put up rules to tell the community they have to abide by or be disciplined with varying levels of ruthlessness depending on the mood of the handling staff member, but the staff can essentially toe the line with these rules or outright break them. I possibly repeated my point about 5 times in the array of those paragraphs. But I don't wish to be mistaken in the point I'm making, if it at all has any credibility to it.

ill destroy you In all seriousness, that's not the impression the staff complaints board gives me. As-is, it seems permissible. And this thread didn't fit within general discussion either.

Preface: Keeping with a recent notion the developers have been using to curb back certain facets of gameplay and presentation, the issues I'll list in the complaint are not about the staff members themselves behaving in an offensive manner. Far from it, in fact, but this thread is going to be up here written by me to address some major grievances I'm seeing in the Unathi lore and some promises I'm seeing broken. Particularly, the question being asked right now is, "When is it too much?", and the promise broken was "I am not comfortable with transhumanist themes and I do not believe it is within the vision of the lore team and myself to introduce them", because this was the very statement and precedent set that caused Shells that could adopt the appearance of xenos to be wholesale removed, in addition to removing MMI-based IPCs from the game. This was the first ever large-scale retcon that ever happened in terms of how it applies to the game's setting, overarching narrative and how it inevitably affected gameplay. It too, broke another long-standing rule of Jackboot's that lore must justify gameplay, because gameplay facets have been removed in order to justify the lore many times before. Ultimately, the objective of this complaint is to seek clarification on what narrative objectives are being pursued by the lore team now. Times do change, but this did seem as if it came out of left field and there's not a lot of transparency/discussion coming from the lore team towards people who have direct questions about this sort of thing, and that's another issue that comes out the woodwork too, the concern of whether or not it should be the community's business as to what the lore team does. To reclarify: I do not want a punishment as a resolution to this, that is not the intent of this complaint, it's to open conversation about an issue I've detailed below. I just do not know any other area of the forums where this kind of conversation can be better facilitated. I've seen other people (even members of the lore staff) have a few things to say about it but I mostly want to make this thread to have an area where other people can post their views on this, because I'm not the only person with opinions about this, and I'm not necessarily important as some other people. I just find this discussion to be important to have, and that's why I'm bringing it up, because there's no real guarantee someone else will if I don't. BYOND Key: ScheveningenStaff BYOND Key: Jackboot, UglyXenoReason for complaint: Seeking clarification on the precedent/exception being set by the upcoming implementation of the Aut'akh, which bring certain implications of balance and influence on the grander scope of the Auroraverse.Evidence/logs/etc: For particular reference points: The above is the current Unathi deputy's application. Many of the ideas listed and examples of work he did were indeed very interesting and the concept of an embedded progressive faction existing within Sinta culture creates a lot of potential for conflict between various Unathi of differing backgrounds. I do not mind the concept of so and so having several prosthetics, but we'll touch on what I think is "too much" shortly. https://github.com/Aurorastation/Aurora.3/pull/5919 And that's what they look like. Seem familiar? Not intended to be a mean-spirited comparison. It's more of a light-hearted observation. The above PR stipulates several Lore Team Requested changes of a long-time coder of the server to implement. There are no assumptions to be made here, one can factually infer everything in the PR was followed to a specific standard provided in material through a document written by one or both of the two working on this, as already confirmed by Alberyk that he was provided these details, as the individual implementing the features. Let us define a term here before we detail what's in the PR. Precedent: "an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances." The bionic eyeballs: This comes default and has specific whitelisting based on job. An Aut'akh character essentially has an immediate mechanical advantage with the med/sec HUD overlays over a character that must spend points to spawn with a HUD eyewear item, or they must find it in their job locker. It later stipulates they have greater weakness to flashes and EMPs, but IPCs have a similar weakness, but are still quite potent on their own given their other advantages. adrenal management system: Upon activating it injects tramadol and inaprovaline together. Their effects as painkiller stack additively in strength at the cost of dealing brute and toxin damage. This gives Aut'akh the ability to power through pain in short bursts. I already mentioned to alb that paracetamol instead of tramadol would be better, since tramadol+inaprov combo is half as good as oxycodone, and 105 strength of pain immunity is still quite powerful. (essentially, at 150 damage you only 'feel' 50 of the damage. At -100 health you die, but oxycodone is considered the perfect painkiller.) Caveat: I understand the blame actually lies upon medical chems being OP as shit, so this particular thing is just a symptom of how busted chemistry is. haemodynamic control system: This basically stops bleeding while processing but makes the Aut'akh hungrier. This is still pretty powerful, and a life-saver in those situations. The above three, however, are actually very interesting and are still balanced, imo. I do not mind those being default, they are interesting. They are not necessarily as power-creepy as the loadout stuff they get, which I find to be "too much" (when you add that into the above three in total) and they also break the general rules on requesting items in the loadout (no weapons, no job-items on spawn, to avoid disrupting the balance and potentially fucking with someone's antag round just by spawning in as an example), especially the grasper stun baton. While half as strong, and it uses nutriment to use plus having a cooldown, it sort of breaks the concept that people should not spawn with anything that could be considered a weapon. While Alb has balanced them to not be as oppressive as their original inspired items, I do find these items concerning, because it creates two quandaries. 1.) The first instance in which a whitelisted race can spawn in with essentially job-related items. Whether they have certain drawbacks doesn't dial back they're still capable of functioning. One could defend this and say there's no slippery slope involved here, but it still establishes a double standard in which Aut'akh can do this but no one else. 2.) If we fully intend to follow this example in the future, we will find a notable amount of power creepy items finding their way into the game that have potential to seriously change the pacing of a round and flip it onto its head. Furthermore, Aut'akh have 30% brute resistance, 20% weakness to burn damage, 20% resistance to toxins, and take 10% more fall damage. They process metabolism twice as fast as well. All of that isn't so bad, the brute resist is a little overtuned but not the worst thing given their burn weaknesses. Once capitulated into the big picture, though, Aut'akh are quite strong in this rendition. The strength largely comes from them being tooled like versatile swiss army knives, being able to survive certain circumstances that others would not be able to handle. They are very interesting, but they set a lot of uncomfortable precedents that worry me a great deal. I understand the nature of development is ever-changing as well, and all of this is subject to change too. But pile on the transhumanist themes and some of the other advantages they get through loadout-specific stuff that synergizes with their species and the concern begins to increase. I do not actually dislike them, overall, but objectively it's hard to ignore the amount of strong-arm strength they will bring into the game. Additional remarks: I have a few closing questions. 1.) Is the anti-transhumanism thing no longer policy for accepting lore canonization applications, given the precedent Aut'akh seems to set here (it seems strange the Unathi were the first to implement these traits into their species, given they are not as advanced as the human race nor the Skrell) ? 2.) Can we expect suggestions to be entertained to start adding spawn-in advantages for various characters? 3.) Is Aut'akh a special exception to anything said in the past about certain themes as part of a developer's vision, or the spark of new precedent in perpetuating a new vision? I do find this to be exciting, though some things don't make much sense to me while others are very cool nonetheless. The effort put forward is not something I will insult or discredit because there's no reason for that. Although Garn put it best. 'Mecha Reptar' is pretty awesome of a pop-culture likening.

We're essentially repeating what's already been made as points already. It doesn't matter, that's not what Aurora's policy and enforcement for the rules is, has been, and will be. The complaint has been open roughly since late November with little resolution hinted at or in sight, and usually when a complaint like this sits in the backlog for so long (despite getting regular updates in posts pointing at the person's behavior), it makes me led to believe that posting further in this is pointless because additional posts (even if they are very compelling evidence against the person being complained about) ironically make the issue less as compelling to handle for a staffmember that simply doesn't want to deal with this. Not counting Christmas break, we're approaching a month since this has been otherwise unresolved. What makes anyone think this'll be resolved anytime soon? A choice of inaction, itself, is an action, so if the head developers have chosen to let this sit and not sort it out, then that is their choice, and the rest of the community likely has to deal with it.

Fair enough, I apologize for the assumptions I made about you. Yes, it is true Burger has very much improved, and Fowl insofar has behaved this way for awhile. I don't think there's anything more that can be said about him without essentially just repeating what has been said at this point. I very much suggest that this discussion be locked because the thread's already a mess in what would be considered 4 pages in the old forums.

For someone who so kindly requested me to talk to incog to have you unbanned from the relay discord and acted so apologetic for how you behaved (particularly, the racist tirades you went on and generally making gross comments that had to be brought to a server host's attention directly to be sorted out), it's quite an interesting turn-around for you to go back the way you were. I'd call it ungratefulness but I suppose I really cannot be surprised. You did a good job of manipulating me, I guess. I genuinely do not understand how any of you can throw shit in the general direction of Fowl (or even Burger, really) and get surprised when he does it back. Should he not do it? Oh, absolutely, but how come the same standard doesn't apply when players are consistently harassing developers? Respect is a two-way street, or there's no respect to be had at all. Either a standard of respect does get enforced equally on all parties involved without bias, or it doesn't matter at all. I frankly do not care at all about the uber-special "mean words" that people dislike compared to others, because ultimately it is not the specific insults or names that both parties use that actually matters, and vocabulary policing doesn't make the argument any more compelling (in fact, it distracts from the real issue, which is mutual respect and enforcing that mutual respect). Do you care about mutual respect? Then be respectful, even when addressing people who behave grosser than you do. Otherwise, you just stoop to their level and look like the opposite side of the same coin to anyone looking into the situation. 'Same but different', as it were. If Fowl is to be punished, then so should the rest of us. Because in a multitude of these cases, it's not "totally polite person vs. Fowl". It's usually, "rude person set against rude person", and ultimately if your argument sums up to pearl-clutching over singular words or dogwhistles being used instead of having concern about mutual respect between members of the community, whether staff or player, then your motivations are poorly prioritized and clearly more geared to bringing other people down instead of back up, ultimately.

Save for the last one, you deliberately engaged him with the same tone of language. Don't quite understand how you can call out his behavior as wrong when you do the exact same thing in the general discord, and his last comment there was a tack-on to me telling you to get lost after continuously trying to backseat police the discord.

Xenomorphs are not intended to be a part of normal gameplay. The fact they are in the game at all is simply to supplement admin abuse. They're a throwback to the old SS13 when it was a mish-mash of various movie, film, videogame and novel references all merged into one individual experience. They're still around because nobody bothered to remove them from Aurora. Furthermore, xenomorphs are broken and left unfinished in a lot of ways because they were not intended to be a regular game mode. A lot of effort went into them on bay's side to create something unusual but when we merged with them, they were hardly finished. I do not think pulling from Bay just to update something that will only be spawned once in a blue moon is much of a good idea either. Xenos would be better off removed from the code for the most part, in my opinion, but ultimately it's an objectively fruitless adventure to have someone tasked to fix a type of mobs that are only present for admin events and goofing off at the thunderdome. There is a way to make the effort not go to waste and also make sense, and that's make it its own game-mode distinctly outside of secret. This generates its own problems, however, as xenomorphs are not directly covered by the lore whatsoever, and that 'infestation' game-types tend to be far better suited for servers further away from the RP spectrum. Also considering that only the xenomorph Queen can directly talk to the crew, and the lesser xenos don't understand them at all, to my recollection.

Only if the computers have cubicle dividers... and accompanying tissue boxes for each cubicle. /s I think this is a great idea. I very much like it.

I don't really have any reason to call you a liar, tbh, so I'll believe what you say. It was a very 4/10 round at the tail end there, since there was a barrage of faxes mid-round towards the end. Mistakes and shit happens. The only thoughts in my head were, "If I were in Campin's position, how would the round be different?", imo.

oh. that's a thing. I wasn't really aware that he wasn't telling the truth there given there was a very wide array of CC messages to the station. IC went IC the way it did and my RD ended up getting conflicted and started questioning whether or not CC was full of it, because it seemed like fax-after-fax that Aurora was getting relentlessly bullied, to the point where even I OOCly felt it was excessive. I apologize for not believing CC at face value as I probably should've since they don't lie short of rev rounds. It was just a conflicting position where I had a hard time remaining immersed and patient with that hellish round. I don't think it was ok to bend the truth as a HOS though, that's not what I would consider very much halal given the implant. I did feel like you had very little agency in ensuring your officers were reigned in. There were occasions where you were apparently more focused about giving a bridge assistant assigned access over trying to organize the manhunt. I can't speak of what UM states above but some of the mishaps line up with some OOC chatter about what a hellish round it turned out to be. Whether it was incidentally failing to tell the accurate truth or outright lying, I think that was definitely either a mistake/bad decision, though, because that information very much influenced how my character was making decisions and it wasn't for the better of the crew and in the interest of honesty overall.

Preface: This is going to be a post about a hypothetical situation, real-life references are coincidental or unintended. This can also be considered as yet another eccentric post of mine. I hope the point I make with it makes sense towards the very end. There is a player known as BobJimSlash. He plays a 4d over-the-shoulder caveman simulation game known as "Grug Plateau 7", and is a very avid and consistent player of it. He is a regular of the one server in which the caveman simulator is hosted on, and he is relatively well known in the community as a regular. He likes the feel of the game and the pacing of the game in how it is, because it gives him a specific experience that other games simply don't have that appeal to him 'just right.' He doesn't mind when the game gets small things added in features but gets rather uncomfortable at the implications of overhauling the game into something different, because he's afraid the game changing in that way would make it no longer as fun for him. He is occasionally vocal about his opinions, some days he is, some days he is not, but most of the community knows what BobJimSlash stands for. Enter JaneMayCrush. Though she's not a regular for the game, she's a known developer for "Grug Plateau 7." She's responsible for the upkeep of the game and a wide myriad of changes to the game to keep Grug Plateau 7 interesting and entertaining. She's known for her active involvement in responding to feedback and providing her justification for certain changes, though occasionally she will concede to some points made by the community and compromise for the sake of fairness. She tries her best to be constructive even in the face of adverse and not as constructive feedback, nonetheless. Most in the Grug Plateau 7 community agree widely that JaneMayCrush is a competent developer. JaneMayCrush posts a rather large list of upcoming changes to Grug Plateau 7. Specifically, they influence a large array of changes to the game's pacing and balancing, as well as removing certain features she qualifies as "redundant" or "unnecessary." Overall, one can objectively judge that the preview of the changes will increase the level of depth and difficulty for certain behaviors in gameplay, though at a sacrifice of removing certain features considered 'quality of life' to have. BobJimSlash sees these changes and notices something in particular. As a bit of background, BobJimSlash gets his fame for being an "apple tribe main", because it is the tribe he played the most. The Apple Tribe always spawned with specific conditions and BobJimSlash was always able to make consistent use out of the resources the Apple Tribe started with and then make larger returns out of them, overall making themselves a powerful influence in-game. At times he would use this to the betterment of other players in order to 'share the wealth', so he would not exploit these game factors for selfish sake alone. However, the changes he sees will completely shake up this and most likely not allow him to do that to the same extent anymore to benefit Apple Tribe players, and not only himself. He is frustrated particularly because this takes him out of his comfort zone of playing the game. BobJimSlash posts a feedback post and establishes a line of conversation with the developer JaneMayCrush. He clarifies how the changes are a detriment to his playstyle and will also likely make the game much more difficult (and unenjoyable) specifically for Apple Tribe players. JaneMayCrush posts a response entailing how they disagree, and that they believe the changes help sort out disproportionate power imbalances inherent to Apple Tribe. She ends with a closing note that is simply, "You will have to figure out the best way to play Apple Tribe again." It does not end here, unfortunately. BobJimSlash accuses JaneMayCrush of being dismissive, pushing an agenda and describes JaneMayCrush's behavior as 'lazy'. JaneMayCrush posts about how they resent that attribution to themselves, insisting they only want to make the game more interesting for everyone. They add in a rebuttal that "BobJimSlash" is being a self-righteous dickhead. BobJimSlash then starts signalboosting and calling to attention as to how JaneMayCrush showed animosity to a player and was rude as a member of the community's staff, and they served as an exact example of what a developer should not be, all the while insisting they should be fired from their position for such alleged mistreatment. This leads to the server host looking into the situation and attempting to determine what went wrong here. While attempting to investigate the accusation of a developer's misconduct, the situation only exacerbates as BobJimSlash and other members of the community continues to attempt to antagonize JaneMayCrush while the latter actively fires back veiled insults to their detractors. Some people defend JaneMayCrush, even, insisting Bob was in the wrong. This creates a very divided community as a result on such a simple, singular issue that "just happened." Yet it created a lot of problems where it stopped being just a game to these Grug Plateau 7 players, and it became a "my side vs. their side" issue. Suddenly, this story ends in A TIME PARADOX! Stuck in the midst of a perpetual freeze, because the story ends here, and so do any further points. ___ It does not actually end, even, I'm certain at some point it will reach a conclusion. I have a few questions, though... 1. Who's actually in the wrong here? You can't say the server provider just for breathing. 2. What could've been done better from the perspective of both parties? 3. Is it fair to have specific expectations to have of people regardless of context? 4. What lessons can we take from this to do better ourselves? I'm very interested in having a kind of conversation of this nature, just hypothetically, of course. None of what is entailed here actually happened, it is fiction I wrote up, ultimately.

Pegasus is "the guy" when it comes to Dominia. I can't give enough credit to this man about how much Dominia has improved since several months ago when I used to be one of the biggest complainers about the subject. I won't leave out what Zundy had to do with it either because even Pegasus mentioned despite the differing time tables of the two of them that their teamwork made a long haul of fixes to what Dominia is today. In my previous discussions with him, I've found him to be a very profound and thoughtful person, he also has a very progressive and action-driven attitude that drives him to do the best he can with what he has. Based on what he's discussed with me in the past, he's definitely of the attitude to try to keep pushing events forward instead of being content to uphold status quo. This is a stance I also took in my application and a promise I want to uphold if I were given the opportunity. I wish I could give a +1, but I'm sadly competing for the same slot. I'll do you one better and just wish you luck instead!

You know, I suppose this is an experiment after all, and the changes can be reverted if they end up being bad. It's worth an attempt.

Local head dev commits ad hominem, forum staff nowhere to be found to hold the madman accountable There is no "right" answer, Skull, your unnecessarily hostile tone and vindictive attitude aside. This is one of those cases where there would likely be just as much value upholding status quo and making smaller changers to give antagonists a reasonable amount of threat provided they have the skill and smarts to pull it off. And that's what we should promote here, rather than making things consistently easier and easier for antagonists because the better players on the security spectrum can't be counterplayed by the inexperienced antagonists. I'm not saying anyone should be playing to win as I've seen many times to turn out for the worst. But "survival" needs to be on the agenda of antagonists more often, and for players to put more thought into how they're going to survive the round while also promoting narrative story-telling through their acts and scenarios imposed upon the crew. The biggest concern which has not yet been addressed by you is whether this can be executed sanely in a way that is still fun yet balanced at the same time without causing major power imbalances in who has the advantages, in what situations and when. Everything is a good idea on paper but rarely do 'ideas with good intentions' actually manage to weather what really happens in reality. Largely because when you judge something in theory, the limiting human factor restricts your ability to be able to consider all of the environmental and situational factors before making an objectively sound decision. And that's why it's called a theory because there's no guarantee it will work the way people say it will in consistently applied practice.

I think the intention of the suggestion is to change how early-game security behaves (largely in an oppressive, crush-all-opposition fashion to a much less aggravating-for-an-antag-at-the-start kind) under code green circumstances. I don't mind as business as usual when it's code red for the dept. security to inevitably unite. But I'm assuming there's zero purpose for the HOS anymore. Oh wait, Blueshields! An actually viable concept now!

So... what am I supposed to do as avid HOS player under these proposed changes, then? Just eat shit, essentially?