Scheveningen

That wasn't what I said at all but okay. Not really sure if you actually investigated this or not.

That policy needs to be publicly visible where it cannot be missed, then, because not everyone is aware of this nuance and it hasn't been brought up in close to a year or more. The reason why I deconstructed the complaint is because this is about an issue relating to an RP nuance and not everyone knows about it because this information isn't immediately accessible without crawling through dozens of search results for context, which someone who isn't aware of this isn't going to go out and do.

Well, good for them, probably because they were the ones who didn't get ganked out of the blue by antagonists that only had murder on their mind and not narrative-pushing for a more enjoyable round. Or they were the Vaurca nukeops. I specifically didn't enjoy this round because it took a lot of the major limelight off the revolutionaries (and by extension the loyalists) and just introduced Vaurca nuke ops into the round, which was definitely not what I thought was being implied by CommanderXor in terms of the mini-event. The impression that was given in AOOC was to make sure the revolutionaries had reason to actually rebel and not come up with their own individual plans to apparently brain transplant the captain for some stupid reason. It would've helped the case better if the Vaurca hive wasn't specified because anytime someone says 'Lii'dra' they scream for guns and/or closets to weld themselves into. If it was ambiguous it would've not only helped the loyalist's case better but it would've helped the revolutionaries too. Making roleplay decisions formed on a basis of a grey area of action makes it more difficult but also more meaningful to make the important decisions as either of the antagonist types. Depth is nice. What resulted was, in my opinion, not a lot of depth, just a lot of pointless violence that didn't go anywhere. And apparently the admins decided to blast the HoS with a BSA because he was successfully 1v3ing the Lii'dra operatives with a telescopic baton, while the robusting was funny the BSA thing just seemed like one of those odd reactions you'd get on Bay where if you successfully robust an event character an admin explodes you either through IC means or OOC means. It was really crushing to see the round get slowly devolved into a clown fiesta where every crewmember is a potential piñata, if you'll pardon the expression. The admins probably thought it was awful that one overpowered stick could ruin an entire event so they blasted him, but it still seems like unfair play to me, telescopic baton included or not. The mini-event-thing was fun up until the point the Lii'dra operators boarded, it was otherwise a really sad round to see because it just escalated to a point where the round type wasn't the focus anymore. I've run events before where I admittedly got out of hand with introducing conflict modifiers more than a couple times, so I understand the pressure to make things interesting since once you take the reins of making a mini-event the entire server pop expects you to make the round fun for them. I feel like it could've been executed better, if it wasn't announced that the Lii'dra hiveship was gonna slap the station's hind with 1000 degree hot glowing thermal knives and BSAs then I think it would've been much more of a tense round since the station would've had a difficult time figuring out what they were supposed to prepare for. Suspense is a pretty big factor, but so is subtlety.

It's also a bit unfair to assume people don't make mistakes in their execution of roleplay events and have to be openly chastised in a complaint over it. 'Unnecessary baggage'? You walked past his corpse hanging from the rafters, your character did what they needed to in order to prevent the suicide victim displayed in public from creating a scene, you called security to handle it but then the round ended shortly after, right? Your character did what was reasonable in IC but I don't think you're doing what's reasonable OOCly if you feel the need to call out this player in a complaint over such a thing that is barely problematic. This doesn't really affect you and could've easily been resolved if you prodded the contacted admin to speak to the player about it and then asked later about the resolution, but it seems you're skipping steps here.

Body-to-body brain transplants are physically impossible and do not work without genetics shenanigans. This was barely a solid plan in the first place beyond coming up with an excuse just to kill the captain even though I can list off my fingers what would be better. I was the captain this round and I was very annoyed with the presentation with you as an antagonist. I don't care if you spent a whole hour coming up with this plan, you didn't give me a shred of interaction beyond a autoinjection through my armor however that makes any sense with instant stun chems, covered my mouth instantly and then choked me to death without allowing me to respond with roleplay. I was completely unable to do anything else and any of the time I spent in the round creating roleplay and conflict for other people was effectively wasted. I don't understand how people can complain about being punished for failing to provide the #1 thing required on a roleplay server: roleplay. Shortly after I was choked to death you threw me into a locker and turned off my suit sensors because you apparently couldn't be bothered further with going through with the plan. It was a mindless killing in the way it was executed. The execution is all that matters, ultimately, and it was utter shit to experience, to the point where I just logged out to go do something more worth my time investment. This is pretty much no different than the amount of security abuse people suffer on a forum rhetoric basis.

That firefight was the very first confrontation between the Lii'dra infiltrators and the crew all round. I don't see why immediately taking a character out of the round without the slightest bit of roleplay or in-character engagement prior to the kill is justified. This is a RP server, not a realism simulator, theatrics are required to make antagonists more than just exclusive murder roles. The admin responsible for running the event should take responsibility for the gank considering they had ample opportunity to disclose what the RoE was, and clearly it seems like the Lii'dra were just told to murder and raid, and not much else. I wouldn't see the point in introducing them into the round as a driving plot point if they did anything but, which was what was displayed. I was the loyalist captain this round and I even asked around shortly after I was wordlessly ganked by a rev who seems to be permabanned for some other reason, and I don't think anyone engaged the Lii'dra characters prior to the shootout in the sub-level maintenance tunnels.

it's a vicious cycle but that's life on an rp server, the only way to win is for each side to do nothing but play to win as they are already doing you guys aren't implying people should be doing the opposite, right? reasonable but not practical I'm kidding, but is one more thread on this subject actually going to do anything, or?...

Agreed. Replace them with the machine pistols instead, which basically are no different from the C-20rs the mercenaries get. Shotguns are massive power-weapons at the moment in any hands.

In my opinion, mechanical visualization (i.e., being able to see what's going on) is more important than gameplay aesthetic. Some people would argue (me) that /tg/'s projectile sprites are pretty nifty and communicate a fair deal of information as to what is being shot and where. This may also involve implementing how they use directional firing angles since their way of handling ballistic gunplay is a bit different than how bay does it.

Shortly after leaving that note I did notify the staff to keep an eye out for BSA's very common habit of blasting antagonist heads into gore. I already had a bias walking into that situation to talk with you before because I completely detest the methodology in which antagonists make it their sole effort to remove people from the round before providing good roleplay to other players, so I chose to go lightly and signal boost to the other staff to keep extra careful watch. It is one thing to do this once or twice simply for style but as soon as you make it a very extreme habit and make it so that it starts seeping into your security play, not only does it raise concerns about being, quite frankly, shitsec, (which were addressed in this secban) it also raises future concerns as to whether anytime you repeat this you're effectively seeking ways to gank other players for your own enjoyment, which is already not something that is constructive and conducive to roleplay in this community. The secban could have been permanent and I still would've thought it was justified. Your actions have not just been bad in themselves, it's the shift in the server culture that's taken place anytime you're logged in with your characters. If the community has to be promoted to start instantly ganking power characters (in the sense anytime they do something they change the flow of the round immediately) in order to not get killed in the round then I'm going to be pretty disappointed. I'm really tired of your playstyle that involves grabbing a shotgun, loading it with slugs and doing nothing other than chasing antagonists even out into space with no cooling unit as a baseline IPC detective, a balance issue I am currently fixing with a shotgun just to seek to end the round of other antagonists. There's no sense of self-preservation, it's just tunnel-visioning your priorities. The chances are very low you blew off someone's head on accident. Headgoring doesn't even happen on purpose unless you're targeting the head to begin with, which requires a single intentional click due to the fact it is part of the lower right section of the HUD. Even if it was an accident, unlikely as it is, it still makes it your fault and you need to take culpability for that action. Not insist to dismiss that it's an issue because you still want to get frags.

Like pacman mentioned before, sdt, it would just be a bandaid fix to a very broken part of the system. You can't fix a broken glass, you sweep it up and then you toss it. There are more fundamental balance issues with it being abused as an aimbot in addition to a "free hostage" button. Hostage taking should not be that easy, and it shouldn't also give you a massive headstart benefit in a fight that also lasts throughout the fight unless the individual manages to break line of sight. Given the presence of hitscan weapons and bullets generally having higher speed than people, and the fact that projectile weapons track super hard on people directly shot at, it isn't worth the risk of returning to its original state. It was toxic game mechanics, there are other means to subdue people in order to restrain them and then use as leverage. Antagonists will have to fallback to those methods for once and get practiced.

It was Monday night at 4PM. It was extended, probably for an event. 72ish players were on during a school night. apparently we're popular or something so admins hide the server from hub plebs when population gets too crazy

oh god you tripleposted your application. i've not seen such powerful destructiveness on such a scale

jump off the forum counter and say some gay shit, @catnip

. not much else i can add

Give credit to where it is due. These sprites are from Lifeweb and the sprite is massive. And I mean it is massive. Big Beepsky is from the russian neo-feudal simulator Lifeweb, it is one of the deadliest hostile mobs from the derelict Tri-Net Corporation research base. It is a combat robot inspired by the Assault Robot from System Shock 2. It has twin WATTZ lasers for eyes. It is incredibly hardy and nothing short of a laser cannon penetrates its thick plasteel armor. It would not fit in the current roleplay atmosphere considering how towering Big Beepsky is to begin with, to further emphasize how dangerous of an enemy it is to face. It makes little sense as to why a combat robot chassis would exist in-game if it isn't appropriated for syndicate cyborgs or combat borgs. Further, porting sprites without giving credit to its source is bad form. I'm opposed to this being put in the game as anyone's personalized cyborg sprite, much less in the game as a standard cyborg sprite at all.

No, it will not end up in the head of staff forum if we choose to not accept it. There are fundamental issues with it that we do not feel comfortable bringing on the player base. We discussed it and analyzed it at length. Us disagreeing with you doesn't make us wrong. Using terms like 'comfort' and other similar rhetoric doesn't adequately sum up the crux of the issue and that this suggestion merely stands to present more risk than it rewards. I think the system would be quickly warped from its initial intention and only suffice to further inflate the idea that command whitelistees are an exclusive club of players that can gossip and punk on the average crewmember by way of forcibly changing their records to reflect for their other peers. Having had second thoughts about it. While I don't agree with the assertion Jackboot made that we should be giving everyone the benefit of the doubt because not everyone deserves it. And more in-depth record systems would be convenient so that other personnel can get an idea of what they're getting into without nasty surprises in terms of how the individual will backlash, it's not worth the negative points versus the positive things this suggestion could bring. Anything is subject to abuse, sure, and that shouldn't be the end-all be-all argument, but the problem is that the suggestion doesn't have enough merits to it to warrant the amount of risk it already holds in implementation mechanically, and how it'll end up being used by heads of staff. If it requires additional policing to make it work, it may end up not being worth it. e: wording

Whiterabit is the current acting CCIAA head if it is any consolation. FT is currently away doing personal stuff.

What do you plan on doing to address the issue of being 'ban-light', exactly? What constitutes as a particular situation that staff should be more lax with enforcing and what situations you should be cracking down harder on? It's already difficult to pinpoint what a particular player or person 'deserves' as part of their consequences for their own actions because no one person is the sole arbitrator of good and bad behavior, especially considering the dodgy nature of an RP-focused server and individuals of various backgrounds and methods of communicating with one another in their fashions. What's going to change to ensure making these calls are easier for staff to make? Would you like community members to participate in some manner to help stave off toxicity, perhaps with some added benefit for said players to be proactive in reporting problematic behavior? This is spitballing one idea and I'm aware of the potential consequences with that but it's not worth clogging up the thread, the major idea just being that if ideas are still needed to bring to the table to make this easier for staff to handle issues.

I think both sides could afford to be less overzealous. Security players should respect that antagonists are trying to pull something off one way or another but they shouldn't hand the experience to them. Interacting even in small ways can make the experience leading up to the shootout fun and engaging if done right. Likewise, antagonists should at least respect when security doesn't seem to be hunting them and not aim to permanently take them out of the round unless absolutely necessary. Death is a plot device and a tool, but like any plot device or tool it is important to not just use it correctly but also use it sparingly enough that it is not wasted effort to massacre a bunch of people who will be unable to interact with you after you are done killing them. People cannot roleplay with you if they are dead. It's just a game, but nobody enjoys validhunting.

Then bite my shiny latex gryphon butt and deal with it like a grown adult, you vapid, pasty mayo drama queen. Just now stepped down from staff so I can say this with few repurcussions here, if you couldn't live with my behavior when I was 1138 I don't know what motivated you to keep on living at all, you over-dramatic ponce. The childishness displayed from you is a fucking wonder to behold and poke at sometimes, most lolcows are not finely bred such as you. I'll take the forum warning, thank you.

Then as far as your perception is concerned this will never get solved the way you're going about it. Sorry that you're upset that I do contract moderating in a way that you don't like, but I do things in a way that you don't like most of the time anyways.

You mean you didn't want to have the discussion because if you took it with me privately I'd argue a better case than if you set me up to be judged by the entire staff team that has less context in the matter than you and I do. That's not fairness, that's intimidation. I'm fully aware of how these tactics work considering how closely I work with corporate at my IRL job. You can deny this but it is still the same methodology, it doesn't matter what you say to defend yourself, your way of doing it makes it look like you were poisoning the well to begin with. I did not issue a "punishment," that's nonsense. The contracts were denied and removed, that's it. That's the entire point of contract moderation. You're free to open more serious ones. I'm not restricting your ability to open contracts, just write up good ones and there will be no issues, I will accept them if you go over the details with me in DMs to ask for criticism on how to make it better and such. If you or anyone else write up bad ones, they'll get removed, it doesn't matter who does it, the head admin could offer 100,000 credits for a bounty on a space pixie and I'd still deny and remove it. That's not much to ask. It's not bias, it's quality control. I assume the loremaster would know what that entails. And if we're honest, he got lazy at the tail end of his admin career with us, largely due to his growing disinterest in the server, I wouldn't be surprised if he clicked "approve" on most of them. Among other things I could think people would find issues with, I didn't fathom this would be one of them. Why is it so difficult for you to speak to people one-on-one over serious matters without being in front of multiple other people watching the conversation, exactly?

Those contracts were apparently all accepted by Incog before he left the server. I did not have oversight over those contracts, as the effort was split between the two of us at the time. I did not do a once-over until recently, so those contracts are now also removed for not abiding by the unsaid guidelines that existed before. Apparently that trust that people won't submit bad contracts on purpose is being broken so I will be drafting up an announcement in the morning since I have my two days off for this week. The Syndicate does not contract highly trained mercenaries to mildly inconvenience crewmembers for paltry sums of credits. The goals of the Syndicate are to undermine NanoTrasen operations, damage or steal company assets and break rapport built between the company and other organizations. These contracts do nothing to push that narrative (rather, they do the opposite because the syndicate doesn't hire pranksters, it's about as grimdark as it gets when it comes to terrorism and corporate espionage), ergo, they were denied. This was not something that wasn't understood as one of the wiki maintainers, AgentWhatever, echoed exactly what I wanted to say but simply had no energy to deal with you in another one-sided childish argument going your way. And I told you twice I was able to have this conversation in DMs to discuss what was exactly wrong with the contracts. You refused, openly threatening to open a staff complaint against me if I did not answer to the entire staff lobby in our own discord to watch you embarass yourself because I didn't give you an answer you liked. I have no obligation to be cooperative to such an entitled and childish attitude. If you have nothing to add to a conversation that isn't constructive then you shouldn't participate in that conversation at all. I have enough issues keeping my blood pressure normal with you constantly harassing me over these things in front of the entire staff. It is bewildering you are so adamant on attempting to tear at me for this. Do you have nothing better to do at the moment? Stop.

We reviewed this briefly and think it might be best if it were redirected to CCIAA to be part of their concerns to handle. And no, the antagonists did not have enough direct involvement to invalidate the action as non-canon, despite being the context for why Kalren was given a shotgun, antagonists barely complicated the matter to the point where nobody can acknowledge that this sort of catastrophe happens. The actions of the characters matter more than what the antagonists attempted to do but got taken out of the round due to their own mistakes